I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill before the House today gives this 43rd Parliament an opportunity none of our predecessors have fully shared.
We can enshrine in law our nation's expectations for our children's achievements at school.
We can enact in law a plan, not only to teach them well, but to fund them well.
This bill is the government's plan for the future of Australian education—our National Plan for School Improvement.
Five specific new legislative measures form the centre of this Australian Education Bill.
First, a new citizenship entitlement.
A quality education for every Australian child will no longer be a privilege extended by the state from time to time, it will be an entitlement arising from their common citizenship in our Commonwealth.
This bill places learning at the centre of Australia's beliefs and rights, liberties and laws.
Second, new goals for Australian education.
For Australia to be ranked as a top five country in the world in reading, science and mathematics by 2025.
And by the same year, for us to be ranked as a top five country in the world for providing a high-quality and high-equity education system.
Third, a new national plan for school improvement.
The bill provides for the directions for our plan: quality teaching, quality learning, empowered school leadership, transparency and accountability and meeting student need.
The bill further sets the basis in law for agreement between the Commonwealth, the states and territories, and Catholic and independent school authorities, to implement the plan in full.
Fourth, new principles for school funding.
The bill provides for a new funding standard, based on what it costs to educate a student at schools we already know already get strong results.
With a benchmark amount per student and extra needs to be met through a system of loadings: additional funding to help children who the evidence shows need help.
And fifth, a new link between school funding and school improvement.
The bill provides that the Australian government will deliver future funding on the principles legislated in this bill to those states, territories and non-government authorities which agree to implement the national plan.
This is a truly national plan for a matter of the greatest national import: the education of all our nation's children.
No matter how rich or poor your parents are, the school you attend or the circumstances of your birth, our nation should provide a core level of support to your education.
There should be Australian government support to educate every Australian child—in the poorest and most remote school—at the best known and best resourced school.
This is a distinctively Labor plan for a matter of the highest Labor purpose: to eradicate the great moral wrong which sees some Australian children denied the transformative power of a great education.
It is now clear, with the information we have today, that in Australian schools it is poorer kids who have been let down most in the past.
By year three, 89 per cent of children from the poorest quarter of Australian homes are reading below average.
By year nine, the average child from the same battling family is two years behind children from the most well-off quarter of Australian homes—in both reading and mathematics that disadvantage shows.
Just having this evidence is an achievement of this government.
This is only now clear because under this Labor government, we test the reading, writing and mathematics of our children and publish the results of those tests.
When Labor came to office there was no-one who could say which Australian schools needed the most help.
Imagine if Treasury couldn't tell you the unemployment rate: that was the state of Australian education policy in November 2007.
And fixing it took more than good intentions: we were told it had not been done because it could not be done.
The unions would never allow NAPLAN results to go on My School.
The profession would never accept greater principal powers and community involvement.
The states would never agree to a national curriculum.
Australian education has been on an enormous journey of change since then—a journey of change which has opened the opportunity for the bill I bring into the House today.
None of it has been done without opposition.
No doubt there are still voices of opportunism and negativity—and I am sure there are still some who doubt our will.
But all my determination, all our resolve, is directed toward getting this done.
Making sure no child misses out on the education which could change his or her life has been the ruling passion of my life.
Applying the power of education to preserve the Australian fair go and strengthen the Australian economy is the governing purpose of my party and my government.
And we have worked at this every day in office.
The detail of this legislation—above all, the school improvement agenda and the structure for school funding—rests on the solid foundation we have established over the past five years.
My own project in government has been to build the opportunity, to make the case, to create the model, for this plan.
I drove My School because I knew if we could measure school results and understand the backgrounds of students the nation would see the need for improvement and respond.
I drove the low SES national partnership because I knew if we could demonstrate that, when it is used well, extra funding for disadvantaged schools lifts performance, then the nation would support extending that approach.
I drove the National Partnership Agreement on Improving Teacher Quality because I knew improved teaching and getting the brightest graduates into the classroom were the most important levers of change.
I drove big modernisations: computers in school, Building the Education Revolution, national curriculum.
And new rigour: the National Partnership for Literacy and Numeracy, new professional standards for teachers.
As Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Peter Garrett has driven these changes further.
I also drove our white paper on Australia in the Asian century—a plan to make Australia the winner in this century of growth and change in our region—because I wanted the nation to understand that to win the economic race, we have to win the education race.
We have to lift quality for every child in every school and properly fund the education of every child in every school.
All this has made a difference in schools.
For example, at Yarrunga Primary School in Wangaratta, Victoria.
National partnership funding has helped teachers to improve their professional skills in data analysis and student monitoring so that they can teach literacy and numeracy more effectively.
The school has also used specialist mathematics coaches and an after-school support program.
The results?
The proportion of students who achieved above the national minimum standard in year 3 reading increased by 23 per cent and in numeracy by 14 per cent.
While the proportion of students in the highest two NAPLAN bands increased in year 3 reading by 24 per cent and in numeracy by 36 per cent.
We have looked at the results and at the evidence of student background and now we know what the factors are which show that kids need more help.
Students from low SES backgrounds, Indigenous students, students with disability, students with limited English skills and students in regional schools all need additional resources and support to succeed.
With the right support, we know they can succeed.
Take Bega Valley Public School in New South Wales.
The school used investment from our low SES national partnership to improve teacher skills, develop better classroom resources and offer learning support to Indigenous students.
The results?
Bega Valley increased the proportion of students achieving above the national minimum standard in year 5 reading by around 26 per cent and in numeracy by 21 per cent.
In that school the proportion of high-performing students increased in year 5 reading by around 31 per cent and in numeracy by 21 per cent.
These are examples of the kind of nationwide innovation and improvement we have delivered these past five years.
Where we have made a difference in schools, but, more than that, where we have shown what makes the greatest difference in schools.
Skilled, dedicated teachers are using data and evidence to improve their own teaching strategies, giving constant feedback to students, delivering a high-quality curriculum and drawing on specialist expertise.
We know what works—when schools apply these approaches rigorously, results improve.
And we know what extra resources they need.
This is the crucial judgement the review of funding for schooling has helped us form.
I asked an expert panel, chaired by respected businessman Mr David Gonski, to conduct the first comprehensive review of school funding arrangements in almost 40 years.
Their national consultation process was comprehensive: the panel received over 7,000 written submissions, met 70 education groups and visited 39 schools—as well as commissioning detailed analysis and research.
Their report is impressive and their findings are important.
The review found that current arrangements for funding, accountability and transparency of our schools are not supporting quality outcomes for all our students.
Some schools do not get the resources they need to educate Australian children to the best of their ability.
Barriers remain to educational achievement for too many students.
This is why the review recommended a fundamental overhaul of the way that Australian schools are funded.
This is why the government has adopted the broad architecture of a benchmark amount per student, with extra needs to be met through a system of loadings: a dramatic simplification of the way we fund schools.
And this is why the bill before the House sets those principles in place.
The bill before the House legislates for the Commonwealth's funding model and the National Plan for School Improvement.
The bill legislates for a clear link between school improvement and school funding: agrees to the National Plan for School Improvement and the Commonwealth's funding.
This bill ensures that you need to do both: agree to the National Plan for School Improvement in order to get the Commonwealth's funding.
And the bill sets the grounds for a practical and working transition.
The bill thus provides the architecture of the funding, the connection between funding and school improvement, and the directions of the improvement plan.
Let me then turn to the detail of the bill before the House.
First, the bill creates a new citizenship entitlement to quality education.
The preamble to the bill acknowledges that all students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education.
Second, this bill legislates for new national goals.
These are specific and measureable, ambitious and achievable goals which we must work towards with urgency and realism.
Third, to deliver the entitlement and achieve these goals, this bill legislates the directions for the National Plan for School Improvement.
In the government's response to the review of funding for schooling in September this year, I announced that the Commonwealth would work with the states and territories and with Catholic and independent authorities to introduce this national plan.
Further, the bill sets in law the basis for agreement between the Commonwealth, the states and territories, and Catholic and independent schools, to implement the plan in full.
The agreements we strike will not allow fiddling the books.
We will not allow federal funding to substitute for cutbacks by Liberal states.
Under this bill, there are no blank cheques.
The funding flows to states, territories and Catholic and independent schools who agree to the actions, targets and reporting for improvement which we agree under the national plan—actions, targets and reporting for improvement which will deliver on the five directions we legislate today.
The bill requires quality teaching.
All the evidence tells us that the single greatest variable in student performance is teacher quality—and that the single greatest factor in school improvement is lifting teacher quality.
Our plan will deliver it.
Under our plan, teacher trainees will be among the best and brightest.
New teachers will be more ready for the classroom, with practical experience during training and two years of support once in school.
Our young teachers will also have the support to ensure classroom discipline, to deal with bullying and cyberbullying, to prevent one or two disruptive children ruining school for all the others in the class.
Teachers will meet rigorous professional standards and be recognised for improving their skills and performance.
All teachers will be reviewed annually in their school.
The bill requires quality learning.
I want all parents to have the confidence that their child, regardless of school or state, will be offered the highest quality learning experience.
Every Australian student is entitled to access a rigorous, world-class curriculum—a curriculum which sets out the basic knowledge and understanding they need to achieve through education and in later life, a curriculum which lays the foundation of the skills and dispositions that support them to succeed in the 21st century and to contribute to their community.
We have delivered that world-class national curriculum.
The first four subjects—English, maths, history and science—are already being taught in Australian schools.
Under this plan that curriculum will be extended and delivered to every student in every school.
Quality learning demands even more and our plan will deliver it.
In this digital age it means digital learning.
Through the NBN we will deliver a world-class digital infrastructure for Australian students.
In the Asian century, quality learning means learning more about the region where we live and where our future lies.
Our white paper on Australia in the Asian century sets the goal: all Australian students will have the opportunity, and be encouraged, to undertaken a continuous course of study in an Asian language throughout their schooling.
All schools will engage with at least one school in Asia to support the teaching of a priority Asian language, taking advantage of the National Broadband Network.
And every Australian student will have significant exposure to studies of Asia across the curriculum to increase their cultural knowledge and skills.
The bill requires empowered school leadership.
Ultimately, improvement comes classroom by classroom, school by school, from principals, teachers, parents and communities who have the authority not just to educate but to lead.
School-level leadership is crucial—our plan will deliver it.
All principals will meet the professional standard—to demonstrate their leadership ability, knowledge and skills.
All principals will have the responsibility for building a culture of continuous improvement in their schools—with regular performance appraisals linked to development and training.
Crucially, our plan will empower principals to make the right decisions about staffing and teaching in their schools.
School communities will be encouraged and supported to work with principals to deliver programs that meet the educational needs of their students.
The bill requires transparency and accountability.
The datasets underlying the My School website are already invaluable tools for school improvement and policy development.
We are building a system of information in which local communities who want their children to do better in life and who want their local school to improve will no longer have to proceed on hope or expectation or anecdote or prejudgement.
I want local leaders to be able to act on the facts.
Even more transparency and accountability are needed—our plan will deliver it.
Students and their families will have access to detailed reports on school performance and to more information on how their school's attendance and finances compare to other, similar schools.
Teachers and principals will have access to more data on their school's performance.
So we can ensure that students currently falling behind, especially disadvantaged students, can be identified and given extra support.
This information about performance will hold teachers, principals and school communities accountable.
Schools which are falling behind will be given extra help and assistance to lift their standards and keep improving—but we can only do this if the whole community, government, parents, principals and teachers are better informed about performance.
Every school will have a school improvement plan and will be accountable for delivering it.
The bill requires meeting student needs.
That means getting extra support to every school student who needs it.
Identifying the needs of every child and delivering what he or she needs.
We now have clear evidence about how disadvantage holds many students back.
And we know that when those kids aren't supported with the right resources, every child in the classroom misses out.
So our national plan will see resources allocated to reflect student need.
Our plan will deliver it.
This is not just about disadvantaged kids, not just about gifted kids, it's about all students.
To meet their needs, I want a system which is rational, which supports excellence and which is fair.
A system of per-student funding, with extra loadings based on need.
That is the model we legislate today.
This is the government's approach: a national plan for school improvement and a new model for school funding.
It should now be clear to every reasonable observer that we must have a new plan for school improvement alongside a new school funding system.
There truly is no alternative.
Above all—because without the government's plan, the status quo will mean cuts to funding of schools.
The House should understand this point very clearly.
The existing National Partnerships are time limited—new agreement is needed to extend the benefits of the funding they have delivered.
In other words, without new agreement, those National Partnerships simply expire.
What is more, under the current system created by the former Liberal government, Australian government funding for schools is directly linked to what states and territories spend on government schools.
New analysis indicates that the impact of keeping the current funding model means schools could be more than $2 billion worse off over four years.
Because when the big Liberal states cut education—as they are doing today—this automatically means less funding from the Australian government for all schools.
In every state and territory.
The government rejects the politics of education cuts and social division.
Through this bill, we assert that every Australian student is entitled to an excellent education.
And we assert that we as a nation, as a whole community, share a responsibility to deliver that entitlement.
We must accept the need for investment, the need for improvement and the need for accountability.
Another school year is coming to its close ... an education era is ending too.
For too long, education policy in this country was a playground of division and disregard.
The election of 2007 was the beginning of the end and now the Australian Education Bill 2012 rings the bell on all that.
Flagpoles, culture wars, hit lists, the politics of setting school against school: that was yesterday.
This is tomorrow: national education goals, an ambitious national plan, a commitment to smarter funding; parents, teachers, authorities and governments working together.
Higher standards, better schools, educated children, creative citizens ...
Australia winning the education race and winning the economic race.
That is the purpose of the Australian Education Bill 2012.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The introduction of this bill comes at an exciting time for arts and culture in Australia.
In line with the government's Australia in the Asian Century white paper, we are deepening our arts and cultural ties with Asia.
And the government is finalising the first National Cultural Policy in 20 years, which will bring the vast array of stakeholders, art forms, opportunities and investment needs together in a comprehensive policy.
This bill will further develop our cultural wealth by encouraging loans of significant cultural objects from overseas for temporary public exhibition in Australia.
Every year millions of Australians visit our major national, state and territory cultural institutions. These audiences expect to see the best Australia and the world can offer.
This year alone has seen works of old Spanish masters at the Queensland Art Gallery, Handwritten: ten centuries of manuscripts at the National Library of Australia and the genius of Picasso at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, and soon we will see Toulouse-Lautrec's view of Parisian life at the National Gallery of Australia and ancient treasures from Afghanistan at four museums around the country, including Museum Victoria and the Western Australian Museum.
The ability to borrow these objects enriches the cultural experience for Australian audiences, draws visitors from far and wide, and delivers significant economic benefits.
The resounding success of the Renaissance exhibition, held at the National Gallery of Australia last summer, shows the scale of this economic dividend. It attracted almost 213,000 visitors and brought an estimated $75 million to the local economy.
But, despite the popularity of these exhibitions, in the past 10 years it has become increasingly difficult for Australia's major galleries, libraries and museums to secure overseas loans.
Australia, unlike numerous other countries, does not have comprehensive legislation providing protection for cultural objects on loan from overseas.
Under existing Commonwealth legislation, protection for cultural objects on loan only applies in specific and limited circumstances. That happens under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986.
Although the risk of legal claims being made on cultural objects while they are on loan in Australia is low, foreign lenders are increasingly reluctant to loan to Australia's major cultural institutions in the absence of national legislation. As a result, loan negotiations between Australian cultural institutions and foreign lenders have become protracted and in some cases loans have been denied.
This legislation sets out to address these concerns.
It will protect cultural objects on loan by limiting the circumstances in which ownership or physical possession, custody or control of the objects can be affected whilst they are here in Australia.
Objects will be protected if they are imported into Australia for temporary public exhibition under arrangements involving an institution approved by the minister.
This scheme does not abrogate cultural institutions from the need to undertake rigorous due diligence and provenance research.
On the contrary, in order to be approved, institutions will be required to demonstrate that they have the necessary expertise, rigour, capacity and resources to meet the demands established by the scheme, including exercising appropriate due diligence.
The inclusion of these requirements supports Australia's continued ability to meet its international obligations under the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
The bill only limits the legal action that can be taken while the objects are in Australia on loan. It does not affect the ability of a potential claimant to take legal action in the jurisdiction where the object is usually held.
To encourage the loan of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander objects to Australia, the bill will apply to most of those objects held in foreign collections.
This will provide opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to reconnect with their culture and facilitate further engagement and relationships between overseas institutions and Indigenous communities. It will also enable all Australians to engage with and be invigorated by our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage.
However, in recognition that some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander material is particularly sensitive and culturally important, the bill will not apply to significant Australian heritage objects that are identified as class A objects under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander material in that category includes human remains, bark and log coffins, secret sacred ritual material, rock art and dendroglyphs (carved trees).
This legislation is also consistent with the Australian government's commitment to facilitating the unconditional repatriation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestral remains and secret sacred objects to their communities of origin.
Consultation is an important element of the scheme and requirements will be included in the regulations. There will be specific consultation requirements for proposed loans of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander material to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and groups to be actively involved in discussions about proposed loans before objects come to Australia.
Further transparency will be built into the scheme through regulations requiring the publication of information on objects proposed for loan prior to their importation. This is an important mechanism to assist persons who may be seeking to locate objects they believe were unlawfully taken.
The introduction of this legislation will align Australia with an emerging international standard of providing protection for cultural objects on loan from overseas.
It will reassure foreign lenders that Australia is a secure destination for loans and enable our great cultural institutions to successfully compete for world-class exhibitions.
Broad consultation, including many submissions in response to a 2011 discussion paper, demonstrate strong support for Commonwealth legislation on this issue.
This support extends from the collections sector to state and territory cultural ministers and to the tourism and hospitality sectors. It reflects an acknowledgment of the direct benefits that major international exhibitions deliver to the Australian economy.
I would like to acknowledge the role that former Director of the Art Gallery of New South Wales Ed Capon played in this regard, doing so on behalf of the directors of the collecting institutions in this country, in bringing the issue to the attention of state, territory and federal government ministers at the inaugural meeting of cultural ministers held last August. It was as a result of that representation and discussion at that first meeting of the cultural ministers that agreement was reached amongst ministers not just to recognise the problem but to address it. I do acknowledge the effective collaboration not just of the ministers present and their departments but of the museums and galleries and the agencies that were associated that have led to this solution.
Many of Australia's leading museums and galleries are now planning ambitious future exhibition programs beyond those already locked in. This bill will provide vital support for those activities.
Governments must invest in the arts. A vibrant arts sector delivers a social dividend of creativity, communication, respect, inclusion and teamwork—values this nation cherishes.
There is also an economic dividend, because the evidence shows that creative nations are productive and resilient nations.
This bill directly supports the future of international cultural exhibitions. It will benefit our cultural institutions, our economy and ensure Australians continue to have access to the world's riches of art and culture. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments) Bill makes consequential amendments to the Commonwealth statute book to reflect changes to the name of the Federal Magistrates Court and the title of federal magistrate to 'judge'.
It operates together with the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, to more accurately reflect the court's modern role and highlight the valuable service it provides to regional Australians through its program of regular court circuits.
The Federal Circuit Court of Australia Legislation Amendment Bill, which has passed the parliament, amends the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 and other legislation to rename the court and change the title of federal magistrate to 'judge', while ensuring that existing arrangements and entitlements continue.
This bill makes the necessary amendments to update references to the Federal Magistrates Court and federal magistrates across other Commonwealth legislation. The number and breadth of these necessary amendments clearly demonstrates the court's broad jurisdiction and the functions of its judicial officers across areas as diverse as water efficiency, national measurements and telecommunications interception and access—a very broad range of issues.
Some of the legislation undergoing slight amendment enables federal magistrates to undertake functions in their personal capacity, such as issuing search and seizure warrants. The sensitive nature of many of these functions requires that there be no doubt about continuity of arrangements. The bill includes specific provisions to preserve existing arrangements after the name changes commence, and clarifies the operation of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
The bill also includes contingent amendments to update bills currently before the parliament that refer to the Federal Magistrates Court or federal magistrates.
This bill, while containing only consequential amendments, nevertheless forms an important part of this government's wider court reforms, which will ensure that the federal judicial system provides accessible, equitable and understandable justice for the community.
This government has put the federal courts on a much firmer budget footing by recently allocating an additional $38 million to maintain and improve court services.
We have developed and passed a judicial complaints framework to provide a more transparent and understandable way to raise complaints about judicial conduct, while fully respecting the constitutional boundaries between the arms of government.
And new court fee levels will better reflect the capacity of different litigants to pay—such as higher fees for large corporations and government departments, balanced by the reintroduction of fee waivers and exemptions for disadvantaged litigants.
The government has demonstrated good faith with the court and federal magistrates by progressing this name and title change with all possible speed, while ensuring proper consultation with heads of jurisdiction.
These changes to commence the Federal Circuit Court and title of 'judge' will be smoothly implemented across the Commonwealth statute book without any disruption to existing arrangements.
It is envisaged that this bill will commence at the same time as the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Legislation Amendment Bill 2012.
I commend the Federal Magistrates Court and its judicial officers for their hard work over the past 12 years in providing affordable, accessible and streamlined justice for people all over Australia. This new name will open a new chapter for the court and help its judges continue to serve the Australian community. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Deputy Speaker Oakeshott, I am sure that it gives you some pleasure to be in the chair while this bill is being introduced.
I am pleased to introduce legislation to make the native title system fairer and more flexible. I am also pleased to be joined by my colleague the minister with responsibility for Indigenous affairs, because it is obviously a matter between our portfolios of great importance.
The Native Title Amendment Bill will make several amendments to the Native Title Act 1993. These amendments will create a native title system that achieves faster and better outcomes, with a focus on unlocking the economic potential of native title and promoting sustainable agreement making.
Twenty years after Mabo, the government continues to pursue lasting changes which will improve the way native title agreements are struck and how they are managed.
These amendments build on Labor's 2009 reforms. Since 2009, we have seen a significant increase in the number of native title consent determinations. This shows how Labor's reforms have sped up native title agreement making.
The government's current institutional reforms to the Federal Court and National Native Title Tribunal will further build on these achievements and allow for the effective and efficient resolution of claims.
The bill reforms three areas of the Native Title Act:
Since 2010, the government has undertaken extensive consultations with key stakeholders—including: Indigenous groups, state and territory governments, farmers, miners, local council associations and other peak bodies and organisations.
In particular, exposure draft legislation was for four weeks and extensive consultations were undertaken.
Of course, not all stakeholders agree will the bill before us, but all views have been carefully considered. The government believes a sensible balance has now been struck.
Schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments which enable governments and native title parties to agree to disregard extinguishment of native title in areas which preserve the natural environment. For example this includes national, state and territory parks and reserves.
This amendment will provide parties with greater flexibility in the claims resolution process. The government hopes the amendment will provide more opportunities for claims to be settled by negotiation and for parties to reach agreement. Furthermore, this amendment may be used in claimant applications and revised native title determination applications to ensure flexibility for parties.
However, the bill contains a number of checks and balances. Disregarding extinguishment of native title is limited to park and reserve areas. There must be agreement between the government that effected the extinguishment and the native title party. The parties may agree which area—for example, all or part of an area—is the subject of the agreement to disregard extinguishment. And the amendments do not remove the requirement to establish connection in order for native title to be recognised.
Any current interests over the land, such as rights vested in a national park authority, private leases or easements within the area, will continue to exist and, to the extent of inconsistency with native title rights, will prevail.
There is a notification requirement so that interested third parties will have at least two months to comment before an agreement to disregard historical extinguishment is finalised. The amendment also allows relevant government parties to disregard the extinguishing effects of public works in the area by agreement.
Overall, it is our intention that the amendments will provide more opportunities for more claims to be settled by negotiation rather than litigation, particularly in relation to joint management of national parks. It also facilitates recognition of traditional connection to the land.
Schedule 2 of the bill clarifies the meaning of 'good faith' under the existing native title 'right to negotiate' regime.
The right to negotiate is a key component of the native title system. It enables native title parties to participate in negotiations regarding future acts which may affect their rights and interests.
Currently, parties are required to negotiate in 'good faith' under the Native Title Act. But 'good faith' is not defined. This has caused confusion and litigation about what constitutes 'good faith' and at times, it has been difficult for parties to prove a lack of 'good faith'.
Many negotiating parties are already building strong and positive relationships with Indigenous Australians. Many are already fulfilling these 'good faith' obligations. But there are those, at the fringes, who are acting capriciously or unfairly, those who are not seriously sitting down at the table with proposals or offers, or not turning up to meetings regularly and withholding information which is not commercially sensitive and would assist in reaching an agreement. There is a minority who are just sitting through negotiations, waiting for the clock to tick and time to expire before rushing off to an arbitral body.
The government does not believe these practices are widespread, but this amendment will clearly set out the expectations of all parties—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous—in operating under the 'right to negotiate' regime. This bill is designed to address these types of situations.
The amendments to the 'good faith' provisions will improve negotiations in three ways:
These amendments clearly set out what is expected of all negotiating parties—from mining companies through to Indigenous groups. They include a requirement that negotiation parties use all reasonable efforts to reach agreement.
A non-exhaustive list of factors which the arbitral body may take into account include:
It is important to note that there is no obligation for a negotiating party to reach agreement and none of these factors are mandatory.
This non-exhaustive list of factors and the requirement that 'all reasonable efforts' have been made recognise that there is no 'one-size-fits-all' approach to native title. In considering whether a party has negotiated in good faith, the National Native Title Tribunal is able to consider these criteria 'where relevant' in the context of the particular circumstances of the case. This means that negotiations and outcomes will still have flexibility.
The amendments to the good faith negotiation requirements will apply to negotiations that are still on foot, starting from 1 January 2013.
These amendments aim to give native title parties a genuine right to participate in negotiations.
The good faith amendments will ensure there is a clear standard throughout the native title system about what constitutes good faith negotiations. The government recognises that many in the resource sector are already working to establish positive relationships with native title parties and achieve sustainable economic outcomes for Indigenous communities.
Schedule 3 contains amendments to streamline processes for Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs).
Indigenous Land Use Agreements are an important mechanism for native title groups and others to negotiate flexible, pragmatic agreements about the use and management of land and waters.
These amendments aim to ensure that Indigenous Land Use Agreements continue to provide flexibility and certainty for all parties.
The amendments will:
1. broaden the scope of body corporate agreements—a particular type of ILUA—to ensure Indigenous Land Use Agreements are sufficiently flexible to meet negotiating parties' needs;
2. improve the efficiency of authorisation and registration processes for Indigenous Land Use Agreements;
3. simplify the process to make minor amendments to an ILUA by agreement—rather than going back to the National Native Title Tribunal each time.
These reforms will give parties to ILUAs more flexibility and expand the range of issues that parties can form agreements over. It will be clearer who can authorise and register an ILUA and it is envisaged that this will reduce disputes and disagreements.
The changes to this schedule will also focus parties on delivering agreed outcomes, rather than wasting time and money returning to the tribunal for amendments such as minor name changes, where property is assigned to another party in accordance with the original agreement and changes of registered addresses. The bill will now allow the registrar simply to update the relevant descriptions in the ILUA, with agreement of the parties.
In conclusion, this Native Title Amendment Bill will make Australia's native title system fairer and more flexible. It will assist in unlocking the economic potential of native title. It will encourage claims resolution—rather than litigation. Labor's institutional reforms are producing real, tangible results. It is our intention that these reforms—announced on the 20th anniversary of Mabo—will increase the number of native title settlements via negotiation rather than litigation, wherever possible. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
As the Attorney-General said to the member for Lyne, who is currently in the chair, I am sure it also brings him great pleasure that we introduce this bill today. I move:
The this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to be introducing this bill today as a clear step forward towards holding a successful referendum to change the Australian Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
This bill will establish an Act of Recognition, acknowledging the unique and special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of our nation.
The Gillard government is committed to recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution.
We want meaningful reform that reflects the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and unites our nation. We believe the Australian Constitution should:
And we are committed to achieving this.
We appointed an expert panel to develop options for constitutional change and work out how best to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in the Constitution.
The expert panel consisted of a range of respected and accomplished individuals, including you, Acting Deputy Speaker Oakeshott, and also Indigenous and other community leaders, constitutional law experts and parliamentary members.
In bringing forward this bill, the government again thanks the expert panel, including co-chairs Mr Mark Leibler and Professor Patrick Dodson, for their dedication and tireless work. They have helped build a strong foundation for change.
We also thank the Australian Human Rights Commission, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples and Reconciliation Australia, and the many organisations and individuals who lodged submissions, participated in consultations or helped the expert panel with their research.
Throughout 2011, the expert panel led a wide ranging national public consultation and engagement program.
They talked to more than 4,600 people, in more than 250 meetings in 84 locations across the country, and received more than 3,500 submissions.
The panel also sought extensive advice from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and constitutional experts, and gathered data through research and surveys.
The government was pleased to receive the expert panel's findings in January this year.
For the first time, we now have specific proposals on how to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.
The government agrees with the expert panel on the importance of holding a referendum at a time when it has the most chance of success.
We do not underestimate the challenge of achieving nation-wide consensus. Change will not happen without support from across the political spectrum and the support of the majority of Australians.
And we are working with local organisations to build this movement for change.
The government is investing $10 million to help build public awareness and community support for change. This important work is being led by Reconciliation Australia, supported by a reference group of business and community leaders.
This funding is supporting community groups and activities across the country, giving Australians the opportunity to learn more about constitutional recognition.
We do recognise that there is not yet enough community awareness or support for change to hold a successful referendum at or before the next federal election.
The Act of Recognition that will be established by this bill will continue to build the momentum we need for successful constitutional change.
The Act of Recognition will largely reflect the introduction to recommendation 3 of the expert panel on constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians.
The act makes a clear statement of recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first inhabitants of Australia, and acknowledges their unique history, culture and connection to their traditional lands and waters.
To allow all of us here in this parliament to show our support for these truths.
And through our support, to build awareness and support in the wider community.
To maintain momentum towards a referendum, a sunset provision in the bill limits the effect of the act to two years. The sunset date ensures that legislative recognition does not become entrenched at the expense of continued progress towards constitutional change.
The sunset provision will provide an impetus for a future parliament to reassess how the campaign for change is travelling, and the appropriate timing for a successful referendum.
The bill also provides for a review to consider and advise a future parliament on proposals to submit to a referendum, based on the work already done by the expert panel.
The review will identify which of those proposals are likely to receive the support of the Australian people, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
A report from the review will be given to the minister by six months before the sunset date of the bill and will be tabled in parliament.
The report will also set out a process for parliament to consider the next steps towards the ultimate goal of constitutional recognition.
It is important to recognise that this bill is not a substitute for constitutional recognition. Legislation is not the appropriate forum to address all of the recommendations of the expert panel for constitutional change.
We are pleased that there is a strong commitment across the parliament to support this bill.
We know how crucial cross-party support is to the success of a referendum. We all share the determination to make sure that we continue to build momentum towards a successful referendum that unites and strengthens our community.
It is in this spirit that the government has agreed to establish a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
The committee has been asked to consider this bill as its first order of business.
The committee will then work to build a secure, strong, multipartisan parliamentary consensus around the timing and specific content of referendum proposals for Constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The committee will also engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the broader community to secure their support for specific referendum proposals for constitutional recognition.
The government believes a successful referendum will help create strong, respectful relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
The national apology to Indigenous Australians, the stolen generations in particular, helped build a bridge of respect between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. It generated the trust we need so that we can work together to tackle Indigenous disadvantage.
The recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution is another step in that journey, and one that is critical to our efforts to close the gap.
The Australian Constitution is the foundation document for our laws and our government, but it is silent on the special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples—the first Australians.
The government is pleased that today this parliament is taking an important step towards changing that situation.
Towards a successful referendum that unites and strengthens our nation.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 will amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 and make minor consequential amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953.
The bill provides for two categories of amendments to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007.
Firstly, the bill proposes amendments to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to remove the rebate on private health insurance from the Lifetime Health Cover loading part of the affected premiums.
The bill will ensure that rebate recipients are treated consistently, regardless of whether they have a Lifetime Health Cover loading or not. The bill will also improve the effectiveness of the Lifetime Health Cover incentive for a person to take out private health insurance earlier in their life and maintain it. This will provide greater support to a fundamental component of the Australian health system, the principle of community rating in private health insurance.
The rebate is currently payable on the entire cost of a person's policy, including any Lifetime Health Cover loading payable. It is for this reason that removing the rebate from the Lifetime Health Cover loading will also contribute to ensuring the sustainability of the rebate. These changes will commence on 1 July 2013.
The second aspect to the bill is that from 1 July 2013, claiming the rebate through a Department of Human Services service centre under the Incentive Payments Scheme will cease.
Background
On 22 October 2012, as part of the 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the Treasurer announced the private health insurance measure 'Private Health Insurance rebate—removal of rebate on lifetime health cover loading'.
The private health insurance rebate is a significant component of Australian government health expenditure. There has been a higher take-up of private health insurance despite the Australian government's introduction of the rebate tiers last year. The changes proposed in this bill, combined with the income testing of the rebate which was introduced on 1 July 2012 and the proposal also announced by the Treasurer as part of the 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook being to index the rebate from 1 April 2014 on the lesser of the consumer price index or the premium increase, will deliver continued consumer protection and enable the government to continue to provide a sustainable incentive for consumers.
Lifetime Health Cover
Under current arrangements, people who take out hospital cover before 1 July after their 31st birthday and maintain their membership pay lower premiums relative to people who delay joining. Lifetime Health Cover is designed to encourage people to join hospital cover earlier in life and to maintain their membership. Thereby boosting and improving the risk profile of health insurance membership.
People who delay taking out hospital cover pay a financial loading of two per cent for every year they are over the age of 30, up to a maximum of 70 per cent, on the hospital portion of their premium.
Under existing arrangements, the government pays a rebate as a percentage of the premium paid, which includes any applicable Lifetime Health Cover loading. If the Australian government continued to subsidise a proportion of the Lifetime Health Cover loading the incentive to take out hospital cover is diminished.
Lifetime Health Cover is a key component in supporting community rating in private health insurance, keeping private health insurance affordable for all Australians, regardless of age, illness or potential health risk. Community rating means that insurers are not permitted to differentiate the premiums charged according to an individual's health risk characteristics. Community rating arrangements keep private health insurance affordable by keeping premiums lower for the aged and sufferers of illnesses who pay premiums lower than they would be if adjustments were made based on their health status. The principles underlying community rating are strongly supported by the government on equity grounds and are considered a fundamental component of the Australian health system.
It is irrational to have a Lifetime Health Cover loading that encourages people to take out private health insurance at an earlier age and maintain it, and then have the government pay a proportion of this loading. It is also unfair to those taxpayers who do take out private health insurance earlier in life.
This bill restricts the rebate to a percentage of the premium only, excluding any increase to the premium because of Lifetime Health Cover. The result of this is that the full amount of the Lifetime Health Cover loading is passed on to the policyholder, thereby improving the effectiveness of the Lifetime Health Cover incentive. This also improves support for community rating.
These changes are equitable in that they ensure that all people who purchase hospital cover receive the same rebate relative to the premium paid, their age and income level.
Ceasing the Incentive Payments Scheme
The second component to this bill is to cease, from 1 July 2013, claiming the rebate through a Department of Human Services service centre, otherwise known as the incentive payments scheme. The incentive payments scheme option is very seldom used. Over 99.9 per cent of rebate claims are made via the premium reduction scheme and the tax offset claiming options. The premium reduction scheme is the most popular method, providing the immediate benefit of an upfront premium discount to policyholders.
The incentive payments scheme is the least-used claiming option and requires claimants to pay the rebate amount to their health insurer before it can be claimed back from the Department of Human Services. incentive payments scheme claiming is likely to further decline as the Department of Human Services service centres became 'cashless' with effect 1 July 2012, and people can no longer get their rebate as 'cash in hand' via the Incentive Payments Scheme. The evidence we have to date is that the use of the Incentive Payments Scheme has declined since 1 July 2012.
As these figures indicate, this amendment will not have a major impact on policyholders; rather it will encourage a more efficient way to claim the rebate. Ceasing the incentive payments scheme claiming option is a simple and low-cost option to reduce the administrative burden on insurers, the Department of Human Services and the Australian Taxation Office.
Minor consequential amendments are also made to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to remove references to the incentive payments scheme. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
As part of building a seamless national economy, the Australian government is committed to reform of the regulation of agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines (or agvet chemicals). A single national regulator, supported by state and Northern Territory laws, has been in place since 1993. However, it is evident that its effectiveness is hampered by the legislative framework it must implement.
Access to a full range of safe agvet chemicals is essential for the wellbeing of the economy. Agvet chemicals are needed to control disease and to protect people, companion animals, infrastructure and, importantly, the environment. They are necessary tools for our export focused agriculture sector and for future food security. They allow safe and efficient food and fibre production.
It was the foresight of the Hawke and Keating governments, working in partnership with their state and territory counterparts, that put in place Australia's first national regulator for agvet chemicals. It is now almost 20 years since this system began, and it has served the community well over this period. But, as with all legislated systems, they can fall behind best practice.
Human understanding of the natural and chemical world changes every single day. For this reason, we must have a dynamic regulator, with a systematic, risk based approach to protecting human health and the environment. At the same time, the regulator must take into account the views of the community.
It is clear that the community expects a rigorous scientific approach to agvet chemical assessments. But it also expects that these assessments will occur on a regular basis so they remain up-to-date. This is something the current system has failed to do.
We must recognise that many agvet chemicals are designed to kill pests and that they may be dangerous. This is the reason we have a product approval system in place to protect the community and the environment, those who use the chemicals, and those industries that rely on the use of these chemicals.
It is vital for these industries that the community retains its confidence in the methods used to produce food in Australia and to protect the environment. And for this reason it is vital that Australia has a strong, predictable regulatory system.
The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 confirms that protecting human health and the environment is Australia's first priority in regulating agvet chemicals. The bill amends the suite of agvet chemical legislation to further modernise, and improve the effectiveness of, the current system. It will provide better protection for human health and the environment, thus maintaining community confidence in our food and fibre production.
The Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, known as the APVMA, is the regulator of agvet chemicals in Australia. The bill amends the legislation administered by the APVMA to improve its effectiveness and responsiveness in regulating these chemicals. These amendments allow the APVMA to maintain its status within the community as a trusted regulator.
The bill will modernise the APVMA's administration. Perhaps more importantly, the bill will require the APVMA to provide greater clarity around its requirements. The APVMA will develop and publish its principles and processes for regulating agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines to complement these legislative amendments. This work has already begun within the APVMA and will continue into the future. The work to develop a risk framework, together with powers to reject poor quality applications, will encourage industry to make good quality applications. This in turn will allow the APVMA to do its job more efficiently and with greater predictability.
The amendments in the bill enhance the consistency and transparency of assessments of agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines. Legislative amendments enable the APVMA to align regulatory effort with chemical risk. The reforms implemented by the bill will result in a more straightforward assessment process that is easier to understand and more cost-effective to administer and provide greater certainty to the community that agvet chemicals used in Australia are safe.
The bill includes measures that implement an election commitment to ensure the ongoing safety of agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines and improve the current chemical review arrangements. Introduction of a mandatory re-approval and re-registration scheme brings Australia into line with other countries which have similar schemes such as the United States and Europe. The scheme has been designed to complement the specific characteristics of the Australian agvet market so it delivers the desired outcomes without unnecessarily resulting in withdrawal of safe and useful chemicals. This measure responds to community concerns by ensuring that approved or registered chemicals continue to meet appropriate health and safety standards.
Other measures in the bill provide for greater transparency and predictability about reconsiderations. The measures in the bill achieve this by, for the first time, providing for time frames for reconsiderations and prescribing time frames for when information is provided to the APVMA for reconsideration.
The amendments in the bill remove any remaining trace of an impediment to the APVMA's use of overseas assessments and data. This is on the proviso that the assessments are conducted by agencies that are comparable to the APVMA and that overseas data are relevant to Australian conditions, agricultural practices and animal husbandry.
Other measures in the bill improve the ability of the APVMA to enforce compliance with its regulatory decisions by providing the APVMA with a graduated range of compliance and enforcement powers. This will improve the ability of the APVMA to efficiently administer its regulatory decisions to protect public health and safety and the environment. Not only will this allow industry to take greater responsibility for ensuring compliance, but it will not reduce the APVMA's ability to take strong regulatory action where this is necessary to protect the community, animals and the environment. Often, the only option currently available to the APVMA is to take a person to court, a process that is not appropriate for many behaviours. The APVMA needs to be able to ensure that registrants and companies comply with all elements of the law. Therefore, the sanctions cannot be such that they can merely be factored in as a cost of doing business. The additional measures are similar to those available to other regulators under Commonwealth laws and ensure that contemporary safeguards are in place for regulated entities.
The existing legislation compensates intellectual property owners for the impact of the product approval system by protecting submitted data in a number of situations. The current data protection provisions are improved by the bill. The bill also removes disincentives for business to invest in chemical product development and extends data protection eligibility to a wider range of data and increases the time that the data is protected. These measures ensure that innovators can obtain a fair return on their research investment.
The APVMA currently obtains the majority of its income from a levy it collects. While this arrangement is not unusual, it may lead to a perception of a conflict of interest. Therefore, the bill provides for an agency other than the APVMA to collect the levy. However, in making any decision to change the way this levy is collected, the government will consider issues of cost-effectiveness and efficiency.
The bill modernises and updates the suite of Commonwealth legislation for agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines. Recognising the scope of the changes, the bill includes a requirement for a review to be conducted of measures in the bill in five years and all Commonwealth legislation for agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines every 10 years. This will ensure that legislative measures operate as intended and remain appropriate.
Current agvet legislation is criticised as being an impenetrable maze of complexity. This complexity not only makes it difficult to administer; it makes it hard for companies that need to engage with the regulator. In response, and consistent with its wider role of improving the clarity and accessibility of Commonwealth legislation, the government has done extensive revisions to the agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines legislation to bring it up to contemporary standards for legislative drafting. The improvements in comprehension and utility delivered by these revisions are significant, with benefits particularly for improved efficiency in complying with and administering the legislation.
At any one time, the APVMA has several thousand applications in process. It also has a register of nearly 10,000 chemical products. The bill includes appropriate transitional measures to allow processing to continue for those in the system.
Overall, the bill will increase community confidence in the regulation of agvet chemicals, while reducing the unnecessary impost on business. The reforms to agvet chemicals legislation in the bill will ensure that agricultural productivity can continue to improve and keep Australia at the forefront of innovative food and fibre production.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is part of the work this government is doing to tackle the illegal firearms market across Australia.
It also contains important reforms to strengthen laws that target criminal wealth and help crack down on organised crime.
Firearms trafficking
In February this year I asked the Australian Crime Commission to undertake a national intelligence assessment of the illegal firearms market.
In April the Australian Crime Commission provided its interim findings to the national meeting of attorneys-general and justice ministers.
In June the Australian Crime Commission presented its final report to the meeting of police ministers from across the country.
It is a very serious document.
It reveals that this illegal market is made up of more than a quarter of a million firearms.
It also reveals that, once these firearms enter this illegal market, they can remain in circulation and operational for many decades.
Firearms do not have a use-by date. The oldest firearm traced by the Australian Crime Commission was a functioning revolver manufactured in 1888, seized from criminals in Victoria, and still functioning.
The Australian Crime Commission undertook a tracing analysis of 3,186 firearms that had been seized by Australian law enforcement agencies.
This tracing analysis confirmed that most of these firearms had been stolen or were not handed in after the Port Arthur massacre.
Less than one per cent of firearms traced by the Australian Crime Commission were illegally imported.
Based on this report, I took a series of reforms to the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management in June this year.
This tracing analysis confirmed that most of these firearms had been stolen or were not handed in after the Port Arthur massacre.
Less than one per cent of firearms traced by the Australian Crime Commission were illegally imported.
Based on this report, I took a series of reforms to the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management in June this year.
These reforms are designed to tackle the illicit firearms market from every angle—to seize illegal firearms, to break the code of silence, to improve our ability to trace illegal firearms, to strengthen laws and harden the border.
They include:
This bill implements the first of these reforms.
It creates new aggravated offences for people who traffic 50 or more firearms or firearm parts—either within Australia or across its borders.
The maximum penalty for these offences will be life imprisonment.
This will make the maximum penalty for trafficking in firearms the same as the maximum penalty for trafficking in drugs.
It is designed to send a very strong message that trafficking large numbers of illegal firearms is just as dangerous and potentially deadly as trafficking large amounts of illegal drugs, and the same maximum penalty should apply.
The bill expands this to also cover the trafficking of firearms parts, as well as the trafficking of firearms.
Currently, it is an offence to traffic firearms across state or territory borders.
Importing or exporting prohibited firearms is covered by offences in the Customs Act 1901. The bill creates new offences in the Criminal Code for situations where firearms are trafficked across Australia's national borders.
Work is also underway on the other reforms that the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management agreed to.
The standing council met again last week.
Police ministers were briefed on the status of these reforms and I can provide the House with the following information:
Development of a National Firearms Register
First, the establishment of a National Firearms Register.
In June ministers agreed in principle to develop a national register.
There are currently more than 30 different registers and databases across federal, state and territory agencies which are not linked. According to CrimTrac, 14,000 firearms are lost track of each year.
Nous Consulting Group was commissioned to undertake an analysis of model and funding options for the establishment of a National Firearms Register. Police ministers were briefed about their work at last week's meeting.
The work they have done to date confirms systemic weaknesses in the current system that result in thousands of firearms moving from legitimate hands into a 'grey market' each year. It also confirms that these weapons constitute a major source of the firearms used by criminals.
Their work has also confirmed that a National Firearms Register would make it easier for law enforcement to track the movement of firearms across state borders and choke off the flow of firearms into the 'grey' and criminal markets.
They will now develop model and funding options to establish a National Firearms Register, and this will be considered by police ministers at the next standing council meeting in 2013.
Rolling out the Australian Ballistics Identification Network nationwide.
In June ministers agreed in principle to roll out the Australian Ballistics Identification Network (ABIN) nationwide.
Work is underway on this important initiative.
The ABIN uses advanced technology to undertake ballistics analysis of firearms that are seized from criminals. It can link firearms seized to previous crimes.
The ABIN is currently used by the Australian Federal Police and the NSW Police Force.
Rolling out the network nationwide will build a database of all weapons used in crimes recovered by police in every state and territory.
It will be able to be accessed by police forces in every Australian jurisdiction.
Development of a National Firearms Identification Database
At the police ministers meeting in June, ministers agreed to the implementation of a National Firearms Identification Database. This database, developed by CrimTrac, will provide law enforcement with a searchable web interface as an invaluable resource for identifying firearms across the country.
It will provide law enforcement with a searchable web tool containing key description information for all known firearm models, including images, configuration details and other reference information.
The first stage of this database will be completed in February next year when the online database set is released.
Specialised firearms training f or Australian law enforcement
Experts from the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will travel to Australia in February 2013 to deliver firearm identification courses to federal, state and territory police and firearms officers from Commonwealth agencies including the Customs and Border Protection Service.
I reached agreement with the ATF to provide this training during a visit to the United States in July this year.
The training will be held in Australia, rather than at the firearms tracing facility in West Virginia, to allow up to 40 Australian law enforcement officers to receive training on the latest developments in firearm identification and technical advice.
The courses will further enhance the skills of Australian law enforcement in identifying firearm markings, parts and components, and the methods that can be used by organised crime to hide firearms.
Establishment of a specialised Firearm Intelligence and Targeting Team
This team was established within Customs and Border Protection to fuse together all available intelligence from law enforcement agencies and target key criminal groups at the border.
This team is now fully operational, with one officer embedded in the New South Wales Police Firearms and Organised Crime Squad.
This officer recently accompanied New South Wales Police to Nashville, Tennessee to work with the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the United States Drug Enforcement Agency to shut down an illegal firearms supply route between Australia and the United States.
These joint operations and collaborative working relationships demonstrate the power of working together to defeat organised criminal networks seeking to import illicit firearms into Australia.
We are working with other jurisdictions about possible expansion to relevant state and territory organised crime, gang or firearms squads.
National campaign on unlicensed firearms
At last week's meeting police ministers agreed to a national community phone-in campaign encouraging people to dob in firearm criminals.
People will be able to anonymously and safely ring up and identity people they know who possess illegal firearms.
It will be up and running in the first half of 2013.
Expansion of the Australian Crime Commission ' s Firearm Tracing Capability and conducting Annual Illicit Firearms Intelligence Assessments
The Australian Crime Commission is developing an enhanced national firearms serial number tracing capability that will build on its role as Australia's principal firearms tracer.
Since June, over 500 firearms have been referred for tracing by state and territory law enforcement agencies.
At last week's meeting police ministers were also updated on Australian Crime Commission's preparation for the next national illicit firearms assessment for 2013-14.
That assessment will build on the work the Australian Crime Commission has done this year and provide an up-to-date intelligence picture of the illegal firearms market.
Additional search powers
I have also asked the states and territories to consider introducing laws giving police the legal authority to search a person who is subject to a firearm prohibition order (FPO), as well as any vehicle or premises they are in, for the presence of a firearm without the need to demonstrate reasonable suspicion.
We need to give police stronger powers to search for illegal firearms.
If we are really serious about getting the quarter of a million illegal firearms off the streets we need to give police more power to go and get them. This means the power to randomly search for firearms.
If someone is a serious criminal, police should have the power to stop and search them for illegal firearms at any time. This includes searching any vehicle they are in and any premises they are in.
South Australia already has laws like this.
A joint working party has been established to consider this and develop recommendations to be considered by police ministers at the next standing council meeting in 2013.
Unexplain ed wealth
This bill also makes important improvements to laws that allow our enforcement agencies to target unexplained wealth.
Serious and organised crime is driven by the pursuit of money.
One of the most effective ways to deter these criminals is to take away the wealth and the property they have obtained from their crimes.
Organised criminals are more afraid of losing their money than they are of going to jail.
Unexplained wealth laws reverse the onus of proof so criminals have to prove their wealth was obtained legally.
It makes it easier to confiscate their assets.
This is what makes it one of the most effective ways to bring down organised criminals.
The Commonwealth has a comprehensive proceeds of crime scheme to trace, investigate, restrain and confiscate criminal wealth and property.
These laws are having an impact.
In October I announced that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have restrained more assets from criminals in the past year than ever before.
Last financial year over $97 million worth of proceeds of crime were confiscated—more than double the $41 million seized the previous year.
This includes multiple Rolls Royces, a Lamborghini, an Aston Martin, a BMW and yachts.
Unexplained wealth laws are the next piece of the puzzle in targeting the proceeds of criminal activity.
In 2010, we introduced important new unexplained wealth provisions into the Proceeds of Crime Act.
These new unexplained wealth laws allow a court to order a person to attend court and demonstrate that his or her wealth was lawfully acquired.
If they cannot prove that their wealth came from lawful means, the court can order them to pay the difference between their lawful wealth and their unlawful wealth.
These laws target senior organised crime figures—criminals who orchestrate and accumulate wealth from criminal activity, but distance themselves from committing the actual crimes.
Some states and territories—Western Australia, the Northern Territory, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia—also have unexplained wealth laws.
However, there are significant differences and limitations in the way they operate.
There are also significant constitutional limitations in the reach of our Commonwealth unexplained wealth laws.
For example, while the Commonwealth can explore unexplained wealth in relation to people smuggling or drug importation, it is much more difficult for the Commonwealth to link these investigations to state based offences like murder or theft.
In 2011 the Commonwealth Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement commenced an inquiry into the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth legislation, and it reported earlier this year.
It found that a national approach to unexplained wealth laws would be more effective than the current regime.
It recommended that the Commonwealth government take the lead in developing a nationally consistent unexplained wealth regime.
It also recommended that the final objective of a national unexplained wealth scheme should involve a referral of powers from states and territories to the Australian government to legislate for an effective and nationally consistent unexplained wealth scheme.
A referral of power to the Commonwealth would help remove current constitutional limitations and enable the Commonwealth to enact more effective unexplained wealth laws.
Importantly, the intention is not to take away the ability of states to act on unexplained wealth.
Referring these powers is intended to boost the combined powers available nationally against organised crime.
If a referral were made, jurisdictions would be able to retain and use their own unexplained wealth laws. They could also use the Commonwealth laws.
The Attorney-General and I put this request to our state and territory colleagues at our ministerial council meetings in April and October this year.
Unfortunately, they have rejected our request to create a national unexplained wealth regime.
This is a bad and short-sighted decision. It will mean more criminals will keep more of their illegal wealth.
In the absence of this support, there are a number of other things we can do now.
The parliamentary joint committee made a number of other recommendations on amendments that can be made to improve the operation of the unexplained wealth system.
The government supports all the recommendations in the report in full or in part, and will formally respond to the committee report shortly.
This bill introduces legislation to implement a number of these recommendations.
They include:
These important amendments will make the laws more effective for law enforcement agencies and enable them to better target serious and organised crime.
The committee made a number of other recommendations which the Commonwealth is also taking action on.
We have implemented the committee's recommendation that the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce be prescribed as a task force under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and associated regulations to allow the disclosure of taxation information to the task force for law enforcement purposes.
We are considering the feasibility of allowing the Australian Crime Commission to use its coercive powers in support of unexplained wealth proceedings, as recommended by the committee.
And we are considering options for improving the process for seeking preliminary unexplained wealth orders to reduce duplication where relevant requirements have already been met at the restraining order stage.
Conclusion
This is an important bill. It targets two key enablers of serious and organised crime—the money they make and the firearms they use.
They are also part of a bigger package of reforms. And there is more to come.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2012 is an omnibus bill which makes a number of amendments to the Customs Act as part of the government's program of regulatory improvement.
Firstly, the bill will amend the Customs Act to make it an offence to bring into Australia without a permit certain prescribed prohibited imports to be known as restricted goods. This is different to the current offence, which requires the goods to be imported in order for an offence to be committed. Initially, the new category of restricted goods will be limited to child pornography and child abuse material. In future, this could be extended to give effect to international agreements or to address matters of international concern and could be applied to any purpose related to external affairs.
Reflecting the serious nature of the offence, the bill proposes that it carries a maximum penalty of 1,000 penalty units, which is similar to the penalties for the unlawful importation or exportation of goods.
Customs controlled areas form an important part of Customs and Border Protection's control mechanisms at airports and ports. They give officers the ability to question nontravellers, to restrict access for nontravellers, or to remove them from certain areas when Customs and Border Protection is performing its function. The bill makes minor changes to ensure Customs and Border Protection is able to set up permanent and temporary Customs controlled areas in the maritime and air environments when dealing with aircraft and ships carrying only crew and when processing cruise ships.
This bill implements a number of measures that clarify intent, remove redundant regulation and reduce the compliance burden for industry. This includes making it clear that self-powered ships and aircraft that are imported or intended to be imported are subject to the control of Customs and should be entered for home consumption. The bill will also allow the chief executive officer to request additional information from an applicant for a warehouse licence, which will enable issues to be clarified without the need for industry to submit a further application.
The bill makes minor changes to the valuation provisions, ensuring consistency with the World Trade Organization Customs Valuation Agreement.
Finally, the bill will repeal expired moratorium periods for electronic cargo reporting and repeal the legislation that refers to the accredited client program. Technology improvements and changes in the policy, procedural and cost environment meant that the program was not implemented operationally.
Customs and Border Protection consulted industry through the release of an exposure draft of the bill in September 2012.
Key stakeholders such as Shipping Australia, QANTAS and CAPEC have all responded positively to these changes. Operationally, they make little changes in the way these organisations and their stakeholders do business, but clarify their obligations under the Customs Act. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The recent tragic accident on the Stena Clyde rig in the Otway Basin, located in the Bass Strait, which resulted in the deaths of two employees during drilling operations, represents an unfortunate example of the serious and inherent risks associated with the offshore industry.
This incident follows the uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons from the Montara Wellhead platform in August 2009, off the northern coast of Western Australia, and the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon on 20 April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico.
Collectively, these events demonstrate and emphasise the need for a strong, effective and properly resourced offshore petroleum regulatory regime, to safeguard both human health and safety as well as the Australian marine environment.
The amendments contained in this bill largely continue the work of the Australian government to implement the lessons learnt and agreed in response to the report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry. I have more amendments I intend to introduce in the parliament in 2013 to further implement agreed recommendations coming out of the Montara report.
This bill amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to strengthen the offshore petroleum regulatory regime with respect to compliance, safety integrity and environmental management objectives.
The amendments seek to clarify and strength the compliance monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers of the National Offshore Petroleum Regulator and ensure that enforcement measures for contraventions of the act are appropriate in application and severity in the context of a high-hazard industry.
The bill also makes important amendments to provide parties responsible for administration of the act and associated regulations the ability to share information with each other and with other relevant Commonwealth and state and territory bodies. Information will be shared in circumstances where it is appropriate in order to enable those bodies to adequately discharge their legislative functions and powers.
To provide some further context to the amendments, the June 2010 report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry made several recommendations proposing amendments to the offshore petroleum regulatory regime. To give effect to these recommendations the Australian government undertook a comprehensive review of legislation applicable to offshore petroleum activities and the marine environment.
The legislative review
The bill amends the act to implement a number of the findings of the legislative review which aim to strengthen the operating practices of the offshore petroleum industry and provide additional enforcement powers to regulators.
The legislative review proposed, and the Australian government agreed, that due consideration be given to effecting several changes to the act including: the introduction of a civil penalty regime; increases to the current criminal penalty levels under the act to achieve consistency with compliance offences in other major hazard industry legislation; ensuring that penalties, including custodial penalties, for occupational health and safety offences under the act be harmonised with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, or made greater as appropriate to reflect the serious consequences potentially resulting from regulatory breaches in a major hazard industry; and redrafting the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) inspectorate powers to provide greater clarity and consistency between the various powers of each category of inspector and remove unnecessary procedural requirements that are likely to impede NOPSEMA's ability to effectively perform its enforcement functions.
The introduction of civil penalties represents a significant first step in providing alternative enforcement tools, which will enable the regulator to select and apply an appropriate and proportionate regulatory response, depending upon the nature and relative seriousness of the breach that has occurred, and the regulatory response or action which is considered appropriate given the overall set of circumstances.
In addition, the application of civil penalties in the form of financial sanctions as a supplement or alternative to the existing criminal penalties and set at an appropriate level to reflect the nature of the offshore petroleum industry as a high-hazard industry is intended to encourage improved compliance with the act.
This will further enhance the existing objective based regime by supporting continuous improvement by industry, which is responsible under the regime to demonstrate to the regulator that the risk of operations are reduced as low as reasonably practicable.
Another critical measure contained in this bill is that which enables the parties responsible for the administration of the act to share regulatory information in appropriate circumstances. Currently, the act does not include the express provision to enable information obtained during the exercise of powers and functions under the act and regulations to be appropriately shared with other parties.
This legal issue in the offshore regulatory regime was highlighted during federal court proceedings initiated by a company against investigators in 2009 where an injunction was successfully obtained to prevent the sharing of regulatory information during an investigation into the death of a worker.
In the absence of an express provision, it has become evident that there is such potential detrimental legal impediments to regulators being able to share information—where it may be appropriate to do so—for such purposes of a joint investigation to comprehensively investigate an incident and pursue a successful prosecution of companies at fault or to educate other regulators about potential operational risks that have been discovered during the course of compliance monitoring or investigations.
In addition to this proposed amendment to the act, the Commonwealth is working together with the states and the Northern Territory to ensure that similar provisions are incorporated into relevant state and territory legislation to facilitate mutual information sharing, which will ensure that a comprehensive and effective approach to multijurisdictional compliance activities and investigations is possible.
Finally, the bill also implements a decision to remove the responsible state minister for Tasmania, as is his state's preference, from the joint authority arrangements in the offshore regulatory regime.
The current set of amendments will go some way towards addressing issues identified as arising from the Montara incident in August 2009.
However, I also remain committed to the continuing improvement of the offshore regulatory regime and, in line with this commitment, I have a number of further measures currently under consideration developed for progression in 2013, including consideration of a range of further alternative compliance and enforcement tools recommended in the legislative review to strengthen the ability of the regulator to enforce critical safety and environmental management requirements to help protect the Australian offshore workforce and marine environment.
In summary, through a range of measures, including: the introduction of a civil penalty regime; increases to criminal penalty levels contained in the act for offshore health and safety and environmental management; offences to achieve consistency with penalties for comparable offences in Australian legislation, including other major hazard industry legislation; redrafting the inspectorate powers to provide greater clarity and consistency between the various powers of each category of inspector; and remove unnecessary procedural requirements that are likely to impede the regulator's ability to effectively enforce the functions.
This bill underscores the government's commitment to the maintenance and continuing improvement of a strong effective framework for the regulation of offshore petroleum activities.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—I thank the House. The Standing Committee on Regional Australia has undertaken three previous inquiries into matters relating to the health and productivity of the Murray-Darling Basin. I present this fourth report, supported by the committee, with the exception of Mr McCormack, the member for Riverina, and Dr Sharman Stone, who have dissented from the report. I think it should be noted that the shadow minister, the member for Flinders, and the member for Wannon, both members of the coalition, have supported the substance of the report. As part of its previous inquiries, the committee has recommended that the government conduct infrastructure works to increase water efficiency within the basin. This bill fulfils that recommendation.
The current bill identifies the Water for the Environment Special Account. The bill provides an incremental funding stream of $1.77 billion over 10 years starting from 2014-15. The special account will fund projects and programs that improve on-farm and off-farm infrastructure and remove constraints as identified by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Negative social and economic impacts to basin communities resulting from these funded projects will also be offset by the special account. It is anticipated that these projects will inject a further 450 gigalitres of environmental water into the basin over the next 10 years.
Controversially, the special account will also finance the purchase of water access rights. It is implied, though not clear in the bill itself, that these purchases will come from efficiencies gained through improved infrastructure. This was of concern to many stakeholders who made submissions to the inquiry. The bill's interpretive documents imply that the Commonwealth will be limited to purchasing the efficiencies gained from improvements in infrastructure. However, the bill is ambiguously worded and is not clear on this point. As currently drafted, the clause lacks clarity—and I am hopeful that the minister will address those issues within the hour. The ambiguity has caused significant concern within the basin communities and the committee is therefore recommending that this clause be amended to more appropriately convey its intent.
During the committee's inquiry, the Senate Environment and Communications Committee also reviewed the bill's provisions, recommending that the bill be amended to require 450 gigalitres of environmental water be recovered throughout the lifetime of the special account. The committee does not agree with that recommendation. The program and projects funded by the special account are voluntary. Requiring 450 gigalitres of water recovery could amount to a quasi-compulsory acquisition system, something which is prohibited under the Water Act. The committee strongly believes that the government should continue to work with irrigators to achieve environmental outcomes for a healthy basin, and supports the bill's objective of acquiring 'up to' 450 gigalitres of environmental water as currently drafted. Despite the committee's recommendations for the bill to be amended, I commend the government for its responsiveness to the committee's findings in relation to Murray-Darling Basin arrangements.
As I said, the committee has conducted a number of inquiries and I congratulate committee members who have participated in the various inquiries, as well as the secretariat, on their very hard work. This has been a difficult issue for many people. I will be speaking to the specifics of the bill within the next hour or so and I will reserve some of my comments until then.
As I have commented recently, this is the first time the parliament has had a committee that is specifically charged with matters concerning regional Australia—and I am pleased to see the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government in the House at the moment. This bill is again proof of the effectiveness and critical importance of this committee's existence. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I was a supplementary member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia. I joined that committee when it was addressing Murray-Darling Basin matters. I, along with the member for Riverina, strongly disagree with the committee's recommendation to support this bill.
The bill was a consequence of modelling requested by the South Australian Premier. On 29 June 2012 the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council asked the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to respond to the calls from the South Australian Premier to:
… complete a 'relaxed-constraints' model scenario with a Basin-wide reduction in diversions of 3200—
gigalitres per year—
The purpose of this scenario is to explore the flow regime changes and potential environmental benefits that would result if some major existing river operating constraints in the southern connected system were relaxed.
This came out of the blue, this call for the removal of the constraints. Subsequently, some modelling work was undertaken and then, very quickly, we saw this very poorly drafted bill come into the House. The chairman of our committee has already commented on the fact that much of the bill is so poorly drafted that we had to call for the department to clarify some of the matters. One of the recommendations of the committee was to clarify the point about whether or not the bill actually allows for the general or non-strategic purchase of further water buybacks. This is a critical issue in the basin, but the government's purpose is totally unclear in this bill. Much in the explanatory memorandum is also inconsistent with what is implied in the bill itself. This is sloppy work. It is of great concern because the matters in this bill are of critical concern to the future economic, environmental and community sustainability of the basin.
But our concerns—mine and those of the member for Riverina—extend beyond just the sourcing of the additional 450 gigalitres to be pushed down the river to serve, they hope, some better environmental outcomes for the mouth of the Murray, the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. We are deeply concerned about the flooding impacts on the environment if this additional water was pushed down the system, having removed things like bridges and levies and having perhaps bought up more of the floodplain. We are very concerned that 2.5 years is to be the average recurrence of these man-made floods. They are to be on a regular basis. Just one example on the Goulburn flood plain would involve a 40,000-megalitre per day flood for a median duration of four days between June and November every 2½ years. We know that such flooding would cause extraordinary damage to infrastructure, very valuable agribusiness and farmland. There would be some 100 houses in Shepparton inundated. We cannot understand why this flooding would be deliberately created on the very false premise that the lower parts of the river, in particular the Lower Lakes, the Coorong and the mouth of the Murray in South Australia, would in some way be enhanced as a result of this flooding of upstream.
The point about the mouth of the Murray and the Lower Lakes is that they have been so engineered, so changed with works and measures for the past 70 years, that when in fact the biggest flood on record rushed past those assets—this was when the drought broke in very recent times—there was hardly any movement in the salinity levels in Lake Albert in particular, or in the southern Coorong. The floodwaters simply pushed on past those assets because they were so isolated due to their barrages and other particular engineering works. So there has to be a lot more thinking about how you would look after the lower part of the system. We also know that most of the salinity in the basin, quite sadly, comes into the South Australian section of the river. The parts that are flushed—the dryland parts of South Australia and much of the irrigated parts—contribute the vast majority of the salt to the Murray, so there is really no point flooding the upper parts in the hope that somehow, miraculously, less salt will be generated in South Australia.
We have a very serious problem here where now we have even further insecurity for the communities of the major tributaries and the Murray River itself with this additional 450 gigalitres. We are told: 'Well, they may not actually use the 450 gigalitres. There would be so much liability, there would be so many people suing, that it probably could not happen.' The problem is that this bill allows it to happen. We cannot support this bill. It is another example of a government that simply does not understand the hydrology of the system, it does not understand the economic imperatives and it does not understand the environmental sustainability imperatives. We have to object to this bill; certainly that is what we stated quite clearly in our dissenting report.
by leave—I thank the minister at the table for his indulgence. The minister at the table, the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, knows full well how important it is to ensure that we have productive irrigation in regional Australia. That is certainly so in the Riverina area, and I know he is particularly conscious of how many billions of dollars worth of exports come out of that region. I know that the minister at the table is particularly concerned about the Riverina because he has visited there on several occasions during this term of parliament, which I very much appreciate as do the people of the Riverina. That said, the member for Murray and I have produced a dissenting report to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia's recommendations and report for the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012. We have done this for a number of reasons.
Whilst I have just spoken to the member for New England about the process by which this happened, and I take on board what he has just told me and how this has eventuated, the member for Murray and I believe that it is disingenuous of the government to have changed the order of speaking business in parliament last night such that this particular bill was debated by most of the speakers who wished to speak on it—certainly, the speakers who were on the list last night. That speaking list was exhausted, and this ensured that the dissenting report to the recommendations of the Regional Australia Committee was not available to those members who spoke, including myself and the member for Murray.
Members should have had that information available to them to make an informed decision as to what they would say in their speeches and which way they would vote. This vote may well be on party lines, as is so often the case with such things that come before this place, but it would have given the crossbenchers an opportunity to decide what they needed to say in their speeches—if they were, in fact, going to give them—and which way they were going to vote. This ensured that members who spoke on this important piece of legislation did not have the benefit of the final recommendations of the House of Representatives standing committee, or this minority report.
I commend the member for New England for the work that he has done heading up the Regional Australia Committee, which was, as we all know, charged with the responsibility of initially inquiring into the Murray-Darling Basin after the Griffith meeting in October 2010. The committee was formed and the member for New England was given that responsibility by the minister at the table in conjunction with the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, because they saw how important getting a basin plan correct was to the people of Griffith. Seven thousand people turned up to that meeting at Yoogali to express their fears about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
When the Prime Minister went to Goolwa in South Australia on 26 October to announce this special account for South Australia it changed the game as far as many people were concerned. I think the states were just about to sign up to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I do not think they would have opposed it—even New South Wales and Victoria were very close to signing up to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It was a game changer; the Prime Minister went to South Australia on 26 October and announced that she was saving the ailing Murray.
I can tell you that the Murray is not ailing right at this moment. The Murrumbidgee and the other rivers in the system are certainly not ailing. In fact, the floodwaters from March this year have yet to recede in many places, and that is one of the great concerns of the member for Murray in this minority report. She has just spoken about the impacts of flooding on the environment, the regional communities and the communities if the natural barriers and constraints in the system are removed. The member for Murray quite correctly points out that from the data available it would seem that widespread flooding of the lower Goulburn floodplain and the Murray below Yarrawonga would occur on a regular basis—every 2½ years. On the Goulburn floodplain this would be a 40,000 megalitre-a-day flood for a median duration of four days between June and November, for 40 per cent of the 2½ years. This would, as the member for Murray correctly points out, quite simply devastate a highly productive region and inundate infrastructure, including the flooding of some 100 houses in Shepparton.
Think about that: 100 houses in Shepparton. These people are important; they are certainly important to the member for Murray and they should be important to the people of this place. We know that floods cause more devastation than any other natural disaster. How do those people in Shepparton feel about this House putting in place a policy that is going to have their houses flooded on such a regular basis? The flatness of the topography would see water accessing aquifers, retriggering salinity problems. We need to protect the environment and ensure that we have a healthy river system, but this additional water for South Australia does not need to come at the cost of the economic imperatives of those communities which grow the food and the fibre which feeds and clothes not only this nation but also others.
The bill claims that pushing this extra volume of water down the system will improve the condition, in particular, of assets at the mouth of the Murray and the Lower Lakes in South Australia. The Standing Committee on Regional Australia visited those places and heard from those people; indeed, we went right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin system. We produced a very good report in May 2011—Of drought and flooding rainstaking on that famous Dorothea Mackellar line from her view of Australia in her poem My Country. We had a look at those places and saw what needed to be done. We realised that South Australia, like every other part of the system, needs to be looked after, but not at the expense of the rest of the system nor at the expense of the regional economies and communities which produce so many exports and so much food and fibre for this nation.
In fact, due to the barrages and other engineering works in place for more than 70 years in those parts of South Australia, it was observed that despite some of the biggest volumes of water on record recently surging past Lake Albert and the southern Coorong neither of these assets benefited from the record flood flow. Unfortunately, this bill does not address these engineered impediments to achieving a natural flushing of the mouth of the Murray or the salinity levels of the Lower Lakes.
We have heard all about constraints in the system. We heard the Prime Minister and the water minister talking about the constraints, but we in the upstream areas refer to these constraints as roads, railways, important levies and towns such as those at Shepparton and, in my electorate, Darlington Point.
It is quite unrealistic to expect the appropriation of extra funds—$1.77 billion—of which a mere drop, if you will pardon the pun, is going to be funded by this particular government. The rest of it is going to have to be found and appropriated by future governments. Let us all hope that that future government will be a coalition government, because we need a change of government. I am so pleased that the Leader of the Opposition yesterday made his strongest assertion yet that buyback would be capped at 1,500 gigalitres under a future coalition government, which would mean that only 249 gigalitres of water still need to be recovered. That would mean that there would be no additional buyback, which causes the 'Swiss cheese effect'—the member for New England quite often uses that term—and there would certainly be no additional pain for the people of the Riverina, the Murray and those other communities in the basin.
Mr Windsor interjecting—
I hear the member for New England interjecting. I am not quite sure what he is saying, but he knows how important those areas are to regional communities, he knows how important those regions are to the nation and he knows they need to be preserved and protected by good policy. I do not believe this bill represents good policy. I do not believe the basin plan is good policy. We need to get these things right; they are too important not to. Therefore, the member for Murray and I cannot support this bill and cannot support all of the recommendations of the House of Representative Standing Committee on Regional Australia. I thank the House for its indulgence.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present the committee's seventh report of 2012 entitled Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, Bills introduced 29 October-November 2012, Legislative Instruments registered with the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments 17 October-16 November 2012.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—In this seventh report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the committee has considered 17 bills introduced during the period 29 October to 1 November 2012 and 145 legislative instruments registered between 17 October and 16 November 2012.
The committee has decided that six bills do not appear to raise human rights concerns and has commented on or sought further information in relation to the remaining 11 bills The committee has sought further information in relation to two legislative instruments and has decided to include three instruments that relate to the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 in its detailed examination of that package of related legislation.
The committee has commented on two instruments and has identified 37 instruments that do not appear to raise any human rights concerns but are accompanied by statements of compatibility that fall short of the committee's expectations. The committee will send advisory letters to the relevant ministers in relation to these.
I take this opportunity to report to the House on the committee's work to date.
In my first statement on behalf of the committee in June this year, I provided an early indication of how the committee was approaching its work. I said at the time that I would make a statement to the House at the end of the year to provide greater clarity around the committee's approach and working practices.
This committee has been charged with assisting the parliament to consider human rights in a more systematic, rigorous and consistent way.
It does this by examining legislation against the seven key international human rights instruments specified in section 7 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
This is an evolutionary process for the committee, the parliament and for those who develop policy and draft legislation. We are all coming to grips with the meaning and scope of Australia's human rights obligations and how to apply these obligations in our work in a far more rigorous way than we may have done in the past.
Things have moved on since I made that first statement to the House. The committee still finds the enormity of its workload daunting. Equally daunting is the realisation that to be of real assistance to the parliament the committee must distil human rights principles in a way that is both legally sound and easily understood by lawyers and nonlawyers alike. It is essential that we place this analysis before the parliament in the shortest possible time frame.
T he committee ' s work practices
The difference now is that the committee has established a regular scrutiny and reporting cycle. The committee meets each sitting Tuesday to consider all bills and legislative instruments that have come before the parliament since the committee's last meeting. The committee categorises legislation into three groups:
This is set out in the committee's report that is tabled each sitting Wednesday in both the House and the Senate.
Where the committee examines specific legislation in detail, it may hold public hearings and will publish its conclusions in a stand-alone report. The committee's examination of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Bill 2012, reflected in its fourth report of 2012, is an example of this.
Since June 2012, the committee has considered 87 bills and 566 legislative instruments. Fifty-seven bills and 12 instruments have drawn comment from the committee and the committee has sent advisory letters in relation to a further 183 bills and instruments.
The committee has established a practice of considering related legislation as a package where it considers that the significance and complexity of the engagement of rights warrants this.
The committee is currently examining the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 and the Migration Legislation (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012 and related bills and instruments in this way. The committee aims to complete its detailed examination of the Stronger Futures legislation early in the new year. The committee will shortly convene public hearings to assist in its examination of the migration legislation regional processing package. The committee aims to complete this work early in 2013.
There are two key benefits to this approach.
Firstly, it enables the committee to assess human rights compatibility on the basis of an understanding of the complete legislative package.
Secondly, it enables the committee to contribute to a broader understanding of thematic human rights issues while still maintaining a practical focus.
The role of legal advice
The committee has ensured that it has access to specialist human rights law advice. The recent appointment of Professor Andrew Byrnes as external legal adviser will bolster the expertise available to the committee through its secretariat. Professor Byrnes is a professor of international law at the University of New South Wales and brings with him significant human rights law experience.
The committee has a clearer understanding of how its role sits alongside the legal advice it receives and now has a degree of experience in considering questions of human rights compatibility.
There is clearly a need for the committee's deliberations to be underpinned by appropriate legal advice to assist with the accurate identification of the rights engaged by legislation and the appropriate interpretation of Australia's human rights obligations as expressed in the seven human rights covenants.
However, the question of compatibility invariably turns on the extent to which a proposed limitation on rights is justifiable—that is, whether it addresses some compelling social purpose and whether the limitation is rationally connected to this objective. In other words, a limitation should be reasonable, necessary and proportionate. These are assessments that all parliamentarians are well equipped to make.
S tatements of compatibility
The starting point for the committee's consideration of most bills and legislative instruments is the statement of compatibility and the committee has very clear expectations of these statements, as set out in its first practice note. The committee approaches its consideration of statements of compatibility in the same way that it hopes ministers, members and senators approach the drafting of them.
The statement of compatibility contains an assessment of the extent to which the legislation engages human rights. Where limitations on rights are proposed, the committee looks for clear and adequate justification for such limitations and the extent to which there is a rational connection between the limitation and a legitimate policy objective. The committee then considers whether and how the limitation is proportionate to that objective.
While statements of compatibility provide a starting point for the committee's work, the committee does not accept statements at face value. The committee looks beyond the stated intention of the legislation to consider the likely effect of the legislation. The committee seeks to understand whether decisions to limit rights are evidence based. Where the committee considers that further information is required to assist its consideration of the legislation it will write to the proponent of the legislation seeking this.
For the most part, responses to the committee's requests have been timely and comprehensive. However, the committee is still awaiting some responses. Some of these date from the committee's first report in August. The committee has tabled a list of these outstanding responses in its seventh report and hopes that these will soon be forthcoming. I find it disappointing that some ministers, with the resources of a department to assist them, have not responded to the committee's requests in a more timely way. I would like to emphasise that the committee expects a response, even where the legislation has been passed.
The fact that legislation predates the requirement for a statement of compatibility, or is exempt from that requirement, does not prevent the committee from considering its human rights compatibility. In such circumstances the committee will write to the proponent of the legislation and invite them to provide information regarding the human rights compatibility of the legislation.
Best practice suggests that statements of compatibility should accompany all bills and instruments, whether they fall within the requirement or not.
This requirement to produce a statement of compatibility is having tangible results. It is clear that government agencies and ministers are gradually getting better at thinking about human rights impacts as part of the legislative process.
The committee hopes that by increasing awareness of human rights impacts we will reach a point where consideration of human rights will be a natural part of all policy and legislative processes.
Ideally, the committee will be able to rely on the justification and analysis provided in the statement of compatibility without seeking further information.
However, the committee accepts that this is an evolutionary process and is committed to working with ministers and their departments to achieve this.
T raining and resources
I acknowledge the work undertaken by the Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Human Rights Commission in providing support and training to the public service as it comes to terms with these requirements.
When it launched Australia's Human Rights Framework, the government made a significant commitment to developing an education and training program for the Commonwealth public sector. Since then, over 700 public service officers have received face-to-face training on what human rights are, their basis in international law, and how they can inform the work of the public service.
I recently attended a meeting of the APS Human Rights Network for the launch of an e-learning module entitled 'Human rights are in our hands' and a pocket book entitled Human rights at your fingertips. The e-learning tool provides information about the international human rights system. It is a step-by-step guide to the human rights principles that should be considered in the development of policy and legislation and in the drafting of statements of compatibility. The pocket book will ensure that public sector officers have easy access to Australia's human rights obligations.
These are excellent resource materials. To complement them, the committee proposes to publish further practice notes of its own. The committee intends to review the work it has undertaken in 2012 and publish an annual report early in 2013. As well as setting out the approach the committee has taken to the consideration of specific human rights in the seven reports tabled this year, this review will form the basis for future practice notes.
W orking with other committees
The consideration of the human rights implications of legislation is not solely the responsibility of the PJCHR. The committee appreciates that its work intersects with the work of other parliamentary committees.
In 2013 the committee will focus on working more effectively with these committees, particularly where they have been charged with examining particular bills and instruments. The committee aims to ensure that it draws the attention of these committees to its reports where they are relevant to particular inquiries.
For its part, the committee pays close attention to other committee inquiries so that it can draw on relevant evidence and findings to inform its own work.
This is important for two reasons:
The committee will continue to work at establishing clear and regular communication with parliamentary committees to assist in the examination of human rights issues.
It is equally important for the committee to work effectively alongside the two Senate scrutiny committees. While each has its own specific focus in the scrutiny of legislation, the work of the Scrutiny of Bills, Regulations and Ordinances Committee and the Human Rights Committee is complementary.
The three committees have established a practice of writing to each other to draw attention to comments on particular bills and instruments. On an informal level, the three secretariats work closely together within a Legislative Scrutiny Unit. I hope that we can continue to build on this dialogue in 2013. To this end, the Deputy Chair and I will meet with the two Senate scrutiny committees this week.
In conclusion I would like to acknowledge the committee's debt to all those who have provided advice and signposts throughout our journey. This includes all those who have briefed the committee and those who have written to offer their assistance or draw attention to specific issues.
I said in June that the committee was not setting out into uncharted territory. It follows a number of similar committees, including the ground-breaking Joint Committee on Human Rights in the United Kingdom.
The advice and good will extended to the committee by so many has enabled it to learn from the experience of these committees and begin to formulate its own, distinctly Australian, approach to its task.
In this regard the committee iterates its gratitude to the members of the committee secretariat. Their diligence, devotion to and enthusiasm for their tasks is greatly appreciated and admired.
Finally, I thank my colleagues on the committee. Their preparedness to approach this awesome task with commitment and zeal, and as parliamentarians rather than politicians, has enabled the committee to make sure strides in this initial period and augurs well for the next phase of the journey.
by leave—I rise to support and acknowledge the chair's tabling statement, which identifies the work of the committee and its achievements thus far, as well as the intent of the work that we will undertake over the next 12 months, or for the duration of this parliament. Whilst the committee found the workload daunting, it nevertheless turned its focus with a high degree of rigour and attention to detail of the legislation and to the requirements requested and expected of us in the context of the act. The committee will work to ensure that human rights principles are considered by all who are involved in the legislative process. Increasing awareness of human rights will engender an established process of best practice at all levels that will be readily applied to all policy and legislative processes required to be undertaken.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights plays a significant role in developing a broader awareness of human rights within the Australian parliament, the Australian Public Service and, ultimately, the broader community. The level of support and stewardship of the chair has ensured that the task we have been given remains challenging but achievable in the context of the way we work. I support the chair's comment that the members of the committee have worked as parliamentarians rather than politicians in delivering the report and the statement that have been heard in the House today.
I rise to speak on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012, the National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 1) and the National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 2). Here we go again—another flawed piece of ill-considered legislation rushed through the parliament without due consultation. It is typical of what we have seen from this government, because this legislation will cause harm while failing to address the mischief it is meant to tackle. This legislation will not do anything to help problem gamblers, but it will add an estimated billion dollars of unnecessary cost to the gaming industry. And where will this money, this billion dollars in extra costs, come from? It will come from local charities and from the pockets of local sporting groups and community organisations.
It is interesting to go through the genesis of the main bill. In order to form government, as we all know, after conning the Australian public on the eve of the last election with that infamous promise, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' this Prime Minister entered into negotiations with the member for Denison—and I acknowledge his presence in the chamber today as well as his concern about helping people who are addicted to gambling.
The result of those negotiations was this written agreement I am holding up, between our Prime Minister and the member for Denison, which is about as solemn and formal a document as you can get in our parliament. It is not surprising that the member for Denison sought to get this in writing, given the Prime Minister's track record on the broken 'no carbon tax' promise.
I have the agreement here. In clause 7, from 7.1 to 7.8, the details are set out of the promises made by the member for Denison and the Prime Minister. At the bottom, it says, 'Signed this day, the second of September 2010,' and then there is the signature of 'the Hon. Julia Gillard MP, Prime Minister'. We all know how meaningless this signature is: it is just as meaningless as the Prime Minister's statement that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. It is simply worthless, as the good member for Denison was later to find out. Just as the Australian people were completely betrayed by PM over the carbon tax, being punished with the world's largest carbon tax, the PM also betrayed the member for Denison over this written agreement.
I will quote a statement made by the member for Denison on the ABC news on 22 January 2012. Referring to the government's plan—this legislation—the member for Denison said:
It is so different that today I have withdrawn my support from the Gillard government. … The Prime Minister made a deal with me, she signed it, and I think Australians expect her—even if they disagree with the content of that deal—to honour that deal.
Frankly, a deal is a deal. I think that our democracy is too precious to be trashed with broken promises and backroom deals.
Senator Xenophon also made some comments on this in an article published in the Sun Herald on 23 January 2012. In that article, he said:
By betraying Andrew Wilkie, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has shown a written, signed agreement with her is as worthless as her word. Don't be fooled by her pathetic claims that she is adopting any real reform. Her plan is a smokescreen that relies on a future government in 2016 to implement any precommitment. (I think we can safely assume that won't be a government Julia Gillard leads.)
Labor has been so obsessed with internal party politics that it forgot about the people it was meant to be protecting. It is a sad but all too familiar pattern of mendacious conduct by this Prime Minister and this government, which will do anything to cling to power.
Moving on to the details of this bill, firstly this bill will require new electronic gaming machines manufactured or imported from the end of next year to be capable of supporting precommitment. Further, all gambling machines will be part of a state-wide precommitment and will be required to display electronic warnings by 2016, with a slightly longer implementation timeline for small venues only. There will be a $250-a-day ATM withdrawal limit for gaming venues other than casinos, which are exempt. It will also create a new government bureaucracy—something that this government is highly skilled at—a federal gaming regulator. This bill also provides that that regulator may charge fees for services and establish two new levies to support measures in this package. Effectively, this legislation is an opportunity for the government to create a new tax on our gaming industry.
Then there is the complete nonsense of the ACT trial. Why have a trial if you have already legislated that gaming machines must have certain new technology? It is like a factory starting production of a good before they have even built or tested a prototype. With this bill, the trial becomes a complete nonsense. And it is absolutely pointless to have a trial here in the ACT when someone can simply jump in their car, drive across the border in 10 to 15 minutes to Queanbeyan, where the trial will not apply; where the precommitment will not apply. The trial in the ACT is a complete and utter nonsense.
The other problem with this is the unrealistic time frame that this bill imposes. That runs completely contrary to the expert advice from the Productivity Commission, which stated:
Realistically, most State and Territory governments could not quickly implement a genuinely binding pre-commitment system. Full-scale implementation and advanced interfaces with the gambler would also require all machines to have card readers (or other player identification devices) and software upgrades—a costly measure if required to be done quickly.
The time line that this bill imposes is a reckless rejection of the advice of the Productivity Commission.
Furthermore, the government is ignoring the technical evidence received by suppliers of gaming technology such as the Gaming Technologies Association, which suggested that the timelines for implementation could not be achieved, not least because the term 'precommitment' is not even clearly defined. It is important to note that the Gaming Technologies Association, which is the sole body with expertise in this area, categorically stated that the implementation timelines cannot be met. In a letter dated 22 November—only last week—from the Gaming Technologies Association addressed to Minister Jenny Macklin, they said:
GTA has repeatedly put on the public record the processes necessary to make changes of such significance at a national level. Once the Regulations, definitions, functional specifications and technical standards are in place, then GTA's members will require at least 12 months development time for changes at the machine level …
The 12 months development time above does not take into account the time needed for changes to the plethora of state-wide monitoring systems, casino management systems and venue loyalty systems. In addition, it does not take into account the complexity and potential delays which might arise at the State and Territory regulatory level …
And it goes on. GTA called on the government to amend the bill. This government simply cannot ignore this evidence. With this government ignoring important evidence from technical experts, is it any wonder that it is known for its reverse Midas touch, where everything it touches completely turns to mush?
This bad policy will cost the clubs billions of dollars to implement. Rather than them updating their gambling machines every 10 years or so, this legislation will force them to upgrade all their machines in just a few years time. And of course this has a cost. Who is going to pay for it? It will simply come from the pockets of local sporting groups and local charities.
This year, Club Central Menai, which is located in my electorate of Hughes, gave a donation of $400,000 to the Sylvanvale Foundation and a further donation of $1 million to Calvary Health Care—a total of $1.4 million to provide respite care for children with disabilities. Donations of this kind are at risk because clubs will be forced to divert money that they are giving for this type donation to upgrade their machines to something that is completely useless.
Then there is the list of other, smaller grants going to so many local sporting groups in my area, which will all be at risk because of this ill-considered generation. I will go through some of the groups whose donations and money that ClubGRANTS distributes is at risk. Sporting groups such as the Barden Ridgebacks Football Club, the Barden Ridgebacks Netball Club, the Bangor Barden Ridge Comets Cricket Club, the Bangor Football Club, the Menai District Junior Rugby League, the Menai Dragons Basketball Club, the Menai Hawks Football Club, the Menai Illawong Physical Culture Club, the Menai Swim Club, the Menai Volleyball Association, St Patricks Soccer Club, the Comets Baseball Club, Illawong Softball Club et cetera. Then there are the community groups and charities that are at risk of losing their donation because of this legislation. They include—and this is just from Club Central Menai in my electorate: Autism Spectrum Australia, Alzheimer's Australia, Australian Red Cross, Cure For Life Foundation, Enough is Enough Anti Violence Movement, the Lions Club of Menai, Make-A-Wish Foundation, the Starlight Children's Foundation, the Children's Hospital at Westmead, the Wesley Mission, the Salvation Army, the Prostate Cancer Institute, the Rotary Club of Engadine, the Rotary Club of Menai—the list goes on. All of these organisations will be at risk because the clubs will be forced to divert money that goes to these associations to bring in this new technology that is being rushed through.
What is it for? To bring in mandatory precommitment—an idea for which there is no evidence that it even works. The reason this will not work is that a player can set any limit that they want. Someone who is a problem gambler can set a $1,000 or $2,000 limit—any limit they want, well above what they can afford to spend. If someone feels they cannot control the urge to put an unlimited amount of money down the throat of a poker machine, the solution is simple—they take a limited amount of cash with them to their club or their pub and they leave their cash card at home.
This does nothing for internet gambling. Today you can sit in the comfort of your home and you can play on the internet exactly what looks and feels like a poker machine. In fact, here it is, Mr Deputy Speaker Murphy—I have logged straight on to the internet. You can sit there and press the button and you can play a gambling machine that looks exactly like a poker machine from the comfort of your home. Of course, when you do that there are none of the counselling services available that our clubs and pubs provide. No tax is paid to the Australian government. There is no support service. The money simply goes straight overseas.
We have seen this failed idea happen in exactly the same way with the alcopops tax. We saw where the government thought, 'We normally have a problem here with people drinking pre-mixed spirits, so we will increase the tax on alcopops.' But what happened? Consumers simply moved and bought a bottle of bourbon and a bottle of Coke and they mixed it themselves. The risk is of the same thing happening here, where people will move to online gambling.
I believe that there is a better way. I genuinely admit that there is a major problem with gambling for some Australians, but we must also acknowledge that many Australians do love a punt, because ultimately gambling is a form of entertainment. The best way to tackle this is with informational remedies. A person playing a poker machine today has no idea what the rate of return is that they are playing. They can be playing two identical machines, side by side, which can be set at different rates of return without the player knowing. If we bring in these informational remedies they will cost an absolute fraction of what these costs are; it has been shown that the best way to cure addictions is through informational remedies and counselling. That is a better way. We bring these informational remedies in, we bring in price mechanisms into the club, and that would be a better way to tackle problem gambling. Time expired.
This parliament presents an historic opportunity for poker machine reform, and it is vitally important that we seize this opportunity and that we put our support behind the government's package of reforms in the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012, the National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 1) 2012 and National Gambling Reform (Related Matters) Bill (No. 2) 2012 before us now. Yes, the reforms on the table now are much less than what might have been—much less than the one-dollar maximum bets recommended by the Productivity Commission in 2010 and which I tried to secure immediately following the election, also in 2010. Yes, they are much less than the rollout of mandatory precommitment also recommended by the Productivity Commission in 2010 in which the Prime Minister agreed to personally but then walked away from in January this year. Despite all that, I believe these bills have merit and are worth supporting. They are worth supporting not because voluntary precommitment is much use, but rather because the bills make explicit in section 33 of the principal bill that the precommitment to be rolled out must be capable of disallowing unregistered play. In other words, it must be capable of mandatory precommitment at the flick of a switch—as the expression goes. This is very important, because all it would take in the future is for a federal, state or territory government of good heart to flick that switch and in doing so finally provide one of the most effective harm-minimisation measures available.
These bills are also worth supporting because they will finally establish the precedent of federal intervention in poker machine regulation. That is important because all of the states and territories, with the exception of Western Australia, have shown that they simply cannot be trusted when it comes to regulating their poker machine industries, or when it comes to implementing meaningful reforms to protect gamblers from the scourge of problem gambling. It seems the rivers of fool's gold in poker machine taxation revenue are just too attractive for the states and territories, even though quality research out of Tasmania this year has shown that the cost to the community of problem gambling is as much as twice the tax collected.
I understand that the numbers are tight for these bills, in part because many of the members and parties in this place are every bit as conflicted as their state and territory colleagues. For instance, the opposition opposes the bills for political reasons, even though voluntary precommitment is in fact their policy. Any number of members throughout this place do not like these bills, and many members will indeed vote against them, because those members are effectively on the payroll of the pokies industry on account of the fat donations they have received already or have been promised. In my opinion, that is corruption—not, of course, in the criminal sense, but it is every bit as dodgy as bags full of cash changing hands in some corrupt developing country.
Of course, politicians on the take are just a part of this story, because the real villains are the greedy poker machine barons who lie and bully to get their way, determined to do almost whatever it takes to fleece the unfortunate and to protect their profits. Make no mistake: we are not talking here about harmless recreation or quaint little businesses. No, we are often talking about big business, as illustrated by the fact the Productivity Commission found that in 2008-09 some $11.9 billion was lost on the pokies in this country.
A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have reflected on the comments made by the member for Denison and I believe they are offensive to me. He is implying that I am involved in, to use his word, 'corruption'. I ask that he withdraw it.
The member for Denison?
I have been very careful not to level that accusation at any member. I was very careful to say corruption not in the criminal sense but every bit as 'dodgy'—that was the word I carefully chose—as the way cash changes hands in a developing country.
I thank the member for Denison.
So we are often talking about big business, as illustrated by the fact the Productivity Commission found that in 2008-09 some $11.9 billion was lost on the pokies in this country. How much of this was lost by problem gamblers, I ask? Some $5 billion. Yes, that is right—some $5,000 million was lost by problem gamblers in just one year. Yet the industry says that spending just a fraction of one year's loss, spread across a number of years, is unacceptable. That is unadulterated hogwash. What about the people involved, I ask the industry? What about the 95,000 Australians with a poker machine gambling problem? What about the five to 10 people affected by each one of those problem gamblers who push the number knocked around by poker machines into a million plus? What about the mums and dads, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters? What about the bosses, colleagues and friends?
To the parties and members in this place who will oppose these bills, I ask: how on earth can you put money ahead of people? I also ask: what do you say to the constituent who has spent eight years in jail on account of poker machine related crime, or to the taxpayers who paid for it, or to the hospital patients who went without timely treatment because the money that might have gone into health care went into the prison service instead? Or will the pokies industry donation to your next election campaign make it all worthwhile? What do you say to the constituent who has been spending the housekeeping money on her pokies addiction and keeping it secret from her partner and who has now run up a $6,000 Aurora power bill and finally, after repeated warnings and four failed payment plans, had the power cut off? What will you say to the children if child protection takes them from their parents? Or, again, are you okay with all that because the pokies industry election donation will take the edge off your sadness?
To those who would vote against these bills, I also ask: what do you say to the constituent whose employee had been stealing from the till for so long that their business failed and they were bankrupted? How do you reckon they felt when they lost their house—or do you actually have no idea or interest, the more pressing issue for you being the concern that your local pokies venues learn quickly of your loyalty this week and donate handsomely to your re-election account?
Finally, what do you say to the man who emailed me last year to tell me about his brother, who lost the lot at Crown Casino, again, and who then went upstairs to his free room—supplied because he was a 'good customer'—only to kill himself because he could not handle the misery of his terrible pokies addiction any longer? Would you say it was his own fault for not being responsible for his actions? Perhaps you would look concerned, wring your hands theatrically and mutter something about Crown being a responsibly run venue employing a great many people. Maybe you are already a beneficiary of Crown's largesse, or maybe you are not and are hoping like hell the casino empire notices your loyalty this week. But just watch out, because you may well go to hell.
In any case, don't turn around and say the pokies industry is doing a better job than it is given credit for and that it is committed to reform, because frankly that would be crap. For a moment at least, spare a thought for the witness who appeared before the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform this year who recounted how she had frequented almost daily one of three pokies venues in South Australia during more than a decade of poker machine problem gambling and who was never once approached by a staff member about her gambling problem. In other words, all they ever cared about was her money—bastards. And, for the record, that was the New York Bar and Grill, the Flagstaff Hotel and the Tonsley Hotel.
These are venues run by the same sorts of characters who run Clubs New South Wales and Clubs Australia and who threatened to sue me last year and who are yet to withdraw that threat. I say to the poker machine industry: well may you continue to try and silence your opponents, but eventually the reformers will win. In fact, they are winning. Mark my words: those who fight for change will win and the pages of history will justly condemn those who have stood in their way.
Mind you, Deputy Speaker, there are already plenty of books full of stories about poker machines and the case against the current pokies industry—like the benchmark 2010 Productivity Commission report, which has been central to the political and public debate raging over poker machine reform these last two years. There are also the four reports which have now been brought down by the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform—and again I thank the committee secretariat and, in particular, Committee Secretary Lyn Beverley for their assistance progressing the issue of gambling reform in often controversial and difficult circumstances.
Notable also are the recent study out of Victoria which found problem gambling to be the second most prevalent cause of crime after drugs and the 2008 study commissioned by the Tasmanian government which found that employment in pubs actually fell after the introduction of poker machines, making a mockery of all the recent nonsense about poker machine reform being a job killer. Frankly, there are not many jobs in emptying machines of cash and turning the lights out for four hours or so a day, which is what is done in many pokies venues. Or maybe it is the unpleasant job of cleaning the carpet and stools of the urine left by the problem gamblers desperate to stay at their machines where all these jobs the industry keeps talking about are to be found.
I will not go on, because by now I reckon everyone knows where I land on the need for poker machine reform and the fact that I will support the government's bills. But I would add that I will not support any significant further watering down of the reforms, and in particular I will not support any attempt to remove the crucial section 33, where the requirement is detailed that the precommitment to be rolled out must be mandatory-ready. Those two paragraphs, just nine lines, are the heart of this reform and must be preserved.
It is obviously now up to the parliament to decide this matter. I can only hope there are enough men and women of genuine goodwill to see these bills proceed. If not, if these bills are voted down, then this parliament should stand condemned for failing the Australian community and failing it very badly. But I do not think that will happen. I think instead that, despite the shortcomings of these reforms, we are actually about to see a moment this parliament can be proud of.
In closing, I recognise the Reverend Tim Costello, who joined us here in the gallery for a short while, who leads the Churches Gambling Taskforce and has been a very strong voice for gambling reform. Thank you, Tim, for being here today and thank you for what you do to help some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the country.
What an extraordinary speech that was by the member for Denison on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and the two related bills. In fact, I would put it as one of the most extraordinary speeches that I have heard in this chamber—not on the basis of its soundness and not on the basis of its dispassionate approach to good public policy and good policy advocacy but on the basis that it was so completely filled with sanctimony and moral superiority and an attitude that if you are not with me then you are part of some evil cohort destined to ruin the lives of thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Australians.
Let me make it very clear from the outset that I stand here as someone who is concerned about problem gambling, despite the empty rhetoric that comes from the member for Denison. I challenge the member for Denison, and indeed all of those who wring their hands in this chamber and outside this chamber and claim that they have moral superiority when it comes to being concerned about the lives and the families of problem gamblers. They do not. The reason they do not is that this is not a choice between black and white; this is not a choice between saying, 'I stand with the families of problem gamblers,' or, 'I stand with those that are involved in the industry.' It is much more sophisticated than that. It is much more grey than that. It is much more complex than that.
The attitude of the member for Denison, like that of many in this debate, betrays the problem gamblers that he tries to assist. Not once did I hear the member for Denison make reference to the personal internal challenges that those who struggle with addiction must face. Instead, we heard a litany of gross overexaggerations from the member for Denison about how the problem is the evil industry that causes these issues. That is the betrayal of the problem gamblers that the member for Denison and others seek to help.
The problem with the approach that has been adopted by the speaker previous to me is this: while he expresses profound concern about the devastating impact of problem gambling, I do not hear the member for Denison—or other advocates out there—adopting the same approach with those who are, for example, addicted to alcohol. I believe the impact of alcoholism is as strong on those individuals and their families as the impact of pokie addiction. I also do not hear the member for Denison and others going out there and talking about people's addiction to food. There are people who are morbidly obese. The cost to the public payroll as a consequence of that morbid obesity is significant and profound. Believe you me, a father or mother upon whom a family is dependent who dies of a heart attack or stroke at 40 years of age leaves just as much of a hole in their family's lives as does a pokie addict who unfortunately takes their own life. But there are no claims from the member for Denison or others about those that are addicted to food. There is no finger-pointing at the industry, no-one saying that the industry is the problem.
Let us continue the madness of the approach that is put forward by the member for Denison and others. What about those who are addicted to credit card shopping? There are people who get over their heads when it comes to the amount of money they put on their credit cards. I would suggest the number of Australians indebted on their credit cards because they cannot control their spending would far exceed the numbers of Australians who are addicted to poker machines. Where is the focus on the industry when it comes to those who cannot control their spending on credit cards? There is no mention. They are apparently not victims, nor are those who are morbidly obese, nor are those who are alcohol dependent. Instead, there is this complete preoccupation, driven by the member for Denison and others, about poker machines.
It is not that simple. Apart from the glaring hypocrisy of singling out one particular industry over a multitude of others, each with almost equal, if not more significant, impacts on taxpayer dollars, the reality is that that is all conveniently brushed aside by those who like to pretend that this is all about the evils of the club industry and the hotel industry. Well, it is not. It is certainly not that. There are of course some irresponsible operators. I am not going to pretend that there are not. But I also sincerely believe that the industry labels them irresponsible operators and the industry works in a constructive way in an attempt to ensure that those people do not continue to operate in the industry. Why? Because it is uncommercial, in the first instance. Even if that is not a good enough reason, even if profit motive is not a good enough reason, I also believe it is because, at their core, these people who make decisions have families and these are community clubs that benefit their community, and they know the negative outcomes that flow from operators that are irresponsible.
So, on a number of levels, I reject completely the approach of and, most importantly, the sanctimony that comes from the member for Denison, because it is a fraud perpetrated on problem gamblers. They need to see through the rhetoric that we hear from the member for Denison. Frankly, the comments about and accusations made against members of parliament on either the Labor side or the coalition side that in some way we sell out our point of view on the basis of electoral donations is an absolutely shameful and disgusting comment to make. It strikes me that the member for Denison likes to throw out these allegations but when it comes to standing up and backing it up he runs for the hills, not even having the courage—and I know exactly what the member for Denison was saying—to stand up to the comments he made only a minute earlier.
Mr Wilkie interjecting—
You had your opportunity! I think the member for Denison needs to realise that he needs to follow through. It is one thing to stand here in cowards castle, as we call it, and to level accusations at Labor members and at coalition members, but it is an entirely separate thing to back it up. I say to the member for Denison: if you have an ounce of backbone, if you have any evidence, go out there and say it. Do not cast aspersions in this chamber. Do not make accusations without having the backbone, the spine, to support your comments, because those comments are disgraceful.
I note, in addition to that, that the member for Denison has Betfair in his constituency. I do not see too much concern expressed by the member for Denison for those that are engaged in Betfair's exchanges. Likewise, I note that the member for Denison and Senator Nick Xenophon, the No Pokies party senator, are very happy to stand alongside GetUp! They are very happy, when it comes to measures like this bill, to stand alongside an organisation like GetUp! What do we know about GetUp!? Its principal financial backer is actually a key supporter and one of the founders or operators of a thing called NextGen Gaming, one of the biggest operators of not EGMs but online poker machines. They are happy to take the money from an online poker machine operator. They are happy to stand alongside NextGen and GetUp!
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. That was an outrageous accusation. I have never received a cent from the GetUp! organisation. I want that recorded in the Hansard, please, and I would ask the member for Moncrieff to correct what he has just said.
The member for Denison will resume his seat.
I said that they are happy to stand beside GetUp!, because they have done joint doorstops and numerous media campaigns with GetUp! In fact, GetUp! and Senator Xenophon stood alongside each other at the Woolworths AGM only a week or two ago.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am reluctant; I know that this is a very passionate debate. But I would ask you to draw the member back to the content of the bill, please.
The parliamentary secretary will resume her seat.
It is clear to me, and let us just make the record very clear on this as well, that problem gamblers have a problem by definition in the same way that alcoholics do, in the same way that people who spend more than they can afford on their credit cards do and in the same way that people who are morbidly obese do. They all have problems. In fact, I think it would be a human condition. We could say that each of us does, and they are personal challenges that we must overcome. To suggest that there is a silver-bullet solution in legislation like that before the House today is to betray the problem at the core of this issue.
For that reason, we are bound in our obligation to the Australian people to make policy decisions based upon good and sound public policy, reasoned public policy, recognising that the decisions we make in this chamber have a profound impact in the community. We do not do it on the basis of some simplified, distilled-down view of the world that says it is industry or it is the problem gambler. We owe it to those who are affected to do it on the basis of sound public policy. Sound public policy, when you scrutinise this legislation, does not support the case for this legislation.
First and foremost, the reason why this legislation is not a panacea is that it is undeliverable. For those that manufacture EGMs, for the industry that employs roughly 200,000 Australians, for the industry that supports community clubs throughout the country, for the industry that provides a great deal of recreation for millions of Australians—very few of whom have a problem when it comes to controlling their gambling—the consequences of this legislation are significant. This legislation—which, by the way, was slammed through the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform with one day of hearings—is going to massively impact on the ability of this industry to keep people in jobs, to continue to invest in local communities and to continue to operate for the benefit of employees, employers and the community.
The member for Denison and others would say, 'Well, I don't care. If there's a consequence to that I don't care, because this legislation has got to go through, because we've got to be seen to be doing something. Even if it's not everything I want, it's better to do something than it is to do nothing.' Well, I am not sure that is the case. Industry has made clear that this legislation will not be able to be complied with in the timeframes that have been assigned to it. In the first instance there was confusion, and I would suggest that the member for Denison, based upon questions that he asked in the committee hearing, was confused about this exact matter.
For starters, new games that have to be applied across EGMs require regulatory approval from state and territory based regulators, and in order to be compliant with this legislation new games will require approval, effectively, within 12 months. That is almost impossible for the industry to deliver, because they rely upon the regulators approving the development of new games. So the industry has a gun held at their heads saying, 'You must comply and roll out new EGMs in 12 months that have regulatory approval. Oh, by the way, we haven't spoken in any meaningful way with state government regulators.' We had the South Australian regulator indicate that the department had not even spoken to them about what the requirements were going to be.
We have an industry employing 200,000 people. We have the threat of significant job losses. We have small clubs being forced to engage in expenditure that, in many instances, is likely to drive those clubs to the wall, but apparently that does not matter. Apparently it is the better to do something than to do nothing. What we are seeking to do as a coalition is to say that the timeframes in this legislation are unrealistic and undeliverable. In fact, the timeframes in this legislation are not even in accordance with what the Productivity Commission recommends. The question would be: on what basis were the timeframes altered? Were they altered because it is good for industry? No. Were they altered because this government has more superior insight to the problem than the Productivity Commission? No. They were altered for one reason, and one reason alone, and that is the member for Denison. That is reason the timeframes on the legislation were altered.
I say to the member for Denison in the concluding moments of this debate: the families of problem gamblers are important, but just as important are the families of employees in the pub and club sector. These are families who rely on a breadwinner with a job in the pub or club industry that helps to pay the mortgage for those families. You will not help the family of a problem gambler by putting an employee or by putting a family on the breadline, on the dole, when it comes— (Time expired)
Government members interjecting—
Emotions seem to have bubbled up in this debate. That is very interesting. Who has moral supremacy? Who is sanctimonious? It gets a bit rude when it is done in such an unctuous way. I have to return to my electorate where problem gambling is front and centre, and I have to be judged by my actions. Those opposite suddenly think that this is all about the parliament suddenly becoming anti an industry—clubs and hotels—and that we have painted them with devil tails and horns. I know that people I represent work in that industry, and I hold nothing against that industry. In fact, I am of an age to understand that that industry has been pretty flexible and has always been profitable. I suggest, Deputy Speaker, that you may also be of an age that understands that hotels were profitable before they were allowed to have poker machines.
I am not standing here asking that the poker machines be ripped out. I remember that, as a young exchange student in the US state of Maryland, I was taken to a dining institution because the crabs of Chesapeake Bay were supposed to be a great cultural experience for me. As I went into the great hall, where the crabs were piled up and you were given a bib and got the shells all over you, we passed through the gaming room. The old one-armed bandits were in the gaming room. But for every one-armed bandit there were two spots where there had been one-armed bandits. Now, without divulging my age at the time, this was the late sixties. So these debates have been going on for ages. With all due respect to the member for Denison, in this place the debates did not start when he arrived.
In its present iteration and in the previous contributions to this debate the Productivity Commission's inquiry was mentioned, but we must remember that that was the Labor government as formed in the last parliament which instituted that. Certainly, the member for Denison, as a great catalyst, focused more attention on what we could do to mitigate the issue of problem gambling, The one thing that the member for Denison said, which I agree with totally, was that no matter what we think of this piece of legislation, no matter if we think it is inadequate, it is the first time we have seen the intervention of the national parliament to address this problem.
To the member for Moncrieff: of course there is no silver bullet. There is no silver bullet for most problems we confront. But all we are saying is that this is an example of where we are willing to say, as a national government and as a national parliament, that (a) we think this is a problem and (b) we want to start on a journey to see if we can do something to lessen the effects of problem gambling, not only on the problem gamblers themselves but, even more importantly, on their families and the communities in which those people live.
The part where there is the flexibility, the part where we can be sure that things will survive, is the broader umbrella of the industry. But it is not the hotel and clubs industry that this is confronting. This is confronting poker machines. And why should we confront that? At least we do not have the nonsense so far in this debate that this is in some way nanny state legislation, because that was one of the things on which in my previous role in this place I decided I could not be silent on on a piece of public policy. There were two reasons for this. There was the argument that all of this was nanny state—that we were telling people what they could do with their own lives—and, secondly, that from a Commonwealth point of view it is best if we just encourage the communities themselves to make a solution.
Let's get this straight: this becomes a problem because the state, whether it is the Commonwealth government or state and territory governments, creates legal gambling—in this case, legal gambling through electronic machines. So it is the business of government to be concerned about what that initiative creates.
The second thing is the assumption that all is really happy out in the world because we have people who know of these problems and they are tapping people on the shoulder and saying, 'Do you realise what you are doing to yourself?' For a decade in the City of Whittlesea, one of the municipalities in my electorate, there has been a responsible gaming forum, underpinned by a document called the Responsible Gaming Strategy. This group had representatives from gaming venues throughout the municipality, from non-government organisations that dealt with the problems that arose out of people's misuse of machines and from the local government authority itself. In the early days it appeared that slowly but surely some things were occurring. But it did not last long. Sadly, in the last month we have seen the non-government organisations walk away from the group because they do not believe that the venue operators will sit down with them and tackle in an appropriate way the issues that need to be discussed.
It is not about trying to destroy something. It is about saying something. In the last contribution I heard talk of irresponsible gaming venues. I agree that there are probably very few of those, but what worries me is that even the most responsible of venues, working as they are under the regulations they have to work within and under the laws, cannot be standing alongside everybody as they interact with these machines. That is a nonsense.
We have to acknowledge that there is great evidence of the scourge of problem gambling, and it is something that happens at a cost not only to the individuals and their families but also at a cost to the community and to government, both of which have to pick up the pieces. Even if you take the most economic rationalist view to this, or if you are a bean counter in east block or west block or wherever Finance is, you have to start to realise that there is a public benefit to tackling this problem.
And then there are the doomsayers talking about the loss of jobs. Please step back and think about what you are saying. There is the argument about the machines. I must admit that it is a long time since I have been in a gaming venue. I was very worried when smoking was banned from venues, because that was one of the reasons that I never bothered with it—I could not put up with the smoke—and I was a bit worried that I would start to go back, but I have not. But every time you would go to one of them there would be some different animal, beast, sphinx or something that was supposed to attract you with the flashing colours and the music—the whole palaver. Some would say it is the entertainment value. So there is the issue of the flexibility of the way people produce machines and the turnover of machines that already occurs. We have not gone into the fact that there is a lot of tie-up between a very few because of control of the machines. If we had a true debate about the whole industry there are plenty of things we could do on behalf of those who actually operate the venues. Because of the way that any market works, there is not the degree of fair trade that we would like to see.
But I digress a little. The main reason I support this bill is that four hotels in my electorate are among the top 10 hotels for electronic gambling machine turnover in Victoria. When you look at the top venues, you find that their gambling machine turnover is—surprise, surprise!—statistically tied to the socioeconomic disadvantage of the community in which the venues are located. I find it a little bit galling that community damage from problem gambling is most likely to occur in communities that can least afford to be damaged. We should sit down and calmly look at damage to communities from problem gambling and decide whether we: (a) acknowledge the problem; and (b) are willing to do something about it.
There is unlikely to be a book about my time in this place even though people might be very interested in a chapter about the period from late 2011 to the end of my parliamentary career. If people say that this period might be relevant to why we are standing here today debating this bill, I say to them: the book is not going to be produced, so you will never know. Problem gambling is an issue on which it is appropriate for this place to have a view. We should not run around like Henny Penny and say, 'This is the end of clubs in New South Wales and Queensland.' Rather, we should calmly look at what we are going to do about problem gambling, which is acknowledged to be a scourge of individuals and families. Plenty of examples of this scourge have been given in the debate on this bill, and we all know somebody who has fallen foul of being able to get over the urge to see some sort of golden nirvana which they hope will come to them overnight by some great stroke of fortune. If that is entertainment, it is not in accord with any definition of the word I know.
A lot of things in this bill will enable us to test the effectiveness of various measures which people now contest, to see the degree to which various measures can be effective and to impose—without having to worry about the cooperation of venue operators—a limit on ATM withdrawals in venues. A limit to such withdrawals was simply requested, without any dialogue being entered into, at the City of Whittlesea responsible gambling forum, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back there. On balance, I would like to see more done than is envisaged in this bill; but, on the basis that the bill puts us as a federal parliament in the game and we can build on it, I am in full support of it. I, like the member for Denison, hope that we do not see too much tinkering along the way as we produce the final bill. (Time expired)
It is a privilege to follow the member for Scullin in this debate. He is a decent man who gave what I consider to be a passionate speech. However, in this place, while we sometimes make speeches which are based in our hearts, we also give speeches which are based in our heads. I stand here as somebody who is concerned about problem gambling. I do not like the prevalence of pokies in our clubs, in our pubs and in our casinos—and I never will.
The Productivity Commission has found that 600,000 Australians play the pokies on a weekly basis and that 15 per cent of these Australians—some 90,000—are problem gamblers. These figures are too high. Also, there are 200,000 electronic gaming machines across the country, which is a significant number.
In this place we need to advocate for good policy which is efficient and effective and which produces good outcomes, not policy which merely makes us feel good or which we make on the basis of political weakness or some grand political bargain. I have no doubt that the member for Denison passionately believes in his cause. Senator Xenophon in the Senate, along with the member for Denison—and many others like them—are only pursuing the eradication of problem gambling, which they consider to be a vital issue.
I am asked to speak and to vote on the legislation before this House, and it is not good legislation. In fact, it is rushed legislation. It might surprise people listening to his broadcast to know that only one week was allowed for consultation on this bill—only one week was allotted to the presentation of submissions on it. There needs to be a proper inquiry.
We need to allow the states, whose powers are to be usurped by this bill, the opportunity to properly consider its implications. That is what COAG is about—it is a body that brings the Commonwealth and the states and territories together to consider legislation such as this. It does not surprise me that Senator Xenophon, who is so passionate about the issue of problem gambling, said that he is voting against this bill.
We need to trace the origins of the legislation before us. It all started after the election, on 21 August 2010, when the now Prime Minister of this country did not have the numbers on the floor of this House to form a government. So what did she do? She reached out to the Independents to get their vote, and the member for Denison responded in kind. He put in requests for hundreds of millions of dollars of government money—of taxpayers' money—for his electorate. And he struck a deal—what he considered to be a deal—with the Prime Minister, in which he was promised her government's commitment to mandatory precommitment. It is there in paragraph 7.5 of a document agreed to by the Prime Minister of Australia—an agreement which says that this government will commit to implementing in full a mandatory precommitment policy. And then, after no consideration and no consultation, it was presented to the Australian people as a fait accompli.
I am a member of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform that was asked to look at this mandatory precommitment idea. And so we did. We heard from expert witnesses like Professor Alexander Blaszczynski, Director of the University of Sydney's Gambling Treatment Clinic and Research Unit, who warned that the 'unintended consequence of introducing precommitment devices is the development of a black market in player cards, whereby player cards can be sold or hired to players who have exceeded their personal limits'. Another submission highlighted, 'Nova Scotia in Canada discovered that 37 per cent of players shared their player pre-commitment cards for periods up to one week.'
So there we have it: the Prime Minister of Australia agreeing in writing to a mandatory precommitment scheme in order to win the vote of the member for Denison—a scheme which has been criticised and critiqued by leading professors. It would only be with an Orwellian Big Brother biometric identifier that we would be able to put in place some effective precommitment system. Despite all these legitimate concerns by experts in the field, the Prime Minister proceeded with this mandatory precommitment idea.
Then things started to get rough—the waters started to get rough. The political climate started to turn and the Prime Minister had members on her own side, like the member for Eden-Monaro, coming out and criticising this mandatory precommitment idea. The member for Eden-Monaro said that he had 97 clubs in his electorate—a bellwether seat for the Labor Party and for this parliament—and that we need a solution that will not 'kill' our clubs. Suddenly you had members from the other side, like deer or rabbits in the headlights, going out to public forums in their electorates where thousands of people expressed their concerns with these mandatory precommitment ideas. And so then we had the successor to the carbon tax backflip and the border protection backflip—the mandatory precommitment backflip. Our Prime Minister changed her tune. She suddenly went out and said:
The circumstances in this Parliament are clear … there is not the support in the House of Representatives for the Andrew Wilkie plan …
Hang on! You agreed to Andrew Wilkie's plan. You signed an agreement on Andrew Wilkie's plan—a contract with him. But when the political waters started to get rough, you backed out. Jenny Macklin, minister for families, said, 'We have to work with the parliament that we have'. Come on! You made a deal! You led the Australian people into believing the deal that you were going to deliver mandatory precommitment. Then Mr Wilkie, the member for Denison, came out and said:
… I regard the Prime Minister to be in breach of the written agreement she signed, leaving me no option but to honour my word and end my current relationship with her Government.
Therefore, Mr Wilkie is a man of his word, but the Prime Minister is not.
I am going to leave you with the daddy of them all—with what Senator Xenophon, a man who is passionate about this issue, said. He said:
… Julia Gillard has shown a written, signed agreement with her is as worthless as her word.
In fact, you have to wonder how the remaining independents can trust any assurances they receive from the Prime Minister.
Ms Gillard, it seems, reserves the right to back out of anything if it suits her immediate political interest.
Senator Xenophon continued:
Don't be fooled by her pathetic claims that she is adopting any real reform.
There we have it: the Prime Minister saying that suddenly the mood in the parliament has changed, and Andrew Wilkie backing out of that deal because the Prime Minister did so first. And there we have it: Senator Xenophon saying, 'Don't be fooled by her pathetic claims that she is adopting any real reform.'
No wonder the Prime Minister propped up the member for Fisher, the then Speaker, Peter Slipper. No wonder the Prime Minister propped up Craig Thomson, the member for Dobell. It was all about getting the numbers to roll Andrew Wilkie. That is what those opposite are about: political expediency. They do not care about problem gamblers.
We have before this House legislation which will do three things: it will require that new machines required or imported from the end of 2013 be capable of supporting precommitment; it will require that all gaming machines are part of a state-wide precommitment system and display electronic warnings by 2016, with longer implementation timelines for smaller venues; and it will require a $250-a-day ATM withdrawal limit for gaming venues other than casinos.
We have concerns with this legislation. As I said at the start, when we come into this parliament, our job is not to support feel-good policies; it is to support good policies—policies that produce real outcomes for the Australian people. What we have in this legislation before this House are bills that provide insufficient time for consultation or review. They will have an impact on employment in the hospitality sector, and that impact will be particularly acute in regional and rural areas. There is a lack of time for implementation of these new measures, and those measures will come with a major cost burden. There are going to have to be significant hardware and software upgrades. We heard concerns from constitutional experts that, while gambling should fall under the jurisdiction of the states, this legislation is firmly placing it under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. We have yet to see a demonstration of direct causality between ATMs and problem gambling. The Gaming Technologies Association, the expert peak body for this industry, said categorically that the time lines in this bill cannot be met.
As I said at the start, I am concerned about problem gambling—90,000 problem gamblers, as reported by the Productivity Commission, is too many. We heard from people whose lives have been ruined by gambling. But we are asked to think about how we can best improve the lives of problem gamblers and the answer to that was never going to be the mandatory precommitment policy which was first agreed between the Prime Minister and the member for Denison. We heard expert testimony to that effect. It was never going to work. That does not, however, excuse the Prime Minister and the Labor government for ratting on that deal simply because it did not suit their political purposes.
We need more harm minimisation measures. I am all for that. In fact, one-on-one counselling for people in need is so important. But we also need to breed greater responsibility on a personal level in our community and we need to get help for those people who cannot help themselves. But the legislation before us is a top-down solution to a bottom-up problem. My fear is that, since we have seen so many backflips, about-turns and costly mistakes by this government, the Australian people no longer trust them to deliver good policy in the national interest. We do need to help problem gamblers. We need to find a better way. But that does not mean we support bad legislation.
The National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and related bills, which I strongly support, have been a long time coming. It is worth going through some of the history, particularly as I am following the member for Kooyong. Uncharacteristically for him, his contribution provided more heat than light in explaining the problem and the legislation before the House.
Problem gambling is real and the weight of evidence about the incidence of problem gambling in this country is indisputable. It is true that many Australians enjoy a punt—I am one of them. But it is equally true that gambling is different for the close to half a million Australians who are either at risk of becoming problem gamblers or who already are. For them, their family and their friends, it is no longer about enjoying a punt. They have an addiction. They have a problem.
It has been estimated that the social cost of problem gambling is somewhere in the vicinity of $4.7 billion a year. On average, problem gamblers lose somewhere in the vicinity of $21,000 per year. For anybody, perhaps with the exception of the high rollers of this world, $21,000 a year is a hell of a lot of money. It is money which could be spent on groceries, a new musical instrument for one of the kids, a pair of footy boots or netball shoes, sending kids to school or paying down the family mortgage. Instead, this money, in the vast majority of cases, is being fed into a poker machine and feeding the problem gambler's addiction.
The member for Kooyong, in his fiery contribution, suggested that this parliament was somehow rushing into consideration of this legislation—political amnesia on his part. Like me, he participated in the first inquiry the 43rd Parliament had into the issue of problem gambling and the proposal to introduce mandatory precommitment. If my memory serves me correctly, we visited most of the mainland capitals, as well as Tasmania and other places in between. There were more than 10 to 15 days of public hearings. A weighty report was then considered and debated in this House.
That was neither the first or the last parliamentary inquiry into this technology, nor was it the first or the last inquiry into the proposal to introduce mandatory precommitment. In 2009, the government commissioned the Productivity Commission to conduct an inquiry into problem gambling and its causes, and to propose some solutions. It is the Productivity Commission's recommendation which forms the heart of this legislation before the House. It is true that, upon the conclusion of the 2010 election, the Prime Minister, in good faith, entered into an agreement with the member for Denison in an attempt to deal with both the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and the member for Denison's very real concerns about problem gambling—concerns which are shared, I would have thought, by every right-thinking member in this place.
The heart of that agreement was to put in place the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. It is true that we were unable to implement each and every one of the provisions of that agreement. The sole cause of that lies with those on the other side of the House. It is galling to hear the member for Kooyong and others like him point the finger at this side of the chamber for failing to implement each of the items in the agreement. It is like mugging somebody on the way to the shops and then complaining because they have not come home with the groceries. The sole reason the legislation could not get through the House was that those on the other side said consistently, from the beginning to the end, irrespective of what the evidence was, that they would oppose it. There is a name for that sort of behaviour, there is a name that we give to people who make the sorts of speeches that have just been made by the member for Kooyong, but unfortunately such language is unparliamentary.
At the heart of this legislation is the proposition to enable mandatory precommitment. Mandatory precommitment is a form of technology new in this country but it is based on a very old notion—a notion known by psychologists and economists alike as the Ulysses pact. According to Greek legend, Ulysses was desperate to hear the dulcet tones of the sirens but he knew that exposing himself to the sound of their songs and the vision of the sirens would lead him and his sailors to a terrible death on the rocks. As a remedy, he instructed his sailors to put wax plugs in their ears and to tie him to the mast. He told his sailors not to remove the plugs from their ears and not to untie him from the mast at any cost. That enabled him to sail through the straits and listen to the beautiful songs of the sirens without putting either him or his crew in peril. It was, in effect, a promise to himself to guard against future behaviour which he knew would ruin him—a Ulysses pact. That is at the heart of the precommitment technology.
Nothing could be further from the concept of Big Brother coming in here and telling individuals how to spend their money when we in a free country exercise our own choices on how to spend our money, but it provides punters with a tool to make a present promise to themselves to guard against their future behaviour. Each and every one of those poker machines, after the introduction and full implementation of this legislation, will enable a punter, a poker machine user, to make a promise to themselves about how much money they are willing and able to lose. How much money they are willing and able to lose will be in their control, giving the individual control over how much money they spend and how much money they are willing to lose on a poker machine. When you look at it from that perspective, you would think it was a proposition entirely consistent with Liberal Party philosophy—give the individual the power to choose how they spend their money and the tools with which they can do that. That is at the heart of mandatory precommitment.
We understand it is not a simple matter to provide the thousands and thousands of poker machines in clubs, pubs and casinos with the capacity to do this overnight, which is why we have put in the legislation a timeline that will enable the phase-in of this proposition. New machines manufactured or imported by the end of 2013 must be capable of supporting this precommitment technology. All gaming machines must be a part of a state-wide precommitment system that enables the display of electronic warnings. By 2016, if you are locked in the fury of play, the machine will have to provide some dynamic warning about how much money you have spent and how long you have been playing. We are putting in place longer implementation timelines for smaller venues. In addition, we have put in place a provision that there be a $250-a-day automatic teller machine withdrawal limit. Of course this is not the first case of ATM withdrawal limits in venues which have poker machines—Victoria has already done that. As far as I can see, when that legislation was introduced the sky did not fall in. The sky is still hovering safely above Victoria.
These are all important measures and they deserve the support of every member of this place. There has been some opposition to the provisions, and we have attempted to engage with the industry. I am pleased to say that after some fiery exchanges over the last two years the clubs association has said that clubs support the introduction of voluntary precommitment technology, and we welcome that. Over recent days a furious campaign has been waged by the Australian Hotels Association, and I have found this curious both in its content and its philosophy. A press release from the Victorian branch of the Australian Hotels Association dated 2 December 2011 states:
AHA (Vic) supports the policy of the Baillieu Government to implement a voluntary pre-commitment (VPC) on all gaming machines in Victoria.
That is right—they support the policy of the Baillieu government to do this. The AHA goes on:
Whilst the announced implementation timeframe of 2015/16 is challenging in itself having regard to the required technological development and implementation over a relatively short period of time, such developed and implementation will also be appearing in the period up to and following the August 2012 adoption of the venue owner/operator model of gaming.
They say they are challenged by it but they will be able to meet the requirements—although, apparently, what is a only a challenge and can be done in Victoria is something that is going to make the sky fall in over hotels around the rest of the country.
I fully support the rights and, indeed, the need of businesses like hotels in this country to form a union, to associate with each other and to be able to negotiate, organise and run a hard argument. But it will require them to be consistent, and the sort of stuff that is coming out of the AHA at the moment, regrettably, I would say, is falling a little bit short of the mark.
I return to the point I made at the beginning of my contribution. We have a big problem with problem gambling in this country. We need to do something about it. The various parliamentary committees that have inquired into this matter have heard submission after submission from problem gamblers, who are looking to this parliament and parliaments around the country to act—to act decisively, on the basis of the evidence—and to ensure that we are not creating another generation of problem gamblers in this country. We are not standing here saying that the voluntary precommitment technology will solve all problem gambling; but it will go a long way towards ensuring that we do not create another generation of problem gamblers. I commend the legislation to the House.
I rise to speak on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and cognate bills, and to express my concern that these bills represent a failed attempt to deal effectively with a serious social problem. The gravest outcome of the enactment of these bills will be that this issue of problem gambling will be taken off the political agenda for several years until finally, after data has been collected and analysed and a review committee has written a report, the government of the day will say that these changes did nothing to reduce the incidence of problem gambling.
I wish to make it clear: I am not pro gambling. I certainly do not believe that people who suffer from a gambling addiction should be ignored. As with any addiction, these people need support from their community—not to be demonised or labelled a problem.
Even though the member for Denison said in his speech earlier that I am likely to go to hell for opposing these bills, I greatly respect his efforts and have no doubt that his sincerity is absolute when it comes to using the opportunity of his position to legislate change in this important area. He did a deal with the Prime Minister to support her in return for genuine action on this issue. One year later, the Prime Minister welshed on that deal, showing a lack of sincerity about acting on gambling reform and showing that a written, signed agreement is of no value. However, the scandal surrounding the Health Services Union and the member for Dobell led to a change in the numbers and, suddenly, the Prime Minister was forced to do something on gambling reform to win back the support of the member for Denison. Subsequently, we have been left with this transparent attempt at legislation that will achieve very little in resolving addiction but requires compliance measures that will present a major thorn in the side of club and hotel operators.
Gambling is seen by many as a bit of an Aussie right. Our history books take us back as far as 1798, when the game two-up was played by convicts—a game that has become entrenched in our Anzac tradition. We now have wide-ranging gambling opportunities. Through an increased range of electronic devices, you can now gamble from your phone, from your office or from your car if you are hands-free. Yet the Productivity Commission has estimated that more than 99.4 per cent of Australia's population do not have a gambling addiction. So we are then presented with the question: what can we as policymakers do to provide the support and assistance needed by the remaining 0.6 per cent of Australians?
Some may think that the answer to this question is the development of targeted support programs or perhaps the implementation of evidence based solutions proven to reduce the incidence of problem gambling. Instead, the answer we have here in these bills is to treat 100 per cent of Australians as problem gamblers. On a personal level I might not play poker machines or Keno, or join the weekly poker night at my local pub, but there are many in our society who derive great enjoyment from doing exactly that. For the vast majority, this is a harmless way to wind down at the end of a week, to try their luck and have a bit of fun. For some, however, this pastime has become an addiction. Just like any other kind of addiction, this is a major problem and deserves policy measures that will effectively tackle and prevent the entrenchment and growth of such an addiction. This goal will be supported by additional, better equipped and more effective counselling and support services. A voluntary precommitment scheme like the one already introduced in Victoria may help some of those people to limit their losses, but this is no silver bullet.
As law-makers in this place we must be conscious of the fact that gambling has always been a state power. As a result, each Australian state has its own rules and has developed programs and systems accordingly. Clubs in New South Wales have had electronic gaming machines since 1956—the same year television arrived in Australia. In contrast, no clubs in Western Australia have any pokies. Intervention by the federal parliament in an area traditionally regulated by the states must be as a result of detailed and careful consideration, and based on real evidence.
When you pull back the veneer of these bills you find that they are effectively bills to establish a new tax. We have multiple bills because the legislation is for multiple new taxes. One of the taxes is to recover the costs to the Commonwealth of the administration of these bills. Part of these costs is for the establishment of a new federal bureaucracy to support a new federal gambling regulator. These bills do have a provision for the Commonwealth to delegate the regulatory function to the states and territories, although there is no assurance that the Commonwealth would in fact give up this power.
The funding of this new federal regulator through a new tax is a clever legislative trick to allow the Commonwealth to draw on its taxation powers in the Constitution and therefore avoid claims that federal intervention in gambling is unconstitutional. The other tax is recognition that the Commonwealth cannot actually mandate particular activities in this area. Instead, the government has invented a new big tax that will be paid by anyone who does not comply with the new compliance standards.
The other constitutional power used is a broad interpretation of the corporations power, that any person or company involved in the construction or installation of electronic gaming machines must be a constitutional corporation. The irony of this is not lost on me or my colleagues. It was not long ago that those sitting opposite, who then occupied the opposition benches, complained on a daily basis that the Howard government had overreached in its application of the corporations power in order to enact the Workplace Relations Act, even though this legislation very obviously related directly to the function and conduct of corporations. Five state Labor governments, together with Unions New South Wales and the Australian Workers Union, took this complaint all the way to the High Court in a failed constitutional challenge. Yet here we are with a bill from a Labor government that stretches this interpretation of the Corporations power much further and appears to be sharply at odds with the intention of the writers of the Constitution.
Legal scholars may argue that this extension of the corporations power is in line with the precedence set through judicial interpretation over the past few decades. However, the people we represent do not want to see another expensive legal challenge whereby the taxpayer funded states take on the taxpayer funded Commonwealth, using some of the most expensive legal representatives in the land, to resolve a perceived power grab by the federal parliament. When the Rudd-Gillard government came to office five years ago it was with a fanfare of 'stopping the blame game' and 'working in cooperation with the states'. In this spirit I urge the Commonwealth government to reconsider its strategy on this important social issue.
In 1999 the Howard government established a ministerial council on gambling, which has since been rebadged as the COAG Select Council on Gambling Reform. Membership includes federal, state and territory government Treasurers and ministers with responsibility for gambling regulation. I quote from the families and community services department's website, which was last updated on 30 May 2012:
The Select Council is expected to meet again in the second half of 2011 to continue the work of the Council, including to consider its national response to the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report into Gambling.
The minister may have noticed that we are now debating these bills, which arrived without any consultation with the states, in the final sitting week of 2012. It seems pretty clear that the select council presents a perfect opportunity for the Commonwealth, states and territories to work cooperatively, to stop the blame game and to develop genuine workable policies on gambling reform that can be owned and implemented by all parties to try to help people suffering from a gambling addiction. Instead, we have these bills being rammed through with no consultation, no time for stakeholders to review the individual provisions of the bills, no consideration of whether this will actually achieve the stated goals, no analysis of unintended consequences and no discussion on how these new compliance measures will affect the pubs and clubs that form a big part of our local communities.
In Bennelong we have 17 clubs employing approximately 788 people and with 732 volunteers. These clubs have a total 87,037 members, provide and maintain 41 sporting facilities, make an annual social contribution of $22.46 million and make an annual economic contribution of over $62 million. To put this in perspective, to comply with the government's legislation the 14 clubs in Bennelong that have 21 poker machines or more will have to spend up to $20.4 million, or 90 per cent of the local industry's total annual social contribution. We also have nine hotels employing 252 staff, with 217 gaming machines. These hotels support 75 local community, sporting and social groups; serve around 9,000 meals to patrons each week; and provide an affordable place to socialise and relax.
The North Ryde RSL, together with its amalgamated club, the Eastwood Rugby Union Club, manage Leslie Fields at North Ryde RSL and the three football fields collectively known as TG Millner Field at the Eastwood Rugby Union Club. Many here would recognise this great club as last year's Shute Shield premiers and one of only three teams to have won the shield over the past 13 years.
The Epping Club is part of the Club Grants Scheme and every year gives above the legislated amount to the local community. Their support to community organisations includes $20,000 to The Shack Youth Outreach, a youth drop-in centre that offers disadvantaged youth a safe space and helps them to find work and regain control over their lives, and $10,000 to the Lynne King Cancer Care Foundation, helping people with cancer in the community and in palliative care as well as the families of cancer sufferers.
Ryde Ex-Services Memorial and Community Club, where I celebrated on election night with all my Bennelong supporters, is also a part of the ClubGRANTS scheme and gives about $60,000 to the community each year, well above the legislated amount. Examples of this community support include Christian Community Aid in Eastwood, who run learning classes for seniors and adults, most of which are conducted at the club to avoid the costs of hiring a venue. With many Chinese migrants in the community, this is a great way for people from different ethnic backgrounds to integrate into the local community. The Eastwood Chinese Senior Citizens Association, whom I have regularly joined for community events, is primarily made up of Chinese migrants who do not speak English. The club provides funding for trips, such as a recent adventure to the Blue Mountains, including food and a translator. There is also radio sponsorship on the local Ryde Regional Radio 88.5FM, on which I am a weekly guest, providing support for four young presenters working towards a regular youth radio program.
Ryde Eastwood Leagues Club employs 176 people and has 138 volunteers and 35,000 members, making 1.2 million visits per year. This club alone provides half a million dollars in its annual ClubGRANTS contribution, $6.4 million in annual social contribution and $17.6 million in annual economic contribution. They have a gym and sports facilities, including a swimming pool which provides learn-to-swim programs and rehabilitation. They also sponsor the Balmain-Ryde Eastwood Rugby League Team and the mighty Wests Tigers.
Some of the organisations supported include: Youth Off The Streets, Alzheimer's Australia, Men of League, Christian Community Care, Wheelchair Sports, West Ryde Public School, Cerebral Palsy Alliance and the Children's Medical Research Institute. I have gone through this list to highlight the deep and important connection that our clubs and pubs have to our local community. They do not shy away from the fact that they make a profit along the way, but they also carry a huge amount of social responsibility and are very generous with their support.
It is not a secret that a portion of their revenue is derived from electronic gaming machines and, as I referenced earlier, if there are 20 people in a VIP room playing pokies it is possible that two or three have a gambling problem that requires assistance. As with any policy response, particularly when dealing with a social addiction, there is no silver bullet. Voluntary precommitment is one of a variety of tools available, and the coalition supports this measure as part of a comprehensive policy response to address this complex issue. People with addictions will still be able to set a limit as high as they like, perhaps even subconsciously justifying even greater losses, or they can sit on their couch and access online gambling services far away from the support services supplied by our clubs.
The Productivity Commission tells us that this issue is a complex task for public policy and that the coverage and design of gambling regulation requires particular care to ensure that the benefits exceed the costs. Time expired.
I rise to speak on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012. It is not a moment too soon for this federal parliament to be addressing the harm of poker machines. Pokies have wrought destruction on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians. They are manufactured by an industry that has spent literally billions of dollars engineering their product to be as addictive and as profitable as possible. They are operated by an industry that is addicted to the money siphoned off from problem gamblers and will stop at nothing to protect that revenue.
Australians are the world's most prolific gamblers. We spend an impressive $1,200 per capita every year on wagers. Of the $19 billion gambled by Australians every year, 60 per cent, or $12 billion, goes into the pokies. About 600,000 people—four per cent of the adult population—play these pokies at least weekly. It is not hard to find a venue to play. There are over 200,000 poker machines in Australia, of which approximately 50 per cent are in New South Wales alone. We have the seventh highest number of these machines in the world, which is alarming given our relatively small population. There is abundant evidence that gambling, especially pokies, causes enormous harm in the community. Up to 15 per cent of the people who gamble weekly are considered problem gamblers. Forty per cent of the revenue that goes through these machines can be attributed to these same poor souls. This means that they are often losing $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year or more. This has terrible consequences for their lives and the lives of their families. The harm this causes the community is enormous. As money is taken out of family budgets the social costs add up, and are estimated by the Productivity Commission at $4.7 billion per year. The problem is now out of control. Significant reform is needed to curb the harm done by the pokies to our community.
It is not news that gambling causes harm in Australia. The Productivity Commission conducted a detailed examination of Australia's gambling industries, and handed down their findings in February 2010. After detailing the litany of harms caused by gambling and pokies in particular, they made a series of recommendations for reform. One of the prime causes of harm is the speed with which it is possible to lose money on Australian poker machines. The Productivity Commission report focused on this intensity of gaming machines, measured in expected losses per hour. In states where a $10 maximum bet applies and the spin rate is unregulated, such as in New South Wales, one could expect to lose $1,200 per hour with significantly higher losses possible. In some jurisdictions the losses could be even greater. In Crown Casino, just over the river from my electorate, there are even machines that allow $50 per button push. The ability to lose such large amounts of money in a short period heightens the risk for people with a gambling problem, or who are at risk of developing one. These high-intensity machines can be contrasted with the machines where hourly losses are limited to ranges consistent with other forms of entertainment.
At the present time in Australia there are no low-intensity machines where bets are restricted to ranges consistent with normal recreational play. This contrasts with other jurisdictions around the world, such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, where certain venues are restricted to machines with limits on the maximum stake and maximum prize. In the United States, high-intensity machines are generally limited to casinos. Here, they can be found just around the corner in most towns and suburbs.
Poker machines also have a terrible record when it comes to social justice. Just look at the maps of where the concentration of poker machine losses are highest. It is the same map as areas of social disadvantage. The people losing the most on pokies are those who can least afford it. Because of the ubiquity of the machines and the extent of the harm, there is now enormous pressure for reform. Until now, the states have had jurisdiction over poker machines. It is welcome that we here in the federal parliament are discussing what we can do to ensure that there is federal regulation.
The Greens support this bill because it a step in the right direction. We maintain that the case is solid that the poker machine industry needs a major overhaul. This bill does not accomplish that but, hopefully, it will make future reforms easier. The bill will require all machines sold in Australia from the end of next year to support precommitment. In the future, every poker machine, old and new, will have to support a pre-commitment scheme. That means that voluntary precommitment will be possible. More importantly it means that, if a future government wants to return to the reform this government has left lying on the table, enabling mandatory precommitment will be a simple matter. It also requires all machines to be part of statewide networks so that precommitment will be effective once enacted. This opens the door to other potential reforms as well.
The bill creates a national gambling regulator. While its functions are to be delegated to the states for the time being, this precedent gives further hope that the parliament or a future government will have the tools it needs to tackle problem gambling once and for all. The regulator has the power to place a levy on poker machines, another tool to signal reform. There is an ATM limit of $250 a day. In Victoria it is zero, but at least this is a step in the right direction. If the trial of mandatory precommitment in the ACT goes ahead, this also provides for a Productivity Commission analysis of the results. We do need to see more research, and that is why this reform will also see the establishment of the National Gambling Research Centre. The Greens asked for this in order to keep the issue of problem gambling on the policy radar. The more research there is, the harder it will be for industry to derail future reforms. Finally, the clubs do not like this reform, and that is hopefully a sign that it will achieve something.
This bill does not go as far as it should. With the issues of pokies and problem gambling front and centre on the national agenda, we in this parliament had a rare opportunity to make a bold reform, but the government squibbed it. Sadly, this bill is not that reform. After the provisions in this bill have been implemented, a poker machine addict who sits down at the machine will have no help in limiting their losses. They will not be forced to set a limit, putting a fence around the rent and grocery money before they get carried away chasing losses. There are no bet limits slowing down the rate of losses, giving a gambler time to sober up and go home before the losses have mounted up to unsustainable levels. There are other places where the reform could be more ambitious. As I mentioned before, the withdrawal limit on ATMs could also be stronger. In my home state of Victoria, we have banned ATM withdrawals altogether and the sky certainly has not fallen in. There are other solutions that we will continue to argue for.
It is important to recognise that Australia's poker machines are not benign games for passers-by to have a $10 flutter on. They are carefully engineered to absorb enormous amounts of money. Some of these machines can churn through thousands of dollars in a single hour. Australia's 'casino style' machines are infamous around the world. Many experts and plenty of solid research have pointed to the need to rein in these machines. The research says that high-intensity machines with the possibility of large but infrequent wins have taken the gambling experience far away from the low-risk recreational activity it used to be.
The Productivity Commission recommended changes to the way these machines operate, such as offering 'low-intensity' machines with $1 bet limits that only take $20 credit at a time, as well as mandatory precommitment for high-intensity machines whereby users specify a loss limit before gambling on pokies. The Greens endorse this research. Limiting machines to $1 per spin and lowering jackpots will mean problem gamblers will only be losing hundreds an hour, not thousands. Limiting machines to lower intensities is a simple reform that will not affect recreational players. It will help problem gamblers limit their losses. We propose nothing more than taking claims that poker machines provide entertainment at face value. This change would bring machines more into line with other forms of recreation and would do so over a time frame that is realistic and fair to industry.
Industry's reaction to these proposed reforms from the Greens has been a mix of outrage and bullying. They claim bet limits and mandatory precommitment will not work. They also claim it will kill local clubs. Precommitment cards would amount to a 'license to punt', they say. They say it is the nanny state gone mad. In particular, the industry suggests the costs to move to this system would be astronomical, up to $5 billion. These numbers have of course been sharply contested. But in any case, without the need for a hardware solution, and with sufficient time for existing machines to fully depreciate, the cost to industry would be minimal compared to the value of the machines and the revenue they generate. These machines make billions of dollars each year in profits. The costs to industry to implement this policy in fact would be negligible. All machines in Australia already support bet limits and the time frames involved would be more than adequate to upgrade or replace any machines that needed modification.
But it is clear that we are not going to get that kind of reform here, because there has been a distinct lack of courage. So, left with this or nothing, the Greens will support this bill. It creates some precedents that should make future reform easier, if there is a government with the foresight and the guts to tackle it. This watered-down bill is the result of intense lobbying by the pokies industry, but they are still not satisfied. They will not be satisfied with anything but free rein to take as much money as they can out of disadvantaged communities. So, although the reform could be bolder, we need to move ahead with it. But it must not be the last word in poker machine reform.
Problem gamblers need the help of this parliament. Problem gambling on the pokies can be a wrecking ball through the life of a family. It can cost a marriage, a job, the family home. It can and does drive people to crime and there are clear public health and social justice imperatives to tackling pokies reform. The cost to the wider community is also well known. It costs this country billions each year. Poker machines have been carefully engineered by the industry to be highly addictive, to disguise losses as wins and to efficiently empty the pockets of their customers.
Many in the community have worked hard to push us to gambling reform. The churches have worked hard on behalf of their members, including those who work with people whose lives have been ruined by the pokies. They are at the coalface and they deserve applause for their work in this area. Academic experts also want to see reform, and they are the ones who have quantified these harms and informed the debate. And the punters affected by problem gambling want to see it too. We have heard from them time and time again about the toll it has taken on their lives and that they want help. I therefore commend the bill, but I sincerely and desperately hope that there is more to come sometime soon.
I rise to speak on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and related bills. These bills seek to introduce a range of new measures for gaming machines. This involves requiring a raft of new technology for gaming machines. Precommitment technology, the ability to set loss limits, new on-screen warnings, and ATM withdrawal limits, are all part of these changes. The new electronic features will be required on all new machines from the end of 2013 and on all gaming machines by 2016, with a longer time frame for smaller venues. Two Productivity Commission inquiries will also be undertaken, one in relation to a trial of mandatory precommitment systems and another into the progress being made by premises and manufacturers towards compliance with the new systems.
Additionally, a new bureaucracy—hello? Another level of red tape?—a gambling regulator, will be required to provide for the monitoring of compliance with the new regulations that are set out in the legislation. This will include administering the civil penalty orders, infringement notices, injunctions, enforceable undertakings and compliance notices that have been outlined—as well as, most probably, a lot of visits to popular spots for on-site inspections, probably with free meals! Finally, the bills allow for the new regulator to charge fees for its services and establish two levies to support the new procedures. This achieves the one-two punch that this Labor government loves—red tape and taxes—that is already hurting small businesses in Townsville and all over the country.
Let me say from the outset: I cannot stand the pokies. I cannot see the sense in them. They tell you, when you enter the place, that you cannot win. There used to be some science, when you could use your own technique on the arm that you had to pull—the 'pull, pull back, knock down again' was always a favourite—but now, to me, just sitting and pushing a button on these things makes watching paint dry exciting.
I recognise the impact that problem gambling has on individuals and families. I understand addiction and what is required to break addiction. But, if you want to do something about problem gambling, you cannot just take one form of gambling and load that up with regulation and red tape and pat yourself on the back and say, 'Job well done.' This legislation is a mirror image of the alcopops legislation, which was supposed to cure binge drinking. Remember that? They put a tax on it and walked away saying, 'Job done.' The kids now buy 1,125-millilitre bottles of straight spirit and mix them themselves, so the standard drink measure is completely out the window—'Job done. Nothing to see here, people. Move on.'
If you want to see desperate gamblers, go to a newsagency on a Saturday morning, Lotto day, or stand out the front and watch the people as they line up for Oz Lotto when it hits $100 million. As a mate of mine said, 'Oz Lotto is God's way of proving that humans do not understand statistics.' Up until then, I knew Lotto was on Thursday and Saturday; I never knew there was a draw halfway through the week as well. If you want to see desperate gamblers, go to a newsagency on Lotto day.
Online betting businesses are forking out millions of dollars for prime time advertising, and the line between sports shows and betting promotion is getting more and more blurred—but fixing pokies is apparently the solution to all these things! That my 10-year old son can ask if $13 on Matty Bowen being the first try scorer is a good deal, but we are only interested in talking about the pokies, shows the narrow-mindedness of this debate. Any attempt to tackle problem gambling needs not just to look at poker machines but to look at the underlying problem of gambling addiction. That is what the coalition believes.
We do support improvements to the way we address problem gambling. But we cannot support gambling reform that sidelines the state and territory governments, the governments that are actually responsible for governance of the gaming industry. We want to see support services and counselling for gamblers become better resourced and more widespread. We do see a need for voluntary precommitment to help fight this problem. But it should be one part of a bigger approach that tackles every layer of the issue. We should also acknowledge that the pubs and clubs are already doing their bit to curb this blight on our society. We want a response to gambling to be the result of detailed consideration, not just a handshake deal between a single member of parliament and a Prime Minister desperate to hold onto her job.
There can be no doubt that this legislation is being swept through as fast as possible, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the cost. When I talk about consequences, I am talking about the jobs of people employed in our pubs and clubs—apprentice chefs, bar men and women who are working their way through uni, and mums returning to work slowly while the kids are at school. These will be the consequences of this legislation if we keep letting this bad government continue to load up our hospitality sector with additional charges and levies and taxes. Part of that includes swift arbitrary and uniform time frames and conditions that have been placed on state and territory governments. The Productivity Commission has already pointed out that this is completely at odds with reality.
The technology required for a precommitment regime is costly—it involves card readers and software upgrades on all gaming machines, paid for by the businesses and venues. It is simply not realistic to force smaller venues to invest in major changes on the same time frame as big city casinos. It is inevitable that meeting the requirements in the designated time period will not be possible for a lot of small businesses, so they will be forced to risk noncompliance or shut that part of their business down and maybe go out of business entirely. The result is an ineffective policy, all because we have a government that would not take the time to work with stakeholders to do the job properly.
In Townsville I have been hosting a series of red-tape forums. The purpose of these is to find out from small business owners and managers where bureaucracy is costing them too much money and time, often with no apparent reasoning behind it. The Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, has already said we want to remove red tape from business, but the people in Townsville are telling me that we cannot just remove red tape; we must remove red tape with a view to improving productivity. There is no point just removing rules and regulations if it does not have the consequence of making it easier to do work or to get more work out of the place. The first forum was for the hospitality industry, and a few of the attendees owned businesses that have poker machines. Apart from the multitude of red tape already surrounding the pokies, a common thread throughout the discussion of operating a business in this industry was the overlap of layers of government. This comes in alcohol, transport, and health and safety regulations. Across the spectrum, managers have to meet a multitude of expectations and requirements from every level of government.
Here we see it yet again: more forms for small-business owners to spend time filling out and more taxes and fees for them to pay. State governments are responsible for the pokies, yet in waltzes the federal Labor government just to appease the member for Denison. For two years of a Labor majority government while Senator Xenophon was in the Senate, pokies reform was a state issue. It certainly was not a big enough issue for Labor to take a gambling policy to the election. But now we find ourselves in a hung parliament, and suddenly it is a major issue.
As the member for Moncrieff so succinctly put it in his contribution, where will this end? When I was first elected, I met with the member for Denison and Senator Xenophon to get their perspective on this matter. I asked them about other forms of gambling and why they limited their action to poker machines. The member for Denison told me, and I will never forget this moment, 'You have to start somewhere.' So, if you like a punt or you like a game of cards, they are coming for you. This is only the start for them and their nanny state.
I take great issue with the ALP on this. When this was first raised, out trotted members of the ALP to forums where they told nearly identical stories of people crying in their offices about their losses and addiction to poker machines. It was a national imperative. Mind you, had anyone raised it with them in the lead-up to the last election, they would have received a short, sharp response: 'That is a state matter.' As soon as Harry Jenkins was knifed as Speaker, it was no longer a national imperative. We needed a more considered response.
The member must use correct titles when addressing the parliament.
Now that they need the vote of the member for Denison once more, they trot out some wishy-washy legislation which will achieve nothing except that it will close down a couple of small clubs and pubs, lose a few jobs, but raise a fair bit of tax. 'Whatever it takes' is their mantra.
Every state government supports voluntary precommitment. They are already moving towards voluntary precommitment schemes, working with the industry to do so. It is simply a waste of time and money for a federal government to be pushing these changes when they are already being looked at by the governments that are actually responsible for them, let alone to be attempting these changes with as little consultation with those state and territory governments as this government has had.
To implement these changes with any level of success, the state and territory governments have to be on board. Instead, the critical input of these governments, along with that of the hospitality sector and other stakeholders, has been sidelined in the determination to race this through the parliament. The legislation was first introduced on 1 November, and suddenly it has to be passed before the end of the sitting year.
Mr Lyons interjecting—
We'll see you at your club, mate! We'll see you at your club! If this government is really serious and determined to do something about gambling, why not work with the states? That is what the COAG process is there for. We all know that this is about political outcomes, not responsible ones.
Townsville has 45 venues with gaming machines. These are mostly clubs and small-business pubs. They have not seen any evidence that a precommitment system will reduce problem gambling. We are still waiting for the trial of mandatory precommitment, yet here we are pushing bills that come with great expense to local businesses and clubs in a knee-jerk reaction to a hung parliament.
The impact of this legislation will also be felt more by the smaller venues. The cost of compliance with every level of government is killing the will of businesspeople to get up every day. At the recent red-tape forum I held for the hospitality industry, I asked them if they were having any fun in their business at all. That is why you go into business. They all just sighed and said that the fun was being sucked out by all levels of government and by the cost of compliance and regulation. Now we are going to make it harder for them in an area in which we have no real jurisdiction—or is it just this government trying to muscle in on state government revenues? The legislation calls for levies and compliance costs. It calls for funding for new bodies that it must have to run this show. Is it just another tax grab by a cash-strapped government?
These businesses contribute to the community. They have real estate. They take on apprentices. They employ permanent and casual staff. And they are already paying a massive tax bill through the pokies that is redistributed to give grants to local organisations. We owe it to these businesses to take the time to get this right. In Townsville there are three main licensed clubs. They are the Townsville RSL, the mighty North Queensland Cowboys club and the Brothers Leagues Club. They have nearly 100,000 members, and I am proudly a member of each. The clubs and casino give back to the community over $3 million annually to projects which would never be funded otherwise. They take pride in their community because they are their community. They are my community.
I would like to share a story about the Townsville community transport, TOTTS. They had 39 volunteer drivers. The drivers are not required to have a first-aid certificate, but they wanted to make sure that all their drivers had a first-aid certificate. The cost was $120 each. I approached my licensed venues: the RSL, the Brothers Leagues Club and the Cowboys Leagues Club. To a person, they just said, 'We'll pay for it, and every time they get a new driver we'll put them through.' I said, 'Thank you very much for this.' They said: 'Don't thank me. This is what we're here for. This is what licensed clubs are for. This is the perfect example of why we have licensed clubs, of what we do in our community.' That cost is borne by those clubs because that is part of their community.
This is bad legislation. It will not help a single addicted gambler. It will not help licensed clubs provide for their members. I will not support this legislation, which specifically attacks major private sector employers and trainers in my electorate. Let me be as clear and unambiguous as I can. This legislation is not about problem gambling. This legislation is all about politics and staying in power.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Tracey Worner, of the Perth Lever Action Rifle Club. Earlier this year, Tracey won the lever action rifle ladies national championship. I am told that this title does not come easily, as the event is held over three days using three different rifles, with a separate event held on each day. At just 22 years of age, Tracey's hard work and dedication paid off at the 2012 championships, and this was reflected by her title as Ladies 2012 National Champion.
Over the past five years, Tracey has consistently been silver medallist at the club level and has taken away many ladies state championship individual event awards. Tracey is known at the Perth Lever Action Rifle Club as a pocket dynamo and is as far removed as anyone could imagine from the stereotype of a sporting shooter. I recently had the opportunity to meet and congratulate Tracey and hear more about her passion for her sport. Tracey owes much of her success to her dad and her brother, who have coached her and helped her develop her shooting talent while at the same time allowing her to retain her individual style. I congratulate Tracey on winning the Ladies 2012 National Champion title and wish her all the best with her future in sports shooting.
) ( ): I have here just a couple of some 19 boxes containing 50,000 petition signatures from AUSBUY, which promotes Australian owned companies and Australian made products, handed over today to me and to members and senators from a diverse range of political parties. That petition seeks an immediate moratorium on the sale of Australian wealth creating assets, such as land and strategic businesses, until a clear definition of the national interest test is established for Australia.
I believe that we have an obligation to our children and to future generations to leave them the same opportunities as we have enjoyed. If we sell off fundamental assets like land, food, water and energy we compromise their chances. I think that that is short-sighted and diminishes our control over our own destiny. I think we need to have a debate about whether the level of foreign ownership we are now witnessing is in Australia's best interests and, without resorting to name calling, and if it is not in Australia's best interests, what action we should take to stop the ongoing decline of Australian ownership of Australian land, food and resources. It is noticeable that foreign investment in Australian agriculture has exploded since the global financial crisis with overseas buyers seeking approvals of something like 250 times higher than the value of applications pre-GFC, when applications per annum totalled just $10 million. (Time expired)
I wish to put before the nation the concerns of the Goulburn Valley Water Action Group which has circulated a petition expressing ongoing concern about the objectives, processes and impacts of the Food Bowl Modernisation Project in northern Victoria. Mr Robert Danieli states on behalf of the action group that their petition has been signed by 829 concerned citizens from the small area in the Goulburn Valley around Kyabram, Stanhope and Tongala, but he also recognises that there is much wider concern from all areas reliant on irrigated agriculture throughout Victoria. The communities remain concerned that the plan to decommission or privatise half the channel supply system and the manner in which it is being implemented will have significant detrimental effects on the region's social and economic viability and the ability to produce food. They are also concerned that irrigators serviced by backbone supply channels will face massive increases in supply and service charges which will, in time, threaten their economic viability.
Of major concern is that off-backbone irrigators and stock and domestic users may be forced to sign agreements called 'community water supply access agreements' with Goulburn-Murray Water that appear to be flawed and could lead to legal and financial disasters for those that sign. The Goulburn Valley Water Action Group therefore calls on the Victorian government to stop further decommissioning works, farm buybacks, dewatering of irrigated farms, the implementation of the above agreement and to concentrate on improving the viability of the irrigation system and the efficient operation of Goulburn-Murray Water in a manner which does not decimate the economic and social fabric of our communities.
It gives me great pleasure to rise today to acknowledge the latest recipients of the Lions Children of Courage Awards in my community. The awards recognise and celebrate the courage and achievements of children who overcome additional barriers, such as disability, in their daily lives as well as highlighting the valuable contributions made by young siblings who help care for them.
I was honoured last month to attend the awards ceremony for nine wonderful, deserving children—Hannah, Blake, Mahony, Taj, Angel, Ella, Darren, Dakota and Jemma. My congratulations go to them. The courage that these children show is humbling and inspiring. Congratulations also to the children from Petrie and Morayfield and from further afield in Pittsworth who were recognised as Children of Courage last weekend. I am sure that all their friends and families are very proud of them.
I also say a big 'thank you' to Lioness Liz Alcock and the fabulous team at the Redcliffe Central Lioness Club. The 2012 year marked the club's 11th year as the hosts of this event in our region. I know that the club was also supported by the Redcliffe Central and North Lakes Lions clubs, and I want to acknowledge their support. Thanks and recognition must also go to the Redcliffe Leagues Club, which has been sponsoring these awards since they began in our community, and to Woody Point Special School for opening up their facilities for the awards to take place once again.
Finally, I know that having a strong support network can make a world of difference in the lives of children with disability, so I would like to thank the families and carers who support our children of courage. I reiterate to you my commitment in seeing that all children get the support they deserve so they can aim for the stars. (Time expired)
I rise this afternoon to continue my campaign with the communities of Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory to save the Marngrook Footy Show. The outrageous decision by ABC Managing Director, Mark Scott, to cut the Marngrook Footy Show is a disgrace and he should reverse it. Mr Scott, who usually does a terrific job at the ABC, in this case has pulled the wrong lever. The Marngrook Footy Show is a terrific footy show which has received critical acclaim over many years. It has reinforced an important aspect of the AFL's activity, under the leadership of Andrew Demetriou, of working with Indigenous communities to improve the lot of many through football. It is a show that has been identified as culturally very important in the Indigenous community. The show was duck-shoved to ABC2 recently and the decision to cut it is a disgrace.
I note that last week, after writing to the managing director of the ABC, I received significant support and a lot of contact from the community, including re-tweeting on Twitter from people such as AFL legend Matthew Richardson, which was a great privilege, it must be said, even though he is a former Richmond player. This is an issue which the community cares deeply about, and I urge the managing director of the ABC to reverse his irresponsible decision.
I would like to raise a local issue which is very important to my electorate of Kingston and about which people have a lot of concern, and that is future of the former ExxonMobil refinery site at Port Stanvac. ExxonMobil is exiting this site and has indicated that, as part of this process, they may demolish the jetty unless another party takes responsibility for its ongoing maintenance. I believe that this would be a very disappointing option—to lose a jetty which is an iconic piece of infrastructure in the southern Adelaide region.
This is an opportunity for the local community. The exit of ExxonMobil means that there is an opportunity for locals to be able to enjoy and benefit from this previously inaccessible beach. This beach is pristine and beautiful and up until now residents in the local area have not been able to access it.
I did a petition on this and received an overwhelming response from over 650 householders in the O'Sullivan's Beach and Hallett Cove area, indicating their support for public access to the beach and for being able to use the jetty. Many comments were made, including this one from Tania Verrall who said, 'The jetty and beach could become a real tourist attraction.' I call on the state and local governments to work together to ensure that we act upon the views of over 650 households so that we can access this beach, enjoy this beach, use the jetty, and actually have a public space that we can all celebrate.
I rise to talk of the productive and beneficial relationship that has developed between Lindfield East Public School in my electorate of Bradfield and Menindee Central School which is located in the far west of New South Wales. This positive relationship involves a great deal of interschool contact, as students from both schools have the opportunity to visit each other's schools, which are 1,000 kilometres apart and, in many ways, in different worlds.
The relationship was the brainchild of Mark Cepak, whose son attended Lindfield East. He visited Menindee Central School and was struck by the beauty of the outback, but also by the school's art program and the distinctive art produced by the students under the guidance of art teacher Rick Ball and Principal Brian Debus. I was privileged to attend an exhibition of Menindee Central's artwork at a gallery in Sydney last year, and I can attest to the skill and vibrancy of the work.
Last Saturday, I joined a group of Menindee kids, teachers and parents, along with local kids and parents, at the East Lindfield Deli in the Park to present awards to students from Menindee public school, Lindfield East public school and Killara High School. I want to congratulate Andrew Stevenson, Principal of Lindfield East; Mark Cepak, former Lindfield East parent; Mark Carter, Principal of Killara High; and Brian Debus, Principal of Menindee Central School for this very productive relationship between schools in very different parts of Australia. And, finally, I want to congratulate the kids of all of these schools for their enthusiastic engagement with each other and the excellent artworks from the Menindee students.
I rise to call attention to a local children's charity which operates in my electorate called Foster Care Angels, which I have been pleased to assist recently in obtaining deductible gift recipient status. It was founded by Kelly Doyle and her husband Glen, who live in Kings Langley. They founded it last year after firsthand experience as crisis foster carers gave them some insight into the trauma faced by local children and young people entering the foster care system. As former respite foster carers ourselves, this is an issue that is very close to my heart and the heart of my husband as well.
When children are removed from their homes and placed into foster care, they often leave with few or no personal possessions. Foster Care Angels helps to ease the transition of children entering foster care in the western suburbs and hills districts by providing them with a care package. These are distributed via local fostering agencies. In addition to practical items, they also give children a sense of self-worth and independence. Items selected to be included in this comfort pack include toiletries, baby needs, school supplies, educational products and something to read and play with, and these are contained in a backpack or library-type bag to keep.
Foster Care Angels is now endorsed as a public benevolent institution and holds DGR status, as I mentioned. They are 100 per cent volunteer-run and rely solely on donations and fundraising efforts to continue these services. I raise this to draw them to the attention of anyone tuning into the broadcast. They can go to fostercareangels.org. If you are looking for a worthwhile Christmas present, you need go no further than assisting this wonderful organisation to help kids in need.
Every patriotic Australian should be concerned about the Murray-Darling. A very large section of my book on the history of Australia is taken up with the greatest achievement of the Australian people: one of the 27 greatest iconic engineering projects in the world, the Snowy Mountains scheme. This place attempted to sell the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme and then failed in the attempt. It was reversed because the people of the Murray-Darling Basin rose up in righteous anger, and it was their doing, and only their doing, that had a decision in this place reversed.
We have a similar situation with the Murray-Darling cutbacks proposed at the moment. We had only three people in this House at the time—Mr Andren, Mr Windsor and me—so we only had three votes in this place to oppose the sale of the Snowy Hydro. Yet we won—we won because the people rose up in righteous anger.
The fight over the continued cutbacks in the Murray-Darling is a fight that is going to be won by the people of those areas standing on their hind legs and fighting. But they do have at least one representative in here who is utterly determined that there should be no further cutbacks. Eighty-five shops have closed in Mildura. They tell me even more have closed in Griffith. Most certainly, one in five farms in Mildura have closed down. And they tell me there had been a similar number in Griffith. (Time expired)
I inform the House of the death this morning of Graeme Hull, husband of my predecessor, Kay. Graeme was diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer just a few short weeks ago, having been unwell for years with other health ailments. He remained stoic and uncomplaining to the end.
A lovable larrikin, Graeme was behind and alongside Kay for all of her 12 years as the member for Riverina. He was, she said in her valedictory speech on 24 June 2010, 'my rock and my greatest supporter'. 'I offer,' Kay said:
… my gratitude and my deepest love and respect to my husband, Graeme, the long-suffering man who has kept everything afloat whist I have been committed to this role. … We have been a team for 35 years. We have had our children, started our business and worked through some tough times. You have spent many years now without companionship, and I look forward to re-establishing a normal life together …
Sadly, that will not happen. Life can be cruel. That is why we all should treasure each and every day, as I know Graeme did.
Graeme lived life to the fullest. He gave so much and expected nothing in return. He has left a community in mourning, especially the local greyhound club and smash repair industry, and all who knew and loved this popular, knockabout character. I know all members will be saddened by this news, particularly the National Party family, and the Prime Minister, as she and Kay entered parliament together in 1998.
Graeme Hull will be missed by many, but by none more than Kay, a wonderful woman, and sons Darren, Danny and Brett and their families. On behalf of the parliament, I offer my sincerest sympathies.
I share with the member for Riverina in offering those sympathies, because I also came in with Kay Hull and we spent many a year chatting across the chamber. So I think everybody who knew Kay would be feeling the same.
It being 2 pm the time for members' statements has concluded.
The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister lack the courage of her convictions on support for Israel at the United Nations? What will she now do to dispel the impression that this is a government in chaos with the Prime Minister no longer in charge?
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The minister for families and communities! The Prime Minister has the call.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the first question he has asked me this week. I have been asked 18 questions by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week, and this is the first question on foreign affairs. But where is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? She is nowhere to be seen, like she has been seen nowhere today. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now an embarrassment to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition generally. There she is, unable to ask a question about foreign affairs.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question.
I am certainly dealing with foreign affairs questions. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is unable to ask a question about foreign affairs, was pulled off attending the National Press Club and did not go to the Leader of the Opposition's book launch because of how embarrassed the opposition is—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Yes, I know you are embarrassed.
The Manager of Opposition Business, who is now on very thin ice, has the call.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You directed the Prime Minister to answer the question; she openly defied you and continued with a shrill attack on the opposition. We have asked a straightforward, sensible question, and you should be respected.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I was finding it very difficult to hear the Prime Minister. I understand the Prime Minister had not returned to the question.
Mr Randall interjecting—
The member for Canning may only be here for two minutes if he is not very careful. I could not hear to interrupt the Prime Minister and ask her to return to the question. The Prime Minister has the call and will answer the question before the chair.
In answer to the Leader of the Opposition's first question for the week, let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that I, as Prime Minister, and this Labor government—like Labor prime ministers in the past and Labor governments in the past—are firm supporters of a two-state solution to the peace problems in the Middle East. We would all want to wake up in a world where Israel could live behind secure borders, its people in peace and no longer fearing rocket attacks from anyone outside their territory. We would all want to wake up in a world where the people of Palestine had their own nation and they too lived in peace behind secure borders. That is the world in which we would want to live. That is the world which we have always wanted to see come about. Labor has been and always will be: a supporter of a two-state solution in the Middle East; a strong and firm friend of Israel; and working with the Palestinian people to realise their legitimate aspirations for a homeland and for a state. That is what we will continue to do.
The Leader of the Opposition is asking this question: (1) because he needed to ask a question sometime this week; and (2) because the deputy leader is now such an embarrassment that she cannot pursue her portfolio areas. But the Leader of the Opposition is asking this question because he wants to play a little bit of political carry-on. I remind the Leader of the Opposition of this: it has been bipartisan policy across the major parties in this parliament to support Israel, to support peace in the Middle East and to support two states in the Middle East. This side of the parliament will always hold faith with that, and we will always take that issue with the utmost seriousness. It will not be this kind of political plaything to try to resolve your embarrassment today.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's plan to improve our nation's schools? What will this mean for children growing up in my electorate of Bass?
I thank the member for Bass for his question and I thank him and his colleagues—my colleagues—for their interests, their passion and their commitment to ensuring that every child in every school gets a great education. I want to thank my colleagues for turning out in such numbers this morning to support a piece of legislation which is close to our Labor hearts—to see introduced into this parliament an education bill that will create a new era for education in our nation and that will ensure that for every child in every school, as part of their citizenship entitlement, we commit to them: that they will get an excellent education; that we will work as a nation—as a people—to improve the quality of education for every child in every school; that we will ensure that every school has a school improvement plan; and that we are focused on the transparency of results—something that the opposition, when it was in government, failed to do. It could not get into the hands of Australian parents, Australian teachers, Australian governments, state and federal, the kind of information that is necessary to guide education policy.
I am proud that because of the work of this government we now have the information we need to drive an era of improvement and change; that we can talk about the achievements of every school; that we can point to—because we have done it—what improves education for children in schools; and that we can show some certainty about what drives up results in literacy and numeracy, and educational achievement around the country.
Now is the time, having done all of that work across five years in government, to move to the next stage: to ensure that there is a national plan for school improvement; to ensure that every child's education is properly funded; and to ensure that we drive our schooling system for our nation into the top five schooling systems in the world and that our nation realises the full economic promise of the century in which we live, this Asian century of change.
We laid out in our white paper, our national plan for the nation's future, our determination to make sure that we win the economic race by winning the education race. I was proud to bring to the parliament this morning personally as Prime Minister, working with the Minister for School Education, Peter Garrett, a bill to enshrine that commitment to an excellent education at the heart of our national life. And I think it is to be regretted that members of the opposition—including the shadow minister for education—think education is so unimportant that they could not even be bothered to be here.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her recent statements that she knew nothing about bank accounts associated with Bruce Wilson and the AWU.
Government members interjecting—
Order!
Isn't it the case that the Prime Minister accompanied Bruce Wilson to a meeting of the AWU in Boulder in May 1992, and advocated on behalf of Mr Wilson that the control of the moneys within the AWU fatal accident or death fund be transferred to the control of Mr Wilson? Why didn't the Prime Minister reveal this fund in her recent press conferences?
To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question: I think the matter she raises was canvassed in the West Australian, as we know from parliament yesterday. She thinks that is a secret document, the West Australian but I refer her to the West Australian where these matters were dealt with.
Madam Speaker, this fund, the fatal accident or death fund, was not referred to—
The Manager of Opposition Business will—
Government members: Isn't that a point of order?
Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. It is for me to determine those things. I do not need assistance in that manner.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The AWU fatal accident or death fund from Boulder was not referred to in any newspaper yesterday, and therefore the Prime Minister cannot be relevant by dismissing it in that way.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. That was a clear breach of the House process for raising a point of order. If the Manager of Opposition Business wants to go to relevance, he knows he should start with relevance and then go to the issue. There are other processes in the House if the Manager of Opposition Business seeks to take that up—and now is obviously not the time today to do that. The Manager of Opposition Business can do that at the end of question time. I do not believe the Prime Minister has concluded her answer.
Given the Manager of Opposition Business may have misheard, but he certainly misquoted, I was not referring to a newspaper yesterday; I was referring to the West Australian from several weeks ago.
I am amazed to get this question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is unable to remember who she spoke to a week ago—and she is asking me to deal with events of 20 years ago! She is unable to tell who she has got on the phone but here she is, day after day, pretending that she is interested in the answer to questions about 20 years ago. For the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, this throwing of mud really turned into an embarrassment yesterday. She is humiliated and today was pulled by the opposition—
Why don't you answer the question!
The Prime Minister will return to the question. The member for Dickson is warned.
from any public appearances because she is so embarrassing to them. To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I refer her to what her colleagues are saying about this campaign and to the statements of Hugh Riminton on Channel 10 last night—
The Prime Minister will return to the question.
The quote will take us centrally there. Hugh Riminton on Channel 10 last night said—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, and with great respect to you, the Prime Minister is openly defying your asking her to come back to the question and so therefore she is out of order.
That is the point of order, Rumpole.
The Manager of Opposition Business will withdraw.
Rumpole?
Opposition members interjecting—
It is in the context, as I said yesterday.
I am happy to withdraw 'Rumpole'.
Thank you. The member for Canning may be withdrawing very soon. It is in the context; as I have said, there is not a list—it is the tone, the intonation and the context. The Prime Minister has the call and if she was going to demonstrate to me that the quote was in order, I can accept that.
I am quoting Hugh Riminton from Channel Ten last night:
They—
that is the opposition—
are accusing the Prime Minister of acting illegally, when senior frontbenchers are conceding privately—
conceding very cheerfully—
… that they don't have any evidence to back up that very serious charge at all.
The cheerful concession is because they too know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's performance on this matter has been embarrassing. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were serious about this issue how come she did not give a press conference to deal with it?
The Prime Minister will resume her seat.
Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the Prime Minister's last answer and ask: why didn't the Prime Minister, in her recent press conferences, reveal the existence of the AWU fatal accident or death fund and the advice she gave Mr Wilson and the advocacy she gave at the meeting? And why won't she answer my question today about this new fund?
I have just indicated to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the matter she is raising is not new. It has been canvassed in the West Australian. I suggest that she go and have a look at the West Australian. More generally, how many calls does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get where this sort of thing is just handed over? How come Michael Smith has her number, anyway? Does John Pasquarelli have her number? Does Pauline Hanson have her number? This absurdity from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is embarrassing to her and it is embarrassing to the Leader of the Opposition.
Opposition members interjecting—
It is his strategy and the bellowing is trying to cover up the red faces. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wanted to spend this week as a starring character in an investigative drama; she has ended up as the winning candidate on Red Faces.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House what the OECD Economic Outlook says about the resilience of the Australian economy?
I thank the member for Moreton for that very important question on policy. Everybody on this side of the House is concerned about policy—how we can make this country a better place for our children and our grandchildren. That stands in stark contrast to those opposite who are simply running a smear campaign.
The OECD report once again confirms how resilient our economy is, unlike those of most other developed economies. Our economic fundamentals are strong. We have solid growth, low unemployment and contained inflation. This country will grow faster than most other major developed economies this year and next. We are going to grow faster than the OECD as a whole.
The OECD report reaches this conclusion on resource investment in Australia:
Mining investments should continue to expand vigorously in 2013 in view of announced plans.
That was backed up today by the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics. They have issued an update of the value of committed projects. When we are talking about committed projects, we are talking about projects which are locked in. The value of such projects has increased by $7 billion over the six months to October—something the Minister for Resources and Energy and the government are very proud of—to reach a record high of $268 billion. When you look at all the projects on the drawing board, the value is a staggering $650 billion. This project pipeline has not been immune to what has occurred with the terms of trade and what has occurred with international commodity prices. But what this information is telling us is that the prospects for our resources sector are very bright.
We know the world out there is uncertain and that our prospects are not necessarily assured. But we also know that you need a plan for the future in this Asian century. That is why the government is very closely focused on productivity, skills and education in particular. That is why the bill the Prime Minister introduced into the House this morning is so important. We know that over the next five years we have to put in place the reforms to ensure we maximise the opportunities which will flow to this country in the Asian century. What a clear contrast that is to those opposite—out there every day playing the politics of smear and sleaze and with no policies at all. We have an opposition leader going the biff, trying to knock out everything and everyone. It is all about aggression and not about outcomes. We on this side of the House are absolutely focused.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the phrase the Treasurer used was deeply offensive to the Leader of the Opposition and I ask that it be withdrawn.
The Treasurer, to assist the House, will withdraw.
I withdraw. A smear campaign from those opposite has simply backfired and they have been hit with mud, from head to toe.
Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The Treasurer has just spoken about the resilience of the Australian economy—
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the member for Indi just made a grossly unparliamentary remark about the Deputy Prime Minister and ought to withdraw it.
The member for Indi will withdraw.
I withdraw.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! This is not amusing. It really is not. It is absolutely disgraceful that you treat your parliament with such contempt.
The Treasurer has just spoken about the resilience of the Australian economy. How is this benefiting people in my electorate of Moreton?
The OECD forecasts an unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent in 2013. When you compare that to an unemployment rate across the OECD of eight per cent what that means is that, unlike just about every other developed economy, we have had tremendous success in supporting employment and in keeping the doors of small business open in this country. That means that people have jobs—something like 800,000 jobs created in this country during the period of this government despite all of the headwinds in the global economy, the most disturbing times in the global economy since the Great Depression. That means that families have not been hit with the skill destruction, the high levels of unemployment and the impacts on local communities that have occurred in other countries. That means a great deal to all of the people who live in Moreton. We have avoided the really high unemployment rates; we have avoided the really high rates of destruction of small businesses in particular. That means we are so much better placed to make investments for the future, particularly in education, and this means a great deal to the 50,000 people who are engaged in education and skills training in Moreton.
All of this is in stark contrast to those opposite. All they have is a dirt file—they have no file on education, no file on health and they certainly have no file on how to support an economy at a time of global uncertainty.
I inform the House that we have with us a delegation from the Italian parliament, led by secretary of state Mr Steffan de Mistura. He has with him a very large delegation of businessmen from Italy, and I am led to believe by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport that several women might be happy to meet them because they might be able to provide us with some rather nice regalia—and we do all like our Italian fashion. We do welcome you here today and hope you enjoy your time in the parliament.
We also acknowledge Graham Edwards, the former member for Cowan, who is also with us today. We welcome him to the chamber.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
I refer the Prime Minister to her recent statement that investigations into Bruce Wilson's conduct were already underway in August 1995. When the Prime Minister became aware of investigations into AWU Melbourne bank accounts, did she alert the AWU or police to the advice she had given to Mr Wilson in relation to control of the fatal accident or death fund so that it too could be investigated? Why did the Prime Minister not refer to matters regarding this fund in her recent press conferences or answer questions in the House?
I have dealt with questions about these matters, about August 1995 and September 1995 and the issues that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raises. I have dealt with them at press conferences and in this parliament. I think the issue today for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is at what point will she apologise for making an absurd allegation against me yesterday, then denying the making of it and then being forced into a humiliating retreat? At what time will she apologise to the members of the press gallery—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The whole point is that the Prime Minister has never dealt with the fatal accident or death fund either in press conferences or in the House. I ask that she refer to this fund and the control of it by Mr Wilson.
The Prime Minister has the call and will return to the question.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, when will the Deputy Leader of the Opposition apologise to the press gallery for having misled them yesterday about her degree of contact with Mr Blewitt, and when will the Leader of the Opposition, who is responsible for this campaign of sleaze and a smear, acknowledge it for exactly what it has been? Today we have been treated to the absurdity of the Leader of the Opposition, who has spent days hiding behind his deputy, running away from her. She was instructed not to go to his book launch, his big so-called positive announcement; running away from her—
The Prime Minister will return to the question.
The problem with all of this campaign of smear is that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition got a bucket of mud—they had one waiting from 2007—and they tipped it over the deputy leader. That is their problem, not mine.
Madam Speaker—
The Prime Minister has concluded her answer.
My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Given the parliament's endorsement of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, does the minister have a view on statements from New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson opposing restrictions on groundwater use in the Basin Plan because of her concerns that it may impact on coal seam gas and coal developments on the Liverpool Plains and other areas? Is this further evidence of the need for the Commonwealth to act on independent bioregional assessments as part of an objective planning process?
I thank the member for New England for his question. There is probably no area of water reform more complex, and where the science involves more variables, than underground water. In terms of the plan, there was a significant difference of opinion between what New South Wales officials believed was a sustainable use of groundwater and what the Murray-Darling Basin Authority believed was a sustainable use of groundwater. On Eastern Porous, which covers the Gunnedah area right through to Sydney Basin, there was a difference—not massive—of around 15 gigalitres; on Western Porous the difference was massive. Where the authority was recommending 116 gigalitres as being sustainable, New South Wales believed that figure should have been 222 gigalitres. In the community meetings no issue caused more unity between people who looked at it from a conservation perspective and people who looked at it from a production perspective than making sure we were careful on groundwater. What was said in the meeting in Adelaide and what was said in the meeting in Griffith, and the members of parliament who were present at those meetings will know this, indicated that the issue of groundwater was a very real concern and people wanted us to take a cautious approach on it.
The New South Wales government is asking us to not have a further scientific process to resolve this issue. I am not willing to agree to that, the environmental movement would not support that and irrigation communities would not support that, and it would be taking a risk with the Murray-Darling Basin that I am not prepared to recommend this parliament take. For that reason we have within the plan a scientific process to go through a full scientific verification over two years covering what New South Wales believes are the right figures and what the authority believes are the sustainable figures. If the scientific evidence ends up showing that the New South Wales figures are sustainable, then they would be allowed to go ahead. You can go through all the challenges that communities will go through to deliver a good outcome on surface water; but, if you take an unreasonable risk with ground water, the whole thing gets undone—and that is a risk that the government are not prepared to take, that we do not believe we could recommend to this parliament. While New South Wales might be willing to ask us to take that sort of risk without the scientific evidence, it is something that I could never recommend as a sustainable option for the Murray-Darling Basin.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to encourage infrastructure investment in Australia?
I thank the member for Makin for his question. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Italian delegation who are in the chamber today. This delegation, led by Mr de Mistura, the Italian Undersecretary of State, is the largest ever Italian economic delegation to come to Australia, with more than 35 companies and more than 50 people. What they see in our strong economy are opportunities for investment that will benefit not only these Italian companies but also Australia. It is because we have the fundamentals right that we can benefit from international construction expertise and healthy competition in the infrastructure construction sector, which delivers better outcomes for the Australian taxpayer. That is why foreign investment is welcome in Australia: better outcomes for the Australian taxpayer.
We have practical examples as a result of the work that I have been doing over the last few years. The Legacy Way tunnel project in Brisbane is a good example. The Italian firm Ghella and the Spanish firm Acciona, in partnership with local firm BMD, were the successful bidders on this $2 billion project, and they were many hundreds of millions of dollars lower than the next bid. They bring their expertise, particularly in tunnelling, to Australia. Rizzani de Eccher, another company in the delegation, is also involved in a major infrastructure project, the $812 million South Road Superway in Adelaide. This project is the biggest investment in a South Australian road project ever and the state's most complex engineering road project to date.
These outcomes are a direct result of the dialogue between the Australian government and Italian companies, as well as initiatives such as the Foreign Direct Investment Promotion and Attraction Strategy for Major Australian Infrastructure developed by my department and Austrade, who have played a very important role in these issues.
We on this side of the chamber are encouraging investment in infrastructure through a range of measures. Through the infrastructure working group we have also cut red tape so that prequalification applies: if you apply in one state, you can operate right throughout the economy, thereby ensuring that there is a benefit for the nation's productivity.
Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain what other measures the government has put in place to boost investment in infrastructure?
I thank the member for Makin for his supplementary question. Indeed, during the budget week, I launched the National Infrastructure Construction Schedule. What companies in Australia and overseas say they want is a pipeline of projects. If you are going to make the decision to come to Australia and make Australia a centre to invest in the fastest growing region in the world, then you need to know that there is not just one project but a pipeline of projects ahead. The National Infrastructure Construction Schedule lists every public sector project of a value greater than $50 million, with time lines, estimated costs and processes for bidding so that it is available on one site. Well over a million hits have occurred on that site since we launched it in May.
When I was in Italy last week, the Italian companies involved said that the information available had been greatly enhanced as a result, and I want to thank the state and territory governments for their cooperation. In addition, the national prequalification system, the National PPP Policy and Guidelines, and the National Alliance Contracting Policy and Guidelines all mean that we are removing red tape to improve efficiency and productivity in the economy, provide better infrastructure and get better outcomes.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer in the House on Monday as to whether she had written to the WA commissioner for corporate affairs to vouch for the bona fides of the AWU Workplace Reform Association:
… the association is only incorporated if the … authority … is satisfied … Clearly, the registrar must have been so satisfied, or they would not have incorporated the association.
Given the Prime Minister's statement this week that she provided legal advice to establish the association and her failure to rule out writing to the commissioner on Monday, I ask the Prime Minister again: did she at any time write to the commissioner for corporate affairs to vouch for— (Time expired)
As the matter grows more and more embarrassing from the point of view of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I remind her that in this House and outside this House I have consistently answered questions about this matter and how I provided advice as a lawyer on the association, and no amount of smear changes that simple fact.
In relation to smear and the line of opposition questioning today, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's questions have been based on Michael Smith's blog today. That is her only source, Michael Smith—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I refer you to page 565 of the Practice and also page 516. Clearly, the Prime Minister is given the right to absolutely refuse to answer questions—which she does repeatedly in this chamber. But she also chooses to use, as it says on page 516, 'abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder'. Clearly she does, and the point of order is this: if she is not prepared to answer the questions, she should at least take them on notice or say she is not prepared to answer them, when in this chamber it is time she said—
The member for Mackellar will resume her seat.
Government members interjecting—
Mr Lyons interjecting—
The member for Bass might be telling people a great many things—but not in the chamber, in the next couple of minutes, if he is not careful. The Prime Minister has the call and will return to the question before the chair.
In answer to the point of order by the member for Mackellar and to the question in general: I have answered questions about my role as a solicitor in relation to providing legal advice on this association. I am also pointing out to the House that the opposition's tactics today have been dictated by Michael Smith's blog. Who is Michael Smith? He is the man who was sacked for wanting to defame me, basing that defamation on an affidavit drawn up by John Pasquarelli of One Nation fame. Who is Michael Smith?
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I will point out to the Manager of Opposition Business that the one point of order on this question has been taken. I will listen carefully to a different point of order, but be warned.
Madam Speaker, you have directed the Prime Minister to be relevant to the questions she is being asked. How could talking about Michael Smith be in the least bit relevant? So, she is defying your ruling.
With all these questions there is a great deal of information given before the question is put. The Prime Minister has the call and will go to the question before the chair.
I am dealing with this in the sense that the source of these allegations is Michael Smith. Who is Michael Smith? He is the man accompanying Ralph Blewitt around Australia. Who is Michael Smith? He is the man who rang the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and handed the phone over so that she could speak to Ralph Blewitt. What is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's version of these events? It is that Michael Smith rang her up and she had no idea who the phone was going to be handed over to. Who was she expecting—Humphrey B Bear? No; he can't talk. Tom Cruise? No; he's not in Australia.
The Prime Minister will return to the question.
Who on earth was she expecting on the phone? And why didn't she tell the truth about it yesterday?
Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. I refer to her answers in this House. Did the Prime Minister write to the WA commissioner for corporate affairs to vouch for the bona fides of the AWU Workplace Reform Association—yes or no?
Given that the Leader of the Opposition read along with every word of that question from the Deputy Leader: get up and ask it yourself, and then I will answer it.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of the 21st Delegation from the People's Republic of China, who are visiting under the auspices of the Australian Political Exchange Council. You have certainly come to question time on an interesting day! On behalf of the House I extend a warm welcome to members of the delegation.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister update the House on the introduction of the Australian Education Bill? How will this help make every school a great school? And is the minister aware of other policies on investing in our schools?
I thank the member for Greenway for her question. I know of her abiding interest in education. The fact is that this is a truly historic day for education in our country. The introduction of the Australian Education Bill marks a turning point away from the politics of division and negativity towards the new national focus on improving education for every student in every school, irrespective of where they are living and irrespective of their means.
The Australian Education Bill, which was introduced this morning by the Prime Minister, is the next big step in this government's response to the most comprehensive review of school funding that we have had in nearly 40 years. That review—the Gonski review—said that the current funding system was broken, that too many students were being left behind, particularly students from poorer communities, Indigenous communities and students from regional areas. On this side of the House—
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the shadow minister for education might want to listen to the question about the education bill. He is out of order under standing order 60.
The Leader of the House is correct. People are not to stand in the aisles when question time is in progress.
The fact is that the shadow opposition spokesman and the opposition leader chose to absent themselves from the House this morning when this bill was introduced. No more needs to be said.
We outlined, in this bill, a fairer funding model based on the needs of every student, with additional support for those students who need extra support—a new national plan for school improvement, with additional funding reforms tied to the investment itself. That is how we make sure that every student is given the opportunity for an excellent education, and it is how we make sure that every student gets the education they need for the high-skills, high-wages jobs of the future. That is how we keep our economy strong. This is a true Labor reform.
I am asked about alternative policies. Under Mr Abbott and Mr Pyne, education program after education program has been placed on the chopping block. Look at what they have said about the level of support for public schools and injustice—the argument that schools should have larger class sizes, that My School should be gutted, that one in seven teachers, or around 43,000 teachers, should be sacked, and that goals for Australia to be in the top five performing nations are 'mad'. At the end of the day, they are sticking to a broken funding system that would see Australian schools as much as $2 billion worse off over four years.
For a preview of what is on offer from the coalition, just look at look at Liberal-National coalitions in the other states: savage cuts to TAFE in Victoria, damaging cuts to youth services in Victoria, and the deepest cuts to education that we have ever seen in New South Wales. When we introduce an Australian Education Bill into the parliament we do it because, on this side of the House, we stand for making sure that every single student in Australia gets the best education they can. That is the way of the future.
I advise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she is going to get the call. She does not need to jump up before the individual has sat down.
I was just making sure.
I know, and I am fairly confident I am going to give you the call.
My question is to the Prime Minister: I refer the Prime Minister to her recent statement that she cannot recall receiving $5,000 in cash from Bruce Wilson. As the Prime Minister said, she made inquiries of the Commonwealth Bank with respect to this alleged deposit. Has she also made inquiries since this revelation to determine if the tax office has records of the payment or if she made declarations to her partners at Slater & Gordon, given her solicitor-client relationship with both Mr Wilson and the AWU?
This has now become truly embarrassing. Here we are. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was out there with this huge conspiracy theory yesterday, with these big allegations against me. She was out there making false claims, then forgetting that she had made the false claims, then denying the false claims, and then not telling the truth about the nature and number of her conversations with Mr Blewitt. Then, today, so much of an embarrassment is she that she cannot go to the Leader of the Opposition's book launch.
The Prime Minister will return to the question.
So much of an embarrassment is she that she is the one who has to ask these questions while the strategy is now being done over there without her. To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I say in all sincerity: please, stop embarrassing yourself. It is just getting too painful to watch.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The member for North Sydney is warned.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation. Why is the government's support for the automotive industry important for car manufacturers as they plan for the future? Have there been any recent comments by the industry that reflect this importance?
I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. He represents many people employed in the automotive manufacturing centre. In fact, there are about a quarter of a million Australians employed in the automotive industry. It is unquestionably the bedrock of Australia's manufacturing industry. This Labor government is supporting the car industry through difficult times with our $5.4 billion new car plan. That support is vital. It was confirmed yesterday by the managing director of General Motors Holden in Australia, Mr Mike Devereux, who stated that, without that government assistance, there would be no car-making capacity or car industry in this country at all.
It is important to record that in March GM Holden committed more than $1 billion over the next 10 years to keep building cars in this country, supported by an investment by state and federal governments totalling $275 million. In fact, Mr Devereux said yesterday that, if that government support was removed, Holden would then review its investment commitment. He also remarked that comments by those in the coalition, creating uncertainty about the future, were creating significant doubts about that investment.
What is the policy of those opposite? What is it? We know the member for North Sydney has been going around saying that he is opposed to support for the car industry at all. The member for Sturt has condemned Mr Devereux's comments, creating further uncertainty. We know the policy position of the Leader of the Opposition is to cut $1½ billion from the new car plan.
That is a lie! That is a lie!
The member for Indi will withdraw.
It was a mendacious claim. The minister knows it is not true.
The member for Indi will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Indi then left the chamber .
As the member for Indi leaves the chamber, I will say that she commented today that she was not sure that the coalition did have a policy but that they will try to have one by the time of the next election. What a joke! A quarter of a million people depend upon this industry and you have different members of the coalition espousing different policy positions and creating investment uncertainty. That is exactly what General Motors Holden were commenting upon.
Let's make something absolutely clear: this side, Labor, supports the car industry and supports the people who work within it and that side, the coalition, do not support the industry and will not support the people who are employed in it. They have already pocketed the $1½ billion in savings to fill their $75 billion black hole. All of their claims are completely unbelievable. They are going to cost people their jobs.
I refer the Prime Minister to the claim that Bruce Wilson instructed an AWU employee, Wayne Hem, to deposit $5,000 into a personal account in the Prime Minister's name and the confirmation last night from Wilson, who said: 'I do not argue with that.' As the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to categorically deny that she received those funds, will she do so now?
I have dealt with those claims previously. I have dealt with them in here and I have dealt with them outside the parliament. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is at the bottom of the mud bucket now and she does not actually have any new mud left. The problem for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that she and the Leader of the Opposition came into this parliament with a strategy of smear. Together, they got the mud. They used the old Liberal Party dirt file and added to it.
The Prime Minister will return to the question.
The strategy was that the Leader of the Opposition would be quiet as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition threw the mud. Here we are on day 3 and it is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who is covered in mud, but it is time that the Leader of the Opposition took personal responsibility. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Would the minister advise the House of the recent developments around the future of the forests industry in Tasmania and what this means for jobs and the environment?
I want to thank the member for Lyons for the question. Anyone who knows anything about Tasmanian issues and forestry issues over the last decades would know that there has been no greater champion of making sure you can have sustainable jobs in the timber industry than the member for Lyons. He has dedicated his political life to it.
It then comes down to the question, when we look at the intergovernmental agreement: why is it that we now have a situation where people who have their entire lives done nothing but try to make sure there are sustainable jobs for timber communities are saying this is an agreement that they want? This is in the context of Tasmanian members for years having a view that they are tired of being treated as political footballs. Tasmanian people out there trying to get solid employment then found a situation where they were around the table for the first time. Those groups that had been part of conservation campaigns sat down at the table with industry and asked, 'Are we able, with no politicians in the room, to come up with a sustainable plan that will actually give us a way forward for jobs in Tasmania?'
This is at a time when there is massive change happening in the timber industry across the country. You only have to look at the job losses that have been happening in Eden, or to look at the challenges that have been happening in mills in South Australia as well, to see that there is a massive change going on in the forestry industry, way beyond the normal boom and bust cycle that that industry has known. That is why I think everyone who had sat around the table for two years to come up with an agreement would have been appalled to see the reaction from Senator Colbeck, simply describing the agreement, in his own elegant way, as c-r-a-p. That was the description put out by the spokesperson for the opposition of the opportunity that is in front of Tasmania right now.
I have to say I have not tried to vary the agreement by one millimetre from what industry have said they need. But anyone should be minded to look at the media release from Ta Ann. You do not have to know much about the timber industry to know that, to make the jobs add up, you need to have your woodchip part of it, your sawlog part of it and your peeler billets. All the peeler billets go through one significant operator there, Ta Ann, who are saying that to continue operating in Tasmania they need the support of this agreement. That is what they need. And what does the opposition do? The opposition says, 'Here's a chance to get a little bit of political leverage, and who cares if we're playing games with jobs in Tasmania?'
No-one went to the table. Certainly you would not find the member for Lyons going to the table simply on the basis of conservation outcomes. It is on the basis that this is a real opportunity to make sure that we have a sustainable future for jobs in Tasmania at a time of massive transition. Anyone who is prepared to ignore that needs to know that they are ignoring the needs of Tasmanians on the way through. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to this 1996 interview of the WA major fraud squad with the auditor of the AWU in Western Australia, who stated he had no knowledge of the existence of the AWU Workplace Reform Association, never saw any documents to indicate it existed or any financial records. Given that Bruce Wilson revealed last night the Prime Minister gave much broader advice than previously admitted on legal requirements to establish the association and its rules, why hasn't the Prime Minister revealed the true extent of her involvement in the setting up of this association?
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. We have gone wide, we have gone wider and now we are off the map. That question is completely out of order.
Madam Speaker, on the point of order. The question is clearly in order because it relates to the statements the Prime Minister has made before, revealing her involvement in the establishment of the association—statements that she has made in this House this week, statements that she has made in press conferences as Prime Minister. Therefore the question is: since Bruce Wilson has revealed that the Prime Minister had a greater involvement than the Prime Minister has admitted, why didn't she reveal it in this place, in this House or in press conferences?
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
In answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question, I have dealt with these matters fully. I have dealt fully with my role in providing legal advice on the incorporation of this association. I have provided detailed answers on this. They were provided in press conferences; they have been provided in this parliament. What this desperate tactic shows is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is actually out of questions on this matter, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is out of credibility on this matter and the Leader of the Opposition's strategy of negativity and sleaze and smear is running out of puff as well.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Will the minister update the House on the pipeline of investment in the resources sector? What does this say about the performance of the sector?
I thank the member for Capricornia for the question. As a member representing central Queensland, she understands the importance of the resources sector and of us as a nation consolidating the current investment pipeline. On that note, I am pleased to advise the House that despite a dramatic drop in commodity prices over the last 12 months—in actual fact a bigger drop than any of us expected—we have been able to further consolidate the huge amount of capital investment in Australia at the moment, right across the resources and petroleum sectors. I must say, this is exceptionally important. It goes to the heart of what this government is about. It is about jobs and investment and strengthening the underpinnings of the Australian economy, which is what the Australian community actually expects us to be debating and talking about on a regular basis in this House.
In that context, could I remind the House, as the Treasurer said today, that we now have in the resources and petroleum sector $268.4 billion committed in capital investment currently under construction in Australia. That represents 87 major projects. Importantly, 51 of those projects are in the minerals sector, 18 in the gas and petroleum sector and a further 18 in infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, 11 of those projects are actually megaprojects, representing investment of more than $5 billion each. It is interesting to note that, of the 10 major LNG projects under construction in the global community at the moment, seven are under construction in Australia, to the tune of about $170 billion—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the House was keen earlier to make a point about people standing in the aisles. We really do not like him down this end of the chamber, and he is standing here regularly, standing over us.
The member for Mitchell makes a valid point about people standing in the aisles.
Madam Speaker, I assure you I am liked by the crossbenchers. That's why we are on 444 to zip.
The Leader of the House is warned!
Madam Speaker, I didn't know the third test had started in Perth! Putting that aside, can I say, in addition to the 87 projects committed, we have also got 277 projects in the pipeline. I am pleased to say that, over the course of the next week, I will be having discussions both in India and in Singapore about three of those key projects which represent further investment opportunities for Australia in 2013. They include two in the Galilee Basin, by GVK Hancock and Adani, both major projects with the capacity to open up the Galilee Basin. I will also be having discussions in Singapore with potential investors in the Roy Hill iron ore project, which hopefully will go to find an investment decision about the middle of next year.
I raise these questions because the Australian community understands the importance of attracting further investment, despite a dramatic drop in commodity prices, and in doing so maximising employment and training opportunities for Australia. That is what the Australian community wants us to speak about. That is what we are committed to continue to do and that is what we will go forward on in terms of our plan for the future—further investment and jobs for ordinary Australians.
I move:
That so much of the standing of sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 3 private Members business standing in my name, being called on and proceeded with immediately.
There is a matter of immediacy here. I have been down through the Murray-Darling. Read my history book, I advise you all—it is only $35 at all good book stands! In that book, there are five parts. The main part is 'Walking with Giants'. One of the chapters in it is about the Thiess brothers, who built the Snowy Mountains project, and another is about the Snowy Mountains project. This place attempted to sell the greatest achievement of the Australian people—to quote from my book—numbered among the 27 most iconic engineering projects in world history. And we in this place attempted to sell it! But, thanks to the member for New England and the late member for Calare, we were able to use our tiny numbers in this place to have that decision reversed. But, having finished with that, the Liberal-National Party introduced the Water Act, which took away 20 per cent of the basin's water. Heaven only knows the South Australians had a great argument, because all the water was being taken. The South Australians were quite right in fighting for protection of their water rights. But that did not validate the taking of one fifth of the entire water of the basin.
When I went to Mildura, they informed me that there are 85 empty shops in Mildura.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt the colourful member, but he should be explaining to the House why standing orders should be suspended, and he is not doing so.
The member for Kennedy has the call but does need to indicate why standing orders should be suspended.
It would be very good if the honourable member listened to what I was saying. I just told him that there were 85 empty shops in Mildura. You think that is not important, do you? I said that one in 10 farms had closed down at Mildura, and I was corrected by someone from the local newspaper who said it is closer to one in five. They tell me in Griffith that the figures are almost as bad in terms of empty buildings and closed farms. Twenty per cent of the economic underpinnings of western New South Wales, northern Victoria and south-eastern South Australia has been removed. At Deniliquin—this is the immediacy—there are normally 60 to 70 houses for sale, according to the leading real estate person there, and now there are 155 houses for sale. And you think there is no immediacy involved with this!
The House is now enabling the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communitiesto take away another 15 per cent. Twenty per cent has already been taken away and now we will take another 15 per cent. Ten thousand people have turned up at the rallies in the greater Griffith area. A member of parliament in this place—I do not know whether he is fair dinkum or not; that is up to him—said he is going to cross the floor, which is a pretty rare phenomenon in this place. But he thinks it is so immediate that he said he is going to cross the floor about it. What I am saying is that this is immediate and it needs to be debated now.
There are other alternatives. There are a dozen other alternatives. I have devoted probably a fair proportion of my entire life to trying to get water development in northern Australia, where of course we are awash with water, so I know a lot about what I am talking about here. If you want to go back to nature, have a look at the Menindee Lakes and Lake Alexandrina, which are entirely unnatural. They are created by man. But of course they are sucking over a million megalitres out of the basin. So, if you say you need three million extra megalitres in the basin, there is over a million megalitres for you straightaway.
A little tiny bit of the floodwaters from the Clarence River—and the honourable member representing that area is very sensitive, but let me say that I would like some of my floodwaters from some of my coastal rivers to be sent the other way, because people die in the flooding in my electorate regularly. Similarly, in the Clarence River there have been deaths from flooding on a number of occasions, so you can turn back a bit of the Clarence.
Quite frankly, you can recycle water. Simply taking your laundry water and putting it into your septic will halve the domestic consumption. There are a dozen ways that we can be going about this without taking the water from the irrigation towns. Whilst the farmers might be compensated, the townspeople are not. For every farmer, there are 20 people living in those towns. Those farmers, of course, are being destroyed because the channels have lost a third of the people who were meeting the cost of keeping the channels operating. That cost is now borne by only two-thirds of the farmers because one-third have gone. The farms have been purchased by the government and closed down.
The issue is whether the greatest achievement of the Australian people, one of the 27 iconic engineering projects in world history, is going to have a third of it closed down. That is the issue before the parliament. There are those of us who profoundly believe that it should not be. That achievement enables the people of Australia to feed and clothe some 20 million people. They are fed and clothed by that magnificent scheme. Nearly one-tenth of our entire peak load base power in Australia is clean and forever and free because that power comes out of the sky. What we are contemplating here is closing a third of that down.
We consider that this is a matter of great urgency. I am very familiar with this because I represent mining areas. When a mine closes down and we lose a quarter of our employment in a town, it takes two or three years for the full economic impact of that to filter through to the communities. It is just now that it is filtering through the communities of western New South Wales, northern Victoria and south-eastern South Australia. Before the full impact of that occurs, we can head it off and raise hope that some of that water may be restored, instead of a tenth of what is left being taken from them. That is why we are asking that sessional orders be suspended and that we have the right to advance this issue before the House. If nothing else, at least it is a matter that should be debated by this parliament.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The government will not be supporting this suspension of standing orders. There are two disallowance motions that have been moved, one by the member for Riverina and the other by the member for Kennedy. If this motion were to be carried, we would have to have a debate about the member for Kennedy's disallowance motion and then, at another time, have a debate about the member for Riverina's motion, therefore having two additional debates in addition to the legislation that is before the House about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. With due respect to the member for Kennedy, there are three bills—
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. It will appear facetious, Madam Speaker, but the problem can be removed by the second disallowance motion being removed from the Notice Paper.
I thank the member for Kennedy for his helpful suggestion!
And I am pleased at the extent of the collaboration with the member for Riverina that has been suggested by the member for Kennedy about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan! But the government will not be supporting this. The government has been in discussions in good faith about getting bills through the House today that need to be returned from the Senate. That is why we will deal with these issues first thing tomorrow, as with other issues that do not need to go to the Senate and be returned, so that the parliament can end in a timely fashion.
I say to the member for Kennedy with regard to his motion that he has now had an opportunity to put some things on the record. He will have the opportunity to contribute to the debate tomorrow, when there will be a cognate debate between the member for Riverina's disallowance motion and the member for Kennedy's disallowance motion. I ask the House to oppose this so that we can have a couple more questions before we move on to the next item of business.
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. With the urgency of this matter, I think it should be debated now. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he would support that we debate it now, and I most certainly would welcome—
The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. I will put the question and you will find out whether you have support or not. I need to hear two ayes!
Question negatived.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that I have asked her three times today to rule out that she wrote to the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs vouching for the bona fides of the AWU Workplace Reform Association, and she is yet to do so. I will give her another opportunity. Did she write to the WA Commissioner for Corporate Affairs vouching for the bona fides of the AWU Workplace Reform Association—yes or no?
Speaker, on a point of order, in the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's own words, this is the same question. The Prime Minister has answered these questions. She has answered them for almost two decades.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
On the point of order, Madam Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, the standing order is that a question fully answered cannot be renewed. This question has clearly not been answered—a point happily made by the Leader of the House in trying to suggest that it has been answered, when clearly it has not. And why hasn't it been answered, Prime Minister?
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
We are at the stage where, if they are not getting their questions out of the Michael Smith blog then they are basing them on newspaper reports from a number of weeks ago. Once again, we are in a situation where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asserting things she has got no sources for, except she read them somewhere.
Honourable members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I understand the issue that is before the House. Member for Kennedy, I understand that the issue you have raised is of great concern to many members in the House, particularly in that very area, but I would ask everybody to show greater respect to the parliament and to individuals' positions on issues that they are passionate about and that their constituencies are passionate about.
On a point of order on relevance, Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister finds this question so tedious and easy to answer, why doesn't she just answer it: yes or no?
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
There is no amount of overacting that makes this line of questioning any more credible. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, having shredded her credibility yesterday, is now going through the files of old newspaper clippings.
Honourable members interjecting—
It is truly pathetic—and the bellowing does not help. At some point the Leader of the Opposition has to say what he stands for in these matters. Does he back the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in yesterday for her dishonest statements or not? This sleaze and smear out of Michael Smith blogs—how pathetic is it? All over to you.
My question is to the Minister for Employment Participation and Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare. Will the minister outline the real reforms the government has put in place to help Australian families and their childcare needs? Are there any other approaches and what would be their impact?
I thank the member for Parramatta for her question on policy matters before the Australian people. I know that, like me, she is very proud to be part of a government that has prioritised increasing the affordability, the accessibility and indeed the quality of Australian child care.
As a government we have massively increased the childcare rebate. Of course, we increased it from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. We increased the cap to up to $7,500 per child per year. As a result of that we know that this is bringing real relief to parents. An average family on $75,000 a year was spending 13 per cent of their disposable income on their out-of-pocket childcare costs under the coalition government. Under this government, as a result of our increased investments, that family is now spending some 7.6 per cent of their disposable income on child care. So we know that our measures are working; we know that they are increasing affordability.
There has been a staggering 20 per cent increase in the number of children in child care just since we have been in government. That includes a nine per cent increase in the last 12 months alone. So we are a government that recognises that families rely upon our action and our policies to help them balance their work and their family and to help them access quality childcare services. But I was asked by the member for Parramatta if there are any alternative views.
I can inform the House that there are indeed some quite alternative views. Last week the opposition leader released the coalition's so-called childcare policy. Guess what it was. It was that they are not going to have one. The opposition leader—proving once more that he might be good at doing a sound bite, although not this week, but he is a lightweight on policy—actually announced that the coalition will not reveal what childcare programs they will cut. He revealed that the coalition will not reveal whether they will reduce the childcare rebate. They will not reveal whether they will means test the childcare rebate. They will not reveal whether they will abolish the childcare rebate altogether. In fact, they will not tell Australian parents what they will do at all, except that they will place it in the too-hard basket and then palm it off for review after the next election.
This is an absolute joke from an opposition. It may seem like a big game to come in here with no policy and instead focus on negativity and on smear, but to the hundreds of thousands of Australian families out there who are relying on government investments, on government assistance, which we are very proud to have increased, this is a very real issue. We know that childcare policies are absolutely necessary and we are incredibly proud of the ones we have put forward. We know that modern governments need proper childcare policies in place, and this opposition have shirked their responsibility. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement of Slater and Gordon yesterday and to her recent statements about her departure from the firm. Isn't it the case that, after she and Mr Wilson learned the AWU was intending to lay charges against him, he told the Prime Minister and Bernard Murphy his misuse of union funds could be exposed, placing the firm in a client conflict of interest, forcing her and Murphy to leave the firm and the loss of the AWU as a client? Why hasn't she explained the actual circumstances in which she left the firm in her recent statements? (Time expired)
We are not only at the bottom of the barrel now; we are through the bottom of the barrel and we are tunnelling underneath. I refer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to my statements about this matter on the public record. I refer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
If she wants to stop yelling and carrying on—we know she is embarrassed; no amount of screaming is going to fix that. I refer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the statement of Slater and Gordon about the circumstances of my employment with the firm. These things have been on the public record for some time now. This is truly pathetic and embarrassing to watch—a humiliation for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. There was a series of acts of dishonesty outside the parliament yesterday, seeking to mislead the press gallery. And every smear, every untrue word is endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, because that is who he is—a man without a plan for the nation's future; a man with only negativity and smear. And what he really fears is: he is a man whose political strategy has come to an end.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a document from Slater and Gordon setting out the reasons for the conflict of interest between the AWU and Mr Wilson.
The Leader of the House?
Opposition members: 'No'!
What they said.
As I am not going to allow the interjection, I would actually like the Leader of the House to state—
My statement would have put the interjection on the record: no.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation. As the minister knows, we are in the middle of National Asbestos Awareness Week. What is the government doing to help Australian industry deal with the challenge of asbestos? Is this consistent with the government's past record on asbestos? And have there been any other approaches to this?
I thank my colleague the member for Newcastle for the question, because working with industry to clean up asbestos has been a feature of the work of the government, the trade union movement and the Labor Party for many years. In particular, on this side of the chamber we stand up and fight for the rights of victims of asbestos diseases. One of the things that I am most proud of from my time in the trade union movement was the achievement of a multibillion-dollar compensation fund for victims of James Hardie. In that dispute—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
I have noted what you have said.
The Manager of Opposition Business will withdraw.
I withdraw.
The minister will withdraw.
I withdraw. I am very proud that, in that dispute with James Hardie, the law firm in which the Prime Minister was once a partner, Slater and Gordon, which has been the subject of some discussion in recent times, acted as my legal advisers. In fact, that firm and many other labour law firms have worked very hard over numerous years to fight for compensation for asbestos victims.
On the other side of the chamber, the deputy opposition leader of course acted for a company against victims, to oppose their compensation. She acted for a company that had this to say in 1977: 'Even if the workers die like flies, they will never be able to pin anything on CSR.' That is who you acted for.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was at university in 1977 and was not working as a lawyer anywhere.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The minister has the call.
Well, there has been a lot said about the morality and the conduct of lawyers in acting on behalf of their clients; where is the morality in that—to represent a company with that sort of view, that workers are going to die like flies? On asbestos, we know where we stand. And we know where you stand.
Who's embarrassed now?
The member for Brisbane will excuse herself from the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Brisbane then left the chamber.
I think it is noteworthy that, when we were conducting, in the labour movement, the campaign to achieve justice for asbestos victims of James Hardie, I received, as leader of the trade union movement, a lot of support from Labor governments. I did not have one call or one iota of assistance from the Howard government or its then health minister, Tony Abbott—not one iota of assistance. We know where we are on this position. The only thing that the Leader of the Opposition has contributed to this, that is of memory to anyone, is an insult to Bernie Banton. A kick in the guts to a dying man it was. A kick in the guts to a dying man—that is your contribution to this issue. This government has a very proud record of standing up, cleaning up asbestos and fighting on behalf of victims, and we will not be lectured to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about ethics and morality, or you, hiding behind her.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order!
Madam Speaker—
I am on my feet, Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I understand you want the call, but when I am on my feet—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have raised this point of order consistently before: standing order 65. It would help the process of the House immensely if you could enforce that standing order, that members should address their remarks through the chair. That 'you' across the chamber, especially with a pointed finger, does nothing to improve the behaviour of the House. Please enforce it.
I thank the member for Mallee, and I would completely agree that I, obviously, had nothing to do with any of those issues, and that is the point: the questions actually go through the chair.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. We have extended the time of question time to ensure the opposition has had the usual number of questions, notwithstanding the intervention in debate by the member for Kennedy. So, the opposition, the miserable failure, has had the usual amount of time—very embarrassing, but we have brought it to an end for them.
Sit down!
Order! The member for North Sydney will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for North Sydney then left the chamber.
Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, on numerous occasions and most grievously.
Ms King interjecting—
The member for Ballarat is warned! The Leader of the Opposition, please proceed.
In parliament today the minister for climate change accused me and the coalition of wanting to cut $1.5 billion from the car industry. This is a completely fanciful claim. We have committed $1 billion to the Automotive Transformation Scheme over the forward estimates, and it is actually the government which has cut $1.4 billion from the car industry since 2008. Furthermore—
The member needs to show where he has been misrepresented.
Indeed, Madam Speaker. The minister for climate change also claimed that I was somehow against asbestos victims. From memory, as health minister I committed $5 million to a special centre to research asbestos-related diseases. Finally, the Minister for Employment Participation accused me and the coalition of cutting childcare funding. This is completely wrong. In fact, it is the current government which has slashed the childcare rebate by some $600 over the most recent period.
Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
The minister for schools has again today repeated the falsehood that I have claimed I would want to sack one in seven schoolteachers. I would point out that that is an utterly false statement. Because the Commonwealth does not employ schoolteachers, I have never said any such thing. In fact, the minister for schools is a fantabulist on that subject. Secondly, the minister for schools suggested that I want to preside over cuts to the education portfolio. That is entirely false. In fact, the coalition is the only party with a promise to increase funding to all schools across Australia. It is the government that has $3.9 billion of education cuts in MYEFO.
I table the Australian Financial Review article 'Christopher Pyne's school lunch', of 11 August 2012, in which the shadow minister speculates on managing teachers out of the education system.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedingsand I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Aged Care Act 1997Report on the operation of the Act for 2011-12.
Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited (LiveCorp)—Report for 2011-12.
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Quarterly report of the Chief Executive Officer for the period 1 July to 30 September 2012.
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation—Report for 2011-12—Correction.
Committee reports—Government responses to parliamentary committee reports—Response to the schedule tabled by the Speaker on 28 June 2012.
IIF Investments Pty Limited—Report for 2011-12.
Migration Act 1958Section 486O—Assessment of detention arrangements—2012 Personal identifiers 750/12, 783/12, 792-3/12, 813/12, 823/12, 825/12, 836/12, 854-5/12, 858/12, 864/12, 900/12, 967/12, 972/12, 984-5/12, 989-1011/12, 1013-19/12, 1021-25/12, 1028-40/12, 1042-3/12, 1050-52/12, 1056/12—
Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman’s reports.
Government response to Ombudsman’s reports.
National Transport Commission—Report for 2011-12—Corrigendum.
Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report and State of the Wet Tropics Report for 2011-12.
Debate adjourned.
For the information of honourable members I present Rules for media related activities in Parliament House and its precincts, issued by the Presiding Officers, November 2012, which the President of the Senate and I have agreed to. These rules are the result of a year-long consultation process by the Joint Committee on the Broadcast Of Parliamentary Proceedings with representatives of the federal parliamentary press gallery and members, senators and parliamentary officials. Through written submissions and roundtable discussions, each of the stakeholders has had an opportunity to make their views known. The rules will replace the guidelines for filming and photography and general media rules in Parliament House and its precincts. The rules are underpinned by four guiding principles: the openness and accessibility of parliament; the facilitation of fair and accurate reporting by media of parliamentary proceedings; respect for the privacy of senators, members, other building occupants and visitors to Parliament House; and non-interference with the operation of parliament or the ability of members, senators and other building occupants to fulfil their duties.
The rules will clarify for the media, members and senators and their staff where media activity is permitted with approval or not permitted in the building and its precincts. The rules have as an appendix a set of maps which clearly demark these areas. The rules also allow images and footage of chamber proceedings to be broadcast if used fairly and accurately. However, broadcast or publication of images that have been digitally manipulated is not acceptable.
It will be a condition of access for building occupants that the rules are complied with. Where breaches occur, a graduated range of sanctions may be applied. Administration of the rules will be delegated to the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Usher of the Black Rod. The clerks are preparing advice on proposed amendments to the resolutions relating to broadcasting of both the House and the Senate. The changes will take into account technical changes in broadcasting, including the introduction of Parlview.
The President and I will seek advice from members and senators on the resolutions before they are introduced. The rules will be available on the Australian Parliament House website. They come into effect from 5 February 2013—that is, from the first sitting week of next year. This should give us all time to become more familiar with their operations. We make it clear that all members of the Parliament—the House and the Senate—are governed by these rules. I thank the House for listening to this short presentation.
I have received letters from the honourable member for Lyne and the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Lyne, namely:
The current failure of the Commonwealth and States to reach agreement on the future funding of technical and further education.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I thank the members who have risen to support this matter of great public importance and I thank the member for North Sydney for making it a little bit easier to choose this as the issue of importance today. I can see that there is good work going on in many areas in education. I am particularly pleased to see the work in the university sector and tertiary sector in the areas of improving equity and access for students from regional Australia and from low socioeconomic backgrounds. I am particularly pleased to see over the last couple of years significant increases in the uptake of tertiary degrees and related courses by people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent.
Likewise, I am very supportive of the legislation brought into the House today to do with what is known as the Gonski review. Principles similar to those which came from the Bradley review and the reforms in the tertiary education sector are now being put to the House for the secondary education sector, where funding is on a more equitable basis and is attached to the goals of greater engagement and greater education outcomes for those who in the past have missed out. Again, it is those three key area where the data tells the story: those from a low socio-economic background compared with their richer counterparts; those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent compared with others; and those from regional and rural Australia, compared with their metropolitan cousins. The data is clear and therefore the model of funding for equity and fairness is right to place a particular loading on those sectors to get greater outcomes and to lift the education outcomes for all of us and therefore build a better standard of living for all and more resilient communities.
However, the reason for putting an MPI before the House today is that in the middle of this work in secondary and tertiary education is a vocational education sector that is directly under threat in Australia today. I do not think it is too strong to use the language that we have a skills crisis in Australia today. I think it should be of great concern to all members of all political persuasions in all parliaments that we have allowed ourselves to have this unholy war of the moment between the Commonwealth and the state governments, particularly on the eastern seaboard, where we are seeing money either withheld or cut from the delivery of vocational education in Australia. This is not just some wont to keep public sector jobs and to keep TAFEs alive in Australia. I will certainly come to a point in relation to this. This is an issue being raised by peak business and industry bodies, as well. It is an issue of the moment and it must be resolved as a matter of urgency. I quote directly from the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, who said the following in August at the National Press Club when referring to the closure of dozens of courses at regional TAFEs in Victoria:
It is of significant concern to industry that we won't be able to then drive that skills pool into the future and kids in regional Australia will miss out on opportunities to gain skills and then get into the workforce.
This basic point being made by AiG is backed up by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, or ACCI, the peak body, the Business Council of Australia and all who generally support the key principles behind vocational education and training reform in Australia. However, they are flagging deep concerns about the speed of the cuts and the adoption of some pretty dramatic measures by various state governments, post the signing of the interim National Partnership Agreement in April this year, I think it was. That was a key moment that has started to see this issue go off the rails. In early 2012, COAG agreed a National Partnership Agreement for skills reform should be delivered and said it will:
… contribute to the reform of the Vocational Education and Training (VET) system to deliver a productive and highly skilled workforce which contributes to Australia's economic future, and enables all working age Australians to develop skills and qualifications needed to participate effectively in the labour market.
If only today those words were true and could be upheld as being gospel about what is being achieved on the ground, in practice and in the lives of many who are either currently trying to gain access to vocational education or are in vocational education. That is sadly not where we have ended up, six months post that agreement being reached.
The agreement identified a number of reform directions. There are five of them. The first is the introduction of a national training entitlement and the increased availability of income contingent loans. I know there are some who have concerns about that, but I do not. I think that is a sensible reform, if delivered in the appropriate way. Secondly, improving participation and qualification completions at high levels. Again, that is something I endorse. Third, encouraging responsiveness in training arrangements by facilitating the operation of a more open, competitive market. Again, that is something I support. The fourth is recognising the important functions of public providers in servicing the training needs of industries, regions and local communities and their role that spans high-level training and workforce development. Again, I think you would struggle to find someone opposed to that.
Liberal state governments.
I am sure that is a point you will make! The fifth point is assuring the quality of training delivery and outcomes. It is one that, again, I hope is broadly supported. So, all five, as individual items, are ones of support. The issue of the moment, which is one for all governments, is the conflict between several of these points and the lack of clarity, particularly around the fourth point: recognising the important functions of public providers. Six months after this agreement was reached they do feel like they are swinging in the breeze, that they are being attacked by a greater investment in a competitive marketplace and in private providers, and a lack of support from their owners, which are, I accept, another level of government. But I do not think the Commonwealth entered into this agreement trying to encourage state governments to monster their public providers, through their own actions, yet that is the agreement entered into by the Commonwealth and that is why this is an issue of conflict before the House.
So, I understand the market based philosophy: seeking economic growth and seeking to provide students not with vouchers—that is a dirty word—but the equivalent of vouchers, and choice between public and private providers. That is sitting at direct odds at the moment with the actions we see of attack on public providers, even though that is explicitly written into the principles of the national partnership agreement.
We have a real problem. It is having a real and material impact on the ground in communities such as the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. In talking to many members in this chamber, conversations around the real impacts of TAFE cuts in their communities are alive and well in this building. We need to deal with the issue and we need to apply pressure not only on state governments to increase their defence of their own public providers, and recognising the important functions of those public providers, but also through this place and this chamber to keep pressure on the Commonwealth, the executive and the particular ministers and parliamentary secretaries responsible to make sure that this national partnership agreement is used for good, not evil. It has to be used to deliver market reform for greater outcomes in the training and education sector that makes more people industry-ready, makes us a more entrepreneurial nation and builds more resilient communities. It cannot be used in the context of reform designed as destroy which then destroys the public sector and the place of public providers. That is the reason for raising this matter today.
I notice in my TAFEs that there is a great deal of concern. It is not only amongst the student body, which is facing increased fees. I represent a comparatively lower socioeconomic community, so the fee impact is something that does shape decisions about their futures. It is not only from the teacher body, which is facing significant cuts to hours or job security more generally. Of more interest in this debate for the Commonwealth is the strategic decisions that each of the TAFEs are now faced with and have to make at the director and executive level. Along the eastern seaboard we hear of closures. Along the eastern seaboard we hear of great frustration from executives who feel like their hands are tied behind their backs in this national partnership agreement process. They are facing enormous structural adjustment. They look over the fence and see funds that go to universities for structural adjustment, yet for the vocational education sector they are told that they have to do it alone. There is no structural adjustment support in what is an environment of major change and they have to do it on the smell of the cliched oily rag.
As well most states—I know certainly in New South Wales—create the added burden where decisions around capital are difficult because, if you decide to sell anything, a fair slice of that money goes back into the state coffers into consolidated revenue. Strategic decisions around the moving of assets or the downsizing of assets are decisions that are limited and are limiting the business model decisions that TAFE strategically is being asked to make.
In the final minute and a half I will put several issues on the table. Firstly, in relation to point 4 of the agreement, state and federal governments have to explicitly state whether they stand by this agreement and recognise the important function of private providers. If so, how? If so, when? Secondly, there is the role of pathways and collaboration. I see vocational education as the critical link between secondary and tertiary education, yet we are doing things in those two areas that we are not doing in vocational education. We are almost making it the missing-out link rather than the missing link between the two. Investment in pathways and collaboration is needed. Thirdly, there is consideration around structural adjustment and, fourthly, there is the vocational education sector. Both of those areas are around financial support and some creative thinking to free up their ability to make business decision in an increasing business environment.
Co-investment strategies from the Commonwealth and the state in these implementation plans have to happen and have to happen soon before we go down the paths of withholding big money at the expense of students. The Commonwealth use of power is available to stick up for point 4 and public providers. That withholding power of the Commonwealth is one that I would ask to be considered. We need the capping of private providers. There are 5,000 private providers in the market in Australia and they are absolutely monstering the public sector. When is enough, enough? When do we have a fully competitive market? Basically, can we stop the education wars in Australia today? This matters. (Time expired)
I start by thanking the member for Lyne for putting this particular item up as a matter of public importance and it is, indeed, a matter of importance. As I reflected in a debate on legislation yesterday, he and I have spent quite a bit of time on the education committee of this parliament and from that experience I know of his personal commitment to education and training, given that we reflect similar areas for young people who need access to vocational education and training to transform their lives.
I will acknowledge in particular that the member in his contribution, which I listened to closely, made the point about the national partnership and that it should be used for good and not for evil. I can assure him that this government uses everything for good and not for evil. It is a standard operating practice for this government across all portfolio areas and I would argue none more so than in the education area.
The member went to the issues of the wellbeing and strength of the technical and further education area as an issue not only for those in the sector or indeed its client group—the people in our own regions who we talk about and who need access to this training—but also more broadly for the economy as a whole. That is reflected in the concerns that have been expressed, as he indicated, by people like Innes Willox in August at the National Press Club about what is happening to this sector up and down the eastern seaboard.
In addressing the issues that the member has raised in his speech on this matter of public importance, I want to put on the record where we are at with the vocational education and training reform agenda and to reflect on some of the things that he has raised about the response of the Victorian, New South Wales and Queensland governments to the vocational education and training sector. Finally, I will raise my concerns about what a change of federal government would mean to this sector.
It is the case that we have been driving some real reform in the skills and training area. It has been in fact a $15.6 billion investment over four years. Many members of this House have been particularly encouraging of the government to continue with that investment, recognising how important that sector is. It would be no surprise, having gone from a TAFE teaching background, that I am never going to argue that the vocational education and training sector is not a critically important link between secondary education and tertiary education at university. Indeed, we see more and more people not only graduating from their TAFE and vocational training providers to university but doing the reverse trick—picking up university qualifications and then going back to TAFE to get some on-the-tools experience. It is a critically important sector to our economy and our communities.
As part of the reform agenda, there is on the table $1.75 billion over five years for the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform that the member referred to. There is $1.4 billion allocated to the states each year for that reform agenda. Thirty-five per cent of the funding under the national partnership agreement will be provided for increases in VET outcomes, which will be measured by an overall increase in completions of qualifications. We want people to get the qualification at the end of the investment of government money and of their time, energy and effort. That is a particularly important commitment.
We signed that national partnership agreement through COAG in April of this year, as the member indicated, to progress those reforms. The reforms included improving course completion rates, improving the quality of training and fixing some of the issues that the member touched on. It is critically important that the quality issue is addressed. We need to ensure that we address some of the concerns that the member raised about the diversity of providers that might be out there. We need those providers to deliver what people entering into training want. There needs to be a robust quality system in place.
We also want to improve access to training through the provision of a new entitlement to a funded place up to certificate III and through the provision of HECS style loans for diplomas and above. We also want to improve transparency for students and employers to ensure that they have good quality information on courses and on providers.
Under the agreement, the states are asked to provide implementation plans to the Commonwealth. They are asked to set out in those plans their methods of delivering on those undertakings. The reward funding under the agreement—that is, the $1.75 billion over five years—will only flow to states when they have an approved implementation plan in place and are meeting the required milestones. It should be indicated that the Commonwealth has approved an implementation plan from the Northern Territory and is in the process of looking at finalising agreements with a number of states.
It is important to recognise that there have been some more recent developments which have triggered the concern behind today's motion from the member for Lyne. In particular, in the 2012-13 Victorian budget, which they announced in May, major changes to the funding of VET were made, including very significant cuts of $300 million to their 18 TAFE institutions and a reduction in funding rates for approximately 80 per cent of their VET courses. The full impact of those funding cuts will hit from 1 January 2013, when the new funding rates will apply. We are seeing significant concerns in Victoria about those impacts.
An independent TAFE reform panel was convened to consider the transition plans of individual TAFE institutions and to make recommendations to the Victorian government on how to manage the changes. The panel has reported to the Victorian government. A summary of the proposed Victorian TAFE transition plans appeared in the media in September of this year. It reveals significant potential changes to the structure of the TAFE system in Victoria, including significant reductions in course offerings, large increases in student fees, significant loss of staff, industrial issues to do with the funding of enterprise agreements with TAFE teachers and amalgamations and campus closures. What the impact will be in Victoria is of great concern to us and in particular—and this is a point that I have made on numerous occasions—the impact in rural and regional areas. While we talk about competition, in many of those areas a public provider is the only provider. Cutting away the foundation of the TAFE system in Victoria is a real attack on the only provider in many of those regional and rural areas. Also, TAFE is often the only provider able to meet the needs of students with a disability. It is more broadly an important provider of training for those people with a disability who want to get skills so that they can get into the workforce.
Consequent upon the Victorian experience, the New South Wales government has now announced cuts to the TAFE system. A reduction of $16.1 million in capital was announced in the 2012-13 budget. In September they announced a further reduction of 800 permanent staff over the next four years, an increase in course fees of 9.5 per cent from 1 January 2012 and an increase in student concession fees. I note that there has been a significant amount of discussion and concern about how this is going to impact on areas across the state.
Indeed in my own local paper, the Illawarra Mercury, just today, there is a story with the headline: TAFE quality to fall under 'disastrous' cuts. The New South Wales opposition leader, John Robertson, was visiting with the Shellharbour state MP, Anna Watson, to address some of the issues that will impact on TAFEs as a result of the cuts in this area. I am particularly concerned to see that the Dapto TAFE will lose its campus library, for example. I think the actual impacts and how this is going to affect the TAFEs across New South Wales will begin to unfold, sadly and not positively, over coming months.
We add to that the circumstance in Queensland. The Queensland government is now looking at potentially shutting in effect half its TAFE campuses across the state. It is an extraordinary story up and down the eastern seaboard of state Liberal governments undermining the capacity of the public providers in their states. It is a real concern. We will be looking very closely at the national partnership agreement in terms of the commitment they are making to support public providers.
More broadly, one might say that perhaps those who are sitting in this chamber on the other side are sending a strong message to their own colleagues at the state level to stop this madness. Perhaps that is what they are saying, 'Stop this madness and reinvest in the public provider.' Sadly, I have seen no evidence of that. Indeed, each time we have debated these matters in this House, they have had to twist arms to get people to actually speak on the matter. I would encourage those opposite to take messages back to their state colleagues about how short-sighted this is.
I am ever an optimist. The opposition leader today released a book of his speeches. The words of the opposition leader, in the foreword, say:
If you want to know what the next Coalition government will be like, you should read this book. It's the plan for government that the Coalition has been developing to give everyone the hope, reward and opportunity that Australians deserve.
I thought, 'Great, this might be encouraging. They might be going to send a message to their state colleagues.' It is a free book. You can download it. I thought I would go and download it and have a look at it. I did a search on the word 'education'. People will be encouraged to know I had four results. In 191 pages, the word 'education' appeared four times. Do not get too excited just yet. The first use of the word 'education' was in the section: A Plan for Stronger Communities. It said:
We are going to work with the states to make public hospitals and public schools more accountable to their communities with local boards and councils.
So there is one sentence there on policy about education. The second reference was in the Commission of Audit chapter. It says:
The commission of audit will ponder issues such as whether the federal education department really needs all 5,000 of its current staff when the Commonwealth does not run a single school.
So the second reference was about cutting public servants. The third reference was in the chapter A Fair Dinkum Paid Parental Leave Scheme, which indicated, 'Childcare enables more parents to participate in the workforce but is an important means of early childhood education.' There was no following policy, just a statement. Fourthly, 'education' appears in the chapter Sound Economic Management, which criticises the Gonski education changes of $6.5 billion a year and says, 'Many of these are worthy projects but they should only be promised when they can be paid for.'
Sadly, you are not going to find much about how important education is for the future of the nation in this book. I thought, 'Okay, fair's fair. I will search for the word 'training'. Perhaps I will not focus on education more broadly but on "training".' I found eight matches for 'training'. The first seven were all in one paragraph though, so do not get too excited about that. The first seven were from the chapter Better Employment Programs for Indigenous Australians and they all related to Andrew Forrest's Australian Employment Covenant. I have to say, seven of the eight were simply in one paragraph about one program.
Mr Tehan interjecting—
I would encourage the member to download the book for himself and to have a look. It does not cost anything. You can download it for free. The eighth reference to 'training' was in the chapter on Australia's Infrastructure Challenge. It says:
The current government is more accustomed to link productivity with training than investment in transport infrastructure.
That is a paragraph about transport infrastructure. Persevering, I thought, 'I will try searching for "TAFE".' How many matches? None. I thought, 'All right, I will try "technical and further education".' How many matches for the future of Australia? None. I thought, 'I will go broad. I will try "skills".' For 'skills' I got one match, you will be pleased to know. It related to the fact we need a more skills focused immigration program.
I would say to those who are interested in the future of the nation and in the important matter that the member for Lyne has brought before the House that we are developing our technical and further education sector to match the challenges and needs of the future to provide real opportunity for people in our communities to be part of the economic growth and employment opportunities. Do not look to those opposite for any encouragement for investment in education, in training, in skills or indeed in the future of our young people in these opportunities.
I am pleased to speak on this MPI, the current failure of the Commonwealth and states to reach agreement on the future funding of technical and further education, by the member for Lyne. I appreciate his continued presence in the chamber. I would probably rewrite that as 'the current failure of the Commonwealth'. I agree with the member for Lyne. Yes, we have a problem but the problem is this government.
The member for Lyne also said that the vocational education sector is under threat. I think in many respects that is linked to a Commonwealth agenda that is displaced and misplaced from the local frontline state agenda. But I agree with him: it should be of great concern, because these things have always been of great concern to all members of parliament. I will, later in my remarks, mention what I think is a failure of the member for Lyne in his own electorate when it comes to vocational education and training. It is hard to mention, but it needs to be said.
I know that the COAG process is cumbersome, it is complicated, it is hard to understand—it is state and federal governments sitting around a table, ministerial councils hanging off, complicated senior officials' processes and so on. The current negotiations that we are talking about—the national partnership—stem from an announcement made by the Prime Minister on 19 March this year offering a national entitlement to a training place. Everyone knows there was no actual money attached to this—and the states and territories were under no illusions either. We had the Prime Minister and the various ministers who talk about skills trumpeting a $7.2 billion investment in skills. Well, there really was no new money; most of this money is the normal money that goes to state governments from the federal government to address areas of vocational education and training. I would be the first to agree that it is complicated to have these two streams of funding.
The Prime Minister talked about an extra $1-something billion in there. The agreement itself was really quite loose, quite warm and fuzzy. I detected a Prime Minister desperate to be able to make that announcement at the end of the COAG process, desperate to release that communique, and happy to say, 'Look, we'll work out the details later.' So we are working out the details later. I have talked to the states, and there are implementation plans that now have to be done—this is the real work. It is easier for this government to talk about the headline stuff, to talk about the warm and fuzzy announcements, to make us feel like they care and they are looking after us, and they really have money to help with our problems—but in fact that is not the case. Now we get down to the nitty-gritty; now we get down to the implementation plans.
Having said that, I do not know that they are going that badly, but I suspect the states are finding what we would always find on this side of the House—that is, that the money that is announced is not there, not there to the extent that it should be or not doing the job that the Prime Minister reckons it will. Those opposite will come out with the same old lines they always do on TAFE cuts. It is such a popular topic for members opposite in this place. As if premiers in this country run around wanting to cut TAFE. As if that is the thing they seek to do. As if it gives them some pleasure to cut funding to any areas of education. In fact in Victoria—and I am sure my colleague the member for Wannon may pick up on this—the funding to that sector has actually increased by $1 billion. In New South Wales, I am not sure—we are going through a process—but I know that Premier O'Farrell has said, 'These are difficult decisions; these are decisions that result from the state's finances; these are decisions we would prefer not to make, but we will make modest increases to some of the fees that students will pay'—and, yes, there will be job cuts, in line with job cuts across the public sector.
Everyone who takes an interest in skills and training, as I very much do, look for several important, key things. You look for training that leads to real skills, real jobs, in the real economy. And that comes back to the proper investment of the public dollar, because this is not about having unlimited money to do the education course that a person might want to do at a particular point in their life and their career—although we should always support people doing the course they want, to the extent that we can. But what we have to remember is that we are investing the public dollar for the public good, therefore we have to get the maximum public good for the scarce public dollar. I ask those opposite to concentrate on that when they look at the very necessary changes—yes, they will call them cuts, but the language does not really matter—that are being made at state levels to technical and further education.
I know that in New South Wales TAFE is very important. I am a regional member of parliament, and a rural and remote member of parliament, and I know the importance of TAFE. It will remain, and it will continue to take its place as the very important public provider. But maybe TAFE cannot do everything. Maybe TAFE, that is the public provider, cannot do courses in ceramics or fine arts. I do not for a moment knock the arts, but maybe we should not invest the scarce public dollar in courses that are not going to lead, if not directly then almost directly, to a job—because it is jobs that we should be investing in: people, through our human capital; and the training that we help them with.
Government members will talk about their fantastic record. I just have to mention—actually, in connection with the member for Lyne's comments—about 'vouchers' being a dirty word. It is definitely not a dirty word, and in any national entitlement system, that gets the best value for the public dollar. Vouchers for training are, I think, a very positive thing. They are not the only thing, but they are a very positive thing—vouchers have their place.
The Productivity Places Program that this government launched was a dirty term. Those who understand what it actually meant—courses online, diabolically bad employment outcomes—have no wonder why the states do not trust the federal government on training.
I want to talk about one issue in the member for Lyne's electorate, because he moved this motion. I refer to the former Port Macquarie Australian Technical College, now the Newman Senior Technical College. This is an exceptional centre. It is run as part of the Catholic education system; it has around 320 students a year. Yet under this Labor government it was forced to give the Manning Valley campus to local government. The diocese has done a fantastic job. They have been subsidising the Newman Australian Technical College since 2007, because this government decided they did not like technical colleges—no matter that they provided training that led to real jobs with magnificent support from industry; they did not like them because they were ours.
What has happened in the member for Lyne's electorate is that this particular technical college is now been managed by the Catholic diocese. They have done a fantastic job. The people who manage the college, and want to talk to parliamentarians about it, were brought to see me recently by the coalition candidate for Lyne, Mr David Gillespie. Mr Gillespie has taken this cause on and he is determined to get results and he is determined that a future coalition government will not ignore this wonderful example of local education with a commitment from industry and a huge commitment, as I said, from the diocese. So I believe, in that respect, perhaps the member for Lyne could do better for his constituency and recognise that Australian technical colleges were indeed set up as centres of excellence, a gold standard of technical education—close oversight and influence from industry.
I talked about the things people look for in skills and training policies, and quality training is one of them. I must mention that quality in this country is now being managed by the VET regulator, ASQA. ASQA is trying to do an enormous task with way too little resources. I ask the government to be genuine in their comments on what ASQA can and cannot do, because if they are claiming that it is ensuring quality with Western Australia and Victoria not signed up to the process and the regulator itself badly underresourced, with only six accreditors for the whole country to check on the quality of courses, this is hopeless. This is hopeless stewardship on the issue of VET quality by this government.
The coalition is committed to a training system that meets the needs of industry. We want world-class training. A future coalition government will listen closely to the states and work collaboratively, ensuring the best outcome for Australian businesses and workers. That is the key. This is not magic; we just have to talk to the states. The current government has a vast architecture of skills that no-one really understands, as much of it actually lives in Canberra, the union movement and remote bodies that are removed from real workplaces. There is a lot of money attached to this process, so there needs to be a discussion. There needs to be an honest discussion between the federal government and the states about how those resources could best be combined to have a real skills and training policy that can give students, whether they be school leavers or adult students, absolute confidence that they are getting the best training and that it will lead to the best possible job. That is part of our undertaking to build a stronger economy, boost productivity and benefit all.
I rise to speak on this very, very important matter. I am delighted that the Speaker determined that the topic for consideration today in the matter of public importance debate would be in the area of education—an area very close to my heart—and in particular technical and further education. The actual statement says that there is 'a current failure of Commonwealth and states to reach agreement on the future funding of technical and further education'. That is right, because the Commonwealth government wants to put money into education, while the states, particularly down the eastern seaboard, have one goal. That goal is to take money out of education. That is a point of conflict, and I understand that the member who has put this forward today is very concerned about the tension.
We should be concerned about the tension because right now as a federal government we must not lose sight of the fact that if we do not fight this out hard enough and if we do not fight strongly for the right for people to access TAFE—an institution that has seen generations of Australians able to access technical and further education—it will be absolutely destroyed. It is right now in the custodianship of this federal government—thank God we are committed to education, unlike those opposite—to make sure that the TAFE system, which has delivered so much for so many, will actually survive the onslaught of Liberal state governments up and down the eastern seaboard and across the rest of the country.
We know, and every Australian understands, that qualifications are the passport to a better job, are the passport to a higher pay packet and give you a secure future. I have taught many, many students in schools for whom school was not the place in which they were going to excel. But I am very pleased to say that, in the many years since, I have seen my students moving around in the community and so many of them have spoken about wonderful experiences of learning at our TAFEs. They had skills that TAFE helped them discover, develop and use to build opportunities for a future. Many of them are now local business men and women on the Central Coast who are getting on using their skills and giving jobs to a whole new generation who need access to technical and further education. But up and down the east coast we see the constant slashing of funding for education, as if it does not matter.
Parents with kids in schools are very, very aware of this. In terms of TAFE, in New South Wales we know that 800 job losses are on the line. Front-line teachers are being completely removed. There is a 9.5 per cent increase in TAFE course fees and an almost doubling of the TAFE student concession fee to $100. If there is a student who is thinking about becoming a learner at TAFE, now they know that if they are going to do even a certificate I they are going to pay an extra $44. It is the same for a certificate II. The reality is that, for people who need access to these courses, often $44 is just enough to make it that little bit too difficult. Often people engaging in TAFE I and II courses are people who might not have had success at school. They are people who might already have a vulnerable sense of their identity as a learner. They could go and do something that they think they are good at and have a go, but $44 could become an impediment that stops them from getting there.
We need to make sure that we fight for these people, that our TAFE system is maintained and that it is properly funded, not slashed and burned as we are seeing with the Baillieu government, the O'Farrell government and that Newman government up in Queensland. If you want to do a certificate III course in New South Wales, a standard apprenticeship qualification, the fee has risen to $793. If you want to go on to an advanced diploma, it has gone up to $793. That is an increase of $150. All of these things add up to disconnection of people from TAFE, and that is if they can actually get the course because the courses are being slashed left, right and centre at the moment. The Liberal New South Wales Minister for Education, Adrian Piccoli, has continued the trend that we saw established in Victoria by cutting TAFE funding. He is slashing jobs and he is increasing student fees. There is no difference in what is going on there, except perhaps it is a little worse in Queensland than it is in New South Wales at the moment.
We have heard that in Queensland, since the election of the Newman government, there is a proposal—which was recommended by the task force—which is much more concerned about dollars and cents than it is about people. We need to understand that these things have to go hand in hand. We on this side do understand that. It is dollars, cents and people; it is not dollars and cents over people. What they are proposing to do is take 82 TAFEs that spread across that broad state of Queensland and cut them back to 44. They want to cut back to 44 TAFEs. What does that mean if you live in a regional area and your TAFE is gone? That is your future out the window. That is your disconnection from being a productive and engaged member of the workforce of Australia.
In Queensland, the Minister for Education, Training and Employment, John-Paul Langbroek—
He's a good bloke.
He is such a good bloke that Tony Moore wrote a story about him in this morning's Brisbane Times. What did he decide? To save $300 in a TAFE course which provides life skills for disabled people, he wanted to cut the course. Each week it costs $300 for one teacher to provide skills in learning how to live for people with disabilities. The course was cut. That was this morning. Maybe there is a hint here. We need to have a huge public campaign because, by this afternoon, with the efforts of the Mayor of Ipswich—Paul Pisasale, a fine man who did great work during the response to the floods—the new headline is 'TAFE course closure decision reversed', because people are screaming, and they need to be screaming. We all need to be screaming right up and down this eastern seaboard so they hear us out in the west and get the idea that we cannot continue to allow the elevation of dollars and cents above people, which is happening on the east coast. We need to make sure that our essential institutions for TAFE education are maintained.
In Ipswich, for example, there was a fantastic course called the 'Skilling Queenslanders for Work'. I am indebted to the member for Blair for this information. This program was cut on 16 July, a very short-sighted response by those would cut TAFE funding—those who would cut everything. On 23 July, the Deloitte Access Economics report came in and was absolutely glowing in its praise of a program that had just been cut by the Newman government. This is a program that was said to have put $6.5 billion into the Queensland economy, raising $1.2 billion in tax revenue and adding 1.8 per cent to consumption in the state. We know that this program helped long-term disadvantaged people get jobs. In fact, there were 8,000 jobs for long-term disadvantaged people created in this program and, overall, 57,000 jobs. What did Campbell Newman do to it? He cut it. Let us look at that very simple number: 82 TAFEs have been cut to 44—and the story continues.
We have seen the story in New South Wales and Queensland; let's look at Victoria. Cuts to the Victorian VET sector have been absolutely ruthless. You cannot rip $300 million out of the TAFE system without it having a dramatic impact on the delivery of skills and training. Unfortunately, we are seeing that impact fall heavily on disadvantaged individuals and communities who cannot access the VET programs that they need. VET programs train our electricians and childcare workers. These are just two fields that require high-quality education. These are people looking after our children and putting wires into our walls. If we are going to have a safe place to live, it must be underpinned by an outstanding VET sector, and Australia can be very proud of what we have enjoyed until now. But, if the Liberals opposite get a hold of this place, and they get their hands on the federal budget, we have only seen a warm-up act of what is to come. It will be slash and burn, with no concern for people and no concern for the future of young people, who need access to high-quality, highly-enabling education that our TAFE sector offers.
In summing up, I indicate once again that those opposite have only one plan: to cut education, to cut training services for Australia, to cut the productivity of this nation and to disconnect themselves from the recommendations of great industry groups like AiG and ACCI, who are trying to get somebody on the other side to listen and are saying, 'Keep TAFE alive.' (Time expired)
I want to remind the member for Robertson of two things—just two things. Firstly, the matter before us today is:
The current failure of the Commonwealth and States to reach agreement on the future funding of technical and further education.
I also remind her that she is in the federal parliament here in Canberra. She is not in Brisbane; she is not in Sydney; she is not in Melbourne. I remind her that, if she was in those state parliaments, she would have to check her facts, because what she has been saying has nothing to do with the actual facts. I will give you one fact which puts paid to what the member for Robertson said in her very passionate stump speech about what a federal coalition government would do. Let's just look at one fact. What has the Victorian government done in the TAFE sector? One billion dollars of extra funding in four years has been provided. I did not hear that mentioned once—not once. There will be $1 billion in extra funding for TAFEs in Victoria and it was not mentioned once in her speech. If that is not misleading this House, then I do not know what is. It is all very well to come in here and speak so passionately about what a coalition government would do if it were elected federally, but can I tell you: I hope that we as a federal government will be able to look after our federal responsibilities, and they include the coordination of proper technical training in this nation.
I go back to 2007, when there was a commitment given by the Labor government that it would stop the blame game. Yet, here we are, five years later and all we hear from the member opposite is, 'It's all the states' fault.' She took no responsibility at all for the federal government in this area, yet, as this matter of public importance clearly shows, the federal government has a responsibility as well. What did we hear from the member opposite about the federal government's responsibility—what it is doing to improve training across the nation? We heard nothing because they have got nothing to say. All they can do is come in here and blame the states for everything. It is pathetic. They accuse us of being a policy-free zone in opposition, but the sad thing is that they are a policy-free zone in government and they are meant to be running the nation. It is absolutely pathetic and we have to sit here and listen to it.
I will tell you what is worse: when they came into government in 2007 we had set up Australian technical colleges.
They went well.
They were going extremely well. There was a very cynical response from those opposite, but let us get it on the record—they closed them down. They did not replace them with anything. All they have done is decide to blame the states for their failure in the training sector.
I say to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship—who has been very kind to certain people in Wannon and I thank him for that—that I would love to take him down to my electorate to show him the ATCs in Warrnambool and Hamilton. He would then be able to see what grand institutions they were before they were closed, to hear about the wonderful training they used to deliver, to learn how industry backed them and supported them and to see how gutted the local communities are that those ATCs were closed down.
We heard the member for Farrer, the shadow minister, speak about what has happened to the Australian technical college in the member for Lyne's electorate—not forgetting that it was the member for Lyne who put this MPI forward. As the member for Farrer outlined, this government has closed, or attempted to close, that ATC in the member for Lyne's electorate. It is very good to see that the coalition candidate for Lyne is looking to make sure that ATC can continue to thrive and deliver excellent training.
We also heard from the member for Cunningham. The part of her speech I most enjoyed was when she started referring to the book, A Strong Australia, successfully launched today by the Leader of the Opposition. What an outstanding document it is and what a fantastic speech the Leader of the Opposition gave in launching it today. The member for Cunningham need not worry about downloading a copy; we will personally deliver a hard copy to her office so she can continue to quote from the book when she gives her speeches. It was wonderful when she referred to the mentions of education and training in the book—they show what very sensible policies we will have in this area. Those policies were superbly outlined by the member for Farrer.
Let us have a closer look at what our policies will deliver. Our policies will deliver an end to the red tape and bureaucracy which is killing this sector. In particular, we will sort out what the hell is happening in ASQA at the moment. It is badly underresourced, it is producing impossible time frames for training businesses to try and match, it is not getting back to those businesses so they can comply with the regulations this government has put on them and it is causing those training enterprises to suffer slowly. In all good faith, I ask the minister—and I have spoken to his office about this—to have a look, please, at ASQA and find out what is going on there. When you have dedicated training business trying to deliver products to the Commonwealth government, to state governments and to other organisations, you have to do your best to ensure that these businesses do not get closed down by red tape and regulation. That is what is happening at the moment through ASQA.
Something drastic needs to happen. I have met with businesses who want to do the right thing, who want to explain to the government what the problems are with the regulations governing the sector at the moment—but they cannot talk to anyone. They cannot talk to anyone to try and get these matters addressed. They are drowning as businesses because of this red tape. You have to cut that red tape. You have to cut it, cut it and cut it so that these businesses outside the TAFE sector can deliver proper competition to TAFE in the training sector. This is getting dire and it needs urgent attention. I hope the minister, in the time left between now and the next election, will seek to address this. If he needs some help, I am happy to talk to him about it and to discuss it with him in good faith—because something needs to be done in this area.
To sum up: all we have heard on this motion from those on the other side demonstrates that they are a policy-free zone. They have no policy whatsoever. All they can do is say, 'Everything is the fault of the states.' I remind them again that this is the federal parliament and that this motion talks about the current failure of the Commonwealth and the states to reach agreement on future funding of technical and further education. So let us hear from them about what the Commonwealth is doing to try and address this problem. What is the Commonwealth trying to do to address the problem that there has been no agreement on the future funding of technical and further education? We do not want to hear about what the state parliaments should be doing, because—here is a message for those on the other side—we are actually in the federal parliament. After five years, I had hoped that you might have realised that. I had hoped that you might have realised that the federal parliament has responsibilities—responsibilities in this sector in particular.
Our policy was outlined by the shadow minister in her excellent contribution. We will also look to address what this government did to Australian technical colleges and to seek as best we can to restore them to what they were—they were magnificent training institutions—before they were so harshly cut by this federal government. If you want to talk about cuts, let us talk about cuts to the ATCs. That is what we should be discussing here today and that is what those opposite should be focusing on.
Order! The discussion is concluded.
Having worked for many years in the area of looking after the social impacts of gambling, I never thought I would be standing here in the national parliament speaking against a bill that ostensibly sets out to aid those who are affected by problem gambling. The reality is that the federal government has made such an inordinate hash of this hastily prepared and ill-conceived legislation that it is almost impossible for the average Australian to look at the National Gambling Reform Bill and think that it will achieve anything and do anything other than waste a whole lot of money.
This is a highly complex issue and it deserves a whole lot more time than it has been given this month. This legislation was released on 1 November, and there was one week for a committee to take submissions and another week for it to consider them. This is a very rushed approach and it reflects a government that has lost all policy direction. There is plenty of history here with the member for Denison and the deal for Labor to become the government. The Prime Minister was going to do as much as she could to keep the vote of this one individual, and the moment this individual became irrelevant to the numbers for this government the deal was off. It was Senator Xenophon who said it just makes you wonder whether you can take the words of this Prime Minister with any level of trust at all. The reality is that, now the member for Denison's requirements are not those of the government, he is being cast aside.
What we have left is this emptied out carapace of a bill that has in it all the ugliest elements of government control and overregulation, together with the very obvious element that by remaining completely voluntary it is almost impossible to see how compelling the industry to spend money will have any impact on the problem whatsoever. We have the worst of both worlds—the completely overburdening regulation for those who operate gaming machines, and the reality that by being a voluntary system a large number of our problem gamblers will simply not choose to participate.
Let us wind back a little. We know there are about 15,000 problem gamblers in the country; we know also that gaming is a massive part of the local economy. We all come from different parts of Australia and we know the important contribution that clubs, and in smaller towns small pubs, make to local economies. Obviously everyone here wants a balance. Instead, what we have is, as I have said, hasty and ill-conceived legislation that burdens every gaming operator with these requirements to operate the software in their systems by 2016 or, for those with fewer than 20 machines, by 2020. They are expected to have these changes made to their machines at a very rapid rate, and for many of these clubs it is virtually unaffordable, so we are right to be deeply concerned. Keep in mind that the economy is not good; keep in mind that clubs that were profitable as recently as two years ago are now genuinely struggling. Keep in mind that for the average club that has enormous overheads to cover, these gaming machines are the only things keeping them afloat.
A small club cannot call in a few volunteers to help them through—they have to raise the revenue somewhere just to keep afloat and keep doing the good work they do. Every dollar they lose when they pay what I call 'the government's gambling tax' to the government in the form of a gambling regulator—'Oh no', I hear everyone sigh; yes, another regulator—is a dollar that does not go to community organisations in the local neighbourhoods of these clubs. That is the dollar that is taken away by the government.
Let me focus on three issues in the 10 minutes I have. The first is the proposal last year for a mandatory precommitment trial here in the ACT. Second, I want to look at some of the technical problems with the bill as it has been proposed. Third, because I have a regional and remote focus, I want to look at how this legislation would affect small communities around this great nation. I refer first to the ACT trial. I can remember a hastily cobbled together conference involving Jenny Macklin, Katie Gallagher and of course the head of Clubs ACT. This was the first jurisdiction to agree to a proposed trial of mandatory precommitment technology. I do not think the individual members of Clubs ACT were even told of the decision. We had one individual, who I will not name in this place—they probably have half an eye on their ALP membership and half on the running for the Senate one day—arranging a deal so that just in case the Prime Minister had to wiggle out of this one with a precommitment trial somewhere, the ACT would back her up. Suddenly the coffers of the federal government opened up and it committed to every club that any financial loss as a result of mandatory precommitment would be compensated by the Commonwealth government. How much would that be? Of course they did not know, but the Commonwealth government was being fully exposed to those costs. Those clubs included the Ainslie Football Club, the Raiders football club, Eastlake, the Woden Valley Rugby League club, the Southern Cross Club and the Burns Club—all different configurations of clubs coming together and asking 'What on earth are we doing here? We have mandatory precommitment in the ACT so that anyone who is not terribly keen on that idea drives to Queanbeyan and those who are not too keen about that just drive to the next town and gamble on the pokies there.' There were ridiculous distortions across a jurisdictional boundary, but this was not about fixing the problem—it was about a get out of jail card for the Prime Minister so she could appease the member for Denison.
Of course it all went pear shaped. The clubs were in complete distress. I recall that Ainslie Football Club had already written up a $600,000 annual loss for the previous financial year, and I have grave concerns that the loss could be three times as much this financial year. This club was in no position to have mandatory precommitment foisted upon it, but of course, together with every ACT club, that was exactly what was going to happen to it. That is assuming that the government even intended to carry out this trial at all. No, it was a stopgap measure just in case they had to. It was a political solution to the problem of staying in government. This, like so many government commitments, just evaporated away because, in the end, they were not painted into a corner and forced to do it. So you know what? Of course, this government simply did not do it, and the proposed ACT trial never happened.
Let us move on from these grubby political deals and look at the technical complexity of walking into a club with between 20 and 200 machines, giving them a time line to change over their machines and then telling them they are going to have to pay for it. Let us remember that over 91c in the dollar is returned to the gamer; there is a small amount taken by the state government and a very, very small proportion that is retained by the operator of these machines. They are, in many cases, barely viable. What this government does not realise when it comes up these grand plans for national regulation is that it is usually the smallest and most vulnerable clubs that are the most affected. In many cases, the big guys are okay, but it is the small clubs that simply cannot wear the burden of an additional requirement like this one from the federal government.
The plan sounds okay, doesn't it? We have all got a card, and you cannot go anywhere without using the card. You can sign up for the card if you want to. If you do not want to, you simply have no card. Therein lies the first big flaw. I have no problem with voluntary precommitment. But, if it is going to be mandatory for every club, casino and pub in the nation to wire up their systems, they would want to be getting a decent return on that massive, massive cost. The reality is that this is a federal government that has no money to spend, no will to give. Before you knew it—that is right—they were dreaming up yet another tax so that the operators themselves paid for all of these costs. These are free and independent operators being lumbered with another regulatory requirement. This is the Gillard government's dream of a massively regulated sector.
In the end—I have to keep going back to the precommitment scheme being utterly voluntary—there is almost nothing one can do to engage a problem gambler who does not want to be part of that precommitment. We have listened to the Gaming Technologies Association, who said that you simply could not amortise those sorts of requirements into the operations of many, many clubs in the years that were provided. But this is a government that has not listened. If you go out to the small towns where there are very low numbers of machines, the great challenge for these smaller operators is to keep getting new machines. Players get bored with old machines, and, when you are a very small operator, replacing those machines regularly with new ones comes at an extraordinary cost. So, when you lay another regulatory burden on them, they simply will not be able to turn over their machines as often, and gamers will seek out the new machines, going to larger venues with more games, more flashing lights, and more hyperlinked machines that are even more addictive. It is the small providers who lose out. Of course, that point has been completely lost in this government's rush towards legislation.
This is a government that has not listened to what people are saying about this area. It has turned gaming into a political pawn. It only played the piece and moved it forward when it looked like it might lose government. That is the great tragedy. This is yet another commitment that was made in order to get the support of an Independent member so that Labor could sit on the government side of the chamber. This is an example of where the government was given the opportunity to fix a problem, the scourge that is problem gambling; instead, we are left with horrible overregulation; ultimately, a voluntary system that everyone opts out of; and a completely unacceptable time line for the businesses who, in the end, will wear the burden of this regulation.
I rise to also speak on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and the two other bills before us. I say at the outset that I am not a huge fan of pokies. In fact, I have great difficulty with them because of their social consequences, their impact on many people within our society, and I want to touch on that tonight. But I also want to touch on why I do not think this particular package of bills is the right set of measures to deal with the social problems that poker machines cause. I have four main concerns, and I will use this opportunity tonight to outline them.
Poker machines are part of Australian life today. We know from the Productivity Commission inquiry that there are some 600,000 Australians who play pokies regularly—that is, they play at least once a week—and the vast majority of those people do so safely. They enjoy doing it. They like the fun involved and sometimes the camaraderie involved. They like going down to their local club, pub or casino to have a punt, and that is all very well. Personally, I do not get into it, but that has nothing to do with it. These people do enjoy it; and, in some respects, who are we to say that they cannot enjoy that?
But we also know that there is an insidious side to pokies, and that is that they can be highly addictive. The research says that, the Productivity Commission has articulated that, and we know that that addiction leads to massive problems for a great many people. In fact, about 15 per cent of the 600,000 people who play regularly have very serious problems and, indeed, are defined by the Productivity Commission as problem gamblers, having an addiction to it. That addiction can not only destroy their individual lives but also have a very significant impact on their family's lives and the lives of others who are around them.
I am part of the Coalition Taskforce on Gambling Reform, and we have been looking into some of these questions. We have had submissions from various stakeholders who tell us stories of some of the damage that gambling has done to families across the country. It is a very serious issue. We also know that the cost impact of the damage which poker machines cause is estimated to be about $4.7 billion per annum, according to the Productivity Commission. So it is a huge cost to our community from a social perspective and it can have very damaging impacts on individuals and their family and friends.
As part of the work of the gambling reform task force, we have looked at, considered and heard submissions on a number of possible ways to address some of these issues. We have had submissions in relation to the spin rates, in relation to precommitment technology and in relation to limiting the size of the bets. I have said previously that I think it was a mistake, in my own state of Victoria, to allow the proliferation of poker machines into many, many clubs and pubs across the state. Possibly we should have just kept poker machines in a smaller number of larger centres rather than having that proliferation. But it is very difficult to roll that back now.
The problem with this policy area, particularly for Liberals, is that there is a fundamental clash of values at stake. On one hand we strongly believe in individual liberty and that people should have the right to do as they please—to gamble if they want to gamble, to spend their money on that rather than on something else if that is what they choose and that is what they want to do. We believe in the right of businesses to be able to offer products, services and entertainments to the community; it should be up to them. On the other hand, we know of the immense social consequences that can have for that small proportion of people. We have to balance those two things out. I personally think that the balancing is out of whack at the moment in Australia and that further measures need to be put in place. But the question is: what measures should be put in place? And who should put in place those measures? That is what it comes down to.
From the federal perspective there is always pressure on us to be seen to be doing something in a particular area when an issue arises. There is pressure on all members of parliament: you must go and do something, even if that issue actually resides at a council level or a state level. We see it in many instances. We see it in environmental regulations, we see it in schools, we see it in TAFEs and we see it elsewhere, in traditionally state or local council areas, where there is enormous pressure on us to do things on top of those other levels. Sometimes it is very worthwhile to do it, but at other times it just duplicates the activity and just creates more bureaucracy. In the environmental space, for example, it has done exactly that. By having the federal government involved in all the environmental approvals, we have actually added a layer of complexity and bureaucracy and are not getting better environmental outcomes. In fact, sometimes we are getting worse ones, but great delays occur as a result.
So we must be very careful not to impinge on traditionally state or local council areas when we put forward legislation. That is one of the reasons I have a concern about this package. It creates a massive bureaucracy in Canberra to largely replicate what state governments are already doing. As I mentioned, we have seen that in other portfolios. We know that the state governments have largely been in control of the operation and licensing of poker machines, in particular—the poker machine manufacturing licences and the hotel licences et cetera. Rather than working cooperatively with the states to try to get them to initiate some improvements, which I think would have been better, this set of bills tries to duplicate a lot of what the states are doing.
Perhaps the case could be made that the states are not doing enough and that therefore the federal government needs to intervene over the top and create this additional bureaucracy. But in this instance the key measure contained within this bill is for precommitment technology. Indeed, we know that every state and territory at the moment is moving towards asking machine manufacturers to install precommitment technology. In fact, many of the industry players themselves are doing that. So the case has not been made as to why we need to create this super-regulator over the top of the state regulations in order to fulfil that objective of precommitment technology, because it actually is already occurring at the state level.
My second concern with this package of legislation is the time line for the implementation of the measures and therefore the cost associated with them. The legislation requires that new machines manufactured or imported from the end of 2013 must be capable of supporting precommitment technology and that all machines must be capable of supporting precommitment technology by 2016. We understand that this simply cannot practically be implemented within that time frame. We have been advised by the Gaming Technologies Association, which is the sole body of industry technical expertise in Australia, that the time lines simply cannot be met. So the government is asking us to pass a package requiring that certain dates be met but which the technology providers are saying is impossible. Further, one of the problems is that there is no clear definition of what precommitment actually means. The Gaming Technologies Association states:
While everyone is talking about pre-commitment, no one in government can explain what that means in practice for the design of the gaming machine and its software.
So we have an issue there about rushed implementation, which cannot be done, based on what we have been advised. In addition, there are no detailed specifications as to what is actually required to be implemented for those machines. And it is not just us saying that; in fact, the Productivity Commission warned against rushing the uniform approach that is within this legislation. Rather, they suggested a staged approach, involving partial precommitment and then a trial of full precommitment. That is what should have been done, rather than, as in this legislation, putting a mandated system across the board in a very short period of time.
This gets to my third concern with the package, and that is that there is little evidence that the system being proposed will work and in fact a trial should have been done first before mandating a particular result. Bear in mind that, according to the Australian Hotels Association, implementing what this package is suggesting will cost about a billion dollars in New South Wales and Queensland alone. That is a huge sum of money. Maybe that would be worth it, but we simply do not know and what we should be doing is testing it first. Let us have the trial first, let us find out what the results are. If we introduce voluntary precommitment, how many people are likely to take it up? What is the impact? Does it reduce problem gambling or do people just go to other forms of gambling if we make it more difficult for them at the poker machine level? That is the whole point of a trial. We should have them. The initial approach was indeed to have a trial of voluntary precommitment here in the ACT. It was supposed to be going ahead. We were supposed to have a trial for 12 to 24 months. We were supposed to be able to evaluate that trial and then come out with policy. This is jumping the gun. We are imposing a multibillion dollar cost on an industry when we do not actually have any evidence that that cost will produce anything. That is one of the core critiques of this package.
My final concern with the package is that it actually does not contain the most effective measure to tackle problem gambling—that is, the provision of additional counselling and support services. We know from the research, and we have heard this on the coalition's gambling task force, that that actually is what is required to assist people who have addictions. They do need greater structured support and they do need greater counselling services to be able to deal with their addiction. That is what we know works today. Yet this package, ostensibly to address problem gambling, does not contain that. That is my fourth concern with this package.
Like on so many occasions, the government's intent with package may be fine. They have an intent to try to address the instances of problem gambling in our community. I think that intent is an admirable one. However, this package gives me no confidence that it will actually address the problem at hand. Rather, I think it will be imposing a very expensive solution on an industry when there is no evidence that it will work. I think it will be a rushed implementation for the industry. They have said it cannot actually be delivered within that time line and it does not actually contain the core thing that we know works now—that is, additional counselling and support services for the people who are suffering.
Let me repeat: gambling is a problem in our community. Yes, we need to do more to support those people who are having serious problems. However, I do not think this package before us is the package we should be approving . Rather, the government should be consulting further, trialling a number of different solutions and then implementing some serious measures following those trials.
We are discussing the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and related bills today in the parliament. It must be of some interest and some confusion to those who are listening to work through just what is being proposed to the parliament, or in fact foisted upon this parliament, in what should be a matter of considered and thoughtful policy development. These bills in general require that new machines manufactured or imported from the end of 2013 be capable of supporting precommitment declarations or requirements that are issued for the sector. It also aims to ensure that all gaming machines are part of a state-wide precommitment system. This is proposed to be an integrated system, with software and systems available to transfer precommitment levels between venues, and where electronic warnings would appear alerting the user that they are approaching their precommitment levels. That all needs to be good to go by 2016. Smaller venues are being given some slight dispensation on that time frame.
The bill also seeks to impose a limit of $250 a day on ATM withdrawals from gaming venues other than casinos. The bill aims to set up the framework for this precommitment system in order to ensure that gaming machines are compliant with that ambition. It is interesting that this is off the back of a trial that has not actually been concluded—a trial that is in its early days, with no opportunity to draw on any learning or insight that might arise and no evidence base from which to push forward with an expansion of the application of the concepts that are being road-tested in Canberra. It is often remarked that one of the best boosts for Queanbeyan is the fact that this is a trial in Canberra.
These bills also put in place a range of monitoring and investigation capabilities to ensure that compliance with the new requirements can be carried forward. It seeks to set up a regulator to perform these functions and puts in place some enforcement measures, civil penalty orders, infringement notices, injunctions, enforceable undertakings and compliance notices similar to what you see in the competition and consumer law. Also, a new bureaucracy being set up, the federal gambling regulator, and the bills provide for the charging of fees for services—in fact, two new levies to support the package of measures. It is effectively the machinery to create a tax to implement a policy that has not been proven to be effective, based on a trial that has not been concluded to deal with the problem that is not well defined. Other than that it a good piece of policy. But that is the problem: it is not a good piece of policy.
The coalition are particularly concerned about problem gambling and that is why we take an evidence based approach. To the great credit of my friend and colleague Kevin Andrews, the member for Menzies, the shadow minister for family services, we have released a quality discussion paper about gambling reform. This tries to identify the causal factors for the disease that a small percentage in our population have—that is, a gambling problem. So this is not like tobacco, where there is no safe level of consumption. There is a safe level of consumption for gambling, and most people involved in this activity do so in a safe and responsible way. However, there are some who do not.
The point that is made clear, and the point that I hear loud and clear from service providers in my community working with people who have a gambling problem, is that it is not a technology specific issue. It is a disease that plays out in a range of gambling options and gambling technologies. So simply going after one technology—in this case, poker machines—as some kind of antidote to all the gambling temptations that are out there for people who have the disease of a gambling problem highlights how inappropriate and ineffective the measures we are debating today are likely to be.
It has been put to me—and in fact it is a view I subscribe to—that poker machines are probably the most supervised, regulated, observed, controlled and contained kind of gambling that you could have. You have to be dressed. You have to be sober. You are observed. You are using technology that has constraints on its operations. There is a great deal of public interest. There are licensed venues. There are responsibilities and expectations on people to oversee responsible gambling. There are limits on the opportunity with the licensing that surrounds the venues that carry this equipment. This sector of the gambling industry is the most regulated, observed and controlled there is. Yet today we are discussing the Commonwealth reaching further into a sector that is overwhelmingly the responsibility of states and territories while it simply goes, 'La, la, la, la,' and looks away from every other form of gambling that equally occurs to a person with a problem gambling condition.
Let me give you an example. We have seen a burgeoning growth in online, internet gambling—gambling on your phone. You cannot watch an over at the cricket without hearing an ad for an online betting agency. You cannot watch a sports show without it. You cannot even watch a news channel without it. It is popping up everywhere. The point I made as long as five years ago is that in many cases that technology has none of the scrutiny that the poker machine industry is subjected to—none of it. You do not even have to be dressed to do it. You can lose your shirt without putting one on. You can lose your house without even leaving it.
That is an area of gambling that is directly the responsibility of the Commonwealth, yet we do not see any meaningful contribution from this government about something directly within its control. It is known to be the fastest growing area of gambling, reported by two investors in the gaming and gambling sector as being 'the place' where you put your money. It is an area where in the United States, particularly on college campuses and the like, we already see an enormous problem—one that is likely to be coming our way, one that can be managed and addressed if you turn your mind to it. Instead, this government decides to have another go at poker machines.
I have a pecuniary interest to declare: poker machines bore me witless, I am sorry to say. I find little charm in a poker machine. But I know some people enjoy them and for them it is an entertainment option and for many it is a part of the way they relax. That is fine. I also have another pecuniary interest: I did gamble on Melbourne Cup day. I took the wise counsel of my wife, who heard from one of her patients that they were onto a sure thing. Last time I looked, the horse was still running. I did my dough. It was a fun flutter, one day a year, so I am not heavily engaged in gambling.
So I step back from it and watch what is happening. I listen to the dedicated service providers in my community who say, 'Bruce, it's like alcohol—if it's not one type of beer or spirits, they will find it somewhere else.' This is what I keep hearing about gambling, problem gambling and how we need to tackle it. That is why this excellent paper my friend and colleague Kevin Andrews has produced, launched by the opposition leader, says you have to take a person centric focus to problem gambling. It is the person who has the challenge, the disease. That is the issue we need to turn our minds to addressing, not a particular mode of gambling, not one style of technology, not one part of the broad range of opportunities for those people at risk to get themselves into trouble and do further harm at a personal, financial and often a family level.
That is what is so troubling about this debate today. The Commonwealth is venturing into a space which is already very carefully regulated by the states and territories, trying to make this the Commonwealth's business when the business that is the Commonwealth's is seemingly too hard, too difficult for the government to turn its mind to addressing. But we have seen this before. Remember former Prime Minister Rudd, before he took the gamble and lost on his numbers. He had the war on gambling—same thing. It was all about poker machines, all about Canberra telling the state and territory governments what they should be doing without looking at its own patch, its own responsibility and the opportunities to address this within a particularly fast growing area of gambling and gaming.
So here we are with a policy that has not been tested because the trial has not been concluded, involving technology we have already heard cannot possibly be rolled out within the time frames prescribed in this legislation, imposing a governance arrangement over the top of the states and territories which looks to systems integration that has not even been put in place. We are requiring an investment in precommitment technology even though the government has not concluded its voluntary trial nor sought to see what opportunities there are with those already providing poker machines and how they might expand their own systems, technologies and loyalty schemes to pick up such an idea. Not able to implement these commitments in time, the government then creates a new bureaucracy with new taxes to pay for it to impose new penalties on businesses, particularly punishing for smaller locations and premises, knowing that the time frames, according to those who provide the technology, are simply unachievable. What is going on here?
I did mention the other day that, depending on who you listen to, you get a very different story. This is a classic multichannel narrowcast message exercise by the government. Those Labor MPs who have built their community credentials of the back of leagues clubs and other clubs that derive their revenue and fund their outreach into the community through poker machine activity—and there are a number—are saying: 'Don't worry, we haven't pulled the trigger on precommitment. Yes, we are putting all the architecture in place, all the legal requirements, but you are not obliged to do much. Just spend the money to load up all of this architecture, but we haven't pulled the trigger. So incur all the costs but don't get too upset. This isn't such a big deal.' That is one message that is going out.
You then hear Nick Xenophon, a colleague in the other place, and Mr Wilkie, the member for Denison, saying this is the most watered-down cop-out they have ever seen. They have said this is a complete whitewash because it does not activate much. Then you have the government boasting that, for the community that are very keen to see a crackdown on poker machines, this is a landmark historic reform. Well, which one is it?
I think it is probably: load the gun, put all the machinery in place and impose all the obligations, with more regulation, more cost, more red tape, more bureaucracy and more of the Commonwealth getting into the lives of people who have no problem or no concern. Then, if this government is re-elected—and what a frightful thought that is for so many people in the small business community that I talk with day in, day out—you will see a nannyesque lack of concern for individual scope to make good decisions and the government will just put this on everybody like a ton of bricks. But in the meantime you will hear that narrowcast message out into the Labor seats, where they see this as a great imposition on their personal liberties. They see this form of gambling as a leisure activity for which they do not require the Commonwealth hanging over their shoulders.
Our view is that this is poorly conceived and poorly executed, in indecent haste, an unnecessary legislative frolic that has not got the benefit of the findings and learnings from the trial. Why have a trial if you are not going to take on board the learnings? It looks like so many other areas of policy where I get told by community members and stakeholders that the government's consultation processes are just a nonsense—that they are just there to tick a box, to make it look like people have been consulted, when the government have already decided what they are going to do. They simply go through the exercise of telling people what they are going to do, in the hope someone will come back and agree with them. Then the government will say: 'Look, look: someone agrees with us.' That is not evidence based policy; that is policy based evidence, where you decide what you are going to do and then you hope someone comes along to back up what you have already determined.
That has got to be what the trial is about. Why else would you legislate with such indecent haste, with all of the risks and concerns that have been communicated, if you are completely different to what the outcomes and learnings and findings might be from the trial? Why would you push on, when those responsible for rolling out the technology say it cannot be dealt with in the time that is prescribed? Why would you punish smaller clubs with less capacity to bring about this change, which, according to some on the government benches, they might never activate? Why would you ignore the central proposition that is embraced in the coalition's approach—that it is the person with the problem gambling disease that we should be working with? We understand the temptations and the pressures and the thought processes and get alongside those people, mindful that just further regulating a form of gambling that already is the most regulated of any in the country will not take away the temptation that leads to financial harm and hardship. That is why these bills should be rejected. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012. The issue of problem gambling is one that I feel tremendously strongly about and know deserves the devotion of considerable time and thought by all who sit in this chamber. But it requires more than time and thought; it requires planning and a response that will bring about outcomes for those that need to have the cycle of addiction broken and for the families that are directly impacted by the behaviour of those that have an addiction to gambling. My own professional background as a social worker for some 25 years, prior to entering parliament, has given me firsthand experience of the terrible burden that gambling addiction places on both individuals and families. I have no doubts regarding the profound impact it has on many lives. The government, however, historically and according to the evidence before me in this bill, fail to understand or even stretch themselves to discover the highly complex nature of problem gambling. This fundamental inability to engage with the issue extends to an inability to understand the causes behind problem gambling and a determination to allocate blame unjustly to industry sectors that employ hundreds of thousands of Australians and provide critical support to thousands of community groups and organisations.
In August 2011, the shadow minister for families, housing and human services, Kevin Andrews, and I met with a large group of concerned local people in my electorate and held a consultative community forum. There was standing room only in the venue, and those who attended felt very passionately about gambling reform and the possible introduction of any measures aimed at the clubs industry. Together we explored the various perspectives found amongst members of the community, and, without much probing, a very clear consensus emerged. Everyone who attended agreed that gambling addiction was a terrible problem. As I have stated, this problem has significant implications for many, including people in the electorate of Macquarie, and as Australians it is our duty to do whatever we can to assist those who suffer from any form of addiction.
Having acknowledged this issue, however, it is also critical to appropriately direct active responsibility for practically addressing problem gambling. The clubs sector provides essential civic services and is often at the forefront of local and national efforts to address problem gambling. In the electorate of Macquarie, there are 21 clubs, which employ in excess of 500 people, providing revenue that is directly absorbed into local areas and charities and community initiatives, as well as invaluable support for many volunteer community organisations and sporting clubs. In 2010, these clubs donated more than $5 million to community groups and organisations, many of which would not have been able to engage in major activities or even exist without this support.
The Richmond Club, for example, sponsored the Hawkesbury Martial Arts club last year. Eight members of the martial arts squad were selected to represent Australia at the 2011 USA Karate Federation Junior Olympics. The team then went on to win 13 medals. A representative of the martial arts club told members of the community and me that without the assistance of the Richmond Club this would not have been possible.
This kind of support by community clubs is at risk with the introduction of this legislation. Given the strength of feeling expressed at this forum and the clear concern expressed by members of my local community, I had hoped that the government would take the significance with which Australians view any problem-gambling-related regulation of the clubs sector seriously and would subject any proposed legislation to exhaustive and careful review. At this point, it appears that we are stuck in a bit of a Groundhog Day situation, because once again I must rise to say that this government is attempting to push important legislation with significant implications for thousands of Australians through this House without appropriate review or consideration.
The coalition supports voluntary precommitment, as do all states in Australia. Given this, why is this government stepping over a fairly clear constitutional line, into a regulatory area that is a state and territory responsibility, to legislate on voluntary precommitment? States and the territories license clubs and poker machines. As the shadow minister for families, housing and human services has stated, the Constitution does not provide for Commonwealth regulation of this area. This is an area that is clearly a state and territory responsibility, yet this government has taken it upon itself to interfere and aggressively seek to legislate where it has no business to do so and, given the receptive attitude of the states to voluntary precommitment, no reason to do so.
The states and the territories are exploring the implementation of voluntary precommitment schemes. Indeed, the clubs industry is investing in voluntary precommitment. The entire focus and purpose of this legislation, the introduction of voluntary precommitment, is already the subject of proposals and movement in the states, the territories and the industry itself. Yet this government is attempting to insert the Commonwealth into an area which is not within its legislative remit or its area of function and responsibility, as set out in the Constitution of this nation, to replicate the exact measures already being undertaken by the appropriate levels of government and industry across Australia.
If the states and territories had refused to commit to or even explore voluntary precommitment, one could see the justification in the government taking this action and proposing the legislation we are now debating. However, given that the states and territories are doing this, why, one wonders, would the government take the course of action apparent in the pursuit of this bill? I concur with the member for Menzies that finding the answer to this question is not difficult. The bizarre pursuit of pointless legislation is intrinsically connected to the political deal struck with the Greens and the member for Denison, although at this stage I wonder whether the member for Denison has found that agreement as fulfilling as he had hoped.
In the electorate of Macquarie, there is a rehabilitation centre that works with young men aged from 18 to 35 to break the cycle of addictions. Many of them have addictions to gambling. The federal government has cut $400,000 from its funding. If the federal government were serious about breaking the cycle of addiction in individuals and families, that funding—funding that would focus on solutions and introducing and supporting programs that work to break the cycle of addiction, not just for individuals but for their families—would be restored rather than this legislation being introduced.
Based on my own professional experience, I can attest that the best ways to tackle problem gambling do not lie in targeting business or simply looking at poker machines and certainly do not lie in a bizarre replication of legislation already developing in appropriate channels and levels of government. Instead, real and effective solutions to problem gambling lie in recognizing the tremendously complex nature of addiction, realizing first that an individual's excessive indulgence in a pastime managed appropriately and responsibly by the vast majority of Australians is not solely linked to the ability of Australian adults to access this pastime. This recognition must also extend to an exploration of the connection between problem gambling and a large raft of many social and economic problems, including social isolation, depression, alcoholism and family breakdown.
The organisation I spoke of earlier that has seen its funding cut, ONE80TC, has an understanding of this. It has a program that provides people with a capacity not just to break the cycle but to develop new behaviour, new relationships and opportunities not only to reach their potential but to restore the family and the relationships that have been impacted by their negative behaviour.
Secondly, it must be realized that solutions to the very significant issue of problem gambling will only be effective if found across the community, within many organizations, as I have already mentioned, working with employers, health services, industry and the Australian public. Access to the services found at all levels of society that help Australians deal with the multitude of issues that contribute to the development of problem gambling is the only truly effective way of combating addiction. Effective prevention is key to the ongoing success and extent of any long-term solutions. For those who have already developed problems, counselling and rehabilitation programs and support services, in conjunction with voluntary precommitment, are the solutions.
The coalition is totally committed to addressing problem gambling, but the real commitment of this government to tackling addiction is debatable. Why have all its efforts not been poured into exploring effective whole-of-community solutions and programs that are already working and that would both prevent and treat addiction, but instead simply been directed to the lazy and somewhat bizarre replication of regulatory measures that are being developed elsewhere and at the appropriate levels of government?
Labor seem to be obsessed with fighting ideological battles on behalf of the Greens, who continue to prop them up in government. This bill helps no-one, least of all the most vulnerable people who live with problem gambling through their own or a loved one's addiction. For this reason, the coalition opposes this bill.
I rise to speak on the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and cognate bills. There are a few points that I would like to make. The first is that the coalition acknowledges that gambling is a major problem for some Australians and we do support measures that will effectively tackle problem gambling and help address and prevent gambling addiction. We understand that it is a serious issue and we understand the damage that a gambling addiction can do. But we have to make sure that in addressing this problem we are doing so not for political expediency and not so that we can say we have done something but so that we address the very issue.
The first thing that we need to address is that problem gambling does not occur just with poker machines. It occurs in other areas as well. As a matter of fact, my own family has personal experience of a member of the broader family having a gambling problem. I have heard and seen firsthand the problems that can occur. Importantly, that was able to be addressed and the person involved has been able to deal with the problem that he had—but it was not a poker machine addiction. We need to understand that tackling problem gambling requires a proper, measured and focused response that does not look at just one form of gambling but tackles the underlying problem of gambling addiction.
Fundamentally, problem gambling can only be tackled by providing problem gamblers with counselling and support services, and that costs some money. That means that the government has to put some resources into trying to address the problem. The coalition will look at approaches that provide additional, better equipped and more effective counselling and support services for problem gambling, because we understand how important this is in addressing the issue. We also support, specifically when it comes to poker machines, voluntary precommitment programs. We would like to see this extended to all gaming venues. But decisions that have such significant implications should be the result of detailed and careful consideration and should not involve a quick deal between members in this place.
One of the curious things that I fail to understand in the rush to all of a sudden bring this legislation into this place and have it debated and voted on this week is that we were debating this issue a year ago. Yet, all of a sudden, everything went quiet. Nothing occurred in this space. As we approach next year, an election year, all of a sudden—bang!—legislation is produced and rushed through committee processes and will be rushed through the parliament this week. There has been no proper explanation as to why that should be happening—none whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I think it has left many members on this side confused as to the government's real reasons behind introducing this legislation and rushing it through this place. Has another deal been done? Has another handshake agreement been done? Will that be honoured or will it be walked away from in a short period of time? I suppose, as we hear from members in this place, we will find that out. But it does seem strange that we have a big debate around this issue, we hear nothing and then all of a sudden a bill is rushed into this place.
The coalition has six areas of concern with the legislation before us. The first goes to the fact that what we are seeing is over-reach by the Commonwealth into the states and territories. There has been no proper explanation given as to why this should occur. For instance, in my state of Victoria, we already have voluntary precommitment. So why is the government looking to extend its powers and over-reach into what is a clear policy delineation which says that these matters are matters for the states? That has not been fully explained. I can see no proper reason why the Commonwealth wants to extend its influence over the states and territories in this regard other than that it seems to be hell-bent on dictating policy from Canberra. When the government has done that, it has proved inadequate. Every time it has over-reached we have seen public policy failure after public policy failure. Yet here it is wanting to do it again.
There are fundamental reasons why we will see public policy failure as a result. The first is that industry have not been given time to effectively prepare for the government's decisions. We have seen the consequences when industry have not been given the proper time, have not been consulted and have not had discussions on what this government has in mind; it leads to widespread concerns within industry. It is not a satisfactory response, because this government, at least after five years in office, should know better and should understand that proper, functioning policy that works in the interests of all Australians requires proper process. It requires planning and it requires an understanding of what the implementation implications will be. Yet we are not seeing this with the government's approach to this bill, and that is a real shame, particularly when, for this bill to be meaningful, it is going to require the cooperation through COAG of the states and territories. Yet we have not seen the government use the COAG process properly to see this outcome occur. If we are to get proper voluntary precommitment established in all the states and territories then using a cooperative approach and having them on board I would have thought would have been a very good first step.
The second issue of concern with this legislation comes around the time frame for implementation and the costs of implementation. The bill seeks to propose uniform time lines and conditions on all states and territories. The evidence suggests the consequences of this arbitrary approach will be extensive compliance costs and administrative burdens, because one of the issues we have is that some states and territories are further ahead in implementing than others. Government has not taken this into consideration.
The government has relied on the Productivity Commission in saying that this is how it has framed its policy approach in this area, but in truth the Productivity Commission has stated that realistically most state and territory governments could not quickly implement a genuinely binding precommitment system. Full-scale implementation and advanced interfaces with the gambler would also require all machines to have card readers or other player identification devices and software upgrades—a costly measure if required to be done quickly. Yet that does not seem to have been taken on board, and that is an issue that I think the government is going to find will haunt it because I would imagine that industry, faced with these compliance and implementation costs, is going to have a few words to say to the government on this issue. The problem is that, down the track, that also might lead—and there is some evidence to suggest this—to the risk of non-compliance. So driving through this legislation could actually start driving non-compliance—and there is evidence along those lines from the Australian Hotels Association and Clubs Australia.
There are also issues concerning the use of ATMs and how the government is approaching this. The coalition realises that this is going to put significant costs on the industry, and we have supported industry calls for an extension of not less than 12 months to the lead time for the commencement date of the proposed daily ATM withdrawal limit. This has been a long-held view of the ATM Industry Reference Group—really since this debate began in 2007, when we saw, for the first time, the Commonwealth say, 'We are going to try and encroach on the states and territories in this area.'
The other issue that we have is that, once again, there will be a disproportionate negative impact on smaller venues, those in regional and rural areas and premises suffering economic stress. So we just see this as a carte blanche approach—an approach which just blankets everyone, and treats everyone the same. This is one of the reasons that legislating from Canberra into the realms of the states and territories is not a smart idea, because it leads to Canberra saying, 'One size fits all,' and yet we have seen that it does not.
You would think that this government would have learned its lesson about this through every one-size-fits-all approach that it has tried, especially when it has been encroaching on state powers. We saw this with the pink batts insulation scheme: the Commonwealth department of environment was never designed and put there to roll out a pink batts program. And what were the consequences? Deaths, fires, and a massive bill to the Australian taxpayer. And what did we see? A repair bill of $120 million for remedial work.
That is what happens when, from Canberra, the Commonwealth starts overreaching into areas that they just should not be in. This is one serious area of concern, and especially for regional and rural areas, because the cost-of-living pressures and cost-of-doing-business pressures that have increased under this government have put enormous pressure on communities and venues, and yet here they are, just carte blanche, putting another cost on them—and not with any proper consultation; just saying, 'You will wear this.' That is not the way that you implement good policy. That is not specifically targeting problem gamblers. That is just saying, 'This one-size-fits-all approach is the way we will go.' It is not going to prove to be effective.
So we have serious concerns and reservations on this bill, and in summing up I will just go through them. Firstly, it does not specifically target all problem gamblers; it targets problem gamblers in one area. Secondly, there is an extension of Commonwealth influence but this is a states and territories issue and you should work cooperatively with them and get them to implement the policies and to roll them out. Thirdly, there is a lack of time given to industry to deal with the consequences of this legislation, and there are costs to industry in dealing with this legislation which you are just telling them that they are going to have to wear. Fourthly, there is going to be a negative impact on employment. Fifthly, there is going to be hardship felt in rural and regional areas beyond what the Commonwealth has considered, which potentially could also lead to widespread non-compliance. Sixthly, there are concerns with the way that you are rushing in the implementation associated with the use of ATMs.
I rise to follow the member for Wannon's eloquent explanation of how the reforms in this bill will adversely impact rural and regional Australia. He is an expert on such parts of Australia, and his words are a prescient warning to the government and all of those intending to vote in favour of this bill that it will have consequences for all parts of this country. I will talk the culture of clubs in our great state of New South Wales, which is the premier state of Australia, and particularly about clubs in Western Sydney. Registered clubs have formed the nucleus of communities in Western Sydney ever since I grew up there, and they had been doing so for a long time before I was born.
The problem with the perversion of the public policy process—I might say the perfidious perversion of the public policy process—represented by this bill is that when you put in place badly designed and ill-thought-out legislation such as this on the basis of a promise to an independent you adversely affect the civic society in Western Sydney and places like it around the country, particularly places in New South Wales. The member for Denison, whose speech on this bill I was here for earlier, fails to understand the reality of the culture that has grown up in Sydney and in New South Wales in general. I note the presence of the member for Robertson, and I think it is very good that the member for Robertson is here to defend clubs in her electorate against this bad legislation. I am sure that she is here to do so, because she knows that clubs in her electorate, like clubs in Western Sydney, are saying that the minimum compliance costs of this legislation will be unreal.
Just this week in the papers in Penrith—which is in the electorate of Lindsay, a prominent part of Sydney—it was stated that, by 2016, Western Sydney clubs will have to find up to $123 million, the sum demanded of the clubs by the federal government in this legislation. This $123 million has to be found somewhere. Are wages going to be cut? Are jobs going to be cut? Are direct grants to community groups going to be cut? The member for Robertson would understand that such direct grants constitute a vital flow of funds to so many voluntary groups in her electorate, as they do in Western Sydney. The $123 million will be used to convert gaming machines so that they can be used in mandatory precommitment schemes, and the use of the money in this way is going to mean a great loss of funds to clubs in Western Sydney. In the article in the Penrith press, which was published on 27 November 2012, the local member for Lindsay, David Bradbury, said:
… he was disappointed to see the gambling industry peddling these alarmist claims about the government's sensible response to problem gambling.
He went on to say:
'I met with and listened to the concerns of local clubs and I made sure their views were well represented in Canberra.'
When I look at the design of this legislation, I cannot imagine a more disingenuous statement from a person who is the Assistant Treasurer of the country than that he has represented the view of clubs in Western Sydney. I encourage any of the members in this place to go and visit the CEOs, the general managers, the club boards and the people who run the clubs in Lindsay or any electorate in Western Sydney—Castle Hill RSL, which is in my electorate, would be a prime example—and ask them their views on what will come out of this legislation. You will hear exactly the opposite of what the Assistant Treasurer said in his own local papers. The clubs are not making spurious claims; they are not, contrary to what the Assistant Treasurer says, 'peddling alarmist claims'. The clubs have to find $123 million somewhere. That is a lot of money when you are running a business, when the margins are small and when the club industry is already hurting from changes that have occurred at state level.
There are a lot of clubs in the electorate of Lindsay—Club Paceway, the Dunheved Golf Club, the Emu Plains Sporting & Recreation Club, the Henry Lawson Club, the Nepean Rowing Club, the Penrith Bowling & Recreation Club, the Penrith Golf & Recreation Club, the Penrith RSL, the St Marys Band Club, the St Marys RSL & Ex-Serviceman's Club, St Marys Rugby League Club and the Hubertus Country Club Ltd. The number of clubs in Lindsay says a lot about the culture of Western Sydney. Penrith, Parramatta, where I grew up, my electorate of Mitchell and Western Sydney in general have clubs all through them. Clubs are nuclei for the community. As a person who grew up in Sydney, I would much rather that young people go to registered clubs and enjoy a drink and catch up with friends than that they go to nightclubs or other places which do not take a similar level of care and do not put anything back into the community. Registered clubs across Sydney put back into the community. That is the point that the government has failed to understand in the design and proposed implementation of this legislation.
The government does not address online gambling. Online gambling companies—whether it be Betfair, which is advertising heavily at the moment, or others—are all registered offshore. All of the profits go offshore. The online gambling industry is not like the club industry, from which much of the money made goes back into the community through direct grants, through taxes and other charges and through employment. Yet the government is absolutely silent on the subject of online gambling. We saw with the alcopops legislation that, when the government acted in one small space to deal with the trend of the day in order to look like it was doing something significant, the settings changed and people moved to other forms of alcohol. Similarly, this legislation will force people to move to other forms of gambling, and government members know it. If you say, 'You can only do $1 on the pokies,' people will go to online gambling and other forms of gambling where they are not monitored, where they do not have access to the right programs, where there is no form of help and where there is no return to the Australian taxpayer or the local community. I know why the member for Denison does not understand this: he comes from an electorate in Tasmania which is already heavily subsidised by the New South Wales taxpayer dollar. He has not only failed to take the time to understand that he is living in a bubble sustained by New South Wales taxpayers but also failed to take the time to understand that clubs are a very important part of the make-up of Western Sydney.
This direct assault on clubs in Western Sydney and New South Wales will have a direct detrimental effect on community life and activity and the coherence of our population in Sydney, not to the benefit of anyone. By focusing just on poker machines as a problem, the member for Denison, who is living in this idealistic and unrealistic world, is deliberately not opening his eyes to the realities. We know there are people who do have problems with poker machines, they do need to get the right help and we do need to design policy that is evidence based, well thought out and rational—but we do not find that in this legislation.
It has been well stated by my colleagues, but the coalition do support voluntary precommitment—'voluntary' being the key word. The government is in love with mandatory forms of policy, imposing, penalising and doing whatever it can to create disincentives; whereas we are all about incentives. Voluntary precommitment is a good thing for us to trial and something worth doing as part of a variety of tools to address the issues related to problem gambling. But cracking down on clubs in New South Wales, who form the nucleus of these communities and the many groups that rely on them, is not going to achieve the desired benefits against the cost. That is where this government fails to do a proper analysis, as always. Many players in the industry, including Clubs Australia, made submissions to the inquiry—and I have a copy here. They expressed their concerns directly about what is wrong with the legislation before us. I will get to some of those in a moment.
There are other concerns. Traditionally, this has been a state issue, and it is still a state issue. The fact that the Commonwealth is seeking to create an extra power over gambling is, to me, unnecessary. Given that the Commonwealth through this legislation will have to rely on the COAG process and use every state and territory in the design and implementation of these measures, and that the mandatory time frames that have been included are so unrealistic, is quite scandalous. It is hugely problematic that there will be rates of noncompliance and that then, of course, this hasty and ill-conceived approach will lead to penalties being applied to registered clubs. The Clubs Australia submission points out that the three-year implementation time frame for venues with more than 20 poker machines is not achievable. It is not something that clubs can absorb in their compliance costs and it is likely to result in widespread noncompliance, especially with smaller clubs and entities. If we know that now—and we do know that—and if we accept that just in Western Sydney the clubs will have to find $123 million from somewhere just to make these changes, we ought to take time and rationally design legislation that targets the problem that we are trying to fix: problem gambling. That is not what is going on here today.
I guess we do not see members from Western Sydney electorates on the government side—the member for Lindsay, the member for Parramatta and others—come in here and decry registered clubs in New South Wales because they know they have a significant problem. I stood as the coalition's representative at the Blacktown Workers Club in front of 1,000 people with Michelle Rowland, the member Greenway. These people—these good, quality Australian people who, through voluntary associations, love the life of their local club—were seriously registering a protest with the member Greenway about all these proposals, including mandatory precommitment. They were sending a signal that (1) they did not want the government imposing unnecessary regulation on them when most of them do not have gambling problems, that (2) they understood that those with gambling problems do need help but that (3) they do not want the government to interfere with the registered clubs' system in New South Wales, which provides the lifeblood for so much genuine community activity. That is what those 1,000 people were saying, and some of them were not saying it politely. Some of them were very forthright, but I understand why those 1,000 people at the Blacktown Workers Club were so forthright. What I do not understand was why the member for Greenway did not listen. I do not understand why the Assistant Treasurer, in his local newspaper, the Penrith Press, says the views of his local clubs are well represented in Canberra, when clearly they are not in this legislation.
Members in Western Sydney of all sides ought to come into this place and send this legislation back to the government to say, 'Do not pass such a bill that will damage the life of registered clubs in the Western Sydney community and Sydney in general. Come back to us with something that is evidence based, is rational, makes sense and will have actually have an impact on problem gambling in Australia.' I note the member for Macarthur has just joined us in the chamber. I am sure he is going to regale us with tales of how clubs in Western Sydney are the lifeblood of his community as well. He is a member who knows his trade, understands his community and realises that registered clubs are the lifeblood of those communities.
It is very important that the government gets the signal on this, and I encourage Clubs Australia and all of these registered clubs around Australia to register their protest more vociferously. This shabby backroom deal between the member for Denison, Senator Xenophon and the government reeks of bad public policy. The member for Denison, who came into this chamber earlier today and said, 'Anybody against this is corrupt and in the pocket of the gambling industry,' could not be more wrong about the motivation of people on this side of the chamber in relation to this issue. I can record for this House that I have never taken a cent from any gambling industry and do not intend to. Further, I am a person who grew up in Western Sydney and understands that this legislation will seriously and deleteriously impact those clubs and our system.
If you want to benefit online gambling—and these companies are all registered overseas, with every cent going to offshore organisations at the expense of local clubs, who have to put back into their football clubs, local communities, sports associations, charities and voluntary groups and pay tax and employ people and do all the good things that they do—let's penalise the Australian outfits to the benefit of offshore interests. Well, I am not up for it and I know members on this side are not up for it. Government members representing Western Sydney ought to have the guts to stand up to the Prime Minister and to their government and say, 'Our communities will not wear this pathetic attempt at public policy.'
Like the member for Mitchell, I have great concerns about the National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 and related bills. I will speak about the impact of this legislation on behalf of all the clubs across Macarthur and on behalf of the employees, club members, schools, sporting groups and charities they support. There are 17 local clubs in MacArthur, with more than 130,000 club members. Our local clubs support more than 750 employees, making them one of the biggest employers in the region, the south-west of Sydney.
Every year there are 4.4 million visitors to our local clubs. Many of these are families from my electorate—including my own family—who enjoy the friendly atmosphere, great entertainment and affordable meals offered by our local clubs. I personally believe that the Labor government's attack on our local clubs is an absolute disgrace. I am looking forward to hearing what Labor members from Western Sydney have to say about this legislation. It is un-Australian.
The reforms are going to cost our local clubs at least $24 million to set up and at least $30 million in lost revenue. If the government gets their way on mandatory precommitment, a number of clubs in Campbelltown will not survive the huge set-up costs and the lost revenue. Even if they survive, this is money which would otherwise have been invested into our local community in Macarthur. Clubs in Macarthur currently pledge large amounts of funding to local sporting groups, community organisations and schools in our region. They provide jobs for young people and scholarships for local university students. One club in my electorate provides more than $37,000 each month in food discounts for local families—people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. There are large tracts of public housing in my electorate. These people will be affected by these changes.
Our community receives millions of dollars from our local clubs. The Campbelltown Catholic Club has donated $1 million every year for the past five years to Catholic and public schools in Macarthur. In total, it has donated more than $20 million to local schools and charities since 1990. This includes more than $100,000 to Youth Solutions, more than $190,000 to Lifeline Macarthur, more than $250,000 to St Vincent de Paul, and the same to Youth Off The Streets. These organisations will suffer as a result of this legislation. They rely on these donations to stay alive. I will name just a few more. Mater Dei, a local school for children with disability, has received more than $650,000 from the Catholic Club. Our parishes and local charities have received more than $1.6 million and our Catholic schools more than $11.3 million from the Catholic Club—and that is just to name a few organisations that have received help from just one of the clubs in my electorate.
Wests Leagues Club, Leumeah, is also a big supporter of our local sporting groups, schools and charities. They spend more than $1 million each year on 22—yes, 22!—local sporting teams and the Wests Tigers. This includes $450,000 a year on subsidised registration for local teams, uniform subsidies, training and insurance—letting disadvantaged kids play the sport of their choice. The general manager of the club, Tony Mathew, has told me that a big concern is that they still have no detail about how the government's voluntary precommitment system will actually work. His club already has a precommitment system in place. So why should they have to pay again for an alternative system with new card readers and machines? We are talking about an enormous amount of investment, yet the club has been given no detail about how the system will work or what they will need to do.
Without a strong club movement, funding for our local community will be lost and local jobs will be lost—and for what? Local clubs in my electorate are already doing their bit to support problem gamblers through counselling and support services. Yes, gambling is a serious problem for some people, but the vast majority of people in Macarthur gamble responsibly. This attack on our clubs will not help the problem gamblers. Instead of putting restrictions on our right to have a punt, the government should be helping the problem gamblers by offering them real solutions, such as support programs and counselling. They should be increasing funding for these programs, as the Liberal government in New South Wales has done. But this government has a different idea and wants to rush through this legislation—legislation on which there has been very little consultation with the states or the industry.
The bills we are considering require that new machines manufactured or imported from the end of 2013 be capable of supporting precommitment. They also require that all gaming machines be part of a state-wide precommitment system and display electronic warnings by 2016, with longer implementation time lines for small venues. The legislation also imposes a $250-a-day ATM withdrawal limit for gaming venues other than casinos.
I find it interesting that casinos are not included in this ATM withdrawal limit. Could this have something to do with the effect this would have on tourism in the member for Denison's own patch? He has a casino in his electorate. Why are problem gamblers in casinos different from problem gamblers in pubs and hotels? This is legislation to suit one individual and it is still poor legislation. Why does the member want to apply this legislation to pubs and clubs but not to casinos in his own electorate? Does he think that problem gamblers do not go to casinos? What is the excuse? You can take $250 out of an ATM at a pub or a club, but you can take any amount out at a casino. What is the difference between a problem gambler at a casino and a problem gambler at a club or pub? This is just another example of the government developing policies to suit the crossbenchers and the Greens.
The member for Denison has implied that people who are part of the club and hotel industry are dodgy and prey on vulnerable people in our society. This is an absolute disgrace! I know for a fact that the people who work in the clubs across Macarthur genuinely care about others and make a significant contribution to those most in need.
According to Clubs Australia, the 2016 deadline for clubs with 21 or more poker machines is completely unrealistic given the massive cost of replacing or upgrading existing machines to offer voluntary precommitment. Of the 17 clubs in Macarthur, 13 have 21 or more machines, which means they have to have voluntary precommitment on 100 per cent of their machines by 2016. This can only be done at a cost of $38.4 million. Of this, $16.7 million is unplanned expenditure. Given clubs are not-for-profit organisations, this additional spend can only be sourced by cutting jobs, cutting community donations or borrowing from the banks.
For clubs where the possibilities for savings from such measures are insufficient, the likely result is closure. This legislation treats clubs with more than 21 poker machines in the same way it treats Star Casino. If a club has 24 pokies—as does the Campbelltown City Bowling Club, for example—this legislation assumes it has the financial capacity to replace its entire fleet of pokies in four years time. Due to financial constraints, the existing machines at this club have not been replaced for eight years. So how can it be expected to replace 100 per cent of their machines over the next four years?
Clubs in Macarthur already provide support for problem gamblers and in New South Wales we have seen the prevalence of problem gambling drop by half since 2006. Our local clubs are all members of the ClubSafe program, which provides a free problem gambling counselling service for all patrons. Our clubs in Macarthur already have voluntary precommitment programs in place for problem gamblers. This is a real solution to a very real problem, and one that delivers results for problem gamblers in Campbelltown and Macarthur.
Aside from this government's failure to offer real support for problem gamblers another concern of mine is the lack of consultation with the industry regarding this bill. Clubs Australia has called for several amendments to the bill to ensure that voluntary precommitment can be rolled out across the country in a way that does not undermine the financial viability of the club industry. Many clubs have already installed voluntary precommitment. Clubs Australia believes that those venues that have already done so should not be required to replace their systems with a new version of voluntary precommitment. This would allow venues to implement voluntary precommitment on a venue-based rather than state-wide system. Clubs Australia is also concerned that the bill gives most clubs three years to implement these changes even though the Productivity Commission recommended that voluntary pre-commitment be implemented over six years, recognising the challenge to afford the technology.
In terms of the supervisory levy that will be charged on venues for the costs of regulation, Clubs Australia wants the total levy capped for industry at $5 million per year, with at least a 50 per cent contribution from the federal government. This equates to a maximum charge of $25 per machine per annum. In regard to the $250 daily withdrawal limits from ATMs, advice from the ATM Industry Reference Group indicates a significant number of people generally withdraw cash at levels above $250, so Clubs Australia is proposing an increase in the limit to $400 per day. The ATM suppliers for clubs and pubs advise that they need a minimum of 12 months to implement withdrawal limits across the 5,000 ATMs affected by the change. Clubs Australia has also called for the release of a full cost-benefit analysis of the bill's proposals, as well as a regulatory impact statement. As yet neither of these have been done.
It is clear to me that there has been very little consultation with the industry on this so-called reform. Labor has indicated it intends to rush the bill through this week and this has compounded industry concerns about the lack of consultation and the unforeseen consequences of the legislation. The coalition believes the government's national gaming reform legislation is far from perfect and can be characterised by its lack of appreciation for the concerns of state and territory governments, its decision to ignore important technical advice and suggested improvements from key industry participants, and a failure to provide much needed clarity and flexibility in the proposed legislative measures. The Productivity Commission itself stated that the issue of addressing problem gambling is a complex task for public policy, and that coverage and design of regulation require particular care to ensure that the benefits exceed the costs and that account is taken of what is often imperfect evidence.
The coalition understands that gambling is a major problem for some Australians. That is why we support measures to effectively tackle problem gambling and help address and prevent gambling addiction. We support voluntary precommitment programs and would like to see them extended to all gaming venues. Tackling problem gambling requires a measured response that does not just look at poker machines but tackles the underlying problem of gambling addiction in all avenues. Problem gamblers do not just use poker machines—what about horse racing, sports bets and online gambling? Today's paper reported on a lady problem gambler who lost $8 million on online gambling. There are no reforms here that suggest that this precommitment system is going to help her. She got online and lost $8 million of her employer's money.
This is why the coalition is pushing for a more measured response, one that sees voluntary precommitment programs extended to all gaming venues and that provides problem gamblers with the counselling and support services they need. For a mandatory precommitment system to be effective, it needs to be shown that it will actually reduce or prevent problem gambling. There is no evidence that this is the case. The government needs to conduct a full cost-benefit analysis of the final mandatory precommitment scheme before any decision is made on its implementation.
It is a big concern that the government is not planning a trial of its scheme. The coalition has identified six areas of concern with the government's legislation, they being: the extension of Commonwealth influence over state and territory jurisdictions; the lack of time given to the industry to effectively prepare for the implementation of the new measures; the cost of implementation; the negative impact on industry and employment especially in smaller venues and those premises already experiencing financial hardship; the risk of widespread non-compliance; and the matters associated with the use of ATMs.
The government's bills set out enforcement measures, including civil penalty orders, infringement notices, injunctions, enforceable undertakings and compliance notices. This means Labor will have to establish yet another new bureaucracy, a federal gambling regulator. The bills provide that the regulator may charge fees for services, and they also establish two levies to support this package of measures. This will effectively create a new tax. The supervisory levy will be determined by regulations. The purpose of the supervisory levy is to recover the costs to the Commonwealth of administering these bills, which all relate to gambling and thus all fall within the domain of the states. Gambling has traditionally fallen within state government responsibility and every state government supports voluntary precommitment. The states are now criticising the government for moving into their legislative space.
I oppose this legislation having in mind my local clubs and the problem gamblers in my electorate who need counselling and support. I have always been a big supporter of our local clubs in Macarthur because I can see the great things they do for our community. My family and I have enjoyed visiting our local clubs for many meals over the past 30 years, as do hundreds of families each week across Macarthur. I think these reforms will change our local clubs as we know them and stop vital funding to many community groups and organisations without helping problem gamblers at all. That is why I oppose this legislation. Problem gamblers need counselling and support services to kick their addiction—not this ridiculous legislation that does nothing but hurt our local clubs who put so much back into our local communities.
If I am a problem gambler and I walk into a club, and I know I am a problem gambler, I will set my limits too high—so the system does not work for problem gamblers. They need counselling. If they set their own limits, the system will struggle. As I said, there are no limits with online gambling, and you can bet on credit. There will be a huge impact on our communities, because clubs donate money to charities and other organisations in Macarthur. It will have a huge impact. This is not the system for problem gamblers—it will not work. We will have flawed legislation where the member for Denison will pick and choose what pubs and clubs do and what casinos do. If you are a problem gambler you can go to the casino and take out as much money as you want, but if you go to a pub or club you can only take out $250. Why is it different when you go into a casino? It is another aspect of this legislation where the member for Denison is obviously looking after his own backyard—tourism and casinos in his local electorate. He has been able to pick and choose what he wants to put in the legislation so there is the least impact on his electorate.
I rise tonight to briefly voice my opposition to this National Gambling Reform Bill 2012. My views on this are well and truly on the record, but I do want to reinforce my position.
I do not play poker machines—and, quite frankly, to me, this bill is not about poker machines. This bill is about small communities. In my electorate of Parkes, more often than not, the social hub and meeting place for small rural communities is the local club, many of which have poker machines. These places are not great gambling dens. There might be 10, 20, 30 or so machines around the club and they get played sometimes only a couple of nights a week. The returns from these machines pay for things like the greenkeeper on the golf course, someone to maintain the bowling green and sponsorship for the local football club, including football guernseys, sporting equipment and things like that. They are places where our returned servicemen can gather to socialise and communicate and have fellowship. They are places where residents of these towns can go to have a relatively reasonably priced meal and enjoy some company in their own community. Unfortunately, this bill was concocted for a political purpose, not a social purpose. It is a bill that was concocted to mollify the member for Denison, even though he has lowered his expectations somewhat, but even this watered-down bill will still have a detrimental effect on the clubs and pubs in my electorate.
Another issue with this bill is associated with the ATM withdrawal limit of $250. In many country towns and villages, financial services have largely vacated the field and, more often than not, the only avenue for cash is the ATM at the local bowling club or the pub. If there is a $250 withdrawal limit, it will have an impact on how these people go about their lives. Quite often, pensioners, who are paid their benefits electronically now, rely on the ATMs in these venues to get their weekly money out for their expenses. Local people earning wages are paid electronically, and they rely on these ATMs for cash. The $250 withdrawal limit will have a serious, detrimental effect on how these people conduct their business.
I will not take up any more of the House's time, but I will summarise by saying that, when legislation is introduced for a political result rather than to try and deal with a social ill, the outcomes will always be negative. I oppose this bill. I will be voting against this bill and I certainly hope that the majority of the House do the same.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I would like to thank the honourable members who have contributed to the debate on this bill. The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Further MySuper and Transparency Measures) Bill 2012 is the third tranche of legislation implementing the government's MySuper and governance reforms as part of Stronger Super. Tranches 1 and 2 have now passed the parliament, and I will be introducing the final tranche of the MySuper and governance reforms into the House tomorrow morning.
The bill implements the remaining measures relating to MySuper, as well as introducing data collection and publication powers for APRA and disclosure requirements for trustees that were announced as part of Stronger Super. MySuper will provide a cost-effective default product that all Australians can rely on. It will be limited to a common set of features to make it easier for members, employers and other stakeholders to compare performance across MySuper products, placing downward pressure on fees. Passage of this bill by the House completes the measures needed to provide trustees with certainty to lodge applications with APRA to offer a MySuper product.
The bill comprises seven schedules. Schedule 1 has new fee rules for superannuation funds that mean that conflicted remunerations, such as commissions, cannot be charged in relation to MySuper products; that ban entry fees and limit exit fees, switching fees and buy-sell spreads to cost recovery in all superannuation funds; and that impose parameters that must be complied with when a trustee agrees to a performance based fee with an investment manager in relation to a MySuper product. These rules ensure that members of MySuper products do not pay unnecessary fees, ensure that a trustee does not enter into performance-fee arrangements that are not in the members' best interests, and limits certain fees to ensure that they do not unfairly inhibit a member from making active choices.
Schedule 2 covers the insurance arrangements for MySuper products. Trustees will be required to provide members of a MySuper product with life and TPD—total and permanent disability—insurance on an opt-out basis. This provides an important safety net to members of MySuper who may not actively consider their insurance needs.
Schedule 3 implements new data collection and publication powers for APRA in relation to superannuation, and imposes new disclosure obligations on trustees, including publishing their full portfolio holdings on a product dashboard on their website. Transparency of key performance information is crucial to a competitive and efficient superannuation system. For this reason, APRA will have new data collection and publication powers in relation to superannuation. Members are entitled to information about their investments. Therefore, superannuation funds will be required to disclose their full portfolio holdings, and a product dashboard to provide key information to members at a glance. The government will consider broadening this requirement to other managed investments as part of its response to the parliamentary inquiry into the Trio Capital collapse.
Schedule 4 makes consequential amendments to the Fair Work Act to ensure that only a fund that offers a MySuper product may be nominated in a modern award or enterprise agreement. This will ensure that employees who have their contributions directed to a fund nominated in a modern award or enterprise agreement will benefit from having their contributions placed in a MySuper product if they do not wish to choose another superannuation product.
Schedule 5 exempts defined benefit funds and defined benefit arrangements from the requirements of the MySuper regime. This will allow defined benefit funds to continue to be used as the default fund by employers. Defined benefit members are entitled to benefits that are not altered by the charging of fees or the investment strategy adopted. Therefore, the MySuper regime is not designed to apply to defined benefit arrangements.
Schedule 6 requires trustees of superannuation funds to transfer the accrued default amounts of members to a MySuper product by 1 July 2017. Moving existing balances to MySuper will ensure that members are able to obtain the benefits of MySuper and in particular a ban on commissions for their existing superannuation balance as well as for future contributions.
I am aware that there have been some concerns with the definition of the amounts that must be transferred to MySuper. Following further consultation with industry I will today be moving amendments to the definition of accrued default amounts and on several other issues to address these concerns.
Schedule 7 introduces new authorisation requirements for eligible rollover funds. This will ensure that APRA is able to assess whether eligible rollover funds are meeting their intended objective of reconnecting members with their lost superannuation and are promoting the financial interests of members. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendments (1) to (17), as circulated, together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:
(2) Page 5 (after line 2), after clause 3, insert:
4 Acquisition of property
(1) This Act does not apply to the extent (if any) that its operation would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph).
(2) The following subsections do not limit subsection (1).
(3) If, apart from this section, this Act would result in such an acquisition of property because, as a result of a repeal or an amendment made in a Schedule to this Act, a person would be required or permitted to use, disclose or publish information, then despite any other provision of this Act, the person is not required or permitted to use, disclose or publish the information in the circumstances that would result in such an acquisition.
(4) To avoid doubt, any provision that does not result in an acquisition of property continues to apply in relation to the use, disclosure and publication of information.
(3) Schedule 1, item 40, page 17 (line 26), after "facility", insert "within the fund".
(4) Schedule 2, item 6, page 22 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection 68AA(6), substitute:
(6) The trustees of a regulated superannuation fund may require that MySuper members who wish to make an election in accordance with subsection (5):
(a) must make the election in relation to both permanent incapacity benefit and death benefit; or
(b) must make the election in relation to death benefit if they make the election in relation to permanent incapacity benefit.
(5) Schedule 3, item 44, page 51 (lines 26 to 30), omit subsection 348A(3).
(6) Schedule 6, item 4, page 65 (lines 16 to 32), omit subsection 20B(1), substitute:
(1) Subject to this section, the total amount attributed by the trustee, or the trustees, of a regulated superannuation fund to a member of the fund is an accrued default amount for the member if subsection (1A) or (1B) is satisfied.
(1A) This subsection is satisfied if the member has given the trustee, or the trustees, of the fund no direction on the investment option under which the asset (or assets) of the fund attributed to the member in relation to the amount (the member's underlying asset(s)) is to be invested.
(1B) This subsection is satisfied if the investment option under which the asset (or assets) of the fund attributed to the member in relation to the amount (the member's underlying asset(s)) is invested is one which, under the current governing rules of the fund, would be the investment option for a new member if no direction were given.
(7) Schedule 6, item 4, page 66 (line 7), omit "if", substitute "to the extent that".
(8) Schedule 6, item 4, page 66 (line 19), omit " or".
(9) Schedule 6, item 4, page 66 (after line 19), at the end of paragraph 20B(3) (c), add:
(iv) an investment option under which the investment is held as cash; or
(10) Schedule 6, item 4, page 66 (after line 23), after subsection 20B(3), insert:
(3A) For the purposes of subsection (1A), if:
(a) benefits of a person in a regulated superannuation fund (the earlier fund) are transferred to another regulated superannuation fund (the later fund); and
(b) the person gave or (because of a previous application of this subsection) is taken to have given the trustee, or the trustees, of the earlier fund a direction on the investment option under which an asset (or assets) of the earlier fund is to be invested; and
(c) an amount attributable to the person is invested under an equivalent investment option offered by the later fund (the equivalent investment option);
the person is taken to have given the trustee, or the trustees, of the later fund a direction to invest in the equivalent investment option any asset (or assets) of the later fund that is attributed to the person in relation to an amount attributed to the person.
(11) Schedule 6, page 69 (after line 12), after item 8, insert:
8A Paragraph 29TC(1) (b)
After "facilities", insert "except to the extent that a benefit is provided by taking out risk insurance".
(12) Schedule 6, item 9, page 70 (lines 15 to 19), omit section 29XB, substitute:
29XB No liability for certain transfers
A trustee of a regulated superannuation fund is not subject to any liability to a member of the fund:
(a) for an action taken to give effect to an election made in accordance with section 29SAA or 29SAB; or
(b) for an action of the kind mentioned in subsection 55C(1).
(13) Schedule 6, item 10, page 70 (after line 33), after section 55B, insert:
55C Governing rules do not prevent transfer from pre MySuper default option to MySuper product
(1) A provision of the governing rules of a regulated superannuation fund is void to the extent that it would prevent a trustee or trustees of the fund from attributing an amount to a MySuper product for a member, instead of attributing the amount to a pre MySuper default option.
(2) A pre MySuper default option, in relation to an amount attributed to a member of a regulated superannuation fund, is an investment option under which an asset (or assets) of the fund attributed to the member in relation to the amount would be invested, under the governing rules of the fund, if the member gave no direction in relation to the amount.
(14) Schedule 6, page 71 (after line 9), after item 12, insert:
12A After section 349A
Insert:
349B Acquisition of property
(1) This Act does not apply to the extent (if any) that its operation would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph).
(2) The following subsections do not limit subsection (1).
(3) If, apart from this section, this Act would result in such an acquisition of property because:
(a) it would require a person to take action in relation to an accrued default amount; or
(b) it would require a person to take action in relation to an asset of the kind mentioned in subparagraph 29SAB(a) (i);
then despite any other provision of this Act, the person is not required to take that action.
(4) If, apart from this section, this Act would result in such an acquisition of property because it would prevent the charging of a fee of a kind mentioned in paragraph 29SAC(1) (a), then despite any other provision of this Act, the person is not prevented from charging that fee.
(5) If, apart from this section, this Act would result in such an acquisition of property because it would require or permit a person to use, disclose or publish information, then despite any other provision of this Act, the person is not required or permitted to use, disclose or publish the information in the circumstances that would result in such an acquisition.
(6) If, apart from this section, this Act would result in such an acquisition of property because it excuses a person from liability, then despite any other provision of this Act, the person is not excused from the liability.
(7) To avoid doubt, any provision that does not result in an acquisition of property continues to apply in relation to:
(a) action in relation to accrued default amounts; and
(b) action in relation to an asset of the kind mentioned in subparagraph 29SAB(a) (i); and
(c) the charging of a fee of a kind mentioned in paragraph 29SAC(1) (a); and
(d) the use, disclosure and publication of information; and
(e) a liability.
(15) Schedule 6, item 13, page 73 (lines 13 to 16), omit subsection 388(3).
(16) Schedule 7, page 87 (after line 8), after item 16, insert:
16A After paragraph 349B(3) (b)
Insert:
or (c) it would require a person to take action in relation to an amount held in an entity that is or was an eligible rollover fund;
16B Subsection 349B(4)
After "paragraph 29SAC(1) (a)", insert "or 242C(1) (a)".
16C After paragraph 349B(7) (b)
Insert:
(ba) action in relation to an amount held in an entity that is or was an eligible rollover fund; and
16D Paragraph 349B(7) (c)
After "paragraph 29SAC(1) (a)", insert "or 242C(1) (a)".
(17) Schedule 7, item 17, page 88 (lines 30 to 33), omit subsection 394(4).
On 19 September 2012 I introduced the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Further MySuper and Transparency Measures) Bill 2012. This was the third tranche of legislation to implement MySuper. The amendments I am moving today respond to stakeholder concerns in relation to aspects of the bill—in particular, the definition of 'accrued default amounts' which a trustee must move to a MySuper product by 1 July 2017. This definition of accrued default amounts will be amended to limit them to member balances where either the member has not provided any investment direction to the fund at all, or the member's entire balance is invested in the fund's default investment option. This approach represents a consensus position of the four key superannuation industry bodies—the Association of Super Funds of Australia, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, the Financial Services Council and the Industry Super Network—and seeks to strike a better balance between protecting the interests of members and respecting individual investment decisions.
A further amendment will exclude from accrued default amounts those amounts held in investment options in which all assets invested under the option are held as cash. This addresses industry concerns that the definition of accrued default amounts would capture cash hubs and superannuation wrap products. The amendments also address the issue of when a member has given an investment direction to the trustee of the previous fund and the member's benefits are transferred to an equivalent investment option in a subsequent fund under a successor fund transfer.
The government is also moving an amendment to provide trustees with discretion to move amounts in an investment option in which the member's assets would be invested if no direction were given to a MySuper product, even if the amount is not an accrued default amount. This will permit funds to convert their existing default investment option to a MySuper product if they wish. A related amendment will ensure that the provision of risk insurance does not have to comply with the general requirement that a trustee provides equal access to options benefits and facilities in a MySuper product. In particular, this amendment will ensure that trustees are able to move the existing cover that they have provided to members when moving the accrued default amount of a member into a MySuper product. The definition of 'intrafund advice' will be amended to clarify that it is limited to cash management facilities within the fund. This amendment is to avoid any interpretation that intrafund advice could have been provided on cash management facilities outside of the fund. These are technical amendments that provide additional flexibility in the circumstances in which members can opt out of TPD insurance yet retain life insurance in a MySuper product and to clarify provisions in the bill relating to constitutional issues.
Finally, there has been further consultation with the industry about the product dashboard and its practical operation. Issues have been identified around its coverage and ensuring the dashboard fully captures all relevant fees and net returns experienced by members and around ensuring that risk and liquidity requirements are workable and relevant to members. Consultation with the industry is continuing, also having regard to APRA's consultation on its reporting standards, and it is likely that further tranches of legislation will need to clarify the product dashboard requirements with respect to these areas. The government will also consult on the need for anti-avoidance provisions. I commend the amendments to the House.
Well, well, here we are again. It is like groundhog day. Here we have Bill Murray and we are recreating the scene—he looks a bit like Bill Murray, does not he? He does, a little bit like Bill Murray—charming, but a little dishevelled and a little uncertain where this is all going. I feel like this is groundhog day all over again. Here we are back in the chamber, another bill under this minister, bill under Bill. Along comes the situation where it has been put to the parliament, the government reluctantly sends it to a committee, the committee under Labor's control unanimously endorse the bill then Bill comes back in to change the bill.
Of course, last night this played out in the Treasury and we were being told that this legislation has to go through the House of Representatives immediately. The government did not even have the amendments. Beavering away under torchlight last night were 100 Treasury officials, desperately trying to redraft legislation because the minister said, 'We're going to put it into the parliament tonight'. The amendments were responding to what we were suggesting were the problems, the fundamental flaws in the bill.
However, pride is an emotion familiar to this minister. He is not prepared to admit that so many of these amendments come about because we raise the issues. As I understand it, there was a spelling mistake in the government's legislation. We did not do that. We try to pick up not just the policy errors but also the spelling errors in government legislation. What is interesting from my perspective is that the minister comes into the House and pretends that this is business as usual for the House of Representatives. It is business as usual to bring legislation into the House, to declare, like a state of emergency, urgency to introduce 17 amendments which stakeholders had not seen until we raised them with them today. All through the night, in a fit of urgency, the Treasury was working away at them. This is the second time this week. Talk about a comedy caper over there.
If the government cannot run a simple process of putting in place legislation and consulting with the community, it is no wonder they cannot run a budget. It is no wonder they cannot run the economy, no wonder they cannot run general policy. The government have such abject disregard for this chamber not only do they rush in legislation; the Prime Minister heroically equally declares that a nine-page piece of legislation on education is going to revolutionise Australia, even though that piece of legislation introduced by the Prime Minister has no funding, no objectives and no agency to deliver anything—it is legislated press release. That is the contempt that the government feel for this parliament in order to try to pretend that the wheels are turning fast in the government.
I think the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation—and I might get in trouble for this—is inherently a pretty decent guy—
Opposition members interjecting—
I know that, particularly in the presence of the member for Mackellar, I might have gone too far, and I am getting a death stare from my colleague, but I am going to give the minister for financial services the benefit of the doubt and say that, inherently, he is a pretty decent fellow. Deep, deep down, under the veneer, is a heart that beats with the interests of the Australian people. My concern is he does not have his heart in his portfolio. He really hasn't. He is not there. He would much rather be charging at the windmills. He would much rather be out there declaring war on the bosses. (Extension of time granted) He would much rather be launching a campaign against someone than sitting down and getting across the detail of a very complicated portfolio. I know it is complicated portfolio. I actually had both of his portfolios. I was the first Minister for Financial Services and Regulation at that time, and I was Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. In fact, the first time I met the minister at the table was when I was debating him at Manning Bar at University of Sydney. I was arguing the policy case and he was cracking fat jokes against me. I remember that. I gave him the benefit of the doubt at the time because that is the last refuge of someone without a policy argument. I am getting a little bit distracted here.
I want to come back to the amendments. We have constantly pushed for common-sense amendments to this bill. We were the ones that first pushed for this to go to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which reported on 9 October. As I said, it was a government dominated committee that recommended the bill, as it stands. Before the 17 amendments proposed by the minister were considered, they recommended that it be preceded with. We had amendments ready to go soon after the committee reported seven weeks ago. We could have dealt with the urgency.
However, after first trying to rush the bill through, the government has, of course as usual, gone cap in hand to the crossbench. The crossbench put the same concerns that we put seven weeks ago, and lo and behold, what we have is amendments—and the amendments that are substantial. They refer to substantial issues such as a major constitutional initiative, which involve matters dealing with the acquisition of property on just terms. We have raised that issue previously. I think the minister at the table spent the weekend watching reruns of The Castle, which was one of the issues at law when he appeared before the High Court—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
That is right. I was trying to remember who it was, thank you, Minister. The bottom line is that after we threatened to vote against the bill that was presented by the government to the House, the government started to reconsider the bill and proposed amendments. Literally, the government is making it up as it goes along. That is not the way a government should be run.
It is not acceptable for a minister of the Commonwealth to be introducing legislation that has been ill-prepared, even after consultation on the exposure draft. It is not acceptable for the second time in two days for a minister of the Commonwealth to be consulting on amendments even after Labor members of a committee inquiry into the bill recommend that the bill be passed. It is not acceptable for a minister of the Commonwealth to be rushing the bill through an inquiry when it is clear that it needed scrutiny because the minister had not given it proper attention, and it is absolutely not acceptable for a minister of the Commonwealth to be finalising amendments on the second last sitting day of the year, rushing legislation through to avoid proper, detailed parliamentary scrutiny.
My colleague Senator Cormann has done an outstanding job on this. Effectively he is writing the legislation for the minister. The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Further MySuper and Transparency Measures) Bill requires that trustees transfer accrued default amounts to a MySuper product by 1 July 2017, and these are supposed to be amounts where the member has not exercised choice. This bill as originally drafted would have forced the transfer of potentially large amounts of money from funds where individuals had made a clear and active choice about their super to a MySuper default product, without the need for prior approval from the individual concerned—even where a member had actually exercised choice.
I was around when the Howard government introduced choice. It creates a moral hazard for the individual involved, and then the government comes along and wants to change that arrangement. It could have exposed Australians to significant transaction costs and fees, as assets would have been sold and repurchased in a new fund under the proposed arrangements from the government. (Extension of time granted)The government's original bill would have changed the retirement plans of many Australians by potentially putting their savings into a fund with lower returns or higher fees than the one they had chosen, which would have created, in my view, a very extensive moral hazard for the government. Of course, it may have led to a higher risk investment profile than the individuals had previously selected. In addition, they might have potentially lost life or total and permanent disability insurance.
So we have succeeded today in forcing the government to amend the bill so that a member who has previously exercised a choice of superannuation fund cannot be automatically transferred into a MySuper product by having previous contributions defined as an accrued default amount. The last-minute backdown by the government in a number of areas follows our dissenting report in the committee. Whilst we had to drag them kicking and screaming, dragging their fingernails along the ground, to the position of the coalition, it has been achieved. Despite the endeavours of the minister in the original bill, common sense has prevailed.
I want to commend the minister for at least listening to the concerns expressed by the coalition. I know it is very hard for him to understand this, but all wisdom and knowledge does not come through the air conditioning in the ministerial office. That is why we have a chamber. That is why we have committees. Even though he ignored the committee, he could not ultimately ignore the views of the chamber. I want to wish the officials and the minister all the very best for Christmas.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
I am being generous here. It is important to have a generous spirit. I am trying to do my best here and be magnanimous. Just take it because it is not always going to come. But I would just say to you in that Christmas spirit and, more importantly, because of the fact that you are accepting almost all our recommendations in relation to this, that we are not going to oppose these amendments. We will support these amendments, but I am about to move our own amendments, and I hope the government will reciprocate. If they truly are engaging in this spirit of improving legislation, they will support our amendments in the same way that we are going to support theirs, to improve what was originally a pretty ordinary bill.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Schedule 4, item 5, page 54 (line 22), omit "for defined benefit members".
(2) Schedule 4, item 5, page 54 (before line 23), before subsection 149A(1), insert:
(1A) A modern award must include a term that permits an employer covered by the award to make contributions, for the benefit of an employee covered by the award who is a default fund employee, to any superannuation fund that offers a MySuper product.
Note: An employer may make contributions under this term even if the superannuation fund to which the contributions are made is not specified in the modern award.
(3) Schedule 4, item 6, page 55 (line 20), omit "section 149A", substitute "subsection 149A(1)".
The coalition had foreshadowed that we would move a sequence of amendments to this bill. Amendments (1), (2) and (3) amend schedule 4 and address the closed-shop, secretive and anticompetitive arrangements for the selection of default funds under modern awards. The decision on the selection of default funds under modern awards remains with Fair Work Australia.
Let's talk a little bit about Fair Work Australia. It is interesting, isn't it, that the minister commissioned an inquiry—
It is now called the Fair Work Commission. It changed.
Did it? The change of name went through the Senate? There you go, if that is the case. The government was so embarrassed about the term 'Fair Work Australia' and it has been such a tarnished organisation that their report came back and recommended a change of name. I hear it is now called the Fair Work Commission, which is hardly the change of name that I think they were originally intending. But, notwithstanding that, the Fair Work Commission, if that is to be its name, is still the creation of the Labor Party and still has its faults. Certainly in relation to the selection of default funds under modern awards, our view is that this is not something that Fair Work Australia, or the Fair Work Commission—whatever it is—should be doing.
They are widely criticised because this is where, within the heartbeat of the minister, always, every day, we come to the defence of the unions and union interests. Unfortunately for union officials, the great bulk of the Australian workforce, about 82 per cent of the workforce, is outside of the union movement. So when industry funds, which are union partnership funds, are directly involved because of an industrial organisation in becoming default funds, in a sense it disenfranchises the 82 per cent of employees who are not members of the unions but who are still looking for proper representation.
So we are moving amendments to level the playing field, to put an end to what seems to be a rather clever—rather disingenuous in one sense, but rather clever—decision of the government to create industry funds overwhelmingly as the default funds, as a result of decisions by Fair Work Australia. We want choice and we want competition in the selection of default funds. As we have done before, we are again moving amendments that will provide that competition and, importantly, give employees as much of a say as the union officials and Fair Work Australia about where their money ends up. I commend to the House what are very sensible amendments. I hope the government accepts these amendments, because they are good amendments and improve the quality of our financial services system.
I thank the member for North Sydney for his contribution and his somewhat positive remarks about the government.
It was about you; it wasn't about the government. Don't get carried away!
Anyway, in the spirit of Christmas, thank you, Member for North Sydney, for your support. I am sure it will be invaluable for me!
The government will not be supporting these amendments, for the following reasons. These amendments mirror what was proposed by the opposition during the debate on the Fair Work Amendment Bill, which has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We did not support them then—as employer groups did not, as a range of superannuation interests and stakeholders did not and as unions did not. The proposition being advanced by the member for North Sydney is simply unworkable. It would create red tape and complexity for employers and employees. The idea that you would have telephone-book-sized lists of superannuation funds and default awards is simply unworkable.
I do not accept the characterisation by the member for North Sydney that employees do not have a choice about funds. They always have a choice about funds. The independent tribunal, the Fair Work Commission, under the act which we have just passed will have an expert panel. Every superannuation fund that passes the MySuper test will be able to submit a written expression of interest to be considered for one of 128 modernised awards in Australia. After the expert panel looks at who is appropriate and looks at their bona fides, it will then be a matter for a full bench of the Fair Work Commission to decide. So we have put forward more transparency than has ever existed before. Employees still retain choice. Parties have the ability in an enterprise agreement to work out what they want to do, and it does not have to be a fund from the award. So there is more transparency, there is more choice and there is a process which will sort the wheat from the chaff. For those reasons we will not support these amendments.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Order! I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Mr Speaker, I require that the question be put immediately without debate.
Question negatived.
I rise tonight to speak on the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012, which allocates 450 gigalitres to the Murray-Darling as part of the arrangement that the Prime Minister announced in South Australia a couple of weeks ago.
I have considerable concern about a couple of issues with this bill. One of those is that the minister's rhetoric on this has been that this water is to be returned to the basin through works and measures. However, there is a clause in this legislation that will allow water to be purchased should the works and measures not be successful. That is of great concern for me. The other thing that concerns me is that there is no indication as to where this water might come from. As we have seen in the past, large-scale water purchases without a community assessment of the economic and social detriments of these purchases can be devastating.
There is no clearer example of that than in my electorate, with two major purchases by this government in the last few years. One of those was the purchase of Toorale Station, which delivered very little water back into the system but had a major effect on the economy of Bourke, with 100 jobs lost, over 10 per cent of the rate base of Bourke Shire Council removed and a negative environmental outcome. Toorale Station, once the gem of the Bourke shire, has been reduced to a wilderness that is infested with noxious weeds and feral animals.
The other purchase was of $300 million worth of water from the Twynam Pastoral Company. A large amount of that water was from Collymongle Station at Collarenebri on the Gwydir River. The purchase of that water has devastated the community of Collarenebri, to the extent that, I suspect, Collarenebri will never ever return to what it was prior to the loss of the Collymongle water.
I do realise that there is a lot on in this House tonight and other things need to be done, but I must say that the coalition will introduce amendments that cover the concerns that I have raised tonight. I also note that if those amendments are not successful, if the government does not accept those amendments, then we have a commitment from the coalition that, should there be a change of government in 2013, those amendments will be introduced as legislation to become law.
There is a lot about what is happening in the Murray-Darling Basin, with the water plan and with this legislation to remove an extra 450 gigalitres through works and measures, that I am not comfortable with. But I will acknowledge that we have come a long way from when the first draft of the plan was introduced a couple of years ago, and that a lot of work has been done by a lot of people. I will acknowledge that the people of my electorate are not happy with this plan. I will also acknowledge that probably not a lot of other people are. But I believe that the danger of letting this plan go and letting it get into the hands of the Greens could lead to a devastating outcome.
This afternoon I was watching Senator Hanson-Young's speech in the Senate on the disallowance motion on the Basin Plan and, to be frank, it was bone-chilling. The speech from Senator Hanson-Young—a member of a party that is supposed to represent the entire country and be focused on better environmental outcomes—was the greatest example of nimbyism I have ever seen in this place. I acknowledge the difficulty that we have in this place with the different interests in the river depending on where you are. I acknowledge that that has been an incredibly difficult situation. I also acknowledge that the divisions in this place are not necessarily along political lines but along geographical lines. I acknowledge that, and I acknowledge that the people in my electorate have given away, handed back, a lot of water through the first state water-sharing plans and also through this plan. My wish is that, when this debate is finalised in this last week, we draw a line under this plan. If we find that we are going to have green activists chaining themselves up to red gums in 12 months time and saying that this plan does not go far enough—and Senator Hanson-Young's chilling words certainly indicated to me that that was going to be the case—then I think that the people of my electorate will not be so compliant next time.
There is work to be done with the states, and I acknowledge there is probably more work to be done with my home state of New South Wales and the relationship with the minister than probably anywhere else at this stage. What those in New South Wales are looking for, apart from rhetoric from the minister, is a set commitment from the minister that there will be no more buybacks beyond what has been agreed to in this plan and that, as to the 450 gigalitres in this bill that we are speaking to today, that is done through works and measures and not through buybacks as is allowable in the clause in this bill.
It is with great irony that we talk about a healthy river. And I ask: what is a healthy river? I represent 24 per cent of the Murray-Darling Basin. I represent every river from the Lachlan to the Macintyre, and they are ephemeral streams. From the beginning of time they have flooded and they have gone dry. The idea that we have to have the river brimming full of water at all times for it to be a healthy system is an absolute nonsense. We found that, after 10 years of the worst drought in modern history, the environment of the river returned much more quickly than the communities that live on it did. I would ask any member of this place to travel to the west of New South Wales and visit the Macquarie Marshes, the Gwydir wetlands or the Narran lakes—wonderful iconic environmental locations—and look at the abundance of life there. But I would also encourage them while they are there to look at the farms, the communities and the contribution that this part of Australia makes to the Australian economy. I might add that during the global financial crisis there were two industries that carried Australia: agriculture and mining. Both of these industries feature strongly in my part of the world, and both of them battle constantly against legislation which is introduced in this place and which seems to be aimed at bringing them down rather than encouraging them.
I endorse this bill not with enthusiasm but with qualification. I am sometimes alarmed at the mixed messages the minister puts out when he talks about a sensible plan which looks after everyone along the river and then, when he gets in front of a television camera, seems to be entirely focused on environmental outcomes. It is not a great day for Australia when the rights of a frog supersede the rights of an Australian farmer. It is my fear that, unless a balance is worked out in the implementation of the plan in this bill, in the end the frog might win.
Tomorrow we will be discussing a disallowance motion on the basin plan which will be introduced by my colleagues the member for Riverina and the member for Murray. While I fully understand their position and why they are putting up their disallowance motion, I place on record now that I will not be supporting it. I agree that the form in which the basin plan is implemented is important in getting the outcomes we want, but I believe that we have reached a point where we need to draw a line under the basin plan and move on.
The member for Kennedy will also put forward a disallowance motion tomorrow. I find it extremely galling that a member who comes from a place far from the basin and who has been completely divorced from the pain, the hardship, the negotiation, the dealing, the plain hard work and the sweat which has been put in by people in my electorate and people in other electorates in the Murray-Darling Basin as well as the hard work that has been done in this place on both sides to get to a point of compromise would waltz into the debate on this bill when it is pretty well done and dusted and try to pick over the bones of the plan. I find it extremely galling that he would cause great hardship and considerable upset to the people of the basin for no outcome other than lifting his profile in a vain political attempt to have some relevance at the 2013 election. I certainly will not be supporting the member for Kennedy's disallowance motion either.
I am very pleased to speak on this bill. It provides the money for the extra 450 gigalitres of water which was announced in October for permanent environmental water entitlements and for infrastructure improvements. Three bills on the Murray-Darling Basin have been considered by the parliament this year: firstly the legislation which made arrangements to allow the minister to have some flexibility in adjusting the plan upwards or downwards depending on the science; secondly the legislation on the basin plan itself, which was tabled in parliament; and thirdly the legislation that provided for an additional 450 gigalitres of water for infrastructure improvement. I put on record my support for all three of these acts.
My support for a sustainable Murray is not new; I have been interested in creating a sustainable Murray the whole time that I have been a member of parliament. I have been through the Living Murray initiative, the National Water Initiative of 2004, the Water Act of 2007 and the $10 billion package which was announced in January 2007. At the moment we are at the culmination of a six-year journey which started in 2007 with John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull. The idea then was to have national management of the Murray-Darling Basin by an independent authority: the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. I put on record my very strong support for the principle we came up with in 2007.
The MDBA could be thought of as similar to the Reserve Bank of Australia, which took over 100 years to develop as a central bank clearly independent of government. It became very clear as we went through the long, 10-year drought that the old system of having the Murray-Darling managed by the states was not working and would not be not sustainable into the future. This bill provides $1,775 million over 10 years from 2014-15 for the Water for the Environment Special Account. This account will be used to make infrastructure improvements: improving the water efficiency of infrastructure; improving infrastructure that currently constrains the delivery of environmental water; increasing the capacity of dams and storage; and entering into easement agreements.
In the electorate I represent, which is the seat of Boothby in Adelaide, among the issues uppermost in people's minds are water security and the environment. In a drought year Adelaide draws 90 per cent of its drinking water from the Murray, and, when a drought is on, these two issues are very much at the top of people's minds. Certainly, the concern about the state of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong was very much a talking point through 2007 and 2008.
The three pieces of legislation that we have been asked to consider are, I think, really the first substantial, concrete steps towards national management by an independent authority. It is a principle that I have long supported and I am very happy to support the bill in this form.
I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012. This bill is to commit another $1.7 billion in spending that, to be quite frank, the government does not have to spend and imposes a liability on a future government. Before the 2007 election, Labor leader Kevin Rudd publicly admonished the Howard government, saying, 'This reckless spending must stop.' Given that the Rudd government started with a $20 billion surplus and $70 billion in the bank and that this has now been reversed—with, last year, a $44 billion deficit and debts of $150 billion—that was some statement! The current government, with the new leader, has not changed; it has just got worse. Five years on, the public can see the absurdity of that.
The problem with this bill is the same as the problem with the government: they say one thing and do another. They commit to infrastructure projects but actually deliver buyback. Everyone knows that the Howard government $10 billion water plan was based on investing in the infrastructure and irrigation of the Murray-Darling Basin and making savings. It was concerned with what could be recovered for the environment while ensuring we had a productive and innovative irrigation sector that could underpin economies for the next 100 years in these communities. There was $5.8 billion in infrastructure and irrigation efficiencies, with $3 billion for restructuring and buyback, as a last resort—not, 'Let's start buying and worry about a plan later,' which is totally untargeted buying.
When Labor were elected they shelved the infrastructure investment and stripped water from local communities. I will give you two clear examples of this. On the Lachlan River they started buying up large volumes of water before they even worked out what the water was to be used for. Of course, everyone with any understanding of the system realised that the Lachlan River is a terminal waterway. Yes, it does get into the system—twice every 100 years. Let me tell you: buying lots of water on the Lachlan does not deliver a single megalitre to South Australia in most years. In fact, in the years that it does get into the system, the last thing they need is more water, because it means they are facing one of the two biggest floods in 100 years. The government have bought more water than they can use within this catchment, taking water away from food and fibre production and depriving communities of economic activity.
The second example is the small village of Caldwell, 60 kilometres west of Deniliquin. The buyback has decimated this farming community. It is an untargeted, unplanned buyback—'Let's just see what we can get. Let's show that we've done something. If we destroy it or it's wasteful or not needed, so what?' There are a small block of farm south of Caldwell. Since 2007, around 10 of these farms have changed hands, with seven of the farms sold without water. This has meant that three farms on a stretch of about 10 kilometres of channel need to support the irrigation upgrades and costs of running the channel previously supported by 10 farms. Three now have to support the same infrastructure that 10 used to. That has left Murray Irrigation with a channel that is simply unsustainable—certainly for the people who are there. What do they do? Do they shut down these three highly productive farms or continue to lose money on maintaining a channel system? This example is repeated over and over throughout the irrigation district of New South Wales and Victoria.
The loss of business—the loss of critical mass—in these areas is just enormous. Also, the loss of irrigators has meant that, instead of 10 families, we have three. There are fewer kids at the local school. The school bus route has stopped. There are fewer people to retain the critical mass for services. Hospital services in Deniliquin have shrunk, so, instead of going 60 kilometres to Deniliquin for many services, locals now drive 250 kilometres to Albury. What has changed for the people in Canberra who make these decisions? Nothing. They have not lost income or services. The member for Watson lives in Sydney. Nothing has changed for him. He has no skin in the game. The Labor Party has no skin in the game.
The point I want to make here is that, while the government has made a commitment to concentrate on investments, the reality is it will just go in and buy back the water, which will further decimate rural communities. Burke and Wills are famous for exploring this country and opening up the nation's eyes to its potential. Now Burke and Wong will long be remembered for selling out our rural communities with untargeted buybacks.
I strongly support the amendments, to be put forward by the coalition, which will ensure that water purchases must be tied to infrastructure upgrades and system works and measures, with no social or economic detriment for the communities that the water comes from. This bill seeks to appropriate $1.77 billion until 2024 into a special account, which includes $55 million over the forward estimates. It is a good way to have a plan without paying for it.
I am really struggling with this bill—I will be honest. I have spent my whole life in the basin. I have lived on it and never been an irrigator, but I have lived with irrigators my whole life. The Prime Minister and the water minister announced this bill in Adelaide on 26 October 2012 with a promise that it would recover an additional 450 gigalitres of water for the environment. In the basin plan, which is supposed to be based on what science says, 2,750 gigalitres is the magic number. We might question the science because, without an environmental water plan, the figure does not deliver any tangible outcomes. However, the government says the basin plan is based on sound science to bring the river system back to health, yet this bill is providing more water for the environment based on what? The government has given a commitment that water will only be recovered in an economically neutral way via on-farm structural projects. What credence do we give to this commitment?
This bill seeks to put aside money to pay for additional water to allow the 2,750-gigalitre figure to increase to 3,200 gigalitres. Delivering more than the 2,750 gigalitres of water back to the environment requires removing a number of physical constraints on the system—doing such things as lifting bridges and moving roads to avoid flooding. This is enormously important. This is the actual practical part of what they are talking about. To deliver this water they have to, as I said, lift bridges, move roads to avoid flooding, purchase easements on private lands and change water operation rules which limit water flows. The challenge of removing such constraints is obviously huge—and it is totally untalked about and unproven.
Does anyone really think that the states of New South Wales and Victoria, the states which would actually have to release the water and cause the flooding, are going to put themselves in a position where they might be sued to their back teeth for deliberately—I am saying they are doing it deliberately!—causing this kind of chaos? Are we going to spend $1.7 billion removing constraints which will most likely involve raising bridges and doing those other ridiculous things I mentioned? The minister has left open the option of buying back the water if the constraints cannot be removed, despite the fact that the basin plan says that 2,750 is the maximum which can be delivered without removing constraints. The reality is that Labor can and will spend the $1.7 billion on buybacks, despite the basin plan saying extra water is not deliverable.
The coalition has two amendments to move which are aimed at holding the government to its word. Those amendments require that water only be recovered in a way that does not cause the sort of chaos I am talking about or social and economic detriment. It rules out water buybacks and only allows repurchase of water access. The shadow minister will go into that in more detail. We need to hold this government to account, as they have shown they cannot be trusted in this . One reason the government cannot be trusted is that they have no skin in the game in the Murray-Darling Basin. I implore the parliament to think of the rural communities and to support the coalition amendments. These amendments will ensure the intent will be met and avoid the chaos.
These are historic times. The reaching of agreement on the basin plan is the completion of a process which began on 25 January 2007, when John Howard, in the midst of the worst drought in Australia's history, announced his National Plan for Water Security. I was a minister in his government and was indeed at the time responsible for water resources, among other things. The big idea in the National Plan for Water Security was that we should rectify a mistake which had been made in the 1890s, when the founding fathers—regrettably, Madam Speaker, in those less enlightened times, they were all fathers—of our Constitution failed to place jurisdiction over interstate waters with the federal government. The South Australian delegation, needless to say—plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose—argued for it to be under federal jurisdiction. The New South Wales and Victorian delegates scorned and scoffed at that. Parochialism won the day.
The consequence was that, for the subsequent century and longer, water planning was a state responsibility and each state government regarded the passage of any drop of water across the border as a failure in planning policy. The objective was to maximise the use of water resources, with no regard for anyone downstream. This is no more than human nature. As Mark Twain famously said, 'Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over.'
I recall, many years ago, visiting Bourke in the midst of a drought. There was very little water in the river—a barely discernible trickle at the bottom of this huge ditch. I remember standing on a wharf with some irrigators and they said: 'Look at all that water. And we are not allowed to take any more out of the river. Look, it is just heading downstream, all wasted.' They had been berating me for the previous hour about the greed and avarice of all the people upstream—the diversions they had been taking. I said, 'What do you mean when you say it is all being wasted going downstream?' They said: 'It is being wasted. Where is it going? It is going to Woop Woop.' I said: 'Woop Woop? You are talking about Adelaide.' They said, 'Adelaide or Woop Woop—it is all the same.'
This is the bottom line and this is the melancholy duty of any water minister—and I note the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, is sitting opposite me here. The melancholy duty is that you have to grapple with one of the most basic human emotions, one of the most basic human instincts—to control access to water, which is, after all, the source of all life. It is an impossible business.
That is why there had been no proper water reform. That is why they could not get their act together in the 1890s. Then there was this colossal drought in 2007, when we were seriously looking at cities and towns in the Murray-Darling Basin running out of water—and not just provincial towns. I know in Bourke they think Adelaide is Woop Woop, but Adelaide itself could have run out of water. Adelaide has a tiny catchment of its own. Its own catchment, even if it is full, can only carry a year's worth of water. It depends on the River Murray. The River Murray could quite easily have run dry at that time. The only reason the River Murray has not run dry in the last few generations is the dams. Dams are no more than artificial glaciers—they do exactly what glaciers do in colder climates: they store the water up in the winter and release it in the summer. If those dams empty, you are essentially back to the preregulated environment. The River Murray has run dry, as any visitor to the Riverland knows. You see plenty of pictures in the pubs of people picnicking on the dry riverbed.
Some of our big cities and towns, including the capital city of Adelaide, faced an existential crisis. That galvanised action. John Howard, to his great credit, then took such action—encouraged by a few of us, myself included, and Senator Bill Heffernan was a very keen on this as well. John had the vision and the leadership to recognise that you should not allow a crisis to go to waste, so he took advantage of the opportunity and we seized the nettle and said we were going to take federal control of the Murray-Darling Basin. I recall saying to the Prime Minister, 'We do not need the states to agree with this; we can do it under the powers vested in the Commonwealth, in this case the external affairs power flowing from various environmental treaties.' I remember the Prime Minister saying to me at the time, 'I believe I can get the states to refer powers.' I said to John Howard he could not be serious, that that was not going to happen, but he reckoned he could make it happen.
We got three of the four Labor states—Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales—to agree to refer powers but Premier Bracks, and this was a great lost opportunity, refused to do so and so we ended up legislating relying solely on federal powers. I recall Terry Moran, who was then the head of the Victorian premier's department, saying to me in Victoria after a rather fruitless meeting with the Premier and himself, 'John Howard does not have the guts to legislate using the federal government's own jurisdiction.' I thought, 'Well, you are not a very good reader of character, Mr Moran.' That is exactly what John Howard did. We had a workable scheme, but I have to say it was not elegant, and getting the agreement of the states, which was achieved after the Labor government came in in 2007, certainly made the scheme more elegant—but I think that Mr Rudd made concessions to the states that gave them more say in the process than was part of our original scheme for a national plan.
We sold this proposal to the irrigation communities very much on the basis that, yes, there had been excessive extraction of water from the system, and yes this massive natural floodplain has a great effect on the whole system. Remember, we are the flattest continent on earth. Our rivers are all very slow, lazy, winding rivers. The drop in elevation over the 2,500 kilometres of river length from the Albury dam down to the river mouth at the Lower Lakes is 175 metres, as I recall. It is flatter than the table in front of me. That means it is a natural floodplain system, and the vast majority of water will never go out to sea. The more that mankind extracts for his own use, for irrigation, the more that is lost to the environment. Too much had been extracted. There had been a tragic failure to understand the interconnection between groundwater and surface water, and it is staggering that that went misunderstood for so long. There was enormous overextraction in some areas. The Victorians did a better job of managing the water than New South Wales did, and the Queenslanders came into the game late in the day. If they had started a few decades earlier they might have been able to extract even more water.
The Basin was a mess and clearly water had to be reacquired. The economic rationalists in the Treasury would say that the cheapest way to do that was just to buy it back, but they failed to understand both the hydrology and the politics of the Basin and both of those things dictated that the recovery of water had to be coupled with an investment in irrigation infrastructure that enabled us to look farmers in the eye and say to them honestly, 'We will provide for you the resources that will enable you to grow as much if not more food and fibre with less water than you have done before'—and we would use the same intelligence and the same engineering to ensure that when we watered the natural floodplains, as opposed to the irrigated farming floodplains, we would use that water more efficiently too. In other words, we would make every drop count.
This was where, sadly, there was a mistake. After the government changed, we left the vision and we left the legislative tools there but the government failed to recognise the importance of investing in infrastructure. Until the current minister became the minister there was a failure to understand the nature of the bargain with the irrigation communities. I recognise that Senator Wong was totally preoccupied with the carbon-pricing issue, and I make no criticism of her. I just observe that that vision was lost and, as a consequence, a plan that in 2007 had had near universal support from the irrigation communities in the basin became so toxic that the guide to the Basin Plan was being burnt at public meetings through the basin.
There was a change of minister. Minister Burke became the minister, and he recognised, to his credit, the wisdom of the original John Howard plan. Now the wheel has come full circle. There is now a commitment to ensure that, as far as possible, water is recovered through investments in infrastructure and, where there are buybacks, they are strategic buybacks rather than just being from here, there and everywhere else. Because the original plan for buybacks that I negotiated with the irrigation cooperatives was: 'We will spend millions of dollars on upgrading the infrastructure in your irrigation district, but there's this area over here, for example, to the north-west, where the soil is not that good and it is a long, long way away. So we'll make three-quarters of your area much more productive using less water, and we'll buy out that corner over there and properly compensate the landowners, and you'll end up with a smaller district that is much more manageable, much more productive, and you'll be able to produce more food and fibre with less water.' That was the big idea. It was lost for some years, and now the government seems to have recovered it. I think that is a great credit to the minister and to the shadow minister, my very good friend the member for Flinders, for the work that he has done with Senator Joyce from Queensland.
While there is never going to be complete agreement on this, we are as close to the original approach that we had on 25 January 2007 as we have been in the intervening nearly six years. So it is good that we have come back to that, and that is why I have been very pleased to speak briefly about this—and I hope to have the opportunity to speak about it at greater length on another occasion. But I think it is important to recognise the history of this project and its national importance and, in that respect, the vindication of the original vision that John Howard, in that terrible drought, was able to bring in in an act of real leadership, taking an opportunity out of what was a shocking crisis.
I was interested to hear the member for Wentworth's speech, although I do not think he mentioned the bill once! He did make an attempt to recreate history to some degree in terms of this debate. One of the things I remember, because I was in the parliament at that time, is that I was the only one, out of all the parliamentarians, who voted against the Water Act that this whole process has been based on. The history, as I recall it, of the $10 billion cigarette-paper plan, as it was called at the time because it was put together in such a rush, was not so much about the Murray-Darling; it was about the environmental vote. I can recall that Kevin Rudd was making a lot of ground politically in terms of climate change, and the coalition were scratching around, looking at how they could get Kevin Rudd off the front page of the paper with an environmental plan. After a couple of meetings came this plan, which became known as the $10 billion cigarette-paper plan, which then morphed into the Water Act.
In this debate about the Murray-Darling, there has been a lot of talk about the triple bottom line. I know the member for Wentworth mentioned the bottom line, but there has been a lot of debate about the triple bottom line. The problem with the original bill—and the member for Wentworth had carriage of it—was that it was not about the triple bottom line. Although there is talk now that it was about a contract with people in the basin, it was actually to come to grips with the environmental vote that Kevin Rudd was gaining ground with on the climate change issue. I think everyone has their own version of history.
I congratulate the member for Wentworth on his role in it, even though I did not vote for the bill. I did not vote for it because I thought it was put together for the wrong reasons. And I do congratulate the current minister—I agree with you on this, Malcolm—on picking up on the notion that people in the basin should have some say about what happens in their locality.
The bill before us today is about 450 gigalitres of additional water that may be returned from on-farm works and measures, and some constraint removal, to the environment. I chaired the committee that looked at this bill, and there were a couple of dissenting reports. To his credit, the shadow minister was not one of those dissenters and the member for Wannon was not either, and I thank them for their support in relation to that. The 450 gigalitres is an amount of water above the baseline of 2,750 gigalitres proposed in the Basin Plan that will be endorsed—although there is a disallowance motion coming up on that, probably tomorrow; but I am told that, apart from a couple of people in this place and the Greens in both places, the 2,750-gigalitre plan will essentially be accepted. That will be an amazing breakthrough for everybody, whether it be John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Burke, the Prime Minister or anybody else along the system, because that will be a piece of history in itself. For 100 years there has been this debate as to how you actually look after a system and share that system, not only between the states but with the various competing forces and the environment. I think this plan goes very close to doing that.
Everybody will find an area where it is not totally satisfactory. I congratulate the minister. There has been a lot of fear created in a lot of communities and in a lot of people's minds about this. I remember when this started and people were burning books at Griffith, and Senator Joyce and others were out there promoting this fear that the government was going to come along and take their water. And no-one in the opposition circles corrected that. That was the way to create the fear. Now those very people are going to vote for the plan. They may have some amendments in relation to this 450 gigs, but they will vote for that plan after creating all of those fears within those communities. I think they owe those communities an apology for the way in which genuine people on the river system have been frightened into believing that someone was going to come along and take their water.
The Regional Australia Committee, which I chair, conducted an exhaustive inquiry, and I thank the committee. We spent about half of January—I think it was last year, but it might have been the year before!—going up and down the Murray-Darling, talking to people in those various communities. I think many of the recommendations in that report were picked up by the community. The minister, again to his credit, and the government have picked up on many of those recommendations, whether they be about environmental works and measures, on-farm works and measures, investment in infrastructure, the constraints issue, the various rules issues in running the river or the monitoring of the river system, and even some of the issues around the environmental water holder. A lot of those issues have been addressed in the final plan. I thought Craig Knowles was a brilliant choice for this. I know we got off to a very rocky start, and there were some political people out there who wanted to make it as rocky as possible. But the politics was in the fear rather than being about doing something about certainty. I congratulate Craig Knowles for the work he has done.
There is a big challenge out there to actually make the words—the interpretations—work in terms of the long-term plan. The one thing our committee kept running into, irrespective of whether we were in the north of the system or the south of the system, was the fact that people were sick of uncertainty; they were being fed a diet of uncertainty. I think there is a real warning there politically. Now that a plan is being bedded down—and I will get to some of the numbers in a minute—I think we have to maintain that contract with those people, to use the words of the member for Wentworth. If we breach that contract, or if the basin states breach that contract, that will be a great failure of the political process.
The 450 gigalitres of water that this piece of legislation addresses is essentially an amount of water that could be obtained above the baseline figure of 2,750 gigalitres. Those who are trying to create the fear say that means 3,200 gigalitres of water returning to the environment if, in fact, that 450 gigalitres was obtained. It does not mean that at all. A recommendation of the committee, from our second inquiry, was that an adjustment process be put in place, with a five per cent up-or-down variation on the 10,000 gigalitres—and that was passed by the parliament. Within the context of that, two things have happened. Bear in mind that the 2,750 gigalitres is the baseline. The basin states have a valuable role to play in this, and they all agree to it. I congratulate the Victorian minister, Peter Walsh. I have met Peter Walsh only twice, but I think he deserves some congratulations for his leadership and his knowledge on this particular issue. He may well have some concerns out there.
Returning to the 2,750-gigalitre baseline figure, the basin states have said to the minister—and the minister has accepted this, and it was part of the recommendations of the inquiry—that, rather than ask the farmers to do all the lifting, perhaps there are areas where the environment can bear that share. Are there areas, through environmental works and measures or on-farm works and measures, where you can more efficiently, with less water, achieve an outcome? The basin states have said in their proposals, which will be funded in the arrangements, that they believe they can obtain efficiencies within some of the environmental icon sites of about 650 gigalitres of water—the same outcome, environmentally, for less water. I know my Greens colleague behind me may have some issues there with overbank flows et cetera. But I think he would know that the Murray River—and here I again agree with the member for Wentworth; I have to stop doing this!—is now virtually nothing more than a managed drain, given all the constraints that have been placed on it. But it is also a beautiful place to go.
If you deduct the 650 gigalitres through environmental works and measures from the 2,750—the baseline figure—the real number becomes 2,100 gigalitres of real water being returned to the system. If you deduct the amount of water that has been obtained already while this process has been going on over the last couple of years, it is something like 1,300 to 1,500 gigalitres of water that has been obtained through strategic buyback, some works and measures et cetera, particularly on-farm. That reduces the real number down to 600 to 800 gigalitres to obtain.
Some people out there are still running around saying that on the passage of this bill another 3,200 gigalitres will be taken out of the system. That is not true. You have to find 600 to 800 gigalitres of water. The 450 gigalitres we are talking about today are in the five per cent variation on the 10,000 gigalitres which is the totality of the system—what is called the upwater. Some people have suggested—and I think the shadow minister may have something to say on this—that the legislation allows for the upwater to be purchased. It does not, and I would suggest that people look at the Hansard particularly for what David Parker had to say on that process.
The bill does not allow the Commonwealth to use buyback within the 450 gigalitres—in fact, it would be in breach of the Water Act. The bill does give farmers the opportunity in the main in a voluntary sense to accept money—not quite $1.77 billion but over $1 billion—to make themselves more efficient within a socioeconomic contract so that there is no loss of productivity within their system. If I have 100 megalitres of water and I have an investment in water-use efficiency and achieve the same productivity with 50 megalitres of water, my payout would be that the 50 megalitres goes back to the environment. But there is still mythology out there that the government are going to come in and buy the water within the 450-gigalitre package, which is a voluntary arrangement. I think the government probably will achieve that, but that does not mean they will. If you do the numbers again and assume that the 450 will be attained, you are looking at somewhere between 1,050 and 1,250 gigalitres of water to go back into the system in one form or another.
I know the shadow minister will move an amendment to put a cap on buyback. If the basin states do their work as they say they will, there is absolutely no reason for buyback in either the 450 gigalitres or the balance, the 600 to 800 gigalitres out there. There are a number of areas where, other than strategic buyback which might be in the interest of various groups in the basin states, through various efficiencies and some strategic buyback this could be achieved. Our inquiry identified about 1,600 gigalitres of water that could be found through various projects—nothing to do with buyback. But we still have a fear campaign about what this means for the buyback.
I endorse the bill. I congratulate the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. And I thank the people of the Murray-Darling for the kindness they showed the committee over a number of inquiries. (Time expired)
I want to sincerely thank all members of the House for their contributions to this debate. This is not an easy debate for a large number of members of parliament. Many people have very strong views represented within their electorates which they have sought to make sure they are presenting. By and large the views that have been presented on all sides of this chamber have shown a willingness from the parliament to do what has not been available within Australia for more than a century—that is, to find a way through and manage the Murray-Darling as a national system.
There are a couple of issues in debate that I should clarify for the purposes of the summing up. Firstly, this bill includes the words 'up to' with respect to the 450 gigalitres. I explained at the National Press Club and have since said here that the government's promise from when the Prime Minister first announced it was to provide the money required for450 gigalitres. The words 'up to' are included as a drafting device but were never part of the original commitment. Since then we have been trying to find a way of reflecting in legislation the exact commitment that was made. This is being circulated in an amendment which I will get to after we have dealt with the second reading.
Secondly, the issue was raised about why Menindee Lakes has been so slow, why it has not been built yet and why the work has not been done there yet. I copped a fair bit of criticism on the way through for that. The answer is simple: Barry O'Farrell unilaterally terminated the agreement on coming to office. Since then, we have talked him back to the table, and they are now fairly well advanced on putting together a significant Menindee Lakes project. The challenges with Menindee are now back on track and have been pushed very heavily by the government.
I would like to simply acknowledge, for the benefit of the record, who is present in the chamber. I am very pleased that the member for New England was the final contributor in the debate. On the work of the Windsor committee and the different reports that it has produced, I have to say that it is not as if every one of those reports has come out and I have been particularly happy with all the recommendations, but we have tried quite faithfully to follow them through. I believe that doing that has been a big part of getting to the relative level of consensus where we appear to find ourselves in the chamber today. I want to thank quite personally the member for New England for the work that he led with his committee in getting here. I do not believe that we would be in the situation throughout the parliament that we are in today were it not for the work of that committee.
Secondly, there is the member for Wentworth. I am pleased not only that he came into the chamber to make a contribution but also that he is here within the chamber itself when we are having the second reading debate. His fingerprints are all over the legislation which has formed the underpinnings of the plan. I am pleased that he is here. It is right that he is here. There are many people who share ownership of what we may well be able to achieve tonight, and the member for Wentworth is absolutely one of the key players in that.
People may be aware that the Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Craig Knowles, is present at the moment in the gallery. When I rang Craig and offered him the position, I began the conversation by saying, 'This is the best and the worst phone call you will ever receive.' When Craig agreed to take it on, it was just after the first run of meetings had happened, where there were burnings of books, which have often been described, and the levels of passion out there were absolutely at fever pitch. Craig took this on not because it was a great gig but very much because he had been in water reform since the National Water Initiative, working with John Anderson, and here was a chance to see through a very significant reform. His role has been extraordinary.
There are a number of people who very often—except for that handful of Australians who are fascinated by Senate estimates—have a fairly anonymous role. But the member for Wentworth and I were chatting a little bit earlier about the significant role in bringing this together that has been played over the years by Mary Harwood and Tony Slatyer, and I would like to acknowledge their presence in the advisers gallery, together with that of my own personal adviser, Mr Sean Halse, who over the last year has been given the easy issues in my office: Murray-Darling reform, oceans reform and the forestry issues in Tasmania! I think the role that he has played in bringing people together on a range of issues, including this one, is worthy of putting on the record.
We will have some disagreements on the amendments, but what we are about to deal with in the second reading is the principle itself. There is a question now before the House, Speaker, where we are asked the same question that has been asked of Australians for a hundred years. I really wish Henry Jones could be here. He is very ill at the moment. I spoke to him on the phone today. He is now in a personal fight for his health. If he fights that nearly half as effectively as he has fought for the health of the Murray-Darling Basin, then he has a very, very strong number of decades and centuries ahead of him. He is an extraordinary individual. I really hope that he, as well as all the people in different communities up and down the basin, is among the people who feel very proud of the fact that the parliament feels similarly to how Australians feel. Australians are sick of this one not being solved. We are too, and it is time now for the parliament to behave differently to how Australia has behaved for a century.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
I present a supplementary memorandum to the bill and move government amendment (5), as circulated:
(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (after line 11), at the end of subsection 86AD(2), add:
Note 1: As a result of subsection (4) of this section, water access rights may be purchased only if the purchase is related to an adjustment of a long term average sustainable diversion limit under section 23A. That section requires the Basin Plan to prescribe criteria in relation to such adjustments. The effect of the criteria prescribed by the Basin Plan is that water access rights may be purchased only in conjunction with improving irrigation water use efficiency on farms or an alternative arrangement proposed by a Basin State.
Note 2: Under this Part, the Commonwealth will not conduct open tender rounds that are available to all water access entitlement holders in a water resource plan area to purchase water access rights.
This is an amendment which has been sought and referred to in the inquiries which have been conducted by the Windsor committee. In particular, it clarifies the intentions of the Commonwealth and makes clear that open round tenders are not considered part of the way in which water would be recovered to achieve the additional 450 gigalitres. It is a clarification which has been sought to be made formally in the bill, and the government is happy to do that.
Question agreed to
by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (4) and (6) to (7), as circulated, together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:
1A Subsection 4(1)
Insert:
Lock 1 means Weir and Lock No 1 Blanchetown referred to in Schedule A to the Agreement.
1B Subsection 4(1)
Insert:
Lower Lakes means Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina in South Australia.
1C Subsection 4(1)
Insert:
Murray Mouth Barrages means the Murray Mouth Barrages referred to in Schedule A to the Agreement.
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 23) to page 4 (line 7), omit subsection 86AA(2), substitute:
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), environmental outcomes can be enhanced in the following ways:
(a) further reducing salinity levels in the Coorong and Lower Lakes so that improved water quality contributes to the health of insects, fish and plants that form important parts of the food chain, with the aim of achieving the following outcomes:
(i) the maximum average daily salinity in the Coorong South Lagoon is less than 100 grams per litre;
(ii) the maximum average daily salinity in the Coorong North Lagoon is less than 50 grams per litre;
(iii) the average daily salinity in Lake Alexandrina is less than 1000 microsiemens per centimetre for 95% of years and 1500 microsiemens per centimetre all of the time;
(b) keeping water levels in the Lower Lakes above:
(i) 0.4 metres Australian Height Datum for 95% of the time; and
(ii) 0.0 metres Australian Height Datum at all times;
to provide additional flows to the Coorong, and to prevent acidification, acid drainage and riverbank collapse below Lock 1;
(c) ensuring the mouth of the River Murray is open without the need for dredging in at least 95% of years, with flows every year through the Murray Mouth Barrages;
(d) discharging 2 million tonnes of salt per year from the Murray Darling Basin as a long term average;
(e) further increasing flows to the Coorong through the Murray Mouth Barrages, and supporting fish migration;
(f) in conjunction with removing or easing constraints referred to in subparagraph (h)(ii), providing opportunities for environmental watering of an additional 35,000 hectares of floodplains in the River Murray System, to do the following:
(i) improve the health of forests and the habitats of fish and birds;
(ii) improve connections between the floodplains and rivers in the River Murray System;
(iii) replenish groundwater;
(g) increasing the flows of rivers and streams, and providing water to low and middle level floodplains and habitats that are adjacent to rivers and streams, in the River Murray System:
(i) to enhance environmental outcomes within those floodplains, habitats, rivers and streams; and
(ii) to improve connections between those floodplains and habitats, and those rivers and streams;
(h) in any other way that is consistent with:
(i) the Authority's modelling of the effect of increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 3200 gigalitres; and
(ii) easing or removing constraints on the capacity to deliver environmental water to the environmental assets of the Murray Darling Basin.
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 13), omit "up to".
(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 29 to 31), omit paragraph 86AD(2)(a)(iv), substitute:
(iv) better utilising existing dams and storages to deliver environmental water to the environmental assets of the Murray Darling Basin;
(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (lines 1 to 6), omit section 86AH.
(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (after line 27), at the end of Part 2AA, add:
86AJ Reviews of this Part
(1) The Minister must cause 2 independent reviews to be conducted into whether the amount standing to the credit of, and to be credited to, the Water for the Environment Special Account is sufficient to increase, by 30 June 2024, the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 450 gigalitres, and to ease or remove constraints identified by the Authority on the capacity to deliver environmental water to the environmental assets of the Murray Darling Basin.
(2) A review must be conducted by a panel of at least 3 persons nominated by the Minister, after consulting each Basin State.
(3) In conducting a review under subsection (1), a panel must also consider the following:
(a) the progress that has been, and is anticipated to be, made towards increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use;
(b) whether the design of projects in relation to which payments have been made under section 86AD is likely to be effective in increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 450 gigalitres;
(c) any other matter specified in writing by the Minister that is relevant to achieving the object of this Part.
(4) A panel must give the Minister a written report of a review.
(5) The report of the first review must be provided to the Minister by 30 September 2019.
(6) The report of the second review must be provided to the Minister by 30 September 2021.
(7) The Minister must cause a copy of a report of a review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day the report is given to the Minister.
(8) The Minister must table the Government's response to the report by the following time:
(a) for the first review—the time the Treasurer presents the budget to the Parliament for the 2020 2021 financial year;
(b) for the second review—the time the Treasurer presents the budget to the Parliament for the 2022 2023 financial year.
These amendments remove the reference to 'up to 450 gigalitres' and make it '450 gigalitres' but put in place a process which gives a clear line of sight to the parliament and to the public as to whether or not enough money has been set aside to achieve the 450 gigalitres, and it would then be a budgetary decision for the government of the day to determine whether or not additional money was to be put in.
We are very confident that the money set aside is more than enough to be able to provide for the additional 450 gigalitres through farm infrastructure works. The original wording of 'up to' was put in place on advice that it was difficult to guarantee, where we were dealing with a voluntary system. While it is true that it would be an unusual circumstance if farmers were offered an opportunity where the government paid for brand-new equipment and they then said, 'No, we don't want that,' nonetheless it is a possible scenario and it has meant we have had to work through a wording where the bill would accurately reflect the commitment of the government.
The commitment of the government is to provide the funds required for the additional 450 gigalitres of water and to remove the relevant capacity constraints. We believe the bill does this but, given that there has been some doubt in communities because of the inclusion of the words 'up to', this amendment addresses that and also makes clear the environmental outcomes which are sought as the additional water is required. This will also provide a level of guidance to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder in the environmental outcomes that are being sought with the additional 450 gigalitres.
The opposition does not agree with or accept these amendments. There are a series of reasons why. The first one is that the express inclusion of particular environmental works is a political statement, not a legislative statement, and it is not an appropriate item to have in such legislation. It effectively breaches the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, or express inclusion of one to the deliberate exclusion of another. It is poor legislative practice and it implies that these are the activities that will occur, when in reality there are numerous other activities that may provide appropriate savings in terms of environmental irrigation, on-farm irrigation and interfarm irrigation. So it is poor legislative practice.
The next reason is to do with amendment (3), which involves a very substantive issue. The original legislation included the words 'up to' in relation to the 450 gigalitres. This was the government's own legislation, the government's own policy, the government's own proposal. And we took them at their word. In fact, only today the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia put out a statement, which had unanimous agreement, saying:
The Committee does not agree with the recommendation made by the Senate Committee … to establish a mandatory recovery target of 450GL.
It went on to say:
The program established by the Special Account is entirely voluntary. To establish a mandatory recovery target of 450GL as recommended by the Senate would establish a quasi-compulsory program which the Committee is strongly opposed to.
Signatories to that included the member for New England, the member for Bendigo, the member for Hunter, the member for Capricornia and the member for McEwen. It will be an interesting test to see how each of those members, having made that statement but a few hours ago, votes on a completely contrary amendment from the government.
Finally, in relation to the critical items which we oppose, there is a bizarre situation where amendment (4) would remove the ability to increase the size of dams to deliver environmental water as a relevant element in this consideration. That is contrary to common sense. It is contrary to good practice. It is counterintuitive. It makes it harder, rather than easier, to achieve the shared goals. For those reasons we will not be supporting these amendments.
I want to endorse the remarks of the previous speaker, the member for Flinders, and express my disappointment about these government amendments and indeed my concern about the motives which underpin them. They look very much to me like another round of Greens pay-off. We are aware that the proposal to exclude the words 'up to' was at the insistence of the Greens. It was their proposal—one that the government indicated earlier that it was not prepared to accept. The House of Representatives committee has brought in its report halfway through the debate. After considering all of these issues the committee was unanimous that this was not an appropriate amendment to agree to. Yet the government, in spite of the advice of its own committee and in spite of the laudatory remarks that the minister made about the member for New England and his contribution, is now ignoring the member for New England's advice and the advice of the committee and excluding those two words.
It will certainly be seen by the basin community that this is in fact an increase in, a ramping up of, the amount of water that will be taken from them. I can recall saying in my remarks last night—and it was close to midnight so not too many people were listening—that the Greens have a long record of agreeing to one thing today and then turning around the next day and demanding more and more. It has taken only 15 hours for the next increment in the demands for more water to be made and the government has simply rolled over.
I am also concerned in the same context about the exclusion of the word 'dams'. The Greens again are well noted for their distaste of any dams. I do not know how they expect water to be stored. They drink the stuff that comes out of the dams, but they do not want them. Clearly, if you are going to use water wisely for the environment, you have to store it somewhere. It has to be available when you need it, or are we only going to have work done and environmental measures undertaken during flood times? If you want to actually do things in dry times, you have to store the water. Surely, therefore, you have to have a dam. The minister has sort of said that we are not going to have any dams. Perhaps you can explain how he is going to achieve the objectives without having access to the capacity to store water in appropriate places.
All these measures again give rise to heighten my concerns that were expressed last night. The government have demonstrated through the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin process that their favoured way to obtain water for the environment is to simply resort to buybacks. They have not done the engineering works. They have not undertaken measures that could deliver this water. We could be delivering this water without buying out local communities. It is almost as though they prefer the painful approach or they just do not care about people who live in the regional communities who are wearing all of this. They have adopted the lazy way in going to the buyouts. Frankly, by raising the high jump, as they are doing again tonight with these amendments—firstly, by insisting on achieving absolutely the whole of the 450 gigalitres and then by ruling out one of the logical ways in which you might achieve that objective—they are setting up a situation where yet again they are going to resort to mass buyouts. There will be more pain, more suffering, more losses and more damage to regional communities.
I would really ask the minister to stand up also for the regional communities. I know that he is the minister for the environment, but where has the minister for agriculture been in this? Where has the minister for regional development been? Where have the people been who should be standing up for those who live outside the capital cities? They ought to be there ensuring that we not only deliver good environmental outcomes, but also that it should be done with a minimum pain to the communities who have to give up this water.
I am very disappointed by these amendments. The coalition has reached a position where it will not be opposing the bill, but now the government has made it so much harder for us to accept that kind of a position by ramping up the pain, ramping up the suffering and making it so much more difficult to achieve the objectives that it proposed in the bill.
Finally, it is a nonsense to be proposing all these detailed matters in the bill. They should be in the plan, not in amendments of this nature. (Time expired)
I would like to speak briefly against the government's amendments to this bill, and I appreciate the procedural difficulties but this is extremely important. Clearly, the process has been hijacked, Minister, by the Greens again. First, we had a committee that released a report that accepted the words 'up to 450 gigalitres'. Then we had the Greens in the Senate move amendments and motions to say that they wanted to take out the words 'up to', and say '450 gigalitres'. Then we have had you, Minister, accept that with no rational explanation. We have had the member for New England go against his own report, that apparently was only tabled today. I look forward to his explanation, because the people in my electorate trusted him. They thought he was a good guy. They were wrong.
We have got this tiny figleaf behind which the minister is hiding—notes to part of his amendments that says that the Commonwealth will not conduct open tender rounds that are available to all water access entitlement holders—a figleaf, Minister. If you believe this, put it in the subclause of the legislation. Do not have it sitting there like something you can wriggle out of later. We have come a long way on this side of the House to accept a measure that says 'up to 450 gigalitres', and you have taken it out.
And what I particularly object to is that this minister at the Press Club cited Bernie Roebuck, principal of the Finley High School. You have no idea, Minister, of the pain that your legislation is causing the community of Finley. You have not sat in the hall of the Finley High School and looked at the expressions on the faces of all the kids. You have not seen the despair of their parents. But you had the nerve to mention the Finley High School and Bernie Roebuck as if somehow that excused the things that you are doing to the communities that I represent.
The member for Farrer should not use the word 'you'.
I very strenuously disagree with your amendments and I am delighted that on this side of the House, when in government, will be able to introduce a cap on buyback that effectively negates the nonsense that you are putting forward in your amendments. As I said, we came a long way to accept the bill. The minister knows how difficult that was. The cap on buyback that the coalition will introduce in government will mean that anything above 1,500 gigalitres will have to be realised by efficiencies. That at least will mean that the destructive crippling buybacks that have affected the communities of Farrer so very badly will not continue under a coalition government.
It will mean proper investigations—and I make this point too—through a constraints management strategy to manage areas permanently under flood—where red gums are dying because they have got their roots in water nine months of the year, where areas that have previously been town beaches, camping areas and areas for general amenity are just simply at a low-level flood line—and it would actually carry out a proper socioeconomic analysis. The coalition understands the need for that. If the minister accepts that these things are possible, then those socioeconomic analyses and the proper constraints management and the dollars to do that should have been contained in this legislation and his remarks.
After the previous two speakers I probably should say something, though I know people want to go to other events.
An honourable member: No!
Thank you. I think this is quite sad. I really do think so. As to the two speakers who have just spoken—the member for Farrer particularly; I can excuse the Leader of the National Party, but as to the member for Farrer, who has some knowledge of this issue—I think it is quite sad, what has just been said. We have spent quite some time here talking about the fear that has been out there in these communities, the uncertainty that has been out there in these communities, and what you have just created, or attempted to create, is this dying gasp of the last decision. You are going to vote for this. But you want something out there that says to these people, 'You are still being screwed by this dreadful group of people in the parliament.' Well, if you believe that, don't vote for it—don't vote for any of it, because that is exactly where you have been right through all of this process. If you believe that the people of Finley or wherever are being persecuted by some greedy person or government coming along and taking their water, why are you supporting it? That is the tragedy and the hypocrisy of this: that you people have bled your constituents dry on this issue and you are going to go along and then say to them, 'It's all out there again.'
We are using the words used in your own report.
I listened to you; it was difficult for me because I have not heard you for a while, but I did. And the words are in the legislation. Have a look at the Hansard in terms of the committee inquiry. The words are in the legislation. 'As a result of subsection 4 of this section, water access rights may be purchased only if the purchase is related to an adjustment of the long-term average sustainable diversion limit under section 23. That section requires the Basin Plan to prescribe criteria in relation to such adjustments. The effect of the criteria prescribed by the Basin Plan is that water access rights may be purchased only in conjunction with improving the irrigation on farms and an alternative proposed by a basin state.' This is a Commonwealth piece of legislation. The Commonwealth is saying in here, the minister has said and the Prime Minister has said that buyback will not apply in terms of the 450 gigalitres. There is absolutely no need for it.
The member for Farrer, the member for Riverina and many others who were involved in a number of reports actually recommended that, if more water is to be taken from the system, it should be done through on-farm works and measures; that was the great cry. But when someone comes along and does that, you have got to find this wriggle room in there to say that this is the greatest tragedy that is going to occur to people in the basin system, and I would ask people who may be listening to this to listen to the further hypocrisy that you are going to hear tonight in terms of this 450 gigalitres.
There is no buyback in it. There is no buyback. The minister may like to reiterate that and go to the clause. There is no buyback. It is a voluntary scheme. It says here: 'Water access rights may be purchased only in conjunction with improving irrigation on farms.' If the farmers decide that they do not want to improve their irrigation, they do not have to. And that is the point I made in my earlier speech. The baseline figure is 2,750 gigalitres. The 650 gigalitres comes off that, the basin states have agreed, through environmental works and measures—virtual water, in a sense, in terms of the 2,750 gigalitres. Then you have this new bill, for the 450 gigalitres, for on-farm works and measures and possible removal of some constraints to assist the flow. If the farming community is not interested in becoming more efficient, the answer to this could be zero, in terms of on-farm efficiencies. No-one has to accept it. But it is the very thing that, when the members for Farrer and Riverina and I visited these communities, the communities right throughout the basin kept saying to us: 'We don't mind a plan as long as it incorporates some money being spent on making us more efficient so that the productivity, the triple bottom line, of our communities, is maintained.' And that is exactly what we recommended, and these people actually endorsed those recommendations. The government has taken up those recommendations. We have revisited the concern that was expressed in this latest inquiry, and that has been fixed within the context of this particular bill. (Time expired)
I have a question for the minister for the purposes of clarity to the community and legislative interpretation. Is it mandatory that the additional 450 gigalitres, outlined in this bill, will be acquired by the Commonwealth by 2024? Can the minister simply clarify: is it mandatory that the Commonwealth acquire all 450 gigalitres by 2024, or is it not?
To round up discussion on this amendment, if any of the things that were referred to by the Leader of the Nationals or the member for Farrer were actually in this amendment, I would give a very different speech, but they are not. I explained, when I moved the amendment, precisely the answer to the question that the member for Flinders has just pointed to, which is: what is the significance of the amendment? Can it mean a situation of compulsory acquisition? What does it mean if for some reason—unexpected, because we believe there is more than enough money—you were tracking to less than 450 gigalitres? What it would mean is this, and this is what would be mandatory: there would be a couple of points between now and 2024 where it is audited and made public to the parliament as to whether or not there is enough money there to get to 450 gigalitres. Whether additional money is put in place is a matter for the budget of the government of the day, but this amendment means that there is a clear line of sight as to whether or not there is enough money there.
We have put something that is all about making sure there is a parliamentary scrutiny of a clear line of sight as to whether or not there is enough money there—we believe there easily is. But we have something that is simply about a clear line of sight, and we get that sort of response. Everybody deals with consensus in their own way, I guess, but it is fairly extraordinary to get those sorts of reactions to something that is about making sure that there is a clear line of sight for every member of parliament between now and 2024 as to whether or not enough money has been set aside. And there should be a clear line of sight, because if it turns out, contrary to all expectations, that not enough money was set aside then every member of parliament should know what that would mean, and that should be a serious issue that is considered in the budget by the government of the day. Without this amendment, that could not have been guaranteed, but now that would be guaranteed. It does not involve compulsory acquisition. It does not involve alternating back to general tender buyback for 450 up.
The Leader of the Nationals ran the argument, 'Why have you got this reference taken out saying that it can't be used for dams and storages?' Because, when you find more efficient ways of using your dams and storages, that contributes to the 650 down. That is already counted before you get to the final 450 up. That is in the plan because it is one of the ideas that came from the original Windsor report, which their members signed up to.
Opposition members interjecting—
And can I make clear, on this claim that there is an inconsistency between this amendment and the report that has come out today from the Windsor committee, that they can only draw that conclusion if they did not listen to a word I just said right here two minutes ago, because the recommendation was to not go along with what the Senate was saying—that it was an automatic guaranteed 450-gigalitre compulsory acquisition or however you got it if you did not get enough people participating. Instead of going down that path, consistent with the recommendations of that inquiry today, we have gone down a path to make sure that there is a clear line of sight. I have to say that I have every confidence that future parliaments, if there is not enough money there, will make sure in future budgets that it is put in place. There was never a legislative guarantee for the money that Prime Minister Howard put in place, but the money, when it has not been spent, has continued to be rephased and has continued to be made available.
If people do not want there to be a clear line of site for future parliaments, then argue against the amendment for that reason. But do not invent something that is designed only to put fear throughout Basin communities when we are actually delivering something where we have not compromised on the environmental ambition of the reform but are making sure we are acquiring the water in the exact ways that every one of those community meetings asked us to implement. They all asked for this path, that is the path we are choosing, and if people want to take issue with the plan by all means they can oppose the reform but, please, the misrepresentation in communities should not continue.
Once again, for legislative purposes, does this amendment make in mandatory for future governments to acquire the full 450 gigalitres by 2024? We understand that there are other elements in terms of future assessments, but is it mandatory under this law, under the intent, that future governments must achieve the 450 gigalitre target by 2024?
I have answered that twice in the last answer so I am not going to delay the parliament further. What is mandatory is that there will be a clear line of site as to whether or not we are tracking towards it. I believe the fact of that will guarantee that governments put the money on the table. On all the budgeting that we have already done, we believe the money is required on the table. But that is the one thing that is made mandatory. The one thing that is made mandatory is the clear line of sight as to whether or not enough money has been set aside—the one thing.
For a final time, with respect, will you make it clear that it is not mandatory for future governments to achieve the full 450 gigalitres as a consequence of these amendments?
The question is that the amendments moved by the minister be agreed to.
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 2 and amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1 together:
Sheet 2—
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph 86AD(2)(b).
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 9), omit "or (b)".
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (after line 14), after subsection 86AD(3), insert:
(3A) To avoid doubt, subsection (2) does not permit amounts standing to the credit of the Water for the Environment Special Account to be debited for the purpose of purchasing water access rights in relation to Basin water resources.
(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 17), omit "or purchase".
(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 17), omit "or (b)".
(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 18), omit "or purchase".
(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 24), omit "or purchase".
(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 28) to page 7 (line 6), omit section 86AE.
(9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (line 19) to page 9 (line 3), omit paragraph 86AI(2)(b), substitute:
(b) achievements against those objectives and priorities;
(10) Schedule 1, items 3 to 5, page 9 (line 28) to page 10 (line 9), omit the items.
Sheet 1—
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 22), at the end of subsection 86AA(1), add "while achieving neutral or beneficial socio economic outcomes".
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 7), at the end of subsection 86AA(2), add:
; (h) investing in water efficient infrastructure and other on farm works.
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 2), at the end of paragraph 86AD(2)(b), add ", but only if such purchases achieve neutral or beneficial socio economic outcomes".
(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (after line 6), after section 86AE, insert:
86AEA Limit on purchase of water access rights
The total amount of water access rights purchased by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth since 2009, whether with amounts debited from the Water for the Environment Special Account or otherwise for the purposes of the Basin Plan, must not exceed 1500 gigalitres.
(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (after line 11), after paragraph 86AI(2)(c), insert:
(ca) for all water recovery for which an amount was debited from the Water for the Environment Special Account during the report year for the purposes of paragraph 86AD(2)(b)—how that recovery achieved a neutral or beneficial socio economic outcome;
For five years, Australia has had a choice between a once-in-a-century replumbing and a buyout of rural Australia. At the last minute, this government has finally agreed to the replumbing rather than the buyout. These amendments guarantee a replumbing rather than a buyout; no general buybacks to achieve the 450 gigalitres; neutral or beneficial socioeconomic outcomes; a 1,500-gigalitre buyback cap; and adequate reporting. If the government does not pass these amendments, our commitment is that we will do so in government. We expect the government to support them. We guarantee a once-in-a-century replumbing, not a buyout of rural Australia.
We cannot support the amendments. If the states come forward with the proposals that the plan allows them to, then the buyback figure that is referred to would in fact be achieved. But, if the states chose to not come forward with projects, then the entire plan would be at risk. For that reason, we cannot support the amendments.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
House adjourned at 20:55
I rise today to talk about Australian owned and operated small businesses. Australians all know the fundamental importance of Australian owned small businesses. Small businesses in Australia added 36.3 per cent of industry value to the economy between 2009 and 2010. Small Australian businesses also employ nearly half of the total industry employment, at 47.2 per cent. The families in Macquarie and many others depend on revenue generated by small businesses to provide the Australian quality of life, to meet the most basic costs of living and to make sure that young Australians are able to reach their full potential.
Labor's poor management and destructive policies have seen small business start-ups fall by a staggering 95 per cent. There are now 11,000 fewer small businesses employing people than there were in 2007. The coalition, in contrast, has a plan for our economy. If elected to government, the coalition will fight tirelessly for small business and lay the groundwork for Australian owned and operated businesses to thrive and flourish. This will begin with the position of Minister for Small Business being promoted to cabinet. We will reduce red tape costs to small business by $1 billion a year.
The Leader of the Opposition announced earlier this month that, if elected, a coalition government will aim to double the existing rate of small business growth. If this can be achieved, this high rate of small business growth will mean that Australia will see more than 30,000 new small businesses introduced to our economy each year. This will increase opportunities not just for small business but also for their families and the people they employ. This will add several million jobs. Most importantly, the coalition will scrap the ineffective initiatives of this Labor government, such as the carbon tax, which have damaged the growth and competitiveness of Australian businesses. It is imperative that we seek to go for growth in Australian business. The regrowth and reinvestment of government policy and energy into small business will assure our future prosperity. (Time expired)
I am really proud to be part of a government which comes up with serious and real policies for the country's challenges today and into the future. Issues around aged care fall into both of those categories. We know that as our country grows older it presents us with great opportunities. But it also means we need to be serious about reforming our aged care system. We need to make sure that people have choices and options and the necessary services in place to support them as they live longer lives.
I know that the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, has made a number of announcements. In fact, a $3.7 billion package of reforms was announced earlier during this term of government. I was really pleased that that reform package was announced following consultations right around Australia. I was lucky enough to be at the very first of those consultations as it took place in the very fine electorate of Adelaide. Right at the beginning of the process, Minister Butler announced that he would be keeping in touch with the local community and making sure that people got to have their say and to hear about the details of what can be very complicated policy.
I was very pleased last week to be able to once again host Minister Butler in the electorate of Adelaide, at Clearview, where we had a community forum to go through aged-care challenges and also the reforms that this government has announced. I was pleased that we had the minister there to talk us through the $3.7 billion package and how it meant getting better and clearer information to people and their family members who were struggling to find out what options are available and how they find places in aged-care facilities. We talked about the huge increase in the number of support packages for those people who choose to stay in their own homes, and I heard firsthand that this was a choice of many people in my community. We also heard about the 30,000 additional aged-care places right across the country and, importantly, had a very frank discussion about something we do not talk about very much—that is, people having a say in how they die.
These are all very real issues. It takes a government that has real policies and is prepared to make real reforms. I would like to thank those community members who have come along to consultations and community forums to talk about this issue and give the government their insights, their experiences and their suggestions. I am very, very proud of the package announced. I would like to put on record my gratitude to Minister Butler for being so accessible to our community, for explaining such detailed policy and reform and for not putting it in the too-hard basket as so many governments have. (Time expired)
On Friday evening I had the pleasure of joining more than 130 local business employees at the Mount Evelyn Chamber of Commerce business awards night. The number present was an indication of the vibrancy of the Mount Evelyn community and also the great work of their chamber of commerce, led by Kathie Freeman, Chris Monaghan and a very dedicated committee. There were a number of awards, and I want to pay tribute to all of those who were recognised last Friday evening.
The retailing excellence award was won by Rueben Nieuwesteeg of Billy Goat Hill Brasserie. The service excellence award was won by Adriana Matisorovic of H'diva Boutique Hair and Beauty. The industry achievement award was won by Kieran Cox, a barrister and solicitor, who has been in the Mount Evelyn area for more than 30 years. The community group of the year award was won by Mount Evelyn RSL. The best home based business award was run by Mary and Anders Wiking of Yarra Ranges Country Apartments. The outstanding achievement award was won by Jodie Kimpton of Jobo Design. The best presented business award was won by Annette Bird of Shear Obsession hairdressing. The environmental award was won by the Mount Evelyn Environmental Protection and Progress Association. The youth development award was won by the Mount Evelyn Scout group and their irrepressible leader Gary Park. Finally, the Mount Evelyn Community Bank business of the year award was won by the team at the Professionals Real Estate in Mount Evelyn. I want to pay tribute to all those who were recognised and all those who make the chamber the great asset that it is to the local community.
On Sunday I was pleased to attend the Lilydale CFA open day—there were CFA open days right across Victoria. This was particularly special because it also saw the launch of their 125-year history project—a dedicated piece of work put together by those at the CFA and authored by Captain Robert Bethell, a long-time member of the CFA who has done all of the painstaking writing and work to put into print the history of the Lilydale CFA. I congratulate Robert Bethell and also Captain Warren Davis and retired Captain Frank Whelan. (Time expired)
I want to take this opportunity to support Micah Challenge and their campaign to halve global poverty by 2015. I typically want to draw to the attention of the parliament their Shine the Light program aimed at reducing corruption by increasing tax transparency. Corruption continues to act as a brake that impedes the development of developing countries. There are in fact 3½ billion people living in countries which are rich in oil, gas and minerals. Revenue from these sectors is often one of the greatest sources of wealth generated within developing countries but such wealth often, regrettably, provides little benefit to the people living in these countries and especially those living in poverty.
Currently many mining, oil and gas companies only report their finances on a global or regional basis, making it impossible to know the financial information relevant to each country that they are operating in. After the GFC, the US government introduced the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which requires companies in the oil, gas and mining sector listed on the US Securities and Exchange Commission to report on the taxes and royalties paid to governments on a country-by-country and project-by-project basis. This is a step towards reducing tax evasion and other forms of corruption by making it harder for companies to shift their revenue to tax havens unseen. It also increases the ability of citizens of developing countries to hold their own governments to account for the tax revenue they receive from natural resources.
The oil, gas and mining sector in developing countries has often been associated, regrettably, with large levels of corruption and lost revenue for the ordinary people of the country. There are companies already doing country-by-country reporting, such as Exxon Mobil and Rio Tinto, and the following ASX companies will be required to adhere to the US rules and provide country-by-country reporting: BHP Billiton, Alcoa Alumina, Ivanhoe Australia, Allied Gold and so on. The G20 has encouraged disclosures by the mining, oil and gas industries of payments made to governments. Along with the US reforms, the Hong Kong stock exchange already has a more limited form of country-by-country reporting in place and Norway has promised to introduce legislation requiring its mining companies to report the taxes and royalties they pay on a country-by-country basis by 2014. Micah Challenge says—and I think this has considerable merit—that Australia should follow the example of the US, Hong Kong and Norway and introduce robust legislation requiring mining, oil and gas companies that have a presence in Australia to report the taxes and royalties they pay to governments on a country-by-country basis as a step towards helping people in developing countries to benefit from their natural resources.
Several months ago I held a childcare forum in my Bennelong electorate office, inviting local parents as well as workers and operators of local childcare centres to discuss their firsthand experiences. Following this I have also been engaging with local parents at various street stalls and listening posts and doorknocking around Bennelong. Across these conversations there has been consistent feedback that we currently have a one-size-fits-all childcare system that is inflexible to the changing nature of family working patterns.
In response to this the coalition has pledged to hold a Productivity Commission inquiry into child care, with the Leader of the Opposition recently releasing the terms of reference, which include greater access to in-home care and the option of tax deductibility. Few in this place could argue that our parents do not deserve a more flexible, more accessible and more affordable mix of childcare options. Through this inquiry a future coalition government will turn constituent feedback and expert advice into national policy.
As a father of three, I know all too well that a more responsive childcare system would have been of great assistance to our family. Of course, in most families it is particularly the mothers who suffer the greatest impact when child care is scarce, inflexible and expensive. A flexible system will provide women with more power and choice in their career decisions and make it easier for them to work how and when they want. This will be complemented by a generous system of paid parental leave.
Australia is well behind the rest of the world on this issue. There are 38 countries that have a paid parental leave scheme, 36 of them basing parental leave payments on the salary that the individual mother actually earns—but not in Australia. Instead the Gillard government has cobbled together a rebadged baby bonus scheme, which is basically a welfare payment offering new mothers the minimum wage.
The coalition recognises that increasing female participation in the economy is a certain way to boost national productivity, which is a significant key to a stronger economy. A coalition government will better support women to juggle work and family commitments by providing a scheme where Australian women enjoy paid parental leave based on what they actually earn, just the same as when you take sick leave or annual leave. Most modern families need two incomes to pay the rent or the mortgage and to keep their heads above water financially. Australia needs a fair, simple and flexible parental leave system that expresses our values for family life. To all the families in Bennelong, I pledge that this is exactly what you will receive from a future coalition government.
I rise to talk about a proposed coalmine in my electorate. It is something I have raised in this place on a number of occasions. But today I am raising the issue of the great disappointment in the O'Farrell state government in New South Wales, which made ironclad guarantees that they would honour their election promise to stop this coalmine. For the last seven years the people of the Central Coast have been fighting against the long-haul coalmine proposed by the South Korean company KoRes to go underneath the beautiful valleys of the Central Coast, which is where our water supply is. The federal government has spent over $120 million ensuring that the Central Coast's water supply is guaranteed. This is all under threat if we have a coalmine going underneath it.
I campaigned long and hard against the former New South Wales Labor government to make sure that this coalmine would not go ahead. Belatedly, they made the decision that the coalmine would not go ahead. That was great news for the people of the Central Coast, but what was better news was that the then New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, also committed in writing that he would honour this decision and that there would be no coalmine in the pristine valleys of the Central Coast that would jeopardise the Central Coast's water supply. He had photos before the election. They sent out brochures saying: 'I guarantee that there won't be a coalmine. We'll legislate to make sure there'll be no coalmines that can affect the catchment areas of the Central Coast.' This was an ironclad guarantee.
But here we are now, many months after the election, and there has been no action, and deafening silence, from the O'Farrell government. But it is even worse than that. If there was just silence, we would think it was not going ahead. But the coalminers are now out there saying: 'We're going ahead, we're doing the work and we're spending the money. This is going to be a good thing for the Central Coast.' What has clearly happened is that the coalminers had a nod and a wink from the O'Farrell government that if they resubmitted their application it would go ahead. There is no other explanation why this coalmining company would be spending the money they are spending when the current position is that it cannot go ahead and the current state government is committed to it not going ahead.
Today I call on the O'Farrell government to come clean and honour the commitment it made to Central Coast residents that it will not go ahead with this coalmine. This would be the biggest breach of faith that the people of the Central Coast have ever had. The O'Farrell government needs to make sure that it honours its election commitment; it needs to come out now and say that there will be no coalmine in the valleys of the Central Coast.
Today I raise the plight of Adam Gray. I have come to know Adam and his family over several years. He is a young man living in limbo as his future seemingly becomes lost in the bureaucracy of our immigration system. It is not the fault of immigration officials, who have bent over backwards to help. We are all focused on asylum seekers and have lost sight of other problems in the system. For Adam and his family, their immigration experience has been a nightmare. Adam is the second son of British-born Australian parents, Sue and Paul. In fact, the father, Paul, first came to this country in the 1950s as a 10-pound Pom. Ben, Adam's older brother, is also Australian by birth, but Adam is not. He was born in the UK while his father was on transfer there with the London branch of the Bank of New South Wales. Since returning to Australia in 2006, Adam and his parents have explored what seems every conceivable option to have Adam granted permanent Australian residency. His first approach was in 2007 through the last remaining relative visa process but, because Adam's brother, who is an Australian citizen and born in Australia, is working abroad in London, this immigration door was closed.
For the past five years, Adam has been sincere in his attempts to become a permanent citizen. He successfully completed a trade qualification and a bricklaying apprenticeship in line with the skilled migration pathway. A change of immigration rules meant that Adam was and is still ineligible. Why? Because Adam has yet to pass the English proficiency test—yes, the same Adam who was born to English-speaking parents, educated in England in English-speaking schools and who speaks no other language but English. In 2012, Adam's efforts to live in Australia with his family remain thwarted. His visa applications continue to be stonewalled, and he is about to embark on an appeal process. For very good reason, Australia has a rigorous immigration system in place. I do not seek to devalue its importance or flout well-meaning rules, but our system is unreasonably penalising Adam and his family. I know that it is impossible to legislate to cover each anomaly in the system. But surely our immigration laws should give the minister a discretion so that he or she can exercise common sense in cases like Adam's.
On Saturday, 20 October, I joined the New Life Baptist Church in their Walk for Life along the Fernleigh track between Belmont North—or Jewells, should I say—and Belmont. This was a wonderful experience from my perspective. New Life Baptist Church is just a small church, but its members are passionate about helping developing countries by helping to provide clean water and adequate sanitation. They have partnered with the Samaritans. They raised over $5,000, which I think is a fantastic achievement. That money will go towards building wells and toilets in Cambodia.
On the day, they had the big toilet that was placed on the old Belmont railway station which is at the Belmont end of the Fernleigh track. The young people were all very keen to express their support for sanitation in countries that do not enjoy the same standards that we have. They told me about the fact that 780 million people live without access to safe drinking water, and 2.5 billion do not have access to hygienic toilets or latrines. Around 3,000 children die every day from causes related to water, sanitation and hygiene. In a country like Australia it is very easy for us to forget that people do not enjoy the same level of sanitation and access to safe drinking water that we do. At events like this one that I participated in, it was just so wonderful to see families, young people and older people walking along the Fernleigh track. Some of them were carrying buckets of water to demonstrate what it is like in developing countries where you have to travel significant distances with heavy containers of water. I believe that the New Life Baptist Church at Jewells should be congratulated on their commitment to solving the world's water, sanitation and hygiene crisis. I am committed to working with them. They also put to me that the Australian government needs a timetable commitment to increase aid to 0.7 per cent.
I seek leave to table a petition that was given to me by the New Life Baptist Church.
Leave granted.
I accept that subject to the committee reviewing it. That is the process for petitions.
The Bundaberg-Childers district of my electorate of Hinkler is one of the leading horticultural areas of Australia. Not unexpectedly, transient and casual labour are important components of this industry. It has been brought to my attention that legitimate businesses and workers within the horticulture industry are suffering financial and competitive difficulties at the hands of illegal and disreputable harvesting contractors. While undoubtedly there are many legitimate and compliant harvesting contractors operating in this country, I am astounded that the relevant departments responsible for maintaining profitable small business and fair work practices have neglected their duties by not stamping out these illegal operators.
I am led to believe the Australian Taxation Office is well aware of the paperless society operating within the horticulture industry, yet to my knowledge no significant action has been taken to deter dubious operators from rorting the system. The amounts involved would be significant, to say nothing of the exploitation of workers. As a result of this inaction, workers are not being paid proper wages and superannuation entitlements, Australia is not collecting valuable taxation and legitimate growers and contractors are copping public rebuke and departmental flak. Of the three significant employers in my electorate that have entered into receivership over the past 18 months, all have suffered media attention because of unpaid wages and entitlements, yet the reality is that, in most of these cases, unpaid wages were in fact the responsibility of harvesting contractors. This form of behaviour is having a detrimental impact on regional tourism as it is creating a negative image of the district amongst international itinerant workers and backpackers.
Investigations in the past have been remiss in preventing unscrupulous operators from rorting the system, thus avoiding effective prosecution. This inaction is creating fertile ground for legal immigration. Sadly, this leads to the exploitation of foreign workers, who hide their identities behind the curtain of the paperless regime. I call for a doubling of government agency commitment. I believe there is a case for well-structured, cross-departmental agency taskforces and flying squads—and I mean flying squads. These groups should include the ATO, ASIC, Immigration and Fair Work, with appropriate police backup. We are dealing with sleazy people and crooks, and this practice needs to come to an end.
Last month, the City of Greater Geelong concluded its elections, which saw for the first time Geelong directly elect its mayor. That saw the successful election of Councillor Keith Fagg. I very much give my congratulations to him today. One of the biggest challenges facing the City of Greater Geelong is how it transforms itself from a local government to a regional government. As our population climbs above 225,000 people, it is important the city sees itself as more than just the manager of footpaths, a planning authority and the collector of rubbish. It needs to see itself as a major driver of the economy, giving jobs creation and economic growth the same priority that these issues receive from state and federal levels of government. Ultimately, that is what the city of Greater Geelong has to become: a government responsible for building the economy for the people of this region, just as the state is responsible for the economic management of Victoria and the federal government is responsible for managing the economy of our nation. For too long in Geelong economic development has been overshadowed at council levels by what many people would consider traditional council priorities such as planning and finance. I believe the priority of planning right now is strangling the city's potential to drive jobs growth. Economic development should sit as equal to finance and planning in the structure of the council. It is too easily swallowed up by other priorities. To be sure, planning absolutely matters. Indeed, good planning is fundamental to a strong economy. But the objectives of planning need to be balanced with the need for economic growth. The two should go hand in hand.
Too often in Geelong we see a triumph of planning over jobs. A good example of this is Heales Road, Lara, where planning proposals and financial priorities of council have overridden a unique opportunity to drive jobs growth. The Heales Road area is one of Australia's best stretches of development land. It is close to all major transport routes, including Avalon airport, Geelong port,the Princes Freeway and the National Rail line, but its process has been stymied by planning and finance decisions at a local government level. If the Heales Road development was seen through the prism of jobs creation, it would unlock the massive potential of this area to attract investment both nationally and internationally. That is why Councillor Keith Fagg's proposal for Enterprise Geelongis so important and I commend his vision.
Enterprise Geelong will recalibrate council's focus. Councillor Fagg understands jobs creation should be top of the council's agenda and economic development given the highest priority. It was a real pleasure to welcome the mayor to Canberra this week as part of Geelong's high-level delegation. The central event of this visit was theFed Cats dinner, a celebration in this building of what is the best run sporting club in this country.Fed Cats is also a celebration of the city from which the footy club draws its strength and sense of community. Geelong has a special knack of pulling together and getting on with the job, and our council now has the chance to back that with its own commitment to regional enterprise and economic development.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
It is indeed an honour and a pleasure for me to stand here in the Federation Chamber to talk about the report Netting the benefits, which is the culmination of a very significant inquiry on fisheries across and around this great nation of ours. The report quite appropriately refers to the fact that production from Australian commercial fisheries and aquaculture is small by comparison with other countries. The economic value of each sector is approximately $1.3 billion and $.9 billion per year respectively. Separately, the economic value of the recreational fishing sector is exceedingly difficult to quantify. It is very important to our great nation, with some estimates placing it between $4 billion and $5 billion annually. The Australian Fishing Trade Association's submission, which was part of the evidence taken in this wonderful report, suggests that the figure could be as high as $10 billion per year through direct expenditure associated with the activity of going fishing. As a recreational fisherman, I can attest to that. One of the great things about our wonderful country is that we as Australians have for decades been able to take our children down to the coast or into our river systems and participate in recreational fishing.
Sadly, some of the problems associated with our freshwater species has been as a result of introduced species such as carp. What we are trying to do scientifically to destroy that incursion of those pests such as carp and other tropical species has been centred around not only getting them out of the system and moving them away from endangering our native species but, more importantly, getting a byproduct from them that has been able to be used to fertilise food in other areas. That is what is happening with the Charlie Carp Fertiliser that uses the carp taken out of our system.
The report talked about the geographic size of Australian waters. It talked about wild fishery production being particularly low. The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation in its contribution to the committee summarised the situation when it said:
Australia's exclusive economic zone is the third-largest in the world, covering one-and-a-third times the area of Australia's land mass. However, the quantum of Australia's commercial wild catch ranks 60th in the world, representing only 0.2 per cent of world tonnage but 2 per cent by value. The size of catch of one species in some countries exceeds that of Australia's total production.
That is a classic example of the responsible way in which Australians, once again in an industry, look towards sustainable yields for harvesting. I do not think in the past that we have been given due credit for that. We certainly have not given due credit for that to the industry itself.
I mentioned this morning one of the classic examples of the industry understanding that its targeting of a particular species—in this case the kingfish, with the kingfish traps—was placing an enormous pressure on that species. To its credit, the government of the day took action on that. To its credit also, the industry complied with what was being asked of it and cut out the kingfish traps. We saw the kingfish species multiply rapidly in a very short period of time. That is indicative of the sensible and cooperative way in which commercial and recreational fishermen have approached a resource that we need to keep for future generations of Australians.
The committee also talked about the aquaculture sector. Australia's aquaculture sector has grown significantly in the past three decades, corresponding with a worldwide trend, noted by the CSIRO in its evidence when it said:
Seafood is a major contributor to global food security with the aquaculture sector continuing to be the fastest-growing animal food producing sector in the world. Aquaculture currently accounts for nearly half (46%) of the world's food fish consumption, compared with 33.8% in 2000.
So there has been a very significant contribution by scientists in the area of aquaculture. I make the point, which I also made earlier today, that there is an enormous potential, given the way in which our scientists have approached that particular part of the fishing industry, for Australia to export that expertise into those countries whose fish stocks are under enormous pressure.
The Tasmanian salmon aquaculture process, for example, is now the most valuable of all Australia's seafood sectors, with a farm gate value of $370 million. It just goes to show you that you do not have to be big to make a significant contribution to your country, as has been proven by the Taswegians. I compliment Tasmanians for that contribution.
The industry is based on a genetically healthy population of founder breeding stocks introduced from Canada in the mid-1960s. It mirrors a TV program that I watched the other night on the harvesting of tuna and the wonderful way in which the industry works to harvest and grow tuna, and supply an export market that is putting very severe demands and pressures on the tuna population around the world. We can also say that on the crustacean side of things, where the West Australians in particular have embarked upon a very serious breeding program for lobster. That has created a very significant export business for the industry there.
I go back to the point in relation to government's propensity to declare marine parks which is very concerning. We all want to protect our biodiversity and we all want to protect the environment, particularly in our oceans because they are under some pressure. But we have to be very, very careful that we do not go into an overkill process and wipe out a very lucrative business and, more importantly, one of the recreational pastimes Australians take for granted. Recreational fishing is a very common activity in Australia with potentially large impacts on the environment and economic activity, and recreational fishers recognise that. It is no coincidence that people like me are recreational fishermen. I practise the catch-and-release process that most recreational fishermen practise—I would say about 99 per cent of them.
During evidence-taking the committee learnt that recreational fishers—I do not like the term 'fishers' although that is the politically correct term we use today; I am a fisherman not a fisher, but unfortunately that is the environment we live in today—were becoming increasingly sophisticated in their approach. I know that because I am one of them. We use modern technology to locate fish and increase our vessel range. This poses a challenge for how recreational fishing is governed, but the technology can also be an opportunity to gather additional information on recreational fishing impacts. For example, fishing groups could encourage individual members to report information using phone applications or website based interfaces to capture data in real-time. That is actually happening in the process of recreational fishermen reporting to the companies that are putting out fishing magazines. It is also a very good source for scientists to tap into.
The recreational fishing industry is governed by a combination of state, territory and national environment legislation. The powers within the Fisheries Management Act have not been used to actively manage recreational fishing in Commonwealth waters to the extent where it is done professionally. That is one of the points that is part of the recommendations in the committee's report. There are also different standards and rules for licensing and data collection arrangements between Australian jurisdictions. Nothing has changed; we saw this in relation to the pest animal report. We go about independently doing things without talking to one another about how our expertise and our experiences can benefit the environment and biodiversity as a whole. Once again we have picked that up in the fishing industry, and I compliment the committee on doing so.
The committee believes that recreational fishing impacts on catches should be better understood and its contribution to the economy more accurately estimated. The last comprehensive national survey of recreational fishing was in the early 2000s. The committee has therefore recommended regular reporting on recreational fishing statistics, which I have alluded to, and this is one among a number of areas of national reporting the committee believes should be addressed, with several related recommendations made throughout this report. I compliment the chair for steering the committee in that direction. It is a very, very important part of protecting our fisheries and he needs to be complimented on that. Separately, COAG should discuss standardising recreational fishing licensing and rules should be agreed within a framework for data collection on recreational fishing activities to assist with national reporting—another very significant and pertinent recommendation by the committee.
In addition the current review of Commonwealth fisheries management legislation should consider whether the Fisheries Management Act needs to be revised to facilitate the Australian governments engaging more readily in regulation and data collection of recreational fishing in Commonwealth waters, a recommendation which precisely mirrors a recommendation we made, once again, in the pest animal report. They should not be put on shelves and left to collect dust like they have been doing for decades now. There is an enormous amount of science; there is an enormous amount of input from all levels of the Australian society into these reports, and this report is no exception. I commend it to the fishing industry; I commend it to Australians who have a genuine desire to protect our biodiversity within our waters, whether that be in the ocean or the inland rivers that cover this great country of ours. I thank the Parliament for the opportunity to say a few words about this particular responsible report: Netting the benefits.
by leave—I thank the honourable member for Hume for his good words and his good work in making sure that we got this report together; these things do not happen without a lot of work, a lot of putting-in and a lot of travel. Australia is at the cutting edge of global initiatives to meet the needs of a growing international population. Our nation's effort in developing innovative solutions, particularly in the sphere of sustainable fisheries management, is world renowned. I said that yesterday when tabling the report, and I think it is the highlight of where Australia is and we can certainly assist into the future, making sure that we help feed the world as we go to nine billion people by 2050.
Fish is the biggest traded protein in the world. I know you are probably a beef man, Mr Deputy Speaker, but fish outdoes you, and the ratio probably supports fish into the future. With the Asian century upon us, there will be a lot more fish eaten in our part of the world. Fishing is an activity of catching fish. It is an ancient practice dating back at least 40,000 years. Many species have come and gone depending on the climate and fishing habits of the time, but fish has thoroughly remained a part of our diet and will continue to into the future. There is evidence of the Basque people of Europe travelling across the Atlantic to the banks of Canada—catching those cod and taking them home to Europe from the 16th century. There have been a lot of people moving around the world., fishing for an awfully long time. Of course, we do that in a much more sophisticated way using technology we never used in the past. We need to do that sustainably and we need to do that without destroying the habitats where fish grow, come from and spend some of their life.
Aquaculture and the growing of fish in fish farms can substitute some of that protein; those processes help us meet the needs of the world. There are great opportunities for us to grow that industry in Australia. Indirect employment in the world, I understand, involves about 5 million people in the fishing industry. In 2005 a worldwide per capita of fish captured from wild fisheries was 14.4 kilos with an additional 7.4 kilos harvested from fish farms, a substantial amount of fish coming from different parts and different ways in the world. Australia is a small player globally, but fishing is still a vital part of our economy, and I am sure that if governments take up the recommendations of our report we can grow fishing even more into the future. One of our major recommendations is developing a national regional fishing policy statement for fisheries, aquaculture and recreational fishing which would allow the industry to start setting its goals for regional fishing agreements. There is a need for us to get a national overview of what we want to do with fishing and the fishing industry, and lay down some markers in that space, and then let the stakeholders have input into reaching those goals. I think we need to do that.
We have heard about statistics in fishing. We certainly do not have very good fishing statistics. ABARES have told the committee that this year they had to bring down a national report on the state of fishing in Australia. It will be very good to have that sort of report so that we can build on it. But, of course, in Australia, we need to have states and the Commonwealth working together to build that statistical base on the different species that we fish. We do not have very good statistics about aquaculture, the research that is going on or the investment in aquaculture. It would be better to have some of that as well.
There is also the issue of having the take from recreational fishing. The member for Hume mentioned this. This is becoming a much bigger issue. In Commonwealth waters, there are now very large boats of recreational fishermen that go out fishing—there might be fishing women as well—with a lot of technology on their boats, and there probably is not any record of what that take is being brought back. There may be some regulations within what can be taken but in a lot of times there would not be any records kept or recorded for future opportunities to use that in some scientific way. So we need to do that. How do we do that? Maybe some of the states have licences, therefore giving some income to be able to do some of that science work and to build knowledge in that space. We need to do that in Australia. We need to build on what is the take from recreational fishing. Whether we do that through licensing or other survey ways is up to people to work out, but there is an urgent need to do so.
The complexities of fishing in Australia need to be given some consideration. The committee has recommended that the Productivity Commission should look at this. State fishermen, or fisherwomen, may have state and federal licences; they may have to comply with regulations from both areas; quota is traded and sold; quota sometimes lies dormant for some years without being used. I do not know—and the committee could reach a conclusion on—whether the consumer of fish in Australia pays a price for that or not; whether we have an effective industry or whether we do not. That was one of the recommendations coming in relation to that.
The maritime park area was dealt with by our committee. The evidence we received was mixed, as one would expect. The overall issue was that the evidence we received was not of strong issues proving that you should not have maritime parks, but the committee came down with the proposition that we now need to make sure that we prove their worth. The monitoring and the science that is done over the next 10 years or so should bring us back some reporting on the pluses of having maritime parks—and some of the biggest maritime parks in the world. I am sure there will be a lot of work done in that space. The subject of the supertrawler became an issue while we were doing this report. That was a public debate that took place around Australia. Issues concerning guidelines for fishing and changing those guidelines because of public pressure became a discussion within the committee and we certainly gave consideration to that. However, it came back to things like a precautionary principle and trying to find certainty when you make decisions, which I do not think is possible. For some people, 'precaution' means doing nothing unless you have spent a billion dollars on science to prove that there will be no adverse reaction to what you are doing. It is really about making decisions about risk, and what risk assessment is. I write that down as letting kids climb trees or not letting kids climb trees. Kids climbing trees is probably good for the kids. If they go too high, that is a risk that you probably would not want to let them do—falling from too high would not serve them very well. So we have to make those sorts of judgements. We made recommendations in relation to getting some guidelines on what precaution means and that would be very good for people making decisions into the future.
We need to also make sure that we understand what climate change will do for fishing in Australia. We have some broader science in this area but we do not have a lot of good science on what would happen in some spaces if fish started to move because of current changes. That would certainly have a devastating effect on some communities and on the fishing industry. So we need to have work done in that space and we need to continue to look at that, gaining some preview of the future and what might happen with climate change.
Though we have some of the overall pictures, we certainly do not have them for different regions and issues like that. Our current efforts are not enough. The committee felt that having national reporting of fisheries information would be critical in order to make better decisions about where the fishing industry will go in the future. We need to build that base into the future.
This inquiry has been a good opportunity for us. I really enjoyed working on this committee. We were able to pull a lot of good information together. Because of the complexities of our Federation and the way we govern Australia, we should pull together state and Commonwealth decision makers to drive this forward. I hope that the states and the Commonwealth take up some of these recommendations to give us a direction into the future. There are great opportunities for Australia. Our sciences are so far advanced. We have very good people and good institutions. We just need to coordinate that better, not let it get siloed and make sure we work it in a direction in the interests of the nation. I am confident we can do that and I look forward to that occurring.
I rise to speak on this report, Netting the benefits, by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fishing and Forestry, that the Chair has so eloquently outlined. I give the Chair the tick for that particular heading because it was a hotly contested thing to talk about where we should start with this. Many people right across this country love fishing. I know I love to get out fishing—there is nothing better than a day of frustration when you can sit on the water, come home empty-handed or end up having to stop at the shop and get a steak on the way home! I am sure you, Deputy Speaker, as a keen fisherman probably have had similar experiences where you went home more frustrated than when you started out. The importance of fishing and our fisheries stocks can never be underestimated. The population across the world is growing. We know that fish products are a good source of protein for people. With more and more people eating fish because of the health benefits—and maybe I should eat more—it is important that we protect our fisheries and make sure that we capitalise on the world-class fisheries that we have, and develop our aquaculture because that will be the next phase for the fishing industry. Ocean stocks are being depleted due to a range factors. We have heard about climate change and the effects on weather patterns and water currents, and what that does for fish stocks right across the globe. A lot of the water currents start in the Northern Hemisphere and come all the way down to Tasmania, and with that they bring the recruitment stocks of smaller fish and crustaceans that grow, and that we fish.
In my previous life before the privilege of coming to this place, I worked in the Victorian government and my responsibilities related to fishing and how commercial and recreational fishers work with the resources we have. It is a situation of two goats head-butting, if you like, with competing interests for the resources available. A lot of times there is angst amongst both the recreational and the commercial fishers about where to go. Everyone would agree that we need to protect our fish stocks. We need to make sure that they are available for future generations, but we all like access to our fisheries. In my home state of Victoria, we have some wonderful fisheries: the scallop and tuna fisheries, and of course everyone enjoys a good feed of snapper. They are usually on the run magnificently up through Port Phillip Bay. It is not uncommon even for recreational fishers to get out there or to see a queue of 400 or 500 boats lining up to get out and enjoy a day's catch.
We have to make sure that we have the correct instruments in place to protect fish stocks. Most state waters where a lot of the recreational fishing is done is within the three-kilometre line from shore. Outside of that line are the Commonwealth waters. Unfortunately, fish are not like cattle and sheep in that you cannot put them in a pen. It is very hard to get fish to understand that they may be going from a Commonwealth water into a state water and vice versa. So we need to have guidelines and precautions in place, and we do that by working with the stakeholders, to ensure we have regional policy statements and regional rules in place that look after the fish stocks and that continue to ensure a great pastime for recreational fishers and, importantly, a livelihood for commercial fishers.
I have done a lot of work in the past with Seafood Industry Victoria with the Port Phillip Bay and Westernport Bay netters—all a very great bunch of people. We did not always agree on things and we did have some animated discussions. But we were able to work together to achieve an outcome to keep the resources available for future generations. That is important for them because it is their livelihood. I have always had a personal belief that you must not do something that takes away someone's livelihood, particularly when given that some of the commercial fishermen are second, third and fourth generation. Fishing is their lifeline and that is what they know, and they do it very well. By and large, commercial fishers are very, very cautious in what they do to make sure that bycatch is kept to a minimum. They do that by always improving their gear and their equipment, and always making sure that they do their best to stay within the rules. The rules cause a lot of conjecture, particularly if you look at states that have different size limits and different catch limits. That becomes a problem when you have licensees who run across state borders. For example, a rock lobster could have a five- or 10-millimetre difference in different states. States do that in those waters to make sure they protect their stocks for the future. With depletion of stock through overfishing and climate change, we have to look at the new generation, which is aquaculture.
Our aquaculture industry is very small in comparison to other places around the world. What I can say is that the quality of the product we produce is a hell of a lot better than other countries produce. The quality of things like our wild stock abalone and the blacklip and greenlip abalone are world's best. Nothing compares to those. Nor is there anything that compares to Red Legs lobsters. Anthony, who is a lobster fisherman in Victoria, has been working extremely hard to keep the markets in place in China and Asia where it is a high-dollar product. He and the other people involved in Seafood Industries Victoria have been pushing that along. They are doing the right thing by marketing the product for what it is. It is high quality and you expect to pay a little bit more for it, but you get a better product. That is important in a market where some countries around the world will go for the lowest dollar and try and shift their product as quickly as they can. Their fisheries then become depleted and it is a very short-term outlook for them. Five or 10 years down the track, they have nothing left to fish. Because our products are in clean water and they are of high quality, they should be treated as high quality and the fisheries should get a high dollar for them.
There has been a big shift in the industry over the years, moving from being price takers to price makers.
Opposition member interjecting—
I note what the member opposite said. I do recall a funny time when I went to the Seafood Industry Awards and got steak for dinner. I was pretty unhappy with that, but that is the story of my fishing ability! I missed out on some magnificent, locally-caught swordfish, which was sensational. That was at a time when we were doing some restructuring in the Victorian industry. It was a tough time for the fishermen involved. To their credit, they were always professional. Maria Manias, who looks after the Port Phillip and Westernport Bay fishers, is someone I now count as a friend. We started poles apart, but we got together and worked together. She is very concerned about the future of commercial fisheries. There have been some exceptionally terrible stories of commercial fishers in recent times. They have struggled to make a living, they do not have much of a future and a few of the fishermen took their own life because they saw no way forward. To their families and friends, I extend my greatest sympathies and hope that we can stop that from happening in the future.
We have an opportunity to grow aquaculture, learn from the science and the research, and create more of a product in an area where we have a few controls. By having crustaceans, gastropods and the like growing on land based areas, we have an opportunity to increase the Australian population's intake of fish products, keep our wild stocks for what they are and ensure that they are going to have a long-term future with the challenges that we face ahead.
One of the important things in the list of recommendations that we came to is having to take a national approach. The states, territories and the Commonwealth have to start working together to ensure that we get sustainability in our fisheries to make sure that there is an industry not only for this generation but for the next generation. Some of the recommendations talked about how we need to work together through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—PIMC, as it is known—to look at R&D in aquaculture and in commercial fisheries to see how we can work together and progress our fishing effort to the betterment of the industry and this country. We have seen a lot of changes in fishing practices over the years. The days of a couple of people on a boat with a few rods hanging out and maybe the odd cold can are long gone for fishers, particularly the professional commercial fishers. Now we have far better netting equipment and far better potting equipment. We also have access to better GPS fish finders and things you can use to specifically target species you are after. With the changes that we have seen over time, bigger boats and more nets, we have seen a lot of impact on fish stocks locally in set areas. This was brought to a head recently with the supertrawler that came in during this inquiry. We had quite a few people, particularly those in the industry, who were very upset about having a boat of that size with a net of that size and the capability of putting some pressure on local stocks in a very short time.
When we looked at it it was found—and Minister Burke and Minister Ludwig went through this—that the science that we rely on so heavily, because it is a science that lets us know where our stocks are, was not the best in the area of fishing when it comes to using a boat of that size and looking at the local impacts. Rightly the government said we need to put a moratorium on this and not allow this to happen while doing the science. We have to get the science right first. That is what we rely on both at the Commonwealth and at the state and territory levels when we talk about fish stocks, size limits, bag limits and these sorts of things. We rely on the science that looks at the climate, the weather and fishing impacts. We need to do that to make sure that we can keep this industry sustainable. If you think of a supertrawler-size boat coming through the bottom half of Victoria in tuna season, that is probably during one of the highest tourism benefits we get in some of the areas around Portland. If such boats came through and took out the tuna stocks, thousands and thousands of people who rely on that season for business, such as accommodation, tackle shops and the like, would see their businesses devastated. Can fish stocks sustain a boat of that size? Who knows. That is the question we cannot answer until we know that the science is right. We have been able to unearth a lot of these issues and start putting the science together.
Many people will not read this report, but they should read it to see how all sides of parliament worked closely to put this report together and get some recommendations out that are going to work. These recommendations are going to benefit our fish stocks from now into the future to make sure that when we develop our aquaculture and grow these things we will have lasting and sustainable fish stocks for both recreational and commercial fishing. It is important that we have our committees work in this bipartisan way to bring outcomes such as those listed in the recommendations in this report. These outcomes will benefit all Australians, so it is the right way to do things. I commend the chair for his great work in putting this together and keeping everything working. (Time expired)
I agree with a lot of what the member for McEwen said. I heard the member for McEwen talking about fishing in Port Phillip Bay and the great fishing done there. I say to the member for McEwen: you would not know fishing if you fell over it, mate. A friend of mine, Jason Collins, was fishing off the beach in Lucinda, which is just up the road from Townsville. He noticed out of the corner of his eye that there was a family watching him. He had picked up a beautiful winter whiting, put in three hooks and then put it back out there. The husband of the family came up and said, 'You know, mate, I wouldn't mind telling you that we'd have kept that.' And Jason said, 'We don't want that fish, mate. We want what's going to eat that fish.' Thirty-five minutes later he pulled that fish in and it had been sucked dry, gilled and scaled by something that was very, very big, and he did not catch the fish. That is the nature of the recreational fishermen—as the members opposite were saying—they are always prepared to catch the fish out there that is that big.
To get onto the subject of the science behind it. We are very, very lucky in North Queensland that we are surrounded by great scientific organisations. We have the Australian Institute of Marine Science which, although based just south of my electorate, most of what they do comes in through my electorate. If we are talking about the need for science in fishery and the need for science in our oceans, the Australian Institute of Marine Science should be receiving better funding. Under this government, they have received cuts to their operational funding. They have a boat that has been newly commissioned that is sitting at the wharf and cannot be used because the government has cut the operational funding to the Australian Institute of Marine Science. They have not got any extra money for the way the carbon tax will attack the fuel that is being used on the boat. That cuts back the actual science that can be used in what is one of the world's great fisheries.
The role of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, or AIMS, is to work as the honest broker in all things marine. I give you an example, the Montara spill that happened a few years ago. What happened before they drilled there was the Australian Institute of Marine Science were commissioned to do a baseline survey of the entire region. Once the spill happened, they were able to contain the spill and they cleaned up the spill. The Greens groups and everyone were jumping up and down about what was actually going wrong and how it was going to be devastated. The Australian Institute of Marine Science were able to go into the area and do the baseline research again, so that there is no damage. There was no damage to those areas. That is what using scientific research is all about—being able to do those things.
If I was to say anything to this parliament about science it is that across that entire Northwest shelf. If we commissioned the Australian Institute of Marine Science to act as an honest broker and do the proper baseline research there, you would find that before we start doing anything we would have the information that we need before anything happens. That is where the science should go. If we can get that research done before anything happens then you will discover it. I think you will find that companies like Woodside, BHP and Rio Tinto will be very much on the side with that, because no-one wants the bad results any more.
We also have James Cook University, which is a university that has proclaimed for life in the tropical world. If you are talking about fisheries and seaways, you are talking about the tropical realm, because you have places like Vietnam, the Philippines and every place like that where they are severely outfishing their resources. The research that we are doing at James Cook University with the ARC, under the experience and guidance of Dr Terry Hughes, is one of the most published areas of James Cook University. Our marine research out of JCU is second to none worldwide. If we can export that science to places where they can rebuild their fisheries, it would be a great thing for our world. You also have Dr Damian Burrows at JCU who specialises in freshwater research.
Everyone is going on about the north of Australia being the food bowl of the world, and how we need to expand it. But of all the river systems up there, we have actually quantitative baseline research on about 25 per cent of those. Before we start going into the expansion of agriculture, aquaculture, mining, farming and all those things in the north of Australia, we need to get that baseline research to find out what is actually out there. What are the dangers? What things do we risk? Then we can have the proper discussion. Those are the issues that we really have to address, and we have to come to the table with the realisation that we do need to invest in this. Blokes like Damian Burrows and Terry Hughes will be very upfront with you. They are very giving of their time to people like myself who do not—I put this in the nicest possible way for myself—have a science degree, regarding the way that they can explain things to me, the way that they take their time to sit me down and explain what are the risks. Also Mr John Gunn, and before him Dr Ian Poiner, at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, can explain things that way through to you.
We also have the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority based in Townsville. We have the challenges of having Magnetic Island, which is a suburb of Townsville—fully inhabited and one of the most beautiful places in the world—that is inside the marine park precinct. There are massive challenges that we have there. We have ferries coming in and out. There are massive challenges there that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority will always have to deal with. The way that they are able to interact with the general public is a credit to them and the way that the science must go. Dr Russell Reichelt, who was the previous head of the Australian Institute of Marine Science and is now in charge of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I have heard that just recently he has had his tenure extended. That is a very positive thing, because he is a very pragmatic man and across all the science.
One of the things that we must do, as a nation and as a parliament, is look to lead by example. Senator Bill Heffernan, one of our favourite people and a man known to stick to a point, was sitting in the Parliament House dining room. The fish in the dining room, if you have you ever been to north Queensland, is not that great here. It is labelled as barramundi. He asked the attendant at the time there where the barramundi was from. The attendant said, 'It is from the south coast.' Senator Heffernan said, 'South coast of where?' Senator Heffernan asked the attendant to go get the box. The fish had come from the south coast of Taiwan. We have a real problem when the parliament of Australia cannot even eat Australia fish. The fact that this is being labelled as barramundi in the nation's parliament gives the fish a bad rap. Barramundi is not the greatest fish in the world, but it is a fantastic fish because it keeps in your fridge for an awfully long time. If you Cryopac the fillets, they will last for an awfully long time. They will take on any flavour; they are beautiful fish for that. Mangrove jack, coral trout and those sorts of things are a little bit better eating.
Those are the challenges that we should be facing as a parliament. It should be realised that the greatest protector of all our seas and waterways, especially in north Queensland, is the weather. You will go eight to 10 weeks at a time where you will be not be able to get out the front at all. If it is blowing five to 10 knots, as the member for McEwen was saying before, you have got 400 people trying to get out. You will go out and have a fish. I have a friend of mine who moved up from Sydney; they moved up for the fishing. They got themselves a very good boat, a very big boat. In the 18 months that they have been in Townsville, they have been able to go out and fish eight times. In those times, never once have they achieved a bag limit. Even when you do get out there, if the moon is not right and if the tides are not right, you will not get the run you want. The weather is the biggest protector of everything when it comes to fishing in north Queensland.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority established green zones. They were very unpopular at the time and they were established by the Howard government. More important was the way that they were established. The Howard government went out to the fishers of north Queensland and said, 'We are just doing research out there.' We got everyone to come in and say where they fished. Where they fished was pretty much where the green zones went. You will have fishermen now tell you bluntly until they are blue in the face that they will never, ever share that information with anyone ever again from an official point of view. What north Queenslanders will tell you, though, is that the green zones are successful, that the green zones have been able to get that breeding stock up and the migratory species will move off those reefs.
We have yellow zones. For those people who do not understand what a yellow zone is, it is one line, one hook and one angler. If you have four people on your boat, you are allowed four rods or Alvey reels and four hooks. You can fish as much as you want until you get to the bag limit there, but you cannot do multiple lines. You cannot drag those things there and you have serious bag limits.
The perception that north Queenslanders fight all the time is that we are abusers of our environment. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is about to launch the Sea Country Guardians. No-one understands that North Queenslanders do care about their environment. We are not throwing sticks of gelignite over the bow of the ship or the boat to catch fish. It is the North Queenslanders who set the size and bag limits. You cannot take home a barramundi under 58 centimetres. You cannot take it home over 120 centimetres. The reason for that is we are guided by the science. The barramundi is a hermaphrodite and at 120 centimetres and will change sex to a female. It will drop its eggs once they get to that age where they are over 120 centimetres. That is the key: putting them back at over 120 centimetres. They are also great catching over that. My record is 110 centimetres, but I have been in a boat when we pulled in on that was 134 centimetres. You could almost get your head inside its mouth. It was a massive fish. We put it back in the water and went from there.
The most caught species in North Queensland is the mud crab. It was the Queenslanders who brought in that you cannot catch jennies, you cannot catch the females, because they are the egg layers. In the Northern Territory, you can still eat jennies. They say they are supposed to be very tasty. I have never had one. To get a mud crab you must have a basic size and you do get billed quite severely if you do not do that.
In relation to the Protect Our Coral Sea campaign, I bitterly opposed to the way Minister Burke has run this campaign. The draft plan that has come out. We campaigned very hard in 2010 to say that a vote for Labor was a vote to close down the Coral Sea, and that has been proved correct. Political expediency and the populist politics have gone hand in hand with this campaign. The research by the Pew Foundation saw them in North Queensland for nearly two or three days. They did not speak to anyone from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, they did not speak to anyone of any academic qualification at Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and they spent about an hour and a half with the people of James Cook University. That is what we have based this thing on. I held a fishing forum of the recreational fishing public on this that passed a series of resolutions:
Recreational fishing is a lifestyle issue for north Queensland. It is a right that should be protected.
Science should be the guide to the establishment of a marine reserve off the north coast of Australia. If a marine park is designated—
without using the science—
that decision should be overturned by subsequent government until Australian scientific case for closure can be made.
Artificial reefs should be established in yellow zones.
The resolution even went as far as saying we would not even bother anchoring to protect it even further. The further resolutions state:
A science based review of green zones should be undertaken—
including the recreational and commercial fishermen, to make sure that they are exactly what they are and that we have that quantifiable research from the fishing public. Finally:
Work needs to be done to change the negative perception of North Queensland fishers.
Those are the key issues for us. Those are the issues that Richard Colbeck, the shadow parliamentary secretary for agriculture, fisheries and forestry,has told me that he will work for. Those are the issues that I will continue to fight for. These are the things that we need to do. We should use science in everything we do.
We have a problem with the Murray-Darling Basin because we did not use the science when it was set up in the 1800s. The science was not available. The science is available now. We must use it. We must be prepared to abide by it and we cannot be risking people's lifestyles and people's jobs. Already GetUp!is asking for more closures of the Coral Sea. They are asking for extensions to it. I think that is wrong that they are using those sorts of things and getting people in Sydney and Melbourne to sign up for these campaigns when they have no knowledge of what is actually going on there. I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
I think it is really appropriate that this report follows the previous report looking at the role of science for fisheries and aquaculture, because the report that we have before us today which is looking at biodiversity and climate change actually links into that science. The committee did this in Northern Queensland, and I will touch on that a little bit later in my contribution to this debate. This report looks at biodiversity and climate change and looks at it in relation to ecosystems. One of those ecosystems is terrestrial, marine and freshwater biodiversity, and that very much links into the science. It looks at connectivity between ecosystems and biodiversity loss from the impact of human communities, enhancing climate change adaption, sustainable use of natural resources, ecosystems and the adequate current governance arrangements and enhanced community engagement. This particular report deals with the committee's visits to Victoria, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Northern Queensland.
When the committee visited Victoria, we visited various sites in and around Melbourne and we also visited the Melbourne Museum. Some very significant submissions and evidence taken by the committee were from BirdLife Australia. They highlighted the importance and impact that climate change was having on bird life in that state. The committee also visited the history museum and looked at the importance of that museum in collecting and disseminating information. We had representatives from the Melbourne Museum and BirdLife Australia, and they talked about the collaboration and cooperation that takes place between them and other organisations. It was great to see the way children and families actively engaged in interaction within the Melbourne Museum when looking at biodiversity related exhibitions. It was very pleasing to note that the awareness of biodiversity and climate change among those young people was very impressive.
One of the most important and impressive aspects of out visit there was when we met and learnt about citizen science and how it is working to increase local expertise. It has amateur scientists within the broader community feeding back into those more recognised scientific institutions. It gave the committee a lot of insight into the way you can adopt a best-practice approach to collecting information involving the community and how that contributes to the overall body of scientific information. BirdLife Australia have played an enormous and very important role. They have several projects to help improve the resilience of bird populations and help them adapt to climate change. One is Shorebirds 2020. This is a project to raise community awareness of the importance of tidal ecosystems and it seeks protection for those shorebirds because climate change does have an impact on them. Woodland Birds for Biodiversity looks at improving on-the-ground management and protection of woodland habitats. Beach-Nesting Birds focuses on the improved management of beach nesting with climate change and rising sea levels. We were able to see these impacts when the committee visited those areas. So there is a range of existing stressors that impact on birds and their habitats. One of those stressors is climate change. It made the committee realise the complexities that are associated with conserving birdlife, particularly shore birdlife. The committee decided that we would expect even greater challenges in relation to bird species, considering the impact that climate change is having.
The next area that the committee visited was South Australia. As members know—including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, being a South Australian—it is the driest inhabited part of the continent. We looked at the impact on the Coorong and the Lower Lakes in the Murray mouth region. One of the really outstanding inspections that the committee made was at the mouth of the Murray. We visited the communities that had been very badly affected by the drought, climate change and all the other issues around the Murray-Darling area. We saw the changes that have taken place in the area. It was very impressive to see the way the community had worked together and the initiatives that had been taken to address some of the catastrophic problems they have in the area. I am very pleased to see the legislation before the parliament this week. It is very important legislation to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We also visited the Greenfields Wetlands in the city of Salisbury. We saw some of the initiatives that they had put in place at the Salisbury wetland. We looked at the benefits of the wetland, including the frogs, the froglets and the little wetland creatures. The committee received documents on the management of mosquitoes, stormwater treatment, harvesting stormwater and monitoring water quality. That gave us an insight into the groundbreaking project that Salisbury council had implemented in that area. We learnt about the social and cultural impacts and the need to have functioning wetlands and functioning river systems. The inspections in South Australia focused on freshwater biodiversity and underlined the impacts that diversity has in that region. It was time very well spent.
The committee then visited Kakadu in the Northern Territory. All members know the importance of the wetlands in Kakadu. It is a nationally important ecosystem. The committee was lucky to look at those iconic wetlands. We saw high biodiversity and the national value of those wetlands. The landforms and habitats in the park included sandstone plateaus, escarpments, extensive areas of savanna woodland, open forest, floodplains, mangroves, tidal mudflats, and coastal and monsoon forest areas. It is such diverse area with a series of very complex issues to confront to ensure that it maintains its current resilience and is able to fight the impact of climate change along with all those other issues that are having an impact on the park.
I think it is important that I mention the impact that invasive weeds have across all areas and the impact of invasive weeds that are associated with climate change. Weeds that would not have existed in some areas previously now flourish due to the impact of climate change.
When we were at Kakadu, the managers of the park highlighted the need for a dynamic specific ecosystem. The particular relationship that exists in Kakadu with its joint ownership also creates some challenges. But I believe that it really adds to the special aspects of Kakadu. Following that, the committee went to North Queensland and visited Townsville. We looked at the vulnerability of marine and coral ecosystems. It was interesting to hear the last debate because it was about science and fishing. One of the things that was really highlighted to the committee was how climate change is having a big impact in that area. You can look at the impact on coral, you can look at the impact on fishing and you can look at the impact on the wet tropics. All the information that the committee received highlighted that climate change is impacting on the biodiversity of that region. We looked at invasive species and how they are leading to species decline. I touched on that briefly a moment ago when I mentioned invasive weeds. We saw that there has been a spread of myrtle rust. That is a great concern in the wet tropics, as it is in other areas of Australia.
Throughout North Queensland the committee heard about current and future effects that increased temperatures and levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will have on the local ecosystems. We also looked at ocean acidification and the impact that that will have on the reef's ecosystem. We met with the university and the reef authority. There are a number of concerns in that area that show that we really need to take action to ensure the long-term sustainability of biodiversity in that very important area.
Both Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef are iconic areas in Australia. They are areas that we as a nation need to ensure are protected. We need to ensure that the biodiversity of those areas is protected. That can only happen if we take action now and look at addressing the impact that climate change has on biodiversity.
I conclude by saying that this is a very, very important report. This is something that goes to the iconic nature of Australia, which is something that we as a nation need to protect. The last thing I would like to mention is that the committee also received evidence from people about the changes to the EPBC Act and the need to make sure that any change does not impact on our biodiversity. I commend the report to the House.
I want to report on two of the visits which the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts undertook. The first one, which has been commented on by the member for Shortland, was the visit to the greenfields wetlands in Adelaide. The City of Salisbury is located on the northern fringes of Adelaide. With approximately 130,000 residents it is the second-largest local government community in South Australia. It has experienced rapid residential and commercial growth and it is South Australia's most productive manufacturing region. The city has established a stormwater recycling program that provides business and community customers with non-potable water. This has contributed to reducing Adelaide's overall reliance on the River Murray to meet its water requirements and delivered biodiversity benefits for the area and for the adjacent marine ecosystems.
The committee inspected the wetlands on 17 May this year. We saw that it is one of over 50 constructed wetlands that help the city to manage its water supply and improve water quality. We received a briefing from Colin Pittman, the General Manager of City Projects at the City of Salisbury. The wetlands are located approximately one kilometre inland from the sea on a site that previously consisted of hypersaline soils. The area is slightly below high tide level, which historically made industrial and residential development in the area problematic. Overdrawing from aquifers in the area had resulted in depleted reserves, risking saltwater intrusion into the aquifers.
The city's stormwater recycling program involved the construction of wetlands. The urban stormwater run-off is treated in these wetlands through a range of natural processes: filtering of larger particles by riparian vegetation; aquatic plants and animals absorbing nutrients and organic matter; the effect of sunlight and oxygen on bacteria; and suspended clay particles settling on the bottom of the wetland. As a consequence the greenfields wetlands are able to remove approximately 90 per cent of pollutants and nutrients within a 24-hour period. This treated stormwater is then either distributed throughout the city to government or industrial consumers for irrigation and non-potable commercial use or stored in depleted underground aquifers during the wet season for later use during the dry season.
It was very interesting to note that during the drought in South Australia, which impacted on many of us, the City of Salisbury not only had enough water to meet all its municipal needs but was able to sell water to industrial customers. I thought it was a terrific project. As well as this, you still have the situation of a lot of stormwater run-off being discharged into Gulf St Vincent. The City of Salisbury has adopted a policy to clean all the stormwater run-off before it is released into Barker Inlet, which is an estuary of Gulf St Vincent. So they are able to clean up any of the stormwater before it does in fact go into Barker Inlet.
The committee noticed that urban stormwater, which has traditionally been regarded as something of a problem, can be harnessed and managed through constructed wetlands, and therefore you get the sustainable use of water resources, enhanced urban design, biodiversity benefits and so on. It really was a great project. I particularly want to commend the member for Makin because, in his previous local government life, he was one of the architects of this project. I think it really is a model for other councils, potentially right around Australia, to pick up how you can use stormwater better and harness it to your own advantage.
The other visit the committee undertook was to Westernport Bay, in my home state of Victoria. Westernport Bay is home to many migratory shorebirds, including the red-necked stint, the eastern curlew, the curlew sandpiper, the great knot and the red knot. These birds undertake remarkable journeys, as many members would be aware. They breed in the Arctic during the northern summer and then migrate up to 12,000 kilometres to spend the non-breeding season in Australia's intertidal wetlands. Over a 30-year period volunteers have been collecting data around Westernport Bay about these species. It is a matter of regret that nearly all the migratory shorebird species have been declining in numbers. The committee was informed that the species that have seen particularly dramatic declines include the eastern curlew, the curlew sandpiper and the red knot.
The major route taken by these birds during their migration from the Arctic to southern Australia is known as the East Asian-Australasian flyway. The problem appears not to be changes to their habitat in Australia but the question of the weakest link in the chain. The loss of habitat in East Asia and South-East Asia appears to be the primary cause of the declines in our migratory shorebird numbers. Tidal mudflats around the Yellow Sea are key stopover sites for many birds on the East Asian-Australasian flyway. If they do not have access to adequate food sources along the journey, they are simply not able to travel the distances required.
The committee heard that between 50 and 60 per cent of the total zone around the Yellow Sea has been reclaimed, and BirdLife Australia provided examples of recent large-scale industrial developments on sites which were once important feeding grounds. Australia does have bilateral agreements in place with the governments of Japan, China and the Republic of Korea for the protection of migratory birds but the evidence suggests that the agreements have not been effective in preventing the destruction of key stopover habitats. The committee noted concerns about the adequacy of international agreements for the protection of these habitats and intends to consider this matter carefully in the context of its inquiry.
That is very helpful from my point of view. I welcome the committee's consideration of this issue because, amongst other things, some of the bodies who do the best work in this area—Wetlands International and BirdLife Australia—have written to me in my capacity as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties pointing out that we are experiencing these declines in migratory birds as a result of the reclamation of land in South Korea and the Yellow Sea and so on. They are seeking that the Treaties Committee become involved in this issue. Much as I would like the Treaties Committee to be involved in this issue, to date our workload commitments have prevented us from getting involved in this issue in the way that I would like. So I am very pleased to note that the standing committee on climate change does intend to do further work in this area.
There is no doubt that it is a serious problem. Something like 45 per cent of the world's population lives in the geographic area covered by the East Asian-Australasian flyway. This has given rise to escalating pressure and adverse impacts on the migratory waterbirds. There are 17 species listed as in decline and five species listed as threatened. The loss and declining condition of habitat is a consequence of impacts from pollution; increasing expansion of industrial and port facility development; oil production; agriculture; agriculture and fishing operations; urban growth; and direct competition between people and birds for the tidal flat marine resources. All those things are factors contributing to the disturbing trend of waterbird population decline.
As these bodies have pointed out, economic development pressure in many flyway countries does not take into account biodiversity considerations or the importance of conservation of priority habitat for a wide variety of species. So I welcome the indications from the committee on climate change that it intends to do more work in this area, and I look forward to its further report. I commend the current report to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak today on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment on Workplace bullying: we just want it to stop. As a member of the committee, I will make some brief comments on it and note that the chair of that committee is also in the chamber at the moment, having just stepped down as the acting deputy speaker.
This was an important inquiry dealing with a very sensitive and important topic. The prevalence of workplace bullying is not known—there is no statistical data to assess exactly how prevalent it is. Regardless of the precise number, we know that it is too prevalent. We know that it does occur and that it occurs too often in too many work places and that more needs to be done to stamp it out. We also know that it can have very serious consequences for the individuals concerned. For many individuals, being the subject of persistent workplace bullying can be completely debilitating for them and their families, affecting their social life and their general wellbeing.
I will quote just one of the people who explained their situation to the committee. One woman said:
As a result of my combined two experiences I have given up my career as a research scientist. I am too afraid to go back and put myself in those situations again. I used to think of myself as a strong and resilient person but the stress that was caused by my situation, the fear of losing my job and my career, had an extreme impact on me. I never expected to become a target of bullying.
There were many other examples of people who came before the committee to talk about their situation and the impact that it had on them, their broader life and sometimes their family.
Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, I am a member from Victoria. We are very aware of an absolutely tragic case in Victoria of workplace bullying. It concerned Brodie Panlock. She was a 19-year-old woman who suffered sustained ongoing bullying at a cafe in Hawthorn, Melbourne, and tragically she took her own life as a result of that bullying. That case is a very sad one, but it has brought to the fore, in Victoria at least and in part around Australia, the seriousness of this type of behaviour—that someone can take their life as a result of bullying which occurs in the workplace. I commend Mr Baillieu, the Premier in Victoria, for taking very strong action in response to that by putting in place what is now known as 'Brodie's law'. It applies in Victoria and leads to far more serious penalties applying to individuals who bully people on an ongoing basis. That is the seriousness of the matter.
The other contextual element is that it is a very difficult subject matter to regulate against. We say that because in some respects workplace bullying can be defined differently by different people and it often has a subjective element to it. In that regard it is different to other workplace safety issues. In the committee we often heard the analogy of not having proper regulations for workplace bullying being like not having a safeguard on a machine. In some respects it is not the right analogy, because, whereas you can easily see that a safeguard is not in place and easily see that that lack of safeguard has caused an injury, it is more difficult in relation to workplace bullying, where often the bullying may occur without any witnesses—it may be things that are said from one person to another. In some instances, what one person says may be seen by some as an ordinary managerial disciplinary action but by others as bullying. That is the contextual difficulty of this subject matter. Many of the employer organisations raised that contextual difficulty in that inquiry.
The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce was one such organisation. It said:
It is a common experience for VACC members that employees claim to have been bullied when they have actually been either disciplined or just asked to get on with their work. One VACC member reported an employee in tears because he had been asked to stop distracting other workers and return to his workstation. The worker complained to the human resources manager that he had been bullied.
This is the difficult contextual element of this topic. Yes, it is deadly serious. Bullying should not occur anywhere, but it is exceptionally difficult to define in regulations. That is the difficult contextual element that we had to deal with as a committee in proposing our recommendations.
Within that context, however, there was a lot of goodwill within the committee to try to come together and present a unified report. In many instances, the committee has come to agreement. There are many recommendations that the coalition members and the Labor members all agree on. Some of that agreement was around, for example, the general discussion about the seriousness of the topic and the need to do more. The committee was concerned about the need for national definitions and codes of practice so that we can all have greater clarity about what bullying actually is so that employers and employees can have some sensible guidelines to adhere to. We all agreed that there is a need for greater services for both employers and employees so that they can get assistance and share best practice. We all agreed that we need better educational materials for employees and employers—particularly for employers—so that best practices can be shared across enterprises, and particularly for smaller enterprises which are already dealing with so many other issues in their workplaces. We also agreed on the need for accredited training programs in this particular field.
The coalition members are broadly in agreement with the government members on many if not most of the recommendations. We do have some disagreements. Some of them are quite significant. I would like to flag those. We disagree not because we think the topic is any less serious; to the contrary, we share the government's view that this is a very serious topic that can have deadly consequences. But the coalition members on the committee fundamentally believe that the best way to address workplace bullying is not to introduce inflexible compliance regimes but to create circumstances in which employers see the compliance regimes and the regulations as a way to improve their overall organisation, giving them some flexibility to adapt and share best practices. That will give them a direct interest in improving their practices.
Our concern is that, if we are overly prescriptive, smaller organisations particularly will see this as a box-ticking exercise rather than a genuine need to try to address this serious issue in their workforce. We had submissions and evidence in relation to this. If it becomes overly burdensome and is added to all of the other regulations that businesses have to deal with, it becomes a box-ticking exercise rather than something that they should be seriously concerned about for the productivity of their business. That is, if you like, one of the philosophical differences that we had with the government members.
There were also several recommendations that we did not precisely agree on with the government members. One of them concerned the immediate support for the draft code of practice that was put forward. We support the concept of having a code of practice and defining more clearly for employers and employees what bullying means. We are concerned, however, that we do not endorse the draft code of practice before it is finalised with the state and territory governments. We are particularly concerned because the draft code of practice seems to contain some elements that do not make sense, in our view. I point out some of them for example. The draft code of practice, which is public, lists not providing enough work as a form of indirect bullying, along with setting time lines that are difficult to achieve. The draft code also lists eye-rolling responses that might diminish a person's dignity as a form of possible bullying.
Some of these, we think, are very subjective in their nature. If we are starting to suggest that, if someone rolls their eyes in a workplace, it constitutes bullying, I think we need to seriously examine that. We do not want to create a situation where workers see someone rolling their eyes and immediately run off to the regulator to put in a bullying claim. I think that diminishes the seriousness of real bullying that does occur in the workplace. So, again, we are in favour of a code of practice; we believe that we need one; but we do not think the current draft is right and we think that we need to have it properly fixed before we give it this parliament's formal endorsement.
There were some other recommendations which we have some disagreements with. Many are quibbles rather than direct disagreements. They concern the establishment of new bureaucracies where we think that, arguably, we do not need a new bureaucracy but that particular function could be done inside an existing bureaucracy such as Fair Work Australia or one of the employer organisations. So we express our concern about those matters in our dissenting report.
With recommendation 10 we had some concerns about how you go about promoting the economic benefits and positive working experience of having a workplace which is free from bullying. Again, the intent is good, but the detail of the recommendation says that this should be done through the new Centre for Workplace Leadership, which we had some concerns about. We think this is potentially a $12 million white elephant, so we do not think recommending that this centre does that is the right way to go; rather, employer organisations, the ones that are dealing with businesses on a daily basis, are the ones that should be doing it. So we make some suggestions in our dissenting report which we think would improve those recommendations.
In closing, I would like to reiterate the seriousness of this matter. While the coalition have not agreed with every recommendation of the government in this report, we do not for a moment think that the topic is any less serious than do government members. We have a slightly different philosophical approach to tackling the issue and we want to ensure that, where possible, government bureaucracy is minimised and businesses can be as free as possible to get on with their job. But, ultimately, we do want to see better workforce practices where people can be free of bullying. We need to stamp it out and we think the approach that we have outlined is the better way to go about it.
I rise to speak on what I consider will be one of the very important pieces of work undertaken by any committee in this parliament, this 43rd Parliament. I want to acknowledge the vision, the understanding and the leadership of the minister for bringing this matter to our committee to work on. I particularly want to acknowledge the leadership, the dedication, the determination and the compassion of the member for Kingston, who is the chair, and did an outstanding job in hearing, with great compassion, stories of incredible sadness about people had been impacted by bullying. In this speech, I want, as much possible, to give voice in Hansard to the voices that we heard as were undertaking this work around the country.
To commence with, I would like to put on the record a comment that came from a person with the initials CP, who said:
For those who have not personally experienced bullying or victimisation in the workplace, the health consequences can sometimes be difficult to appreciate. The reality is that for almost all of us, our work is the primary source of our income and consequently the linchpin sustaining most of our aspirations as well as the things we enjoy in our everyday lives. When we are personally denigrated in the workplace on a systematic basis and our key source of income is threatened, the consequences can be devastating. Like a cancer, the experience can seep into every facet of ones life and cause ongoing problems including anxiety, frustration, depressed mood, and difficulty relating to other people in a normal way. The primary cause of the problem is the power imbalance between the bully and the victim, with the latter typically feeling powerless to do anything about the behaviour due to reliance on the income from his or her job, or perhaps a desire for a favourable reference.
Now that is a pretty good explanation of the challenge that really faces people. Power and the inequality and the corrupting potential of power, are at the heart of this inquiry. It is time that we addressed this concern. There is an incredible cost. The cost in human life is the one I want to prioritise first.
In my speech today, I want to acknowledge the contribution of Damian and Rae Panlock, who spoke so eloquently and acted so passionately to make sure that we understand what happened when they lost their beautiful daughter, Brodie Panlock, when she was unable to manage the power that was being used against her in the workplace as a 19-year-old waitress and to put Mrs Panlock'swords on the record here today. Speaking to us in Melbourne, of Brodie she said:
She was a very strong person. I think I have said it a few times, but she used to soldier on and get over whatever was going on, but the impact was too much. It was not just one person it was four men, the owner and three individuals. They just kept on pursuing her. This is the other thing, that people who worked there, other than these men, did try but they did not try enough. A lot of them said it in the court case, they just wished they had done more.
This is an opportunity for us as a parliament to begin to make recommendations that will bring about changes where we all can do more. We have just had White Ribbon Day, which I notice has been warmly embraced by members of this House and out in the community, where we talk about the prevention of violence. Bullying is a form of violence in its own way, and we need to do the same sorts of things about bullying in the workplace that we are proposing to do in the prevention of domestic violence. We need to say we cannot accept it, we will not tolerate it and we will not sit silently watching it and allowing it to go on. How prevalent is this? According to the assistant commissioner of the Productivity Commission, it is probably higher than 15 per cent. Indeed Professor Maryam Omari said that we are not really capturing the full rate of workplace bullying. She estimated that it could be more than 22 per cent to 33 per cent. What does it cost us, apart from the loss of life of people who were unable to face going to work and tragically took their own life, as Brodie Panlock did? The practical costs to the economy are really very significant. The Productivity Commission estimated that workplace bullying costs the Australian economy between $6 billion and $36 billion every year. Let's say that slowly, because we say those numbers and they disappear into the ether: according to the Productivity Commission, the cost is somewhere between $6 billion and $36 billion. When I spoke to a school group recently and mentioned those numbers, I was asked a very incisive question by a 16- or 17-year-old young man from St Edward's College at East Gosford: 'How come you don't know what the cost is? How can there be such a variance between $6 billion and $36 billion?' That points to another issue: bullying has not been on our radar to a sufficient degree so that we have powerful and accurate data about what the cost is. Even if it is at the lower end, at $6 billion, it has a very significant impact on the Australian economy.
Before I address a number of items in each of the chapters, I want to respond to some of the things that the member for Aston said. Sadly, we were unable to reach complete agreement on this report, despite the fact that the committee worked very well together. I was disappointed in the end that there were dissenting remarks. The member for Aston said that it is easy to see what is wrong with a physical problem in a workplace and it is hard to see what is wrong with bullying in a workplace. I would argue that it is hard to see if you are not looking. The reality is that a lot of people have been turning a blind eye to the impact of bullying at the workplace for far too long.
The member for Aston made the point that he fears inflexible compliance regimes. I absolutely agree that businesses that understand the power of having an enabled, healthy and sustainable workplace—where people go every day and know they will go home feeling at least as well as they did when they got to work and their workplace will not have caused them incredible distress of the kind that I have already put on the record this morning—have a great success model and will be already attending to many of the issues that have been highlighted in this report. Sadly, as we have found with OH&S laws that deal with practical unsafe workplaces, there are employers who will exploit every last drop of sweat and tears, and sadly in some cases blood, from their workers because they just do not see them as people; they see them as units of labour. It is for those employers—thankfully, fewer in number than the great employers across most of the nation—that we do need strong legislation, as I hope will be recommended as a consequence of the inquiry and the report that has been tabled in parliament.
Each of the chapters, in the way in which this report has been constructed, commences with a few statements from key people who gave evidence to the committee. In the time remaining, I will put some of those on the record because I think they give a flavour of what the committee understood and what this report contains. The first chapter is entitled 'Workplace bullying: we just want it to stop'. From a person with the initials SF, we heard:
Bullying undermines the victim's deepest sense of self, of who they are. As adults we think we have figured out who we are, and so to have that completely undermined and stripped away is utterly crippling and that is why it is so destructive.
That is a very powerful voice that could not be more eloquent in explaining why bullying in the workplace must stop. Where it is prevalent, it needs to be addressed, identified and given an appropriate response, if necessary by the force of legislation, because there will be people who can be recalcitrant. Chapter 2 addresses the legislative and regulatory frameworks. Sadly, as was put here by Diversity Council Australia, workplace bullying is an issue that is poorly understood in the community. The variety of approaches and definitions in different jurisdictions makes it difficult for individual employers and workers to understand their rights and responsibilities. Further, the overlap of the distinction between workplace bullying, employment law and unlawful discrimination adds to that complexity. Several of the recommendations are to do with the complexity of the legislative framework as it currently stands and really are a call to make changes to make it simpler and clearer that workplace bullying is a workplace issue that must be addressed and can be addressed in a fairly simple way by attending to the legislative instruments.
Chapter 3, From legislation to implementation, commences with a comment from one of our most amazing witnesses, Dr Carlo Caponecchia, who said:
[Workplace bullying] is a systemic problem. It is about individuals in work systems rather than just an interpersonal relationship. That is a big misconception in this area.
It disappoints me to hear some of the comments this morning that this is really just about communication problems. There are problems that are much bigger than that, and Dr Caponecchia's evidence to the committee explained that quite significantly.
I also want to put on the record the sense that I have that in a time of performativity we indicate what matters to us by what it is that we measure. If we are going to have a look at workplace bullying we really need to think about that becoming a part of the measurement in HR, rather than having the whole thing hobbled together in some sort of general statement of performance. We need to look at what is happening with bullying and we need to identify that workplaces that are low in bullying are more productive, and that we measure that, because it is an advantage to the economy and it is certainly an advantage to the people who can avoid bullying.
Chapter 4, entitled Workplace cultures, starts to get to the heart of that issue. From Ms Michele Grow, director of Davidson Trahaire Corpsych, we have the comment:
A healthy and respectful culture is a critical part of the solution.
That is, it is the solution to dealing with bullying. Also, from the National Network of Working Women's Centres we have the comment:
Policies and procedures on their own do not prevent or address bullying. Appropriate leadership that demonstrates skills and confidence in addressing this issue are also required. High level commitment to making positive changes has a big influence on the culture of workplaces.
Just this morning I noticed Elizabeth Broderick on the television speaking in response to White Ribbon Day on what overlaps with this issue: calling for employers to be part of a whole, community-wide response to domestic violence. Workplaces that prevent bullying in the workplace can also be places that provide an understanding for women who work there and how they can access services if they find themselves in a domestic violence situation. It is a matter of really understanding that the whole health of the people who work with you can be enhanced by providing a spot for them to have a bag, or by providing an escape place for them if they need to get away from a difficult situation at home. There should also be workplace bullying responses that allow people who are also feeling conflict from home to bring that to their workplace and get some assistance if they ask for it. To look after the mental health of our workers is also a productivity asset for the country.
Chapter 5, entitled Enhancing tools for the prevention and resolution of workplace bullying, really lays down some territory in terms of what can change. We have to think about prevention, not just reaction. Certainly, reaction is important, but it is prevention that is going to give us the best life outcomes as well as the best business outcomes.
From Mr Michael Maloney we have the comment:
The only way I can see us overcoming [bullying at work] is really for employers to have more tools at their side.
This chapter explains a number of tools where, as Carlo Caponecchia and Anne Wyatt said:
Moving beyond workplace bullying ensures that work is not just balanced with life, but enriches and fulfils it.
For those of us who have had great jobs—including, for me, the one that I hold right now and my former career as a teacher—having a great job and working with great people enhances our lives. It makes for a better country all around.
The final chapter, No. 6, deals with enforcement and remedies. These are important indicators of work that needs to be done. I commend the report Workplace bullying: we just want it to stop to the House.
Debate adjourned.
On many occasions over the past three years, I have visited local schools and shopping centres, hosted street stalls, listening posts and gone doorknocking up and down the streets of Bennelong, speaking to people that I am employed to serve and represent. While new technologies and social media may have given us the opportunity to communicate to larger audiences with greater ease, it is through this direct interaction that we can have real conversations and real communication with our constituents.
Over recent months, I have been busy promoting my Bennelong village business initiative, which I launched two weeks ago at the North Epping Festival. This is a campaign to promote the benefits on offer to residents at their local shopping villages, and to encourage them to make the most of the personal service and high-quality products available. This initiative arose out of a constant stream of feedback from local small business owners that they were suffering under some of the most difficult economic conditions, with the gap between the two speeds in our nation's economy growing wider by the day. I did note in question time yesterday the Minister for Small Business was crowing about the wonderful conditions being enjoyed by small businesses. It may be time for the minister to hold street stalls of his own to talk to the local butcher shop or hardware store and inquire to their own experiences on the ground.
Another major issue raised across the electorate from pensioners to young parents, from business owners to apprentices is the cost of living—in particular, electricity prices that are really hurting the average Australian. Electricity is an essential service. It is all well and good for us to promote a more efficient use of our electricity, but it remains a necessary tool to light our homes, boil our kettles and run our businesses. Aside from being a broken promise, the carbon tax is a regressive tax on an essential service. It hurts everybody and achieves nothing for the environment. What this carbon tax and these increases in electricity bills show us is that this government is totally out of touch with the people we are elected to represent. As the representative of Bennelong, I have made a pledge to my constituents to stay in touch with their needs, to keep an open mind and open door, and do whatever I can to promote the best interests of our local community.
A recent local issue has been the proposed development around North Ryde Station, with several thousand apartments scheduled to be built in order to increase patronage at this under-utilised railway station. Epping Road at North Ryde acts as a major thoroughfare for traffic avoiding the M2 motorway, and creates a natural divide between the high-density development around the university, hospital, shopping centre and business district of Macquarie Park on the northern side, and the quiet, leafy residential area full of seekers of the great Australian dream on the southern side. From day one of this project I have made clear my opposition to the development proposal on the southern side of Epping Road, placing me at odds with the Liberal counterparts in the state government, but staying true to my pledge to my constituents. Blenheim Park and the Tennis World site offer recreational space that is increasingly scarce in our nation's largest city and I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the residents of North Ryde as we fight to protect this area.
I have also been actively engaged with some of Bennelong's lively shopping districts on the prevalence of minor criminal activity. Recently, the Leader of the Opposition pledged $50 million towards the installation of closed-circuit television cameras, pledging to use money currently frozen in a victims of crime fund. To quote Mr Abbott from the announcement:
I want our communities to be safe for our children to be out there in the evening. I think we ought to be able to enjoy our communities free of fear.
I will be advocating for some of this funding to be directed to hotspots in Bennelong, such as Eastwood, West Ryde and Ermington. Residents and small business owners are already doing it tough enough in the current conditions without also been subjected to theft, vandalism and anti-social behaviour.
These are some of the pledges I have made to my constituents, to serve and represent the good people of Bennelong.
Over the last four years, Australians have faced one of the toughest global economic challenges in our lifetime. As we look back, Australia's success in navigating the global financial crisis is a testament to the ability of the whole community—businesses, families and government—to pull together.
For Queensland it has been even tougher. In early 2011, local business owners were hit by the consequences of the Brisbane floods. Not only did this have a physical impact on the businesses concerned but it affected their customers as well.
Most recently, the cuts to Queensland public services have hurt Queensland's economy even further. There are over 9,000 public servants in my electorate of Griffith. If we cut local jobs then we lose local businesses, and that is what is happening. I recently met with a number of small businesses at the annual general meetings of the West End Traders Association and the Gabba Business Association. Peter Marinelli, President of the West End Traders Association, owns the Swiss Gourmet Delicatessen in the heart of West End. He has had many years of experience running a small business and now assists other local businesses by running this association. He does good work in the community.
The Gabba Business Association is another great organisation that works to build successful business partnerships in the Woolloongabba community under the leadership of its President, Glendon Young. I recently addressed them and discussed how the dollar fares on currency markets and as a consequence its impact on the local economy including the export sector, and also what federal and state governments were doing in the area of international export promotion. Local business owners informed me of their own goals to build their businesses up, and we discussed the importance of the National Broadband Network in bringing people to the local area because it is essential for doing business.
The National Broadband Network will connect small businesses with the world. Under the three-year rollout plan, construction of the fibre network will commence in South Brisbane, Woolloongabba, West End, Bulimba, Morningside and Cannon Hill between 1 April 2012 and 30 June 2015. This will connect over 47,000 households and businesses to the Woolloongabba and Camp Hill exchanges. This is terrific news for the community and for business.
Furthermore, to ensure that the next generation of kids is fully wired, we now have more than 7,365 computers, which have been delivered to my local secondary schools through the National Secondary Schools Computer Fund—training our next generation in a manner which makes them technically literate for the demands of the future. The National Broadband Network will provide essential telecommunication networks to these schools and small businesses enabling them to engage with suppliers, customers and investors in new and innovative ways.
We value the important contribution small businesses make to national prosperity and supporting jobs. They are the heart of the Australian economy. Australia also has a large number of non-employing small businesses, mainly micro-businesses and independent contractors. They also contribute hugely to our nation's prosperity.
Running a small business can be a tough job at the best of times. I know that from my own experience, having run one once myself. In my electorate of Griffith, there are more than 14,000 small businesses. They are the drivers of employment, enterprise, innovation and they help create and build strong local communities. Many of them are represented by the South East Brisbane Chamber of Commerce under the leadership of Penny Cutting. I have attended many meetings of the chamber, which brings together over 100 businesses each month to share experiences and discuss ways to improve the operation of businesses. They also involve local high schools—building the next generation of entrepreneurs.
I am proud that many of our local small businesses are now benefiting from the instant assets tax write-off. Because of this government, small businesses are now be able to immediately deduct assets costing less than $6,500, up from just $1,000. This means that if a business purchases a new computer based cash register system, for $3,000 they can claim the entire tax deduction over one year instead of over three or more years. This means a lot in terms of cash flow for a business. It also means that if a business buys a motor vehicle costing more than $6,500, they can immediately deduct the first $5,000. There is no limit to the number of assets costing less than $6,500 that businesses can write off. This means less paperwork and it also means a better cash flow. It also means that when you invest in your small business you get the tax benefits that year—freeing you up for the next investment in growing your business further.
On the ground, we are providing up to $5,000 in business skills training to newly qualified tradespeople to help them establish their own business. As they finish their apprenticeship, they will learn business and finance skills that are critical for running a successful small business. I recently met with two young men in my electorate office who at the age of 20 and 21 have decided to start their own small telecommunications business—good on 'em. They are determined, enthusiastic and willing to learn. These young individuals are the entrepreneurs of tomorrow.
I know that small businesses are the lifeblood of local community and I will continue to support them on Brisbane's southside.
Let me put on the record as the representative of the people of Solomon and a member of the coalition that I fully support the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In my electorate of Solomon there are around 3,700 people on a disability support pension, around 1,192 people on carers allowance and 374 people receiving carers payments. The people of Solomon are rallying behind the NDIS. I have received many emails and phone calls from constituents calling for reform. I would like to share some of them with you today.
Just last night I received an email from Carolyn Borci of Wulagi. Carolyn says she works with families whose children have autism. Carolyn outlined how she sees: 'All families struggle to fund appropriate services and levels of support and/or intervention for their family member. Most also financially struggle to self-fund autism specific recognised intervention program, services and support for their family member, thus creating an inequitable and unsustainable burden for families.'
Brian Manning also contacted me, saying; 'The NDIS must be ratified … I urge you to ensure that all disabled people, regardless of age, can look forward to a brighter future.' Cheryl Burnett of Wagaman in her email of support for the increased funding for disability services said: 'Far too many services have long waiting lines and lists. We need these services …' Janet Brown of Alawa shared a story about her friend who has a disabled daughter. She said each day her friend struggles to undertake what seems like a simple task of helping her daughter in their home. She is forced to leave her daughter's wheelchair at the bottom of the steps while she carries her into the house, places her comfortably in bed and then has to go back and lug the chair up the stairs into her home. This is just not acceptable.
Jessica Mithin of Walagi has worked with people with disabilities for many years. She raised her concern of lack of funding for the area which she works in every day. She said: 'It is a deserved right for people with disabilities to receive good quality care and support.' Penny McIntyre of Nightcliff supports the NDIS. She said in a recent email to me: 'Australian needs the NDIS locked in … We need to provide the support for our community so that people with a disability can live full and productive lives to the best of their ability.'
There appears to be clear support in my electorate for the NDIS in my electorate. I encourage others to get in touch with me to share their views on this important issue. The people of Solomon should know that as their representative I fully support the recommendation of the Productivity Commission for a national disability insurance scheme. Along with my coalition colleagues, I urge the Gillard Labor government to make a commitment of funds for this very important, once-in-a-generation reform. The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, has already stated on the public record: 'It's very important we have the National Disability Insurance Scheme.'
The Gillard Labor government needs to start answering questions about the NDIS. It must be honest with the Australian people and place on the record if it is truly committed to the 2018-19 target date for a full NDIS as outlined by the Productivity Commission. The Gillard Labor government has only committed a quarter of the money that will be required over the forward estimates for the first phase of the NDIS, and there is nothing beyond this. Is it any wonder that there is some concern in the community about their commitment to funding the NDIS?
In the final week of parliament for this year, I call on the Gillard Labor government to outline to the people of Darwin and Palmerston, and the people of Australia, if and how it plans to fund a full NDIS. Our most vulnerable citizens and their carers deserve certainty. As Hubert Humphrey, the 38th Vice President of the United States, said, 'A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members.' Every Australian counts.
In the course of my election campaign and then becoming an MP I undertook to make sure that I kept in regular contact with GPs in my area just to get a sense of the health issues that affect the Chifley electorate. They told me that the three biggest issues that affected people in our area and concerned them the most were cardiovascular disease, the number of young people presenting with signs of obesity and diabetes. For some of these—for example, obesity—they are trying to encourage getting young kids moving again. I am hoping to work on something on cardiovascular disease in the electorate in the coming year.
But today I want to talk about something we are dealing with that has a big focus—and that is diabetes. It threatens the life expectancy of many in the Chifley electorate. Also, if you look at it from another perspective, it has cost us dearly trying to deal with this issue over the course of time. The Blacktown local government area, in which the Chifley and Greenway electorates reside, has the highest rate of diabetes in New South Wales, if not Australia. It is not something that we can hold our heads high about. According to data collated by the Public Health Information Development Unit based at Adelaide University, there were 7,996 people with type 2 diabetes in Blacktown in 2007-08. Compare these figures with those from neighbouring local government areas in the same time period and the contrast is quite stark—Parramatta was 4,960 and Penrith was 4,928.
Of course, we must be careful about relying too heavily on these figures, as there is a very high rate of underreporting of diabetes across the country as well as high rates of people who are simply unaware that they even have diabetes. Again going back to 2007-08, over 300,000 people in New South Wales reported they had diabetes according to the Diabetes prevalence in Australia report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. This represented over 34 per cent of all cases of diabetes diagnosed in Australia at the time. In 2009-10, the Western Sydney Local Health District reported there were 2,302 hospitalisations due to diabetes and its complications. This represented a rate of 323 per 100,000 people. Over time, diabetes hospitalisations have been rising, which is likely to reflect the increasing prevalence of the disease as well as the ageing of the population.
The cost of treating diabetes in 2004-05 was just under $1 billion, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, about 1.9 per cent of all health expenditure at the time, and it would no doubt be considerably higher today. I have seen one prediction that suggests that as many as 30 per cent of western Sydney residents aged over 25 could be diabetic.
Given this is such an important health issue in Chifley, based on some of the comments I raised earlier, I hosted the first two in a series of diabetes forums across the electorate. At least 50 people accepted my invitation to attend each of these two forums in Blacktown and Marayong last Tuesday. The response for the remaining forums which will be held in December in Mount Druitt and Plumpton have already surpassed these. In staging these forums, I partnered with Kildare Road Medical Centre in Blacktown, WentWest, which is the Western Sydney Medicare Local, and the Australian Diabetes Council. The forums are focused on understanding the risk factors for developing type 2 diabetes and what people can do to prevent and reduce their risk of diabetes. They also devote time to helping those living with diabetes manage their condition through diet and lifestyle choices.
Attendees had the benefit of hearing from a range of practitioners, including Dr Kevin Bullen, the medical director at Kildare Road Medical Centre, who explained the types of diabetes, causes and symptoms. We had dietician Kate Gudorf explain the benefits of healthy eating and weight management in preventing and living with diabetes. She also discussed the tricky topic of alcohol and its relationship to diabetes and explored typical daily meal plans. Exercise physiologist Andrew Zorzit explored the connection between physical activity and healthy weight and demonstrated some easy exercises that keep people active. And the Kildare Road Medical Centre Diabetes Clinic's registered nurse, Veronica Dingle, conducted a diabetes risk assessment and explained the range of services the clinic can provide. I would like to thank all those who helped stage this valuable series of forums: Peter Rushton, in particular, the CEO; Nicola Stokes from the Australian Diabetes Council; and everyone who presented on the day.
I rise to speak on an important issue for residents in my electorate—that is, the recent announcement that the Balyana pool will be permanently closed from April 2013. This is an issue that I have received many emails and phone calls about recently. Almost every family in the Mitcham Council area has had children learn to swim in this pool.
The Balyana pool is located in Clapham, a suburb in my electorate. It is a four-lane, 25-metre heated indoor public pool. The pool is owned by Bedford Industries, who are based in my electorate and do great work in the area of employment and training for people with a disability. They are an organisation I have had much to do with over my 16 years as the local member.
The Balyana pool has been operating for 42 years and currently has up to 1,300 people using the pool each week. Bedford Industries lease the pool to community groups, schools, and clubs including Novita Children's Services and Anglicare. The Panorama Swim School also operates from the Balyana pool and teaches more than 750 students, and employ 23 casual staff.
Unfortunately, the rising maintenance, upgrade, and operating costs mean that Bedford Industries can no longer afford to keep open a pool which does not fall within their core business structure. Bedford Industries have claimed that a total refurbishment would cost upwards of $600,000 to bring the pool back to an acceptable standard. This issue has been foreshadowed by Bedford Industries for a number of years, and yet the Mitcham Council have done nothing about it as it has played out. It is an issue which I wrote to Bedford Industries and the Mitcham Council about back in July of 2009 seeking details of their plan to mitigate and prepare for what has now become a reality.
The Balyana pool is the only public pool in the Mitcham Council area and its closure will leave residents in the Mitcham Council without local access to a public swimming pool. By contrast, neighbouring Marion Council showed leadership and vision in bringing the state aquatic centre to their own area and have actually kept open the open-air Marion pool.
The mayor of Mitcham has ruled out the council developing a new public pool but has since been silent on whether the Mitcham Council will move to help support the maintenance of the Balyana pool. I call on the Mitcham Council to pull their weight and show leadership in this area when the mayor of Marion and myself and others, including the South Australian government, helped to put together the state aquatic centre at Marion. We did not imagine that other neighbouring councils would not be doing their bit.
It is very disappointing that Bedford Industries have decided there is no choice other than to close the Balyana pool, but we need the Mitcham Council to step into the breach and look at maintaining this pool as they do not have any publicly accessible pool in their local government area.
I am pleased to rise today to speak about a great organisation in my electorate, TS Noarlunga, a Navy cadet unit that meets in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. In particular, I wish to recognise their most recent accomplishment of a training ship which received the Australian Navy Cadets Most Efficient Training Ship Navy League of Australia Award 2012. This is a very prestigious award, and I would like to congratulate them sincerely.
Australian Navy Cadets, as with other ADF cadet programs, offer important opportunities for young people in our community. The ADF Cadets provide a great opportunity to enhance the skills of our young people which in term benefits the nation. TS Noarlunga Navy cadet unit, as with other cadet units across the country, provides young Australians aged between 12½ and 19 years to gain a unique military and leadership experience. Navy cadets foster values of honour, honesty, integrity, courage, loyalty, teamwork and citizenship. The Australian Navy Cadets program develops an individual's abilities, confidence and capacity to contribute to Australian society. From that, we all benefit. Navy cadets contribute their time to local, state and national events, giving back to our community. I have seen this firsthand, delivered by a number of the TS Noarlunga cadets around many, many different organisations and places. For example, at local citizenship ceremonies on a Monday or Tuesday night, they are out there working to welcome new citizens into our community by providing help.
ADF cadets also provide a pathway into serving in the Defence Force as a career. The training for Navy cadets, for example, includes seamanship, boat handling, sail and power, navigation, physical training, rifle shooting, signalling, rope splicing, general sporting activities and a variety of other subjects. This training is very exciting for young people to experience. Additionally, instructional camps are arranged for cadets and they are often given opportunities wherever possible to undertake training at sea in ships of the Royal Australian Navy.
Each year these Navy cadet units are judged around the country. As I said previously, I was immensely proud that this year TS Noarlungaafter all the rounds and drills, inspections and assessments—won the 'Most Efficient Training Ship' Navy League of Australia award. This award, by the Navy League of Australia, is given to the best naval cadet unit in the country. It recognises excellence in teamwork, leadership, ceremonial standard, emergency response procedures, dress and bearing, ability in maritime activities and community support.
I was very pleased to be joined by Parliamentary Secretary David Feeney and the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, as well as many other representatives from local defence organisations and the Returned Services League to share with the local Navy cadets the formal recognition of their achievement. They beat 87 other cadet units from around Australia. So, congratulations go to the 23 cadets who are currently part of TS Noarlunga. Also, congratulations to the great team of staff and volunteers who worked very hard to prepare and support the cadets for this day, and I thank them for their dedication and hard work.
I would particularly like to congratulate the staff of the unit led by Lieutenant David Lyas and all the support committee of dedicated volunteers headed up by the president, Kerry White. The most recent achievement builds on their very successful history at TS Noarlunga. The unit was recognised by the Royal Australian Navy in 1982 and was later selected 'most efficient unit' in South Australia in 1987, 1988 and 1991, and 'most improved' in 2001. In 2004 Cadet Midshipman Mark Weeden was judged top cadet.
It was wonderful to have the vice admiral there because his father, Lieutenant Commander Jim Griggs, headed up the unit in 1991. Mrs Maureen Griggs, his wife, is still an avid supporter of the unit, so it was wonderful to have their son there as Chief of Navy to share in this special occasion. Thank you to all the cadets and their mentors for helping out the local community. I offer my sincere congratulations.
I rise to speak about Local Government Super, a topic about which I have had things to say previously. This is a fund which invests over $5 billion of the retirement savings of approximately 90,000 local government employees in New South Wales. Its performance has not been particularly impressive. Chant West, the respected ratings firm, ranked the LGSS Balanced Growth Fund 51st out of 62, with a return of minus 0.9 per cent for the year to 30 June 2012.
I have previously raised LG Super as exemplifying the problems with the so-called equal representation model, under which half of the directors of the fund are appointed by employer representatives and half by member representatives—in practice, unions. The Cooper review has found that the equal representation model is flawed as unions do not necessarily represent all employees, and employer associations do not necessarily represent all employers. Sadly, the relevant minister, the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, the member for Maribyrnong, has refused to implement the recommendation for much-needed change in this area.
If one examines the investment and commercial decisions of LG Super, concerns are only intensified. In 2004 LG Super purchased a company, Local Government Financial Services, or LGFS, from the Local Government and Shires Association, or LGSA. LGFS is a company that provides financial advice to local councils. It is also an authorised deposit-taking institution for councils in NSW. LG Super and the LGSA had several directors in common. The question must be asked, whose interests were served when LGFS was purchased by LG Super? It certainly benefited LGSA, which received funds from the sale of an asset. But was the purchase of this company in the best interests of members of LG Super? Section 62 of the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act provides that directors must ensure that funds are maintained solely for the purpose of providing benefits to members of the fund on their retirement and for certain ancillary purposes.
The conduct of LGFS since the purchase raises serious questions about the judgement exercised by directors of LG Super in the decision to purchase. Its activities have created a serious financial problem as well as being found to be unlawful, as is clear from a Federal Court judgement handed down recently. This was the result of LGFS being sued by councils for its selling of $16 million of complex financial instruments known as 'Rembrandt notes' to 15 NSW councils between 2006 and 2007. The value of these notes crashed following the global financial crisis, resulting in councils losing 90 per cent of their investments.
Justice Jagot found in her judgement that LGFS made numerous misrepresentations to councils about the notes and their suitability for councils, breached its Australian financial services licence in selling the notes to councils because they were not a debenture and thus not a security in which LGFS was licensed to deal, and engaged in the publication of information or a statement false in a material particular. This was not only a financial problem for councils, it was also a problem for LGFS itself and LG Super because there were $26 million worth of notes that were not onsold but were held on LGFS's balance sheet. These were eventually sold at a loss to LGFS's parent, LG Super.
One can only ask: what is a vehicle owned by a superannuation fund doing engaging in this type of activity? While I am asking questions about investment decisions by LG Super, let me ask another question. Is it true that LG Super invested almost $1 million with a film production company called Wild Candy Pty Ltd, under an agreement signed in 2007? Is it true that this investment was subsequently written off? Is it true that the project being funded was for a work comprising music to be performed by an orchestra and played with pre-recorded films about wild pandas, whales and a 'carnival of the animals'? If this is true, it would be interesting to know how such an investment is consistent with the sole purpose test. It would be interesting to know how such an investment is consistent with the job of the board and management of LG Super of maximising the retirement incomes of New South Wales local councils. If this is true, it would raise the question of why they thought it was appropriate to invest in the film industry, which is known to be a very risky industry. So the investment decisions in a range of areas by Local Government Super, including in Local Government Financial Services, raise serious questions.
I rise to pay tribute to the many wonderful people in the Hindmarsh electorate who choose to serve their community through their good volunteer works. Volunteers who contribute so much through their clubs, organisations, churches and other networks truly are the cornerstone of our community. I know that we all have them in our electorates.
Some volunteers have been nominated by their peers for a 2012 National Volunteers Award for their exceptional contributions to our community. Vivien Shae has taught English and served the Chinese community through Chinese Welfare Services in a variety of positions since 2004. She has also been chair of the Chinese Ethnic School and puts hours and hours of volunteer work into the Chinese Ethnic School. Pamela Nayda of Lockleys Senior Citizens Club has held the position of president and secretary of the club for 14 years, handling all aspects of the club's organisation and functioning, as well as assisting club members in their daily lives. I visit them on a regular basis and see firsthand the great work that Pamela Nayda does for the community. Patrick Smith is a volunteer at West Beach Primary School. He is on the governing council and helps with school planning, working bees, extra tuition for students and the school concert, which he puts together every year—all this as a volunteer. Barbara Biggins has volunteered with the Australian Council on Children and the Media and its forerunners for almost 40 years, spearheading its advocacy work and promoting healthy media experiences for children. It is very important work and, again, she is a volunteer. Marion Sullivan has also volunteered with the Australian Council on Children and the Media and its forerunners for almost 40 years, the last 20 with the condition of chronic lymphatic leukaemia. Marion has acted as company secretary, treasurer, children's film festival coordinator and other roles.
Another great person in the electorate, and a very good friend of mine, is Francesco Violi. Frank, as we all know him within the western suburbs, in the Mile End area, has volunteered in numerous capacities over some 30-plus years with the Queen of Angels Catholic Church and has been President of Italian Pensioners of Thebarton for many years. He organises social events, including picnics, for senior people of the local Italian community, as well as a whole range of other things. He offers a great service for some of our older constituents. Bob Wright of the Kiwanis Club of Reedbeds Incorporated has contributed to the club's community service projects for well over 24 years, including as club director of community services and club treasurer.
Lorelei Siegloff has been an active volunteer and community member of Torrensville Primary School over the last three years, including two years as governing council chairperson, contributing to the community. She also has convened the community garden action group since 2010. Both Bill and Hildegarde Dow have been nominated by the All Saints Uniting Church council. They spend many hours each week in pastoral care, looking after people of their congregation, visiting people in hospitals, nursing homes and retirement villages, and assisting people in need everywhere. Another great person is Wayne Honeychurch, who has contributed a great deal to the South Australian Veterans Touring Group. My office has a lot to do with Wayne Honeychurch, who has been raising funds for orphanages in Vietnam for a number of years. The group raises funds and distributes the goods in Vietnam. They help to keep the orphanage groups in Vietnam up and running.
Terry Saunderson has been a member of the Rotary Club of West Torrens for 33 years—for many years as an officeholder—and the South Australian Historical Society for 11 years, and has contributed in many ways to different parts of our wider community. Mary Rogan became a member of Immanuel college's Parents and Friends Association in 1980 and has volunteered in and around the college ever since. Mary's tremendous work includes various simultaneous roles, such as running the clothing market and volunteering in the library. Thomas James Murphy has devoted over 30 years to the sport of canoeing and kayaking, introducing hundreds of young people to the sport through various roles, including as an organiser of the Duke of Edinburgh schools team challenge and as an official at state, national and international competitions. Ann Andrews assists Lockleys Preschool with fundraising events and sources materials for new enrolees and special programs, as well as doing a range of other volunteer work with them.
Tricia Clement is the secretary for the Riding for the Disabled group at O'Halloran Hill, club liaison officer with COTSA, volunteer consultant at the City of Marion and craft coordinator at Ascot Park Primary School, which nominated her for this award. Janice Hedger is a 17-year member for the local Probus Club and an 11-year member of the Active Elders, all of which has been spent in a very active management role. Her work on securing grants and funds for the club is exemplary. (Time expired)
Male suicide in rural Queensland is 2½ times more common than in our major cities. That is a really important point that came out of the suicide in remote and rural Australia report that was released this month. It also shone light back on the perennial challenge for health systems: mental health. Obviously, one of the great challenges for regional Australia is that the current government does not have a regional health services portfolio, so that leaves it to us on the coalition side to run around the country and constantly hold this government to account for its activities in mental health. People living with mental health issues deserve all the support that we can muster. It is a $6 billion issue for the economy and for the nation. Of course, a combination of great therapists, world-leading drugs, early intervention, recognition and high levels of awareness all play a really important role. We welcome the release of another report this month. The message to the government clearly has to be that it is way more important to provide cutting-edge, state-of-the-art care for people living with mental health issues than it is to release reports. We do not want reports that accumulate dust on bookshelves. We need real-life solutions, particularly in regional and rural Australia, where they bear the brunt of mental-health morbidity, for the obvious reasons: people living in regional Australia are a long way from services, incomes are in general lower, and out-of-pocket expenses for health services are generally higher. It is very hard to coordinate care for chronic and complex conditions. At every level we need to look at those living in regional and remote parts of this country. We know that, if we get it right out there, we will be getting it right in the cities as well.
It was very disappointing to see a breakthrough drug already approved in three other countries around the world being refused by the PBAC not once, not twice, but three times in March of this year. This is a process that both sides of government should be respecting. Certainly the coalition has the record of doing that in government. What we have is a new challenge to our PBAC and the price-referencing that they rigidly apply, which we strongly support—that is, in categories of disease that are relatively slow-moving for new breakthrough drugs, where the existing treatment has now fallen to a generic price, it becomes very hard for new arriving treatments to be price referenced according to their cost effectiveness. Instead they are price referenced often according to a generic price. It basically means that it is very hard to get payment for a brand-new breakthrough drug and the cost it has taken to bring it down the pipeline. Contrast that with cancer, where there are so many new breakthroughs all the time that cost comparisons are always with a brand-new and usually very expensive drug.
This is a challenge for mental health, where we have not seen new drugs for a very long time. As my colleague Andrew Robb wrote in Black Dog Days, we know how tough it can be switching between medications when you are struggling in this situation. This is particularly so with depression, where there are strong effects to one's sleep. Without sleeping well, a productive and successful life can be turned into a misery. Agomelatine offered a solution to that issue. The drug has been refused three times and the manufacturer have given up. They have left and will not be trying again.
That might seem like a sob story from an individual pharmaceutical manufacturer, but it does mean that we now have a two-tiered system in this country. We have the wealthy, who can pay for the best drugs, and everyone else makes do with what is left. That should be of concern to every government. Without making too much of a political point, because we all support the price referencing and the foundations of the PBAC process, let us also be aware that when there are specific challenges they make it almost impossible for a new drug to prove its worth in this country, quite simply because the comparators used are only costing a few dollars. For the sake of people whose lives could be turned around—there are 10,000 of them in this country who may benefit from this as an alternative treatment for depression—we should be looking for ways to make sure that our PBAC process supports that.
We know from the report released this month that there are social, cultural and economic underpinnings to the distribution of depression around this country. We know that a combination of macho Australian attitudes, fluctuations in the economy for those living on the land and of course the effects of fires, droughts and bushfires have already had a compounding effect. This makes it really hard to convince many people living in remote areas to step out of where they live and where they work and actually talk about the challenges that they have. We can do that together, with both sides of politics, but I do implore this government to respect the PBAC process. If a drug is approved, do not let it be held up in cabinet. Respect that process; do not second-guess it. If you are going to have a recommendation and ignore it at cabinet level then do not have the committee just make the whole thing politicised. Do not live in this middle world where you accept the experts' reports but you do not actually act on them. That is the challenge of the PBAC, and it is one we should support on both sides of the chamber.
On Saturday, 17 November I joined several thousand childcare workers, parents, grandparents and children who rallied in Adelaide in support of the national Big Steps Day campaign for professional wages for early childhood education and care sector workers. The Adelaide rally, which I understand was one of several similar rallies around the country, began at Victoria Square, from where those participating walked about one kilometre along King William Street through the Adelaide CBD and on to Elder Park, on the banks of the River Torrens, where they heard from several speakers who addressed the gathering. The turnout in support of the rally exceeded expectations and I believe reflected the widespread community support for the professional wages campaign for early childhood education and care sector workers. For too long, childcare centre workers have been undervalued and underpaid. The Productivity Commission's final report into the early childhood development workforce states that:
While pay and conditions vary across the ECEC workforce, on average ECEC workers receive lower wages than workers in the rest of the workforce …
It goes on to say:
… the evidence available to the study indicates that it is rare for ECEC wages to exceed the award wage by any more than 10 per cent.
Yet we expect them to be better qualified, and we trust to them the care of infants at a very critical stage in their life—both with respect to their development and their learning.
It is a huge responsibility made even greater because each child has his or her own unique personality, unique personal needs and unique rate of development. For that responsibility, childcare centre workers with a certificate III qualification are paid $18.58 per hour. By comparison, school teachers are paid almost twice that amount. Childcare centre workers are much more than babysitters. They are expected to be both educators and carers. As such, they are expected to be appropriately qualified and multiskilled. I have visited many childcare centres, spoken at length with staff at them and carried out voluntary work at the Bubble and Squeak childcare centre at Golden Grove, just so that I could better understand the nature of the work. I experienced for myself the range of skills required, the demands of the work and the individual care required by each child and the high expectations families place on centres.
Quite properly, the standard of both facilities and of care within the childcare centres has improved in recent years. But the wages of childcare centre workers has simply not kept pace with other changes within the industry, or with wages paid in other sectors. Not surprisingly, 180 workers leave the sector every week, and the sector is already experiencing workforce shortages. It is estimated that by 2016 an additional 15,300 certificate III and 8,600 diploma and degree positions will be needed. I do not know how profitable childcare centres are, but I have little doubt that operators will argue that if they are required to pay higher wages then they will be forced to increase their fees. Increased fees will mean that for some families, particularly those on lower incomes, childcare will become unaffordable. If that occurs, more people will exit the workforce, causing workforce shortages in other sectors.
That is why this government—on coming to office in 2007—increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. In dollar terms, the childcare rebate went from $4,354 to $7,500 per year. I have heard the confected outrage from those opposite about the capping of the rebate at $7,500. The fact remains that this government increased the rebate from $4,354 to $7,500 per year; it was not those opposite. That is a $3,146 increase or roughly a 75 per cent increase on what was being paid. The pretentious outrage of coalition members is simply not matched by their actions when they were last in government.
However, even with the increased rebate, lower income workers cannot afford an increase in childcare fees. Furthermore, we will only increase the opportunity for more parents, and particularly women, to enter or return to the workforce and add to national productivity if we have affordable, high-quality child care services. Whilst this may well be an industrial relations issue between employers and employees, as some have argued, the fact is that without government intervention, the likelihood of higher wages being paid to workers in this sector is remote. The industry understands that, the childcare centre workers understand that and the families of the children placed in childcare understand that. That is why there is a national call for government intervention, a call which I support and which I bring to the minister's attention.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:44