Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recently received a letter from a young constituent in Ryan regarding her trip to Africa. Her name is Monica Dakin and she plans to travel to South Africa to volunteer with a wildlife conservation and re-education group. Even at the young age of 18, Monica Dakin is already setting an outstanding example for the wider community. Monica plans to use this trip to assist with the conservation of Africa's animals and hopes to re-educate the locals and the Ryan community about the conservation of all animals. As a student of ecology and zoology and a member of the local scouting movement, Monica will have the ideal base from which to share what she learns on her trip. Monica has also already shown great dedication and initiative by putting together many fundraisers to assist in raising the amount of money she needs to finance this trip. She has held sausage sizzles and sold raffle tickets and goes door to door to sell chocolates. Monica is truly an outstanding example not only of her generation but also of the hardworking constituents in the electorate of Ryan which I am so proud to represent.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to condemn the Tasmanian state government's suggested closure of the Ringarooma Primary School, which is in my electorate of Bass. I would like to make it clear that I do not support the closure of this school. It would be unacceptable for the school, unacceptable for the students and unacc­eptable for the local community. Recently, the Branxholm Primary School was forced to close, and students relocated mostly to the Ringarooma Primary School. So this would in effect be the closure of two schools.

The school is a central part of the community, being the venue for the Ringar­ooma Show, and we cannot allow this school to be looked at in isolation of the community benefit the school brings to the local community. The distress that is being felt amongst the local community is evident in long-time community member 101-year-old Thelma Bennett, who is fighting to save the school along with numerous others. I again implore the Tasmanian government to reconsider the closure of the Ringarooma school. This decision is out of touch with the community's wishes and I am sure they will give the Greens Minister for Education and Skills in Tasmania a Ringarooma.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to bring attention to a speech made in this House by the member for Greenway, Michelle Rowland. I have informed her that I intended to do so. In a speech on Monday the 20th, she made an inaccurate and oppor­tunistic slur on the democratically elected government of Sri Lanka, possibly to curry favour with elements of the electorate who I suspect are still sympathetic to the defeated terrorist group, the LTTE. She said in her speech she had something like a 3,000-strong Tamil community. She said:

I say '3,000' but—as I have been told by Tamil community leaders, and I have no doubt as to this—this number is, in fact, far higher in reality. The Tamil population in Greenway is one of the largest in the country …

I refer the member to the most recent Bureau of Statistics figures from the last census. I point out to her that in fact the number of Tamils in her electorate is 75. Not only that, but the number of Sinhalese in her electorate is 1,034. The member might want to realise that not only does she have people of that group in her electorate but she has Ghanaians, Iranians and Kurds, who she may wish to talk about in the same vein because they need the same support. I expect her, on 0.9 of a per cent, to be more accurate in the future so the Sri Lankan members of the community can deal with her.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I wish to congratulate the Tamil Senior Citizens Association on the wonderful achievement of their 20th anniversary on 25 July 2011. The association is based in my electorate of Reid. On this auspicious occasion it is poignant to reflect on the wonderful achievements of the association. The ever-increasing membership is testament to the community spirit and benefits that the association has fostered since 1991, when it began with only 27 members. Today, with over 850 senior members, the Tamil Senior Citizens Association is more important than ever in our community. The association has provided services to improve the quality of life of its members, ranging from cultural and educational to benevolent and social as well as recreational activities.

I was also very pleased to learn that the Tamil Senior Citizens Association was recognised by the New South Wales government, who awarded the association the Seniors Achievement Award for Com­munity Service in March of this year. This award was well-deserved recognition of the outstanding services rendered by the Tamil Senior Citizens Association in diverse fields over the past 20 years. I know the association will continue to build on the important services provided and I wish them all the very best with their endeavours. Congr­atulations again to the president, Mr Shiva Pasupati, and each and every member of the Tamil Senior Citizens Association on the wonderful milestone of the 20th anniversary. I look forward to many more to come.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to recognise Councillor Angela Owen-Taylor of the Brisbane City Council, who is in the gallery.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): I rise today to honour a truly inspirational Australian outback hero, a pioneer and trailblazer of the iconic and very historic Birdsville Track. Tom Kruse, as we knew him, was a legendary mailman of the Birdsville Track, but on Thursday last week, 30 June, Tom passed away in Adelaide surrounded by his family. Tom was born on 28 August 1914 in Waterloo, South Australia. He left school at the age of 13 and did various labouring jobs before moving to Yunta to work in a small garage owned by his brother Snow. Tom became a regular face for residents along the Birdsville Track when as a 24-year-old he began the mail run between Marree in South Australia and Birdsville in Queensland, in the outback of my electorate. He made his first trip on 1 January 1936 in 45-degree heat. If anyone has ever experienced the heat of the outback at that time of the year, they will know just how tough it is. The outback then, of course, was very tough. It is a very lonely place at times, but Tom conquered sandhills, dust storms, flies and in wet seasons, like now, floods, swollen rivers and creeks along the track. He made these trips every fortnight. Round trips between Marree and Birdsville normally took seven days, but when the Cooper flooded the trip could take as long as six weeks. Breakdowns were a common occurrence, but Tom was dedicated to getting the mail through. His mail service was a lifeline for so many people living along the track. He brought mail, supplies, fuel and education resources to the otherwise isolated people along the track. (Time expired)

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last year, the UN Secretary-General appointed a panel of experts to advise him on the issue of accountability with regard to alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the final stages of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. In April this year the panel delivered its report, in which it found there is credible evidence that both government forces and the LTTE had committed war crimes. Tonight, Australians will see on Four Corners disturbing footage taken during the final months of the conflict which appears to show civilians being used as human shields by the Tamil Tigers; civilians in no-fire zones, including in hospitals, being bombed by government forces; and evidence of systemic rape and executions.

The UN panel noted that addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law is not a matter of choice or policy; it is a duty under domestic and international law. However, it found that the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Com­mission set up by the Sri Lankan government is deeply flawed in its mandate, its meth­odology and its failure to satisfy key international standards of independence and impartiality. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has also noted that 'justice will be essential if there is to be true reconciliation after this terrible and divisive conflict.'

As I stated in my notice of motion on Sri Lanka on 1 June 2009:

Openness, accountability, compassion, full respect for human rights and an inclusive process of dialogue between representatives of all ethnic communities will support the course of reconciliation that must occur in Sri Lanka's near future to avoid a return to the past. This is my humble plea in the spirit of the great friendship between our countries.

(Time expired)

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a document signed by 87 residents who, with designated family members, represent 107 constituents of my electorate of Hinkler living in the Craignish area near Hervey Bay. In this document, the would-be petitioners object to a proposed Optus transmission tower to be attached to an existing local water tower on the grounds of (1) the uncertain effects of electromagnetic radiation, (2) the visual impact, which is described as high, (3) the likely proliferations on the site, (4) the possible reception conflicts, (5) the impact on values and (6) a challenge to alleged designation of low-impact determination. It goes without saying that I respect their right.

Although this is not in strict petition form, it represents the strongly held contention of these 107 residents with a local community point of view. As such, I seek leave to table it as a document.

Leave granted.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I recognise the valuable contribution made by Bosom Buddies ACT in providing support to women and their families living with breast cancer. Bosom Buddies ACT is a group of volunteers, many of whom are breast cancer survivors, who provide friendship and hope to those diagnosed with breast cancer throughout their treatment and recovery. The volunteers help in any way they can by providing advice and fellowship, transport to medical appointments and support workshops and social activities. Bosom Buddies ACT also raises awareness about breast cancer and is a strong advocate for improving treatment and services for breast cancer patients. Through its fundraising, Bosom Buddies ACT has donated to the Calvary and Canberra hosp­itals oncology equipment valued at over $40,000, provided funding for research and professional development training for breast care nurses and resources for Heads Up at Calvary. Bosom Buddies was founded in the ACT in 1995 by Shirley Fitzgerald and a group of other women who had experienced breast cancer.

It is an honour to be a Bosom Buddies ACT ambassador, along with five other Canberrans, including the former member for Canberra Annette Ellis. We ambassadors have been given a hat to decorate as part of the Hat Hat Hooray competition to raise funds. Between now and mid-September I will be getting out the felt and the feathers to come up with a creation that will, hopefully, raise lots of money for this great cause.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week the electorate of Bennelong celebrated the 20 birthday of the Epping Youth Development Group, otherwise known as the Shack, which provides a warm, welcoming and safe environment, free of drugs and alcohol, for teenagers to interact and enjoy social and recreational activities. The aim of the Shack is to help young people to regain control of their lives. This may involve crisis intervention, counselling services and guidance to apply for jobs. As the only youth drop-in centre in the East­wood Local Area Command, the Shack has developed strong links with the Eastwood police, providing officers with the ability to refer many young people to counselling services rather than pushing them into the criminal justice system. I recognise the efforts of Senior-Constable Debbie Chrystal, Inspector Duncan Eddington, Superintendent Peter Marcon and, of course, Darlene Keenan, who set up the Shack 20 years ago.

The manager of the Shack, Jacqui Pettit, is an inspiration, along with her one full-time helper, Vanessa Sokalik. In the last 12 months the Shack has provided more than 800 hours of counselling for 385 people, 111 hours of court support to 44 people, 422 hours of home visits, involving 127 people, and many other sundry services. I was fortunate to visit Jacqui and Vanessa at the Shack a couple of weeks ago and ackn­owledge the very important role they play in the Bennelong community. I congratulate the Shack on their 20th birthday and commend their work to the House. (Time expired)

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the primary producers and small businesses in northern Victoria to express my outrage at the way the Baillieu Liberal government is failing the families of the north. Last year, the Baillieu Liberal government put the Epping fruit and vegetable market under a taxpayer funded review—one of the hundreds across the state. Traders told the Age their businesses and their lives have been up in the air since the November election of the Baillieu government and its decision to review the market move. Twenty-year market veteran Fred Pascale said:

I can't make investment decisions; I have been left in limbo.

Traders were told in December that a decision on the market's future would be announced 'over the next few weeks'. This sham review is 165 days overdue and with the future of the project on hold there is uncertainty among investors and businesses in the north.

On 2 March, Denis Napthine, Minister for Major Projects, released a statement which said:

The Coalition will announce a decision on how it will proceed with the project within a matter of weeks.

What was meant to be a matter of weeks has now been some seven months. It is an absolute disgrace, an absolute sham and an absolute disregard for the people of Victoria. A review will not pay the bills, it will not support families and it will not support our local businesses.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded. Earlier, the Leader of the Opposition was foot-faulted by the Deputy Speaker when he was trying to send best wishes to the member for Bennelong for his birthday. I am sure that the House—begrudgingly in some cases but with great glee in others—wishes the member for Bennelong all the best for what I understand is a significant anniversary.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her weekend statement 'There will be no carbon tax on petrol under the government I lead.' Why is this statement any more believable than her pre-election statement 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' especially as Senator Bob Brown has said that a carbon tax on petrol is inevitable?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the Leader of the Opposition I say: there is a little edge of desperation about all of this, isn't there? The Leader of the Opposition has been caught out misleading the Australian community. He has been here in Parliament House and right around the nation claiming to anyone who will listen that carbon pricing will apply to petrol at petrol bowsers—that families or small businesses going to fill up the tank will be paying a carbon price on the petrol they put in their motor vehicles. He said it here in parliament and he said it around the nation.

The decent thing for the Leader of the Opposition to do today would be to ackn­owledge that he was wrong, to acknowledge that he went out of his way, with no facts and no truthfulness, to try to scare the Australian people. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition, having been caught out once, is unlikely to do the decent thing. Instead, he will be trying to move his scare campaign to the next stage. I anticipate that over the coming weeks we will hear more and more ridiculous scares from the Leader of the Opposition. I say to Australians who hear these words of fear from the Leader of the Opposition: he was dead wrong about petrol, and every word he says over the next few weeks, with his next round of scare campaigns, will be dead wrong as well. Petrol is not in the carbon-pricing scheme. It will not have a carbon price applied to it now or in the future.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement this morning on the doors, by the member for La Trobe, who said: 'Fantastic news! The carbon tax won't apply to petrol.' I ask the Prime Minister: wouldn't it be better if there were no carbon tax at all on anything?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to answer the question from the Leader of the Opposition. On this side of the parliament we believe climate change is real. We understand that the Leader of the Opposition is in denial. On this side of the parliament we respect the words of scientists. We understand that the Liberal Party in the modern age is attracted to vilifying scientists. On this side of the parliament we listen to the words of economists, who say that the most efficient way of tackling climate change and cutting carbon pollution is to put a price on carbon. We understand that the Leader of the Opposition thinks it is his business to insult Australian economists. Consequently, led by the science and led by the views of economists, we on this side of the House believe, if you are going to effectively tackle climate change, you must—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a simple enough question. If exempting petrol is fantastic news, wouldn't it be more fantastic to exempt everything and not have a carbon tax at all? The answer should be directly relevant to the question.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is being responded to. The Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you care about tackling climate change in the most efficient way, then you are for putting a price on carbon. In terms of the comparisons between the government's view and the opposition's view—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt will withdraw.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We on this side of the House are for putting a price on carbon. We are for assisting families. We will assist families with tax cuts, with increases in payments and by not having the carbon price apply to petrol. The alternative—because the Leader of the Opposition asked me about alternatives—is to go for his plan, which will not work and will cost Australian families $720 per year. If we are going to look at alternatives, a price on polluters—$720 a year coming straight from families—then the comparison gives the Leader of the Opposition the answer to his question. We are for doing this the most efficient way with the most assistance to families; he is for doing it the most ineffective way and ripping $720 per year off families.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the government's plan to take action on climate change through pricing carbon and an ETS see lower carbon pollution, more tax cuts and assistance for families and pensioners, including through the treatment of petrol? What are the facts around the treatment of petrol and how have these been received?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for La Trobe for that wonderfully perceptive question and I thank her for her advocacy on behalf of her community in this place. Soon we will be in a position to announce full details of the carbon-pricing package which, as a Labor government, we have been working hard on. We have been working hard, as a Labor government, in order to tackle climate change—a huge challenge for our nation's future. As we have gone about the challenge of tackling climate change and cutting carbon pollution, we have done it guided by our Labor values. Guided by our Labor values, we have been working to ensure that nine out of 10 households get assistance through tax cuts or payment increases or a combination of both, that the vast majority of those households will not pay a cent as a result of pricing carbon and that more than three million low-income households will get the benefit of a 20 per cent buffer. We know that their budgets are tight and we want to make sure that, in tight budgets, they have 20 per cent of reassurance, that they have been assisted above and beyond the impact of a carbon price.

We also have wanted to take the decision to not put a carbon price on petrol because we understand that, in many parts of the country, people have got no choice but to get into their car and to drive their car to get places. It is true of the outer urban electorate that I represent, it is true of the outer urban electorate that the member for La Trobe represents and it is true of country and regional Australia, as represented in this place by so many good Labor members. For example, last week I was with the member for Lingiari, a place where you have got no alternative but to jump in your car and drive. So we have determined that, because of the needs of families in outer urban places and in regional Australia, there should not be a carbon price on petrol. I also thank the member for New England for his advocacy on behalf of regional Australia and his community as we have gone about pricing carbon. We have done it in a Labor way, and doing it in a Labor way means that we should look at the alternatives that are being advocated in this place. Unfortunately, the alternative is a $720 per year direct slug on families. The Liberal party's position was not always like this.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bradfield is warned.

Mr Simpkins interjecting—

The member for Cowan will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for Cowan then left the chamber.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the parliament to this report of the former Howard government on emissions trading—the emissions trading scheme the former Howard government wanted to introduce and which, if it had introduced it as heralded by this report, would have started on 1 July this year. That emissions trading scheme of the Howard government would have had a carbon price on petrol. That is, the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister in a government that would have put a carbon price on petrol from 1 July this year. That is the truth from this report.

Instead, the Leader of the Opposition has been out trying to scare Australian families. It is time for him to do the decent thing, to go back to Queanbeyan and to say to the people at the fresh food market that he was wrong when he said to them that petrol would go up, to go back to Moorebank and say to the community there that he was wrong when he said that petrol would go up. He should stand at the dispatch box and say in this parliament that he was wrong when he said petrol would go up. That would be the decent thing to do. We await to see whether or not the Leader of the Opposition is a decent man who will do it. (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her latest promise that the government will exempt petrol from her carbon tax because 'I know what it is like for people to have no choice but to jump in their cars to get places.' Will the Prime Minister now exempt electricity prices from the carbon tax or has she forgotten what it is like for people who have no choice but to turn on their lights, their heaters and their washing machines?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In answer to the member's question I would say this: of course I understand that people use electricity for all sorts of daily household purposes, which is why, as we put a price on carbon, we will assist Australian households. Nine out of 10 households will get tax cuts or increases in payments or a combination of both. The vast majority of those households will not see carbon pricing cost them a cent and lower income households will have the benefit of a 20 per cent buffer. It has been referred to in the media as a battler's buffer—that is, they will get 20 per cent more than the impact of carbon pricing on them. I understand that Australian families are struggling with energy bills that have been going up and up without a carbon price. We need to give the electricity generation sector, the distribution sector and the energy sector certainty so that they invest for the future and particularly invest in the clean energy sources of the future.

The member who is showing a concern about cost of living questions may want to think about the alternative. People will see their energy bills go up and the Leader of the Opposition will be ripping $720 a year out of their family budget. That is what the plan of the Leader of the Opposition is: to put a tax on Australian families and give that money to subsidise big polluters. We, on the other hand, are going to cut carbon pollution and tackle climate change by putting a tax on the big polluters, by charging them a price on carbon and using the money raised to assist Australian families who are often struggling to meet big costs like electricity prices. I say to the member he may want to think how his constituents will react to the Leader of the Opposition's plan to rip $720 off them per year.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Ulu Foua Toloa, Head of Government of Tokelau. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.

Honourable members: Hear, Hear!

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister update the House on recent developments on the government's plan to put a price on pollution? How has this been received and what is the government's response?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Before calling the minister, every question today has been greeted by comment by nearly everybody on my left. I think it is about time, if they want question time taken seriously by everybody, that they should at least sit there in relative silence.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. Of course, as the House has heard today and as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, petrol will be exempt from the government's carbon price. What that means is that families, trades­people and small businesses with light commercial vehicles will not face a petrol price rise as a result of the introduction of a carbon price. That is a very important commitment that runs completely contrary to the scare campaign that the Leader of the Opposition has been running for month after month after month.

The Leader of the Opposition has had a number of things to say in the scare campaign. He said on one occasion that the impact on the cost of living would be unimaginable. He has repeatedly said that the carbon price will put 6½c a litre on the price of petrol just for starters. For week after week after week, the Leader of the Oppos­ition has gone out and completely misrep­resented this position to the Australian community. It is time to own up to it and time to apologise. He has claimed more than 20 times that the cost of petrol will go up. He is wrong today, he was wrong then and he should apologise to the community for his deliberate misrepresentation.

A scare campaign is always fuelled by misrepresentation and misinformation and it can never ever stand up to the facts. That is why, as the government finalises more details of our plans to put a price on carbon pollution, the Leader of the Opposition will get more and more hysterical. Chicken Little is going to get more and more shrill as all of his misrepresentation is revealed for what it is—a scare campaign.

On this front, last Friday there was quite an extraordinary outburst at economists. It was essentially: what would leading econo­mists in Australia know about economics compared to the Leader of the Opposition? That was an extraordinary attack on economists in this country for indicating what is widely held and understood—that is, a market mechanism for pricing carbon is the most efficient way of reducing pollution across our economy. He does not like economists, does not like scientists and takes his scientific advice from the One Nation website. This is a completely disreputable campaign that has been run by the Leader of the Opposition.

In the face of all this, the challenge that climate change represents for our country, the Leader of the Opposition is content to see pollution rise and continue to add to the problem that we have. He rejects market mechanisms as efficient ways to reduce pollution across our economy. He will slug the budget instead with the subsidies-for-polluters policy. It will cost $30 billion—

Dr Jensen interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Tangney is warned.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to 2020. It is going to cost $720 per household for the subsidies-for-polluters policy. The Leader of the Opposition is committed to claw back the pension increases, take back the tax cuts, claw back the benefits for families. He is going to take them all back by repealing the carbon price legislation. Our country faces a serious significant challenge with the threat of climate change. As a political figure in this country, it is hard to imagine a more irresponsible misrepresentative campaign than that that has been conducted by the Leader of the Opposition over recent months and in coming days it will be exposed. (Time expired)

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Small Business. I refer to the Prime Minister's promise that petrol will be exempt from her carbon price. Will Allen Transport, a business with 22 local employees operating in Portland and Warrnambool with 10 trucks, have to pay the carbon tax on the fuel they use?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Wannon for his question. All fuel—including petrol, diesel and LPG—for passenger motor vehicles and light commercial vehicles will not be subject to the carbon price. The member for Wannon will also know that in the last four months the Leader of the Opposition no fewer than 20 times has said that the cost of petrol will rise. This just exposes what has really been going on in this country in the political debate—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are warned.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have seen in the last four months the Leader of the Opposition trying to run a strategy which says that fear will triumph over hope. He has been trying to make it very clear that there will be a carbon price on petrol for passenger motor vehicles and for light motor vehicles.

We have also agreed that there should be—

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was about large trucks. It was: what is going to be the cost impact on large motor vehicles? Trucks were what were referred to by the member for Wannon.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Murray will resume her seat. The Assistant Treasurer is aware of the need to directly relate his answer to the question. The Assistant Treasurer is responding.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the question that was asked, I was asked about Allen Transport. In terms of the trucks that were spoken about, there was not the specification that the member for Murray says there was. Perhaps if she had written the member for Wannon's question it might have gone a different way. But returning to the question that was asked about a carbon price on petrol, we have been very clear in the last 24 hours that there will not be a price on carbon put on petrol for passenger motor vehicles and for light commercial vehicles.

In terms of the rest of the detail of the carbon package, I know that the opposition is greatly interested in what the price on carbon should be. In the very near future more detail will emerge. But let us go back to what has been put on the record already. We have agreed to a Productivity Commission review on fuel excise. We have said that there will be a Productivity Commission review on fuel excise. It is anticipated that this review will include an examination of the merits of the regime based on carbon content or energy content of fuels. The Henry review looked at this in some detail. It recommended replac­ing the revenue raised through fuel excise with direct charges for road use. The review noted that this would actually result in a reduction in fuel tax paid.

I am not going to pre-empt the rec­ommendations of the Productivity Com­mission's review, which has not even started, but let us be very clear when it comes to fuel excise policy in this place. The government is not afraid of good policy. That is why as recently as two weeks ago we finished the job which the opposition should have done. I know that Mr Minchin is no longer here, but he recognised that for excises in the fuel tax policy it was important to include alternative fuels such as LPG. We finished the job which should have been done by those opposite many years ago. If they actually want to engage in a proper policy debate then they will have to do more than just oppose ideas.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I request that the minister table the notes from which he was so clearly reading every word.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was the Assistant Treasurer reading from a document?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is confidential.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The document is conf­idential.

Tony Crook (O'Connor, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I recently attended a meeting of primary producers from the agricultural region of WA who are greatly concerned about the future of their industry following a blanket ban on live exports to Indonesia. Will the Prime Minister agree to visit Indonesia as a matter of diplomatic urgency to rebuild relations with the Indonesian government following the fallout of this government's live export ban? Further, will the Prime Minister agree to remove the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry from his portfolio to resolve the impasse that his inept manage­ment of the live export issue has caused, with particular attention to the fact that Indonesia's live export permits for Australian cattle have now expired and will not be renewed for three months?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question and understand that he would be concerned about the circumstances of the live cattle industry, so let me just go through the various things he has asked me. I will start with the last point first because I think it is very important.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister will resume her place. The member for O'Connor has asked a question. It is not for me to have a commentary on the question, but I do not believe it is for those on my left to have a commentary, word by word, on the answer. The member for O'Connor deserves to have the ability to hear the response. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. She should be allowed to do so in silence.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was responding to the last question first because I think it is very important to clear up any misapprehensions there may be about this matter. There is no technical impediment to Indonesia granting permits during the forthcoming three-month period. The course that Indonesia has adopted to date is to not issue import permits to any country. So this is not just about Australia. It has taken that decision in relation to import permits for any nation. The form of words that the member used in his question was that this definitely means that Australia will not be in that market for three months. That is not true. We are obviously working strongly with Indonesia, and with industry here at home, to get the trade up and running again.

My aim, as Prime Minister, has been to resume this trade as soon as possible, making sure that we can address the very real animal welfare issues which were exposed on the Four Corners program and which horrified Australians, including those in the cattle industry. I have had the opportunity to meet with them personally on more than one occasion and everyone that I have met has said as their first sentence to me that they do not want to see their animals treated like that and they were horrified by that footage too.

We want to get this trade up and running as soon as possible, having ensured that the animal welfare standards are appropriate. In order to do that, we need to be able to track and trace where animals from Australian farms go—that is, we need to be able to trace them from the farm, through the journey, on the boat, to the feedlot, to the abattoir—and we need to assure ourselves—

Mr John Cobb interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Calare is warned.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that the standards in the abattoir are appropriate. We are engaged in that work right now.

On the diplomatic strategy and how this work is being done, the government across the board is engaged in this—the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade, and, obviously, I am involved as Prime Minister—and we are pursuing a diplomatic strategy with the best possible advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We will continue to do that. I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to in any way respond to domestic politics here in this regard. The best thing is to have the most productive working relationship with Indonesia, and that is what I intend to do.

On the actions taken by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the minister has been working hard on this very difficult question. There are, of course, some extreme views in this debate. There are some people who basically do not believe we should kill animals for food and there are some people who say, 'Resume the trade, no matter what,' but the vast majority of people, I believe, are in the centre of those two poles and are saying, 'Let's resume the trade when the animal welfare issues are right.' But, given the vast spread of opinion here, it is of no surprise really that the minister for agriculture has got the occasional critique from some involved in the debate. However, he is working hard to get this resolved, as we are across government. I thank the member for his question.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the importance to Australia's economic future of putting a price on carbon pollution? How has this approach been received and what is the government's response?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Parramatta for her question because putting a price on carbon pollution is absolutely important for future prosperity and for future environmental sustainability. We on this side of the House accept the proposition that climate change is real. Just about every reputable scientist believes that climate change is real and, indeed, the Howard government even believed that climate change is real—which is why it believed in putting a price on carbon pollution.

All of the leading scientists, particularly those who came out in the last few weeks, make it very clear that climate change is real, that we are causing it and that we do need to act now. We need to act now because we are in the critical decade. To delay action will mean greater costs and a greater adjustment into the future. That is why economists and business groups accept that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action. That has been accepted since the Stern report came down three or four years ago. It is accepted amongst economists that the least-cost way of doing this is by putting a price on carbon pollution.

That is why we had, in the last couple of weeks, 13 respected Australian economists making that point from most of our reputable businesses in the country. We have Australian business—the Australian Industry Group, the BCA—all arguing for a price on carbon. Only last week we had the CEO of NAB who has said that a price on carbon will drive certainty, it will drive investment. This proposition is also accepted by our largest mining, gas and energy companies.

Mr Van Manen interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Forde is warned.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week, we had the Chairman of Gloucester Coal, Mr James MacKenzie, who made this point about the coal industry:

We are talking about $1 a tonne in the coal industry. It is not something that is going to affect the economics of the coal industry...

That is why companies like Shell, BP, GE, AGL, Santos, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and Origin Energy have all come out in favour of a market price. They all accept that a price on carbon is the way to go to secure our future prosperity.

Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Higgins is warned.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are going about this in the Labor way. We are going about this by providing assistance for households. Nine in 10 households will receive a combination of tax cuts and increased payments to help with the cost of living. We will provide transitional assistance to industry.

So what does the Leader of the Opposition do in the face of everything that the scientists are saying, everything that the economists are saying, everything that senior corporate leaders are saying? He simply ignores the scientists and prefers to take the advice of Lord Monckton. Nothing more could demon­strate what a climate change sceptic he is than that fact. When he got on the wrong side of this, he decided last week when he was at the economics conference in Melbourne to start attacking all of the economists who agree with pricing carbon.

We know something about this Leader of the Opposition: he just likes to come out swinging all of the time and he does not care who he hits. Last week he started taking it out on leading Australian economists who had the temerity to argue for a price on carbon. So he ignores business, he ignores economists and we saw in the House last week and again today that he is going to ignore his own plebiscite. He will not take any notice of business, he will not take any notice of economists and he will not take any notice of scientists. All this just shows how dangerous and unfit for high office he is.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to Greens Senator Christine Milne's statement that the Productivity Commission's report on fuel excise will be handed down in 2015 and that, at that time, petrol could be included in the carbon tax. Treasurer, can you rule out including petrol in the carbon tax in 2015?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will not be including fuel in the carbon price now or in the future.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. How has the Fair Work Act facilitated workplace bargaining since 2009? What are the challenges to, as well as other options for, improving bargaining for Australian businesses and employees?

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Cunningham for her question. She, as did everyone on this side of the House, knew how important it was to fight Work Choices and replace it with Fair Work Australia. I am asked what the impact has been of this important change which we have made since coming to office and I can say this: it has been fantastic for jobs. Some 740,000 jobs have been created since we came to office—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar is warned!

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

with the prospect of another 500,000 jobs. There has been a significant lessening of industrial disputes, almost a halving of them, since we came to office. There has been important wages growth without inflationary impact. There are now the greatest number of people on enterprise bargaining in the history of this country—and that is important because it is focusing economic activity at the job level, the plant level—and there has been smarter bargaining as well. There have been some important breakthroughs in which superann­uation has become an important part of the bargaining process. So not only has the impact been a much fairer system—because gone has been the threat to people's wages and conditions and the ability to sack them at the whim of the employer, replaced now by a requirement to bargain in good faith—but also a system that more than ever suits the economy and the circumstances it is going through now. It is an economy in transition and there is a requirement to understand those different transitory phases and to have a wages system and an industrial relations system that works.

When we talked about introducing the system, we were told by those who now sit opposite that the sky would fall in—wages would be out of control, industrial disputes would be up and we would see all manner of job losses. Just as they are spreading fear today about pricing carbon, so too in those days did they spread fear about the changes we were going to make to Work Choices.

I am also asked in this question: what are the challenges to us in continuing to implement this? The biggest challenge would be if there were a return of a Liberal government to power at the federal level because, for the Liberals, Work Choices is in their DNA. You only have to look at New South Wales and Victoria to see where the premiers there are heading. There is also a cacophony of members in this parliament pining for a return to the days of Work Choices—the member for Curtin, the mem­ber for Wentworth, the member for Goldstein, the member for Higgins, the member for Moncrieff and the member Mayo have all weighed in.

But where has the Leader of the Opposition been in this debate? Try as they might, the media cannot get him to talk about it. He is muzzling his own frontbench, keeping them off television programs and avoiding those programs himself. But when he, himself, was asked what he is going to do, he said, 'Wait until the field evidence comes in.' The field evidence is in. This has been a return to a better system. What we know about the other side is that they are united on returning to Work Choices. They are united on the IR front; they are divided on the PR front—how they come clean with the Australian public. Labor will resist the return to Work Choices because a return would be bad for the Australian people and this economy. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that the residents of Wandoan in my electorate have all their goods delivered by truck. Will the fuel used in the trucks be exempt from the carbon tax or will the residents of Wandoan bear the burden of a carbon tax on fuel while their city counterparts do not?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. As the Assistant Treasurer said before, all fuel, including petrol, diesel and LPG for passenger motor vehicles and light comm­ercial vehicles, will not be subject to a carbon price. He went on to make the point that, when it came to heavy vehicles, we would be revealing further details when we have completed our decisions on the emissions trading scheme. He made that very clear as well.

I would like to say a few things about carbon pricing, and I will refer those comments to rural and regional Queensland in particular. No part of our country will benefit more greatly from a price on carbon than regional and rural Queensland because no part of our country will be more affected by the impacts of dangerous climate change than parts of regional Queensland, which will feel those impacts particularly in agriculture. It is imperative that all of us in this parliament do something about carbon pollution and put in place a solution for the future which secures the environment for our great state, including regional areas but not just regional areas—there is the Great Barrier Reef, for example.

There is a rolled gold case to put a price on carbon if you are a Queenslander. The area that the member for Maranoa asks about is a great coal producing region. We on this side of the House see a bright future for coal in this country. We understand that we need a price on carbon to drive the investment in renewable energy and cleaner—

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am not sure what mining has to do with a question about the carbon tax on diesel for trucks in Wandoan. Can the Treasurer please be relevant?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer has the call and he is aware of the requirement to be directly relevant to the question.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I was asked about the town of Wandoan, which I know. I was asked about that region. Not only is it a great agricultural region; it produces coal as well. People who live there depend for their living on one or the other of those industries. They will receive the assistance which we will put in place for a carbon price. The households there will receive through our scheme additional assistance in terms of tax cuts, in terms of pension increases and also in terms of family payments to compensate for the price impact of a price on carbon. They will all benefit from that—but not only that. It is a great coal producing region and no industry has a greater stake in putting a price on carbon than the coal industry. If we do not move in this area, they will be subject to trade barriers in a carbon constrained world.

The coal industry in this country has a very bright future and it will be even brighter if we price carbon, if we make sure that we drive investment not just in renewable energy but particularly in carbon capture and storage—to get the innovation, to make the future of the industry even brighter and the future brighter in Wandoan for all of the Queenslanders and Australians who live there.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the importance of returning the budget to surplus and investing in jobs? How has this approach been received, and what is the government's response?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We in this House can all have confidence that the fundamentals in our economy are strong and that our future prospects are bright. We have low unemployment, we have record terms of trade and we have an unprecedented pipeline of investment. In particular, as ABARES shows, $430 billion is in the pipeline for resources.

This investment boom will over time stretch our economic capacity, and that is why it is critical to bring our budget back to surplus in 2012-13. That is why we are delivering such a significant fiscal consol­idation. This has been noted in particular by the Reserve Bank in recent times. It is also why we are concerned to build a bigger and better workforce so that all Australians can participate in the opportunities which will flow from the mining boom. This is why the budget was welcomed not just by the Reserve Bank but also by private-sector economists, business groups, unions and community groups. This is why it was so important that the budget pass the House last Thursday—to deliver the economic investments which are so important for our future prosperity and to put in place the savings we needed in that budget to bring our budget back to surplus. So what passed in this House were also key savings measures. These were part of something like 150 bills which have passed through the House of Representatives during the period of this Gillard government. It is a very substantial achievement which goes to the core of securing our future prosperity. We are concerned with continuing to deliver that, but there are some risks to this outlook from the approach of those opposite, particularly the shadow Treasurer. They are still insisting on holding up something like $6 billion worth of critical savings, and that is on top of the $7 billion in budget savings that they have opposed in this House.

We had some revelations about a possible opposition economic policy last week. They came out and said that they were going to give a new round of tax cuts. Of course, we do not know how those tax cuts are going to be delivered because we have not seen the savings to deliver them. We have no idea where they are going to come from. In the same breath, the shadow Treasurer said seriously that he was going to bring down interest rates as well. I do not know how he gets to a position of having a lower surplus, opposing savings in this House and bringing down interest rates. I think the stupidity of this was evident in a press conference the shadow Treasurer gave just before question time. His main point was that we must take pressure off interest rates by spending less. How do you spend less and give substantial tax cuts without indicating where the savings are going to come from?

Of course, when he was challenged by the journalist he walked off and had a hissy fit. Just before question time he was questioned about how all of this was going to be done and he could not answer the question and walked away in a huff. Finally, he was asked by one of the journalists about his cardboard cut-out antics here a few weeks ago and he just stormed off. None of that is a substitute for a fully funded and fully assessed economic policy. It just proves how unfit for high office all of those opposite are.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's previous answer, where he claimed that regional Queensland and the Great Barrier Reef in particular will benefit from a carbon tax. Treasurer, will the marine industry, including fishing trawlers and tourism boats to the Great Barrier Reef, have to pay the carbon tax on their fuel?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is a glutton for punishment. The shadow Treasurer asked me about the tourism industry. There is no industry in this country which is going to be a greater beneficiary of dealing with dangerous climate change than the tourism industry. Its very existence in my home state depends upon the survival of the Great Barrier Reef.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Treasurer was asked a very straightforward question that any good Treasurer would instantly know the answer to. I ask you to direct him back to the question about whether diesel fuels are going to be exempt.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In asking the question, the member for North Sydney referred the Treasurer to his previous answer. The Treasurer has the call.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question from the shadow Treasurer is just part of their irresponsible and continuing scare campaign. Those opposite specialise in talking our economy down by making outrageous statements and claims which are all completely inaccurate and not based on any facts whatsoever. You cannot run economic policy if you ignore the facts, but that is what the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer want to do. The Australian people see right through that crew opposite. They know that so much is being said by those opposite which is absolutely untrue and it reflects very poorly on all of them.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indig­enous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on new measures to benefit Australian families? How have these measures been received and are there any risks to these important reforms?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Petrie very much for her question. She knows that the Labor govern­ment are delivering substantial benefits that are helping families and seniors, while all we get from those opposite is spin and no substance at all. Since last Friday Australian pensioners can now receive the new work bonus which will help them keep more of the pension when they take on some part-time work. Since last Friday Australian families will be able to get access to an expanded education tax refund that will now include school uniforms. Since last Friday there are now new baby bonus payment arrangements to help with the upfront purchases that parents need to make when a new baby comes into the family, such as paying for a new cot or a pram. Families will also be able to access improved family tax benefit payment arrangements to help them meet unexpected costs, such as the cost of fixing their cars. These are real, tangible benefits for Australian families and pensioners. These are reforms of substance, and each and every one of them was delivered by this Labor government. And from last Friday Australian parents are now also receiving the government funded paid parental leave through their employer, and this helps parents keep their connection with their workplace. Just on Friday the Prime Minister and I were very pleased to go to McDonalds in Werribee where we met new mum, Mia, with her baby, Sienna. Mia is about to go back to work after having had her paid parental leave. Of course, she has been very pleased to have the time off with her new baby and has also benefited from keeping the connection with her workplace. She is now very pleased to go back to work. This demonstrates that our paid parental leave has been good for families and continues to be good for business.

Also, from Friday parents who are returning to work after having time off looking after their children will be able to receive the childcare rebate fortnightly, which of course will help them balance their family budgets. It was this Labor govern­ment that increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent, which existed under the coalition, to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket costs. All of these changes have been delivered by this Labor government. And all that we hear from the opposition on these issues is the very, very large bill of $4.5 billion that this Leader of the Opposition wants to pay for their paid parental leave policy. Although I read in the paper today that the Leader of the Nationals told the Leader of the Opposition he should:

Just get rid of the bloody thing.

What is it to be? Is the Leader of the Oppos­ition going to get rid of their paid parental leave policy or leave Australians with a huge bill?

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement that for now households will not be paying the carbon tax on petrol for the family car. Is it not true that while the family car might be exempt for now trucks will not? So while driving the car to the grocery store might not cost more for now, filling it with groceries most certainly will because almost every item on the grocery shelf needs electricity to process it and fuel in the trucks to get it there, all of which will be hit by the carbon tax. Why is the Prime Minister so determined to punish forgotten families with her carbon tax when they are already doing it tough?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hasluck for his question. On the question of petrol for families and small businesses, and light commercial vehicles, I said 'now and into the future' petrol will not be covered by the carbon pricing scheme—now or in the future. The member for Hasluck might want to note that point because that is not what he said in his question but that is what I said in this parliament and outside: 'now and into the future'—and I am referring to that part of the question that dealt with household petrol.

On other issues associated with carbon pricing, the member for Hasluck should wait, as should the opposition in general, to see the full scheme. To date, in guessing what the scheme has in it, the Leader of the Opposition and members of the opposition have gone out and misled the community, and not told them the truth. For months and months and months, the Leader of the Opposition has been saying to anyone who would listen, including in this parliament, that petrol would go up by 6.5c—

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're blaming us for your change of mind.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders! The member for Hasluck on a point of order.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is on relevance. I want to know the impact—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sit down.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I will not sit down, Leader of the House. I want to know the details—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House and the member for Hasluck will both resume their places! The member for Hasluck has the call on a point of order.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is on relevance. I asked a question about trucks and the cost—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Hasluck will resume his seat and the Leader of the House will resume his seat. The point of order is whether or not the response is directly relevant as required by the standing orders and, as I have said before, that is not the preferred improvement that I would have liked to the standing orders. What we are seeing now is debate in the responses. But, as I have said before, the debate might be considered directly relevant. The Prime Minister has the call and she knows the requirements of the standing orders.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was asked a question where on more than one occasion the member for Hasluck said, 'In relation to the Prime Minister's statement that petrol would not be covered by the carbon price for now.' He said that twice. I am entitled to clarify in this parliament that what I have said here and publicly is that the carbon price will not apply to petrol now or in the future. Members of the opposition have been out there for months and months and months trying to scare Australian families with a false claim that petrol was going up by 6.5c a litre. I will not have them now going out there for months and months again trying to scare Australian families that somehow a carbon price is going to apply to petrol in the future. It is not honest. It is not right. It was implied by the member's question and I correct it now because it would be an irresponsible fear campaign, only pursued by people determined to be dishonest with the electorate.

In relation to the rest of carbon pricing in response to the member for Hasluck, each and every statement that members opposite have made about carbon pricing have been grossly irresponsible and wrong. On a number of occasions I have come into this parliament and said to members opposite that every time they ask a question with a figure in it, they have made that figure up. Having committed that error month after month, day after day, week after week, making figures up in order to pursue a scare campaign, the responsible thing for the member for Hasluck to do now, before he makes any assumptions about how carbon pricing will work, is to wait until he gets the full details of the scheme. Also, the member for Hasluck should be out in his electorate telling every family he meets that his policy and the Leader of the Opposition's policy is to rip $720 a year off them. That is a fact.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on what the Australian government is doing to assist the people of Burma and whether there are any prospects of political and economic reform in Burma?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Page for her question because I doubt that there is anyone in this House with more knowledge of Burma than the member for Page. When I was recently in Rangoon the depth of the longstanding friendship with Aung San Suu Kyi which the member for Page has had over more than a decade was clear. I commend her engagement over a long period of time.

The Australian people and the Australian government over the last couple of decades have focused on, legitimately, the continuing suppression of human rights in Burma. Recent history speaks for itself: crackdowns on democracy back in '88, in 1990—

Mr Robb interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein is warned!

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the regime then ignoring democratic elections, Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for 15 of the last 22 years, and of course the brutal suppression of the monks back in 2007. In the last several months we have seen some change—I do not wish to overstate it—on the part of the Burmese government. First, of course, we welcomed the release of Aung San Suu Kyi herself from house arrest. Second, after decades of military rule, we have for the first time, at least nominally, a new civilian government. Third, the president of that civilian government has made a statement on the future directions of democracy, economic reform, health, education and the rest. These are limited changes but they are changes nonetheless, and it was on that basis that I went to Burma in the course of the last several days. It was the first visit by an Australian foreign minister for about a decade, since Mr Downer went there in 2002, and the first visit to Burma by a Western foreign minister since the recent political change there.

In discussions with the Burmese president I very much indicated that the first requirement of the international community is the release of more than 2,000 prisoners of conscience still held in incarceration across Burma. This must be the next and most critical step. If the Burmese government takes that step it will have an immediate transformational effect on the international community's engagement with the govern­ment. But, beyond that, more is needed: greater freedom of political operation for Aung San Suu Kyi herself, the National League for Democracy and, on top of that, other democratic forces and parties. What is also required is the peaceful resolution of Burma's longstanding ethnic conflicts within the country.

I also spoke to the Burmese president and the foreign minister about our engagement in the reduction of poverty in that country, in health and education and in other areas such as food security and agriculture. Australia now stands as the second largest donor to Burma, after the United Kingdom. That is because in Burma we have the poorest country in Asia and therefore something like one-quarter of its population of 60 million living below the poverty line. We in Australia are doing our bit.

I also spent time, together with the member for Page, with Aung San Suu Kyi herself, and can I say to all members of the House who have stood in solidarity with her over the course of the last couple of decades that she wanted me to express to all members of this House her appreciation for the support she has received from this parliament over a long period of time. That is not a partisan comment; it reflects the attitude of those opposite as well.

She also indicated that when she visits rural Burma in the days ahead she expects security to be provided to her and guaranteed by the Burmese government. We reiterate that call. Notwithstanding a recent letter to her from the home affairs minister warning her about her movements, she has indicated her preparedness to engage in political dialogue with the regime. We will continue to engage with Burma into the future. (Time expired)

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the Treasurer: will the carbon tax apply to passenger buses?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can tell you that it will not apply to light commercial vehicles.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The House will come to order! The member for Bowman, the member for Aston and the member for Maranoa are warned!

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney, how is the government working with the community to counter radicalisation and the development of extremist ideas?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his longstanding interest in this issue. The government's counter—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Attorney-General will resume his place. I think that on some occasions there are questions where there is a great deal of bipartisan support and I cannot believe that the House would leave those who are watching with the impression that we are trivialising those important issues. I have an expectation that the House will sit in silence on those occasions when there are those types of matters before us.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The government's counterterrorism white paper identified home grown terrorism as the primary terrorist risk facing Australians and Australian interests and the figures in that respect are instructive. Since 2001 38 people have been charged with terrorism offences in Australia and, while some are yet to face the courts for decision, 37 of those 38 are Australian citizens and, in fact, 21 of the 38 were born in Australia. Just recently the Director-General of Security has made a speech outlining the extent to which individuals are attracted to violent extremist ideologies in many countries, including Australia. While their numbers are small, there is a disproportionate risk to Australians from that small number. So accordingly a comprehensive counterterrorism response necessarily means having a program to counter violent extremism.

In that context, we have been working in partnership with a number of communities to identify extremist elements and to assist vulnerable people to resist the influence of those who would seek to encourage them down that path. The program that has been developed has been informed by expert analysis and advice as to the risk factors and also in terms of developing appropriate strategies. Essentially, that advice is that there is no single risk factor but by and large it does involve young men in particular becoming disconnected and disengaged from not only the mainstream community but also their own communities. That, in turn, makes them vulnerable to be exploited by those who would seek to encourage them down the path of violence.

The first round of countering violent extremism measures was announced last year. They focused on youth mentoring, and today the government has announced an additional $1.7 million for 22 programs that focus on building community resilience. These programs are particularly interesting. They range from programs to communicate with youths who have been directly exposed to a violent extremist message through to local footy teams who are working with their local communities' youths from all back­grounds—to build partnerships and team building and an understanding of different views and, we hope, enduring friendships—through to teacher education and, indeed, development of a national curriculum as well as some grants to those who would develop websites and communication platforms to assist in countering the violent extremist message that can be communicated over the internet.

Could I also congratulate those local governments that have been involved in a number of programs aimed at breaking down stereotyping and at empowering people to resist violent extremism. The government is working in partnership with communities and I can express our appreciation that they have been prepared to recognise the risks and they have been prepared to bring forward such innovative ideas to address the location and specific circumstances of those com­munities. While these are simple and small measures, they are practical measures and we hope they will make the world just that bit safer for our children and grandchildren in the years ahead.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will small-business operators of concrete trucks, bobcats and backhoes be exempt from the carbon tax on their fuel usage?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have outlined, and so has the Assistant Treasurer, those that would be exempt. I am afraid the members who are so serious about running their scare campaign have got a little while to wait yet to get all the detail, and I will be happy to talk to them about it when we have finalised the scheme. In the meantime they will continue with their outrageous scare campaigns and distortions, but I do not believe that the Australian people respect this sort of outrageous approach.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister update the House on investments the government is making to improve the accessibility of care for Aus­tralians? How will the use of new comm­unications technology assist with the provision of health care?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tricky Nicky!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Dickson will withdraw.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Deakin for his question because I know that, unlike the member for Dickson, he is interested in services that are being provided to his electorate. I can inform the House that two brand-new services became available for people across the country from 1 July, last week. Our telehealth services are particularly for rural and regional Australia but also for those living in outer urban electorates like that represented by the member for Deakin. In addition to our telehealth services, the GP after-hours hotline became available for the first time at six o'clock on Friday night. I can inform the House that already 1,300 families and consumers have used that service and been assisted by GPs who are on hand to provide them with medical advice and information in the middle of the night or on Sunday afternoon when their GP services are closed.

The Prime Minister and I were lucky enough to be on hand to sit in on one of the first telehealth conferences. The Prime Minister was in Darwin, in the GP superclinic in Palmerston, with a GP and with a patient, Mary. I was with a specialist dermatologist in Adelaide. Using new technology, with of course the new MBS payments, we were able to see how a consultation could occur. It took under 10 minutes. With the use of technology it meant that the patient in Darwin, instead of having to travel thousands of kilometres there and back to Adelaide to see a dermatologist or to wait weeks or months to have a simple consultation, was able to have her sore leg properly diagnosed. The GP was able to write the script and she was able to get along straight away with that treatment—a simple thing that could not occur if we were not in government because those opposite (1) are trying to pull down the NBN and (2) have opposed our investments in telehealth and opposed our investments in GP superclinics. I was also able last week to visit with the members for Chifley, Greenway, Reid and Parramatta, and with seniors and families in their electorates who want to be able to use the GP after-hours service. Those families would probably be very surprised to know that the Liberal opposition have said they will slash funding for those services.

I have not had a question from the member for Dickson for 97 weeks, yet they can go to the campaign and say that they will cut back these services that are already providing support right across the country. If you live in rural and regional Australia, a specialist has suddenly become closer and easier to access because of our government's $620 million investments. If you are a family that has a sick child in the middle of the night you can now get a GP on the end of the line, but if the Liberal Party were in government they would be closing down those services.

It is about time the Liberal Party came into this House and actually asked us a question on another matter of policy. While we are getting on with delivering health services and delivering health reform, all they are doing is opposing every investment and making it harder and harder for families that need medical services to get access to them. It is about time the member for Dickson started doing some work.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 57 of 2010-11 entitled Performance audit: acceptance into service of navy capability.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the doc­uments will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:

That the House take note of the following documents:

Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Collection) Act 2001Report to the Commonwealth made under section 24 for the period 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011.

Broadcasting Services Act 1992Digital television transmission and reception—Report, July 2011.

Department of Health and Ageing—Report to Parliament on barriers to generic medicines entering the market through the inappropriate use of intellectual property rights over product information, 30 June 2011.

Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—Report on the 2007 federal election events in the division of Lindsay: review of penalty provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918Government response.

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Review of the Defence annual report, 2008-09—Government response.

Health Insurance Act 1973Extended Medicare Safety Net—Review of capping arrangements—Report, 2011

Debate adjourned.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received five messages from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

The list read as follows—

In accordance with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, Senator Thistlethwaite is to be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services;

In accordance with the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Senator Bishop is to be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security;

In accordance with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Act 2010, Senator Furner is to be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement;

In accordance with the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951, Senator Thistlethwaite is to be appointed a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit;

Senator Marshall is to be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and that, in accordance with the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, Senator Singh is to be appointed a member of the committee;

Senator Marshall is to be discharged from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and that, in accordance with the Public Works Committee Act 1969, Senators Gallacher and Urquhart are to be appointed members of the committee;

In accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, Senators Crossin and Sterle are to be appointed members, and Senators Edwards, Fawcett and McKenzie are to be appointed participating members, of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network;

In accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, Senators Bilyk and Parry are to be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety;

In accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, Senators Fawcett, McEwen, Parry and Stephens are to be appointed members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade;

In accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, Senators Edwards, Fawcett and McKenzie are to be appointed participating members of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform;

In accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, Senators Edwards, Fawcett and McKenzie are to be appointed participating members of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network;

Senators Boyce and McEwen are to be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and that, having been nominated in accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, Senators Cash and Singh are to be appointed members of the committee;Senator Cameron is to be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library and that, having been nominated in accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, Senators Humphries, Marshall, McKenzie and Singh are to be appointed members of the committee;

Senator Pratt is to be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that, having been nominated in accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, Senators Coonan, Singh, Thistlethwaite and Urquhart are to be appointed members of the committee; and

In accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, senators are to be appointed to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the committee's inquiry into funding of political parties and election campaigns as follows:

Senator Birmingham as a member; and Senators Edwards, Fawcett and McKenzie as participating members.

I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That Mr Melham and Ms Vamvakinou be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network.

Question agreed to.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendment to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me say right at the very outset that every member of the coalition is passionately committed to the rollout of the availability of fast broadband to all Australians at affo­rdable prices. The debate about the National Broadband Network, of which this bill is a subset, is not a debate about the end. We agree on the end. We agree that all Austr­alians should have access to the benefits of broadband, of fast broadband and of access to the benefits of a digital economy. Our point of difference with the government lies in the means it is employing to achieve that end. In particular, with the way it is establishing the National Broadband Network.

The National Broadband Network is the largest infrastructure project in our country's history. Yet, despite coming into government in 2007 with a very clear and prominent pledge that no major infrastructure project would be undertaken without a rigorous cost-benefit analysis and with an equally prominent pledge that a specialist agency, Infrastructure Australia, would be set up to conduct those cost-benefit analyses, this government with this—the biggest infrast­ructure project in our history—continues to refuse to undertake any cost-benefit analysis. Again and again it shows itself to be utterly hypocritical on this issue. If the government were serious about rigorous economic analysis and dealing with taxpayers' dollars responsibly it would undertake that cost-benefit analysis and pose this question: what is the fastest and most cost-effective way to deliver fast broadband to all Australians and do so in a way that makes broadband more affordable?

I stress the point of affordability because naturally in this place we focus, quite properly, on the burden on the taxpayer: is the taxpayer getting value for money and could the objective of fast broadband across the nation be delivered at a lower cost to the taxpayer—could the taxpayer get more bang for their buck, in other words? But an equally important issue, and one that I would say is, if anything, of more importance, is whether broadband will be affordable so that those Australians who are not able to afford it today will be able to afford it in the future. The reality is—and we rely on the ABS, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, for this—that the largest group of Australians who do not have access to the internet today are those in households earning $40,000 or less a year. The biggest barrier to internet access is not technology; it is not some issue of network design. Sure, there are issues of network design that impact on the speeds people can achieve. But, in terms of basic access to the internet at any speed, the biggest barrier is income. Too many Australians cannot afford it. That is a fact.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The honourable member opposite shakes his head. He should have another look at the ABS statistics. The reality is that the NBN will not deliver more affordable broadband. If anyone doubts my contention, they do not have to rely on my remarks or indeed on the remarks of the many competitive telcos who make the point that this is going to result in more expensive broadband because it is a big government monopoly, heavily capitalised, which will inevitably not be subject to the price pressures of competition because it will have no competitors; they have only to look at page 105 of the NBN corporate plan and see there the forecast retail prices, which are equal to or indeed higher than many of the plans that are available today.

Of course it stands to reason. We know the factor that has brought down broadband costs over the last five years—by as much as half, according to the OECD, as I recall—has been the growing competition in the telecommunications sector. That competition at the facilities level, at the level of physical access into the premises, is going to be eliminated because the government not only is legislating to constitute the NBN as an effective fixed line monopoly but has paid billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to Telstra and to Optus not to use their HFC networks, their pay television hybrid fibre coaxial networks, to offer broadband or voice in competition with the NBN. Yet we know that those networks are capable of providing broadband services today, are providing broadband services today and are providing in some markets—in Melbourne in particular—broadband services at speeds of 100 megabits per second. When you look at other markets around the world—South Korea is always a good example; the United States is another—you see that HFC cables, pay TV cables, are being used to provide broadband services and in those markets provide the competition with the ADSL services provided over the copper networks owned by the telephone companies—or indeed competition with the fibre networks owned by telcos and other broadband providers, as is the case in Korea, where the fastest growth in broadband penetration has been over the HFC networks belonging to SK Telecom and LG.

This whole NBN scheme is going to be, tragically for the people of Australia, a lose-lose. It is more expensive than it needs to be. The government say we are not right on that score, but if they had the courage of their convictions they would have done the cost-benefit analysis which, if they are right, would demonstrate that this was in fact the most cost-effective way to set up a national broadband network. But, because they are afraid of asking the question, the Australian people can only reasonably assume that they fear what the answer will be and that they know it will be that they are spending tens of billions of dollars more than they need to. On the other side of the coin, we know that this network is going to provide not cheaper and more affordable broadband access but broadband access that is either just as expensive as current services or indeed more expensive, particularly for the higher speeds. This is an important point. I will not delay the House with the material that I published recently about the South Korean market, but it is very instructive to analyse the exper­ience there. Consumers in South Korea, which is arguably the most advanced economy in terms of broadband penetration and use of information technology, are not prepared to pay any significant sort of premium for higher speeds. When you look at the NBN corporate plan you see that a fundamental premise there is that Australians will pay very substantial premiums to go from 12 to 25, 50 and up to 100 megabits per second and higher. When you match that against experience in this market—indeed, Telstra's experience with its HFC cable in Melbourne and in particular the experience in South Korea or the comparable experience in the United States—you see that consumers are not prepared to pay significant premiums or, indeed, any premium in many cases for faster speeds. Why is that? It is because speed in and of itself—that is to say, 50 megabits per second, 100 megabits per second—is of no value to a consumer whatsoever. The value comes from the applications that run on it and that the speed enables to be run on it. If there are applications that can be run on a higher speed that can be run on a lower speed—that is to say, if everything a consumer wants can be run adequately, effectively, satisfactorily at a lower speed and at a lower price—that is the product they will take, and that is exactly what has happened.

This bill is all of a one with the goal of the government in creating this big monopoly, the NBN. It is designed to deal with the situation, the deployment of fibre, into greenfields developments. The coalition does not object to the policy objective of greenfields developments being, wherever possible, rolled out with fibre to the home. There is an incremental cost, as we have acknowledged in the dissenting report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network that was tabled today, but it is not a substantial incremental cost compared to the enormous cost of rolling out fibre to the home in brownfields areas. I should note, however, that much to my surprise when I was visiting South Korea recently I saw that, in some very new and very large residential greenfields develop­ments, fibre had not been cabled into the premises; in fact, the fibre network terminated in the basement and the buildings themselves were cabled with copper. I just offer that to the House and to those listening to this debate today as an example of the Korean experience, which, as I say, is very instructive because they have been further down this track than us.

Nonetheless, assuming we are going to go down this line of installing fibre in greenfields premises, I think ensuring that rollout is efficient and timely has a very important impact on Australia's telecomm­unications environment. The NBN estimates that 1.9 million greenfields premises—that is to say, households in new developments—will have to be connected to the NBN by 2020 and a quarter of a million by June 2013. The government has long argued that the greenfields market for fibre deployment is competitive. Given this competitiveness, even this government recognised that it would be ludicrous to do away with that market entirely and that private operators, it said, should be encouraged to roll out fibre to new developments. In its first policy consultation paper released in May 2009 on greenfields estates, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy stated:

The installation of FTTP is taking place in a competitive context, with developers typically contracting out the provision of infrastructure and services in developments. In areas where the FTTP infrastructure provider does not provide retail services, arrangements are increasingly being put in place to ensure partnerships exist with retail providers to deliver services to consumers.

In that paper, the department estimated that, at the time, around 120 greenfields estates were being prepared for fibre deployments, with more than 10 operators reaching an estimated 150,000 homes.

In 2009, Senator Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, set up a stakeholder reference group and his department held one-on-one consultations with operators to understand how to implement its greenfields policy. As late as a December 2010, the minister was still telling the industry it would be an integral part of a fibre rollout. The minister said:

It has been a consistent feature of the Government’s policy in new developments that there should be room for competing providers. This continues to be the case.

…   …   …

Providers can compete to provide infrastructure in new developments, for example, by offering more tailored solutions to developers or more expeditious delivery.

Sadly, those fine intentions have not been reflected in this bill. In common with every other aspect of this NBN project, it will see an effective market completely scrapped and all of the inherent risks and liabilities involved with rolling out fibre transferred to the taxpayer. The NBN Co. has said that once it has rolled out the optical fibre line it will take up ownership not just of the network but also of the pits and pipes that the developers have installed. Down the track this will take the cost of maintenance off the hands of developers and place it with the taxpayers, but the cost of providing the pits and the pipes lies with the developers. The NBN Co. are offering no upfront cost to developers when installing the optical fibre network. That is important because smaller fibre-to-the-premises developers do not have the luxury of spending taxpayers' money in the hope that 10 years down the track they may actually begin to recoup some of the money that has been invested. As OPENetworks stated in their submission to the joint committee:

NBN Co is the obvious first choice for Developers because NBN Co is the only provider that can fund the network build costs (that may otherwise have been paid by Developers to OPENETWORKS ...) and that funding is then able to be recovered by NBN Co charging RSPs higher operational prices.

OPENetworks have argued that this policy is in fact a violation of the competitive neutrality policy for government owned businesses, which holds that they should not exercise unfair advantage by reason of their government ownership over their private sector competitors. An appropriate applic­ation has been made to the Productivity Commission in that regard. What this legislation will do is make greenfields property developments more expensive and slower to bring to market, and stifle competition. The department said before the committee that a developer has the choice. He has to put in the pits and pipes, but he has the choice of going to a private sector fibre company or waiting for the NBN. The reality is that there is no choice because the NBN will provide the fibre for no cost to the developer whereas the developer would obviously have to pay a price to a private fibre company. Each of the representatives of the property sector and the greenfield operators have made the point to us that the business of putting in the pits and pipes and then waiting around for the NBN Co. to turn up is going to place considerable delays and expense on property developments. We have heard many complaints from the property sector about the delays occasioned by this. I am foreshadowing amendments that we will be moving later in this debate which will seek to rectify that particular problem.

The amendment we are going to move—and this has been detailed at some length in the dissenting report—will mean that a property developer, having dug the pits and pipes, can choose to have a private sector fibre provider to lay the fibre as long as it is done in accordance with the specifications, which should be stipulated by the industry, not by NBN. NBN obviously will have a big input into that but it should not be dictated by the NBN for exactly the same reason that, when telecommunications reform began some decades ago, Telstra's ability to set technical standards was taken away and moved to the regulator. The developer can employ this private sector company or what are called greenfield fibre operators. As long as they have installed that fibre in accordance with those specifications, the developer will be entitled to be remunerated by the NBN Co—in other words, it will require NBN Co. to buy that fibre setup from the developer for a tariff which will be set by the minister on a per residence basis, taking into account the relevant factors such as the cost of construction, NBN's costs and so forth.

What is the object of this amendment? This does not undermine in any way the objectives of the NBN. This means that a developer can get on with the job, get the fibre installed and be paid for it without having to wait around for the great big government monopoly to deign in its magnificence and wisdom to get around to this developer's problems. The reality is that a new development which does not have the fibre installed will be at an enormous disadvantage from a marketing point of view to another development that does have that fibre installed. So it is important that developers are able to get on with the job and get the fibre installed. This amendment will enable them to do just that.

We flagged this issue with the various developer's organisations and with the greenfield operators in the course of the joint standing committee inquiry. All of them supported it and welcomed it. We flagged it also with the department. Their response was essentially equivocal. It was not really a responsive answer at all. They did not seem to have a particularly strong view on it either way. The bottom line is that will make it easier for developers to get on with the job. It may well save the NBN Co. cost and expense and, if it encourages NBN Co. to move things along and be more timely in its construction of these networks, then that would be a very good thing as well.

The other amendment that we will move a little later in the course of this debate—and which we flagged in the dissenting report—would enable the private sector cable companies, greenfield operators, to be exempted from the cherry-picking provisions of this act if the fibre network they seek to build meets the following conditions: it is not owned or operated by NBN Co. or Telstra; it is installed in a new development; it is owned and operated by the same entity which builds it; and it delivers retail services only to the persons who reside in the development.

The purpose of this amendment is to enable the private sector greenfield cable operators to stay in business, to be able to put in a network they would then be able to operate as a small private network. They should be exempt from those cherry-picking provisions because of their scale. As we have said in the report, it would effectively maximise the options available to developers and to the greenfield operators. They could contract on the basis that the greenfield operator would build the network and operate it until such time as it was sold to the NBN Co. or they could contract on the basis that the greenfield operator would continue to operate it and there would be no sale to the NBN Co. at all. They would no doubt be under some risk that the NBN Co. might choose to overbuild them but one would hope that, when the rush of blood to the head of NBN Co. settles down a little, they will not be overbuilding brand new fibre optic networks, given the expense of doing so.

This amendment, coupled with the first amendment, will mean that a developer is in the position where he or she can employ the same company—and this is, as TransACT said in the inquiry, clearly the most efficient way to do it—to put in the pits and pipes, put in the cable and then either be paid for that cable by NBN Co. and, in effect, sell it to NBN Co. or for that cable-laying company to operate it as an independent cable network. That gives the developer a range of options. It does not put the developer at a disadvantage and it does not give the developer a disincentive from using the private sector. It means that the greenfields companies can continue in existence and can provide some real competition to the NBN.

I imagine that honourable members opposite will oppose this because they are opposed to competition, but at some point they have to match the rhetoric with the reality of the bill that is before the House. Their rhetoric has been that there is nothing in this bill that impedes competition in the greenfields developments. But a greenfields operator under the scheme in this legislation is at an insuperable disadvantage to the NBN Co. because the NBN Co.'s cable will be laid for free, at no cost to the developer, and the cost presumably will be recovered from charges made to retail service providers over time, whereas if the developer goes to hire somebody else to put in the fibre network they will have to pay them to do so. Naturally the preference bias will be in favour of the NBN Co.

I imagine that many developers would not be too troubled by that. Obviously the owners of the operators of these greenfields cable networks are very threatened by that. Many people in the industry have said that this bill will have the effect of putting them as an industry right out of business. In the absence of these amendments, I fear that that would be the case. Many developers might be quite happy just to let the NBN get on and do the job, but the experience has been of inordinate delays. All of us in this House who have been involved in the development sector or observed people in the development sector or are familiar with the conduct of big government owned monopolies or indeed big private companies know that they take their time. Many developers will be left waiting and waiting for the cable to be laid. The longer they wait, the longer it will be before the development is complete and the longer it will be before they can get it to market. All of them said to us in their evidence that they believe that the private sector can put in the infrastructure at a considerably lower cost than the NBN is likely to. The department turned up their nose at that and said they could not see any evidence for that. It really is not a question of evidence. One way or the other, let the market decide. If the private sector can do a better and cheaper job than NBN then no doubt developers will see that as an opportunity.

The amendments that we are proposing here will give developers real choice. They will ensure that cable is rolled out in greenfields developments in a more timely and efficient fashion. They will ensure that developers are not put in a 'Hobson's choice' situation where they can either wait and wait for the NBN to show up and lay cable at no cost to them or pay somebody else to do it out of their own pocket with no reimbursement to get it done sooner. And they give the greenfields cable operators—TransACT, Opticom and others—the chance to stay in business and to provide some competition. To honourable members opposite whose approval of these amendments we in the committee sought, but to no avail, I say to them once again that if they are serious about competition this is the opportunity to support amendments—which we will move later—which will provide some real competition.

There are many things that are unique about the NBN. The government members may regard this as a compliment. One is that there is no country in the world spending as much on a national broadband network as we are. Our spending, on any measure, is off the charts. There is no other country in the world that is establishing a new government owned monopoly to deliver broadband. Again, that is a world first—and not one that we should be too proud of. But just as importantly and most ominously there is no other country in the world that is seeking to eliminate facilities based competition. Take your pick. Anywhere else in the world governments are very anxious—and this is particularly the case in Korea and the United States—to ensure that there is always real competition among the fixed line services and that they are available to as many households as possible. The amendments I have foresh­adowed will go some way at least in new developments to achieving that. After the amendments are debated later, we will be commending them to the House and trust they will get the support of the House. (Time expired)

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, since the member for Wentworth mentioned it, he knows perfectly well that he came to the committee with half-baked amendments full of square brackets saying, 'I will insert something here when I think about what to put in here.' So he should not come in here and make those assertions. Secondly, we waited about 10 minutes for him to give his usual spiel without even talking to the bill. As the member for Lyne said when he introduced the advisory report earlier today, the disagreements in this committee and in this report on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011 actually come down to a question of policy and ideology more than anything else. That is borne out by the fact that we have had to sit here for the last half-hour and listen to the member for Wentworth say the same rhetoric he has said on every single occasion, crying these tears for affordability.

What did they do? What did he do when he was a member of a government which saw Australia going down the gurgler with respect to broadband rankings around the world? Australia became an absolute backwater in terms of internet accessibility and high-speed broadband. It has taken this government to pick up the mantle and actually turn that around. We know why he is saying these things. We know it is in his remit. We know that is his job. The sole purpose of him coming in here today and spending half an hour just bagging out the NBN is that he has been given the remit to destroy the NBN. On this point, I found he actually felt and looked rather uncomfortable on this occasion because he talked about HFC being available. He knows perfectly well that only 30 per cent of the country is covered by it and even then that is only if you are lucky enough to live on the eastern seaboard around metropolitan areas. He knows perfectly well when he mentions the United States that they have had a long history of ubiquitous cable investment. He talks about South Korea and again he knows perfectly well that the reason South Korea has become the internet economic miracle is government intervention and acceptance a decade ago of the need for broadband development. What were we in Australia doing in that time? Absolutely nothing.

The member for Wentworth talks about the value of broadband being in the applications rather than speed. Absolutely true, but the fact is that in order to deliver those applications you need bandwidth. Without bandwidth they are absolutely nothing. The member for Wentworth talks about facilities based competition. That is fine, but we know from not only the analyses that have been done by the ACCC since 1997 but also in the lead up to the NBN being announced that facilities based competition in Australia has failed. Why has it failed? Because Telstra as the incumbent operator was a vertically integrated company controlling both the wholesale and the retail levels, so the market failed.

What happens when markets fail? What do Labor governments do? We step in when the market fails and we rectify that failure. The member for Wentworth talks yet again about Australia going it alone on what it is doing in this area. I remind members that one of the key regulatory principles is that regulations should be specific to the needs of each country. What is the need for Australia right now? The need is to connect a country of vast geography and differing topology and a country which has definite broadband black spots that have not been addressed.

You do not have to take it from me. Take it from the ITU Secretary General of the United Nations, who visited Australia only in April this year and made the following comment:

Australia is a different country. Its geography and spread of the people, the level of telecommunications development and the level (of competition) between the operators—I will not say which one is a giant or not—all of those conditions, you do not find them elsewhere and therefore you do need to have the guts to tackle the problem.

That is exactly what this government is doing. Finally, the member for Wentworth constantly wants to throw around the word 'monopoly'. As everyone knows, the NBN is a wholesale-only network. How will it deliver competition to consumers? It does that by disinfecting the wholesale level so that the vertical integration disease is obscured to the extent that we can regulate the wholesale level and give a level playing field to retail operators with equivalent pricing and terms.

Now that I have dispensed with the member for Wentworth, I turn to the bill itself. This is a critical piece of legislation for the development of the National Broadband Network, particularly for the estimated nearly two million new premises that will be constructed across Australia during the rollout phase. The passage of this bill will provide something vitally important for all stakeholders including industry, consumers, local government and developers. What is that? It is certainty. For homebuyers, there will be certainty that their new dwelling will be fibre ready. For developers, there will be certainty as to their obligations to ensure ducts and lead-in are fibre ready.

I turn to some practical context of the bill. The practicalities of this bill are certainly not lost on me. While I doubt there will be substantial greenfields development in some electorates such as Wentworth and Bradfield in the immediate future, this is not the case in respect of west and north-west Sydney. During my time as a representative on Blacktown City Council and as its Deputy Mayor, I was party to decisions on many new development approvals and subdiv­isions. I am on the record as an advocate for the notion that, just as the local government planning and approvals process takes into account community needs such as parks, sporting amenities and childcare centres, access to advanced communication services must be viewed as an essential service with infrastructure backing that is akin to sewerage and electricity and made a condition of consent.

I have witnessed first hand—and too many of my constituents are living it today—the consequences of underinvestment in advanced communications infrastructure in our new greenfields estates. For many residents in suburbs such as Kellyville Ridge, The Ponds and even Stanhope Gard­ens in Glenwood, their primary reason for contact and advocacy with my office concerns their inability to access what are now regarded as entry level broadband products such as ADSL2+.

Even in older estates in Greenway, which were once greenfields or even brownfields developments, such as specific streets in the well-established suburb of Kings Langley, access to high speed broadband is a challenge. The timing of this particular dev­elopment meant that the Foxtel cable rollout passed by this area. This is not, as the member for Wentworth has attempted to assert on just about every occasion, a consequence of an income barrier. It is amusing enough that this furphy is being peddled by the same person who ran a fantastic dial-up ISP, which he sold in the dotcom boom and made either a cool $60 million or $40 million, according to recent reports—but who is counting? No, this lack of access is the consequence of chronic underinvestment in communications infrast­ructure in greenfields estates. You only need to look at the median house prices in Kings Langley, Kellyville Ridge and The Ponds, which are $545,000, $588,000 and $596,000 respectively, to understand that this is not merely a question of income. When one examines the electoral divisions ranked by the proportion of households with a broadband internet connection, there is not a single regional electorate with a percentage of households with broadband connections above 50 per cent. Indeed, far and away the tyranny of distance when it comes to broadband accessibility is borne out by the fact that nearly every rural and regional electorate lies in the bottom half of the scale. I am yet to receive an answer from anyone on the opposite side of the House explaining to me what they did over all their years in office to improve broadband development and accessibility for households in suburbs such as Mt Druitt, to develop broadband as a tool for social inclusion in disadvantaged regions or even to create a comprehensive policy for greenfields development. As an example of how confused their policy has been on this issue, one only needs to look at the so-called 'real action' plan they took to the last election. On page 4 of that policy it is stated:

The Coalition will conduct an urgent review of whether to mandate that all 'greenfields' connections must be fibre.

That leaves it up in the air whether there should be a fibre mandate, as opposed to copper, in new developments. Yet on page 17 of that same policy it states:

The Coalition believes that new dwellings should have a fibre connection rather than a copper connection.

So even in their own policy, the one they took to the last election, they could not make up their minds on their position. This confusion from those opposite continues in their ill-conceived proposed amendments to this bill, which I will happily deal with in the consideration in detail stage. In the mean­time, I note that page 42 of the dissenting report into the bill, which was tabled earlier today, states:

… the evidence the inquiry received demonstrates that there is a vigorous private market for the construction of fibre infrastructure in new developments.

The dissenting report goes on to say that the bill will end all that. That is simply not true. There is vigorous competition which will remain with the bill in effect. The change will be that the competitors will compete to provide fibre installation to NBN Co. rather than to developers. Instead of developers extracting an economic rent, consumers will not pay for fibre connectivity of itself. They will pay for what they use from a retail service provider providing services using the NBN. The constructors will obtain a normal return. The change is that there is no arbitrage opportunity, which those opposite, who like to say they are champions of competition, should embrace. No arbitrage opportunity and no abnormally high rents—the effect is good for consumers.

I turn to that part of the bill dealing with the proposed access regime—the proposed part 20A of the Telecommunications Act. I would like to make the point that the proposed regime is based on existing provisions in schedule 1 of the Telecomm­unications Act, none of which are novel. It provides a regime for carriers to secure access to fixed line facilities owned by non-carriers in order to ensure that fibre can be rolled out using these facilities. So it is indeed based on the existing schedule 1 of the Telecommunications Act. Access can be on terms that are commercially agreed or, failing agreement, one can agree on an arbitrator. The default arbitrator will be the ACCC. So, as can be seen, the access regime is completely in line with existing competition provisions under the Telecommunications Act itself.

The outcomes of this bill will be early and less costly access to fibre based broadband for residents of new developments, reduced costs for deploying fibre by ensuring that the ductwork infrastructure is indeed fibre-ready, reduced costs for deployment of fibre through access to non-carrier duct as well and cabling for new premises which ensures they can take advantage of the NBN. All of these things are well understood by consum­ers. They understand that the definitive agreements, signed the other week, between Telstra, Optus and NBN Co., mean that we will be able to fast-track using existing facilities and existing infrastructure in the most efficient way possible. This is well understood in my electorate, where River­stone is the site of the first Sydney metro rollout. The question I continually get there is not, 'Why we are doing this?'—not the question that the member for Wentworth seems to believe consumers keep asking over and over again. They are not asking why; they are asking when. It cannot come soon enough for these areas of west and north-west Sydney, which have suffered from chronic underdevelopment.

I turn now to the issue of NBN Co. operating as the wholesale provider of last resort. There is strong stakeholder support for this. It supports a consistent national approach in the future and, if alternative providers wish to compete with NBN Co., they are welcome to do so. I will finish by talking briefly about some of the proposed amendments. I could not resist the notion put forward by the member for Wentworth about NBN Co. being forced somehow to buy network from other providers. What is actually being proposed here is that a developer will arrange for NBN Co. to purchase that part of the network from the fibre provider. This is highly problematic. It seems to suggest the developer can force NBN Co. to buy another person's asset without their permission. That raises issues about acquisition of property.

I will end on that note, but I also particularly want to draw the House's attention to the significance of 20 July. Everyone should be putting that date in their diaries. On that day, the shadow minister will be addressing a CEDA forum on the topic 'Broadband Vision for Australia: The Opposition's Perspective'. This will be a pretty short speech. If you want to go to it, it is $270 a head, but I am happy to save any member here $270 and 10 minutes of their time by pointing out that we already know what the opposition's policy on broadband is—it is to destroy the NBN. The member for Wentworth has demonstrated that that is his remit and that that is what he will be trying to do. (Time expired)

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amend­ment (Fibre Deployment) Bill. I think there is agreement in this House over the need for high-speed broadband, but the issue is how you get there and how you provide those services in the most efficient and effective way—a way that provides an acceptable return on funds invested, a way that ensures there is excellent competition in the market and a way that delivers services to Australians at a price they can afford. The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the installation of fibre into new developments and housing estates and to ensure that the telecommunication infrastructure placed in new developments meets the technical requirements of NBN Co.

There are four measures in this bill in total. Firstly, the bill enables the minister to specify new developments in which fixed lines for installation must be optical fibre lines and must comply with technical specifications. The bill calls this rule the optical fibre line requirement and requires NBN Co. to be the installer of last resort, where a developer does not choose a commercial provider. However, it is becoming clear that the terms of this legislation will see NBN Co. becoming the installer of first resort, rather than last.

Secondly, the bill requires that facilities installed in a development must be fibre-ready. This will be called the fibre-ready facility requirement and will ensure that passive infrastructure such as underground ducting and pits and pipes allow the ready deployment of optical fibre cabling. Thirdly, the bill prevents corporations from selling or leasing land or buildings in new develop­ments unless fibre-ready facilities have been installed. Finally, the bill implements a regime for carriers to secure access to fixed-line facilities such as pits and pipes owned by non-carriers to ensure fibre can be rolled out using those facilities. Access to these facilities will be on terms that are negotiated commercially by the respective parties, or determined by an agreed arbiter. The bill creates a mechanism whereby the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be the default arbiter where an alternative is not selected by the respective parties.

The coalition believes that the government has taken the same approach with this bill as it has with the entire NBN project. The government's approach is to establish a monopoly at a huge cost to the Australian taxpayer and destroy competition at every opportunity. Through NBN Co., the govern­ment is completely dismantling competition in the wholesale telecommunications ind­ustry—all so that the business case and the potential return of NBN Co. can be propped up. But, like all government monopolies, this approach simply creates a poor allocation of resources and massive cost blowouts for taxpayers. This legislation is being debated within an environment where NBN Co. is already facing these blowouts and delays to the rollout. We have seen the cost of installing the NBN into Tasmanian homes reach $7,500 per premise. On the mainland, NBN Co. suspended its construction tender in April because bids by companies familiar with the industry came in at around $8 billion above NBN Co.'s budget.

Most insulting of all to the Australian taxpayer is the announcement last week that the Gillard government will be paying billions of dollars to Telstra and Optus to transfer their customers from copper and wire infrastructure to the NBN. We have the situation where NBN Co. is paying the two largest wholesale operators billions of dollars all to acquire customers and charge them a higher price for broadband.

Yet, despite these billions of taxpayer dollars being spent, the NBN only has around 728 customers receiving the service for free. It is spending $132 million on the cost of employing around 1,000 NBN Co. staff members, with 51 executives earning over $300,000 a year. Within this context, we have this bill which will destroy the ability of fibre installation companies to compete with NBN Co. for the rights to install fibre in new developments.

The coalition agrees that it is desirable to encourage the installation of fibre in new developments. It has been a farcical situation allowed by this government, where Telstra has been required to install copper into smaller developments of less than 100 premises with the knowledge that the infrastructure will eventually be overbuilt by fibre. What a waste of money it is to overbuild infrastructure—no wonder Telstra has been reluctant to install copper and has left developments at a standstill while the government takes its time rectifying the situation.

The coalition completely welcomes the chance we have to ensure that fibre is installed in all new developments. However, we believe that the private sector has been facilitating the installation of fibre in new developments for many years and that this bill unfairly removes this competition to NBN Co. There is already an active and productive market between competitive greenfield operators, or CGOs, to secure contracts from developers for the purpose of installing fibre. This point was made clear in hearings of the Joint Parliamentary Comm­ittee on the National Broadband Network into this legislation. The industry group Greenfield Fibre Operators of Australia—which consists of seven installers of fibre including OPENetworks, Service Elements, TransACT, Comverge, Broadcast Engin­eering and Pivit—submitted to the comm­ittee:

GFOA companies have been competing with one another, Telstra Velocity, Opticomm, VicUrban, Multinet Broadband and other carriers/operators ... for over ten years.

... there is already a very healthy competitive market between experienced wholesale network carriers in Greenfields ... that is not acknowledged by Government.

The submission by GFOA also states that competition in the market has produced enormous reductions in the cost of installing fibre. In an environment where NBN Co. are using public funds to create a wholesale fibre network, surely the taxpayer should expect the government to pursue the lowest costs available. However, GFOA state:

Deployment of FTTP networks by GFOA carrier/operators are currently costing $1,500 per lot ... for networks where the functional performance specifications and standards equal or exceed the current functional performance specifications and standards of NBN Co networks that cost more than double the price to build.

In Tasmania during the installation of fibre for premises with pre-existing infrastructure, NBN Co. has spent an average of $7,500 per premise connected. Clearly a competitive market would allow cheaper costs and a better outcome for taxpayers. We hear the government give lip service to competition. According to the minister, this legislation will implement a regime where NBN Co. is the installer of last resort where the developer does not choose a competing installer. However, the bill effectively destroys any competition for two reasons. Firstly, developers can incur the expense of building trenches and fibre-ready facilities and then employ NBN Co. to install the fibre at zero additional cost to the developer. What possible incentive will a developer have to hire a competing fibre installer to roll out fibre when the developer can hire NBN Co. to do the same work at no cost?

The second way the government is ensuring an NBN Co. monopoly in installing fibre is by enforcing standards for a fibre-ready facility in greenfield estates. In practical terms, this means that the pit and duct infrastructure used to facilitate the installation of fibre must meet standards set by the minister and specified by NBN Co. So, we will have a situation where the dominant operator in the market will have the power to set the technical specifications and requirements that its competitors must meet. This was the situation prior to 1989, when the then Labor government transferred Telecom Australia to an independent body and started the process by which telecommunications were recognised in the Trade Practices Act and overseen by the ACCC. The impact of this bill should clearly be prohibited by the ACCC, which the government is effectively turning into a toothless tiger with regards to telecommunications regulation. Rather than implement NBN Co. as the installer of last resort, the provisions of this bill ensure that NBN Co. will be the installer of first resort because developers have absolutely no incentive to consider another installer. This point is felt strongly by existing private installers. For instance, TransACT submitted to the committee that:

... it appears to be the intent of the Government and NBN Co, that it plans and needs NBN Co to be the monopoly provider of FTTP in Greenfields developments;

The impact of the government's policy on new housing developments is that the competitive industry will simply cease to exist. The Greenfield Fibre Operators of Australia made this clear when they told the committee that the bill will simply put them out of business. So here we have a Labor government that claims to support competition and that a monopoly wholesale network is the only way to promote retail broadband competition, but is completely destroying competitive industries while it sets up the NBN Co. monopoly. This approach will have devastating effects not only on niche industries such as fibre installation but also on the entire telecom­munications industry in Australia. As the Victorian government recently said in its submission to the NBN inquiry being undertaken by the House of Representatives:

After over two decades of national economic and financial reform, the NBN proposal in its present form represents a very serious threat to the long-term competition in the telecommunications sector.

The Victorian government went on to say:

The increasingly apparent risk is that the commonwealth could, over time, fully replicate a dysfunctional telecommunications market structure that has hindered investments in the current broadband market. This would be the result if it simply replaces Telstra's market power with an NBN Co infrastructure monopoly with all the attendant inefficiencies and constraints on investment, innovation and future policymaking.

Through this bill, these predictions are already coming true in the market for fibre installation in new developments. We will see competition wiped out and NBN Co. installing fibre at a higher cost per lot than could be achieved by private enterprise, with the taxpayer footing the bill every step of the way.

The coalition will be introducing two amendments to protect competition and ensure that taxpayers benefit from the efficiencies of a competitive marketplace for fibre installations in new developments. We believe that the bill should be amended to remove the disincentive for developers to use private operators to install fibre infrast­ructure. The bill would be amended to enable developers, whose project has an installed fibre network in compliance with the minister's specifications, to have the option to require NBN Co.'s purchase of the network at a reasonable price. A reasonable price would be determined by the minister with consideration of current market prices and costs. The developer will then have an incentive to use private operators because the costs of doing so would be recouped from selling the network to NBN Co. Essentially, developers will face the same costs regardless of whether they employ a private operator or NBN Co. to install the fibre. By protecting competition in this manner, the government would be ensuring competitive pressures keep down the costs of installing fibre in new developments and taxpayers will benefit from getting the best market price for the installation of fibre. This amendment will also impose a cost discipline directly on NBN Co. If NBN Co.'s competitors can build connections at a lower charge than NBN Co., then there would be a cost saving to NBN Co. and to all taxpayers.

The second coalition amendment would see certain fibre networks exempt from the operations of parts 7 and 8 of the Telecommunications Act, which will require that all fibre networks must operate under the same technical standards as the NBN. The amendment will ensure that those networks not owned or operated by NBN Co. or Telstra, and where those networks only delivered retail services to persons residing in the development, would be exempt from these parts of the act. NBN Co. would still retain the option to build its own network in the development if it wished and would have access to the fibre-ready facilities which the developer is required to build, but the network would still be placed under the same access conditions as stipulated for NBN Co. This amendment would ensure that competition continues to exist for private networks in new developments and that developers are given maximum flexibility in choosing services for their future residents.

The warning signs are all there that this project will suffer from low demand, be months or years behind schedule and end up costing taxpayers billions above the $50 billion that they are already projected to be paying. The coalition urge the government to adopt our amendments to ensure that we can salvage at least some competition in the market while NBN Co. continues destroying all competitors in its wake.

Just two weeks ago we saw yet another example of NBN Co. destroying competition with its announcement of the terms of the Telstra agreement, presently valued at some $11 billion, and the announcement of the deal with Optus, proposing to spend $800 million to do nothing more than purchase customers from the network and take out competition. We believe that competition is the cornerstone of delivering lower prices for consumers. Why then are we going to use taxpayers' dollars when the only return on investment for those very taxpayers who are paying out the money to purchase customers is that they will be paying a higher price for their broadband?

It seems that only Labor could come up with such an interesting business proposal: to charge taxpayers, in the case of Optus, $800 million to purchase customers for no other reason than to charge those very same taxpayers more for their own broadband. We know that cost is a major impediment to many people accessing high-speed broadband, so we should be really focusing on delivering those services at the lowest possible price. Eliminating competition and creating an artificial monopoly are not ways to achieve that goal and are certainly counter to the objectives of good telecommunications policy and are counter to the objectives of the coalition.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to talk on the Telecommunications Legislation Amend­ment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011 and reflect on some of the work of the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network. It is a great honour to be on that committee for a number of reasons, only one of which is my deep and abiding interest in broadband. More particularly, at this point in time we are discussing some of the most exciting reforms that are taking place within this industry.

Over the course of the last two weeks, the deal that the government did between NBN Co., Telstra and Optus was fundamentally a groundbreaking reform which has been pursued for generations: decoupling Telstra from its network and ensuring fundamental competitive reform. This reform had escaped the nation and we managed to achieve it. In its wake, we will ensure that we will not revisit some of the debates about the needless duplication of networks when cable TV was being rolled out in the 1990s. We have singularly sidestepped that through this deal we have set up between NBN Co. and Telstra and Optus, which will ensure a more efficient use of our telecommunications network. It will transform the industry and ensure that we achieve fast and efficient broadband for nearly the entire continent. It is something that others only dream of but we will achieve. We will reshape the industry through this.

People cannot wait for access to this transformational technology. I have seen the enthusiasm firsthand. I notice one of my colleagues is on the other side of the chamber whom I worked with on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications. We visited various parts of the country and were able to see with our own eyes the excitement in the regions about the prospect of tapping into a new superfast broadband network and what it will do. For example, they will be able to retain young people in regional areas through better access to educational opportunities. Small businesses will have the chance to tap into new markets which up until this point have escaped them in the regions. We have the chance to deliver a service in parts of the country like the area of Sydney I represent where people thought they would never have access to such a system because, frankly, the market did not value investing in a network in the area based on their incomes. I think that is a disgraceful reflection of where we are at, and I will reflect on this stalemate later. I take great exception to some of the quoting of ABS statistics earlier by the member for Wentworth. It was quite misleading and I want to address that as it impacts on the electorate I am proud to represent.

People in the electorate of Chifley are eagerly awaiting the National Broadband Network not just for its speed, not just for what they will be able to download but for what they will be able to do. Just the other day I had the pleasure of visiting the Blacktown Computer Pals group, which is teaching senior Australians how to access computers in a way that they have never had the opportunity to do before. Wendy Lambert and all the volunteers that operate Blacktown Computer Pals do tremendous work in showing senior Australians the opportunities presented by this technology. The other day we were talking about some of the applications that will open as a result of access to the National Broadband Network and one that particularly caught them was the prospect of e-health so they will not be stuck waiting for specialists or GP support. They will get fast and easier access to medical assistance. They will be looked after in their older years. They know some of the applications and they cannot wait for this.

This bill is critical in ensuring that, as we connect up to 6,000 homes a day, the greenfield areas of Australia will be looked after just as efficiently as the brownfield areas. The bill will ensure that there is an optic fibre requirement, a fibre-ready facility requirement, a fibre-ready installation requirement and a facilities access regime. The bill was examined by the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the chair of the committee and the deputy chair—you, Madam Deputy Speaker D'Ath—for the work that ensured that this bill will be considered in a timely way. A lot of the states will depend on this bill going through the House and through the other place to ensure there is a mechanism to connect greenfield estates quickly. Having worked for an electricity distributor and having been a union official in the telecommunications industry, a lot of what has been considered by this bill is simply—without bursting anyone's balloon—unremarkable. Frankly, a lot of utilities have been working for many years with the developers to rollout networks—electricity, gas or telecommunications—in new estates. The reason I congratulate the chair and the deputy chair is outlined in the chair's forward to the report that was presented today which states:

Where the committee found areas of dispute, these were less about the Bill and more about the underlying policy that has led to this Bill.

We continually have these arguments, as represented in the chamber today, not about the bill itself but about the way we are going about bringing superfast broadband to this country through the NBN Co. and the reforms that we have put to this House. I believe the report put forward some very sensible and considered recommendations, for example advocating that internal customer protocols be put in place within NBN Co. to ensure that the time frame for issuing statements to developers is completed and benchmarked; that NBN Co. commit to specific time frames to publish its performance on fibre rollout—a sensible idea; and that there be an investigation into the possible impact on risk premiums of regular changes in development regulations—again, pretty sensible.

However, the coalition have sought, as evidenced today by the member for Wentworth, to engage in spurious claims about this bill. For example, they claim that rolling out the NBN will make it more expensive for homes. No-one who has bought new land and is intending to develop a property on that land would for one minute expect that any of the utilities connected to that property would come for free. They would expect to pay for a gas connection, for water and for electricity. They would expect some cost. That cost has been outlined in the explanatory memorandum—and I will come back to what I believe are the spurious costs being claimed in self-interest by industry. The cost outlined in the explanatory memorandum is about $800, which is in line with what would be expected for the other utilities that would have to be connected.

The opposition claim that the processes to be used by NBN Co. will be slow and bureaucratic. But the report has recom­mended some measures which I hope the government and the NBN will embrace to ensure that we can have a timely rollout. They claim, for example, that developers might have to wait too long. That was raised by the member for Wentworth earlier. Guess what? Sometimes developers do wait. They roll out aspects of the network, undertake the pit and pipe and wait for the utility to come through. As I said earlier, this is unrem­arkable. But the claim that is being put forward is that in some way NBN is doing something that hitherto has not been experienced by the sector. That is simply and patently ridiculous.

The other claim which was made through the course of the hearings was that NBN or the minister should not set standards. To some extent the member for Bradfield and I, despite the fact that we are on different sides of the chamber, actually agree that there is always a danger that monopolies set standards in a way that excludes competition. The preference would always be that the industry would set them. Who in the industry is responsible for setting these standards? The Communications Alliance, the sector itself. Up to this point, the sector has been unable to come up with standards in relation to the rollout of the network. The problem we have is that in arguing the minister should not set the standard the coalition is assuming that the industry will get its act together and effectively asking government to shoulder the risk if the industry is incapable of reaching agreement within itself. Mind you, NBN Co. is a member of the Communications Alliance. If they are unable to come up with a standard then what standard do we operate to? And when the faults start racking up because the performance of the network is not up to scratch, who will be responsible? Ultimately, the government will be, not the industry that was unable to come up with the standards in the first place.

During the course of the hearings, TransACT put forward to us that developers or contractors within the sector who have carriers licences should be enabled to roll out the network to the standards that they roll out to. I asked TransACT, which is a regional telecommunications provider that operates in the ACT, which standard it would operate to: would TransACT let the subcontractor put it in to their own standard or would TransACT require the subcontractor to work to TransACT's standard? The answer from TransACT was simple. It said, 'We want it to our standard.' Yet TransACT argued to the committee that NBN Co. should not be entitled to operate to the standard it sees fit in the absence of the industry standard. It says that TransACT should be entitled to operate to its own standard—something it would not allow for its own network. When we are trying to roll out a uniform network with standards whereby everyone can expect the network to perform in the same way we cannot have what I would argue—with no disrespect to TransACT, I will put it in very crude terms—is a self-interested position when it comes to the network.

The member for Wentworth wants things to be done in a timely way but he has flagged some unbelievable suggestions. For example, an article entitled 'Turnbull tests NBN Co-pays amendment for greenfields', which appeared on the iTnews website, talks about the fact that the member for Wentworth was arguing that NBN Co. basically would have to negotiate with each developer, as they roll out in their own estate, how much they would pay for the assumption of the network. On the one hand he wants the network to be built quickly and says that we should not force delay on developers, yet on the other hand he would force on us a delay in the negotiation process with developers one-on-one.

I also could not believe the claim the Housing Industry Association was making that it might cost up to $5,000 per premise to roll out the NBN on a greenfield site. When we quizzed them on that, they said that they were earlier estimates but then came back later and said, 'We've tested those out and that is what we believe to be the case.' But there was no evidence of what that was supposed to be. Frankly, we need to get the NBN rolling out as quickly as possible to reach the target of 6,000 homes a day.

In the time remaining I will address the spurious claim made by the member for Wentworth that he put amendments to the committee. That is a falsehood. He put forward, for example—and I am willing to table this—an incomplete amendment that had different sections. I will read directly:

Notice must be given to NBN Co. of the requirement … (some time before expected completion of the network? Within some time after completion?)

He put half-baked amendments that were not even complete to the committee dealing with the rollout of one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in the country. He could not even get that done yet suggests that he did. He talks about a cost-benefit analysis and comes back to it. I am going to give you a cost-benefit analysis that was carried out at the 2007 election: people basically looked at the 19 plans you guys could not get through; they liked our plan. The cost-benefit analysis was done in 2010: people did not like what you were putting forward; they liked what we were putting forward. The crossbenchers late last year also had a cost-benefit analysis. They liked our plan; they did not like yours. It is about time you stopped trying to stop the rollout of a network that is critical to the country. (Time expired)

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member seeking to table a document?

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to table the coalition's appendix C, the text of the amendment to the fibre deployment bill that was put forward by the opposition.

Leave granted.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011, which is part of the overall policy architecture underlying the National Broadband Network and its specific objective is to ensure that new developments receive a fibre connection rather than a copper connection. In the broad, this is a sensible objective. But typical of the way the Rudd-Gillard government approaches virt­ually every policy issue, including those in the telecommunications sector, they have done an absolutely hopeless job of seeking to implement this objective because they have come up with a mechanism which is heavy handed, intrusive, damaging to competition, bureaucratic and unnecessarily expensive. They have done this through key provisions in this bill, which, amongst other things, specifically mandate that property develop­ers must meet certain requirements to install so-called fibre-ready infrastructure and also give the minister the power to impose technical standards, upsetting the long-established arrangements in the industry in which technical standards are set by agreement through the industry repres­entative body, the Communications Alliance.

In the brief time available to me I want to make three central points. Firstly, it does make sense, if your objective is to improve Australia's broadband infrastructure—an objective shared by all of us on all sides of this House—to focus your policy attention on new developments. The second point I want to make is that the particular method which this government has chosen to focus on this area is unfortunate in terms of its consequences for housing policy because it makes the process of building new housing developments slower and more complex than it otherwise needs to be. Thirdly, I want to make the point that these measures are very bad in terms of their consequences for competition in telecommunications—consi­stent with every other aspect of telecom­munications policy which this government has touched.

Let me turn firstly to the central point that it does make sense to focus on new developments. It is uncontentious between the major political parties and it is uncontentious amongst all who have looked into this issue that the marginal cost of installing a fibre connection over a copper connection is much lower in greenfields sites in new developments than it is in existing homes and buildings. It costs a lot more to go back and retrofit existing homes and buildings, ones which currently have a copper connection, with a fibre connection than the incremental cost of fibre over copper in new developments. It therefore makes sense, as we have been happy to acknowledge in a dissenting report, to encourage the building of fibre connections in new developments. It is a sensible thing to do. Indeed, housing stock in Australia increases by around one per cent each year, so simply by encouraging fibre in new developments you begin to achieve a gradual and steady increase in the percentage of homes which are connected to fibre. Indeed, even Telstra—not known to be a friend of competition—acknowledged, in its submi­ssion to the inquiry conducted by the Joint Select Committee on the National Broadband Network, that there is a growing competitive market for the delivery of fibre networks in new developments. They remarked as follows:

Traditionally as the USO provider we have been deploying copper based infrastructure at the request of developers. More recently a competitive fibre deployment industry had arisen and a number of providers, including Telstra, deployed fibre in many new developments under contract to the developer.

In other words, what we have is the market responding to demand and increasingly installing fibre infrastructure in new developments around Australia without the intervention or assistance of government. The Gillard government would no doubt find this an extraordinary proposition, but the market is, in fact, efficiently responding to demand and fibre is already being built in a material number of new developments around Australia. And what has been the response of the Gillard government? As usual they have rushed in to clamp the dead hand of government upon this nascent market. Their central planning instincts have been spurred by these developments and their policy settings choke off the market response, as I will come to in more detail in a moment.

Let me turn to make the second point I want to make. This bill is a bad idea when it comes to the question of housing policy. We all know that there is a looming housing shortage in Australia, and the last thing that we ought to be doing is imposing new complex bureaucratic requirements upon property developers. Unfortunately, that is precisely what the arrangements mandated by this bill do. They add expense and delay for those wishing to build new housing estates. Notwithstanding the government's rhetoric, in practical terms this bill gives developers a very strong financial disin­centive to deal with operators other than NBN Co. In turn, this leaves developers at the mercy of NBN Co.'s responsiveness and timeliness. NBN Co. will become a bottle­neck through which all property develop­ments must pass before they can be completed and brought to market. I confidently predict that the downstream consequences for Australians wishing to purchase new housing are likely to include increased delay and expense. Let me note the comments of the Housing Industry Assoc­iation when they appeared before the committee's inquiry:

The legislation needs to make it very clear who is responsible for the delivery and that there are certain obligations on the provider to do that in a very timely way, otherwise it will delay development.

The Housing Industry Association went on to say:

It should not take more than a couple of phone calls and a meeting to sort out it being put into the critical path of the development, otherwise those projects will be delayed whilst certain things are waiting for a provider to provide that infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the complex arrangements in this bill do not give the certainty that the Housing Industry Association is seeking. The unfortunate consequence is that there is likely to be a bottleneck as projects queue up to get the tick from the National Broadband Network Co.

Thirdly, let me turn to the most substantive point I want to make, which is that the approach in this bill is a very poor approach when it comes to the question of competition policy in telecommunications. The practical effect of this bill is to minimise competition and choice as to who will build fibre networks in greenfields locations in new developments. As a consequence, this bill represents a missed opportunity to impose effective, competitive and cost discipline on the National Broadband Network Co. If there is one thing we have seen in spades to date, it is that the National Broadband Network Co. certainly requires a healthy dose of competitive pressure. If it were the case that developers had a viable option to use a party other than NBN Co. to build out fibre networks in their develop­ments, then developers would be likely to choose parties other than NBN Co. if those parties were able to build a network for them more cheaply, more quickly and more conveniently. That, in turn, would produce a more efficient outcome if it meant that infrastructure in new developments were built at a lower cost than if all fibre in new developments were installed by NBN Co. under a monopoly. It would also have the incidental and not trivial benefit of getting live and operational fibre networks into new developments as they were being built rather than developers and, in turn, the people who will live in those developments, being forced to wait until a connection can be made at a time of NBN Co.'s convenience. Let me remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker D'Ath, that NBN Co.'s stated build time frame goes out to 2020. They are already months behind their plans.

So, under the model chosen by this government in which all paths run to NBN Co. unfortunately many Australians are going to be waiting a very long time to get a fibre connection, and it is richly ironic that there is already in place a private sector market which is successfully delivering fibre connections in new developments. Yet, this government's policy approach is to specific­ally impede, slow down and put hurdles in the way of the operation of that private market. The consequence is that many Australians moving into new developments will be waiting longer to get fibre connections than they would be if this meddling government had left the matter alone. Despite the empty commitments and despite the vapid rhetoric from the minister for broadband who claimed, 'Developers will be able to source fibre from competing fibre providers if they wish', the economic reality is that he and his government have set up arrangements under which developers are given a very strong financial incentive to deal with NBN Co. and a very strong financial disincentive to deal with anybody else.

According to the explanatory memor­andum, installing the fibre-ready infrastr­ucture, which is mandated by this legislation, costs around $800. There was also evidence provided to the committee that the full cost of installing a fibre connection is $1,500. Put these two numbers together and what you see is that the developer is up for an additional incremental cost of at least $700 per lot if the developer chooses to contract with a competitor to NBN Co. rather than, as the government wants it to do, just leave it and wait until NBN Co. comes along. Unfortun­ately those who will suffer will be Australians moving into new premises who would have expected, had the private sector market continued to operate, to have received a fibre connection. They will now be waiting a very long time in many cases, given the very long period over which NBN Co.'s operations are scheduled to occur.

Fundamentally the regime established by this bill is damaging to competition in the market for the provision of new fibre infrastructure and there are three reasons for that. Firstly, it exposes existing non-NBN operators, who are already in the marketplace providing fibre connections in new developments, to competition from a government funded competitor with enorm­ously deep pockets, which is prepared to install fibre at zero cost to any developer which has incurred the expense of building trenches and other fibre-ready facilities. In effect that makes it impossible for those competitors of NBN to continue to operate competitively with it.

Secondly, this bill is damaging to competition because the standards as to what constitutes a 'fibre-ready facility'—for example, a pit to be built in a new development—will in practical terms be set by the National Broadband Network Co. For example, proposed section 372W of the bill says that a fibre-ready facility is one which amongst other things satisfies such condit­ions as are specified by the minister. It is clear from the statement of expectations issued by the government last year that NBN Co. will be in the driver's seat in determining what the minister specifies because it says:

The Government expects NBN Co to provide guidance on technical specifications as early as possible.

The statement of expectations also says that NBN Co. would consult with the Comm­unications Alliance. But let us be absolutely clear and lay to rest this misleading claim being made by government members today that, in some way, the existing industry process will continue. That is absolutely not the case. Under the existing process the Communications Alliance makes the decisions. Under the new process NBN Co. will make the decisions and the Commun­ications Alliance will be required to rubber stamp them. There is plenty of experience as to the damage to competition that occurs when the dominant player is able to set technical standards. It was for that precise reason that, in 1989, the power to set technical standards was transferred from Telecom Australia to an independent body. This government in this bill, as in so many other ways, is going backwards in a very bad way when it comes to competition.

Thirdly, this bill is very damaging to competition in the market for the provision of fibre because it fundamentally undermines business models used by greenfield fibre operators today.

This bill needs profound amendment if it is not to seriously damage competition, and I commend to you the amendments that the coalition has moved.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Telecom­munications Legislation Amend­ment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011. In reflecting on the comments of the member for Bradfield, one would think that compet­ition is at the heart of this bill and the sole and only interest he has in the debate. The reality is that we are dealing with a very practical, real-life matter that will impact profoundly on the lives of Australians, and I am very pleased to support the bill put to the House.

This bill puts into legislation an election commitment to make sure that all new developments, subject to exceptions, are fibre friendly. That means that new resid­ential developments will be able to connect to a fibre-to-the-premises network without the need for further work being done to the premises. At its heart, this is an equity issue. The bill applies to developments conducted by corporations, which includes the vast majority of development and construction companies nationally. The bill certainly has application on the Central Coast, the region that I represent, and it has the capacity to significantly enhance employment and life outcomes for people living in new dwellings on the Central Coast.

Given that the National Broadband Net­work is a Commonwealth project des­igned to benefit the national economy, it is very desirable that this legislation be enforced under Commonwealth law. As with many other members of the House, the National Broadband Network has been a priority issue in my electorate and much of my work as a local member in this term of parliament has been to ensure that the potential of the NBN is effectively understood. I have been working very hard with local health, educ­ation and other business sector partners to help to bring about the earliest possible rollout in my electorate.

I have been meeting with key stakeholders on the NBN on a regular basis and have been campaigning for a priority rollout on the Central Coast. Key people driving this initiative in my area include Dave Abrahams, an IT specialist, who has become quite a champion of the NBN, Edgar Adams, a local business advocate and representative, and even Paul Budde, who consults intern­ationally on the NBN. Each of these men and other leaders in our community see that connecting the NBN to all premises, both new and established premises, is a critical part of ensuring that all Australians are able to move forward together as this technology becomes available. The National Broadband Network certainly arouses great interest in my electorate and it is seen by many local business owners and community leaders as a critical means by which to level the playing field between those living in regions such as mine and those living in the cities, represented by the member for Bradfield, and to come to some equitable arrangement in terms of access to the world economy.

The Central Coast is a region with unique challenges. It is a growing area, a place where small business is vital for the health of the local economy and where new develop­ments are coming online. On the Central Coast, small businesses provide services and employment for the people in our region. I am very proud of our local businesses and I am particularly proud of local IT companies that compete nationally and internationally to provide services. Many of these small and medium sized businesses operate from the Central Coast and provide local employment and opportunities for our residents. I certain­ly will support anything in this parliament that enables better participation and more local employment, and I herald the excel­lence of our local staff in engaging in this growing field.

In terms of the personal and business assets that we have on the Central Coast, I believe that the National Broadband Network will help us to develop and extend already successful businesses to further improve their success and, because of that, I support this bill which will enable a more effective rollout of the NBN in the region. In ensuring that development corporations install the carrying infrastructure of the NBN, the general rollout of infrastructure will certainly be more efficient and effective. The bill will also ensure that, after the National Broad­band Network has been rolled out, all new developments fulfil their responsibilities as to future applications of the internet in the delivery of health and education to homes through the installation of fibre-friendly infrastructure.

It is also vital that we are prepared for the reality that new businesses and new business models are yet to be born and that their infancy may be in small businesses, not in boardrooms with desks and those sorts of facilities, but in small home offices or in the new mobile world of local cafes in which entrepreneurs are increasingly doing busin­ess in open-to-view social settings. This is common-sense legislation. It is a move to equity because it will ensure that new residential premises, where new businesses may well be emerging, are able to take complete advantage of the NBN. The bill will also enable the cost of the NBN to be reduced in new residential developments because there will be access to non-carrier ductwork in those developments.

This bill represents an initiative to roll out the National Broadband Network in an efficient and effective way. No-one can deny that rolling out the NBN is a challenge in terms of infrastructure. But nation building infrastructure is always challenging; it is both visionary and practically challenging. It is always a challenge for any government to provide critical new infrastructure. We have only to look back at the challenges faced by governments that undertook commitments to roll out the railways across this great country of ours, the national road network to connect us across all of those miles and the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House. All those critical pieces of infrastructure involved having a vision for the future and a commitment to ensuring that the practical work was undertaken to enable them to come into being.

Infrastructure as comprehensive as the National Broadband Network is certainly ambitious, but it is also very responsible. It is ambitious in that it calls on our generation at this time to invest in the capacities of the next generation and to make the NBN a critically productive part of our economy. It is responsible because we know that, without access to this internationally empowering technology, we would be making a decision to exclude our people from participation in the global digital economy and workplace.

I often hear from, and read reports about, people from the conservative side of politics who assert, with misunderstanding, that this vital piece of infrastructure is not needed. But I am delighted to be part of this government, which has decided to undertake the challenge and commit itself to ensuring that the project is completed. I do hear from the other side of politics that we should not be bothered with this and that it will be a blow to competition. But competition will not support people in homes yet to be built if we do not support this legislation and put it in place to the advantage of new home dwellers. The NBN is certainly not just about upload capacity. It is far more sophisticated than that. It does a lot more than enable fast downloads of movies. It has the capacity to transform our economy and also to have a profound impact on social benefits for our community. In terms of its social impact, one of the critical things that we have seen just in the last couple of days is the capacity for medical appointments to be teleconferenced across large distances. Currently this can happen in established premises but this bill will address the reality of yet-to-be-built premises also having the capacity to delivery health services, and that needs to be considered in the development of this bill.

The national economy as a whole benefits from the economic growth and health of the nation's regional areas. The economic poten­tial of an area such as mine needs to be realised, and this can only be done that if we are able to engage with the global market. Another social benefit of the National Broadband Network is obviously education. In my area we have the benefit of quality public and private schooling. Our children certainly benefit from access to these quality schools. When they return home to their new houses in new developments they need to be able to access the internet. We need to get on with this job in a way that is equitable. University students on the Central Coast are also critically impacted by decisions made in this place about the rollout of the NBN. Currently students can access materials online and correspond with other students online, but they also need to be able to do this from the sites at their homes, in the new developments, and critically that is what this bill is dealing with.

High-speed broadband based on fibre-optic technology will be vital in enabling the development of a great future for Australia. It will provide regional schools with resources; it will provide regional commu­nities with access to health. This is a nation building initiative. It is going to have far-reaching consequences on which this parliament can look back with pride.

This bill enshrines the powers invested in the Australian Communications and Media Authority to develop standards in relation to third-party use of the network. The long-term success of the National Broadband Network is absolutely reliant on the successful interr­elation between owners of the infrastructure and the providers. The powers that have been invested in the ACMA and the ACCC will ensure that there is appropriate regulation and competition in the provision of these services from the National Broadband Network.

I support this bill because it demonstrates the government's commitment to ensuring a vital piece of infrastructure for Australia's future is completed and a success for all Australians. This goes exactly to a comment made by the member for New England: 'You do it once, you do it right and you do it with fibre'. I look forward to the day when the National Broadband Network has been constructed and our economy and society is advancing as a result, be it in new or established housing. I know that day will arrive, and I believe when it does my cons­tituents will benefit enormously. I commend this bill to the House.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one disputes the benefits of a national broadband network. The coalition support high-speed broadband but what we do not support is the outdated monopoly telco model being run by the incompetence of NBN Co. The member for Robertson said that this will impact profoundly on the lives of Australians, and indeed it will because for generations we will be paying off the billions of wasted dollars spent on the NBN and the NBN Co.

For far too many years Australian consumers and businesses have suffered from over-priced telecommunications. I look back to over 30 years ago, indeed last cent­ury, when a subcommittee of the Sydney Chamber of Commerce decided they had to do something about the monopoly of Telecom Australia, as it was known then, and from that ATUG was born—the Aust­ralian Telecommunications Users Group. For many years, we saw ATUG and other industry bodies struggle to bring competition into the market, struggle to bring in some competition for products, service and pricing. Finally, just as we were achieving competition, we were handed back a last century model, a last century way of doing business—NBN Co. a monopoly. This is not the way forward and this is not the way other countries around the world are rolling out their telecommunications.

The amendment proposed by the member for Wentworth and the coalition is about greenfields sites. We already have an exam­ple in Townsville, in the seat of Herbert, where a developer is desperate to sign off on his new development but he cannot get anyone to lay the fibre in the conduits, which he has already provided. This is because NBN Co. have told him that it is not ready yet, but when it is ready it will roll over the top of what he has already done. So, once again, we have the bully-boy tactics of some of the people at NBN Co. They are threat­ening very good opportunities in greenfields sites and, furthermore, some of our redeveloped brownfields sites in Brisbane. Some years ago, the local government in South-East Queensland wrote to the federal minister seeking assistance in this area, and of course, as usual, the response was silence and it was deafening—absolutely no resp­onse let alone assistance. The local govern­ment wanted to get on with the job and do it then. But many of those areas will be left until 2020 before they can get competent communication facilities.

When we look at the greenfields sites we see the need for and the benefit from some of the smaller companies providing those facilities. We heard before about some of the innovation that could come from it. A trial was conducted in your area, Madam Deputy Speaker D'Ath, in Virginia in Brisbane. Fibre optic cable was rolled out from Virginia to Chermside at less than a third of the cost projected by NBN Co. We have seen NBN Co. sack the messenger, as in two of its officers, because they came up with a fibre rollout above their projected cost. Yet we had an example, which we offered to them to look at, of where we had done it for less than a third of their projected costs. I support the opportunity of private companies rolling out fibre. I think it will be a benefit. I think we might see some different methods of doing it.

It is very disappointing that NBN Co. have chosen to ignore some of the other models around the world, like Bournemouth, where this rollout has already occurred efficiently and effectively. There are opport­unities there. There are lessons to be learned but NBN Co. have the protection of the Gillard government and are not interested in doing anything cost effectively or efficiently because they do not have to worry about that and because they know the poor taxpayers will have their hands in their pockets to pay for the rollout cost.

There is no doubt that the rollout of NBN will be of benefit, but the problem we have is the way it is being done and the cost. I look at facilities such as a new industrial estate near the airport in Brisbane where we already have high-quality, high-standard fibre throughout the development. Yet NBN Co. have told them that they will roll over the top of it. It will not necessarily be with anything better—possibly with something inferior—but they are so determined to protect the monopoly to keep out other people that they are prepared to roll over and waste money on a product that is already in the ground and already operating.

That is the mentality we are trying to deal with in this bill. That is why the member for Wentworth has proposed some very reason­able amendments to facilitate assistance on some of these greenfield sites and new estates. They are not just in Herbert. They are in the western suburbs of Brisbane. They are areas where, if we were more relaxed about competition, we could benefit already and people could have it before the 2020 date.

The member for Wentworth mentioned South Korea, where fibre goes to the basement of the building. There are other methods as well. He mentioned copper. They have also have satellite and wireless. They do the extra mile waiting for the take-up so they can look at benefits going forward. We do not have to roll out the tens of billions of dollars solution that has been proposed.

It is a bit like giving all the roads to Ford and letting Ford control the model of the cars that go on them. That is the restriction we are putting on our consumers and on the industry. Once again we are consigning Australia back to the last century for communications, for overpricing. Once again we see that the Gillard government is all about grand plans, but always with other people's money. There is opportunity here for private enterprise to be involved but, no, we have to get the NBN Co. privatised, a monopoly that only they control. The only conclusion we can draw from the continual refusal to refer this for a cost-benefit analysis is that there is something more to hide because I cannot understand why you would not benefit from having a cost-benefit analysis, from seeing where we can save money, from seeing where we can partner with private enterprise and providing open access.

The world declared the music industry would fall over when Napster was introd­uced because there would be open access. Anyone could put up whatever they wanted. Yet we have seen it flourish and benefit from open access. I believe an open access, synchronous, ubiquitous NBN would be of benefit to all Australians. We need to work with private enterprise, not against them. We will get a better deal for taxpayers, a better deal for the users of communications and, hopefully, a better deal for Australia. I commend the amendments put forward by the coalition and I really hope for a better outcome.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to witness the rollout of a historic nation-building infrastructure project like the National Broadband Network. It is a great privilege to be part of the Labor government that has the vision and courage to embark on a major reform and a major project such as this. It is a great privilege to support a major structural reform to Australia's telecommunications industry that simply would not have been brought about had we not embarked upon this project, a reform that is going to benefit consumers for decades to come.

The NBN will enable the Australian econ­omy to grow, to transform and to adapt into the economy of the future, thereby securing our prosperity. The NBN will provide Australia with world-class broadband techn­ology. It will open up a genuine choice of services and drive competitive prices for consumers, whether they live in capital cities or in regional Australia or in rural and remote areas.

In supporting this project and speaking on this Telecommunication Legislation Amend­ment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011, which is an important part of the package of legislation to roll out the NBN, it is an absolute pleasure to stare down the nay-sayers on the other side who have had nothing but carping negativity and criticism on this project from the very get-go. I will go through some of the carping criticism that we have experienced on this project to show where the nay-sayers have been proved wrong even at this very early stage in the delivery of the project.

They know that they are wrong. The shadow minister knows it, the member for Bradfield knows it, and everyone opposite who represents regional Australia in this place knows it because they would have received the phone calls, letters, emails and questions from constituents saying: 'I have heard about this NBN. When is it coming past our suburb? When is it coming into my house?' It is disappointing that the member for Gilmore, which adjoins my electorate of Throsby in the Illawarra and has been chosen as one of the pilot sites, instead of champion­ing this as a local representative, is out there day in, day out bagging it and showing her lack of understanding and support for what it means for the local region. It is not so for all the political representatives in the Kiama and broader South Coast area. There are many political representatives who are great champions of this project. It is a good news story for our region and for the people on the South Coast and in the Illawarra. I simply cannot understand why the nay-sayers spend so much time and energy talking it down.

The NBN will be a boon to electorates in regional areas like the Illawarra and the South Coast because it will quite simply bring economic, social and community infrastructure right into people's homes, thereby connecting them to the markets and to the entertainment not only of the capital cities but also the world. As an MP for a region that adjoins one of the pilot sites, it is a privilege to join with local organisations like Regional Development Australia Illaw­arra and the Kiama Municipal Council in imagining a broadband future for the region. Only recently new funding was announced to help local councils, including the Kiama Municipal Council, take full advantage of the National Broadband Network through the development and upgrade of innovative online service delivery to homes and businesses. Under the Digital Local Govern­ment program, which the minister announced a few weeks ago, the Kiama Municipal Council will receive in excess of $370,000 to develop digital solutions that can then be adapted by other councils and rolled out across the country as the NBN rolls out. I know from my conversations with the mayor, Sandra McCarthy, and other councillors on that council that they are very pleased to be involved in such an exciting and innovative project.

It is also a great privilege to play a small part in the facilitation of this project by speaking on and voting in favour of the legislation that marks each step of the steady progress towards providing fast, efficient and affordable telecommunications services for the Australian population and in particular regions like my own where there are still suburbs where people are unable to receive broadband services because of the way that the exchanges are configured, the lack of broadband capability from the local exchanges, the geography of the region and the build-up of many of the new suburbs and the way they were wired up to telecom­munications services using mainly RIM based technology.

When it comes to matters NBN, I am pleased to speak today in support of this bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amend­ment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011, which will ensure that no more will we see suburbs built up without having access to fast, reliable broadband services because in the process of building up those suburbs we will be digging the pits and laying the pipes and the cable which will ensure that when people move into those new houses they will have the capacity to switch on broadband services from the very get go. That is perhaps something that some of those who live in electorates where they are not building new suburbs may not understand, but I can tell you that in the electorate of Throsby where we have two new suburbs in West Dapto and Albion Park going in it will make an incredible difference to people who move into those homes to know that they will be wired up from the very beginning. So I welcome it.

The telecommunications fibre deployment bill amends the 1997 act to do a number of things that affect the provision of utility infrastructure in new real estate develop­ments. The bill requires developers that are constitutional corporations to install fibre ready passive infrastructure. It requires this passive infrastructure in the long term footprint of the NBN project to be fibre ready. Penalties will apply if a constitutional corporation sells or leases land or a building situated in a new development unless fibre ready facilities have been installed, thereby creating the requirement that these facilities are there for the new suburbs when they are built.

The bill creates a power that enables the minister to specify new developments in which fixed lines which are installed need to be optical fibre. Finally, this bill enables the Australian Communications and Media Authority to make standards for customer equipment and cabling for use with the NBN and other superfast networks. The outcome of the legislation will be that residents of new developments will have early and less costly access to the NBN network when it is rolled out into these developments.

Those on the other side have identified the issue of cost in relation to this legislation. Nothing could be more costly when building a new suburb than overlooking the opport­unity when the trenches are being dug, the footpaths are being laid and all the other utilities are going into those houses in a new estate and saying, 'We will put electricity, gas and sewerage in there but what we will not do is connect you to the National Broadband Network. We will not be laying fibre optic cable into those suburbs because we have a blind spot when it comes to the National Broadband Network. We will leave it to the market or some other solution to lay cable in those areas.' Nothing could be more wasteful. Nothing could be more costly than saying, 'We will leave it until some other time or not at all.'

You can imagine the outrage of local residents having moved into their beautiful new suburb with new footpaths, new gardens and new grass laid down when all of a sudden it is decided to lay fibre optic cable into the suburb and in comes the trenching gear digging up concrete that has just been laid for footpaths or digging up grass that has just been laid or perhaps laying a new layer of overhead cable through these areas. They will all be scratching their heads and asking, 'Why on earth wasn't this done when the street was laid and the power was put in?' If we left it to the wisdom of those opposite, that is exactly what would be occurring. The propositions within this bill are nothing more than militant common sense. Unfortunately it is militant common sense that is not shared by those on the other side of the chamber.

I will take the opportunity to talk for a moment about the agreement between NBN Co. and Telstra and Optus, because it is good news for telecommunications customers. Definitive agreements have been executed that, together with Telstra's structural separ­ation undertaking, create a framework for Telstra's participation in the NBN. The NBN Co.-Telstra definitive agreements, including an interim access agreement, provide for the re-use of suitable Telstra infrastructure by NBN Co. and for Telstra to progressively structurally separate by decommissioning its copper network and broadband HFC network capability during the NBN fibre rollout and using the NBN to provide fixed line services to customers within the fibre footprint. The definitive agreements translate the financial heads of agreement signed on 20 June 2010 into detailed, legally-binding agreements. The NBN Co. has also negotiated a deal with Optus to migrate its HFC customers to the NBN. So what we have here really puts a huge hole in the argument that was being run by the member for Wentworth and many of those who have rallied to his call. I have to say that the member for Wentworth takes to this argument as a man with not too much enthusiasm. What those opposite have been saying for most of the last nine months is that this NBN is somehow going to be a great big white elephant, that it is going to be a communications service with no customers and that it is something we are overinvesting in because nobody is going to use it. The agreement that has been reached with Telstra and the agreement that is being reached with Optus show what an outrageous untruth that was and how they simply do not understand how this project is going to roll out.

As a result of these agreements we are going to see the migration of all of the fixed-line customers of Telstra and Optus onto the National Broadband Network. The National Broadband Network will be the backbone. The fibre-optic cable of the National Broadband Network and all those intercon­necting networks will be the telecom­munications network which is delivering fixed-line telecommunications services to those millions of existing Telstra and Optus customers. Far from being a vacant white elephant, from the very get-go as that migration occurs, those fixed-line customers who are currently having their telecom­munications service delivered through the ageing copper network are going to be migrated onto the optical fibre network, the modern NBN, and those services will be delivered. They will be enhanced services. Presumably Optus and Telstra will retain the retail relationship with their customers, but it will be the NBN which is delivering the telecommunications service.

This is good news. It is good news for the customers of Telstra and Optus but it is also good news for the country because it shows that there is a way forward, after in excess of 12 years, when literally nothing was happen­ing in terms of reforming the telecomm­unications regulatory system in this country, reforming the telecommunications market and investing in a fast, reliable, high-speed broadband network. Nothing was happening, particularly in electorates like mine. This legislation, together with the other reforms that have already been introduced, is seeing real reforms being rolled out to real people in real houses in real suburbs. The caravan is moving on and the dogs are barking. We know that there is a need and a hunger for it.

According to the OECD statistics regard­ing average broadband subscription prices, out of 33 countries Australia is the third most expensive country for very low-speed connections, the 14th most expensive for high-speed connections and the 12th most expensive for very high-speed connections. As a result of this legislation, together with the other package of reforms and the investment that is going on today in laying that cable and connecting those houses, we are reforming not only the technology but the telecommunications market. There will be more players in the market and the net result of this is going to be faster, more reliable, more ubiquitous broadband services for the people of Australia and for my electorate of Throsby, and that has to be a good thing. I commend the bill to the House.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to talk about the Telecom­munications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill, which once again demon­strates this government's ability to take an area of policy, an area of the economy, which is functioning and working well and to potentially turn it into a mess. The greenfields sector for the provision of fibre-optic services was an area which was working relatively well, and now we have a government which, unfortunately, is legisl­ating to make a mess of this area and, it would seem, to entrench monopolistic practice, which I do not think it can be argued is in anyone's interests.

We have had already a dissenting report from coalition members of the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network, which examined the bill. Coalition members have called for three amendments for three main reasons, three very valid reasons. Firstly, the regime established by the bill is unnecessarily slow and bureau­cratic for property developers, so rather than speeding things up and creating less red tape this bill is going to have the potential to do the opposite. How we can come into this place and argue that we want to see optic fibre rolled out more slowly in greenfields sites and for there to be greater bureaucracy in the way it is rolled out beggars belief, but that seems to be what the government is proposing here.

The second reason that coalition members believe that the bill needs to be amended is that, as presently drafted, it represents a missed opportunity to take advantage of the existence of the competitive greenfields operators to impose effective competitive and cost discipline on NBN Co. It is especially worth highlighting the phrase 'to impose effective competitive and cost discipline on NBN Co.' I think we would all argue that we need to see that when it comes to NBN Co., because if we do not we are going to see the creation of one of the greatest white elephants this country has ever seen. In an area in particular where the market seemed to be working quite well, we now look like we are going to have a bill which will impose more uncompetitiveness and less cost discipline on the behemoth which this government is setting up in this area, NBN Co. The third reason that the coalition members believe the bill should be amended is that the regime established by the bill is damaging to competition in the market for the provision of new fibre infrastructure. So, rather than driving further competition into the sector, it is actually going to do the opposite. They are the three key reasons the coalition has problems with the Telecom­munications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill. I will explain in a little more detail what these problems are and then raise another issue which is directly relevant—the rolling out of broadband to greenfield sites where we will not be able to provide optic fibre. That was being done under the Australian Broadband Guarantee program, which was meant to run for an additional 12 months. Sadly, the govern­ment, although it said on its website that it was to run for another year, has pulled the pin on it. We now have to rely on NBN Co. using satellite to provide services in this area. That has caused sovereign risk damage to those wireless providers that were operating under the Australian Broadband Guarantee—something which we have seen occur all too often with this government. It also means that consumers in areas where we will not see fibre to the premise are going to suffer because they are going to get delayed and inadequate services provided by satellite. I will touch on that in a bit more detail as well.

The NBN estimates that 1.9 million greenfield households will have to be connected to the NBN by 2020 and 250,000 households will have to be connected by June 2013. You would hope that what we get is less red tape and more competition to make sure that this occurs. The NBN has allocated more than $100 million to connect greenfield households. Once again, we do not see any detailed costings or analysis on how the NBN will allocate its money. It is just that we have a figure of more than $100 million to connect greenfield households within the first year of operation. In the first five months of 2011, NBN Co. received more than 1,480 applications from greenfield developers, representing approximately 133,000 premises to be connected across Australia. So there is demand for these premises to be connected. The problem is that the marginal cost of installing fibre in new housing developments is low compared to the benefits. The government's policy paper on greenfields estimated that the cost of rolling out a fibre-to-the-premise conn­ection is approximately $2,500, which is about $1,500 greater than the cost per premise of a broadband capable copper based connection. However, the increased cost will not always be paid upfront by homeowners. Traditionally, it has been split by developers and telecommunication providers who recoup costs through offering superior services.

Although we on this side support regulation that would ensure fibre to the premise is used in greenfield estates, there are several concerns. Changes to the market structure will ensue from the role of NBN Co. as a provider of last resort. However, NBN Co. has agreed to absorb the cost of rolling out fibre in greenfield sites—costing up to $3,000—which puts them at a competitive advantage to competitors who must come to an arrangement with devel­opers. Again, we have an area of competition where, by setting these rules, we ensure that NBN Co. has the advantage as the behemoth. As the white elephant that it has the potential to become, it will sadly be able to gouge and make sure that where there is competition it will be lessened.

There is also huge worry—and this is why the design of the bill does seem fraught and lacking—that the lack of consultation with industry will result in an eleventh hour decision that the NBN establishes technical standards that will be too onerous for small providers to meet. In a market where we need to encourage smaller providers, this government is sadly going to create a sit­uation where NBN Co., through onerous regulation, will be able to dominate the market. Part of the rationale that the gov­ernment gave for the NBN is that it would end the dominance of the vertically integrated Telstra. According to the ACMA Communications report 2009-10, Telstra boasts 82 per cent of the fixed line telephone market and 65 per cent of the DSL, which accounts for 82 per cent of fixed line internet connections.

The opening up of Telstra exchanges have to an extent diminished Telstra's dominance. The number of unbundled services offered by competing ISPs increased by 23 per cent between June 2009 and June 2010. Telstra's share of the market was reduced from 70 per cent to 65 per cent. However, the greenfield market is incredibly competitive. Of the 909,000 cable and fibre connections in Australia, more than 400,000 have been connected by small operators under the greenfield fibre operators of Australia. The government's own policy document on greenfield estates states:

The installation of FTTP is taking place in a competitive context, with developers typically contracting out the provision of infrastructure and services in developments.

Why then are we again looking to concen­trate commercial power in this market when the government's own documents say that we are seeing good competition here?

Once again we are seeing a government that seems to want to re-regulate, to create a large player to replace Telstra and, sadly, to impact on the small providers.

On that matter, I want to spend some time looking at what is happening with the Australian broadband guarantee, because we are going to see the same thing happen there as well. We have small competitors operating and providing services through wireless, yet the government is bringing forward the end of the Australian broadband guarantee program by 12 months, creating serious sovereign risk to these wireless providers in country areas. They have now decided that that will be replaced by NBN Co., who have now said that they are going to use satellite. It seems that they are not in a position to roll out the satellite services at the speed with which the wireless providers were under the Australian broadband guar­antee.

There is also no guarantee that an equivalence of service in terms of speed will be provided. It is commonly acknowledged, especially in country areas, that wireless is a far superior technology to satellite and is far more economical from an installation and maintenance perspective. So I would strong­ly urge the government to look again at this issue and urge against using satellite to infill or provide a quick fix for wireless areas whilst the NBN wireless network is built. We should see a continuation of the Australian broadband guarantee program, at least for another 12 months, until NBN Co. and the government can get their act together and we can see wireless once again being provided to those regional and rural areas which will otherwise suffer while this 12-month or potentially two- to three-year gap in satellite provision is filled by NBN Co.

This bill needs a serious examination. It needs to go to the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network, which can look into all elements of it. Sadly, like many other pieces of policy we have seen from this government, in the end it is going to create more red tape rather than less, especially for smaller operators. It seems it is going to drive less competition into this sector rather than more, and this will occur in an area where competition, in the government's own words, has been working extremely well. It is also a shame that what we are going to see, through red tape and costs, is probably that NBN Co. will in the end be the major provider of services in this area and, sadly, will push competition out of this sector. That will be damaging to telecommunications providers and the industry. I call on the government to really think seriously about going back to the drawing board with this piece of legislation, going back to industry, making sure that they consult properly with industry and making sure that we get a piece of legislation which will actually lessen red tape and continue to see strong competition in an area where it already exists.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to begin by telling a story that comes from one of the many mobile offices that I enjoy running through my electorate of Fraser. I was standing one morning at the Kippax shopping centre and a woman came up to me and said: 'There are two issues I want to talk to you about. The first one is that I am retired, I am now in my 80s and I'm concerned about the local bus network.' So we talked for a while about the local bus network, where the stops were located and how that worked for her. Then she said, 'The second issue that concerns me is superfast broadband.' She said: 'I like to communicate with my daughter using Skype, and the picture is really patchy at the moment. You keep on talking about this superfast broadband thing, but when are we going to get it? When am I going to get a video connection that allows me to connect with my daughter?'

What this brought home to me is that those opposite are just so out of touch when they think that superfast broadband is about tweens playing video games. Superfast broadband is a technology that will funda­mentally transform Australian society, and it will do that wherever you are on the age spectrum. That is why there are pensioners in my electorate, there are working age people and there are students who are enthusiastic about superfast broadband.

We know some of the ways in which superfast broadband is going to begin transforming our lives. We know, for example, that it will allow access to medical specialists. If you live in an area which does not have a particular medical specialist and you want the chance to see a podiatrist, say, then you will have the option through superfast broadband to do an online consult­ation with a specialist. Otherwise, you might have to wait in pain for weeks or months until a specialist comes through your town or you have a chance to travel to a place where they are. But with access to superfast broadband we will be able to use technology to deal with the challenge of distance.

With education, of course, superfast broadband is again a transformative techn­ology. I know from the institution where I used to work, the Australian National University, that we initially experimented with what it would be like to have experts do a video seminar. It turned out that the existing technology just was not snappy enough. It really did not feel like you were in the room with the presenter. We tried it once with my friend John Quiggin, who is at the bleeding edge of technology. John's present­ation was great, but it just did not work for those of us not in the room in the way it would have worked if he had been there. But as the connections get faster, as we get those 100 megabits a second speeds that are promised by some of this technology, we will get to technology where it will feel like you are in the room. That will fundamentally transform the research enterprise. It will change for the better the experience of being in an academic seminar. No longer will we need to rely on seminar speakers being in the same city; we will be able to immediately have a presenter from the best universities, whether they be in Boston or Beijing, brought in by superfast broadband. That will make Australian researchers more prod­uctive.

Superfast broadband will also transform the employment experience. At the moment, it is a challenge if you are a part-timer working in a team. People sometimes say to me that it is okay having one part-time worker in the team, but if you have two or three it is really hard for the team to get together and have a team meeting once a week. But one can easily imagine a situation under superfast broadband in which it is possible for a member of that team to be brought into the conversation, to join the team meeting, maybe for just half an hour in order to be part of the team, and to improve their promotion opportunities at the work­place. It allows the opportunity for part-time workers to be far more integrated into the workforce than they have been before. It offers the potential for people, rather than burning up time and putting out all those CO2 emissions when they fly to a meeting interstate, to use superfast broadband be part of that meeting, to use that new com­munications infrastructure to have quick conversations with people in other states and to make their small, medium or large business even more productive.

I was at a forum in Gungahlin, in the growth heart of my electorate of Fraser. The questions the Gungahlin Community Council asked about NBN Co. were not, 'Why we are having it?' or, as the member for Wannon might have asked, 'Couldn't wireless do the job?' Those questions were not asked. They asked, 'When are we going to get superfast broadband and could we speed up the process?' They are enthusiastic about the opportunities it offers for improving econ­omic growth and the standard of living in Gungahlin. They recognise that we should, as the member for New England once said so pithily: 'Do it once. Do it right. Do it with fibre.' They recognise, as the member for Wannon and many of those opposite do not, that wireless has saturation problems. It is all very well if you are the only person connected to the wireless signal—then the speeds might be alright. But as other people come onto the network, as we get the crowding that happens as more people join the network or the crowding that we get over the day as more people log on at peak times, then the network slows down, becomes congested and ceases to be effective. That is the real challenge of wireless. It is a fundamental technological point. I am always mildly surprised when those opposite seem to be unfamiliar with the simple idea that wireless signals have saturation problems. We on this side of the House are committed to a National Broadband Network which will transform Australia for the better and be a key economic reform which sits alongside the major economic reforms that the government is putting in place.

The bill before the House, the Telecom­munications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011, will require developers that are constitutional corpor­ations to install fibre-ready passive infrast­ructure—infrastructure that makes it possible to quickly install fibre networks. It requires passive infrastructure installed in new developments in the long-term NBN fibre footprint to be fibre ready. This of course is a common-sense reform, one that is important to have in place to ensure that as many Australians as possible are able to get access to the National Broadband Network. The legislation allows carriers to access fibre-ready passive infrastructure owned by non-carriers and provides for the ACCC to have a role as the default arbitrator. The legislation creates a power for the minister to specify, by legislative instrument, developments in which fixed lines must be optical fibre. Giving the minister that power will be important in ensuring that the fibre network works as well for Australians as it can. It will provide for exemptions from the requirem­ents to install fibre-ready facilities for optical fibre lines, it will provide for ACMA to develop technical standards that will cover interoperability, performance standards, and design features for superfast broadband rollout.

This legislation is critical to the government's policy of rolling out the National Broadband Network. It will ensure early and less costly access to fibre based broadband for residents in new develop­ments. New developments, of which I expect to have many in my electorate—Fraser having most of the growth suburbs in the ACT—will experience cheaper superfast broadband. Getting that superfast broadband will be absolutely critical to those new residents feeling that they are part of the fibre network, that they have the benefits of superfast broadband network and that they are part of a community.

I have doorknocked some of the outer suburbs of the Fraser electorate. I know that, sometimes when you are doorknocking a growth suburb, you get a sense of frustration from people. Whether it arises from the bus networks, the road networks or the electricity networks, the sense of frustration of those in growth suburbs is keenly felt. This legislation accepts that that is a real issue and it steps up to the plate. Through this legislation we are saying that residents of new developments should get access to superfast broadband and that they deserve access to superfast broadband, with the e-health, e-education and teleworking benefits that superfast broadband will provide. It will give us reduced costs for the deployment of fibre by access to non-carrier duct work, ensuring that, to the greatest extent possible, we can use existing ducts and pipes rather than having to dig new ducts. There is no point in digging up footpaths that do not need to be dug up. If there are ducts in place, we want to create the opportunities for NBN Co. to use those ducts. Of course, this bill is implementing measures announced almost two years ago. The financial impact is expected to be small and it will be met from NBN implementation funding. In conclusion, I stress that the legislation before the House today is very much of a piece with a set of reforms that the Gillard government is committed to. We are committed to making policy not for the snappy grab on the evening news but for the long game—long-term reform, not simplistic three-word slogans. Those long-term reforms contain things such as compulsory superannuation—superan­nuation that will provide retirement security for millions of Australians, ensuring that Australians have the security of knowing that they can retire in dignity. We are putting in place a set of education reforms that will transform productivity—reforms such as providing school accountability through the MySchool website, rewarding the best teach­ers through performance pay, moving to demand driven university funding, and providing trades training.

All of these root-and-branch reforms of the education system are about ensuring that in the long run we have an education system that delivers productivity, because we on this side of the House know that long-term growth in living standards comes fundam­entally from long-term growth in productivity. That is why we are so committed to these productivity-enhancing reforms such as superfast broadband and education.

Climate change is, of course, another area in which we are committed to the long term. We listen to the scientists. We listen to the economists. Of course, when the Leader of the Opposition does not like what he hears from the scientists, he is willing to go out into crowds of sceptics carrying unusual placards. When he does not like what he hears from the economists—and he is, of course, yet to find a single economist who will back his scheme of so-called direct action rather than a market based mechanism and carbon pricing—he says, 'Maybe that reflects on the quality of the Australian economics profession.' My former co-author, Joshua Gans, who won the medal for the best Australian economist under 40 a couple of years ago, put it best on his blog when, in response, he said that, no, that actually reflects on the quality of Australian opposition leaders.

Those opposite are opposed to fundam­ental long-term reform in the area of climate change. They are concerned instead with slogans. We on this side of the House are concerned with the long game, with ensuring that we price carbon and make the steady transition to a low-emissions Australia. We are committed to the highway network of the 21st century—the National Broadband Network—laying down an infrastructure that will be as critical to future generations as the road network and the rail network are to ours, an infrastructure that those opposite will oppose now but, I suspect, will look back upon in their dotage and think: 'How did I do that? How did I find myself on the wrong side of that debate? What was I thinking in saying that Australia should be stuck in the slow lane of the information superhighway?' I commend the bill to the House.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this debate on the Telecommunications Legisl­ation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011, it is indeed a unique privilege for me to have the opportunity to follow the member for Fraser, for a number of reasons. One is to do with the very first example that the member for Fraser gave of why the 'superfast broadband', to use his words, that the Labor government is rolling out through NBN Co. is going to be such a revolution in this country. He said that it will enable those in remote areas to interact and have a consultation of sorts—a virtual consultation, if you will—with a specialist somewhere else, and that this is going to revolutionise the health industry. Otherwise—and he had to walk a very fine line here—that person could be left waiting for weeks to consult a specialist. I noticed he never referred to the fact that state Labor governments have presided over the at-times abysmal health system in this country, with various public hospitals having extraordinarily long waiting lists. That was conveniently left to one side.

Notwithstanding that, he made the point about this revolution that is coming as a result of superfast NBN broadband. He must not have been here in question time. Where were you, Member for Fraser, in question time? Had he been here listening he would have heard the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Prime Minister wax lyrical about the revolution in health. It was a matter of only a couple of days ago that the Prime Minister was in Darwin and the health minister was in Adelaide and they undertook a consultation between a specialist and a patient, one in Adelaide and one in Darwin. There is no NBN, but this happening now. In fact, the government was crowing about it in question time. There is no need for the expenditure of some $53 billion of taxpayers' funds to build the NBN; it is happening today. What an unfortunate choice the member for Fraser made for his very first example of how the NBN is going to change the way Australians will live.

I am also a little intrigued, following on from the member for Fraser, about the way in which the Labor Party seems to have taken to its beating bosom the notion that the NBN is going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. We hear it from member after member as they trot out their various speaking points. They have the fever—the new religion—that the NBN is going to be the thing that changes the world. You can almost hear them all saying 'amen' in unison as the various members of the Labor Party stand up. It was fascinating to hear that it is not just fast broadband, high-speed broad­band or a somehow faster form of broadband. What we kept hearing from the member for Fraser, over and over again, were those two words that, almost for dramatic effect, he ran together: 'superfast broadband' he kept saying.

I am intrigued. There was an article only a week or so ago that spoke about the opport­unity there might be for new technologies to allow data transfer speeds of up to one terabit per second. We have the government talking about superfast broadband at 100 megabits per second. I would love to see the member for Fraser come back into the House, if we do have one-terabit data transfer rates, and talk about 'super-super fast-fast' broadband or some such thing. You can almost sense the excitement. I know I was excited listening to it, but I have to say, the Labor Party is like any good spiv with a silk tie. Unfortunately, the Labor Party is filled with salesmen. It is filled with salesmen rather than people who actually know what they are talking about.

We also heard the member for Fraser wax lyrical about saturation problems with wireless technology. A country of 22 million people potentially has saturation problems with wireless technology! I interjected, but I am not sure whether it was picked up by Hansard. I asked, 'What do they do in India and China?' The last time I checked, the populations of those countries were a little bit bigger than ours. And, the last time I checked, those countries had full access to mobile telephony and full access to data transfer. I think even Korea and Japan do, as well. So just maybe the argument that wireless technology cannot deliver these same outcomes is a little bit spurious. The reality is that, like everything from the Labor Party, it is a case of 'Sell the sizzle but not the sausage'. This party is the sausage factory extraordinaire. This Labor Party is just feeding in the rubbish and hoping that what it can sell is the sizzle. It will get up and speak in debates like this about how it is going to provide superfast broadband, about how it is going to help 80-year-old pensioners or about how it is going to be the glorious revolution of the health industry, despite the fact that their own minister and Prime Minister, at lunchtime and in question time today, highlighted that they are already doing the things that the member for Fraser was saying were only going to possible because of NBN Co. Do you know what else is possible? Not only are his examples redundant, not only will the NBN be potentially redundant—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Potentially redundant!

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right, potentially redundant—but in my own electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast—Australia's innovation city, as we are officially titled—we have Telstra rolling out 4G wireless technology today. I hope the member for Moreton knows what 4G wireless technology is.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's better than 3G, is it?

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am looking to see if he actually knows what I am talking about, because he is going to speak on this. Telstra is rolling out 4G wireless technology that allows—shock, horror!—100 megabits per second. That is what it is doing now through cellular telephony—100 megabits per second under 4G technology. And do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is not costing taxpayers a cent. It is not costing taxpayers a single, solitary cent for Telstra to roll out 4G technology with 100 megabits per second.

If you listen to the Labor Party, you might think: 'Look, Steve, you're getting a bit excited for no reason. We are going to have NBN. It is going to change the future of the Gold Coast. It is going to change the future of Australia's most service industry oriented city in the country. It is going to change the future of the sixth largest city in the country.' Unfortunately, the Gold Coast is not even slated for NBN rollout for the next six years. It will be six more years before it even thinks about rolling out fibre across the Gold Coast under NBN Co. This is coming from the Labor Party, which expects the Australian public to take it seriously when it gives us this kind of piffle. That is exactly what it is: a gigantic investment in ego. It all comm­enced with Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith, when he was the Prime Minister of the country, and it has been continued by the current Prime Minister because it needed to be a matter of policy consistency. Heaven knows the Labor Party needs some policy consistency, and the reason we are now seeing Australian taxpayers being slugged to the tune of $30 billion to $50 billion is so the Labor Party can roll out its revolutionary fibre to the premises, FTTP, NBN.

When Labor talks about a revolution, there is a revolution all right. It will be the revolution of the children of today who are going to be encumbered with debt as a consequence of this junk policy from the Australian Labor Party. That is not to say the technology is all rubbish, not for one moment. Perhaps the member for Moreton should listen, because he might be able to understand the difference—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am about to point out a few.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes—between policy and technology. The reality is that there are benefits that flow from fibre to the node and, indeed, from fibre to the premises. There are benefits that flow. The coalition's problem is not with the technology per se but with the fact that the Australian Labor Party has effectively taken all of our eggs, when it comes to the technology, and put them in one basket. It has delivered a great big monopoly to NBN Co. At a time when the rest of the world has walked away from government publicly owned monopolies, we are embra­cing it lock, stock and barrel through the Australian Labor Party. You have really got to wonder why it would do it, because in all these highly saturated areas where there is a degree of population density—so every capital city, including centres like mine in the Gold Coast and other major regional towns like Cairns and Townsville—we have the ability for there to be a commercial rollout of this technology, for private providers to be in the space and for this technology to be made available.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with respect to greenfield sites, which this bill turns to. Nowhere is there a greater example of direct, private investment in greenfield sites than there is through the fact that there is a very large percentage, often in excess of 50 per cent of greenfield sites, that historically has seen the deployment of so-called pits and other fibre technologies through the development of the greenfield site by private operators. This bill actually goes some way towards making sure that that basically does not happen. The reason is that, because of the designation of NBN Co. as a provider of last resort, because NBN Co. will pick up the cost associated with greenfield sites and because NBN Co. will often wear the cost associated with pits, we now have an incentive for developers to simply walk away from these things—although it is legislated—knowing that NBN Co. will be undertaking those activities and doing it at taxpayers' expense.

I have no doubt that NBN Co. will be extraordinarily successful, for lack of a better term, with respect to greenfield sites. This is because any developer with half a brain will know there is no point in their hiring a private operator to undertake these activities or in their undertaking these activities themselves because taxpayers will subsidise the entire deployment of fibre at their greenfield site, thanks to this bill going through the parliament tonight. That is what the Labor Party is going to deliver them. There is little wonder that I and many Australians are deeply cynical about Labor's policy with respect to NBN Co. There is little wonder that we recognise that this is an investment in ego and not an investment in good policy. Good policy would dictate that there should be a level platform that enables the private sector to compete for those markets where it is commercially feasible to do so. Good policy would dictate that where there is not a commercial case to undertake this investment, that is when the government should step in. But that is not what we have from the Labor Party—that is coalition policy, it is not Labor's policy. Labor's policy is to say, 'It doesn't matter whether it's commercial or not. Taxpayers will under­score the entire project.'

For cities like the Gold Coast, where Telstra is already in the process of rolling out wireless technology providing 100 megabits per second, with no cost to taxpayers, and where the Australian Labor Party does not even have a schedule for NBN for six years, the Australian Labor Party says, 'No, you've got it all wrong, Steve. The taxpayers have got it all wrong. The NBN is the way to go because taxpayers will pay for it. It will be in excess of six years but, hey, it will have been worth it.'

I am unashamedly opposed to the complete waste of taxpayers' money that is NBN Co. Where it is not commercial for private providers to undertake that activity, fine—the Labor Party would carry me. But the reality is that in the vast majority of instances, it is commercially feasible, it is already happening, and the highest concentration of private providers in this space—who are about to have their throats slit by the Labor Party because of the passage of this bill—is with respect to the deployment of fibre-ready technologies in greenfield sites.

Labor members opposite, who are now sentencing to an economic death a number of employees with those private providers who used to undertake these activities, should know that that has happened because of the passage of this bill. They should know that that is what they are doing. They are making sure that private providers, who have demonstrated usually at least 50 per cent of the time with greenfields sites that they can undertake the job, will now no longer be in a position where it is economic for developers to engage those private providers and instead to have NBN Co. step in. That is the consequence of Labor Party policy and it is yet another example of how Labor has its policy priorities completely screwed up.

Furthermore, when you listen to the paltry excuses put forward as to why this needs to happen, when you hear the member for Fraser—one of the golden boys of the Labor Party—giving an example, which has been used by the minister today, which has already taken place, and not something that requires NBN Co., when you see the deploy­ment of technology by 100 per cent private money through Telstra on 4G wireless technology, it is little wonder that I and so many others are so deeply cynical about this government's spendathon when it comes to the absolutely reckless manner in which they are about to expend yet another $30 billion to $50 billion of taxpayers funds building a massive new government monopoly. This is not good policy and the Australian people will certainly not be grateful for the Labor Party undertaking this activity.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moncrieff for his contribution. I was in his electorate last night at the National Awards for Excellence in School Music Education at the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre, which I think is in his electorate. It was quite a wonderful affair, handing out some awards on behalf of the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Mr Garrett. It is amazing to see how young musicians and music teachers can all link up around the world and take advantage of this emerging technology. I was glad to see that he was accepting of the advances that will come with technology.

The legislation before us, the Telecommunications Legislation (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011, as you well know Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, is all about a common-sense approach to what goes on in new residential developments. I know there have been many new residential develop­ments on the Gold Coast strip, between my electorate and the Gold Coast—I see them when I drive down there. We are making sure that the nation is fibre-ready, that each of these new developments gets it right in terms of the ducts, the pits and the pipe—getting our ducts in a row, I guess—from one development to the next development.

This is a good, common-sense economic policy which is what underpins the entire NBN in the first place. It is all about making sure our future productivity is in an interconnected nation—beyond the major urban centres, beyond the Gold Coast and the glittering lights, and into the regions. While the member for Moncrieff can say, 'Yes, on the Gold Coast we are doing okay; we've got 4G', a good government governs for the entire nation. Obviously, there are some problems whenever you get a few people on the 4G system. It goes slower and the technologies of the future will be hamstrung—that is why we need to have these complementing each other. We need to look beyond the conurbations to the rural and regional areas and look at the opportunities that will come for all of Australia.

This is a practical measure that we have before us. Basically, all we are saying is that if any developers who are constitutional corporations—able to be controlled by the government—are building some infrast­ructure, they make sure it is fibre-ready. It is easier to do the pits and the pipe at the start of the development process rather than retrofitting something to a development, ripping up footpaths and all those sorts of things. These are an inconvenience and part of the burden that comes with an NBN program which is such a visionary scheme. It does make more sense to do it at the onset rather than later on.

This allows the carriers to access the fibre-ready passive infrastructure that is owned by the noncarriers and provides for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to have a role as the default arbiter. It applies to new real estate develop­ments because the fibre will be rolled out across the nation to 93 per cent of premises. It is important that we get it right in these new developments. There has been extensive consultation with the development industry about these reforms. It is not something that has been sprung on them; it has been able to be built into the price. As I said, this keeps the cost as low as possible for the ultimate consumer of the National Broadband Network.

Rather than just saying, 'Let the market rip', which seemed to be the approach by the member for Moncrieff, this is a common-sense approach with the gentle guiding hand of government saying, 'Why don't you do it early on, rather than just wait for the market to decide.' As we all know, with anything it is best to do it upfront rather than retrofitting. Even in a building such as this, which is only 21 or 22 years old, in the last year there have been problems in meeting the technology needs of a modern parliamentarian. Things change quite quickly, so it is best to have the capacity to deal with each new develop­ment—they need to be lined up so that the pipes and pits are ready to enable the NBN to be rolled out. This is a very practical response to rolling out the NBN.

I saw that the member for Moncrieff was quite overheated. Maybe he was a bit riled because of what we saw two weeks ago, with the NBN Co. representative standing alongside the Telstra and Optus represen­tatives, indicating that this is happening and that this is real. This is the biggest investment in infrastructure since the Snowy Mountains scheme—it is beyond the Snowy Mountains scheme. It is being rolled out now. I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, that Braddon has benefited greatly from this. The benefits are more than just within the nation. The NBN is able to link the regions, link the cities, link them with the world and create business opportunities overseas.

We have seen a lot of signs and symbols lately. When I open my paper or when I watch the news at night, I see the Leader of the Opposition in a hard hat, stalking a manufacturing business—turning up and spreading his big fear campaign about the carbon tax. That is an important symbol, a visual symbol. It seems to be what the media is interested in. I assume there are people out there now stalking the retailers or manufact­urers of Queanbeyan and looking for an opportunity to say, 'We need the opposition leader to come along like he does in so many of these places.' I think it was the Ford Motor Company factory in Geelong where he turned up. He does not actually go in and talk to the workers; he just turns up, talks to middle management, puts the hard hat on and then off he goes. We get what he sees as the sign and symbol and then off he goes. It does not matter that the opposition's plan is actually to rip $500 million out of the car industry. He does not want to go in and talk about that; he just wants to run with a bit of a fear campaign.

While I am talking about signs and symbols, I note that where the NBN will be very useful is in schools. As a former teacher, I know how much things have moved on. I can remember the internet first coming into the classroom when I was in my last few years of teaching. Now you go to classrooms where the kids in grade 1 and even kids in prep are using computers in a way that is unbelievable. That is why you have to be prepared. Obviously, the NBN will complement our education policy—over $65 billion invested in education. Symbols are important when it comes to education. We have debates in here about education; we had one today. Over the years of the Howard government, we had those wonderful—more than 2,000—flagpoles rolled out throughout Australia. It is important that we give our flags a space; we all know how important a symbol that is. But compare that with the 2,000 libraries that the Labor Party rolled out or with the other investments in school halls, language centres, science laboratories—all those things are obviously much more than just symbols.

I have been following the broadband shenanigans opposite for quite a while. I know it is hard to get it right because the technology changes so quickly, but I think there were about 20 failed experiments. They kept having problems. I think one of the problems was that one of the rollouts was based on the planning assumption that Australia was as flat as the Netherlands, but then someone pointed out that there were some mountains and valleys and a few things like that in the Australian landscape. Even though we are the flattest continent, we do have some hills, especially in places like Brisbane.

I particularly remember when, some 12 or 18 months back, the Leader of the Opposition had an interview with Kerry O'Brien—it might actually have been the last interview he had with Kerry O'Brien—talking about the NBN. What was the Leader of the Opposition's major grasp of what the NBN would be used for? For sending e-mails, I think. I am sure he has moved on a little bit since then and does see the business opportunities, the productivity opportunities and the employment opportunities for rural areas, regional areas and our cities. It would be nice for him to go back to our national broadcaster and engage with people about the NBN. We hear that his instructions to his shadow spokesperson were very simple—to rip up the process, to just say no. It is funny—today I saw the Leader of the Opposition talk about having an $85 million plebiscite because he wants to consult with the people, but he will not talk to our national broadcaster about any topic, it seems.

Anyone who has been in this game long enough knows that the Australian economy faces challenges. We have a high dollar at the moment, so that makes it hard for our manufacturers to compete on the world market. Our labour costs are high compared with those of most of our near neighbours, so it is hard. There are pressures out there; pressures on manufacturing businesses, pressures on lots of sectors of the economy, even labour shortages in certain sectors. However, those opposite are basically suggesting that we go down the low road. Their answer to the question of how to bring those costs down is to attack wages. This is a short-term fix and will not provide any great productivity boost. The smarter way to approach the problem is the high road—to try and boost productivity. Obviously the NBN will provide a massive number of opportunities to boost productivity.

As a Queenslander, as someone from the most decentralised state in Australia, it would be ridiculous for me to stand here and say, 'My electorate is in inner-city Brisbane, so I will be all right. The bush can be forgotten.' That seemed to be basically what the member for Moncrieff was saying—let the market rip, and they will be right. The markets are there in the bigger cities, but obviously a good government looks after the country. I am from country Queensland myself, and apart from the NBN no-one is in any great rush to roll out to the country areas. I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition found it hard to consult with the member for New England and the member for Lyne about the advantages that the NBN would bring to them when he did not have an understanding of it. Anyone with a connec­tion to rural areas would understand the benefits that will flow.

I note that there was a dissenting report to the report presented by the member for Lyne. This dissenting report is 5,096 words—we could have saved a lot of time and effort if the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull had just said no. It would have been as simple as that. That was obviously going to be the tactic—just say no, do not go into any great detail. The dissenting report was basically 5,096 different ways to say no. Thankfully the committee has taken a bit more time to look over the issue and see the advantages and, as we see the NBN rolled out to the 93 per cent of premises that are preparing to take advantage of this massive piece of infras­tructure, I think this dissenting report will be seen in the proper light.

The bill basically contains four key measures in proposed part 20A. It enables the minister to specify new developments or classes of new development in which the fixed lines that are installed must be optical fibre lines. So there is the capacity there to take advantage of the local situation. Also, the bill provides that when fixed line facilities are being installed in a develop­ment, these facilities must be fibre-ready. That is a common-sense approach—do it up front and it is cheaper. It is a case of a stitch in time will save nine, rather than having all the problems that go with retrofitting and ripping up concrete. Third, the bill will have the effect of basically requiring constit­utional corporations to install fibre-ready facilities on or in close proximity to their developments. We do not want to have the rail lines all over again where we have different sizes and they do not match. This is the 21st century and we want to make sure that they all fit together for the benefit of the nation. (Time expired)

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amend­ment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011. The NBN is an issue in my electorate and it is an issue around Australia. The electorate believes this is a very ham-fisted, expensive operation to deliver what could have been delivered by the private sector. Now the government is essentially renationalising communications in Australia. We are going back to the days of the PMG. We are almost in the business of renationalising telecomm­unications and phones, et cetera. The government wants to control and own everything that we operate now.

What brought this about? What made the Labor Party decide to spend somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion? And why do I use such a wide range of figures? Because the government does do not know how much it will end up costing. It was not that long ago that we heard NBN Co., through its pristine-charactered Mr Quigley, say it could not get anyone to build the network, so it pulled the contracts. Nobody wanted to build it for the cost it was thought it could be built for. Of course there are going to blowouts. The people who saw this build as a cash cow are now suddenly running into a bit of heavy weather.

Why are we in the position we are in? Largely because the Labor Party, on taking office, fell out with Telstra. We did not like Sol Trujillo very much—I certainly did not and I said a lot of unkind things about him in this House, which were largely all true—but falling out with somebody does not mean you decide to totally uproot the system you have and then go and borrow a massive amount of money to renationalise telecom­munications in this country. President Obama had the same situation confronting him in the last 12 months and, rather than saying it was all too hard and he would get the government to build it, he allowed the private sector to roll out enhancements to the telecommunications system in the United States with a mix of technologies.

As previous speakers, including the member for Moncrieff, have said, we have put a lot of eggs in one basket. We have gone with fibre to the premises, which used to be called fibre to the node, and this is the most expensive option that could have been chos­en. Our shadow minister, the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, knows something about this. He was one of the early entrants into this technology years ago, when he was a cofounder of an internet company, so his credentials in this area are quite good. He describes this as watching a slow-motion train wreck, and that is what is happening—it is a slow-motion train wreck on the roll-out and implementation of this program.

The sad thing is that the future mums and dads of Australia and their children will be paying for this slow-motion train wreck even although it did not need to happen. There could have been a fat controller at the signals to stop this slow-motion train wreck. The controller is not there because both the previous Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the current Prime Minister have just given the Minister for Broadband, Comm–unications and the Digital Economy his head and allowed him to run rampant on this issue. I am in one of those curious electorates that causes problems for this particular rollout. I have high-density urban, outer metropolitan, semi-rural, rural, agricultural, hills, beach sides, small towns under 1,000 people—I have the whole gamut. That is why people in my electorate are very concerned about this issue. In fact, they have called public meetings on this and they have called me to meetings in their own houses to say: 'We are very concerned. What is happening to that Telstra line that goes past my house now? Will I still be connected to that or do I have to sign over?' When it first started people were not sure, but we know now that Telstra has received $11 billion in taxpayers' money from NBN Co. to take over its lines. Of course Telstra and its shareholders are happy because it is an absolute cash cow at the moment, but the good old taxpayers of Australia have forked out $11 billion to take over existing infrastructure. Whether it gets used or whether it is overlaid in certain areas, we do not know.

The incredible thing about this is that by having put all their eggs in one basket and given the number of years it will take to rollout, there is a real chance that eventually the technology we are talking about could be redundant by the time it gets to your home. In Piara Waters and Harrisdale in my electorate there is an area that is partly greenfields and partly constructed and Telstra have stopped putting infrastructure into that area. The residents there have asked me, 'I cannot get ready access, so what are you going to do?' With their old copper wire network and RIM technology, Telstra are feeding out a few ports here and there from their exchanges, but they are not committing to any significant build because they are saying to my constituents, 'We're not going to come and build anything new for you because the NBN's coming and we're not going to spend any money on something that is going to be overlaid in the next six, eight or 10 years.' As a result, they say, 'Here's a phone for you.' They give them a second-rate mobile phone to use because of the universal service obligation. It is just a short-term fix. It really is a bizarre situation.

The towns that are further out in my electorate and which have fewer than 1,000 residents will not get part of this. We just heard the member for Moreton give us a figure of 93 per cent. I thought it was a bit higher than that, but I take his figure of 93 per cent. A whole lot of small towns in my electorate, like Jarrahdale, Mundijong, Serpentine and Preston Beach, will not be getting any meaningful telephony or internet connection through the NBN. To me it is really quite wrong and sad for anyone who is in an outer urban area to not get those services, despite this massive spend.

Mandurah in my electorate is an example of how we need to address some of the original problems. It is about an hour from Perth and it is still on timed local calls. We are trying to get Telstra and the regulators to broaden the zone, but the town is still paying for timed local calls in this day and age. We heard from the member for Moncrieff telling us about how on the Gold Coast, Telstra, as a private operator, is currently running out lines that are capable of 100 megabits per second. I have an article here titled, 'Move aside NBN, the future's already here.' It says:

Australia's Academic and Research Network say they're doing what the NBN will do in a decade, today.

So NBN Co. is going to take a decade to get speeds of 100 megabits per second to your house, but here we have AARNET giving the NBN a run for its money because they are going to deliver those speeds now through something quite simple:

… the research network announced yesterday that it successfully boosted the delivery speeds of its existing fibre optic network simply by placing 40GB 'muxponders'—supersized transponders—onto either ends of the cable.

You put these muxponders at either end of the cable and you get these speeds over longer distances. So the technology is going to race ahead of the NBN, despite its cost. I have two cases in my electorate that bear going over again. I have raised these before and they have not been fixed. There is the case of the Carey Baptist College in Forrestfield in my electorate which needed decent speeds for the school. It has outgrown its own site right now and it is going to move onto another greenfield site further down the road, which will have its own issues of internet connection and telephones et cetera. The school has sought my help in getting faster speeds and better connections. I have pointed out that Telstra does not want to help anymore because the NBN is meant to be coming to this region. Interestingly, and I say this in the nicest way because Senator Sterle and I have an arrangement on these matters—we criticise each other and we have broad enough shoulders to handle each other's criticism—in an article on 21 June 2011 it was reported:

Labor Senator Glenn Sterle took a swipe at Canning MHR Don Randall over his claims Carey Baptist College’s broadband and internet problems were due to the National Broadband Network.

Mr Sterle said Mr Randall attempted to lay blame on the NBN despite knowing the problems had existed for more than a decade.

As I pointed out in this article, it was a free kick, Senator Sterle, because when this school was being constructed I was there to try to force Telstra to provide the services to the school. I assure you that if I had not involved myself in this the state office would have said: 'We have no arrangement. In fact, they'll have to pay for the infrastructure costs. This is a non-government school.' So they tried that on for a while and when we decided to put a bit of pressure on them at the national level they eventually came good. So thank you for the free kick, Senator Sterle. Paul Oates, the administrator from the school, pointed out that if I had not been involved, they would not have got it. But they are still struggling because there is this big disconnect: Telstra are not providing anything because, 'The NBN's coming' and the NBN are saying, 'We don't know if we are going to get there.' Even Mandurah, whom Senator Sterle refers to in this article, are saying that it is going to be one of the first places to be rolled out. Most of the infrastructure is in the ground in Mandurah but the speeds are not sufficient. They have already set a few dates when Mandurah will be rolled out and every one of them has been missed. They failed all the rollout dates for the particular location in Mandurah around Halls Head.

Finally, I point to an article in the local newspaper which is headed 'Phone delay frustrates'. Tilling Timber state manager, Jeremy Coleman, says that for 18 months he has been promised phone and internet. The developer in the industrial estate had put the infrastructure in the ground but they have no service because Telstra was not interested in connecting because, remember, 'The NBN's coming.' Telstra did not want to do it, so what did Tilling Timber have to do? They had to spend $36,000 to install an elaborate substitute to get phone and internet connections. They had to get a wireless link from Armadale's industrial park to the R&I building in Perth to get a connection and then that was rerouted through the office. It is the same with their phones. Other businesses out there decided they would not start building until this was sorted out. It was not until I got away from the state office of Telstra and I wrote to David Thodey, chief executive of Telstra, where I pointed out that there was infrastructure in the ground that I got the response that they would put copper wire in that particular area. Before I came into the chamber, I checked on Tilling Timber in this industrial area and I found that they still do not have their infrastructure and they are still not connected to the Telstra network, and they are waiting for other arrangements to be put in place.

This you beaut, fantastic huge NBN investment that could have been done privately with a mix of technologies like wireless and satellite is now going to have all its eggs in one basket. Instead of economical fibre to the node so that copper can be connected to the home, they have gone for the most expensive model, which could be redundant in years. Dare I say, this is one of the failings of this government: if it is not your money, spend it like the Watsons because it does not matter. That is why this government are in trouble electorally, because people do not believe they can deliver for them. (Time expired)

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in strong support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amend­ment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011 and I do so for the following reasons. Firstly, it gives effect to the general policy of establishing a nationally consistent, high-speed broadband network to 93 per cent of premises, including residential and others, to provide download internet speeds of 100 megabits per second, and provide fixed wireless to four per cent of premises and satellite to three per cent of premises, including households, at a speed of at least 12 megabits per second. The national network will similarly be open access and wholesale only. This legislation also speaks to a particular part of the NBN policy framework, fibre in new developments. The January ministerial statement articulated that:

NBN Co. ... would be the wholesale provider of last resort in new developments within or adjacent to its long-term fibre footprint and meet the associated cost of this obligation.

It is really important that this is legislated as new developments are rolled out to ensure we are not left behind. The Telecom–munications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill amends the Telecom–munications Act and that supports the policy that fibre-to-the-premises infrastructure has to be installed in new developments. The bill also reflects the policy that NBN Co. will be the fibre provider of last resort. It adds a new part to the Telecommunications Act to support the rollout of the NBN. It will apply to all types of new developments, including the broadacre estates, the urban infill and urban renewal projects. It will generally apply to new developments in NBN Co.'s long-term fibre footprint.

There are other provisions in the bill that give effect to this key objective. It requires developers that are constitutional corpor­ations, and we know that has a particular legal meaning, to install fibre-ready passive infrastructure in developments. That is where the long-term fibre footprint of the NBN is. It provides ministerial authority to determine specifications for fibre-ready passive infrastructure, if required. It will allow carriers to access the passive infrastructure that is owned by non-carriers and also, importantly, it will provide for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to be the default arbitrator. Also, it will enable the minister to specify developments in which fixed lines must be optical fibre and determine specifications for such lines. And it has a number of other provisions in it that give effect to the key objective.

The bill gives effect to a particular part of our policy but it also gives effect to the whole policy on the NBN, so I will make some comments that go to the whole and to the general. I have been very active in my local community as a champion of early NBN rollout on the North Coast. One thing I was able to do was to bring together a large group of people who wanted the NBN first. Everybody wants the NBN; that is understandable. It is an eight-year rollout, so we cannot all be first, but if you were NBN-ready then you stood a good chance of getting one of the early rollouts, and we did that on the North Coast. The place was Coffs Harbour, which I call the 'nerve centre' of the NBN rollout.

I worked with the local university, Southern Cross University, in particular with Professor Peter Croll, who is still at the university working on this, to get a submission ready. I also worked with 14 local councils across the North Coast and with local businesses. We were able to put in a submission which said, 'We are NBN ready,' and it was recognised that we were able to take advantage of the rollout.

The NBN Co. CEO, in announcing the site, said that sites were selected on a range of technical and engineering criteria and that the engagement of local government and the receptiveness of communities to broadband initiatives were factors taken into consid­eration. We had those three key elements present: we had the technical and engineering criteria because of the spine that goes up the east coast, we had the engagement of local government—and it was really strong engagement—and we had receptive communities.

This shows how out of step the opposition are. They come in here and talk about the NBN as though it were something that people in Australia were not receptive to. People are receptive all across Australia. We have communities right across Australia saying: 'We want to be in the early rollout. When is it coming? Is it happening now?' Of course it cannot 'happen now' everywhere. It is happening as fast as possible, but it is a huge undertaking. As we have all said, it is akin to building the Snowy project, not only in its size but in what it means for our development and our future. Surveys in my area have found that local businesses—small businesses in particular—know that they need it to be competitive and to stay on top of things. It is not as if we were introducing something 'out there', which is what you would think in listening to the opposition talk about it. They talk about how people could have wireless, but that is ridiculous. Wireless cannot replace it, and I will come to that now.

In speaking about the general policy—and this goes to the whole debate—I will refer to some of the myths around the NBN. The website nbnmyths.wordpress.com brings this together very nicely under the heading 'The top 10 NBN myths debunked'. The first one is: 'The NBN will cost taxpayers $43 billion. We can't afford it and it's uncosted'. The website says:

False

First, the government investment is capped at $26-27 billion, not 43. The remainder will come from revenue and NBN Co’s private debt.

It then has a whole lot more to say about the claim, that the project was not studied and costed. What was the KPMG-McKinsey implementation study if the project was not studied and costed? It found that the network could be built for $42.8 billion—that was prior to the deal with Telstra—would not have any net cost to the government and would have an estimated net value of $40 billion in 2025, earning a return on invest­ment of six to seven per cent, which is more than enough to repay debt and equity used to build the project. It just makes good sense. The website cites the NBN business case summary, saying it revealed the total cost of the network to be lower than the initial $43 billion estimate. If people just read, all the information and facts are there.

The second myth that is debunked is: 'If it were viable, the private sector would build it'. That is completely false. The private sector have had a long time to build it and they have not done it, because the private sector do not usually initiate and undertake nation-building projects that are of benefit to the whole country, that provide the infrast­ructure for the whole country to take advantage of in health, education, small business, farming and agriculture—in a whole range of areas. The private sector could not and would not afford it. Are parts of the private sector going to join together and say, 'Yes, let's initiate this project worth over $40 billion'? That is a huge investment for any company and well beyond any telco I know of that is operating in Australia. The website says:

The private sector demand a ROI of at least 12%, because they need to earn a profit for their shareholders. The NBN has a projected 6-7% ROI—

which is a good return to cover any debt. The private sector just would not deal with that. It says:

… while this is well below commercial rates, it's quite acceptable for a Government, which is not seeking to earn a profit.

There are a few other myths, such as, 'We'll never need that much speed or data'. That is completely ridiculous. If you have a look at the increase in the speed of internet access in Australia and what we will have, you see the only way we can maintain this is with a fibre based system and a holistic one to start off with. There is another myth: no-one else in the world is installing such a system. That is false and ridiculous. Fibre to the premises or the home is currently being rolled out across Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and China. It is ridiculous to say that it is not happening in other places. The OECD actually recommends that governments build fibre to the premises networks—so the OECD does recommend it. If national governments do not do it, then who will do it? It is one of those responsibilities that we have as a government to provide that infrastructure. South Korea have announced that they are now spending US$26 billion on upgrading their old 100 megabits per second FTTP network to deliver speeds of one gigabyte, the same as the Australian NBN. This is happening even though they already have a 4G wireless network.

One of the other myths is our internet speed is good enough. That is ridiculous. The facts speak for themselves. I do not even have to go through what the technical parts are. We know that is not true. When you have a look at average speeds, you see the dismal position of Australia's internet speeds. Then there is the other one: a wireless network that can be 4G, LTE, WiMax or DSL—ADSL2+/VDSL/HDSL—can provide the same speed for a fraction of the price. That is false. Much is claimed, usually by those with a vested interest—and that means a vested commercial interest or a political interest—to try to tear it down, because we know that is what the opposition do; they are not interested in nation-building projects like this. Much is claimed about the potential of wireless networks, with speeds such as 300 megabits per second being quoted. But this is highly deceptive, because those are peak speeds per tower, not realistically achievable speeds for individuals. If you have the 300 megabits per second tower and you have two users on it, then that speed would be halved to 150 megabits per second. A trial of 4G/LTE in 2009 showed that with just 20 people using any one tower the speed plummeted to just seven megabits per second. We know that distance, topography, buildings and weather also degrade those available speeds. All this information is available and it does not find its way easily into the debate because all you hear from the opposition is, 'No, we're just going to tear this down. We don't care about it.' They had 12 years to do it. Nineteen attempts failed miserably.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the NBN bill, the Telecom­munications Legislation Amend–ment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011, which is before the House and which we are debating. I make the point at the beginning that the coalition, as we always have been, is supportive of fast broadband. It is a worthy and important goal. The development of fast broadband, especially the development of accessible fast broadband at cost-effective prices, is a great economic boon for our country. But we continue to make the point that it is not a case of picking winners in this debate but rather one of looking at a mixture of technologies, which is the important way to go into the future. Countries like the United States of America, with its President Obama, have realised that. We see here in Australia a government born out of central planning days, and we have just heard the member for Page walk us through her distrust of the private sector while talking about how the private sector will not build it because there is not enough return in it, although I note that, as I understand it, the standing policy of the Australian Labor Party is still to sell NBN Co. as soon as it is established. So somehow there has been a mistransmission over the talking points given to the member for Page, because her contribution was questioning the ability of the private sector to invest in networks such as this. She says the private sector would not build something like this. Well, they do build these sorts of networks all the time. In fact, they have built a mobile network.

Ms Saffin interjecting—

Member for Page, as you walk around with your mobile phone in your electorate, which is a regional electorate, you get to use your mobile phone and your wireless devices because the private sector built those towers. So it is interesting that the member for Page thinks that the government is all good and everything that is required needs to be built by the government. That is the view of those opposite, but, of course, we have trust in the private sector and we think the private sector provides services at a far more efficient and cost-effective rate than what government ever does.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Except when it comes to climate change. Then you want to pick winners.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, that is not true at all, Member for Throsby.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Throsby will cease interjecting and the member for Mayo will not respond to interjections from the member for Throsby.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was completely distracting me, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are right to be raising those issues. When it comes to this bill, I think it highlights how much the government has failed when it comes to this issue. It highlights very much how they find a reasonable idea and turn it into a complete shambles. That very much sums up the NBN itself. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we support fast broadband, but this is spending billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money unnecessarily, excessively and imprudently. We have seen the risk this government is exposed to when it spends such large amounts of money. We have the very sad examples of the green loans and the Home Insulation Program and with that program the government were not even able to put roof insulation batts into people's houses without burning the houses down. We have had the school halls program where they managed to spend about double what the private sector could have spent on building them. We have seen recent examples of digital set-top boxes. They have been spending double the amount of money for which Gerry Harvey or another retailer could have provided them. So when this government gets involved in spending large amounts of money, the Australian people shiver with fear—and so they should. That is why we saw today economic figures indicating a lack of confidence by the Australian people in the economy with housing and consumer numbers plummeting. That is driven by a lack of confidence in a government that is not competent. This is another bill which highlights the lack of competence of this government. There are various aspects in this bill which relate directly to my electorate such as the $40 billion spend on a network, which the Auditor-General's report today reflected upon, that Infrastructure Australia has not even seen. Even though they are meant to be looking at the top infrastructure priorities, the NBN has not been referred to Infrastructure Australia and there has not been a cost-benefit analysis done. This bill touches on the deployment of fibre and that will have an impact in my electorate as it will happen in new housing developments.

I think the arguments articulated by the member for Wentworth and the member for Bradfield have been very well made. The dissenting report highlights the problem that the government is creating for itself. It is trying to centralise and take away the benefits of competition when it comes to new developments. The real effect of this will be higher costs for people building homes in new housing estates. I have many new housing estates in my area, particularly in Mount Barker and Strathalbyn. These are already contentious areas, particularly the Mount Barker development which was forced through by the state Labor government without any consultation with the local community. Now we are seeing the federal Labor government create laws which are going to make it more expensive for people to buy houses in these developments. That was a point well made by the member for Wentworth and the member for Bradfield and very well made in the dissenting report into this issue.

The other area I want to touch upon briefly is that, when it comes to the deployment of fibre into electorates like mine, it is not easy to put it underground. I note that the NBN Co. documents, which were released last December, indicated that they wished the government to allow them to override local council regulations to ensure that they could roll out the fibre overhead, or aerial as it is described. This is a major concern in an electorate such as mine. The Adelaide Hills is the most beautiful electorate in the country without doubt. It is quite obviously not appropriate to put the fibre in overhead cables in a bushfire-prone zone over the longer distances. I understand this will be the intention of the NBN Co. This is a concern in my community and people have been raising this issue with me. As I have a semi-regional and regional electorate, the longer distances will mean that when it actually does get to us—for towns over 1,000 if you believe the government's rhetoric—there will be overhead hanging fibre used. I think this is something that the government needs to address very quickly and swiftly.

I am not the only electorate with this sort of environment. I know the member for Bradfield has raised this issue in regard to his inner-city electorate. Of course it is a lot cheaper for NBN Co. to roll out the fibre overhead. No doubt the arrangements with Telstra may have changed that slightly, but I do not think they would have changed it all that much in an electorate like mine.

This is an issue which I will raise in my local community and ask them how they intend to react if the government decides to roll out overhead wires through the Adelaide Hills, particularly through the bushfire-prone areas where most of the overhead power lines have been removed and put underground. If it is the intention of the NBN Co. going forward to do the same thing in my area, it does raise significant questions about how the business model of the NBN Co. has been planned and what the associated costs will be with using either underground or overhead wires.

My electorate is a black spot area where government funding is required to ensure that there is an equality of service. It is a point that we have always made on this side of the House. In outer metro and regional areas, like my electorate and the electorates of the member for Grey and the member for Barker, there is a need for government intervention because the market fails in those areas, and we have said that all along. Quite clearly it does not fail in city areas, and this is where the big mistake of the government spending billions of dollars unnecessarily and imprudently creates a real risk for taxpayers with the waste that we will see through this spending.

We heard the member for Page earlier say that spending $26 or $27 billion is such a Labor Party thing to do. It is a billion dollars between friends, and we only have $106 billion of debt and a $50 billion deficit this year. This is a fundamental issue about the management of our country. If we look around the world today, one of the great challenges is our Western cousins who are in deep financial trouble because they have spent too much money over too many years. We have seen this Labor government use the public purse without any effort to ensure the money is spent properly and without any effort to ensure that their policies benefit the Australian community. Quite clearly in some areas of the country there needs to be spending to ensure that services are kept up to the level which other Australians get access to, but in the city areas this makes no sense at all. This is an overbuild of existing speed which the market will meet and has been meeting. To think that over the next 10 years we are going to spend billions and billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' money laying out fibre in areas, which the market would have met, is ridiculous.

In addition to that we are seeing questions about how it will be happening in areas such as mine where clearly fibre is not the answer. In hilly areas I suspect that fibre is not the appropriate answer nor in regional areas because there is difficulty in laying it out or indeed whether you can lay it out at all. It will be interesting to see how NBN Co. deals with that issue. I will certainly be raising it in my local community. If the rollout is to occur in my electorate, in what parts of the electorate will it be, how will it be done and how is the NBN Co. planning to do it in the future? It is a concern. The member for Bradfield raised this concern in his electorate. He raised the point that communities do not want overhead cables anymore. Communities have been trying to move away from that, and there are very good safety reasons in my area for that to be the case. So when it comes to the deployment of fibre in the electorate of Mayo, I think there are legitimate questions to be answered by the government about how this rollout is planned.

The opposition see some merit in this bill. However, we have made some very prudent suggestions, which the member for Went­worth outlined earlier, to improve the bill and to reintroduce competition, which is a major concern when it comes to the NBN. The government have turned what was a competitive market, or 30 years of telecommunications policy about creating a competitive market, on its head by creating another government monopoly that will have the same challenges. I note that the member for Lyne last week made the point about government monopolies not having worked in the past and not being likely to work in the future, and I think that was a very good point. Where the government has gone with this policy is a major concern. It is spending far too much on a wrongheaded policy in areas where money does not need to be spent rather than focusing government effort on areas where money should be spent and allowing the market to meet the demand.

Quite obviously, part of the mix here is wireless. That is where people want portability. They want to be able to use their iPads and their phones and other devices around the place. At the same time, there is no doubt that there is a place for fixed lines, and that is where the market will meet that need. For the government to spend $40 billion odd of taxpayers' money—money that we do not have, borrowed money—makes no sense at all at a time when we already have over $100 billion in net debt and when we see around the globe the great problems that are being caused by governments accumulating debt. Those on the other side will say: 'Don't worry about it. We'll be back to surplus in a couple of years. We've got this wafer-thin surplus that is on the books thanks to the commodity boom and thanks to the high prices that other countries are paying for our products.' But we know that the debt this Labor government is accumulating will not be paid off by this government. It will not even attempt to pay it off because it keeps coming up with harebrained schemes on how to waste the money of Australians, such as spending twice the amount it should on school halls and burning down people's houses with its home insulation program.

I support the remarks of the member for Wentworth and the amendments he is proposing. I also put on the record the concern in my community about the prospect of having overhead cables laid out. That is an issue that I suspect, Mr Deputy Speaker, we will be talking about more often in this House in the coming months and years.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to stand here this evening to speak in favour of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill and in support of the continued rollout of the National Broadband Network. Having heard the member for Mayo, I must say that the repetition of incorrect statements on the government's record over and over again cannot go unchallenged. We have a debt level that is the envy of most nations in the world. It defies logic, intelligence and economic scrutiny that the other side continues to make those misstatements and mislead the public. In saying that, I have to say that the National Broadband Network is a major economic and social reform that will benefit the entire nation.

It is always worth restating our reform record, and it is worth restating it here. The federal Labor government has introduced a number of major reforms of which we on this side of the House feel rightly proud. Our first act in government was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In 2008, we apologised to the stolen generation. During 2008 and 2009, our responsible financial management avoided the worst of the global financial crisis and kept thousands of Australians in employment. That was verified again in the last couple of weeks by international bodies pointing out the success of Australia's approach to handling the global financial crisis. On 1 January this year, we introduced paid parental leave for the first time in this nation's history. Just two months ago, we introduced a historic $2.2 billion mental health package, an area sorely in need of attention. Within a matter of weeks, we will release full details of our plan to put a price on carbon.

But one of the reforms of which we are most proud, and should be most proud, is the rollout of the National Broadband Network. It is always worth remembering how we changed tack on this when the market failed to tender for it successfully. I heard the member for Mayo quote the Audit Office on this issue. Being privy to some information from the audits, yes, I think some of us do know that it was one of the biggest market failures imaginable. I would say that it was unimaginable, and I cannot say anymore. As I have said in this place before, this initiative will define this government and its vision for our nation. This initiative will change the way we work, connect and deliver important services, the way we develop and best utilise skilled workforces, the way we overcome skilled workforce shortages and the way we deliver important services such as education and health.

We want a nation that will embrace technology to maximise our economic competitiveness, create the jobs of the future and improve the quality of life of all Australians. We want to overcome the historical disadvantage of the tyranny of distance, both between us and our major trading partners and between our urban and regional, remote and rural centres.

The National Broadband Network will deliver affordable high-speed access to all Australians, irrespective of where they work or where they live. It will extend optical fibre to 93 per cent of premises, with speeds of 100 megabits per second—100 times faster than many Australians have access to today. This bill is a critical element in delivering the government's commitment to extend the NBN to all Australian households and, in this case, into new developments. This bill amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to ensure that fibre-to-the-premises infrast­ructure will be installed in new development areas. When fixed-line facilities are being installed in a new development, part 20A of the bill will require that facilities be designed, manufactured and installed to allow for the ready deployment of optical fibre cabling. I see no resistance to this bill. I see new developments going into my own area, and part of their promotion is that they are fibre ready. It is a wonderful asset to communities and it is a wonderful asset to selling new developments. This bill will literally pave the way for the physical infrastructure to be in place for the rollout of optical fibre. In turn, this bill reflects the government's policy to be the fibre provider of last resort. So, while developers will be free to use other telecommunications providers, NBN Co. will provide fibre where developers do not wish to use another provider or where no other provider is prepared to deliver the service.

The passing of this bill by parliament is just one of a number of significant steps towards making the National Broadband Network a reality for all Australians. Indeed, we have already passed a number of historic milestones. Last year, the National Broad­band Network was switched on in Tasmania for the very first time. In May this year, the Prime Minister launched the National Broadband Network on the Australian mainland. Since then, the NBN Co. has announced its first and second release sites, which include locations in every single state and territory across Australia. Just last month, on 23 June, Prime Minister Gillard and Senator Conroy announced NBN Co.'s historic agreements with both Telstra and Optus. This paves the way for a very secure future for the telecommunications industry in this nation.

I have to mention my very own milestone when it comes to the NBN Co., and one that I am particularly proud of: the Smart Grid, Smart City initiative, a $100 million initiative, that trials better ways of managing the grid, linking renewables into the grid system and managing electricity use in homes et cetera. It came to my attention that the technologies being applied were not necessarily compatible with the Smart Grid, Smart City and the NBN Co. But that does not make sense, and I am very pleased to say that there are now standardised trials being undertaken by the NBN Co. and EnergyAustralia to make sure that those technologies are compatible and that those two programs can work together. If the Smart Grid, Smart City project is successful, the trial will be run out all around the nation and, of course, go international. NBN will be part of that now.

The sum total of these new agreements with Telstra and Optus is that NBN's network of optic fibre will be rolled out to every household and become the backbone of Australia's communications system. This will be a communications system of which Australians will be rightly proud—not the cut-price model proposed by the coalition that will do little to nothing for regional Australia. Instead, the NBN will provide a 21st century communications system for a 21st century Australian economy. The case for the NBN is, to all but those in the chamber opposite, utterly compelling.

It needs to be recalled that Labor's plan for the National Broadband Network stems from a decade of failure by the former coalition government and the market to deliver high-quality internet access to all Australians. The federal Labor government will not mimic the decade of neglect on telecommunications policy under which Australia suffered during the coalition years. As a Canberra Times editorial noted today, Australian internet usage is expected to increase sixfold in the coming five years. In fact, that editorial drew attention to Gungahlin, a very well-known area here, which does not have high-speed broadband. This is a whole, big new development that suffers for many reasons, but Telstra will not put in the fibre. I have an area like that in my electorate called Thornton. It is one of the biggest and fastest growing housing areas in the electorate. Again, because of a combination of factors, fast-speed broadband cannot be delivered there unless fibre is put in. Telstra has not been willing to do that, which is exactly why we are rolling out the NBN Co. proposal.

Our current infrastructure is barely adequate for our present needs, let alone the future requirements of a 21st century economy. Relying on wireless internet might seem to make sense from the comfortable vantage point of Mr Turnbull's electorate on the harbour in eastern Sydney, or Mr Abbott's electorate in Manly, where population densities and demand make sense for private enterprise to invest in decent wireless infrastructure, but that is ludicrous to those of us in regional Australia where there has been a tremendous failure by private enterprise to provide quality internet access and where there is little incentive to provide 3G services. Indeed, many private telecommunications providers already struggle to provide decent mobile phone coverage across the Hunter region, let alone decent 3G coverage.

The paucity of copper based internet services in my electorate, like much of regional Australia, is already very well known. It amazes me that the opposition keep quoting the benefits of wireless and flexibility. We all want access to that and we are all using it, but we all know that it has to be backed up by physical infrastructure, and that is what we are providing. In those areas where we struggle in peak times to access a wireless service because too many people are doing so at the same time, we know that it will only work with the infrastructure in place. That physical infrastructure is now being delivered all around Australia.

I am certain other colleagues in the House would attest that there is overwhelming support in the electorates of Newcastle and the Hunter for the rollout of the National Broadband Network. My office has been bombarded with messages from local residents urging its speedy introduction. To paraphrase the member for Greenway, who spoke earlier in this debate: the question from my constituents has not been should the NBN be rolled out, but when will it be rolled out to us and why can't it be rolled out faster? I often ask that question myself, because the people of Newcastle do understand the enormous social, economic and cultural benefits that the NBN will bring to a regional centre such as theirs.

I wonder whether coalition members have ever gone onto the NBN website. It has the most wonderful promotion of what the service will deliver. I recommend everybody go onto the website. If you cannot imagine it, go onto the website and see what the NBN Co. high-speed broadband will offer the individual and the nation. My electorate do know that the rollout of high-speed, world-class broadband in the Hunter will make us more competitive. It will erode the tyranny of distance with major capital cities. The towering sandstone hills of the Hawkesbury that now divide us from Sydney will be less of a barrier to developing new business and employment opportunities in Newcastle. The NBN will replace the ageing and unreliable copper networks presently available. It is always interesting to speak to people who have worked for the old Telecom or Telstra. Frequently, they cannot even find where that copper wire is now. The maps have long gone. When these people go into the new little towns in the regions, they have to ask or look around to try to find where on earth the copper is. One aspect of the NBN about which I am most excited is its potential to deliver very real dividends for the health of regional Australians. The Hunter New England Area Health Service, for example, which is headquartered in Newcastle, is responsible for health services in locations as far west as Tamworth and Armidale and as far north as Taree. I keep reminding members Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor just how much the people of Newcastle and the infrastructure of Newcastle have propped up their seats and made sure that as regional seats they have not missed out. That has included the delivery of e-health services from the Hunter New England Area Health Service in my electorate.

The universal availability of high-speed broadband will substantially improve the capacity of places like Tamworth, Armidale and Taree to deliver services and advice in these regions. For example, the Hunter New England Area Health Service, supported by the Digital Regions Initiative of the federal Labor government, is already undertaking a three-year program to deliver telehealth services to more than 200 patients in rural and regional communities and the NBN is supporting that initiative. Most importantly, this initiative connects patients directly to health professionals. The program targets chronic disease sufferers and links them in their own homes to monitoring, education and support services. This potential to connect health professionals with patients in their own homes is truly one of the most exciting features of the NBN for regional Australia.

Some members of the Liberal Party do know the benefits of the NBN system. I draw attention to a new state colleague, a Liberal Party state member in Newcastle, who during the election campaign said he supported the early rollout of the NBN, saying that the 'sooner' it was rolled out to Newcastle the 'better'. I strongly encourage the federal opposition to adopt that vision as well for their communities.

In coming years the federal coalition will have a lot of explaining to do. It has been missing in action on some of the biggest reform issues in this nation. It will need to explain to the community why it has injected a historically high level of negativity into Australian public life, it will need to explain to the community why its campaign of outright lies and exaggerations about the impact of a carbon price did not come to pass and it will need to explain to the community why it opposed the National Broadband Network and the enormous benefits it will provide to all Australians. I commend this bill to the House.

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to address the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011 and subsequent amendments. The NBN and the process of providing high-tech communications to all Australians—and I underline all Australians—has been the focal point of members of this House for some time. It is quite clear to Australians today that we have a solution to providing that service. Less than $10 billion will provide a very capable and adequate service to all Australians. There is that inclusive again—all Australians.

This best estimate $50 billion service is going to provide ultrahigh speed to 93 per cent of Australians. There is no guessing as to where those other seven per cent reside. They are in my own electorate of Durack. The members for Lingiari, Grey and Maranoa also have a few. There is a large part of this continent where fibre to the premises will never be provided. It is those seven per cent that I am concerned about tonight. Presently, we have a proposition akin to taking out a high-cost bank loan to buy a Lamborghini to go into town and pick up the mail each week. It is dumb, and everyone out there who has ever had to balance a budget and provide facilities at the same time for a family knows that it is dumb. You do not go ahead and borrow inordinate volumes of currency and subsequently push up interest rates across the country to invest in something that is simply not necessary. There are other ways to do this job—ways that we have espoused on and on but all to no avail, unfortunately, with this government who seem hell-bent on constructing monuments. The monument to the Prime Minister, the school halls fiasco, is well known. I believe the NBN fiasco will be well known in the future as a monument to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. But, at the end of the day, it is the taxpayers of Australia who will be footing the bill. You cannot justify borrowing the funds that are being talked about by this government with the taxpayer footing the bill in higher interest rates into the future simply because you want to build a monument.

There are many parts of my electorate where mobile phones are not available. There is no doubt, however, that wireless communications is the preferred commun­ication method in rural and remote Australia. I hazard a guess that it is also a trend that is catching on swiftly in metropolitan Australia. More and more internet users are demanding that their facilities be mobile. People do not want to be tied to a particular point to gain internet access. Apple found that last year when they released their new product. The iPad was sought after by thousands and sell-outs were swift. By comparison, when the NBN was turned on in Armidale, the government was battling to get any real paying customers to the occasion because Australians do not want to pay through the nose for something that has been rammed down their throats, that they have been told is something they have to have and, what is more, that they will pay for whether they like it or not. They do not like it. If we spent a fraction of the difference between $10 billion and $50 billion, $1 billion is $1,000 million. We talk about billions of dollars as though they simply fall off trees. They do not. In this case they are the dollars of hardworking Australians, for which they will be responsible into the future. If we talk about providing a service to all Australians that is adequate and affordable, we talk about spending about $10 billion.

This particular bill is a very specific bill that relates, in the main, to greenfields. Generally speaking, we accept that in the case of greenfields there is a lot to be done. If we have to have the NBN solution of fibre to the premises, that facility will be provided at a much lower cost if it is mandated to be rolled out in greenfield developments. Keep in mind that the best guesstimate is that by 2020 there will be some 1.9 million premises that will be part of greenfield developments. So it is a very substantial market that we are speaking of.

With the size of that market in mind, we in the coalition believe that amendments ought to be made to this legislation so as to provide for greater efficiencies and greater cost economies in the rolling out of services. We know through past history and experience that, wherever a monopoly is involved, costs have a habit of trending upwards unnecessarily. Presently we have well in excess of 1,000 employees in the NBN and something like 600-odd genuine customers. It is not a ratio that commercial Australia would find very sustainable. If you look at that fact today on the basis of this $50 billion expenditure proposition not being costed, with no triple bottom line analysis and no real transparency in the calculation of the price and the manner in which it will be spent, it is pretty unsatisfactory.

I go back to the amendments. Because of the broad scope and the numbers involved into the future, we firmly believe that operators in these greenfield developments ought to be exempt from the cherry-picking laws. We believe in that because there is room for competition here—and compe­tition, as has been experienced in the past, will bring the costs of providing that service down. Further, we wish to have an amendment that will provide for private operators that wish to set up a network in competition to NBN to have the opportunity via this legislation to do so. Furthermore, there was a commitment that those networks be able to sell out to NBN in a negotiated settlement at some point in time in the future. We on this side of the House believe in true competition. True competition is driven by market forces. Supply and demand is the best solution to any trade relationship. In this case, where you have the opportunity for the creation of a monopoly you equally provide the opportunity for inflated prices. Australians are already suffering that in the areas of groceries, fuel and electricity, and this is not the time to add another level of inflated prices through their internet participation.

We on this side of the House are quite resolved as to what should be the outcome for this bill. If the government will reasonably accept these very rational amendments, we will be happy to see the passage of the bill. In the meantime, I reiterate that the interest of Australians is simply to have a reasonable internet service. Those Australians who have almost no access to mobile phones today and no reliable internet service would be served extremely well with a high-tech, up-to-date wireless internet service that would provide for them to access markets. As an aside, I mention that those markets have, in the main, been shut down by the decision of this government in cancelling live beef exports to Indonesia. But I digress. We need in rural and remote Australia to have access to the internet because remote marketing is an important tool today. But we do not need to go into hock to this extent to provide that service. Rural folk are a fairly sensible lot. They do not believe that you spend above your means. They do not believe that you accumulate absolutely non-serviceable debt in order to brag that you have a Rolls Royce service that you will never, ever need. Therefore, the case remains that this is too much money spent without proper cons­ideration. Unless this legislation specifically relating to greenfields is rationally amended to allow some competition to maintain reasonable costs, those hardworking Austr­alians who want to use these services will be worse off.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011. This bill was first introduced into the House in March 2011 and was referred to the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network in May 2011. The committee sought to conduct an inquiry into this bill within a responsible time frame, considering the circumstances of the bill. This bill has been some time in the making. As noted in paragraph 1.1 of the committee's report on this bill, the bill:

… was preceded by a similar bill which was introduced into the Senate in March 2010, but lapsed on the proroguing of the 42nd Parliament. The Fibre Deployment Bill 2010 shared a similar purpose to the Bill under inquiry, that is, to ‘ensure fibre-ready and fibre infrastructure installation in new developments.’ This Bill differs from its predecessor in that the Fibre Deployment Bill 2010 ‘was more dependent on subordinate legislation for activation of the key provisions in the Bill’, while the current Bill includes those key provisions.

The government undertook extensive consultation on this bill now before the House, including releasing discussion papers and draft legislation. The government also considered the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications report on the Telecom­munications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2010. Based on that history, the industry and developers have been seeking certainty for over 12 months. There is no doubt that certainty is important for developers who each and every day are developing new estates and building homes for people across Australia.

It is this imperative for certainty that ensured that the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network dealt with this matter within the timeframe set, thus allowing this bill to be debated before this House this week. When looking at the history of this bill, at the questions put to the witnesses by the opposition and the submissions put to the committee by various providers, the fact is that the issues raised do not fundamentally go to this bill. They go to the Liberal Party's opposition to the National Broadband Network and the government's policy to deliver a national broadband network.

The main purpose of this bill is to require developers of new estates to put in passive infrastructure like underground pipes into which a fibre provider can later put fibre. It is not concerned with putting an obligation on NBN Co. or anyone else to put in active infrastructure, fibre or, in limited cases, copper lines or wireless. The majority of submissions by the witnesses and the questions by the opposition during the inqu­iry into this bill went to active infrastructure. It was acknowledged by witnesses that the purpose of this bill is to legislate for fibre-ready infrastructure, not active infrastructure.

The committee's report also acknowledged that much of the evidence was outside the scope of the bill. The opposition also concentrated most of its time on issues not relating to this bill, and it continues to do so in this debate. This is predominately because the opposition is more interested in finding ways to oppose the government's policy than being opposed to the practical application of the rollout of fast broadband.

I will come to the Liberal Party's position shortly but, importantly, this bill amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to support the government's policy that fibre-to-the-premises infrastructure should be installed in new developments. This bill is another step forward to delivering on the Labor govern­ment's commitment to roll out the National Broadband Network. As stated by the minister in his second reading speech on 7 April 2009, the Australian government announced its historic decision to establish a new company, NBN Co. Limited, to build and operate a new superfast national broadband network.

The NBN has an objective of connecting up to 93 per cent of all Australian homes, schools and workplaces with fibre based broadband services and connecting other premises in Australia with next-generation wireless and satellite broadband services. This bill in effect requires developers that are constitutional corporations to install fibre-ready passive infrastructure—that is, pit and pipe. It requires passive infrastructure installed in new developments in the long-term NBN fibre footprint to be fibre ready; it allows carriers to access fibre-ready passive infrastructure that is owned by non carriers, and provides for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to have a role as the default arbitrator.

It creates a power for the minister to specify by legislative instrument develop­ments in which fixed lines must be optical fibre and provides for exemptions from the requirements to install fibre-ready facilities or optical fibre lines. It also provides for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to develop technical standards to cover interoperability, performance stand­ards and design features for superfast broadband rollout on its own initiative or, if directed, by the minister, and makes other technical and administrative amendments. The bill will take effect on the later of the date of royal assent or 1 July 2011, which unfortunately has passed.

I would like to briefly touch on the standards because there has been much debate in relation to standards. Despite evidence from TransACT, OptiComm and Greenfield Fibre Operators of Australia of them being opposed to ministerial authority to set standards and specifications, and comments made that this should be left to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, there appears to be no real enthusiasm to do so.

There does appear to be some double standards, however, when TransACT in evidence stated that it would expect subcontractors to apply TransACT's standar­ds but it would not be acceptable for NBN Co. to expect the same. Firstly, it is important to note that this bill does not set out technical specifications for fibre infrastructure in new developments. What the bill does do is give the minister some powers to make instruments to do so with regard to passive infrastructure and to optical fibre lines in specified developments if necessary.

The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy stated in its evidence that for fibre infrastructure to serve its purpose, for example to allow the ready deployment of fibre, and operate on an appropriate level in terms of speeds across the many new developments constructed in Australia each year, some degree of standardisation may be required. These provisions provide a reserve power to fast track this standardisation process if required, noting that normal standardisation can sometimes be time consuming and subject to gaming. The department went on to say:

The government's policy in relation to specifications was set out in the 9 December 2010 policy statement. NBN Co. will provide specifications for use where a developer wishes to use NBN Co. The specifications will also be provided to the Communications Alliance with a view to having these specifications endorsed for general use by industry as soon as possible.

This policy was also reflected in the government's statement of expectations for the NBN and NBN Co. It is clear that this bill and the government's policy, as reflected in the statement of expectations, is flexible. It does not impose specifications without consultation. However, it is reasonable if the industry itself does not develop a standard and it is considered appropriate to do so, that the minister has such powers.

The NBN is already being rolled out in Tasmania and we recently saw the start-up on the mainland of Australia. With the rollout of the NBN continuing to expand across the country over coming months and years, it is important that certain areas do not get left behind. Importantly, it is necessary to ensure that unnecessary costs are not incurred due to lack of planning. That is why greenfields sites are being addressed through this bill. It is important, as the NBN goes through our older suburbs and provides fast broadband, that new suburbs being built are not using pits and pipes which would not be suitable for smooth transition to fibre. That is why this bill is being introduced—to ensure our new developments are fibre ready.

I also note the comments from the members for Greenway and Chifley, who have much experience in this area, in particular the comments of the member for Chifley on the unremarkable nature of this bill. It is true that much attention has been paid to this bill and, as I outlined earlier, it has a history going back more than 12 months. However, what is being achieved through this bill is in no way unique. Just as developers ensure the infrastructure for water, electricity and roads in new estates, they will ensure infrastructure for fast broadband.

The Liberal Party has stated this is not their preferred model. It is clear from comments made by the shadow minister for communications and broadband, the member for Wentworth, that the opposition's policy is for a hybrid system of fibre, copper, wireless and satellite, with no particular strategy. It appears that the Liberal Party's policy is that they can provide faster broadband than people have now but not as fast as Labor's NBN policy, not as efficient, not a network which will be Australia wide and which will expand services across health, education, businesses and households, both rural and city. The selling point for the Liberal Party is: 'But it won't cost as much'. Well of course it will not cost as much, because it is not delivering an efficient fast broadband system which would be internationally competitive. It will still see many suburbs struggle to get any connection or work at a speed suitable for basic household use.

If the Australian public were listening to various opposition members in this debate, I think they would go away very confused. The member for Moncrieff was stating that we do not need NBN—that health services over fast broadband are happening now. At the same time, the member for Ryan is saying that there is no doubt that the country will benefit from the rollout of fibre across the country to deliver fast broadband but that, overall, it is bad for the country because it will cost money. The shadow minister is outlining proposed amendments, yet to be tendered, which allegedly seek to provide for competition because the providers do not want to miss out on the opportunities that come from the demand for fast broadband. At the same time, other opposition members are criticising the NBN rollout as a white elephant because apparently no householders are going to take up the option of connecting fast broadband to their premises. So on one hand providers are missing out and, on the other, nobody is going to take up broadband.

Then of course we have the shadow minister continually using South Korea as an alternative example of a country that is rolling out fast broadband but only to the basement. There are many similarities between Australia and South Korea—they are celebrating this year, as is Australia, Australian-Korean diplomatic relationships over the past 50 years. But when we compare the size of the countries and when we compare the living styles—the majority of their population live in high-rise apartments; the majority in Australia live in stand-alone houses—it is clear that the statements being relied on are just incorrect. The arguments are flawed.

In fact, when the shadow minister was asking questions about South Korea of Mr Harris, the Secretary of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Mr Harris said:

On the Korean issue, we had the Korea-Australia-New Zealand Broadband Summit in Hobart a few weeks ago. I asked the Korean communications commissioner about these issues … I asked the CEO of the Korean Communications Com­mission. He is a senior representative in creating the plans by which the Koreans are doing these investments.

He went on to state:

Korea has a Fibre-To-The-Home Council and is clearly running, in their advice to us, fibre-to-the-home network planning. They are doing fibre to the home. They are just sequencing it as we have done, fibre to the basement, as you have said, we have done some fibre to the node and we are keeping on going and now doing fibre to the home. It has not stopped. Their program continues and their objective is fibre to the home.

By all means we should look at international examples and learn from their experiences, but it is important that we do not get distracted by flawed arguments, such as that from the shadow minister. Although the opposition clearly do not understand the importance of a national fast broadband network and the benefits it can and will bring to many aspects of our economy and people's lives, the Labor Party and this Labor government do understand. That is why this Gillard Labor government is committed to passing this bill, committed to ensuring that fibre-ready infrastructure in our new developments and committed to seeing the rollout of the National Broadband Network. People in my electorate of Petrie understand the importance of such infrastructure. We have many black spots, even though we are metropolitan and outer metropolitan, where people cannot get broadband at all. People in my electorate understand the importance of the National Broadband Network. The Australian people understand the importance of such infrastructure. That is why this government is delivering on its promise to the Australian people and it is for this reason that I commend the bill to the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011. This bill is designed to ensure that fibre-to-the-premises infrastructure, rather than traditional copper connections, is installed in new broadacre urban infill and urban renewal developments of more than 100 premises. The coalition does support regulations which would ensure that fibre to the premises is used in greenfields estates, but we still have concerns.

Firstly, we have concerns about changes to the market structure. Under the arrange­ments with developers, the NBN Co. will pay for the pits and pipes of new infrastructure, a cost that has traditionally been borne by developers. This will see existing providers become uncompetitive. Secondly, there appears to have been a lack of consultation with the industry and an eleventh-hour decision that the NBN establish technical standards which will be too onerous for small providers to meet. It is very important that we get clarity on this.

In the electorate of Maranoa, we have the Surat coal basin, with a huge development and growth that we have not seen since almost the early development of that part of Queensland. There are a number of developments going out there—greenfields sites. The developers of these sites have been in touch with me. They have been trying to operate and develop these housing estates, which are very much needed, but they have had this uncertainty hanging over them about who is going to pay for what—whether it is going to be the developer and, if so, whether they are going to be reimbursed, or whether it is going to be Telstra, and whether it has to be copper wire or optic fibre cable. Many of these developers have been frustrated because they could not get an answer out of either—the responsibility was being shifted. Obviously this legislation is long overdue and is supported by the coalition.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Maranoa will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Five weeks ago tonight the ABC Four Corners program exposed the shocking cruelty routinely meted out to Australian livestock in Indonesia. The images sent shockwaves throughout Australia, not just because of the severity of the cruelty but also because of the compelling evidence that we had been terribly let down by a succession of negligent Australian governments and betra­yed by an industry fundamentally dishonest, uncaring and incompetent. How the Howard, Rudd and Gillard governments allowed such terrible cruelty to go on day after day escapes me. And allow it they did, because few if any countries are subject to such intense Australian scrutiny as Indonesia. Nor is it as though Australia did not have cause to keep a close eye on our live animal export trade given all the problems the business has experienced year after year in country after country. In the Middle East alone eight countries have been identified mistreating Australian livestock during the last eight years.

More broadly, Meat and Livestock Australia's role in this sorry mess has been deservedly well remarked upon by now. While MLA's response has been largely to claim that little of it is their fault, that they are being unfairly blamed and should not have to pay compensation from their bulging coffers, the fact is that countless primary producers put their faith in this iconic Australian organisation and they feel desper­ately let down. A case in point is a friend of mine from Longford in northern Tasmania. He pays about $5,000 each year to MLA on the assumption the organisation is competently safeguarding and growing Australia's meat industry. Significantly, he recounts numerous events at which MLA assured him all was well overseas, and the result is that this saga has left him feeling terribly let down.

It is no wonder there has been such an extraordinary public reaction to the Four Corners program. Even those who, like me, have been concerned with live animal exports for a long time felt energised to do whatever we could to finally address the problem, and the Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 will do just that. The bill has two essential parts, the first being the implementation of essential safeguards before the live animal trade with Indonesia can resume and the second being the winding up of the industry in three years time. In the first part of the bill the trade can resume as soon as the government can be confident livestock for slaughter will be treated satisfactorily in their country of destination. In essence this would be the case if Australian livestock are kept overseas in holding premises that comply with the Holding Standards; are transported to slaughter, unloaded, kept in lairage and slaughtered in accordance with the OIE guidelines; and are stunned using appropriate humane restraints immediately before slaughter.

Fast-tracking the implementation of such safeguards in Indonesia is in fact the only way to help the tens of thousands of animals currently in Indonesian feedlots who are being, and will continue to be, treated the same way as the poor animals we saw on Four Corners. For that reason alone we cannot just walk away. Moreover we should also consider the human dimension of this mess, namely the graziers, the station hands, the truck and ship operators, the feed producers and everyone else involved in the trade who need protection from the jolt of this warranted but unexpected decision by government.

The second essential component of this bill is that the export of all livestock to all countries will be prohibited from 1 July 2014. How this will address the animal welfare problems endemic to the industry, for instance the shocking conditions on the long-haul voyage to the Middle East, is self-evident. But also important is the way in which it will accommodate the compelling economic argument for ending live animal exports, on account of the way the trade is cannibalising the processed meat industry at the expense of thousands of Australian jobs. The decision to phase out live animal exports to Indonesia by 2014 has virtually been made for us anyway, because the Indonesian government has long planned to achieve beef self-sufficiency by about then. Yes, Jakarta's goal is ambitious and its 2014 goal seems very unlikely to be achieved, but the writing is on the wall for the Australian live animal export industry and it would be foolish of us not to be preparing now for the closure of that significant market.

The three year phase-out period stipulated in the bill gives the industry enough time to move from live to processed meat. In that time, for instance, stockholdings could be adjusted and seasonal challenges and fattening arrangements addressed. Three years would also give plenty of time for the abattoirs in Katherine and Innisfail, for instance, to be reopened and the mooted abattoir in Darwin to be up and running. This bill obviously has its opponents and I respect their concerns. But it must be said that ending live animal exports will simply not destroy the Australian beef industry because live exports are only a small part of the overall red meat industry. In fact, while the direct and indirect value of the red meat industry in Australia is $17 billion dollars and employs 55,000 workers, the value of the live export trade is at best only $1 billion and 10,000 workers. Ending live animal exports will not cause famine in Indonesia because Australian meat is simply not on the menu for the vast majority of Indonesians. On average our near neighbours each consume just two kilograms of red meat each year so even the complete removal of Australian beef would make virtually no difference whatsoever to their nutrition, except perhaps for more affluent Indonesians who do tend to eat Australian beef and who have the means to purchase and store boxed Australian meat processed by Australian workers in Australian abattoirs. In other words, the ending of live animal exports to Indonesia alone will not destroy the Indonesia-Australia bilateral relationship. And in any case, the Indonesia-Australia relationship is easily strong enough to survive a genuinely serious jolt, let alone an Australian decision to stop selling Indonesia just one form of one particular foodstuff.

Moreover, ending live animal exports, and ritual slaughter in Australia for that matter, has obviously nothing to do with the fringe explanations that have bubbled up in recent weeks—for instance, that it is somehow anti-Islamic or anti-Semitic or part of some vegetarian agenda. No, this bill is simply to do with putting safeguards in place as quickly as we humanly can so live animal exports to Indonesia can resume, and then giving the industry the time it needs to transition to reliance on onshore processing.

I acknowledge that there is another bill currently before the parliament which would see Australia's live animal export industry wound up immediately. But good policy must get the balance right and be progressed in such a way as to give it the best chance of success. Politics really is, after all, the art of the possible. So there is no point pursuing a policy to immediately end the trade, as popular as doing so would surely be for many Australians, only to have it fail to gain political support and thereby fail to help the tens of thousands of Australian animals already in Indonesia. Nor would there be sense in such a bill actually succeeding if it created too great an immediate jolt for the many people involved in the live animal export trade caught unawares by the Four Corners expose and the government's response.

The true measure of the government is what it does next. In this regard, it must urgently put in place the safeguards needed to protect the beasts already in feedlots in Indonesia and those which would follow them once the trade is allowed to resume. Then it must move to wind up an industry which has proven many times to be deeply unsound. This should be a matter of conscience and I appeal to all in this place to follow your heart and support the bill. It already has the support of Animals Australia, the RSPCA and many people involved in the beef industry. The support of the parliament will legislate the safeguards our animals need right now and shut down a trade that is fundamentally broken, systemically cruel and not in Australia's economic interest. Finally, I thank Lyn White from Animals Australia for her courageous work to help the animals and make this world a better place.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 in the strongest possible terms. I am disappointed that we have city based Independents and the Greens, so far removed from the reality of live exports, coming up with these bills that will have such an absolutely devastating effect on rural Australia, particularly northern Australia. I read with interest the maiden speech of the member for Denison, thinking that maybe he had strong views on agriculture and animal husbandry and that I may have missed some of his longstanding views on this issue, but there was no mention of them in that maiden speech.

I understand that there are many issues in politics and that at times it is impossible to get across the breadth of issues. I can say that although I do not have a department or a dozen government advisors, my door is always open to discuss issues, particularly agricultural and rural issues. I believe Mr Wilkie's intentions may be pure, but if that is so and he is going to take a strong position on an issue that has such huge ramifications for all of rural Australia, particularly in northern Australia—not to mention animal husbandry and Indonesia—then he can talk to both sides of the issue.

If he did he would realise that farmers and cattle producers across the country are just as, if not more, serious about animal welfare than he is. Everyone was as appalled at the images on Four Corners as he was and we must not provide cattle to those abattoirs, but that is absolutely no reason to stop providing cattle to those that are processing cattle to the required international standard. In fact, some of the abattoirs that have been banned from receiving our cattle are operating at well above world standards.

I was over in Indonesia on the weekend with Senator Scullion and it was quickly apparent how—understandably so—totally cheesed off various sections of the Indonesian government and industry were over this government's decision to put a halt on the trade. If I were the minister, I would have been on the first plane, either with or without the foreign minister, to meet with the Indonesian government to say, 'How can we fix this situation together?' No, not in this situation—the government were more worried about the lefties within their party than about the relationship with our closest and most important near neighbour and, in this case, our biggest trading partner. Nor were they worried about the impact on the cattle industry, as they had not considered the ramifications for not only northern Australia but also the whole cattle industry, where we saw the cow market drop $150 in two days. The government needs to let Indonesia know how important a trading partner they are and work with them to deliver a solution, not impose a decision on them. This is diplomacy 101. The member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, understands that, but I am not sure the Prime Minister has the slightest clue about how to manage international relations—she certainly cannot manage internal relations.

Getting back to the bill, we have spoken at length on why we need live exports, but the Indonesians have quite an issue here as well. Their villages tend not to have electricity and fresh meat is the only thing they know how to use in a lot of situations. Providing cattle only to the abattoirs that are doing the right thing is the best incentive for the other abattoirs to lift their standards to get access to the best available and closest cattle. Indonesia needs beef. We are talking about 25 per cent of Indonesia's consumption of beef being tied up in Australia's live trade to them. You can talk about other nations being involved in whatever happens, but really Australia is the only one providing cattle in any quantity to them. We have foot and mouth issues and Indonesians do not want foot and mouth either—they are not silly. Australia, Indonesia and industry need to get together over there. Talking to them, they want us to fix this together and they have sorted out how to do that.

The impact on the domestic industry will be catastrophic. This industry has been developed by Australians and Indonesians over 20 years—actually, it is longer than that. It has become an incredible relation­ship. Involved are Australian companies, Indonesian companies and companies with an Australian flavour owned by Indonesians. I actually believe that the Indonesian government has behaved far better over this incident than the Australian government has.

Let us look at the effect on the Australian industry. The zebu cattle in Northern Australia were not bred for Indonesia; they were bred there because they do well in the north. Back in the days when it was basically British-bred cattle, nobody made money out of it because the cattle died and they were hard to raise. Luckily for Australia, these zebu cattle were wanted by Indonesia and they took them.

People say that we should have abattoirs up there to do this and box meat. Apart from the fact that the Indonesians only want a limited amount of boxed beef—in other words, processed beef—in the past abattoirs have tried it up there and they went broke, from Broome to Innisfail. The presenter of this bill seems to suggest that we are going to move all these cattle down south where they are actually not wanted because they are the wrong type of cattle for southern Australia. They will have to be trucked long distance by road, which I believe they are opposed to as well. Cattle actually travel happily north to Indonesia into the tropics and they come out it very well. Going south, they go into the cold. The animal welfare issues are far more serious for them going south than going north.

As the member I am sure is well aware, there are 82 Indigenous cattle properties in Northern Australia with very strong links to this trade—and more power to them. There are 54 in the Territory, 22 in the Kimberley and Pilbara and six in Far North Queensland. That means 700 real Indigenous jobs. I do not know if the member for Denison has sorted out how that is going to be worked out. Good luck to him if he can do it because nobody else will be able to. And there are probably about 70,000 people in station communities involved in this as well. We are not talking about something someone just dreamt up one night. You cannot turn this industry on and off like a tap. This is the only serious industry in the Northern Australia outside of mining.

The bill to phase out live exports is no better than the bill to ban live exports because it will see the industry collapse as our customers quickly move to secure other suppliers, leaving our industry in the lurch. And do not think the Indonesians are not looking around at that now—and who could blame them when they are treated like this. This legislation would be an absolute catastrophe for rural Australia.

What should be more important for the interest group pushing this agenda is that it is not in the best interests of animal welfare. This prohibition is driven by an agenda from animal activists who want to shut down livestock production. They actually do not want us to eat meat either. They would have us all eating lentils—a prospect I am sure the majority of Australians would seriously baulk at; I know I would. I hope the member for Denison has learnt from this process and will be a bit more circumspect before listening to these groups in the future. As I said, my door is always open and I think my knowledge on this, without appearing to be superior, is a little better than his.

For good animal outcomes, Australia needs to lift the ban because it still needs permits from Indonesia and from Australia before one animal can set foot on a boat. For good animal outcomes, for good Indonesian outcomes and for good Australian outcomes, lift the ban and allow the minister in Indonesia to issue permits. We can still issue permits. You will not do the northern beef industry any favours by putting on a ban which simply means that these cattle have to go somewhere else. The outcome is not the issue; everyone agrees on the way it should happen. Please think about something other than aesthetics, which make people feel good without doing any good for animals.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Denison for the opportunity to speak on this important issue of live animal exports. Unlike the member for Calare, I do not think it is just a few pressure groups who are pushing this issue. You only need to open your inbox to see that thousands of Australian citizens want something done in respect of this issue. Anyone who watched the footage aired on Four Corners would have been shocked by the treatment of the animals that was shown, but many in the live cattle export industry trade should not have been surprised. They have been dealing in this space for a long time. They should have known what was going on and taken action earlier.

On 8 June, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, announced the suspension of the export of livestock to Indonesia. This suspension will be in place until the government and industry establish sufficient safeguards which provide a verifiable and transparent supply chain assured up to and including the point of slaughter for every consignment that leaves Australia. The trade to Indonesia will only recommence when the government is certain the industry is able to comply with the supply chain assurance. This announcement follows the minister's decision on 31 May to suspend the shipment of Australian cattle to the abattoirs identified in the footage provided by Animals Australia and Four Corners. The minister and the Australian government have also undertaken the following actions. The government will appoint an independent reviewer to invest­igate the complete supply chain for live exports up to and including the point of slaughter. The independent review will still go ahead, but it will now also inform both the design and the application of new safeguards, and it will be conducted by Bill Farmer. The government will implement a moratorium on the installation of the restraint boxes, seen being used in the footage, with Commonwealth government funds. It has asked the Chief Veterinary Officer to coordinate an independent scientific assessment of the restraint boxes used in Indonesia. An initial desktop review has been done and this is currently being followed up by site inspections in Indonesia. Also, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry recently met with his Indonesian counterpart and is discussing the trade at that level.

While the government continues to work to recommence live exports with Indonesia, last week it also introduced financial assistance to support those affected by the suspension. This includes a $30 million live export assistance package to support indiv­idual primary producers and related businesses and $3 million for employees and small business owners who earn the majority of their income from the live cattle trade to Indonesia.

The government also welcomed a $5 million industry contingency fund to address animal welfare needs in the short term, though it was a long time coming. The government is continuing its dialogue with Indonesia and with industry groups. The government shares the legitimate concerns of the Australian community about animal welfare abuses and is taking the necessary action to improve conditions in the livestock export industry.

Whilst I welcome the improvements that have been made to the industry, my personal opinion is that I cannot see any legitimate reason for the export of live animals to continue. The cruelty of the trade and the issue of animal welfare are of great concern to me and many in my electorate. Although I acknowledge the growing demand for fresh meat in Indonesia and the Middle East, I can see no reason why Australian abattoirs with Muslim employees cannot provide the best quality halal chilled and frozen meat. According to the Victorian government website BusinessVictoria, under the heading 'Halal Meat':

Australia currently exports beef, sheepmeat and goatmeat to over 40 Islamic countries including the Middle East and North Africa, as well as nearby South-East Asian nations. Australia has a reputation as a clean, safe and reliable source of halal food and beverage products, and is recognised as a leader in Halal export. It is estimated that the growing market for Halal products worldwide is worth around $685 billion per annum.

Australia expanding its chilled meat market would provide winners all round. It would be a win for Australian farmers, who would maintain a market for their products—indeed, the majority of jobs would not disappear; they would translate into this other area, and more jobs would be produced. It would be a win for abattoir workers, as more jobs would be created to process meat. And obviously it would be a much better outcome for the livestock.

Since the 1970s the meatworkers union has opposed live exports on the basis of its destruction of Australian jobs, its inhumane treatment of the animals and the decimation of the meat-processing industry. Last year it again called for live exports to be phased out. Since the 1970s at least 25 export meatworks have closed in Australia and more are still closing at the present time. The lack of refrigeration in the Middle East, which is often one issue cited, is no longer an issue. The following quote is from the WSPA website:

Australia predominantly exports to wealthy countries in the Gulf, who import a huge amount of refrigerated goods, not just meat. Suggestions that these countries lack of such basic appliances are not only misguided, they are culturally insensitive.

While this is not the case across the board in Indonesia, there are other ways to deal with it. Today I received a letter from someone in the Northern Territory and I would like to read it. It said:

Thank you for supporting the ban on live export.

I am a local resident of Darwin and my family have been involved in the pastoral industry for over 130 years, although we now live in town.

The letter goes on to say that we need to move from cattle to meat. (Time expired)

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 calls for a ban on the export of livestock for slaughter from 2014. The coalition does not support any measure which proposes to permanently limit or end Australia's live animal trade. We stand behind our agricultural enterprises, our farming families and the contractors and workers who depend upon them. We recognise that live sheep and cattle exports, properly managed, are an important part of the global food task. We urge the government to do everything in its power to restart the live cattle export trade to facilities that can demonstrate humane killing methods.

When the government blundered in and cancelled 100 per cent of the trade last month, it overlooked the fact that up to 45 per cent already goes to abattoirs that meet the same standards that we demand in Australia. Where was the leadership from this Prime Minister? She should sack her agriculture minister. He has presided over this wretched situation and everything he has done has made it worse. Urgent high-level talks with Indonesia are needed now, not when the Minister for Foreign Affairs has finished gallivanting around Equatorial Guinea, Budapest and Burma.

Having been a farmer it broke my heart to see footage of the mistreatment of cattle in some Indonesian abattoirs. There is no excuse for this shameful behaviour. If any person, organisation, industry or government body knew of it and yet did nothing, they would stand condemned, no less by the opposition than by the supporters of this bill. But it breaks my heart, too, to see the effect of the current knee-jerk cancellation of the trade on the communities of Northern Australia, all of which are now being indiscriminately punished and are in turmoil. An industry that supports farmers, roadhouses, stockmen, truckies, mustering pilots—of which I was one—and countless other family businesses has been crippled by the inept, confused and bungled response of this government. You could not have written a black comedy script containing the farrago of stupidity that we are witnessing from the Prime Minister's 'Team Australia'.

Today in question time the PM captured what she said were the various views in this debate, including that people should not eat animals for food at all. I know that is a perf­ectly valid moral standpoint, but it should not inform the development of agriculture policy in this country. The problem is that, under the new partnership between Labor and the Greens, that is exactly what is happening. A $320 million industry is on its knees, livelihoods are being lost, cattle are stranded in holding yards with feed running out, one of our nearest neighbours has been insulted and humiliated, and now there is little prospect of the trade being restarted anytime soon.

The Prime Minister and her frontbench do not understand that the economy, the life, the identity and the character of this nation are neither developed in nor confined to the inner suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. Is there not one government minister who has lived a life in rural and regional Australia, who has risked a dollar of their own money in a small business or who can imagine what it is like to cart cattle down a dusty gravel road worrying about your truck repayments, to build your own mustering business in a remote outback town miles from your family, or to be a young Indigenous person, desperate for a start, learning to ride a horse so that you can work on a cattle station?

The Gillard government seems entirely untroubled by the real world. The price effect on the southern Australian beef market is just starting to be felt. I have heard of cattle from Alice Springs being trucked to Warrnambool. Elsewhere confidence in the industry and its future is sliding. But for most northern cattle there simply is no market. They will have to be shot where they stand—and where is the humanity in that? Indonesia could decide to source cattle from South America or India, where there may be foot-and-mouth disease and where there is much less emphasis on animal welfare. It is not too late to work closely with the Indonesians to achieve a win-win result. Central to the system will be livestock identification, whereby we can track our animals through a closed loop supply chain and prove that they are transported, handled and slaughtered humanely. At least one of our existing businesses was already doing this but was indiscriminately shut down by the Gillard government. There could be no better demonstration of the faith and the confidence that this parliament has in the people of our northern pastoral industry than a vote against this bill. I urge all members to oppose the bill.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be read a second time.

It is barely two weeks since I introduced this bill into the House. Government and industry media announce­ments during these two short weeks have made it clear that Australia is not in the position of being able to provide any reasonable oversight and supervision of the welfare of cattle sent to Indonesia, and indeed to other countries, in any reasonable period of time. Not even Meat and Livestock Australia, spinning as hard as they can, are willing to make the claim that we can resume an animal export industry in the near future with animal welfare standards at a level acceptable to Australians. They cannot make that claim, because Australians, who have now been exposed to the extent of the systemic abuse and absence of sufficient oversight of animal welfare , understand that these problems are not minor and will not just be solved in the space of a few weeks—which, incidentally, is the government's naive timeline for resuming the trade to Indonesia.

The fact is that this industry has never been and will never be ethically viable, and there are far too many years of systemic abuse behind it to argue otherwise. Recent announcements in the media by the government and industry will not amount to solutions: the truth is that, to the likes of Meat and Livestock Australia, animal welfare issues are predominately a matter of perception management rather than matters to invest resources in. The last thing we need is yet another quick fix where the perception of action is prioritised higher than actual investment in raising animal welfare standards. The bottom line is that the industry will, as any does, fight to remain profitable, and it will do so despite the associated ethically indefensible consequ­ences. Just as thousands of constituents and citizens across the country have requested of me in recent weeks, including many graziers, it is time for parliamentarians to put an end to this cruelty. Thousands of cattle, sheep and goats in overseas feedlots, storage yards and slaughterhouses are being abused tonight out of sight of the Australian public. Millions will be exported and mistreated over the next three years alone. It is time for the government to step in and say enough is enough. Minister Ludwig must start listening to the Australian public, who want strong protections against cruelty. Only the Greens' bill will deliver that strong action and provide for an immediate and complete ban on live animal exports for slaughter. I listened earlier this evening to the member for Calare speaking about the tropical climes that animals enjoy on their trips up to Indonesia. I listened for a good nine minutes before I heard the phrase 'animal welfare' mentioned. I stand to be corrected on that by the Hansard but it is clear from those who oppose taking measures that animal welfare is not their No. 1 priority. As anyone who has been associated with the industry would know, live animal exports are shiploads of misery.

Mr Haase interjecting—

This is something that we Greens have known for a while, and that is why it has been our longstanding policy that we took to the election. I pay tribute to those many campaigners around the country who over many years have worked tirelessly. The recent exposes were not something that happened overnight. I pay particular tribute to the RSPCA and Animals Australia and Lyn White.

There is an alternative. As I have advocated for in this place previously, the government can easily commit to improving and increasing the process of slaughter in Australia to support local producers and jobs. The community benefits of processing meat in Australia have been underestimated for too long and are being talked down by the live export industry. No doubt the member for Durack, who has been interjecting, will again reiterate the industry talking points, but those who oppose measures and those who want to continue this ethically unsustainable trade need to explain why they are against jobs. A 2010 report commissioned by Australia's leading processors found that live cattle exports compete with and undermine Australia's domestic beef industry, leading to lost processing opportunities here. The domestic animal welfare standards here are anything but perfect, but they are an improvement on what will always be uncontrollable international standards. And so I call on the government, particularly those among its backbench members who have done good work in advancing the argument that an ethically viable live export industry is a fictional concept, to join the Greens' longstanding call for the cessation of the live export industry. I implore members to act ethically and support the immediate cessation of live exports for slaughter, and I commend the bill to the House.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a wonderful opportunity it is to bring back a sense of rationality to this House. This proposition, put to us by the member for Melbourne, would have us believe that all animals bred for food production should somehow be kept alive because Australians will be appalled to know that they are slaughtered before they are eaten. There is so much ill-informed nonsense being spruiked by this member that it is difficult to contain one's incredulity. There is simply no basis for the statements he makes, unless one concedes that we should not eat animals. If that is the argument, why doesn't the member come to this place and declare that he is vegan and wants all Australians to be vegan and for there not to be a livestock production industry.

There is no way that one can espouse a point of view in this House that says that we should breed animals for slaughter but that they should not be slaughtered. What this member does not realise is that the majority of viewing Australians, were they to sight videos of abattoirs in Australia, would be horrified. They did not realise that meat did not come from a packaging factory called Coles and Woolworths. They thought that it was somehow mysteriously presented to their refrigerator without it ever having been alive. They were suddenly reminded five weeks ago that those things that we eat were once alive. It came as a great shock.

Can I bring a great shock to the member for Melbourne? There are whole families, whole communities and whole industries around the world dependent upon live animal exports from Australia. If we are going to be part of livestock production, we first need to face up to the fact that those animals are being produced as a food source for Australians and for the world. To suggest that the actions of the likes of the RSPCA, Animals Australia, Pew, PETA and other high-flying organisations, whose institutions depend on donations from the public, are not self-interested in receiving those donations to maximise their executive salaries is to be blind to reality.

I am talking about hard-working Australians, who have created their livelihoods in inhospitable circumstances to develop an industry, paying an umbrella group to develop a marketing system with our nearest relation, Indonesia, over a period of 15 years or more to the point where Australian northern pastoral regions now have a purpose. They can breed Bos indicus cattle well, which are not suited to southern climes. Bos taurus are not suited to export to Indonesia, quite frankly, because they do not sweat. We now have a purpose for those pastoral lands. There is no other purpose as they are not able to be cleared for agriculture. The only thing that can be done is the raising of Bos indicus cattle for export. If we cannot do that, on the basis that those cattle are going to be killed for consumption, for that reason alone it is just an absolute nonsense. It is the sort of stuff you would expect from wet-behind-the-ears schoolboys. If we are going to come into this House and have the livelihood of thousands of Australians and the economy affected by the loss of billions of dollars because of some fanciful minority group having sway in this place, then it is a sad day for democracy. Australians, and hardworking Australians especially in my patch of Durack, deserve better treatment than that.

Until such time as this government realises what they have done most recently to attempt to destroy this industry permanently and the Prime Minister, in league with Kevin Rudd if necessary, goes to Indonesia with cap in hand, tugs the forelock and says, 'We are sorry we insulted your nation intern­ationally,' and gives a genuine apology, we will not see the recommencement of this industry, and we will continue to see real hardworking Australians suffer unnecess­arily.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The depth of community outrage over the cruel treatment of cattle in Indonesian abattoirs exposed on the Four Corners program on 30 May cannot be overstated. MPs have been flooded with letters, phone calls and emails. As well, hundreds of thousands of people have to date signed petitions or written to newspapers and other media outlets.

In my own electorate residents of the Tea Tree Gardens Retirement Village, in a spontaneous response to the film footage, organised their own petition calling for a stop to the cruelty and asked me to present it to this parliament. The petition was signed by 76 residents of the retirement village and would have been signed by more if there had been more time. These are decent, respons­ible adults with considerable life experience who were not prepared to turn a blind eye to what they saw or to remain indifferent. The petition does not meet the relevant require­ments of the House for petitions so I seek leave to table a copy of the document.

Leave granted.

I thank the House. The government made the correct decision in suspending the live cattle exports to Indonesia until we can be assured that cattle sent to Indonesia will not be treated cruelly and that a reliable tracking system is in place. I also welcome the decision by the minister to have an independent investigation into the Australian live animal export trade. It was the right thing to do; it was the responsible thing to do. Not surprisingly, the coalition and some within the industry have said the government has overreacted. Others have said that the government has not gone far enough. That suggests to me that the government has got it about right. The government has responsibility for all Australians, including the cattle growers, rural communities, transport operators and other livestock associated industries.

Our concern for animal welfare should not be confined solely to Australian-grown animals. It should be for all animals—home-grown or otherwise. It should therefore be our objective to change bad practices wherever they occur. It we do not, animals will continue to suffer because it is not only Australian livestock that is killed in Indonesia and in other markets of concern.

It is also clear that Meat and Livestock Australia and LiveCorp both have a major responsibility relating to this issue. They both have much to answer for and need to be held to account. It was a failure to ensure the cattle's welfare by both the MLA and LiveCorp that led to the government's intervention. It is now up to the Australian and Indonesian governments and the industry sectors in both countries to resolve the deadlock.

Both Australian and Indonesian liveli­hoods are at stake and families will suffer if the industry is immediately shut down. Indonesia is a developing country. Providing food and employment opportunities in Indonesia is important for that country, but no jobs in Australia or in Indonesia justify continuing to allow the cruelty we saw on the Four Corners program.

I want to quote my colleague the member for Wills, who is here in the chamber tonight, in what he said when he spoke on this matter on 20 June:

We should not seek to make a profit on the back of the torture, misery and suffering of powerless animals.

I think that quote sums it up perfectly. The priority, however, should be to resolve the immediate issues related to the Indonesian live cattle trade. The issues can be resolved without any party being adversely affected. It can be a win-win for all parties. Stunning cattle is possible and already occurs at some abattoirs in Indonesia. It is the standard in Australia and should be the standard elsewhere.

Tracking Australian cattle once exported is also possible. It was a coalition govern­ment that suspended that practice. In fact, I understand that tracking cattle was intro­duced by the coalition in around 2003 or 2004 and that it was in direct response to the current trade that they suspended that practice. Had tracking been in place it is very likely that cattle exports could have resumed to those abattoirs in Indonesia that currently carry out the stunning practice. I understand that there are several abattoirs in Indonesia that do that and that there are several abattoirs in Indonesia that would be ready to go if they had the clearance to receive the cattle. The issue is that exporting the cattle from Australia to Indonesia does not guarantee which abattoirs they will end up in until we have the tracking system in place.

The viability of establishing additional abattoirs in Northern Australia should also be assessed. I have heard people reject that but it should also be assessed, as should assisting Indonesia to establish additional commercial refrigeration facilities. (Time expired)

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the bill introduced by the member for Melbourne. I cannot believe that we are actually debating this bill. I could understand when it was first introduced by the member but times have changed. Surely in the last few weeks we have seen the folly of this legislation and the effect it has had on the cattle industry in Northern Australia. I would like to say once again that I cannot believe that, in this place, everyone wants to go on a crusade with someone else's livelihood. I would just like the member for Melbourne or the member for Makin or the member for Wills to introduce a motion or a bill in this House that, for once, will have some effect on the livelihoods of the people that they represent. I do not think we are going to see that any time soon.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should have seen the tariff cuts in the 1980s, and the cuts to the clothing, footwear and textiles in my electorate.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is my 10c here, member for Wills. The member for Makin said that this is some sort of win-win situation. We are way past ever having a win-win situation on this. We are way past not having some sort of permanent effect. The truth of the matter is that the cattle that are leaving Australia now will not be killed for three months. That is ample time to sort out the issue with where they will be killed at the other end. These are store cattle that have a limited window in which to be mustered, put on a boat and sent to Indonesia. A short break is not possible; the whole season has gone. Those cattle will not be suitable next year, so where are they going to go? Where are they going to end up?

This is an intolerable situation. I am not justifying cruelty to animals. What we saw on Four Cornerswas horrific, but I want to know why Four Corners did not go to the larger abattoirs that are processing a large percentage of the cattle that are in Indonesia at the moment. Why did they not show footage of what is being done there on a humane basis? Why did they not put the other side of the story, that there are companies now that have traceability, have full control in the feedlots and have full control in the abattoirs and have cattle going there?

The initial response from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig, was appropriate to ban trade with the abattoirs that were not up to scratch.

Opposition members interjecting—

Exactly. The member for Makin touched on it: they were spooked by the emails. I got hundreds of emails. I do not know whether the member for Makin read his but mine were all remarkably similar. As a matter of fact I think that most of my emails were written by two people, and I think that they came through at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning. I am yet to do some research but I would suspect that a lot of them were generated from a central base.

Are we going to run this country by mass emails from fringe political groups or are we going to look at people's livelihoods, what is good for the national economy and what is good for the cattle industry of Northern Australia? Are we going to look at what is good for the Aboriginal communities of Northern Australia that have finally got some way of having a respectable job that they can take some pride in and that they are doing well, a job that has been cut out from under them? I cannot believe that on this day, after all this time, we are still debating this motion. I would have thought the honourable thing for the member for Melbourne to do would have been to withdraw this motion when he saw what devastation had been created because of the ill-conceived and ill-timed way the situation was handled.

Did anyone from the government go to Indonesia and speak to the government there? Is this how we govern the country? We see a TV show and then we make an announcement! What happened to internat­ional diplomacy? Why couldn't the world's greatest Minister for Foreign Affairs have gone to Indonesia, spoken to his counterpart and tried to sort this matter out? The Indonesians have been slighted by this and we are going to see a kickback not only in the cattle trade but in other trades that we do with their country.

This issue might be burning hot in the retirement homes of the electorate of the member for Makin, but I can tell you that it is burning red hot in the electorate of Parkes. People cannot believe that a government could be so incompetent. I have to say that I do not believe that it is all members of the government. I believe that this side of the House has been hijacked by the loopy left.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Lyne seeking leave?

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking leave to speak without closing the debate.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not say leave was granted. It would have been courteous if the member had—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the member for Mackellar refrain from commenting. Leave is being sought by the member for Lyne to speak without closing the debate.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say to the chamber that I did try to contact Mr Oakeshott, the member, earlier this evening. I would have thought if he had wanted to speak for a second time it would have been courteous of him to return that call and to let me know. I find it extraordinary that, at this stage, I am being asked to give leave for the right to speak for a second time.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I seek an indication from the member for Mackellar whether leave is granted or not to progress the issue.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to know on what basis the leave is being sought before I grant leave.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will hold for a moment and seek clarification. I indicate to the House that there is no debate on the granting of leave, so I will just seek an indication from the member for Mackellar as to whether leave is granted or not.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to ask the member who is seeking leave for what period of time he wishes to speak and the purpose for which he wishes to speak, and then I will make a decision about leave being granted.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate to the member for Mackellar that it is not usual to seek a debate or explanation—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

None of this is usual.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that, but the member has sought leave and I am seeking an indication from you as to whether leave is granted for the member to speak for a second time without closing the debate. I indicated that I am not going to allow a debate on the issue. The normal process is that leave is sought. The polite arrangements behind that are a matter for members of the House. I am, as the chair, merely seeking advice as to whether leave is granted for the member to speak a second time without closing the debate.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it, there are only two speaking spots of 10 minutes each and then two of five minutes each. If leave were granted then that 10-minute spot would be lost, and I am not prepared to give that up. Perhaps you could tell me otherwise, if that is not the case.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The understanding of the chair is that the time allotted for the debate is 40 minutes. There are two speakers of 10 minutes each and all other members of five minutes each, which would allow for two 10-minute and four five-minute speakers in the allotted time, if we get underway before we run out of time. Does the member for Mackellar have a decision for the House?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I will speak now and take my 10 minutes. No doubt the member from the government benches wants to take 10 minutes, but if he wants to give up his 10 for five then we can look at the question of leave for that spot.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So leave is not granted. The member for Mackellar has the call.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an important issue that the member for Lyne has raised. It arises from an Auditor-General's report by the Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, of which the member for Lyne is the chairman. He has made some pretty signif­icant recommendations, which are contained in this private member's bill. I must say I do have some sympathy with many of the issues that he has raised, which is exactly why I called the member earlier in the day to speak with him about being sympathetic to the issues that he has raised. For instance, I think there is a very good case to be made out about a clearer ability for the Auditor-General to audit GBEs, government business enterprises, and, equally, the ability to trace Commonwealth government funds which are given to state, territory and local govern­ment. There is a need to be able to pursue an audit trail. I am very sympathetic to that.

I am also very sympathetic to the case being made out for government controlled companies to be audited. Well I remember when I was first in this place that, as a member of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, I would have very much liked to have audited the Parliament House Const­ruction Authority, which built the building in which we stand and sit today. But, because the government of the day would not agree to it, the Auditor-General had no power himself to do an audit of the authority. The argument was that it was a government controlled company and the definition of that was that, if the government appointed a majority of directors to that company, it would be a controlled company and the Auditor-General could not of his own volition audit that company. I am pleased to see that this is finally being overturned. It was something that I advocated all those years ago when I was in the Senate and it is something that I advocate now.

Another good measure in the proposed bill is for an audit of indicators, which the Auditor-General himself has recommended. Performance indicators should be part of the audit process. The bill says that an annual sample of audits should be conducted of performance indicators, but nowhere in the bill does it say what a 'sample' means and nor does it say precisely what is meant by 'performance indicators', as they vary considerably across the realm of govern­ment. The Auditor-General, in his submiss­ion to the public accounts committee did lay out some indicators of what he thought they should be, and I quote from the report: 'It is thought that the performance indicator should be a mix of quantitative and qualitative measures incorporating a range of best practice characteristics and be cost effective to collect, analyse and report against.' The Auditor-General was quite specific about what he thought was the best way to go about it, but I note that that is not really reflected in the bill. No doubt that could be remedied in future times. The member for Goldstein in his second reading speech said that the opposition would oppose the bill because it proposed that the Auditor-General should have the right to audit private sector companies which contract with the Commonwealth. I believe that is far too intrusive into the private sector. The purpose of a public sector audit and the purpose of a private sector audit are entirely separate purposes. I have long fought in this place to always retain the Auditor-General being the Auditor-General for GBEs and publicly controlled companies because I believe that the purpose of the Auditor-General in both financial audits and performance audits is to ensure that the money which is compulsorily taken from the taxpayer by way of taxation measures is properly spent.

In the private sector an auditor has a dual role to make sure that money is properly spent but also to give advice to that enterprise or individual about how they conduct their business and can do better. It is an entirely separate function and to allow the Auditor-General, which has a very specific purpose to carry out, to be intrusive into the private sector is quite unacceptable. It would lead to enormous burdens being placed upon the private sector entity, be it an individual or a firm, and would discourage people from competing for government work.

Where waste is concerned—and I pres­ume that a lot of these auditing provisions are meant to be put in place to prevent waste occurring—a better way is the one the opposition is putting forward. That is to try and see that we can prevent waste in the first place. We should put in place effective measures that could eliminate waste before it is incurred rather than just reported upon after it has occurred, as would come to light via the Auditor-General's report.

I cannot state strongly enough that the idea that the Auditor-General should be given permission to audit the private sector contractor is enough to put this bill totally at risk. I foreshadow that, when we get to consideration in detail, we will move certain amendments which would remove private sector contractors from the ambit of the bill. It would mean that all the good parts that are there would continue to be in place but the part that would allow incursion into the private sector would be taken out of the bill. We believe that is a far better outcome for people wishing to contract with the Commonwealth and it would avert additional increase of costs and red tape and bureaucracy which is never a good thing for the prosperity of the private sector.

The coalition's policy to create an office of due diligence, which would avoid waste in the first place, is a far better way to go. It would put in place mechanisms which would allow far better contracting arrangements to be entered into. I note from the inquiry that the public accounts committee held that there were particular concerns about the DMO in Defence. I think that the office of due diligence would have a great role to play in that contracting situation. But I certainly do not think that anybody's interests would be enhanced by allowing the Auditor-General to intrude into the area of the private sector.

For those reasons, I say to the mover of this private member's bill, the member for Lyne, that I think there is much in the bill that is to be commended. Some of the things that you have included are things that I personally have been fighting for over a long time and that I would be very pleased to see in place. I do have great confidence in the work of the Auditor-General and the task that he carries out in the public sector, but I reiterate I do not believe there is any place for the Auditor-General to be intruding into the private sector.

In foreshadowing those amendments in consideration in detail, I say to the member for Lyne that should he choose to accept our amendments or should they be carried—that is, to delete the private sector from the bill—we would be prepared to support the remai­nder of the bill. That was the purpose of the call that I placed to him today to have discussions with him. As we probably will not reach consideration in detail tonight, there is probably going to be an opportunity to have some further discussions. I look forward to those because I think perhaps if he reflects upon it and reads his own report in the light of those comments, he may feel that would be a good way to go. It would be a shame not to support the bill because it has that impediment. (Time expired)

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011 before the House this evening implements a number of recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit inquiry into the Auditor-General Act 1997. I will go through the recommendations of the report that would be implemented in further detail.

I want to make a couple of broad points about the role of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has played a valuable role in Australian politics, most memorably in recent times in uncovering the regional rorts scandal put in place under the Howard government. As those with long memories would be aware, this was one of the most insidious forms of pork-barrelling that occurred under the Howard government—the notion that, rather than allocating essential infrastructure based on the need of the local community and on strict cost-benefit criteria, you would instead make those decisions based on electorates. I did a little academic work on this while I was at the Australian National University, looking at the allocation of a number of funding programs under the Howard government—the Roads to Recovery Program, the Regional Partnerships Program and the Sustainable Regions Program. Under each of those programs you could see clear evidence of partisan bias and clear evidence that a substantial increase in funding was going to electorates then held by the coalition. That is an allocation that is not an appropriate use of public money and that does not ensure that the Australian taxpayer gets the best value for money. I am pleased at the role that the Auditor-General played in uncovering that.

I have to say that I am a little concerned about the lack of courtesy shown in the debate this evening to the member for Lyne. I will go short on my speech to ensure to the greatest extent possible that he is able to speak in this debate. But I think it would have been appropriate had he been able to commence this debate. On the suggestion by the member for Mackellar that somehow this could all be resolved if only the member for Lyne would read his own report, I just do not know what to say about statements like that.

The functions performed by the Auditor-General continue to be a matter of great significance. It is critical that the Auditor-General has the appropriate powers to respond to new audit challenges that arise. The amendments are going to implement the recommendations of the report, as I noted above. One of the important changes that flows from the implementation of the committee's recommendations will be the Auditor-General having the power to 'follow the money'. That is, the Auditor-General will be able to undertake audits of Common­wealth partners—private sector and state and territory entities—that receive Australian government funds to implement a government program. That ensures that the Auditor-General's powers keep up with the way in which modern government operates. At the moment, the Auditor-General is unable to assess the extent to which individuals or entities that receive Australian government funds achieve the purpose for which those funds were provided. An amendment implements the change to that.

The bill as amended contains appropriate restrictions on the extent of those powers, and the government anticipates that those powers would be used only sparingly. For example, the Auditor-General would be able to assess the operations of the state or territory entity only after a request by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit or the responsible minister and only to the extent that they relate to achieving the purpose for which the funds were provided. It ensures that the Auditor-General has the tools to respond to today's auditing chall­enges.

There are a number of minor amend­ments—for example, providing clear authority for the Auditor-General to undertake assurance reviews and audits of performance indicators, which are currently carried out as audits by agreement under section 20 of the act. The bill, if passed, will clarify the Auditor-General's powers to require the production of documents that are the subject of legal professional privilege. I will conclude my statements there so as to allow further opportunity for others to participate in the debate this evening.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011 and to support the amendments that were discussed earlier by the member for Mackellar. But I also want to take this opportunity to once again call on the member for Lyne in his capacity as the Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, the author of this bill and a regional member with considerable influence over this faltering government to show his support for an ANAO investigation into the Aust­ralian Rail Track Corporation's involvement in the rail track replacement work between Melbourne and Albury.

This bill effectively seeks to provide greater power to the Auditor-General to conduct audits into government agencies, government business enterprises and govern­ment controlled companies. If the member for Lyne really believes in scrutiny of government, if he believes that the Auditor-General should have the discretion to conduct investigations of GBEs like the ARTC, he will support my call for a full and frank audit of the Melbourne to Albury rail project, a project that will be yet another addition to Labor's long list of failures. If he believes that country Australians deserve access to a safe and reliable public transport system then he will support my call.

The member for Lyne has a large degree of influence over this government, as we have seen and as I am sure he would like to admit, particularly to his constituents. I would suggest that this is the perfect opportunity to put that influence to good use for the sake of services to a significant rural and regional community. The minister responsible for this project, the member for Grayndler, promised full transparency when he came to office, yet we know that the ARTC has already conducted an investi­gation into the state of the rail track between Melbourne and Albury and that the results of this investigation have not seen the light of day and have in fact been hidden—another failed project and another broken promise.

There are elements of this bill which I do support and believe should be commended. Giving the ANAO more power and auton­omy to conduct investigations into govern­ment business enterprises such as the ARTC is of course something that I fully support. But I would urge the member for Lyne, regardless of the outcome on this bill, to use his influence on this committee to push for an audit into the ARTC. I would also urge members opposite who believe in government transparency to agree to this audit.

There are other aspects of this bill which the coalition does not support. This bill would extend somewhat intrusive powers to the ANAO which would subject independent contractors to audits if they received government contracts. This would effectively apply another layer of bureaucracy and increased costs and regulatory burden to private industry. It would be a significant disincentive for small businesses to tender for government contracts and I believe would be an unintended negative conse­quence of this bill. I say 'unintended' because I do not think the intention is to further harm small businesses who are already suffering under significant regulation and increased costs, with some barely making a profit at all. The amendments moved by the coalition would remove these intrusive powers that would hurt small contractors, while extend­ing those extra powers to investigate government agencies, government-controlled companies and government business enterprises. I look forward to support for these amendments and I especially look forward to the member for Lyne's support for my call for an audit into the ARTC's involvement in the Melbourne to Albury rail freight.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak to report 419: Inquiry into the Auditor-General Act 1997. This report was completed by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in this 43rd parliament, chaired by Rob Oakeshott, the member for Lyne, but is in fact the conclusion of work undertaken by the committee of the same name in the 42nd parliament, which was chaired by Sharon Grierson, the member for Newcastle. I am a little alarmed that it seems this evening that because of developments prior to my entering the chamber the member for Mackellar has denied the chair of the committee, the member for Lyne, a chance to put on the record some of his important and, I would say, very informative observations about this report. However, it is important that we do acknowledge that the committee continues to do excellent work and the committee members are working very hard to ensure that the joint parliamentary committee undertakes its work with diligence.

I acknowledge the committee members of each parliament and applaud the excellent work of the committee secretariat—Mr Russell Chafer, Dr Kris Veenstra, Ms Pauline Cullen, Dr Narelle McGlusky and Dr Ian McDonald—for their work on the committee and in particular, for this excellent report. This in fact could be called the 'follow the money bill' because that is what it is really all about. There are so many terms that are bandied about in this chamber and I know that people out there who are listening are trying to figure out what on earth is actually going on.

The reality is that, as the member for Fraser has spoken of earlier, there has been rorting, particularly under the Howard government. The Auditor-General was unable with the powers that he had at that time to follow the money and to see what was going on. The functions performed by the Auditor-General are of great signifi­cance. They matter to this parliament and they matter to the Australian people. It is important that the Auditor-General has the appropriate powers to respond to the audit challenges of this day. As I said, this is about his capacity to follow the money—the money being that which Australian taxpayers invest with this government and expect us to be able to spend in the most effective and efficient way.

I hear from the member for Mackellar on the other side that she wants to protect the private sector from intrusion. If the private sector is the beneficiary of public money, we want to know if we are getting value for our dollar and, essentially, that is what this report is about. This is what we want to enable.

The intent of the Auditor-General Amend­ment Bill 2011 is clearly to implement the various recommendations of the report. These are quite significant. One of the concerns I have is that the Auditor-General Act currently provides that government business enterprises can only be audited by the Auditor-General at the request of the committee—the JCPAA, or the minister responsible for the government business enterprise, or the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. The report recommends that the act needs to be amended to give the Auditor-General the authority that he needs to initiate audits of government business enterprises. Successive governments have taken the view that he should not have that authority but it is clear from what we have seen from the committee that it is time that the Auditor-General was given those capacities.

I am going to cut my speech rather short to allow a little time for the member for Lyne to sum up at the end this debate. I commend him once again for his leadership of that committee, which is undertaking some heavy lifting, and I look forward to hearing his words on this bill. I commend the bill, as amended, to the House.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011 to amend the Auditor-General Act 1997. The coalition's main concern is that independent contractors will be subject to auditors from the Auditor-General if they receive government contr­acts. This would create an extra layer of bureaucracy and increase costs and convince many smaller contractors not to bid for contracts due to extra regulatory require­ments.

The coalition therefore proposes that the private member's bill be amended to remove the provision that contractors could be audited. The coalition's policy is to create an office of due diligence to avoid the waste in the first place rather than report on it after the event. While the coalition may support the intent of this legislation, it recommends that we oppose the bill for the following reasons: firstly, the increase in regulatory burden. The bill would require any supplier to a government agency to be prepared to undergo a full investigation by the Auditor-General at any time. This would place added costs and compliance burdens on business and, being a small business owner myself before coming to this place, I am very in tune with the amount of compliance that is already in place for small businesses of up to 100 staff.

Secondly, the bill would bring yet more government intervention. Under Labor we have seen the greatest growth of government in living memory. If supported, this bill would further increase that burden on any business doing its work with government. I also draw attention to the increase in bureaucracy since this Labor government came to power. Since 2007 we have seen an increase of more than 22,000 staff in the Public Service here in Canberra alone.

The bill also creates an impediment for doing business with government. With this level of scrutiny and intrusion, many businesses—especially small- and medium-sized businesses—may choose not to do business with a government agency. There­fore, under these circumstances only the biggest companies with the resources available to them would be prepared to comply with an Auditor-General's invest­igation or might be willing to tender for contracts.

Thirdly, it would lead to greater costs for government services. For a bill that purports to be protecting taxpayers and ensuring value for money, there is no doubt that the level of compliance required creates the very real possibility that tender prices will have to increase to cover the potential audit require­ments.

Fourthly, it chases the waste of taxpayers' money after that event. Instead of putting better prevention systems in place to reduce the likelihood of waste, this bill seeks to enhance the powers of the Auditor-General to investigate after the horse has bolted. I now turn to the establishment of a due diligence office. Under the coalition, every new major government spending program will, before it commences, be properly assessed for its capacity for waste, abuse and mismanagement. We want to pre-empt problems not mop them up afterwards. Central to our strong approach on stopping the waste will be the establishment of an office of due diligence within the Depart­ment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The office of due diligence will comprise officials seconded from the Australian National Audit Office and the Common­wealth Ombudsman as well as people with private sector contract expertise. The role of the office of due diligence will be to examine programs before they are approved by cabinet to ensure that each project is efficiently designed, has a detailed implementation plan and will be implem­ented in a manner that provides maximum value for the taxpayer.

We have great confidence in the Auditor-General. However, we do have concerns with his role in assessing private contractors. An earlier speaker raised the issue of the area consultative committees and made the point that there was a bias towards coalition seats. I was involved in a community which was a recipient of federal government grants that came through the area consultative comm­ittee. I can assure this room that, from a regional perspective, it is one of the few places for regional Australia to get support. The member raising the point is a strong advocate of regional Australia, but I can assure you that it was one of the few areas where we could actually get some support. Value for money was also mentioned. I think that the government is potentially being hypocritical when it talks about value for money—we only have to look as far as the NBN, or possibly the BER, for situations which are rather embarrassing to this House.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly appreciate the opportunity of speaking and wrapping up the debate this evening on the Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011. This bill has been before the House for the last month or so. It was introduced, as has been correctly mentioned by others, on the back of the Joint Public Accounts and Audit Committee report 419—work done primarily by the previous Public Accounts and Audit Committee, chaired by Sharon Grierson. This bill takes the unanimous recommendations from that 42nd Parliament committee and is hopefully turning it into a real outcome.

It is somewhat surprising, therefore, as we go from a committee process where agree­ment has been reached by all parties and into the legislative process, that we see amendments to this legislation coming from both sides. Whilst I certainly accept many of the amendments coming through from government relating to drafting issues, there is one government amendment that does deserve a mention. That amendment is the one making changes to arrangements for GBEs and trying to put in place a process involving approval by the Joint Public Accounts and Audit Committee before allowing the Auditor-General to do an audit of those semi-statutory bodies. That is not my preference. It was not the preference of report 419 or of the unanimous committee recommendation. However, I guess you have to make some compromises to negotiate legislation through the parliament and that is one that I, reluctantly, will have to make to see passage of this legislation.

In regard to opposition amendments, to try to remove the Auditor-General's contact with private contractors is, in my view, a step too far. To some degree, I have to say, it is patronising to business to imply that business people will only do business with govern­ment if they are not open to audit. What is really being said by that carries, I think, an implication that is unfair to business people and businesses generally within Australia. The only requirement and the only regulation you would have if you were doing business with government is that you would be open to audit. If you are doing the right thing with taxpayers' money, you have absolutely no problems. Several speakers in this debate, including the previous one, have suggested that the complaints about the BER are examples of government waste. For the opposition to then be willing to oppose this bill is oxymoronic. The very point of this bill is to allow the Auditor-General to investigate waste within programs such as the BER, as was mentioned by the previous speaker. You cannot have it both ways. If you do want to follow the money trail and if you do want to demonstrate that there is waste in govern­ment and if you do want to hold government to account and if you do want transparency, here is your moment. This is the bill. To say that the BER is a waste, to say pink batts are a waste and to say home insulation is a waste—let us concur, let us do something about it, let us be positive and let us introduce legislation that allows an Auditor-General to investigate the truth or otherwise, to distinguish the fact from the fiction, to drill down, to hold some people to account and to get better public policy outcomes with taxpayers' money.

With regard to the point about private contractors, we are not necessarily talking only about small businesses. I think about DMO and the $9 billion of taxpayers' money that goes into DMO every year. There are close to billion-dollar companies, such as Raytheon, operating in Australia with no audit or oversight of where that taxpayers' money is going or of their obligations to the public purse. So to cry poor that this is about small business—it is not. This is about following the money trail to make sure we get full value for money. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Take A Break occasional care funding program. I took to the steps of the Victorian Parliament House on Thursday during a protest against the federal government's cuts to the Take A Break occasional childcare program. There were concerned parents and families and the dedicated staff and volunteers that make occasional day care work. They were very concerned about the unilateral decision of the Gillard government to abandon its funding of this very important program. While millions are being spent by Canberra on new childcare laws and safety standards, not one cent—not a dime—is going into occasional care. The money is being ripped from the sector and being spent to administer and oversee new standards on long day care, preschool, family day care and out of school hours care.

I was particularly pleased to be able to speak with the state minister, Wendy Lovell, before I went out to talk on the steps of Parliament House. I was encouraged and excited about her assurance that, should the Gillard government change its mind and do the right thing by families who require occasional day care, the state government would follow suit and provide its share of the funding—a really positive message coming out of the Baillieu government. But what do we hear from the federal Labor government? Absolutely nothing. Now you would queue that scratchy sound of crickets in the background that lets you know that abso­lutely nothing is being said by this federal Labor government. Where is Kate Ellis? Does she not understand that this one size fits all logic, this tick a box approach to child care, just does not work for every family? Are those families that require occasional child care the new forgotten families under this Gillard Labor government? They certainly seem to be, and they were not very happy when they were on the steps of Parliament House.

It was particularly interesting to note the petitions that had been signed. The petitions were directed to the Legislative Assembly of the state parliament when they really should have been directed to the House of Representatives in the federal parliament. Kate Ellis must have been delighted, as the minister, that there was very little discussion until I had the opportunity to talk to the assembled crowd about what an appalling, neglectful and unhelpful decision the federal Labor government had made to cut $12 million in occasional care funding.

In addition to the assurances from Wendy Lovell that the state Liberal government would reinstate its funding when the federal Labor government reinstated the $12 million, there was more good news. I was able to share with those who were present that under Tony Abbott the coalition is committed to restoring the $12 million ripped out of occasional child care by federal Labor. There was a really positive response to that and a recognition that the federal coalition was prepared to make its contribution. We are prepared to make a contribution for a whole range of reasons. The provision of affordable, reliable, safe and available childcare facilities will always be a direct responsibility of the federal government.

We saw under the previous coalition government a recognition that family types and demands on families were quite varied and their needs were at times flexible, at times easy to predict and at other times difficult to respond to because of the complex nature of families and modern life. This is where occasional care comes in. I hope that the federal Labor minister hears the message—the message that there is no one size fits all requirement for child care in our country. If she needs any more reassurance and any more prompting to put back that money that has been ripped out—an action that made so many people unhappy on the steps of the state parliament last week—I would like to share with her some observ­ations from families in my own electorate. This is from one person who wrote to me:

I have been using the Occasional Care Facility at the Mornington Community Contact for 2 years with my eldest child ... This service has provided me with a small break each week of 3-5 hrs which I have found to be invaluable.

This mother goes on to describe that, with the demands of young children, this has allowed some time to recharge her energy and re-engage and be all that she hopes to be as the mother of her children. There is another example involving Mahogany Neighbourhood House in Frankston North. A parent says:

I began using occasional care in July 2010 when I left my position in government employment services to concentrate on my family.

She goes on to describe not only the important contribution that that break provi­ded for the wellbeing of her family but also the opportunity it gave her to re-engage in employment. The noise was strong and the message was clear on the steps of Parliament House in Victoria last Thursday—Kate Ellis, you need to put this money back. Occasional care matters to people. There is no one size fits all solution. (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was loath to interrupt the member for Dunkley, but I commend to him the provisions of standing order 64, which require him to refer to the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and the Leader of the Opposition by their titles and not by their names.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, the Parliamentary Friends of Surf Life Saving Australia held a morning tea with the CEO and President of Surf Life Saving Australia, Brett William OAM, and Graham Ford. For the record I would like to get into Hansard the executive of the Parliamentary Friends of Surf Life Saving. The President is Geoff Lyons, the member for Bass, who is also president of the Launceston and Bridport surf clubs; the Secretary is Amanda Rishworth from Kingston, from Christies Beach; the Finance Director is Rob Oakeshott from Lyne, who is with Port Macquarie; the Club Captain is Darren Chester from Gippsland, who is from Lakes Entrance; the Patrol Officer is Senator Sue Boyce; and the Competition Director is Kenneth Wyatt from Hasluck, who is with the Mullaloo club.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do remind the member for Bass that standing order 64 binds him as well as the member for Dunkley.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was great to hear Brett William and Graham Ford speak about the history of surf life saving and where their organisation is headed into the future. The surf life saving movement began in 1907 when volunteer lifesavers began to protect the lives of fellow beachgoers in New South Wales by performing patrols and rescues.

The by-laws which banned bathing in daylight hours since the 1830s were gradually repealed between 1902 and 1905, in response to the increasing popularity of surf bathing, and a growing consensus that bathing in appropriate clothing was not an immoral act. The impact of these changes was that beachgoers entered the surf in rapidly escalating numbers. The surf was new to most surf bathers and many could not swim, so with its increasing popularity came more drowning and consequent attempts at rescue.

When Australians decided to embrace the ocean as a site of recreational activity in the early part of the 20th century, our love for the beach emerged. The need for a lifesaving movement to protect lives grew, and from that day onwards, surf lifesaving became part of the fabric of our country. Since that time, volunteer lifesavers have saved more than 550,000 lives. This is a tremendous achieve­ment for a volunteer organisation, and last season it rescued more than 12,000 lives.

This morning Graham and Brett spoke about the introduction of women to surf lifesaving in 1980. This was, shamefully, a contentious move at the time. I am proud to say today that women now make up between 45 and 48 per cent of our membership. Surf lifesaving is an active part of Australian communities. Our movement prides itself on offering mateship, education, experience and, in doing so, gives back to the community. I am a proud member and president of both the Launceston and Bridport surf life saving clubs. This is the first year of operation for the Bridport Surf Life Saving Club. We had 135 members join in its first year. This club is an important part of their community and I am humbled that so many people joined. The skills gained by nippers will stick to the soul like sand from the beach and be carried for life.

Surf lifesaving is the largest volunteer movement of its kind in Australia. This is important as we are in an age where no-one seems to be joining any organisations or groups. Indeed, we find that as our nippers reach the age of about 14 and have part-time jobs and studies, they are unable to dedicate themselves to surf lifesaving, but we usually welcome them back when they get older. For people young and old, Surf Life Saving Australia inspires a positive and uniquely Australian attitude because every member of every club, the entire movement, embraces and promotes a 'can do' attitude to life. At the last count, there were 307 clubs in Australia, 13 of which are located in my home state of Tasmania.

Following a survey of members and the public, the iconic symbol of the red and yellow quarter cap is to be retained by the surf lifesaving movement. A priority for Surf Life Saving Australia this year is the completion and release of the report into the economic contribution of surf lifesaving in Australia. This report will be released later in the year.

I would like to thank all those members and senators who attended this morning, and I congratulate them on their membership. It is estimated that Australia has 100 million beach visitations each year and safety is a vital part of that. Surf lifesaving offers public first aid and CPR courses. I encourage all to be part of Surf Life Saving Australia and I commend all those who joined this morning. (Time expired)

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Townsville suffered at the hands of Cyclone Yasi this year. Our recovery has been slow but the month of July will mark a full swing: Townsville is now back. It is open, ready for business and very busy. What a month July will be! We have the last night of the Townsville Show tonight. It has been going for 128 years and there is something there for the whole family. To anyone who is going to the Townsville Show tonight, please do not buy tickets for the woodworkers' outdoor setting. I have bought about 300 bucks worth of tickets because I desperately need an outdoor setting.

The Sucrogen Townsville 400 V8s, along with the V8 Gala Ball and V8 Ladies Lunch, is a big thing this weekend. Yes, my mother-in-law will be turning 70 and I will be down at the Burdekin for that, but I will be going on Friday afternoon. It is a big weekend with 160,000 to 180,000 people going through the turnstiles. Following that, we have the Australian Festival of Chamber Music Chefs of the North Dinner and the full-blown Australian Festival of Chamber Music. This is where culture and art come together in North Queensland. Dave Kippin and his team at the Festival of Chamber Music are excellent, and the Chefs of the North Dinner is where we have guest chefs from all around the world coming to Townsville to work with a very good chefs like Wayne from Wayne & Adele's Garden of Eating and the executive chef at the RSL club, who is one of the greatest golf burglars you will ever see. It is a dinner not missed by anybody.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you play?

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not playing.. The Motoco RV Dam Fine Rally is for motor homes and caravans. They will be having a big get-together. All of the people with mobile homes will be coming together in one fantastic event. The craft and sewing show is something in which I will be participating. I have a quilt I will be showing at that—no, I will not be. That is at the Townsville Entertainment and Convention Centre. It is one of the big shows in North Queensland. There are lots and lots of people who come there; exhibitors from all over the country will be there.

There will also be the Zookini Art Exhibition at the Perc Tucker Regional Gallery. Frances Thompson does a magnificent job at getting the art groups together. Zookini is a wonderful thing. It is interactive art. They had something like 10,000 people through an earlier exhibition and I was lucky enough to be there when the 10,000th person came through.

Stars? You want stars? I will give you stars. Reg Livermore's 'Turns' will be on at the civic theatre. I saw Reg Livermore from Betty Blokk Buster at Her Majesty's Theatre in Brisbane in the early 1980s. He is one of the great performers of our time. He still looks pretty good in a frock.

The Townsville Choral Society will be presenting My Fair Lady. It is an absolutely fantastic show: 'Come on Rover, move your bloomin' arse!' That is what we want to see. It is one of the great moments of that fantastic show. The Townsville Choral Society is a very active part of the city.

There are the Townsville cultural markets at the Reef HQ. The big one of the month is the North Queensland Herpetological Society meeting. That is where all the reptiles get together. It is a big meeting and everyone will be there. You have PANTS, the Performance Arts Network Townsville. There will be wildlife care training from North Queensland Wildlife Care Inc. There will be the Townsville Annual Shell Show. You walk into the shell show and you can hear the sea. It is one of the greatest things you will ever see. There is the Townsville Music and Performing Arts Space where artists and musicians get together. They have workshops for anyone from 12 to 18 to 50 to 100. One thing for the member for Hinkler: the Townsville Ukulele Club meeting. All you need are two fingers on one hand and an index finger on the other and you are on your way. On the other side, there is Analog Zombie presents Electro Therapy. Their notes do not remove hair from your upper lip; they are in fact DJs and music. The mighty North Queensland Cowboys are up against the West Tigers at Dairy Farmers Stadium on 16 July and up against the Penrith Panthers on 30 July. We are playing great football. We will be in the top eight.

There is the Black Tie, which are morning melodies for all the oldies at the Civic Theatre. There is 2001 Former Origin Greats Indigenous Employment and Careers Expo, where we will be celebrating no less than six series wins in a row. 'What's an orchestra?', you may well ask. You will find out this month in Townsville. It is an introduction to classical music at the Civic Theatre. At the Perc Tucker gallery you will be able to go to 'In the Japanese Manner'—Australian prints from 1900 to 1940. 'Indigenous Art,' I hear you say. There are Girringun Indigenous artists Q&A and Arts in the Dark, all to be held at the Umbrella Studio. Come to Townsville.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In thanking the member for Herbert for that invigorating experience, I regrettably must tell him his time has expired. I now call the member for Fowler for a similar performance.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the outcomes of the 2020 conference was the identification of eastern Indonesia as being of great strategic importance to Australia, particularly in the longer term. It is our nearest and biggest neighbour to the north. Eastern Indonesia just happens to be one of the poorest areas in Asia and along with East Timor it is the poorest area in our immediate region. I would like to draw attention to a very positive development in our north and an important emerging engagement with eastern Indonesia, in particular with Bali as well as East Timor. I refer to the developing relationship between Royal Darwin Hospital and the largest public hospital in eastern Indonesia, Sanglah hospital in Denpasar, Bali. Royal Darwin Hospital and Sanglah hospital have an intimate history, which emphasises the strategic importance of the area. Sanglah hospital was the hospital to which all victims, including all foreigners, were taken for treatment after the terrorist bombings in Bali in October 2002 and October 2005. Royal Darwin Hospital was the hospital to which all Australian victims were air evacuated and treated. The hospital also received patients from other nations and from Indonesia.

The trauma of terrorist bombings and the strategic need for Australia to respond and protect our citizens in the region in the wake of these horrific acts of terrorism led to some very constructive strategic thinking. On my recent visit to Bali and Jakarta as part of my study leave, I was privileged to be invited by the President Director of Sanglah hospital, Doctor Wayan Sutanga, to go to his hospital for a briefing on the developing relationship between Sanglah hospital and Royal Darwin Hospital and a tour of his facilities. I was impressed in so many ways by the develop­ments I saw. They involve practical measures for the protection of our citizens in Bali and Indonesia, the activities of DFAT and AusAID and some very positive practical engagement in eastern Indonesia.

I was taken to the burns unit and the intensive care unit at Sanglah. The burns unit came into existence as a result of the intelligent application of AusAID funds. What really impressed me was that the burns unit and the intensive care unit serve the needs for all manner of victims of horrible accidents all over Indonesia and East Timor. Whilst ready to deal with the victims of terrorist attacks, it serves the needs on a day-to-day basis of Indonesians, including those who are particularly poor. AusAID should be congratulated for such a sensible and useful project.

I was interested to learn that since the creation of the burns unit there has been increasing communication and engagement between Royal Darwin Hospital and Sanglah hospital. Clearly there has been careful planning about how to improve the effic­iency in disaster and emergency response by medical and nursing staff in both hospitals. What is unfolding is a practical exchange between the two main public hospitals in our region. The program involves nursing training and capacity building at Royal Darwin and the training of doctors and medical administrators in emergency medicine, disaster and trauma response and coordination across countries of appropriate responses.

These two hospitals have applied for a grant from AusAID for $1.6 million over five years to develop a practical nurse exchange project. Having seen the benefits of this program, I lend my full support to this application. Not only will this program benefit the people of Indonesia and East Timor but also the 650,000 Australians who visit Bali each year, not to mention those who choose to make their retirement in Indonesia. For Australians as well as our friends and neighbours, the coordination of emergency medicine makes good sense. Therefore, I fully support for the relationship between the Royal Darwin Hospital, the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre and Sanglah hospital. I also pay regard to Colin McDonald QC, the chair of Royal Darwin Hospital, for his assistance in coordinating my visit to Indonesia and for putting on a proper footing the relationship between his hospital and Sanglah hospital in Denpasar, Bali.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we all know, today in the other chamber we had the swearing in of half of the Senate, those senators elected at the last election. Of course, in political terms, it is significant in a number of respects. It is right and approp­riate in a democracy such as ours that there is a healthy focus on those who are taking their Senate seats, those newly sworn in as senators from today, what they stand for, what their political beliefs are and what their political backgrounds are.

In the case of one senator, Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, there are some things that are crystal clear and some things that are not. What is crystal clear is that Senator Rhiannon is a hostile opponent of the state of Israel. At every opportunity Senator Rhiannon attacks and criticises the state of Israel, a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, yet does not seem ever to find the time to hold Israel's opponents to account to any level. Most recently, of course, the senator supported the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel. On this point even Senator Bob Brown publicly distanced himself from Senator Rhiannon's hyper anti-Israel position on this occasion. The fact that that intervention was needed really does highlight the extremism of new Greens Senator Rhiannon. In response, Senator Lee Rhiannon, we read in today's Australian, has completely snubbed Senator Brown, the leader of the Australian Greens.

Whilst Senator Rhiannon is crystal clear about her hatred of the state of Israel, she is at the same time quite blurry about her past political involvements. Indeed, as we read in the Weekend Australian, she flatly refused to discuss her political past with that news­paper, and it is becoming very obvious why. Senator Rhiannon was, as has been pointed out in this House and extensively in the Australian, a member of the Socialist Party of Australia. The party was, to quote the Weekend Australian:

… a communist faction that stayed loyal to Moscow in the early 1970s after the Communist Party of Australia split over its response to the Soviet Union's brutal suppression of the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

As was pointed out, Senator Rhiannon was a Soviet Union propagandist, not just for a couple of years as a young student but over many, many years, until she was nearly 40 years of age. In fact, she was the editor of the magazine Survey, apparently funded from Moscow. Indeed, she was the editor at its demise in 1990, under her then married name Lee O'Gorman.

That was, as everyone in this House would appreciate, just after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Just imagine it, Mr Deputy Speaker: all of us here—Liberal, National, Labor—rejoicing that the Berlin Wall had come down and presumably Senator Lee Rhiannon, back then, crying tears of anguish at the collapse of communist rule. You can only imagine what she would have done had she been over there on the East German-West German border. Presu­mably she would have had a wheelbarrow full of mortar trying to rebuild the Berlin Wall brick by brick to preserve the awful communist experiment.

What is also interesting is that Senator Rhiannon's editorship and the end of Soviet propaganda magazine Survey seemed to intercept and overlap with her joining the Australian Greens, which, as has been pointed out in this House and other places, she said she has been committed to for 20 years. So we are to assume that she either simultaneously supported Soviet propaganda and the Greens or went to bed one night dreaming of a rebirth of the Soviet Union only to wake up suddenly a Green. Most of us suspect that nothing has really changed; that the possum has simply shifted roof cavities, because if Senator Rhiannon had changed she would apologise, wouldn't she, to the families of the victims of communism, as the member for Melbourne Ports has rightly pointed out? She would renounce her former stance. But she does not. She ducks and weaves at every opportunity.

In conclusion, I seek leave to table an extract from the very last edition of Survey magazine, July-August 1990, under Lee O'Gorman, editor.

Leave not granted.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to pay tribute to the extraordinary work of the Special Broadcasting Service, SBS, and to their continuing commitment to presenting issues of national importance in new and pioneering ways and supporting, promoting and telling the stories of multicultural and multilingual Australia.

In recent weeks more than half a million Australians in each of the five major capital cities watched the groundbreaking series Go Back to Where You Came From, which followed six ordinary Australians to some of the most dangerous places on earth: the home countries of refugee families now living in Australia. The series became a phenomenon as more than half a million people in each of the five major capital cities tuned in each night to see those six Australians, each with views representing a sector of the Australian community, experience in reverse the perilous journey of an asylum seeker. I think one of the main reasons that it was such compelling viewing was that it provided, for the first time, a window onto the world through the prism of ordinary Australians holding views that represent diverse sectors of the community—actively challenging their beliefs throughout the journey and giving others with the same views who were watching on TV at home the opportunity to take that journey with them. This approach has been incredibly effective in changing the rhetoric around the asylum seeker debate to one that is more sensitive to the enormous complexities and contradictions of the whole issue.

If there is any organisation which can tackle this issue in such an original way, it is SBS TV. They must be congratulated on their efforts and their contribution, through their TV programming, to this issue. That is because SBS have been working in this area for years, ever since the service was established in 1978 to provide special multilingual broadcasting services for ethnic communities right across Australia. From humble beginnings in 1980, SBS Television now broadcasts in more than 100 languages and is watched by more than seven million Australians each week, bringing the news to homes where otherwise that news would perhaps be lost. Today SBS's analog telev­ision signal reaches 96.9 per cent of all Australians across the nation while its digital service, which began in 2001, reaches an estimated 96.8 per cent of Australians, which is about the same number. SBS Radio is the world's most linguistically diverse radio network, broadcasting 68 language programs to a potential audience of more than three million Australians who speak a language other than English in their homes. Take those 68 language programs being broadcast by radio to those more than three million people in their homes. When you think about it, not being able to receive the news or not being able to understand what is taking place in your community is very disadvantageous. I think what SBS does is provide a service for people to be connected to their community and to be connected to what is happening in their world. It is about being connected to not only the far away world but also locally. It is so important for people to be able to be connected within their communities.

In my electorate of Hindmarsh alone, 132 distinct languages are spoken, from Arabic, Afrikaans, Albanian and Acholi to Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Urdu, Yoruba, Greek, Italian, Chinese—and the list could go on. And what is special is that these differences of language, heritage and culture are celebrated every single day by SBS on air, on radio and, of course, on its TV channels, SBS One and SBS Two. SBS has been bringing issues of multiculturalism to the forefront, as we have seen with Go Back to Where You Came From and award-winning shows like East West 101, which won best TV drama series, best actor and best director awards at the AFI awards as well as a gold medal for best miniseries at the New York Festivals International Television and Film Awards.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I say to the member 'efharisto'.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak about an extraordinary network—or perhaps better described as a 'craze'—supporting our young people: the Red Frogs Australia Chaplaincy Network. Red Frogs founder and director Andy Gourley describes Red Frogs as:

... not just another program but an experience! At its core is the heartbeat of 2000 volunteers with a mission to serve young people and assist them through some of the most important years of their lives.

I could not agree more. Red Frogs started out as a small outreach initiative of Citipointe Church in my electorate of Bonner but has since been adopted by a network of churches across the globe in countries such as South Africa, New Zealand, the UK and Canada. I believe that the reason for Red Frogs' success lies in the uniqueness of its approach—for example, seeking to change the attitude that alcohol is necessary to have a good time. It is the mission of Red Frogs to create a fun yet safe lifestyle alternative for young people. Quite literally the Allen's red frogs that we all grew up with and loved have been the icebreaker for the Red Frogs Crew since 1997. Starting with only 80 kilograms in its first year, the Red Frogs chaplaincy now distributes over 11 tonnes of Allen's red frogs all around Australia. Many parents of students leaving school take comfort in the Party Safe and Stay Safe at Schoolies seminar and its message that goes out each year to over 40,000 high school students in years 10, 11 and 12. The proactive and preventative seminars grab the attention of students and provide insight into how to make positive partying decisions so as to avoid negative and often life altering behaviours such as violence, sexual assault, drug taking, depression and suicide. Red Frogs education seminars have been a large part of the reason for the reduction in alcohol fuelled violence and other negative behaviours once common to Schoolies Week.

Red Frogs Australia have received local and national awards for the outstanding service they have provided at schoolies, including the Local Hero: Metropolitan Australian of the Year award—truly well deserved. Again, thankfully for many parents, Red Frogs does not end at schoolies. In residential colleges and university dorms, at parties, at O-Week events and market days, universities have endorsed the Red Frogs chaplaincy as a vital support for their students. The Red Frogs crew are also known for their non-alcoholic events such as coffee crawls, random acts of pancakes, camping trips, surfing safaris, sporting events and other activities that encourage a lifestyle where alcohol is not the only means of having a 'fun night'.

In my electorate of Bonner, the God Bowl and the Red Frog Boardriders Tuesday night skate sessions are well known throughout the local skating community and we see skaters coming from near and far to skate at the God Bowl, the indoor ramp and the new addition to the facilities, the Stoke Bowl. The Stoke Bowl was generously donated to the Red Frog Boardriders recently by Brisbane City Council's Museum of Brisbane after their exhibition showing the history of skating in Brisbane concluded. I know that the com­munity are extremely appreciative towards Brisbane City Council and in particular to local councillor Adrian Schrinner for this donation. This is a great example of the government working with local community groups to get positive outcomes.

This really is an extraordinary network whose sole purpose is the safety and protection of our young people. It is run by extraordinary people and acknowledgement really needs to go to Andy Gourley, Craig Hepplewhite, the general manager, Brendan Hannah, Elicia Pretorius, Chris George, Justin Vickers and Andrea Vickers as well as to the thousands of dedicated volunteers. All should be commended for their unique approach and incredibly valuable work to the community.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I am very pleased that the member for Hinkler gave way to the member for Bonner and I am sure that the member for Hinkler would join with me in wishing all the best to the Red Frogs Crew because that was a very positive frog story.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll croak together, Mr Speaker!

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 20 June I attended a reception here at Parliament House, hosted by the member for Werriwa and the member for Corio, to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Croatian independence. The reception was attended by Croatians from most parts of Australia. Twenty years ago on 25 June 1991 Croatia asserted its independence from Yugoslavia and 25 June is now recognised as Statehood Day and is an official holiday in Croatia. Independence was declared following a referendum held on 19 May 1991 when 94 per cent of voters opted for the following:

The Republic of Croatia, as a sovereign and independent state, which guarantees cultural autonomy and all civil rights to Serbs and members of other nationalities in Croatia, can form an alliance of sovereign states with other republics.

A similar figure voted against the second option that the Republic of Croatia remain part of Yugoslavia as a unitary state. A moratorium of three months was put in place to allow for the negotiation of the Brioni Agreement. Finally, a complete break with Yugoslavia was made in October.

Since the gold rushes of the 1850s Croatians have played a significant role in Australian history, and at the 2006 census well over 100,000 Australian residents identified themselves as having Croatian ancestry. The biggest wave of Croatians came to Australia between 1965 and 1991. Australians of Croatian heritage have made a significant contribution to all aspects of Australian life—quite noticeably in sport. For example, 45 Croatian Australians have played for the Australian soccer team. Andrew Bogut is currently a strong performer in the American basketball league. The 1984 Los Angeles Olympic gold medallist Dean Lukin is of Croatian decent, as is Collingwood footballer Alan Didak, who originates from my home suburb of Pooraka. Other well-known Australians of Croatian decent include actor Eric Bana and former Democrats leader Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, the youngest woman elected to this parliament.

There are over 3,500 Croatian-born residents in South Australia, and many more who are of Croatian decent, to make a community of over 12,000 South Australians who share a strong bond with Croatian culture and history. A considerable number of them live in the Makin electorate and I have the privilege of representing them in this place. In fact many are near neighbours and live in my local neighbourhood.

Croatian Australians quickly settled into South Australia and established a range of social facilities to assist them. These include the Croatian Catholic Centre, the Australian Croatian Community Club in Mount Gambier, the Croatian clubs of the Riverland and Coober Pedy, the Croatian Ethnic School in the Croatian Club in Brompton, the Croatian Care for the Aged and a Croatian radio hour. They have also established the Croatian sports and community club which is located in Gepps Cross and within the Makin electorate. It is a wonderful community facility and home to the Raiders Soccer Club, a South Australian Super League side.

For eight years now the South Australian Croatian community has held an annual festa at the community centre. It is a day of festivities filled with Croatian dancing, music and food. I attend this event each year. The event is organised by the Croatian Food and Wine Festival committee, the Croatian Sports Centre of South Australia and volunteers from across the Croatian community. I congratulate all involved on this outstanding community and cultural event.

Croatian South Australians have integrated into all aspects of Australian life but they have been particularly prominent as shipbuilders and fishermen in Adelaide, Whyalla and Port Lincoln. Samarzia-Samar, Fanov-Kali and Glamocak are well-known South Australian names in the boat and shipbuilding industries. Of the 48 South Australian prawn-fishing licence holders more than half are of Croatian decent.

I take this opportunity to congratulate Croatia on the 20th anniversary of its statehood and to thank Australian Croatians for their contribution to Australian life.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last month the minister for families hailed the 12-month anniversary of the introduction of the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme as 'an historic day for Australian families'. She also described it as 'the day Australia caught up with the rest of the developed world'. She went on further to say that it gives 'low income, casual and part-time workers, contractors and the self-employed financial security and a connection to the workforce that they've never had before'. But does it do that for low-income, casual and part-time workers?

For at least four months now I have been battling, on behalf of a constituent, to have the minister recognise an inherent flaw in the current guidelines for the scheme. Mrs Amanda McIntosh is a relief state school teacher in Bundaberg who gave birth on 3 May, but she is not entitled to receive Paid Parental Leave because she fails the criteria which dictates that she cannot have more than an eight-week gap between two consecutive working days despite meeting other qualifications like the number of hours worked. The crux of her problem lies in the fact that she is a relief teacher and the very nature of her work dictates that she is not employed full time. In fact her paid employment is dictated by school holidays. As a relief teacher she very rarely gets paid to work during the last two weeks of a year or the first two weeks of the next year. When you consider that state schools get six weeks Christmas school holiday and private schools get seven, you can understand that by adding four weeks to that, you get a figure of 10 or 11. Mrs McIntosh has fallen into that 10- or 11-week timespan.

I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister on a number of occasions and I have not yet been given an answer or an acknowledgement that the problem even exists. The most detailed advice I have been given about Mrs McIntosh's circumstances is that she could qualify for the baby bonus. What is not freely admitted, however, is the fact that the baby bonus is, in some circumstances, only about half the amount available under the Paid Parental Leave scheme; roughly the comparison of $5,000 with $10,000.

I ask: does the minister fail to understand the problem that now faces relief and supply teachers and others whose work revolves around the vagaries of the Christmas holiday calendar? Can the minister explain why the circumstances of relief teachers were not taken into account when the eligibility criteria for this scheme were drawn up? I recognise that the minister has told me a review will take place in two years time, but that will be too late for Mrs McIntosh and for any other person in her circumstances.

Another matter which complicates this case is the fact that Mrs McIntosh cannot have her infant added to her Medicare card until she claims either the baby bonus or Paid Parental Leave. It is a catch-22 situation. So, for as long as this problem drags on, Mrs McIntosh cannot properly claim any of the child's medical expenses. To date, those bills have reached about $600. My representations have included dealings with two separate ministers and their offices and numerous phone calls and letters, but to no avail. I raise this matter tonight because I think Mrs McIntosh and all other people who are caught up in this unintended anomaly deserve a straightforward answer as to why their employment was not taken into account along with that of others. I am no political bigot. It would be fair to say that I did not prefer the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme; I preferred the model offered by the coalition. Having said that, if the government's model is the modus operandi to which all Australians are now attached, let it be fair to all women who need to use paid parental care and do not discriminate against teachers who happen to have had their pregnancy over the Christmas holiday break.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to mark a most regrettable political milestone in my home state of New South Wales. That milestone, the first 100 days of the O'Farrell government, has been nothing short of a disaster for my constituents on the Central Coast. During his extended job application, Premier O'Farrell gave absolut­ely no warning of what was to come. Indeed Mr O'Farrell has spent his first 100 days in government doing everything he said he would not do. He has attacked workers' rights, it seems that he is pushing ahead with retrospective legislation on the solar bonus scheme and he has dodged independent scrutiny, despite his promise to run an open and transparent government. Instead of acting on promises to address the cost of living, the O'Farrell government passed an 18 per cent increase in electricity prices onto families. To add insult to injury, the O'Farrell government will not begin new family energy rebate payments until July 2012.

The most unforgiveable act is Mr O'Farrell's shameless attack on the public sector workers of my region. His extreme Work Choices style legislation strips away the right to bargain for thousands of public sector employees and, in addition, it caps their pay rises at below the CPI, at 2.5 per cent. He has also locked out workers from accessing the umpire, the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, an august institution that has provided balanced arbitrated settlements between employers and unions for decades.

I am sure this is already sounding familiar to many on this side of the House. If it walks like Work Choices, if it quacks like Work Choices and if it stinks like Work Choices, it is Work Choices. Senator Minchin in his valedictory speech in the Senate the other week was unapologetic about Work Choices. His criticism was not of the substance of the previous coalition government's misguided workplace agenda. There were no regrets there from the departing Senator Minchin. His regret was that the change had just not been incremental enough. What he was saying was that you cannot bludgeon work­ing people and take away their rights, because they will get angry and kick you. What you have to do, according to Senator Minchin, is to gradually steal away their rights and their freedom to provide for themselves and their families.

The Australian people have rejected Work Choices twice: once in 2007 and again in 2010, when the Leader of the Opposition tried to pretend that it was 'dead, buried and cremated'. I am confident that the Australian people will again reject Work Choices if this Leader of the Opposition leads his party into another federal election, just as the people of New South Wales will reject the O'Farrell government's disgraceful attack on public sector workers. This unbridled attack on workers by the legislation of the Liberals in New South Wales means that the nurses of Gosford Hospital, the ambulance drivers at Point Clare ambulance station, the fireys of the Umina fire brigade, the child protection workers and the mental health workers—all critical frontline service workers in the seat of Robertson—will be doing first-class jobs as they always do but, sadly, under an O'Farrell government, they will now be doing them for second-class wages.

There is some good news in this unholy mess, because good people will always stand up in the face of wrongdoing. I want to praise six members of Gosford City Council: councillors Maher, Doyle, Freewater, Latella and Macfadyen, and Councillor Scott, who led the charge. Councillor Scott's motion called on the council to write to the Premier and Central Coast Liberal MPs and call on them to repeal this terrible piece of legislation. When I look at the make-up of that group, I see that councillors Maher and Doyle are Independents, councillors Free­water and Latella are Greens and councillors Macfadyen and Scott are Labor Party representatives. Who opposed the motion? The two Liberal councillors. They went down on that night because what the O'Farrell government has done has simply been a terrible invasion of workers' rights in New South Wales.

In closing, I want to put on the record that a Liberal government in New South Wales in 100 days has revealed its true colours through a shameful, bullyboy intimidation of workers in the state of New South Wales. New South Wales voters have found out, just as Peter Reith found out, that you cannot trust a Liberal leader. (Time expired)

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Forde electorate is fortunate to have hardworking councillors in both the Logan City and Gold Coast councils. Shortly, the Logan City Council will step up their efforts to protect the waterways of Logan through the Logan Waterways Summit. The City of Logan is dominated by the catchment and tributaries of the Logan and Albert rivers. Covering over 4,000 square kilometres, the catchments drain into Southern Moreton Bay. The Logan River is one of four rivers in the Forde Electorate and the longest stretching back to the Great Dividing Range. The Logan River is joined by the Albert River at Carbrook, before flowing into the RAMSAR listed Southern Moreton Bay. The catchment is affected by a variety of land uses, from the rural areas of North Maclean and Chambers Flat to the urban areas of Waterford, Bethania and Loganholme, the mangrove forests of Southern Moreton Bay and the aquaculture farms near the river mouth. This wonderful river system has suffered from this development over the past 20 or 30 years. The 2010 Ecosystem Health Report Card showed the Albert and Logan rivers as two of the worst in South-East Queensland, with the Logan River remaining in the D category and Albert River dropping from an A- to B-. After testing 16 sites in the Logan River catchment, most of the area failed to meet ecosystem goals set out by the study. Out of the 19 freshwater catchments in South-East Queensland, only four scored lower than the Logan River, which has not scored higher than a D for four years. Sites stretching from Waterford to Moreton Bay completely failed to meet health standards. This is a sad indictment of the management of our natural heritage. I grew up in this area and as a child I used to swim in the Logan River. It is sad to realise that my boys do not have that opportunity.

After the release of this report, residents and government officials agreed that this must be rectified to ensure that future generations can enjoy the waterways. The main issue for the Logan and Albert waterways is fine sediment, or suspended sediment, which comes predominantly from urban and industrial areas, agricultural activities such as grazing, and the degrad­ation of the river banks through poor land-clearing practices. This sediment flows into the creeks that feed into these rivers.

The Logan and Albert Conservation Association believe that a large contributor to the poor results were the high nutrient and sediment levels being produced. The Logan-Albert Rivers Catchment Association bel­ieves that development and rural and urban refuse are three main problems that demand immediate attention. The Logan City Council is currently taking action and delivering its Gross Pollutant Trap Cleaning Program to the benefit of both rivers. Councillor Ray Hackwood said:

Council is committed to assisting with the protection of our natural waterways and our GPT cleaning program is crucial to help prevent unnecessary and damaging pollutants travelling into our rivers and Moreton Bay.

Councillor Lisa Bradley said:

... during each round of cleaning more than 500 tonnes of damaging pollutants were prevented from entering Logan's waterways.

The Logan City Council is also being very proactive in its work to clean up the Logan and Albert rivers by holding its inaugural Logan Waterways Summit in July. The overall aim of the Logan Waterways Summit is to provide a forum for engagement, discussion and collaboration, where ideas and solutions can be developed to improve the health and resilience of the Logan and Albert rivers catchment and their various tributaries.

It is disappointing to note in this time of a long and complex debate about a carbon tax that the on-the-ground, practical environ­mental issues that we face in the electorate of Forde with respect to our rivers are not even touched on. The carbon tax will impact greatly on people's lives but it will do nothing to help deal with these practical on-the-ground measures that go directly to the heart of improving our natural environment for future generations in our community. It is about time that we stopped looking to a tax as a solution and instead looked at the practical, on-the-ground measures that will help future generations. (Time expired)

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Wednesday, 22 June, I had the great pleasure of meeting with two members of Micah Challenge, Mr Rod Benson, Ethicist and Public Theologian at Morling Baptist College, and Mr Simon Massey, Advocacy Relations at Compassion Australia. I was very impressed by their passion and commitment to reduce global poverty, and I will now read their message to me to this House:

Micah Challenge is a global movement of Christian aid and development agencies, churches, groups and individuals, which aims to deepen people's engagement with the poor and to reduce poverty as an integral expression of Christian faith. Micah Challenge takes its name from the prophet Micah, who wrote, 'What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

In Australia, approximately 50 church denominations and development agencies are members of the Micah Challenge coalition, and over 113,000 individuals have signed on to the Micah Call.

Since Micah Challenge Australia's inception in 2004, grassroots Christians across the country have been taking action in their electorates and travelling to Parliament House to speak out on the Millennium Development Goals. Two weeks ago, Micah Challenge brought senior church leaders from Anglican, Australian Christian Churches, Baptist, Churches of Christ, Salvation Army, Uniting and Vineyard denominations to highlight that Australian churches are supportive of Micah Challenge's campaign.

The issue is simple and overwhelmingly evident every time you travel to a developing country. Almost 1.4 billion people live in extreme poverty. This means they live on less than US$1.25 a day, which is insufficient to meet their most basic needs. They are hungry, susceptible to disease and lack access to things Australians take for granted, such as clean water, decent sanitation and access to health care.

The devastating impact of poverty is captured in child and maternal mortality rates. Each year 8.1 million children die before reaching the age of five, which is equivalent to 22,000 children dying every day. The vast majority of these deaths are readily preventable with simple solutions such as vaccinations and having access to a midwife during child birth. The good news is that progress is being made. The number of children dying each year has declined by approximately 35 per cent since 1990. There is a solution. What is needed is the willingness to act and deliver that solution.

Over the past couple of years, the Australian Government has taken strong actions that will save thousands of lives. Of particular note is the Australian government's recent $200 million commitment to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation. This investment will fund an estimated 7.1 million lifesaving vaccines for the children of the world. However, the global effort required to achieve the Millennium Development Goals is huge.

Micah Challenge continues to call on all parties to hold firm on the delivery of the existing commitment to 0.5 per cent of GNI and indicate the date by which they will achieve the international aid target of 0.7 per cent of GNI. With only five years left to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, MDG 4 on child mortality and MDG 5 on maternal health are two of the goals that remain furthest behind schedule. Micah Challenge is calling on the Australian Government to focus its efforts on achieving these goals.

Health programs need to be a cornerstone of the Australian foreign aid program. There is strong evidence to suggest that health spending is highly effective in saving and improving lives and has a good return on investment in both a moral and economic sense. It is the catalyst for breaking the poverty cycle. The World Health Organ­isation estimates that to achieve these health-related MDGs will require $50-60 billion a year in global development assistance. Of this figure, Australia's 'fair share' is $1,200 million by 2012-13. For the coming financial year, Australia has only budgeted $642 million for health aid spending. Furthermore, over the coming five years, projected funding for the basic health and infectious diseases sector is budgeted to decline as a proportion of Australia's foreign aid program from its current estimated proportion of 13.27 per cent in 2011-12 to 9.66 per cent in 2015-16. This decrease is coming despite commitments from the Australian govern­ment to the new Global Strategy for Child and Maternal Health and the formation of a new international alliance, including Australia, on child and maternal health.

Micah Challenge is calling on all parties to support the scaling up of aid to health to reach 20 per cent of the overseas development assistance budget by 2015-16. These people have had their voice heard in this House tonight.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 10.30 pm the debate is interrupted.

House adjourned at 22:30

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to talk about the celebration of the commencement of the Great Eastern Highway, an important road in my electorate of Swan. The celebration of the commencement took place on Saturday 25 June in Rivervale and I attended the latter part of the proceedings at the invitation of the WA transport minister, Troy Buswell. This was a particularly significant moment for me personally as the upgrade of the Great Eastern Highway was the first issue that I started campaigning on as a Liberal candidate for the seat of Swan back in 2006-07. The stretch of the Great Eastern Highway that goes through my electorate of Swan fulfils a number of important functions. It is the gateway to WA's east, including the important agricultural wheat belt area. It links the city and the airport. It is home to many of the small businesses in my electorate. But, perhaps most importantly, it is used by local residents going about their day-to-day lives.

As you can probably imagine, with all these functions and uses the Great Eastern Highway has become a very congested road. It is currently two lanes over much of the distance between the city and the airport and there are some fairly messy interchanges, which can make a journey up the Great Eastern Highway dangerous. Fortunately, there has always been a fairly wide road reserve and as a Liberal candidate in 2006-07 I campaigned for the widening of the highway. This campaign received plenty of support from the community, including from prominent local figures such as the Mayor of the City of Belmont, Glenys Godfrey.

With that support, I took the case for the upgrade to the then Prime Minister, Mr John Howard. Prime Minister Howard, who was always a great supporter of road improvements, saw merit in the proposed upgrade. It was a great moment for the local community when he visited Perth in person on 27 September 2007 to announce that a re-elected Liberal government would fund the upgrade. Two days later, the member for Griffith—and he is in the chamber, and I congratulate him on making this decision—Mr Kevin Rudd, sensing how popular my local campaign on this issue was, copied Mr Howard's pledge to upgrade the Great Eastern Highway, securing crucial bipartisan support before the 2007 poll. So I thank the member for Griffith for supporting my local campaign. This proved to be important, as Mr Rudd went on to win the election.

However, I knew that there would be a long road ahead. On winning the seat of Swan on 14 December 2007, I made it my No. 1 priority to make sure that the Labor Party delivered on its promise to put $180 million into the Great Eastern Highway upgrade from Kooyong Road to the Tonkin Highway. There was a picture of the member for Griffith and the local Labor member on the Great Eastern Highway for the whole election campaign, Kim Wilkie. The WA government has contributed $45 million. It has been a long road to the commencement of the road works. Over the past few years, we have had to fight every step of the way to get the federal government to come good on its promise. But it is great that the upgrade has started.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government prides itself on delivering on its commitments, including those in parts of the country where the need for road infrastructure is great. This federal government now injects more effort there than any previous federal government and offsets what are often poor investment records on the part of certain state governments. I congratulate the particular efforts of the then member for Swan, Kim Wilkie, who was elected to parliament with me in 1998. I am sure that this will be appropriately reported in the member's local newspaper now that he has raised it here.

Homelessness is one of the biggest challenges that we face in our community. I recently had the opportunity to experience sleeping rough as part of the St Vinnie's CEO Sleep Out. In fact, there were thousands of folk there bedding down on cardboard during that CEO Sleep Out across the county. Frankly, sleeping out and sleeping rough for one night pales into insignificance against what those who really sleep rough most nights if not all nights of the week around Australia go through. Current estimates suggest that up to 105,000 people are homeless on any given night in Australia. Alarmingly, my own home state of Queensland has the highest number of people sleeping rough every night of the year, including some 300 people sleeping rough on the streets of Brisbane on any given night.

In an effort to offer some practical help, I recently launched a new initiative in my electorate. It is called 'My Community BBQ.' I have teamed up with two terrific local organisations, Micah Projects and Community House, to host monthly barbecues to directly support disadvantaged individuals and their families. Our first barbecue in May attracted 150 disadvantaged people from the local area.

Local organisations like Micah and West End Community House are the backbone of homelessness support services in my community. Micah Projects are assisting the community barbecue by hosting this event at their Brisbane homelessness service centre in South Brisbane. The centre provides essential services to individuals and families experiencing homelessness.

Micah Projects are also leading the Common Ground initiative. Upon completion, the 146-unit development will be a sustainable housing solution for chronically homeless people and people on low incomes in Brisbane. It will complement existing housing services within the community that address homelessness—and we are seeing these Common Ground facilities rolled out across the country. These currently include, in terms of local housing support services: community development; tenancy advice and advocacy; community meeting spaces; and local outreach services. They also include the Homeless Persons' Legal Clinic, a free legal advice service and homeless person's health checks.

We are proud of what we are doing on the challenge of homelessness around Australia. I am proud of what we are doing to tackle the challenge of homelessness within my community of South Brisbane.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to highlight this government's incompetence in tackling the potentially fatal disease Hendra virus. It was firstly identified in Hendra in Brisbane. Hendra virus is a major problem in rural and regional areas. The potentially fatal virus is transmitted to horses by contaminated excreta from bats and flying foxes, and from horses to humans, through infected tissue and secretions.

This virus was first found in Hendra in Brisbane and has now spread across southern and western Queensland as well as into northern New South Wales. Biosecurity Queensland has now quarantined a property at Mount Alford, 50 kilometres south-west of Brisbane. This marks the third contaminated outbreak of the bat-borne disease in Queensland and northern New South Wales in less than a week. A total of no less than 23 people will wait weeks before knowing whether they are infected with this virus which has a 57 per cent mortality rate amongst humans. The virus has killed four people in the last few years. Seven humans have had contact with the disease; half of those were in fact veterinarians.

Firstly, during the last federal election, the coalition committed to funding personal protection equipment for vets and their assistants at risk from Hendra virus infection. The kits would have cost about $100 each, and Labor has failed to match that commitment. We also need to make these kits available to private vets because in the last 12 months there have been some 125 exclusion zones that have needed these kits to be used by veterinarians.

Secondly, we need to fast-track the vaccine against Hendra virus. We need to make sure we can cut through the red tape so that this vaccine can be in the field and working to protect humans from this potentially deadly disease that is carried and spread by fruit bats.

Thirdly, we will also make it compulsory for horses attending gatherings such as gymkhanas, camp drafts, polocrosse and going to stud to be vaccinated when the vaccine is available. This vaccine will protect, as I said earlier, humans from this potentially deadly disease.

Fourthly, I say that the monoclonal antibodies need to be made available to those highly exposed to the Hendra virus. It cannot just be in the case of Queensland right now that it is Queensland Health alone which decides which people will receive these antibodies; they need to include the people who are exposed and potentially have the risk of dying in this decision-making process. Those people need to understand the potential risks of not having these monoclonal antibodies and also the side effects.

This Labor government have got to put human life ahead of the bats. They have to act quickly on this issue. There are people who will wait four to six weeks to find out whether they have got a death sentence or not, and it is time that this government put rural and regional areas ahead of some of the Greens agendas that they are running. (Time expired)

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The federal Labor government recognises that, despite improvements in the labour market, at the national level some regions continue to experience considerable difficulties. One such region is the Ipswich-Logan area. That is why we are so pleased to see that the federal Labor government has extended the Priority Employment Area initiative and allocated another $45.2 million over two years. This means we will continue to have a local employment coordinator in the Ipswich-Logan area working closely with stakeholders to help drive local solutions to local labour market problems.

One local solution, which has been rolled out nationally but which has had a local impact in my area, is the Local Connections to Work program run through the Centrelink office in the Ipswich under the auspices and management of Tony Perera, the Centrelink manager in Ipswich. Over 80 Ipswich residents are now in work thanks to this new federal Labor government program. It celebrated its first anniversary last Friday, and I was pleased to attend the celebration with the Minister for Human Services, Tanya Plibersek. It is a big, successful program operating under one roof where stakeholders, employment service providers, Medicare Australia, Boystown, the Salvation Army, Max Employment, Reed in Partnership, the Spiritus Reconnect program, the Ipswich City Council, Steps to Success and other stakeholders have been involved in helping long-term unemployed and disadvantaged youth as well as others in need of intensive support.

In Ipswich, in my electorate, over 400 people have participated in the Local Connections to Work program, and, as I said, over 80 people have obtained employment. There have been 274 referrals to other services, such as health services, education options and employment services to improve the lives of many young people. We have seen families reunited after years of separation. This is one of nine programs that are currently operating throughout the country through which more than 500 disadvantaged Australians have found jobs. This is an example of the federal Labor government's caring for those in vulnerable, challenging and difficult circumstances. The success of the Local Connections to Work Program in places such as Ipswich has prompted the government to announce that another 15 sites will be opened between now and 2015.

Two young women were present at the first anniversary celebration of this new government program. They have had their lives changed, and they gave testimony to this. They were Kiyan Sabine, who comes from Churchill and got work experience volunteering with Busy Beat—which was built with a contribution of $650,000 through the Jobs Fund—and Jacqueline Taylor, who comes from Bellbird Park and highly recommended that people use the Local Connections to Work Program. After years of struggling to find jobs, being disadvantaged and sometimes being separated from family and friends, they have obtained employment. Jacqueline has obtained a job with Hog's Breath Cafe, and she is working towards one day working in the animal rehabilitation field. (Time expired)

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

South Road is an important infrastructure issue and a long saga in my electorate. In 2005, the RAA of South Australia announced their vision for South Road, which was to have 22 kilometres of non-stop expressway. In 2006, the South Australian Labor government said that they would fix the intersection at South Road and Sturt Road, providing an underpass there. The idea of a non-stop expressway has the support of the City of Marion, the City of Onkaparinga—the two southern local government areas—as well as the Southern Adelaide Economic Development Board. In 2007, the federal Labor Party committed $500 million to South Road. This sum included money to fix the Sturt Road-South Road intersection. In September 2008, the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport along with the South Australian state Minister for Transport announced $500 million in funding to construct flyovers and grade separations at three bottlenecks on South Road, one of which was the Sturt Road intersection.

What has happened since 2006 at this intersection? Absolutely nothing; the Sturt Road-South Road intersection looks the same today as it did in 2006, but the traffic volumes are much higher and the transit times are much greater. South Road is the main north-south transport corridor through Adelaide—it services a large portion of the light truck and semitrailer transport moving between the north and the south of the city—and the southern suburbs have been dudded while all the money that was dedicated to fixing this intersection has been spent on the superway in the north. Meanwhile, the delays at the Sturt Road-South Road intersection have been increasing every year. Only two years ago the state and federal ministers announced that they would be extending the Tonsley rail line to Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University. The only funding that has been provided for this area is to fund the Darlington transport study. What this has provided is a very good video but unfortunately no money to fund any infrastructure. The Darlington transport study suggests grade separating Main South Road as an underpass, extending below Flinders Drive and Sturt Road. I call on the government to meet their commitment that they made in 2007 to fix this intersection and see that it is properly funded, as they promised it would be in November 2007. This will be good for residents in my electorate but also all of southern Adelaide.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to congratulate Ms Jyllie Jackson, the CEO and Artistic Director of LightnUp Inc., which organises Lismore's hugely successful lantern parade. On Saturday, 25 June I attended what was the 18th lantern parade, another very successful parade. Each year in June the parade coincides with the year's shortest day and longest night. I want to talk a bit about some of the history of the lantern parade. It was one of those things that was seen as a good idea by Jyllie. Like a lot of things, it started off small and has grown to be hugely successful. It involves a whole community, including the schools. Everybody gets involved. At first it was seen as being maybe a bit alternative, but it has grown to be embraced by all sections of the community. In our community now, particularly in Lismore and the Northern Rivers, the lanterns are manifested in other areas as well.

LightnUp Inc. is a not-for-profit community arts enterprise and the organising group for the lantern parade. I am reading from their website, which is www.lanternparade.com/our-story/, which says:

LightnUp runs workshops and activities throughout the year, in Lismore, the Northern Rivers and throughout regional and increasingly, metropolitan Australia. The workshops and events include lantern making, shadow theatre, illuminated puppets, masks and costume making, ritual and celebration and story development.

LightnUp also hires out the lanterns, undertakes commissions and creates special lanterns and props for weddings, parties, conferences and special events.

This was something that started as somebody's good idea, notably Jyllie Jackson. When I attended the lantern parade on Saturday night it was just wonderful to see how many children and schools were involved. It was delightful that they were happy with the lanterns that they had made and were able to march in the lantern parade. The whole community gets behind it. It started with a few hundred people in 1994. I remember that in 2006 there were over 20,000 people involved. I am not too sure how many were there on Saturday night, but it was in the tens of thousands. We always worry each year, like everyone, about the rain, but so far out of 18 parades, there have only been three wet nights and the rain did not deter anyone. (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In calling the honourable member for Bennelong I congratulate him on a recent significant event which I read about in the newspaper.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The electorate of Bennelong hosted a range of dignitaries on Saturday night: many diplomats, colleagues and Australian legends gathered to celebrate my 60th birthday, which is the oldest I have been!

I wish to take this opportunity to thank many who were there, such as: Mr Alan Jones, who acted as the master of ceremonies; His Excellency Mr CK Ow, who was our gracious host and who is the executive chairman of Stamford Land Corporation and the Singaporean Ambassador to Argentina; His Excellency Mr Paul Madden, British High Commissioner to Australia; His Excellency Mr Yuval Rotem, Israeli Ambassador to Australia; His Excellency Mr Rubem Barbosa, Brazilian Ambassador to Australia; Her Excellency Mrs Maija Lahteenmaki, Finnish Ambassador to New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Tonga; Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz; the Hon. Mr Joe Hockey; the Hon. Mr Malcolm Turnbull; the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, who in the highlight of the evening auctioned tickets to The Merry Widow; my colleagues Paul Fletcher and Craig Kelly; the Hon. Barry O'Farrell, the Premier of New South Wales; the Hon. Greg Smith; the Hon. Anthony Roberts; the Hon. Victor Dominello; the Hon. Marie Ficarra; the legendary Ken Rosewall, who assured everybody that he is enjoying good health; and Ita Buttrose. It having been disclosed by Alan that Ita Buttrose had authored books entitled What is Love?, A Passionate Life, and How Much is Enough?, another highlight of the night was her auctioning off a night of passion at one of the hotels—although, when she made it very clear that she was not included in this package, it did not go for quite as much money. Others who were there were: Mark Edmondson, a former team mate and the last Australian man to win an Australian Open; Ben Elias, a great footballer who passed on the tip that New South Wales was certain to win this year's State of Origin; and Don Spencer, a good friend and the chairman of the Australian Children's Music Foundation, who sang a lovely little song about Ken Rosewall. Thank you to all of my friends and supporters. It was a great evening—not just celebrating my 60th but the camaraderie and the strength of the bonds within our party. My new colleagues being present made it a very special night.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the past two years, staff in my electorate office have been joined by a volunteer to help with filing and mail-outs. Anthony Sheedy had limited job skills in the formal sense but a great aptitude for work and a cheerful attitude for life that filled our office with joy and defined our days by happiness. He was gold. Ten days ago, Anthony suddenly died. I am, along with all in his life, still struggling to believe that he is no longer with us. It is profoundly sad. His funeral is in Geelong today. Anthony's life story is important. It is the story of so many hundreds of thousands of Australians who grew up in orphanages. It is a tragic story. It is a story that is a significant chapter in the history of our nation. Anthony was one of an estimated half a million Australians alive today who as children were throughout the last century robbed of proper homes and families. We know them as the forgotten Australians.

Anthony's sister, Leonie Sheedy, is a dear friend of mine. As head of the Care Leavers Australia Network, she has been a fearless campaigner for the rights of those children who grew up in orphanages and state homes. Anthony was placed in care one month after his second birthday and never returned to his family. Leonie is not sure why. His mother went on to have another five children, and all of them ended up in care, including Leonie. Anthony spent his childhood in a series of boy's homes and orphanages across Victoria, including in Geelong. He thought that he was an orphan until he met his mother and father for the first time at the age of 12. But, after their visit was complete, they left and Anthony stayed. This was no happy homecoming.

At the age of 15, he was led off in handcuffs to a boy's home in Bendigo where, in Leonie's words, he worked for little and suffered much until he turned 19. Anthony's childhood had been a misery. His body has been continually physically and sexually abused. It is little wonder that, as an adult, he dealt with the legacy of this by turning to alcohol, and in a sense the abuse to his body continued.

Anthony's adult life was lived on the edge, with him drifting from job to job and from boarding houses to the streets. He had almost no contact with his six siblings until nine years ago. By then, Anthony was 60. It took him six months to summon the courage to open a fateful letter from the government telling him that his sister wanted contact. Leonie found him washing dishes for the Sisters of Charity in Fitzroy, a reformed alcoholic who carried with him the terrible anger of the abandoned child. But at last Anthony's life was about to take a turn for the better, because despite the abuse to his body Anthony's spirit had survived. He remained a decent and honourable man. With the support of his sister and brother, humour and joy returned. In the last few years of his life, he at last found happiness and peace. He lived in East Geelong with his dog and close to his beloved Geelong Football Club. Leonie says that it meant a lot to Anthony to work in our office. The feeling of acceptance and the pride that he had in his job helped underpin his new-found happiness. But I say to Leonie that the pleasure was all ours. The staff loved having Anthony around. The Anthony we knew was cheerful and cheeky. He would talk for hours about Frank Sinatra, if we let him! He took enormous pride in the work he did, boasting that he could put letters in envelopes faster than anyone else. In the process he taught us about life, the power of fun and the enduring nature of one man's indelible spirit.

Anthony lived to see the national apology to the forgotten Australians. It helped soothe the pain and it punctuated his new lease on life. It is now one of my cherished memories that I spoke to him and stood with him in the Great Hall on that great day. His life may not have been as glamorous as the high-flying careers of the famous, but given where he started his journey his arrival at contentment is no less remarkable an achievement and a source of inspiration for us all. He is one of Australia's great survivors. Anthony may have been forgotten as a child, but he is remembered now by us all and we are certainly the richer for having known him.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many of the suburbs in the electorate of Cowan are relatively recent in their establishment. These new areas were for many years market gardens or vineyards. Over recent history, the market gardens and vineyards have gradually been sold off to developers that have subdivided and sold blocks to my constituents. Originally settled by Italians in the main, a hallmark of the newer suburbs of Landsdale, Darch, Madeley, Ashby and others are therefore street after street of new houses, punctuated with an older brick-and-tile house that still belongs to the families of the original settlers. As I said, their names are mainly of Italian heritage. I expect that those landowners that still remain will sell in the next 10 years and new houses will infill throughout these suburbs. Blocks in these suburbs are selling for in excess of $350,000 for anywhere from 400 to 600 square metres. You could not now expect to buy a house in Darch for less than S550,000. The land therefore is very valuable.

Last year I met Maria Filippone and her mother, Caterina, who live in Darch. An old vineyard still stands next to their house, a testament to the heritage of this area. At the time I had a conversation with Maria and her mother and they told me of Maria's father and his service in World War II and as a prisoner of war. Such is the history of the district I represent. Maria and Caterina came to see me last week. They have been by themselves for some years now. Maria's father is gone; her brother is somewhat estranged from her and her mother. Caterina is of advanced years. Maria is mature herself and has suffered from an accident she had when she was 10 years old, somewhat reducing her capacity to make the best decisions for herself and her mother.

Maria and Caterina are therefore ladies who are vulnerable to charlatans and those who look to take advantage of them. Unfortunately this was the case early in 2005 when, at a church, Maria met and was then befriended by a developer, Vince Lombardo, later also meeting his son Michael. Maria told me that over time she was persuaded by the Lombardos that she had to sell her share of an 18,000 square metre block of land next to the house. She was told that if she did not she would lose it anyway. Feeling she had no choice, she sold her holding and her brother apparently sold his part as well. She told me that she received just $25 a square metre and her brother got $49 a square metre. I have since verified that the average price for the sale of land in that area on 18 February 2005 was $35 a square metre. A real estate agent that I asked about these circumstances told me that, instead of the block being worth the $650,000 that was paid for it at the time, it was more likely to have been worth $4 million or between $200 and $230 a square metre.

It certainly appears that Maria was ripped off. I only wish that I had heard of this matter at the time, not six years later. A court case with legal aid lawyers has since failed. It demonstrates that there are unscrupulous developers out there, developers that will take advantage of others when they see vulnerability to assist them in their duplicity. I can assure the Lombardos I will be looking very closely at the options from here. Ethical and honourable behaviour has clearly been absent and there is more to come on this matter.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today is the first day of the new-look Senate. I welcome the new senators to this august building, but I want to respond to several political threats that have been made against me by Senator Bob Brown and Senator-elect Lee Rhiannon. In response to my announcement that in Melbourne Ports, like other lower house seats, Labor may be considering putting the Greens lower down our preference list, Senator Brown, with whom I have worked quite amicably on human rights issues such as Tibet, told Michelle Grattan that he would have me out of parliament 'growing lettuces'.

I thought that kind of threat was beyond Senator Brown, frankly. I have found him to be, in this parliament at least, a person who concentrates on policies. It is because the Greens policies are getting the scrutiny that they deserve that they are reacting like this. Instead of responding in a mature manner, Senator Brown wants to make threats about me going out the back door faster than I would think. It is extraordinary that he has decided to side with his new senator, Senator Rhiannon, who embarrassed him during the New South Wales elections with the Marrickville Council's decision to implement the boycott divestments policy. In April Senator Brown said that this boycott policy against Israel was against his advice. He said: 'It was a mistake. I differ from Lee on that and so do the other components of the New South Wales Greens. It was badly handled as part of the campaign against my advice. I reiterate that the policy she and the New South Wales Greens had was the wrong emphasis.' And how does Senator Brown reward Senator Rhiannon? With the portfolio of democracy, international aid and assisting on national security.

Prior to joining the Greens, Senator Rhiannon was a member of the Socialist Party of Australia. The Socialist Party of Australia was the faction that split from the Australian Communist Party because the Communist Party was insufficiently pro-Moscow. As I said in the Inquirer section of the Weekend Australian, according to admissions of the Soviet government itself under the great Mikhail Gorbachev, tens of millions died under communism. You cannot have been the Tokyo Rose for such a system and hope to creep into a bastion of democracy like the Australian Senate and wish that your political past will disappear down the memory hole. I have already called on Senator Rhiannon in her first speech to squarely face the crimes of the 20th century and apologise to people like Jana Wendt, Frank Lowy and Sir Arvi Parbo, all of whom come from families who suffered under communism, and all the other victims of the evil empire of which she was for so long an advocate.

I will not be intimidated by the Greens into staying silent. Neither will other members of the Labor Party. The Greens policies, like those of any other political party, must be scrutinised and debated: their support for death duties, their advocacy for a reduction in aid to non-government schools, their desire to limit the number of skilled and educated migrants coming to this country and their extreme foreign policy agenda. Finally, the allegations about Wotif in the newspapers and their relationship with the Greens' policies, despite their policy on political donations, are very ominous and show that the Greens need to be scrutinised as much as any other political party. (Time expired)

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to bring the House's attention to the International Year of Forests because I believe that the forestry industry is one of the really great news stories for Australia. We have been through turmoil and fights with this industry, but now I believe the debate is maturing and, with that, a new industry is emerging that can be counted on as one of world's best practice and as being sustainable for centuries to come. Australia has about four per cent of the world's forests on five per cent of the world's land area. It has one of the best managed forestry sectors in the world.

The nation's forests and the products they produce provide significant employment, environmental and recreational benefits to communities across Australia. Australia's forestry and wood manufacturing sector employs nearly 76,000 people, many in regional areas, and generates about $7 billion worth of wood and paper products annually. Across the nation, forests in conservation areas cover 23 million hectares. These reserves provide recreational benefits for communities and contribute to the 12 billion tonnes of carbon stored by Australian forests. Industry and government have been working hard to make sure our forests remain sustainable and viable for the long term.

The Australian government recognises the importance of World Forestry Day and the International Year of Forests and has actively supported both initiatives. This year the Gillard government has released legislation to ban the importation of timber products that have not been legally harvested. This will contribute to global efforts to stop illegal logging, provide for sustainable forest products made in Australia and reduce unfair competition. The Gillard government remains committed to promoting sustainable forestry initiatives and encourages people to celebrate the International Year of Forests.

With just four per cent of the world's forests in Australia, most people would not recognise forest conservation as a daily issue in our wide brown land. But Australia has a variety of forest types. There are seven main groups that cover much of the coastal regions of the country. In order of abundance these are eucalypt, with 11 subtypes; acacia; melaleuca; rainforest; callitris; casuarina; and mangroves. Australia has the world's sixth largest forest area with a total of just over 147 million hectares, or around 21 per cent of the country's total land area. Most of Australia's forests are found in Queensland, with 52.8 million hectares of forest covering almost one-third of the state. Tasmania's forests, both native and plantation, cover 50 per cent of the state.

All our forests are home to unique native wildlife—animals as diverse as the cassowary in the rainforests of North Queensland and the tiny woylie in Western Australia's south-west. They all rely on a healthy forest for survival, whether it be an old-growth forest that has seen no development, harvesting or agricultural clearing or a newly regenerated forest. All forests in Australia play an important part in the natural ecosystem.

Forests throughout Australia can be threatened by both man-made and natural processes. Fire, drought and flood are all natural phenomena and can be both friend and foe to the forests of Australia. Many eucalypt species are adapted to fire, and the river red gums of Victoria's newest state forests are adapted to the flooding waters that can reach halfway up their trunks.

It is important to recognise the role of forest management in the maintenance of our world-class forests. Without some managing authority to deal with fire, drought, flood, human and animal impacts in our forests, as well as disease that in some cases can sweep through an area—just as it can among humans—we would not have such pristine forests as we have today. I salute the foresters and the forest workers, many of whom have worked in forests for generations, who, by their work and their understanding of the forest systems, have allowed us such an outcome as we have today.

The future will be just as important. The forests will play an important part in recycling carbon by storing it in wood and releasing oxygen as a by-product. This has played and will play a very important part in keeping the world's atmosphere in balance and preventing those excesses on either side—warming and cooling.

It is going to be an exciting time as new ideas become reality and researchers find innovative ways to use the timber, the bark, the leaves and the sap of our trees. Most people see wood used in their homes for building structures, for furniture, for ornamental purposes and even for art. But few recognise the importance of wood products for making paper to label all our goods, for packaging and for artists, newspapers, books, posters and prints. There are the medical uses of our trees—eucalypt oil and other tinctures that have been distilled from parts of leaves or the sap. And there has been innovation in the use of timber itself. It is now viable to use the small pieces of timber being milled. Engineered timber with certain types of glue can make beams that are even stronger than steel.

There is also the pure delight of wandering through a forest and enjoying the smell and the feel of the earth as the atmosphere renews itself through the trees. I had the opportunity of taking the House committee to some of my favourite spots in working forests during the hearing in Tasmania last week. We were all hugely impressed by the work that is quietly going on in keeping our Tasmanian forests well looked after. It was awe inspiring. Some of the walks and lookouts would not have been created had there not been a forest manager to ensure access to the forests. Whether they are in a public forest or in a private forest, whether they are on a farmland or on the fringes of urban areas, trees work well with humans if we are not silly about their powers. There are also opportunities for many new products coming from trees into the future, including being able to utilise rotary peeled veneers, being able to glue trees back together after we have peeled them off, to make even stronger products than in the past. This can work very well in regional areas and there are great opportunities for that. Laminated veneer lumber is also becoming a reality throughout the world, especially in New Zealand and now in Australia. Being able to join small pieces of timber together and making it economically viable for that product to reach the standards for the building codes give us a great opportunity by allowing the use of a lot more wood. The future is certainly going to be about less native forest timber being available for processing but more plantation timber. We will need to identify more efficient ways of supplying customers. We will also need to know what people want in wood products in the future and about the changing demands. Consumers are certainly favouring strength and versatility of engineered wood products over traditional sawn timbers. There need to be opportunities to take wood to the biodiesel stage, and the opportunities into the future are growing wonderfully well.

This is a wonderful industry. It employs a lot of great Tasmanians, great Australians, and people throughout the world. It can help alleviate poverty throughout the world, and we do need to make timber products from trees, but there has to be a process that is sustainable to allow us to achieve that. Before this year ends I suggest everybody goes out to their favourite piece of forest, talks to the workers who use it, asks them their stories, hears about their pride in their areas and just thinks about their forests in this International Year of Forests.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me considerable pleasure to support this motion by the member for Lyons. Whilst I may not agree with all his political choices I do have great respect for his integrity and decency. Having said that, I want to look at the first part of this motion, and that is in relation to the international sustainability and protection of the great rainforests, the threat to those forests and the opportunity for cooperative international action not just to protect these forests but to make a rapid, real reduction in global greenhouse emissions in the shortest possible time and in the largest possible way at the lowest possible cost.

Let me begin with this proposition: on the best advice, of the world's over 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide or related gases released each year, almost 20 per cent of that comes from the destruction of rainforests and other forests. This is a huge signature, a huge footprint, an enormous release of greenhouse gases, be it CO2, methane or other emissions which have an impact on the greenhouse process. It is also an extraordinary testimony to significant, widespread destruction of the great forests of the world and in particular the great rainforests of the world. So the task, the duty, the responsibility is to try to create a system which allows for sustainable management of these great rainforests, which protects the magnificent biodiversity and which protects in particular many of the indigenous communities throughout the equatorial regions of the world—whether in Africa, in Asia, in the Pacific or in Latin America—who have suffered and are suffering the loss of their environment as well as their livelihood. The background is that the pressures are real for land, for the growth of crops, for the supply of foodstuffs and in many cases for the supply of energy through sugar cane, which is being used for biodiesel equivalents in Brazil and parts of Latin America. As a consequence of this the rainforests in many parts of the world are being destroyed, degraded and damaged. That in turn is a loss of biodiversity, a loss of community and a release of CO2 or equivalent gases on a grand scale.

At the highest level our goal and our objective as an alternative government of Australia is to see that the world establishes a genuine global rainforest recovery program. In the next five years, we want to see the goal of a 50 per cent reduction in the approximately eight billion tonnes of annual CO2 or equivalent gases released from rainforest destruction. This is a real and achievable goal. It is significant, and nothing would do more at a faster rate on a grander scale to reduce the immediate global footprint than to protect the great forests of the world. That is a desirable, achievable, fundamental goal that can bring both the developed and the developing worlds together at a time when there is scant agreement internationally over the way to deal with this problem.

The specifics we would like to introduce in order to ensure that we build on the work that has been done, whether it is Brazil or Indonesia or other parts of the word, are threefold. First, we believe that the Australian government should co-host, preferably with Indonesia, an international summit on preserving the world's rainforests. In particular, my view and our view is that that summit could be held later this year before the next major United Nations climate summit in South Africa as it could be a way to ensure significant, real and genuine progress and provide the opportunity for something to come out of this summit on international climate change processes. It would be a fundamental step towards protecting the great rainforests and reducing emissions.

Second, the summit's goal would be to spearhead and coordinate efforts to protect and preserve the world's rainforests, from Brazil to PNG, and in particular to create a time frame and a mechanism to protect these forests. There are many forms of incentive payments to protect against destruction, on the basis of abatement, and could provide a way forward. This is the moment to seize the opportunity to protect these great rainforests.

Third, our commitment is very simple. If we can achieve an international agreement, whether it is on the current watch or our watch, if we are fortunate to be given that opportunity, we will work to ensure that there is support in both the developed world and in the developing world for such an agreement. Just look at the examples, whether it is in Costa Rica, or parts of Brazil, or in Indonesia or, in particular, in Mexico, where there have been stewardship agreements between the international community, which has been willing to provide resources, the host government and the local Indigenous community to protect and steward these forests. This is a model for the sort of approach that could take the world forward in terms of rapid reduction of emissions at a low cost of abatement on a large scale. Nothing the world can do will make a bigger, faster reduction in the global CO2 footprint.

Against that background I welcome this motion from the member for Lyons. I particularly note that the international opportunities for protection of the great rainforests are real, but it is the sad case that the work begun under the previous government has barely been taken forward under this government, in part, I fear, because it was an agenda of the Liberal-National coalition to drive forward great rainforest protection. I would offer the hand of friendship to the government and say, 'Please join us in this commitment to protecting the great rainforests.' The member for Lyons's motion is an important step in that direction, and I thank him for his work.

Domestically there is also a parallel here. Domestically our whole approach is based on voluntary and willing participation. That is why we have supported an incentives based scheme rather than a tax based scheme to reduce emissions, which, among other things, provides the opportunity to capture carbon in plantation forests, in soil and in revegetation through mallee and mulga. These are real opportunities for capturing carbon and reducing emissions—doing so at a low cost, on a grand scale, within Australia.

I simply turn to the work of the CSIRO's Sustainable Agriculture Flagship. The head of that flagship, Dr Michael Battaglia, prepared a very significant paper recently. That paper made it clear that it would be possible to reduce Australia's emissions by 20 per cent per annum over 40 years through the use of green carbon or the capture of carbon in natural ecosystems. That is an enormous opportunity. The CSIRO work of Dr Michael Battaglia, is more aggressive than the figures presented by the coalition in our direct action policy. We were conservative in our estimates. The CSIRO, which is itself a conservative scientific agency, has, however, made much more aggressive projections as to what is achievable with incentive payments. That is good news for Australia and it is good news for the emissions reduction possibilities. I commend the idea of an incentives scheme rather than a tax based scheme and commend the idea of a global rainforest recovery program. (Time expired)

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand with my colleague and friend the member for Lyons to recognise that 2011 is the International Year of Forests. Forestry is a fantastic industry that provides the world with renewable products, income and ecological services. The United Nations Forum on Forests reflects international trends in forest management, which increasingly acknowledges that previous policy objectives that were designed to restrict the use of native forest resources were misdirected and have led to perverse social, land use and economic outcomes. There is now an acceptance that sustainable forest management and utilisation policy must encompass all forest types and tenure and that native forests are part of an integrated solution to meeting national, social and economic development needs.

A number of environmental non-government organisations—ENGOs—are adopting a more pragmatic approach to the management and utilisation of native forests. For example, the World Wildlife Fund 'understands the threats facing forest today,' but trying to prohibit the use of forest resources is not a viable solution. The world is rediscovering, fortunately, the benefits of wood and wood products. Our eucalypts, with their high-strength rating, are an ideal source for engineered products. Research in Europe and North America is looking seriously at substituting tilt slab concrete walls with cross-laminated timber slab walls. Laminated timber is lighter and has the benefit of capturing a huge amount of CO2, unlike concrete, which in fact, emits CO2. Furthermore, in earthquake-prone areas, governments are recognising the benefits of timber buildings, including high-rise, which are less prone to collapse than those constructed of steel or concrete. In Europe and Japan eight- to 10-storey buildings are being made from timber. Indeed, in Melbourne, the Grollo family made headlines with its plans to build Australia's first high-rise building from timber.

These are examples of why forests should be recognised in this International Year of Forests. As such, worldwide demand for forest product is forecast to increase and Australia's proximity to the rapidly growing Asian economies provides an opportunity to expand growth and output. To fulfil growing demand, forest processes require expanding resources and long-term security and supply at suitable levels of quantity and quality, supporting investment decisions critical in maintaining competitiveness and developing new processing capacity. As we are currently seeing in my home state of Tasmania, resource security is a major issue for the industry. Forest planning is an intergenerational activity.

Forest operations around the world have gone through dramatic changes over the past 20 years and have adapted and responded positively to change, and my state of Tasmania is no exception. Gone are the days when forestry was considered to be a career for males with a high level of physical fitness and a low level of skills who were content to work in dangerous situations. Many modern jobs involve operating computer controlled forest harvesting and mill processing equipment which requires highly skilled personnel. The 21st-century forest industry is a safe, modern, capital-intensive, state-of-the-art and high-tech industry that continues to provide rewarding career activities.

The industry is not standing still. As well as technology and research, private, native and plantation forest resources are becoming increasingly critical to supply models But managed forests still provide the most cost effective and environmentally sustainable approach to forest management and addressing the challenges associated with issues such as climate change. It is clear that appropriate, supportive and consistent government policies will be required if the full potential of the Australian and, particularly, the Tasmanian forest industry is to be realised and, in doing so, maximise its contribution to local and regional communities.

According to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in 2008-09, Australian forests produced 25 million cubic metres of logs, which had a forest roadside value of $1.7 billion or an average price of $68 per cubic metre. After processing, the value of this resource averaged $920 per cubic metre, an increase of over 1,320 per cent. The industry is collectively Australia's second-largest manufacturing industry and contributes around 0.7 per cent to Australia's gross domestic product and 5.8 per cent of manufacturing output. The forest industry is a critical regional employer, with 76,800 people directly employed across supply and value chains.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion but in particular would like to talk about an issue which I think is underutilised and an area where we need to do a lot more policy work and see some serious policy change: family farm forestry. Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Yan Yan Gurt Creek catchment area and the property of Andrew Stewart. There I met with members of the Colac Otway Landcare group. Since 1993, they have set up the Otway Agroforestry Network. It is local farmers and government working with Landcare to look at ways to increase the productivity of farms through the use of agroforestry.

What we are seeing is quite remarkable. The results suggest that family farm forestry can not only make a significant contribution to future timber supply but may also ensure commercial tree growing has local community support, underpins sustainable agriculture production and delivers real environmental benefits. I would like to thank Andrew Stewart for hosting my visit last Monday. I would also like to thank Rowan Reed from Bambra. Rowan is a former professor of forestry at the University of Melbourne and has now set up a farm where he showcases what forestry can do to improve family farming. The results are quite remarkable. I view it as a serious way forward. I have also had the pleasure early late last year of visiting Melville Forest at Andrew and Kim Dufty's house, where I also met with their parents, Margaret and Stuart Dufty. They produce carbon-neutral wool on the property by putting about 10 to 15 per cent of their farm to forestry and to plantations. They also use shelter belts, through the use of which they are able to increase livestock production and also get cropping production up. This is a way forward.

The problem we have at the moment is that we are not providing the incentives for farmers to look at forestry. The only incentive we have at the moment is for large-scale plantations through managed investment schemes. I will take this opportunity to once again call for this type of subsidy to plantation timber to stop. It distorts landscapes; it has turned out to be an absolute Ponzi scheme and has delivered no net result for local communities. We need to look at ways we can empower and provide incentives for our farmers to use their land and agroforestry to not only increase their food production but also increase timber production. There is a smart way we can deal with this issue and it is not through MIS. We have seen farmers have their subsidies reduced. We have seen the wool floor scheme taken away from farmers and the single-desk scheme from the wheat growers. We have seen subsidies removed from the farming sector and it is high time we remove them now from the timber plantation sector so that we can once again see farmers working, without having to compete with forestry, to improve their lands to continue to increase their food production and crop production and go a long way to trying to feed the globe. As we all know the increase in food demand is going to double in the next 30 to 40 years, and if we are smart about how we use forestry and food together we can deal with that problem.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that you saw fit to visit the wonderful Shortland electorate at the weekend. I was sorry that I did not catch up with you. I would like to congratulate the member for Lyons for bringing this very important motion to parliament. I know it is an issue that he is absolutely passionate about. As members of parliament we should all be passionate about the issue of forests and their sustainability, celebrating this International Year of Forests.

Forests are a valuable global resource that act as the lungs of our planet and as such we must do everything in our power to ensure their sustainability. It is very appropriate that this parliament recognises 2011 as the International Year of Forests. The general assembly passed resolution 61/193 to set up this year as International Year of Forests. Part of that resolution called for:

Recognizing that forests and sustainable forest management can contribute significantly to sustainable development, poverty eradication and the achievement of internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals …

It is Millennium Development Goal number 7 that really captures this issue of ensuring environmental sustainability. Target A says sustainable development should be used to reverse loss of environmental resources and, target B, reduction in the loss of biodiversity. I do not think you can just look at one Millennium Development Goal on its own. You need to link it in to the other Millennium Development Goals, such as those on poverty, health, and child and maternal health. All those goals come together, and this is a very important part of them. The overharvesting of forests and the illegal use of forest products cannot be separated from the poverty that exists worldwide. As such, I think it is very important to remember the connection that is being made in this International Year of Forests with Millennium Development Goals.

In Australia, forests and forest issues have always been very important. I am sure that other members have been contacted through widespread email campaigns in recent times about the historic agreement reached in Tasmania between logging industries and environmental groups. I think we should do everything in our power to see that we put in place sustainable forestry plans and that all groups work together. The Gillard government has taken some very positive steps in relation to forests. One of them, which I think links very nicely to the Millennium Development Goals, is the ban on the import of illegal forestry products. Taking away the market for these products ensures—or works towards—preventing those forests from being harvested in an illegal fashion.

There are no forests in the Shortland electorate. It is a coastal electorate, as you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Murphy, would know. It is an electorate in which the people are most concerned about ensuring the sustainability of forests, not only in our country but worldwide. There is nothing I find more enjoyable than spending time in a magnificent forest with those majestic trees. It links you into feeling how everything in our environment comes together. I think we should do everything in our power to ensure that forests are protected.

The other issue that has been raised by a number of speakers is the role forests play in the reduction of carbon in our atmosphere. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This year marks the year of the forests. Forests are an integral part of human and animal survival. Through the management and sustainability of forests in the past few years there has been a great rebirth of endangered species. The theme 'Forests for People' celebrates the central role of people in the sustainable management, conservation and sustainable development of the world's forests. The theme revolves around the multiple values of forests and the need for a 360-degree perspective. Forests provide shelter to people and habitat to biodiversity. They are a source of food, medicine and clean water and play a vital role in maintaining a stable global climate and environment. All these elements taken together reinforce the message that forests are vital to the survival and wellbeing of people everywhere. Forests provide welfare for living. They also provide welfare for survival.

Tumbarumba is in my electorate of the Riverina. Its major industry is softwood timber processing at the Hyne and Son timber mill, which is also the town's biggest employer. The Tumbarumba mill has been in operation since the 1970s, during which time it has undergone a number of upgrades to increase capacity and to take advantage of advances in technology. In 2001 Hyne and Son took over from Boral Limited and successfully upgraded in 2003-04 with the latest North American equipment and technology to ultimately process 900,000 cubic metres of radiata sawlogs per annum. Since the revamp, Tumbarumba's timber industry has thrived, with Hyne and Son employing more than 250 people within the Tumbarumba area. Since the rebuild, which cost approximately $120 million, the mill is the largest softwood processing mill in the Southern Hemisphere, and we are very proud of that in the Riverina. Hyne Timber is a privately owned timber-processing organisation where, as I say, more than 250 people are employed in management, administration and a broad range of activities required in the processing of timber—and that is not to mention the indirect jobs of truck drivers and in all sorts of other industries and occupations within the area.

Hyne Timber does a lot for the community of Tumbarumba. As well as being the largest employer, it provides a huge amount of support for the area. In 2004 the Hyne Community Trust Foundation in Tumbarumba was established for the community, and every second year, with the help of Tumbarumba Rotary, Hyne Timber sends a select group from the local year 11 and 12 high school to participate in the Kokoda trek. Hyne Timber is also a major sponsor for community events in and around the area, such as the Tumbafest and the Carcoola childcare art show.

We heard this morning from the shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage, the member for Flinders, arguing that there is a better way to preserve forests as well as to protect the environment and to have a sustainable future. A global rainforest recovery program is possible, feasible and, under a coalition in government, would be a very real and positive policy. Forestry is not a dirty word. It worries me that a green legacy that we all want and need could go too far, especially with today's change in the Senate, leaving a black mark on sustainable forestry, an ecologically responsible future and the wellbeing of communities.

As New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr purchased Yanga Station near Balranald for $35 million and turned it into national park, promising a tourism bonanza. Mr Carr pressured Premier Nathan Rees to declare Riverina red gum forests as national parks even before the Rees-commissioned Natural Resources Commission report was completed. In an email campaign with activist organisation GetUp!, Mr Carr said more jobs would be created in the new national parks than lost from the timber industry—and we all know that that just has not transpired.

When Yanga Station was bought by the Carr government in 2005 and turned into a national park, communities were promised that the influx of 50,000 extra tourists would more than make up for jobs lost on the station and in the timber industry—and it is a whole load of rot. The same was said by the Rees government when the Riverina red gum forests were declared national parks in 2010. There was community scepticism that enough tourists would ever arrive to offset the closure of the timber industry, which just did not happen. Bob Carr made similar promises when he proclaimed a national park at Coolah, stating that 30,000 tourists a year would visit. Fifteen years later the major change at Coolah is the number of closed businesses.

Six years on from Yanga being turned into a national park and one year on from the Millewa Forest being declared as national park, all the evidence suggests that rural communities have once again been sold down the river with empty promises. (Time expired)

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 23 May I raised in this House the plight of the 13 outback communities in South Australia—all within my electorate of Grey and all of whom have had the economic carpet ripped out from under them by the state government's February decision to remove more than $1 million from the remote area energy scheme. Withdrawing the subsidy results in residents and businesses in these towns, the bigger users of electricity, facing increased electricity bills in excess of 100 per cent. It is not as if they start from a low base; already, electricity in these communities is about 50 per cent higher than that paid by similar communities on the grid. Typically, businesses have been paying around 29c to 30c a kilowatt hour. New tariffs will mean it will go as high as 60c a kilowatt hour.

For some businesses it will mean extra bills in excess of $100,000 a year. The largest of the 13 affected communities is the opal mining town and tourist icon of the South Australian outback, Coober Pedy. Andamooka is another opal town, adjacent to Roxby Downs, that is also affected. Other towns are Yunta, Nundroo, Marla, Oodnadatta, Marree, Kingoonya, Glendambo, Parachilna, Blinman, Mannahill and Cockburn.

On 15 May I attended a meeting in Coober Pedy with Senator Nick Xenophon and John Darley, an Independent member of the state's upper house. Around 200 people attended, with representatives from Oodnadatta, Andamooka and Kingoonya. The underground venue was crammed, and they were incensed at their treatment by the state government. For most Australians, electricity provision is as simple as ringing up an electricity supplier and asking them to turn on the power. The supplier purchases electricity through the national electricity market and resells it to the customer. Customers can shop around for the best deal but, whichever supplier they select, the same deal is available to customers in Adelaide, Mount Gambier, Ceduna or Yorketown. In effect, electricity is seen as an essential product and supplied to all at the same rates. This situation is brought about by government regulation. A general tariff enables businesses to operate on a more competitive basis across the state. However, the situation only applies where the local distribution network is connected to the national grid.

The reasons for any particular community being connected to the national grid are largely historical and/or opportunistic. In the past, local councils were instrumental in rolling out local networks and, in some cases, generating the electricity locally from diesel generators. At a time when the electricity sector was government owned and controlled, decisions were made to extend the network where practical and communities were given little option but to give their assets to the state in return for reasonable rates supplied through the state network. Other communities were seen as too remote to link to the grid, and generation subsidies have been provided to these communities so they have not been significantly disadvantaged in comparison with the rest of the state. Every other state in the Commonwealth with off-grid generation has developed a similar policy which, in effect, means remote off-grid power is provided at the state-wide price.

On 18 February all this changed in South Australia, when the Rann Labor government announced it was slashing $1 million from the remote area subsidy scheme. For the 13 affected communities this is a staggering blow. The biggest rises savage the business sector, where some major employers are facing annual rises in the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. It should be noted these towns are in some of our harshest environments, where summer-time temperatures regularly reach the high forties; refrigeration and cooling costs are high, but absolutely essential; and frosty winter nights are bitter.

It seems to be not understood by the city-centric Rann government that all of these communities are in direct competition with other states in Australia for business, skills and staff. Providing a higher cost environment will cost business and it will cost jobs. Like a carbon tax, a higher electricity price must cascade through the whole community. If a worker cannot afford to live in communities like Marree or Oodnadatta or Coober Pedy, why would they stay when the rest of Australia beckons? The state government has abandoned these communities and stands to be condemned.

Take, for example, the case of Coober Pedy. Not only is electricity difficult there; it is a pretty dry spot as well, so water is also difficult. The Coober Pedy council provides potable water by desalinating a salty groundwater aquifer. The mean average rainfall in Coober Pedy is 156 millimetres a year. Clearly, a reliable water supply is not a luxury; it is an essential. The electricity increase will cost the council an extra $185,000 a year, and they will be compelled to pass on that cost to the water consumers. Before the increase, the consumers were paying $4.93 a kilolitre; now they are paying $5.70 a kilolitre. Australians generally are reeling from savage increases in water and electricity prices—and who could blame them?—but very few will pay $5.70 a kilolitre. The Coober Pedy economy relies heavily on the tourism market and must pitch its product into a competitive environment. Extra expenses in the supply of water, electricity and general services must be passed on to the customer. Coober Pedy is being penalised by the handicapper—in this case, the state government.

This parliament should condemn the South Australian government for its uncaring and savage attack on these 13 communities. Where is the Australian principle of a fair go? Critics may say that this is not the province of the federal government and that South Australians will have their opportunity to express their anger at their government at the next election, and I am sure they will, but as their representative I must take every opportunity to bring pressure to bear on the state Minister for Energy, Michael O'Brien, who dismissed the collective communities by saying: 'These people choose to live there. They can pay the bill.' Okay, Mr Minister, you are right; they do choose to live there, but by the same token the people of Coober Pedy, Oodnadatta and Andamooka do not choose to support public transport subsidies in the city. They do not choose to support the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra, the Adelaide Festival of Arts, the V8 supercar races taking to the streets each year, the new tramlines in the city or, indeed, the $500 million plus that will be spent on the upgrade of Adelaide Oval. When will the Rann government recognise the outback's rights? What is fair is fair. If outback communities are expected to support the city then that support should be reciprocal.

While the state Labor member for Giles and Speaker, Lyn Breuer, says she is not happy with the tariff increase, it seems that her government is not listening. Energy Minister O'Brien has announced a phase-in period. That is not good enough. It is like offering someone a slow poison: it will get you in the end; it just takes longer to kill you.

The government is prepared to put millions of dollars into supplying electricity to our remote Indigenous communities. Towns like Coober Pedy, Oodnadatta and Marree have significant populations of Indigenous people, and their electricity prices are affected by the cuts in the subsidy. The increases flow right through the economy, affecting the price of everything. As a society, we should be doing all we can to attract remote Indigenous populations to communities where there are employment opportunities. This policy is a direct disincentive. Surely we should have consistent policies right across the region. The withdrawal of the support effectively places another barrier in front of good outcomes in this area of Indigenous engagement.

This policy also exposes the state government's attitude to harvesting the fruits of the regions but not supporting the communities from which those profits come. The government is happy to promote the regions as the great new financial benefactors of the state through a much promoted and announced mining boom. These towns are the lifeline for many of these proposals and exploration ventures. I call on this parliament to condemn the government.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened carefully to the contribution by the member for Grey. He is a neighbour of mine. We share a common border and, I think, for many of my rural residents and many of his, we share some common interests, although we do not always agree on every issue. I think he is a somewhat myopic representative. He is very diligent in putting the views of his constituents as he sees them. The member for Grey did not really give the broader environment in which South Australia finds itself or the South Australian government's significant achievements much of a fair go. I think he was being a little critical and perhaps a little partisan.

Obviously South Australia has had significant success over the last few years. We have an exploration boom which will, I think, in time turn into a mining boom. That will have significant advantages for the state, and we hope that it has significant advantages for the whole state. Similarly, we have added to our defence industries. We have a state that now more than ever before has life in the city and life spilling out into the suburbs and into the country towns. There are things like the Adelaide Fringe festival and the V8 car race, which I heard the member for Grey refer to, and the trams. They do not just benefit city folk.

Mr Ramsey interjecting—

It is often possible for people in the northern suburbs to say the same sorts of things: 'I don't go to the car racing or the oval.' But they do go to the upgraded Lyell McEwin Hospital. It is possible to say that the state overall has gotten a lot better over the last eight years. I think that we have had a pretty good government. When history comes to make a judgment on Premier Rann and his government, it will say that it was almost the perfect synthesis between the legacies of Playford and Dunstan. We have had a government that has changed the economic basis of South Australia by promoting mineral exploration and the defence industries while still maintaining a significant manufacturing base. Similarly, we have had the best of Dunstan's social reforms in that we now have a city that is alive and vibrant and an arts community that is alive and vibrant. I do think that it really is a choice between having the symphony orchestra or having electricity subsidies. But budgets are always an exercise in choice.

There is no doubt that, because of the global financial crisis, things are different. We have seen the effects of that around the world, with six million jobs lost. Despite what the opposition says, there has been a significant change to both employment and credit conditions across the world. That has impacted on government budgets. And it often has pretty tragic impacts on business. Things do need to be reviewed. I do not think that the member for Gray really gave the South Australian government's changes on 14 May much credit. But there has been a sincere effort made to reduce the impact of these higher bills, which only apply to large consumers; they do not apply to average consumers under this scheme. There has been an attempt to phase this in to allow people more time to make adjustments. And those adjustments can be significant. Obviously, there are new technologies now that can significantly lower power bills through alternative generation and also through efficiency. So it seems to me that there has been a sincere attempt made to lessen the impact of this change on large consumers under this scheme.

This is a 15-year-old subsidy program. It is important to note that subsidies do not come for free. Other taxpayers pay for them. While the member for Gray talks about the fact that every other electricity consumer has the same deal as the city, I do not think that that is true. I have many country constituents who burn thousands of dollars of diesel every vintage season or every time their business has an upturn because they cannot connect to the grid because of the excessive costs that you get charged to connect to the grid now. That is a very big problem for regional growth and one that has not been well-thought through or talked about.

We have to acknowledge that subsidy programs cost everybody. I notice that this subsidy program provides basically triple the metropolitan domestic tariff. I know that the member for Gray would say that it needs to be. I know that he says that people in Cooper Pedy produce wealth for the state. I acknowledge that. But I have metropolitan constituents, particularly in the northern suburbs, who create most of the state's wealth and most of the state's exports. And yet no-one would expect—

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's well subsidised, Nick, don't worry about that; it's well subsidised.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true. We have many horticultural businesses and one of the lowest tariff regimes for cars in the world. We have horticultural exports. We have defence exports. The northern suburbs exports a lot more than just cars. You should acknowledge that we are really the engine room for South Australia. We produce most of the wealth of the state and we do not get much credit for it. I remember that the Olsen government promised just before an election never to privatise electricity—of course, they did. Consumers in my electorate suffered price rises of up to 30 per cent.

Mr Ramsey interjecting—

That had a very big effect, and we can go back and debate the merits of privatisation and debt recovery versus higher prices and the like, but the one thing that was not done for the state by Country Liberals during that period was to provide any sort of universal service obligation on our electricity producers. It was forced on the federal Liberals by the National Party during the Telstra privatisation, but there was absolutely no attempt to look after country residents during the electricity privatisation. There was absolutely no attempt to make sure that in the future—10, 15, 20 years down the track—the provision of essential electricity infrastructure would be there for towns like Clare or Balaklava or even for areas closer to the city. In my electorate there are many country businesses which face significant costs to get connected to the grid, but no Country Liberal looked after them when the privatisation went through.

It is a very big problem for both parties, to be fair, but it is not something that is well talked about. It is not true to say that just the people of Coober Pedy or other towns affected by this particular subsidy program have been affected. Everybody outside the metropolitan area, and even some people in the outer suburbs, have been affected by the changes to our electricity network. I think that if the member for Grey were being a little bit more sincere he would acknowledge that fact and have a look at proposing that perhaps there should be a bit of cross-party lobbying for any future South Australian government to set up some obligations. As I said, I have constituents who burn $50,000 or $60,000 worth of diesel every year during vintage season. That is mainly because of privatisation issues.

Opposition members interjecting—

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left will cease interjecting!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have got to give me a chance to finish, Member for Grey. Obviously, no one likes to see subsidies withdrawn. The truth is: subsidies are pretty intoxicating. Governments of all persuasions need to be pretty careful about subsidies, because once they are in place they are very difficult to remove and very difficult to review. It is not a partisan thing; I think the whole body politic, perhaps, is a little enamoured of subsidies—the public is as well. We really have to run a much stronger public interest test across all of them before we introduce them. If we continue with the current view on subsidies—including those available under 'direct action', which would be an orgy of picking winners, an orgy of public money going to the private sector—if we are not very careful about this, if this and other parliaments around the country are not open and honest about the costs of such subsidies and apply a far more rigorous public interest test, the country will be poorer. For this reason, the South Australian government and its KPMG review should be applauded and not condemned. (Time expired)

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion which expresses concern about the South Australian government's decision to slash support for its remote areas energy scheme, which subsidises off-grid generation for isolated communities. I note the member for Wakefield is leaving before I have a chance to mention the subsidies that go into his electorate. I would have thought the member for Wakefield would have stood in total shoulder-to-shoulder support with the member for Grey, seeing as the industry in his electorate—he was not going to mention it, but I will mention it—the car industry, the General Motors Holden plant, is probably the most subsidised industry in Australia, and with very good reason. Where there is a need, industries should have support. You cannot choose between your children. You cannot say an industry in the seat of Wakefield, which absorbs billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in the forward estimates—

Mr Champion interjecting—

billions—trust me, I gave them the money, I know exactly how much they get. Mr Deputy Speaker, you cannot say the car industry in Wakefield is worthy of subsidies but the opal industry in Coober Pedy is not.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But there was reform as well.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to engage the member for Wakefield in a debate on the car industry. I suspect I know a little bit more about the economics of it than he does. If he wants to start, I am happy to accommodate him. What concerns me about the South Australian Remote Area Energy Supplies Scheme is that, at a time when we are seeing unprecedented rises in electricity prices around Australia, it will add 100 percent—perhaps 120 percent—to the cost of electricity for businesses in the regions in question. The member for Wakefield was quick to point out that households will not be affected, and don't we know that that is all that matters to the Labor Party! They are only ever worried about the vote; they are never worried about small business. The former Leader of the Labor Party put it simply when he said that the Labor Party was not a party that known to support small business, and isn't that the truth!

Government members interjecting—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're verballing him now. He's not even in the building anymore; he's not here to defend himself.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were his words; they were Kim Beazley's words. He said, 'The Labor Party is not a party of small business', and this is just another example of the Labor Party deserting business—in this case, in remote areas of South Australia.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe I should quote Black Jack McEwen to you.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought Black Jack actually supported industry in Australia.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He loved subsidies—don't worry about that!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He loved farmers.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In amongst the chaos coming from the other side, I am going to persist with the point that the Labor Party is now saying to small business in remote areas that they need to pay triple, if not quadruple, the price of electricity that people have to pay in the inner-city Adelaide suburbs that the member for Wakefield tends to talk exclusively about. People in regional and remote Australia are part of the wealth production of Australia. You cannot say, 'If you live in the city, you're a better wealth producer than if you live in the country.' I would suggest that the member for Wakefield, when he goes up to Coober Pedy, calls in on Olympic Dam on the way back and sees how much wealth is produced there. I suspect it is a little bit more than he gives them credit for.

The insidious nature of electricity price rises lies in the fact that there is very little that people can do to avoid using electricity. Those opposite suggest that people just turn off the lights, save electricity and be more efficient. But I suggest that the prices for electricity that people in remote areas are already paying means that they are exceptionally efficient with electricity; they do not leave extra lights on. The next thing those opposite will be saying is that those people should turn their air conditioners off, but I am sure that when the member for Wakefield takes up the member for Grey's invitation and travels up there on a moderately warm day of around 45 degrees he will be tonguing to walk into a room where the air conditioning is switched on. I suggest that the owners of that room put a little coin slot in the door so that the member for Wakefield can pay his share of what he thinks is fair to charge people in regional areas for electricity.

It is worth noting that in Western Australia the state government provides a subsidy to remote customers of around 20c per kilowatt hour. Even the Labor governments in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania see the value in doing this. I commend this motion to the House. (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grey brings into this House a motion whose subject is clearly the responsibility of the South Australian state government. I acknowledge that he acknowledged that, but his bringing into the House this motion clearly tells me that the member for Grey does not have confidence in his state parliament counterparts to raise the matter on behalf of the people of rural and regional Australia. He knows full well that this is a matter that they should be raising in state parliament, but I can well understand why he lacks confidence in his state colleagues in South Australia; having watched their performance over the last 12 months, I would lack confidence in them as well.

The member for Grey talks about a meeting on 15 May which he attended. I have no doubt that he accurately reflects the views of that meeting when he says that people who attended the meeting from the communities were concerned—I do not question that for a moment. But the fact is that Lyn Breuer, who is the state Labor member for the area, has also taken this issue up on behalf of her community. In doing so, she has brought about some changes to the proposal that was originally mooted. Ms Breuer, who is the member for Giles, which covers an area that is not much smaller than the electorate of Grey, has been able to bring about some significant changes to those parts of the original proposal that I suspect were the causes of the concern at the meetings that the member for Grey attended. The member for Grey said that Ms Breuer is speaking out but is not being listened to. I would like to quote from a press release from Ms Breuer on this very matter issued on 14 May:

I am pleased that the government has listened to the business operators in these remote areas and accepted that more time is required to adjust their use of power.

She went on to say:

This outcome provides greater certainty for job-creating businesses in our outback towns while still encouraging more efficient use of energy at a time when there is a great deal of upward pressure on the cost of generating electricity.

That is not quite the government response to Ms Breuer taking up this matter on behalf of her constituents that the member for Grey purports.

Any policy designed to increase energy efficiency in remote communities must include two critical elements. The first is a phased transition that allows business to adjust their structure over a period of time so that they can move towards greater energy efficiency without there being an immediate detrimental effect on their profitability. The second is to ensure that arrangements subsidise small and medium domestic users. Small to medium users have limited ways available to them to soften the impact of increased tariffs. Businesses have greater scope to find energy efficiencies if afforded the time to do so. Let us bear in mind that this subsidy has been in place for 15 years. It is not unreasonable, after 15 years, to review what has taken place. That is exactly what the minister has proposed.

I understand that the South Australian government has announced additional funding of $1.3 million to the department of transport, energy and infrastructure to enable the revised tariffs to general supply customers to be phased in over three financial years. I understand that there are some 2,600 customers across some 13 remote communities who will be affected by this proposal. The subsidy continues to focus on small to medium domestic customers—customers that use up to 8,000 kilowatts per annum. These customers will continue to pay no more than 10 per cent above the on-grid regulated standing contract tariff.

I understand that all general supply customers outside of Coober Pedy will now see increases of between five per cent and 15 per cent compared to pre March 2011 bills. In Coober Pedy, 90 per cent of general supply customers consume under 70,000 kilowatts per annum and will face increases of 10 per cent or less.

The state government has in fact announced a review into the subsidy program. I understand that as part of that review things like the grid connection fee, the energy efficiency measures, renewable energy and Synergy opportunities will all be looked at. It is responsible to do that after 15 years of having a subsidy scheme in operation. I believe that the state government is in fact responding responsibly to the concerns and managing the electricity needs of the region well. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on this motion today. Tobacco products have a negative impact on the health of Australians. There is significant evidence to suggest that the packet in particular—the creative design, branding and promotion of tobacco—influences nonsmokers to take up smoking. Tobacco smoking remains one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease among Australians, killing over 15,000 Australians every year and costing our economy close to $31.5 billion annually. Tobacco products can have a devastating impact on the lives of Australian smokers and their families, with smoking being the leading cause of cancer, accounting for approximately 20 to 30 per cent of all cancers. Both active and passive smoking increase the risk of lung cancer and a number of other life-threatening diseases, including cardiovascular disease, stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, cervical cancer, leukaemia and oral cancers. We also know that most Australian smokers regret ever having started smoking and have made at least one attempt to quit. It is for these important reasons that the Gillard Labor government is committed to decreasing smoking rates in Australia.

The motion before us today does acknowledge that there is significant, compelling evidence to suggest that creative design, branding and promotion of tobacco through packaging reduces the impact of graphic health warnings, increases the attractiveness of tobacco products for adolescents and misleads consumers to believe that some products are less harmful than others. A report prepared by Quit and the Cancer Council of Australia called Plain packaging of tobacco products: a review of the evidence draws on some 24 studies over two decades to show that the packaging of tobacco products is a very powerful marketing tool, particularly for recruiting new smokers. Studies have shown that health warnings are significantly more effective in causing the smoker to consider the health risks of their behaviour and to consider quitting when they appear against the background of a plain packet. The evidence suggests that innovative brand imagery works to defuse the impact of these serious messages that health warnings seek to communicate to customers. Furthermore, removing brand imagery means that there is more space available to increase the prominence of graphic health warnings.

It is also common knowledge that packaging is a highly effective marketing tool used to link particular brands with desirable attributes such as status, identity, values and style. A study conducted in 2009 revealed that removing brand elements such as colour, branded font and imagery from cigarette packets resulted in adolescent smokers seeing packs as less appealing, associating typical smokers of that brand of cigarette with less positive attributes and having negative expectations of cigarette quality and taste. Thus, plain packaging reduces the attractiveness of tobacco products for adolescents in particular.

There is also considerable evidence that unregulated packaging colour and imagery mislead consumers to believe that some tobacco products are less harmful than others. A study conducted in 2006 of 8,243 smokers in a number of countries, including Australia, found that smokers of gold, silver, blue or purple brands were more likely than smokers of either red or black brands to believe that their own brand might be less harmful. Researchers also conclude that removing colours, as well as terms such as 'smooth', 'gold' or 'silver', from cigarette packs would reduce these kinds of false beliefs.

It is important to acknowledge that there is strong evidence to support the view that plain packaging is an effective means of reducing smoking rates, and I am pleased the opposition have decided to get on board. I am sure we will hear from the opposition that there is no evidence and that this is just a fad that the Gillard government is going with. I ask them to seriously look at the Cancer Council's review of these studies, where there are good, peer-reviewed journal articles that support the positive impact that plain packaging can have against attractiveness of cigarettes and for the importance of communicating those health warnings.

It is this government that is committed to taking action to reduce smoking, and this motion, importantly, recognises the many reforms that this government has already implemented with the aim of reducing smoking and its harmful effects. On 1 January this government established the National Preventive Health Agency. There are a lot of things. I cannot go into all of them, but I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to join the debate and to add, perhaps, a healthy dose of reality to this whole debate and the motion before the House, because unfortunately this debate has been more about the government's political stunts than actually developing good public health policy. I acknowledge the member for Kingston and the comments she made in relation to the need to drive down the horrific toll that tobacco related products have on the health of our nation, and I certainly commend her for those comments and associate myself with those remarks. It is also worth noting that the coalition itself has a very proud history in reducing the smoking toll in this nation. The former Minister for Health and Ageing and now Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, was a critical player in increasing the size of the graphic warnings on cigarette packs and helping to drive down the rates of smoking in Australia. We do understand the need to drive down smoking rates, which is for the good of the individuals concerned and also for the overall health of the nation.

I just encourage the government in this place to ensure that the measures we take are evidence based and scientifically proven. I have some concerns that the measures we are talking about today and will be talking about in the near future fail both those tests. Also, while I have the opportunity to speak: I do not appreciate the way the Minister for Health and Ageing has gone about this. Her self-righteousness and the sanctimonious way she has tried to belittle members on this side of the House in relation to the whole issue of tobacco products I think reflects very poorly on her and reflects poorly on the position she holds in this chamber. If she really wanted to build some consensus on this issue, she would start engaging with us in a much more constructive manner, because there are people on this side of the House who are very passionate about reducing the rates of smoking. I think the minister has done herself a great disservice by trying to score some cheap political points when she should be focused on improving the health outcomes for the Australian people. There is a consensus, I believe, in this place to drive down smoking rates, and I urge the health minister to start engaging with us in a more constructive manner.

This motion claims that there is 'significant evidence' to suggest that plain packaging will work—that it will actually drive down the use of tobacco products. I have read a lot of the research that the member referred to and I have read the research material that the minister tabled in the House. It is fair to say that a lot of that evidence is inconclusive at best. It puts forward a range of hypotheses which I am afraid do not come up with a definite conclusion which is quite as convincing as the government would have us believe, so I have some significant doubts about where the government is trying to take us in that regard.

Having said that, I note that the problem the government has in this space is that we are talking about a legal product. I am uneasy about any attempts by a government to strip away the property rights of an individual or a company without any suggestion of any compensation. The concern there is always going to be about what is next. We know that high-fat, high-sugar foods are not necessarily good for us. Are we going to put plain-packaging bans on hamburgers? Is that where we are heading to with this nanny state type of regulation?

I make these comments in a constructive way, because I abhor smoking. My own father died from lung cancer. It is something that I personally feel very strongly about. But I am worried that the government is investing a lot of time and effort in a particular initiative without the evidence base or scientifically proven results that would be worth the expense and the effort of the path we are heading down.

My other key concern is that there is a real concern in the community that Australian taxpayers are being exposed to a potentially massive legal bill. I hope the minister is right when she reassures the Australian people that she has strong legal advice that her position is sound, but I am afraid that the past record of this government and its ineptitude give me no reason whatsoever to be reassured by the minister and her stated confidence on that issue.

There are also some very genuine concerns being put forward by the small-business sector. I do not think the government should be flippant in disregarding the concerns being put forward by these small-business operators. They have concerns about the productivity of their own enterprises, and they are facing really tough times in the small-business sector. They are also making the point that the cigarettes in many states are already behind screens. You cannot see them anyway, so their argument is: how does the plain packaging reduce the incidence of smoking in that regard? There is also a question about the practicalities of how you deal with that in a small-business environment. You need to turn your back on the customer for a longer period. The concern amongst small businesses is that they expose themselves to a security risk for an extra five or 10 seconds while sorting through for the brand they are trying to find when it is plain packaged. Those are legitimate concerns, and I think the government really should listen to the small-business sector and understand why they have such reservations about this issue.

I am not here to ridicule the government or to condemn the motion; I am simply saying that there are some unanswered questions and that I would like to see the government become more constructively engaged with the coalition on this issue. I think the government needs to consult more with the small-business sector, consult more with the coalition and people who are interested in finding some outcomes here, and actually give us some proof that this will work. Maybe a trial is a better way of introducing this particular legislation. (Time expired)

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is no surprise that we have a contribution like we have just had from the member for Gippsland, given that he is a member of a party that accepts donations from tobacco companies. When we are referring to the fact that we need evidence based research—

Mr Chester interjecting—

Mr Neumann interjecting—

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It is highly disorderly to interject!

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to refer everyone to the contribution that has just been made by the member who moved the motion here in the chamber. The other piece of information I would like to refer to in talking about the evidence base—which the member for Gippsland was so very upset about because his party does accept those political donations from tobacco companies—is that the Cancer Council is very supportive of this move and sees this as being very much evidence based. So you can take the words of the tobacco companies and say that it is not evidence based, or you can take the word of researchers and the Cancer Council. I know that when I stand up in this place I would much rather take the word of and look at the research that has been done by people who have training and qualifications in that area and of the Cancer Council than take the hearsay of the tobacco companies that have a long record of opposing any information getting out about the harm that tobacco does.

This legislation does not say: 'You can't smoke.' This legislation does say that there must be plain packaging of cigarettes and that the packages must have graphic health warnings. Why? The attractiveness of a packet leads to young people taking up smoking. The members on the other side may be supportive of more young people starting to smoke, but we on this side of the chamber believe that there should be a disincentive for people to smoke.

As I said earlier, it was in about 1602 that the first concerns were raised about smoking and this has continued right through until the 1950s and 1960s, when it was established that smoking was a major health risk. One of the things that really highlights where we are today is the response of the tobacco industry at that time. First of all they tried to say that nicotine was not addictive and that there was no link between cancer and smoking. The industry had recruited young people to smoke. Some of the things they did were horrendous. But, in 1998, thousands of previously confidential internal tobacco industry documents became public and revealed the extent of misconduct by the industry.

The campaign that is being waged at the moment is just a further example of misconduct by the industry. It is all about profit at the cost of health in our community. These documents revealed the extent of deceptions; attempts to manipulate scientific research; industry's attempts to create a debate on the health impacts of smoking, not including attacks on epidemiology and epidemiologists; recruiting young smokers, as I have already mentioned; marketing targeted at women, and at Asian and more disadvantaged, poorer communities—and there is a connection between poverty levels and socioeconomic factors and levels of smoking; efforts to influence national tobacco controls; industry efforts to influence national legislation; and campaigns to circumvent advertising bans. The thing that marks the tobacco industry's response to anything at all to curb the smoking rates is the fact that they oppose it. But the one thing that they are not doing is offering to put their hands in their pockets and pay— (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an issue that resonates deeply with me, and I commend the member for Kingston for her concerns. But I also associate myself with the remarks of the member for Gippsland, for the reservations that he has. My father, Lance, died of lung cancer aged 76, on the first day of spring in 2008, after a lifetime of smoking. His last words to my then 10-year-old son, Nicholas, were: 'Don't ever smoke.' To watch my father go downhill as the cancer took over his body is not something anyone wants their loved ones to have to endure. It is a cruel, torturous death.

Tobacco smoking is one of the largest preventable causes of disease and premature death in Australia. About 15,500 Australians die from smoking related illnesses each year. The coalition has always acted decisively while in government to address the prevalence of smoking. Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, played a significant role when he was minister for health, with graphic health warnings on cigarette packets in addition to other antismoking initiatives. As a result of these initiatives the prevalence of smoking in Australia declined to being amongst the lowest in the world. In fact, between 1998 and 2007 alone, smoking prevalence in people 14 years and older fell from 20.8 per cent to 16.6 per cent. The coalition continues to support sensible measures that actively discourage smoking—it has recently supported legislation to tighten electronic advertising restrictions—and for this reason we will not oppose the government's plain-packaging legislation but will seek to move amendments; sensible changes to make any laws more workable and more practicable.

While smoking is on the decline in Australia, it is still particularly concerning that almost 60,000 teenagers aged between 15 and 17 are regular smokers, and five per cent of 12- to 15-year-olds smoke. Unfortunately, and inexplicably, with all the warnings and education around, it seems the smoking take-up rate is higher amongst young girls than boys. Often these are well-informed girls from affluent families who know the damage smoking can do to them, yet they still decide to light up. It simply beggars belief. We need to learn what the underlying reasons for this are. I find it hard to believe that it is just to be cool, but as we all know, because we have all been there, peer pressure is a major influence on many adolescent decision-making thought processes. I believe more education is needed about smoking, both at secondary school and at primary school. We need to be better at getting through to children and teenagers the message about the obvious dangers that smoking poses to them, the long-term health complications of smoking and the fact that it will kill you before your time.

It also concerns me that in my electorate of Riverina it is not an uncommon sight in the main street of any city or town you care to visit to see pregnant women lighting up. It is not just a Riverina habit. Right across the country mothers-to-be continue to defy the health and welfare of their unborn babies, and themselves, by smoking. Despite the advertisements on TV and the graphic warnings advising of the risks smoking has to a baby, the addiction factor is so strong that they continue to smoke even though it is so harmful. We need to invest more into education of these women, too, and help them to kick the habit, through a QUIT program with the appropriate support required. Not only will these mothers require medical attention in the future, due to their smoking, but so too will their children, if they continue. It is a huge financial burden to the Australian taxpayer.

The health benefits of quitting smoking are tremendous. The human body is remarkably resilient. It begins to repair the damage from the very first day a smoker quits. Within eight hours the excess carbon monoxide is out of the bloodstream, within five days the nicotine has left the body and in three months lung function starts to improve. If a person quits at the age of 50 they halve the risk of smoking related death, but if a person quits at the age of 30 they avoid almost all of the excess risk, on average.

Education and support are vital to helping a smoker quit, but at the end of the day it is up to the individual to want to quit and then it is a matter of having the inner will power, or won't power, if you like, to do so. We cannot force someone to quit, but government should do all in its power to help educate against starting a practice that becomes a habit—a highly addictive and deadly one. Tobacco control is an important measure but we must tread carefully, because we also must not become a nanny state. No-one wants or needs that. We live in a democratic society for which brave men and women fought and died so that today we may have freedom of expression and freedom of choice.

It is important to remember that while a product is legally available for sale, it is legally available to buy and use. It worries me that this government, having pushed this legislation through, will move to do similar nanny-state legislation for alcohol products and possibly some food products that can cause obesity. Where do you start and where do you stop? This government, unfortunately, cannot be trusted and this is why there is so much scepticism from the general public towards everything this government does.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I congratulate the member for Kingston for bringing this private member's motion to this place. I think most of us know about the health impacts of smoking and passive smoking. We have heard for years all the findings and all the results so I do not think we need to review the science on this topic. I hope that, at least here, people are prepared to accept what scientists have put forward over many years—even if people feel a need to doubt the outcomes of scientific research in other areas of human inquiry. So I propose not to review the proposition that smoking is harmful.

The motion before us states there is significant evidence of the effects of tobacco packaging. A not insubstantial number of references are listed in the Cancer Council Victoria's publication of May 2011 entitled Plain packaging of tobacco products: a review of the evidence. The publication is available online at cancer.org.au. This publication cited the 1995 Canadian review of the role of tobacco packaging entitled When packages can't speak: possible impacts of plain and generic packaging of tobacco products. This review's conclusion pretty much sets the scene for all subsequent papers. I quote:

Plain and generic packaging of tobacco products, through its impact on image formation and retention, recall and recognition, knowledge, and consumer attitudes and perceived utilities, would likely depress the incidence of smoking uptake by non-smoking teens, and increase the incidence of smoking cessation by teen and adult smokers.

Since then, Canada has produced at least half a dozen papers: 'Plain packaging and other tobacco issues: a survey of grade 7 and grade 9 Ontario students',Institute for Social Research Newsletter, 1995; 'Impact of plain packaging of tobacco on youth perceptions and behaviour, Report of study 1', Health Management Associates, 1993; 'A study on youth smoking: plain packaging, health warnings, event marketing and price reductions', University of Toronto, 1995; 'The effect of plain packaging on response to health warnings', American Journal of Public Health; 1999; 'The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk', Journal of Public Health, 2009; and a very important one, 'Deadly in pink: the impact of cigarette packaging among young women', Tobacco Control, 2011.

Australian researchers have published: 'Smokers' and non-smokers' reactions to standard packaging of cigarettes', University of Western Australia, 1993; 'How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers' perceptions about brand image? An experimental study', Tobacco Control, 2008; and the list goes on. 'Adolescents' perceptions of cigarette brand image: does plain packaging make a difference?' Journal of Adolescent Health, 2009; and 'Effects of increasing size of health warnings on plain vs branded packs', Society for Research in Nicotine and Tobacco 17th Annual Meeting, Toronto, 2011. And New Zealand published 'Effects of dissuasive packaging on young adult smokers', Tobacco Control, 2010.

In my own literature search, I happened to find: 'Effects of dissuasive packaging on young adult smokers', by Hoek et al, October 2010, which concluded:

Plain packs that feature large graphic health warnings are significantly more likely to promote cessation among young adult smokers than fully or partially branded packs. The findings support the introduction of plain packaging and suggest use of unbranded package space to feature larger health warnings would further promote cessation.

The research is substantial. We have seen research that has been done for well over a decade on this particular issue. There is no escaping the reality that packaging itself positively markets tobacco, and that this marketing also detracts from our health warnings on that packaging.

Australians want neither pro-tobacco marketing nor nobbled health warnings. I note that even the opposition now, only now, agrees with us. I have had a number of constituents contact me as instructed by Big Tobacco, campaigning against the government's policy of plain packaging. Most have been fearful of the measure, but have not really been able to explain why. Other constituents support the policy. One wrote on 29 June:

The tobacco companies are asking us to contact our MPs regarding plain packets on tobacco. Anything the Government of any colour does to annoy and do down the tobacco lobby is OK with me, so go ahead.

I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In looking at this motion, I was immediately drawn to the opportunity to speak on the dangers of tobacco and cigarette use. I do not do so because of any personal experiences, fortunately. I have never smoked and I appreciate that avoiding the stuff rates as one of the best decisions that I ever made in my life. It helps, of course, that my parents did not smoke and that few of my friends at school smoked. My involvement in the highly arduous sport of rowing would have been completely undermined had I been a smoker. And the member from South Australia here is another good rower. It was the case that among those who did rowing there were very few who ever smoked. If they did, they did not go very far. Overall, I have never faced the peer group pressure that others have faced. I always saw smoking as a pointless venture.

I am speaking today because, like all members of this House, I want to see fewer Australians smoking and less demand on our health resources in the future. I am confident that my children will never smoke, and I want to keep it that way. I am keen to ensure that the children in Cowan do not take up this pastime, which will become an addiction for those who start. That is why I am increasingly including an antismoking message in the talks that I give in the schools in my electorate. Smoking represents an expensive avenue to life-threatening diseases, such as the cancers and other ailments described in this motion. There is no value in it and there are no benefits, and I am keen to reinforce that message wherever I go in Cowan.

I remember from my youth the catchy jingles of the smoking commercials, but I never felt influenced by them. My personal opposition to smoking was reinforced by the introduction of the graphic warnings on cigarette packets by the Howard government and which saw a cut in the number of smokers in this country. I am pleased to be on the side of politics that acted and got things done to improve health outcomes in this country.

This motion also speaks of 'significant evidence to suggest promotion of tobacco is achieved through branding, creative design and packaging'. I have read of the studies that constitute such evidence. There are opposing views on that evidence in the form of other studies. My personal approach here is that the removal of all copyrighted markings from packages exposes the taxpayers to a financial risk through litigation. I would therefore suggest that this can be overcome by allowing some strip of a brand to remain. I know that this government has had to clean up many messes before with the taxpayers' cash, but blundering in once more is not in the national interest.

Leaving that factor aside, I want to return to the realities of the situation. The first paragraph of this motion speaks of the diseases and the ailments that come from smoking. The graphic warnings show the outcomes of smoking and it is horrendous stuff indeed. But it begs the question, does it not, as the government and the minister repeatedly deliver the sermons on this evil, about the one action that everyone would see as the commitment to match the rhetoric: to actually ban tobacco. If this is so bad, why doesn't the government cut to the chase and introduce legislation to ban tobacco? There would be an instant result with massive health and budgetary benefits over time.

That would, of course, involve forgoing some $5 billion in excise, which would immediately disappear. That might be a reason for some part of this window dressing before us today, this illusion of a solution, this plan of smoke and mirrors. I therefore question the authenticity of the government on this matter. There has been much breast beating and rattling of sabres on this issue, and yet when it comes to a logical conclusion there does not seem to be the action that is required.

The priorities of this government and its instrumentalities are also wrong in regards to the approach to illicit drugs. As has been reported in the media, the National Drug Campaign website includes terminology and elements that are almost encouraging in relation to certain drugs. The website refers to heroin as producing a rush within minutes of taking it, leading to a feeling of warmth and contentment. It also says that heroin is also know to greatly reduce physical and psychological pain when taken. Cocaine is described on the website as producing an intense rush. Ice is described as producing a very intense rush. These are very disturbing descriptions. It does seem that the priorities should be shifted. I say that we should approach smoking with a very hard resolve. But we should also approach these other illicit drugs in the same manner: with a very hard resolve.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I will quote from two very timely documents. One is a letter from the Municipal Association of Victoria, indicating that its state council has endorsed this legislation on tobacco plain packaging and calling on all members of this parliament to support it. The other timely document is an article in today's Australian newspaper, citing a survey in relation to strokes in this country and the close correlation of strokes with socioeconomic circumstances. The article states:

PEOPLE living in deprived areas have a 70 per cent higher chance of suffering a stroke than those in wealthy suburbs.

It further notes:

Effective preventative measures in the more deprived areas of the community could substantially reduce rates of stroke.

It connects this socioeconomic reality of stroke prevalence to issues such as diabetes and smoking. It is not the first time that material from The George Institute for Global Health has come forward. Similarly, in the Australian Bureau of Statistics document Cardiovascular Disease in Australia: A Snapshot, 2004-05 we see similar references to the connection between, on the one hand, tobacco smoking, socioeconomic deprivation, uptake of smoking and, on the other hand, these health problems.

The previous speaker, the member for Cowan, put forward the proposition that if you do not ban cigarettes then you are not genuine about trying to do something about prevention. Prohibition of alcohol in the United States may have surrendered the Scotch market from Irish manufacturers to Scottish manufacturers and might have assisted organised crime, but I doubt whether it accomplished very much else. The reality was that it was driven underground and alcohol was available. Quite frankly, I believe that this measure, which follows a series of measures such as increased tobacco taxes, the introduction of smoke-free environments, stricter enforcement on the sale of tobacco to minors, regulations relating to public areas and tobacco-marketing restrictions is the solution.

As I said, the previous speaker joins a series of other coalition speakers who, on the one hand, have come in here and said: 'Yes, we disagree with smoking. It's dreadful and I'm against it. I give lectures in my electorate, and we're now going to go along with the government,' but, on the other hand, have come in here and quibbled about plain packaging. They put forward the proposition that the government cannot be trusted. I would say that we have more reasons to doubt the tobacco industry than this government.

An interesting article from Britain, which appeared in TheGuardian Weekly last week, referred to Robert Proctor, of Stanford University, and his term 'agnotology'. He was referring to the tobacco industry's expenditure on very worthwhile research. The article reads:

"It is less well known, but tobacco companies also spent large amounts subsidising good quality biomedical research in fields such as virology, genetics and immunology. They funded the work of several Nobel prize winners," Proctor says. "But they only encouraged this research to serve as a distraction. The idea was to build up a corpus of work on possible causes of diseases which could be attributed to cigarette-smoking.

In other words, this industry, which has a need to sell cigarettes and tobacco and promote them, seems to be doing this interesting research—left field funding it—with regard to other possibilities for various medical problems. The whole aim of the measure is to put a wealth of information out there so that people then think, 'My problem may not be caused by tobacco smoking.' That article also referred to a famous internal memo issued by the US cigarette manufacturer Brown and Williamson, which bluntly said, 'Doubt is our product'.

A series of people are coming here today, with the proposition that the government is not genuine about this endeavour. I say that most people, on both sides of politics, who have any interest in this field would genuinely seek to undermine the industry. In the case of plain packaging of tobacco products, Freeman, Chapman and Rimmer stated:

While the research body on the effects of plain packaging is small and necessarily experimental, industry candour in internal documents and trade literature shows that tobacco product packaging is seen by the industry to be a persuasive form of advertising. Plain packaging legislation remains an important but curiously under-explored part of comprehensive tobacco control legislation designed to eliminate all forms of tobacco advertising and promotion. Given the near universal appropriation by governments of sometimes substantial parts of tobacco packaging for health warnings, and the failure of any company to ever succeed in finally resisting this appropriation or in being compensated for any loss of trade predicted by the industry, the failure of international tobacco control to advance plain packaging is all the more remarkable.

They further commented:

While the industry promotes an unattainable high standard of proof for research showing that plain packaging would reduce smoking, they do not hold this same high standard with their own position that packaging only effects market share and only serves to encourage brand switching among adults.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to commend the member for Kingston for bringing this motion forward and for the opportunity to outline the Liberal and National parties' position on tobacco control. I would like to first put on record the proven track record of the coalition with regard to reducing smoking rates in Australia. It was the Fraser government in 1976 that first banned cigarette advertising. In 1998, the Howard government reformed cigarette taxation from a weight basis to a per stick basis, a recommendation of many health organisations at the time: ASH, the Cancer Council, as well as all of the health peak bodies. It was the Howard government, and Tony Abbott as health minister, who introduced the graphic health warnings on cigarette packets in 2006. And it was the coalition who first proposed an increase in the tobacco excise in 2009—a measure later adopted by the government. Under the coalition government, the rates of smoking in Australia declined from 21.5 per cent in 1998 to 16.6 per cent in 2007. This is one of the lowest rates of smoking in the world. The decline in smoking rates between 1989 and 2007, a fall of 40 per cent for men and 44 per cent for women, was amongst the biggest in the OECD. This fall in smoking for women was the biggest in the world.

Even though these falls are significant, and we do have one of the lowest rates of smoking in the world, there is no cause for complacency. It is worth noting that several European countries over this time frame saw increases in the smoking rates and some, such as Greece, saw substantial increases in smoking rates, especially amongst women. It should be a national goal to ensure that smoking rates for adult Australians fall below 10 per cent. This has been a bipartisan position for a long time and one of the disgusting and despicable aspects of this debate has been the way the Minister for Health and Ageing has sought to politicise the issues surrounding tobacco control for her own political gain rather than taking an approach where the country's health interests are the core focus. If she had only spent 10 per cent of the time that she spent talking about the Liberal Party and what it should do and how it should interact with the tobacco companies and actually got on with it, we would be in a much better position today.

Let us remember that the idea of plain packaging was first suggested by the National Preventative Health Taskforce on 30 June 2009. It is more than two years later and the parliament has been given no opportunity to vote on the legislation. And it is not as if the last two years have been taken up with extensive consultation with stakeholders. The department has revealed at estimates that the consultation they consider was done by the Preventative Health Task Force, so the minister and the government have not been out there talking to small business and talking to the various stakeholders about this move. As I said before, the minister has had a lot to say about the Liberal Party and what it should do rather than getting on with actually doing something.

I have looked at the research on the effects of plain packaging and the effects of graphic health warnings on consumer choice and behaviours. There is no doubt that increasing the size of graphic health warnings will reduce the rates of smoking. There is no doubt that reducing the size and locations of branding will also have an impact. But my reading of the research is that the increasing of the graphic health warning from 30 per cent to 70 per cent on the front of the packets will be the most effective measure any government could take, and it is one the government could have taken two years ago. The impact of plain packaging I think will be quite marginal after that. These measures will help to reduce the incidence of new people taking up smoking and will also help those people who are thinking about quitting to ditch the packet for good. There is no silver bullet to reduce the rate of smoking in Australia. This is but one tool in the armoury in the push to reduce the rates of smoking in the community.

The Leader of the Opposition has said that the Liberal and National parties will be moving amendments when we do finally see the plain packaging legislation to make it more practical. If those amendments are not successful, we will not be opposing the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill as the Liberal and National parties do support practical measures to reduce the rates of smoking in Australia. As I said before, it is a worthy goal for us to aim to have not just the third lowest rate of smoking in the world but the lowest rate and rates below 10 per cent.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion relates to the Gillard government's poor response to complaints about fraud in the Home Insulation Program. I moved this motion in response to, first of all, the appallingly dismissive attitude shown by this government to individual Australians whose homes and apartments have been used to perpetrate fraud under the Home Insulation Program; and, secondly, the failure of the government to provide information to the Australian public generally about instances of fraud under the Home Insulation Program and how cases are being investigated and prosecuted. The Rudd-Gillard government's Home Insulation Program has been a catalogue of maladministration and mismanagement from start to finish. The government, I am sad to say, is maintaining this sorry record of inadequate performance in the way it is attempting to clean up the mess.

Let me therefore outline the unhappy experiences of a number of my constituents in this matter and the conspicuous lack of assistance which they have received from the Gillard government in response. Let me start with the case of Mr Peter Napper, who is chairperson of the body corporate of an apartment complex in Hornsby. Mr Napper received notification from the government that a claim for insulation had been made against the property. However, no authorisation of the installation of insulation had been given by the body corporate. On investigation, it became apparent that the complex had been broken into and that cheap foil insulation had been scattered in the ceilings of a number of apartments in the complex. Significant damage was done in the course of the break-in, in the order of $3½ thousand. Accordingly, after Mr Napper raised his concerns with me, I wrote to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, in early October 2010 seeking assistance in getting a proper inspection of the premises and to ensure that the apparent fraud and trespass were investigated. I received a response from the parliamentary secretary to the minister, well known to my colleague the member for Higgins, on 25 November 2010. In his response he said that three inspections had occurred and more were to be arranged. Subsequent inspections occurred and the foil was removed from the ceilings.

As to the investigations for fraud, let me quote from the parliamentary secretary's letter: 'The information provided by Mr Napper in relation to the way in which the insulation came to be installed at the complex has been referred to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency under the program compliance and audit strategy for further investigation. While the government may not advise Mr Napper of the final outcome of this referral, please be assured that the Australian government will not tolerate fraudulent conduct.' No, thank you very much; we will not be assured. We want to see the evidence, and that is why I have moved this motion.

The letter indicates that 'cases of fraud will be referred to the Australian Federal Police or other authorities for potential prosecution,' but let me repeat: outrageously, Mr Napper is told by the government that he may never be advised of the final outcome of his referral. He is told that he and his affected unit holders may never find out what happened—whether an investigation occurred, whether anybody was charged and prosecuted, whether restitution is sought. None of this is occurring as you would ordinarily expect, and that is very unfortunate. Indeed, extraordinarily, Mr Napper has not yet been interviewed. Nobody has sought to interview him or other residents regarding this issue. The owners are left in the dark. All they are left with is an extra $800 strata levy each to pay for the damage.

Let me turn to the second case, concerning Mr Ray Black, who is a member of the executive committee of a strata complex in Turramurra. His name and signature were used by claimants who can only be assumed to be fraudulent claimants. He advises me his signature was forged, and the assumption is that it was obtained from the notice board in the complex. Mr Black reported the matter to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. He was told, in the now familiar refrain, that they may not get back to him. I have written to the minister asking for full details of how this matter is to be investigated. I have yet to receive a response. Once again, this shows a scandalous disregard for the legitimate interests of persons whose homes have been broken into and taxpayers who have been responsible for paying for this whole sorry mess.

Let me turn to a third area of known problems under the Home Insulation Program: phantom insulations, where installers have claimed for a non-existent house or for work not carried out. I have been assisting Dr and Mrs Nelson of Killara—no relations, I hasten to add, to my predecessor as the member for Bradfield—who received a letter from the department indicating that a claim had been made against their property when in fact no installation had occurred. I know this myself because I have personally investigated the cavity space in their attic and, although I may be a lawyer and not a qualified installer, I can tell when pink batts have been there for over 20 years.

Dr and Mrs Nelson wrote to me, and they said: 'We would particularly like to be advised as to what the Australian government intends to do, if anything, about the recovery of all this money obtained fraudulently and if they intend to pursue and prosecute the persons or companies involved.' I am very sorry to have to say to my constituents that—while they may want to know that—sadly, the Rudd-Gillard government does not want to tell them that. I wrote to the minister on their behalf in April 2010. Response: shrieks of silence. I heard absolutely nothing. I was required to write a follow-up letter, which I did six months later. When did I receive a response? March 2011—a dazzling performance from the parliamentary secretary! And what did the response say? You guessed it: 'Even after completion, the details of investigative activities will normally remain confidential.' So, once again, we have the sorry saga that Australian households are to be kept in the dark about whether fraud investigations involving their own homes have occurred at all and, if the investigations have occurred, what the outcomes are and whether restitution is being sought.

The situation experienced by my constituents more than justifies the action proposed in this motion that the parliament should condemn the Rudd-Gillard government for showing disregard for the interests of Australian householders. This motion also requires the government to provide information to homeowners whose properties have been used to perpetrate fraud. I need hardly remind the chamber that fraud has been perpetrated in myriad ways under the Home Insulation Program, as has been detailed in both the Hawke review and the Auditor-General's review, including early claiming; claiming the maximum rebate irrespective of dwelling size; claiming for dwellings that do not meet the program criteria; households double-dipping between Commonwealth and state or territory programs; removing older insulation to make the customer appear eligible; use of non-compliant materials; and batts being cut in half to spread them further or thrown into the roof without being laid properly.

After my constituents and I failed to get satisfactory answers in the cases I have instanced, I followed up this matter by asking the minister a detailed question on notice seeking information about the Home Insulation Program, including how the government was seeking information about fraud; how many claims of fraud had been received; what the outcomes of investigations had been; what prosecutions had taken place; what claims of restitution had been made and what information was being made available to homeowners who made claims of fraud. The minister failed to answer the questions. He merely referred to his public statement that a forensic audit had taken place. This is nothing more than a whitewash. We have no detailed information. The Australian people deserve to have full answers to these questions. They deserve to know the full scale of this fraud which, need I remind the chamber, they are paying for. We hear from the government that it 'will not tolerate fraudulent conduct'. Let us see the proof.

Let us come to the final point: there is very little information provided about the scope of the forensic audit that was conducted. Yet there is evidence that there are more issues which remain uninvestigated. Just last week, a constituent contacted me with concerns about yet another apartment complex in Hornsby where, on first investigation, it appears that there is a significant problem. Therefore, based upon these instances in my own electorate, which I know are replicated in many other electorates, the coalition believes that the government needs to be much more thorough in its investigation of the fraud which has occurred in the housing insulation program. For that reason, this motion also calls on the government to immediately authorise an additional 50,000 random home inspections from within allocated funds. We need to see some action from this government. It is not good enough to assure us that they will not tolerate fraud—we need to see the proof, because my constituents and many other Australians are suffering and we need to have some assurance that this is being investigated.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I have regard for the member for Bradfield and while I seek to provide detail that would demonstrate that regard through the course of this speech, I do take exception to some of the references that he made in his contribution today—namely, claiming that we have been dismissive in relation to this issue when the detail in this speech will clearly demonstrate otherwise. I have to confess to having a sense of deja vu as I stand here before you today to speak against the opposition's latest motion on the Home Insulation Program, because it seems that not very long ago I was before the House arguing against a similarly inane and vexatious motion. It was only when I checked Hansard this morning that I realised it was on 23 May this year that I delivered that speech—only six weeks ago. Even by their standards, this latest attempt by the coalition to score cheap political points out of the program is both bizarre and outrageous.

The House may wish to reflect that on 23 May we debated a bill proposed by the member for Flinders to initiate a commission of inquiry into the Home Insulation Program. This was despite the fact that the government had supported a number of independent inquiries into the program itself and accepted their findings. The bill was put to the vote on 2 June and was not supported by the House. This should have been the end of the matter. The House had repudiated a petty, cheap and political point-scoring exercise, and the government should have been left alone once and for all to manage the difficult processes involved in the closure of the program. But now, six weeks later, we are here again once more debating issues that House has already considered. But why should we be surprised? The coalition has excellent form in hijacking the good work being done in closing down the program by trying to distract the government with vexatious motions and bills.

As I mentioned in my last speech, in November last year the opposition tried to derail the government's safety inspection programs by forcing us to prematurely release information on safety inspection results—again, a petty performance by the opposition, particularly when the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, had offered the member for Flinders a private briefing on the inspection results. That motion, like the bill on 2 June this year, was defeated in the House.

So what is the opposition's latest revelation about the Home Insulation Program? This time they claim they have broken a major story by revealing that fraud was committed under the program. As we have said a number of times, there were significant issues in the design and implementation phases of the Home Insulation Program—we have never denied the fact, particularly when it comes to fraud. The government has long accepted that unscrupulous operators defrauded the program. This particularly involved what has been termed 'phantom installations', in which fraud could have been committed by registered installers claiming payment for installations not actually undertaken. The government has also been concerned that some operators have not fulfilled their obligations under the terms and conditions of the program in completing a proper and compliant installation.

These are issues that have appalled the government, and we take the need to investigate them very seriously, but we do not need a frivolous motion from the opposition to remind us of that. In his speech in March last year, Minister Combet said that one of his five key objectives in winding down the Home Insulation Program was to identify and put in place processes to deal with issues of noncompliance and fraud. He also said he would rigorously pursue those individuals and companies engaged in this behaviour. That is why he moved quickly to request an Auditor-General's investigation into the program in early March last year. Minister Combet also supported the engagement of a forensic auditor to investigate how fraud was perpetrated under the program. KPMG's forensic accounting was crucial in identifying how fraud was committed under the program, and this involved careful and painstaking analysis over a number of months. Concurrently, a fraud categorisation model was developed to ensure that all cases of fraud were investigated and dealt with properly. As a result of all this had and crucial work, a number of activities were undertaken on 2 March this year aimed at targeting those who had already allegedly committed serious fraud under the program. This involved a joint operation between the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in which 35 search warrants were executed across three states. Also, the department launched a comprehensive debt recovery program aimed at recovering all the debt owed from fraudulent and non-compliant activities.

What I have just described is a focused and intensive process undertaken by a range of organisations to tackle fraud under the program. I am not sure how the opposition thinks that it can contribute in assisting these organisations in such complex work by moving this motion and by the other stunts they have moved. What is to be gained in the pursuit of these unscrupulous operators by the House passing this motion? Is the opposition suggesting for one minute that, despite the processes I have just outlined, we are not taking the issue seriously?

I would like to make some key points about how fraud and noncompliance under the program is dealt with by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. First, I would reassure all members of the House that all complaints received by the department are taken seriously. When allegations of fraud or serious noncompliance are received, an initial review is conducted to consider the specific allegation and the track record of the insulation business concerned, to assess the matter fully and determine the most appropriate course of action. Depending on the result of that review, the most appropriate course of action may include compliance action or referring it to a law enforcement agency for investigating alleged fraud against the Commonwealth. It is not the policy of the department, and I imagine not that of too many people who investigate fraud of this nature, to provide feedback or process midstream to complainants on the status of matters undergoing compliance or investigation, because, frankly, inappropriate release of that information would jeopardise a successful potential prosecution. Similarly, media and public inquiries in regard to investigations have not been responded to in detail because, again, inappropriate release would prejudice future action.

We have maintained a consistent line throughout this process over the last 16 months, not because we are trying to hide something but because we are trying to ensure that nothing compromises the hard work being done to track down those who have committed fraud or noncompliance. But the opposition want us to continually jeopardise the effort by demanding that we release specific information about fraud, which we are simply not in a position to do in some cases because it would be counterproductive.

And what is the motivation for it? Is it contributing effectively to the process? No. All it wants to do is grandstand and breathe some sort of life into the corpse of a political stunt whose spirit has well and truly left the building. They have no regard for the impact that this has on the hard work many people have undertaken over the last year to bring these unscrupulous operators to account.

The motion also calls for the government to immediately authorise an additional 50,000 random home inspections from within allocated funds. The major statement we released on 20 April on safety inspections provided a strategy for closing down the programs, so what is the point of going through additional investigations?

I reiterate some of the points of the strategy that I made in my speech on 23 May. Safety has always been the main priority of the government in remediating the Home Insulation Program. Accordingly, we have established comprehensive safety inspection plans for both foil and non-foil installed under the program. In the Foil Insulation Safety Program all those householders were offered safety inspections, with the option of having the insulation removed, or, on the advice of a licensed electrician, safety switches would be installed. Under the Home Insulation Safety Program the government committed to inspect a minimum of 150,000 households insulated with non-foil insulation. Those were targeted based on risk assessment. On top of that, based on independent analysis from the CSIRO and from Booz and Company, the government will conclude both the HISP and FISP on completion of the committed inspections, which means the government will continue to undertake targeted inspections until a minimum of 150,000 is reached.

The government will also finalise all inspections under FISP, noting that there are still a number of households with foil that have either refused an inspection or have not been contactable, despite repeated efforts. To provide an extra level of reassurance to those households the government will continue to offer inspections to households that want them, until June next year. The government has committed to providing an independent analysis of the program and will release details of the inspection results. We publicly released this information on 20 April. So, clearly, we have gone to great lengths to try to be transparent on the matter and demonstrate steps being taken to remedy the situation. Once again, the opposition is demanding we throw this advice out and that we commit to further inspections simply for cheap political point scoring, wasting the parliament's time and scaring the public. It is about time those opposite dropped the stance and let us get on with our work.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In debates like these, where both arguments appear to be running in parallel, it is important to remember exactly why we come here, and that is to spend taxpayers' money effectively. Where government has made a very significant concession that this money was not expended effectively, I think, as a government, we want to do everything possible to (a) ensure it does not happen again and (b) actually identify where the money was very poorly spent and take action where people abused the program.

At the moment the case has been made by the member for Chifley that it is both inane and vexatious to further question this program simply because a motion has previously been voted down on this matter. With the greatest respect, the motion pertained to the very efforts that this government has made to examine and remediate the damage done by this program. With the greatest respect to those efforts, they still only comprise between five and 10 per cent of the dwellings that have been insulated. As anyone would know in any community around Australia, in many cases this program was manipulated, if not fraudulently abused, by operators around the country where they had an opportunity to do so.

I think the great blockage here is: the further you dig, the worse it gets—and that is why this government wants to skim over this as quickly as possible. Never forget that there are people in Australia who right now have suffered damage, as the previous speaker, the member for Bradfield, has pointed out, to their homes that has not been repaired. There are people who have had foil insulation ripped out and not replaced, so not only have they had the inconvenience of having the foil placed in their homes and then removed but there was nothing in this program to actually insulate the home as we promised we would do as a government. So they are left without insulation completely, which may not bother the government greatly but it does bother both my and the Deputy Speaker's constituents, who live in subtropical environments and would like to have accrued some benefit from this $3.2 billion program.

Of course, let's remember why we embarked on this in the first place: it was to reduce carbon emissions. Ultimately, it was about abatement, wasn't it, even though we have long forgotten that now. This was about abating 12 to 13.1 megatonnes of carbon and it came at a price between $50 and $90 per tonne abated, which in any recent economics makes it an absolutely unsupportable program had we looked at it purely in economic terms. You are really left with the ultimate effort then, which was how to quickly disburse money to act against the global financial crisis. The former Prime Minister will be remembered for more than any other achievement, bar probably his apology to Indigenous Australians, for the insulation program—not only the diabolical mess that it was but the diabolical efforts that have been made to clean it up. It is not enough for the member for Chifley to simply say, 'We've carried out 35 search warrants. Surely, we're getting to the bottom of it now.' The reality is that ordinary Australians, just like the opposition, know the further you dig the more you find; and the more you find the more there is an opportunity to ameliorate and fix the mess but the more embarrassing it is for the government. We do not do this because we have nothing better to do in this place than embarrass the government; we do it because Australians have been ripped off and because money has been sequestered for no good reason other than on the pretext of having signed off on a poorly designed program.

It raises this issue once again: do we expect too much of our federal departments? The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is a very small department. It is not well-resourced but we ask of it to do a job of Centrelink proportions to be able to run a program like this. It shows a certain overambition around federal government programs and we hope this current administration has learnt from its own predecessor: there are some jobs that are just too complex and require too great an intervention to be done effectively by a small department. Whether you measure it in abatement—in what we got for the dollars—in the tragic house fires or in the efforts to remediate it, we have now expended most of the money in this program trying to fix up the mess it created and we are still only 10 per cent of the way there. To set a bar of 150,000 households is to presume that the other two-point-something million do not have a problem. Surely the result of an investigation should be: where we find fault, let's continue to investigate it. If it had found no problems after auditing 150,000 households we would understand that a government might stop, but this has simply dug up more and more disaster. Whether it is phantom insulation or trespass insulation, whether it is double insulation or whatever, this government has an obligation to fix up its mess. It is quite okay to talk about a million dollars here or there from your predecessors on this side of the House when in government, but the enormous multibillion dollar waste is something that will be remembered—no, inscribed as an epitaph on the tombstone of this government when it finally falls—along with the massive inefficiency and the massive misunderstanding of how to spend taxpayers' money effectively.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion before the House gives us the opportunity to update the House on where we are at with fraud and compliance activities in relation to this important program. Unfortunately, when we read the motion before the House, we see that it is all about the political interest. It has absolutely nothing to do with the public interest. If those who brought the motion to this House were truly interested in prosecution rather than publicity, if they were interested in an outcome rather than a headline, then they would have chosen a different course of action.

The government is actively pursuing businesses that have not complied with the terms and conditions of the Home Insulation Program. We are currently holding over 20,000 claims, with a value of approximately $24½ million. Of these, around 6,500 claims were submitted by businesses that are under investigation for fraud. Compliance reviews for Home Insulation Program installers draw on a range of information. Some of those sources of information were alluded to by the member for Bradfield earlier today as he spoke to his motion. They include roof inspection reports, desktop audits, complaints from households and information from third parties.

The government has committed to work with the police and other law enforcement agencies across all jurisdictions to deal with cases of serious noncompliance and fraud. In March 2011, following detailed investigations by the department, the Federal Police simultaneously executed 35 search warrants across three states—New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria—and 25 businesses and individuals who were suspected of having acted fraudulently under the Home Insulation Program were targeted.

Also in March 2011, under its debt recovery program, the department issued a number of letters of demand to businesses registered under the Home Insulation Program as well as to those who received assistance under the Insulation Industry Assistance Package and who were later found to have been ineligible for such assistance. Businesses that are sent letters of demand will previously have received a non-compliance notification and were provided with an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with HIP requirements, except where correspondence was issued in relation to 'voluntary repayments' or where businesses were advised of an administrative error on the part of the department. Businesses are generally given 14 days from the date of the non-compliance notification to provide evidence to the department in relation to the installations listed in the letter.

The department has arrangements in place in relation to fraud and investigations as well. The Federal Police has provided an outposted agent to the department to assist with the review of cases. Any matters subsequently referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation are assessed individually according to the AFP's internal guidelines. The government is acting on allegations of fraudulent activity received from external sources such as members of the public, emergency service organisations and others. Major matters are referred to the AFP. To date the department has referred several matters. As the associated investigations are ongoing, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further on these cases in this place. As I have already said, we on this side of the House are more interested in prosecution of cases of fraud than in making a hullabaloo in this place for nothing other than a politically motivated headline. We will continue to prosecute the investigation in a fraud investigation process and take these matters through the court. It is our intention to ensure that, where funds have been claimed by those who are ineligible for those funds, or where fraud has occurred, we will pursue those matters vigorously to ensure that no taxpayers' money is expended when those who have received that money are not entitled to it. I recommend that the House reject this motion.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is very revealing that neither the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency nor the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency have decided to front up today to justify and explain the Home Insulation Program and their lack of accountability for this program. I listened very carefully to the speeches delivered by the member for Throsby and, before him, the member for Chifley. There was a common thread in those speeches. The member for Chifley in particular talked about how this motion was a stunt, how it was petty to bring it forward and how it was frivolous. This is an absolutely outrageous thing for the government to say. We know that the government does not like to be held to account, particularly for programs that it has designed and implemented.

What this motion asks for today is a measure of accountability for the program that this government has brought into effect. There can be no better way of looking at it than looking at the examples that exist in our electorates. I will talk specifically of an example in my electorate of Higgins involving Ms Felicity Kiddle. She is an elderly resident who was approached by an insulation installer who knocked on her door and told her about the government's offer. The installer assured her that they were registered with the government and that there would not be any problem with installing insulation. They installed that insulation on 9 December but only installed a fraction of the insulation required by simply laying it over the manhole in her ceiling to make it appear as though the entire installation had been covered. The company received the full payment from the government of $1,200. It was only later that Ms Kiddle discovered this fraud. It was not until a professional plumber entered her roof for an unrelated matter that the insulation job was found to be incomplete.

Ms Kiddle was very concerned about this. She was concerned not only about the potential safety implications of a job that was not properly done but for the Australian taxpayer—that a bill had been paid for a job that was not properly completed. She did what any right-thinking constituent would do and contacted the hotline. The response that she got from this hotline was that she could fill in a form from Consumer Affairs Victoria if she was not satisfied with the work and if she wanted an inspection done she could pay for that herself. This belies a very important fact. We are not simply talking about not being happy with a job that had been done. It is much more serious than that. It is that the job itself had not been done, which is fraud. It was a phantom job, and yet it was paid for by the Australian taxpayer.

I did what any responsible member of parliament would do and I wrote to the minister. I explained this fact to the minister but I have not received one more piece of information about what the government has done to try and rectify this fraud. It is always left in the hands of the constituent to solve a problem of the government's creation. It is simply not good enough. It is not good enough that the government refuses to be held to account for a problem that it has created. It is not just this issue that it refuses to be held to account for but, more broadly, issues to do with the safety inspection scheme itself. I have another constituent who suffered the very traumatic experience of having part of his ceiling collapse. It collapsed one night at one o'clock in the morning. He had a safety inspection performed. That safety inspection said that there was no fault in the structural integrity of the ceiling. But when the evidence came back to us from the parliamentary secretary, he simply referred to the electrical safety aspect of the program. So it is not clear that the safety inspection programs that are being conducted are going to the core issues that have been raised by the residents, whether they be in relation to fraud or to the structural integrity of the job that has been done.

This program has cost the Australian taxpayer over $1.7 billion in addition to destroying homes and, unfortunately, destroying four young lives. The government should be held to account. It is not improper for us to hold the government to account. We will continue to do this.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I read carefully the motion that has been put before the House. I commend the member for Throsby and the member Chifley for their examination of and their detailed response to the government's actions in relation to the home insulation scheme.

One of the things that draw my attention was in fact that this motion calls on the government to give details of alleged fraud, to give details of cases that have been investigated and to give details about prosecutions in train. We have a longstanding convention called the sub judice convention in Australian parliaments. Members can debate on many topics freely in the chamber. But there is an unwritten rule that they do not debate current court cases as that would prejudice such cases. This includes debates on what might happen in court or things that would undermine confidence in the legal system or judges in particular. In the national parliament, members are entitled to talk freely about not just local constituency issues or national issues but international issues. But one of the things that we should not do is talk about cases that are currently on foot or current investigations or prosecutions.

Parliament is the people's place, but if you want to talk about waste—and the coalition talks about waste a lot—what a waste this motion is. It is a waste of time, because, as the member for Throsby and the member for Chifley talked about before, these things have been debated in this chamber on many occasions. But this motion is typical of the coalition. It contains wording that once shows the coalition's scant regard for the legal process, legal protections or legal presumptions. This motion is partisan nonsense. It is not about getting the fraudsters, which the Australian public and this government wants. The opposition do not want that. They want to talk about their own naked political interests. They do not want to talk about the national interest at all.

We do not by actions nor by words prejudice the time and effort put in by prosecutorial authorities. We do not prejudice the rights of the accused. We do not prejudice the taxpayer funds tied up in the effective operation and management of our legal system. It costs a lot of money to be involved in court cases. When I was a lawyer, I was involved in lots of court cases that were delayed, adjourned or abandoned for a variety of reasons. I saw and witnessed the time, effort, energy and money involved and the impact on not just those on one side of the aisle but those on the other—clients of mine as well as those people who were charging them or bringing civil actions against them.

The coalition should have a good look at itself for bringing forward motions like this. This is not about getting to the bottom of getting to the home insulation problems in this country. What they are doing is creating fear. I have a genuine fear that they will prejudice ongoing investigations.

The government, in a major statement on 3 March this year, clearly advised that it was unable to comment on issues relating to fraud investigations that were currently being conducted by the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. That was appropriate. It is a good and sound legal principle. But the coalition has always said one thing and done another when it comes to legal processes, legal protections and human rights. They pose and parade and prance about on these issues, but their record with respect to them is very poor.

This motion calls for inspections to be carried out that are unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious. What a waste of time. This is a political attack, pure and simple. They have dressed it up in fine words, but we all know what it is about. We have debated this before during private member's business in the House. As the member for Chifley correctly pointed out, we have rejected these types of things before. But like Banquo's ghost in Macbeth, back it comes. They cannot let this go. They do not want to let the DPP, the AFP or the department carry out their necessary work. That work follows independent advice from the CSIRO and the international risk analysis firm Booz & Co. We have agreed to initiate programs such that 150,000 homes with non-foil insulation will be inspected and necessary corrections carried out. We agreed to do this because we follow independent advice from the experts. Those people opposite should have a good look at themselves. Do not waste taxpayer money. Do not waste the parliament's time. And do not create the risk by continuing to put forward motions like this of prejudicing the legal process and the fraud investigations. Get with the program. Support us in getting the fraudsters.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:3 6 to 16:00

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, which seeks to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to extend the existing funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements, for the 2013 calendar year. Initiatives included are the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Sporting Chance Program. A similar bill entitled the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill 2010 was debated and passed last year and assented to on 29 June 2010. The bill provided a 12-month extension to program funding in order to align the funding with other school program funding periods.

The Sporting Chance Program and the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program are two initiatives of the previous coalition government that have been continued by the Labor government. Both programs have achieved success in both retaining students in school and increasing their participation and success rates. But Labor have not committed to long-term funding for these initiatives. Instead they have simply provided a 12-month extension in the last two budgets. This extension is described as being necessary to allow for the completion and release of the review of funding for schooling report at the end of 2011. By the government's own admission, the review is focused on the mainstream but there may be some implications for the design and operation of programs that run under the IE(TA) Act.

Longer term funding and therefore future planning for successful programs is now being held hostage to the Labor government's endless reviews. While the coalition have committed to considering the findings of the review of schools funding, chaired by David Gonski, there seems little reason why these programs should be extended for just one year rather than a longer period of time. One of the greatest complaints from service providers who deliver these programs on the ground is about the seemingly endless stop-and-start cycle of the funding commitments made by governments. The coalition understands the uncertainty created by such endless short-term commitments that are subject to review. However, the coalition will support the bill as drafted, as we recognise the value of these programs.

Sporting Chance is designed to use sport and recreation as a vehicle to engage Indigenous young people in their schooling. It consists of two elements: school based sports academies for secondary school students and education and engagement strategies for both primary and secondary school students. Indigenous secondary school students both male and female enrolled in a secondary school, particularly those deemed at risk, are eligible to participate in an academy. 'At risk' is assumed but is not limited to students who have been identified as having low attendance rates at school, literacy and numeracy skills below that of their fellow students or the national benchmarks, increased likelihood of not completing school or other social or behavioural concerns.

These projects utilise sport and recreation as a vehicle to increase the level of engagement of students, to improve their educational outcomes. It is important to note the development of sporting talents and participation in sport are subsidiary outcomes to the greater educational purpose of the program. According to the latest advice from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, in 2011 a total of 22 providers are to deliver 68 projects under the Sporting Chance Program. This is intended to benefit 11,000 primary and secondary school students at risk of not completing their schooling. I also note that the Australian Council for Educational Research will undertake an evaluation of the Sporting Chance Program. The evaluation, to be completed by mid-2011, is expected to measure the extent to which the Sporting Chance Program is meeting its objectives. It will be crucial in shaping the future direction of the program.

This bill will also provide funding for the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program to continue. This program supports Indigenous youth who wish to move away from home to gain qualifications that will increase their chance of obtaining employment in their community or elsewhere. It has been mainly targeted at youth between the ages of 16 and 24 from remote areas, but it is also available to other students from larger towns and cities if they relocate to an IYMP host location to take up an apprenticeship, a VET certificate or university course. The objectives of the IYMP are ambitious. The funding supports 324 Indigenous youth and young people at any point in time undertaking an Australian apprenticeship, a vocational education and training course or study at university. This funding goes a long way to give these young students access to safe, supported and culturally appropriate accommodation while they are studying. The key principle of the IYMP is to provide choice for Indigenous young people and their families.

For many Indigenous Australians, especially those in remote communities, life chances can be severely limited by a lack of opportunity, both in education and in employment. This program is vital as it seeks to redress that opportunity gap, at least in part, by providing access to a full range of post-secondary education and training options that smaller communities are simply not able to provide. IYMP also provides mentoring and other practical support to help these young people while they complete their qualifications. IYMP helps build numeracy, literacy, financial literacy and other life skills of young Indigenous people. The program is also helping remote community capacity building by providing opportunities for those communities' young people to train for and return to jobs that have often previously been taken up in Indigenous communities by non-Indigenous people.

While on the subject of initiatives, I would now like to turn to some other issues that seek to lift education attainment and participation for Indigenous students. A recent report produced by the Council of Australian Governments Reform Council on Labor's National Indigenous Reform Agreement with the states and territories demonstrates there has been little improvement in lifting Indigenous children's reading, writing and numeracy skills. This is despite the government's promise that it would halve the gap within a decade shortly after coming into office. Results indicate that despite significant investment under this partnership, there was only a minor improvement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students at or above the national minimum standard in reading and writing and, to a lesser extent, in numeracy in the early years of schooling. Nationally the gap has increased in year 9 reading, in years 3 and 7 numeracy and in year 9 writing. Equally disappointing is that there has been no improvement in Indigenous students' attendance rates in year 10 in government schools since Labor came into office, despite having promised to halve the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 attainment or equivalent attainment by 2020.

Perhaps what is most concerning is that the government are unable to report on how they are meeting the target to ensure all Indigenous four year olds in remote communities have access to early childhood education within five years, with the report stating:

Labor are also unable to report progress on their target to halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a decade. The report concluded:

For the millions of taxpayers' dollars spent to deliver programs under this agreement, the government, at the very least, should be able to report on whether these programs are delivering. Approximately $723 million worth of measures have been set aside under the national partnership agreement to pursue reforms to improve young people's education attainment and transition from school and contribute towards achieving the COAG targets. Yet, this funding is being spent without adequately monitoring performance.

The recent report on the National Partnership for Indigenous Reform Agreement comes on top of damning COAG reports that were released in April for the $540 million National Partnership Agreement on Literacy and Numeracy. The April report for the National Partnership Agreement on Literacy and Numeracy found that assessing progress in lifting literacy and numeracy across Australia was difficult because the states and territories set their own benchmarks. This means that because there are so many differences in the numbers and types of schools involved, the report concluded that the transparency of reporting at a national level is questionable. The report urgently recommended that Labor improve clarity and transparency in reporting arrangements of the initiative. If the government cannot adequately measure and track progress under their national partnership agreements, it begs the question: how do they think they can get away with making grand statements they are transforming education if the evidence or data is not available to support these claims? Under Labor's national partnership agreement for the Building the Education Revolution program for government schools, they also failed to monitor the performance by the states and territories, and it was found that billions of dollars had been wasted under inefficient procurement arrangements. There is little hope of Labor delivering on its commitment to improve literacy and numeracy unless drastic changes are made to adequately monitor its investment. Sadly, Labor abolished the former coalition government's program to improve literacy and numeracy, which was to provide a $700 voucher for tutoring to help students who were not meeting minimum benchmarks. This policy was found to be 97 per cent effective in lifting student performance. Improving Indigenous participation and attainment in education and assisting students who are struggling to meet literacy and numeracy benchmarks is simply too important for funding to be handed over to the states and territories without ensuring that a system is put in place to monitor the return on this investment.

The computers-in-schools program, another initiative being delivered under the National Partnership Agreement with the states and territories, is also in strife. More than 3½ years, or seven school semesters, after Kevin Rudd made his election commitment that all these computers would be connected to fast 100-megabitts-per-second fibre, not a single computer has been connected by the government to 100-megabits-per-second fibre. As at 31 March 2011, only 434,000 computers had been delivered out of the 788,000 new computers needed to achieve the promised one-for-one ratio of computers per student. That is only 55 per cent of the computers needed to reach the goal of every secondary school student in years 9 to 12 having a computer, and it took the government three years to get there. Now the government claims that in nine months it will deliver the remaining 45 per cent of the computers. Having delivered 55 per cent in three years, it now claims it will deliver the remaining 45 per cent in nine months. It will need to more than double the current rollout in order to meet the deadline of 31 December 2011—and I think we all know that is a chimerical claim on the government's part.

I read an article by Noel Pearson last month in the Australian in which he agreed that the computers-in-schools program has been poorly implemented. He was writing about the success of the student education trust scheme operated by the Cairns based welfare reform organisation that he works with at Cape York Partnerships. Special trust accounts operate in welfare reform communities on Cape York Peninsula. Payments into these accounts are made by families on a voluntary basis and set aside specifically for education. A trustee oversees the accounts, and there is a process for families to use their saved funds to pay for computers, books, uniforms, excursions and other education expenses. He made the following observation:

Kevin Rudd's "toolbox of the future" program has been beset with problems. The opposition highlighted controversies about whether parents were going to be levied by schools to pay for maintenance and whether students could take computers home.

He went on:

This program was poorly conceived. The goal of comprehensive computer access for high school students was right, but it should have been done on a matching subsidy basis. Families should have been required to put in some of their money and be responsible for maintenance costs. They could then own the computer and the kids could take them home. Income-earning families could have been subsidised through a rebate and welfare families could have been assisted through SET-style facilities.

SET-style facilities could form the basis for solutions to school uniforms and other costs that another federal program is aimed at. Instead, all these programs have been conceived on the basis of a 100 per cent handout.

Noel has made the very valid point regarding computers in schools—one that the opposition has been making for such a long time—that when a program suffers from continuing cost blow-outs and is underperforming, one has to ask the question of whether there is a better way to meet the policy objectives.

I would also like to touch on another matter that has been brought to my attention as I continue to undertake my consultations with the various parts of the education sector. It is a program called MULTILIT, designed by Professor Kevin Wheldall at Macquarie University and delivered by the Exodus Foundation's Reverend Bill Crews. I met with the Exodus Foundation to talk about this program. It is used in tutorial centres for disadvantaged students at risk of dropping out of school. It is a direct, systematic teaching of the sounds of the English language and, importantly, has been a tremendous success wherever it has been used, particularly in Indigenous communities. It opened in 2009 for fewer than 200 struggling Indigenous students and has received partial funding under some of Labor's national partnerships in some states. A recent article in the Herald Sun reported on some of the results under this program in Darwin. The article included references to a report from the Exodus Foundation that tracked the progress of six Indigenous children at the Holy Spirit Catholic primary school, one of four Exodus centres in Darwin, in the 2008 to 2010 NAPLAN tests. To quote from the Herald Sun article:

In writing, for instance, in the 2008 NAPLAN test the group started in Year 3 right on the NT mean (or average) of 338, a full 70 points below the national mean. Then the NT and Exodus progress lines diverged as the Exodus children gobbled up the phonics program in 2009 and learned to read.

By Year 5 they had literally closed the gap, reaching the Australian average for their age group. It was the same story with reading.

Yet Multilit is struggling to attract extra funding to grow. The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, the member for Kingsford Smith, has said that, due to budget constraints, there is no funding to expand the initiative. One of my primary concerns with the national partnership agreements is that programs that have the potential to be delivered and rolled out at a national level are constrained by the varying commitments made at the state level. There is no room for successful programs such as Multilit to flourish and grow. I am fortunate to be visiting the Cape York Peninsula in October this year, where Multilit also operates, and I am hoping that I get to see firsthand how this program works and how the results are yielded.

There is much more that I could speak about today on the topic of Indigenous education. Both sides of this House, I know, genuinely recognise the need to improve education outcomes and opportunities for young Indigenous people. The challenge is to do all that can be done to improve the current education reforms and the benefits that come from them. When a program such as Multilit has proven itself to be able to educate Indigenous young Australians to flourish and grow in national literacy and numeracy, it is a program that should be supported by government rather than starved of funds. I am certainly looking forward to hearing what David Gonski suggests in this area when his review of school funding is handed to the government. I hope that he will recognise, as the opposition has, the importance of programs like Multilit and the ability of local communities like those in Cape York and the programs run by the Exodus Foundation to actually address the real needs of Indigenous children on the ground, rather than assuming that all children will fit into a one-size-fits-all approach. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011. Nothing defines the difference between the coalition and Labor more than their approaches to education. We have doubled the funding for education in this four-year period, while those opposite failed in this regard for so long. We have Closing the Gap targets in relation to Indigenous education, and we have an aspiration that, by 2018, another 100,000 Indigenous young people and older people will be in employment. We know that Treasury says that in the next two years we will need another 500,000 jobs in the Australian economy to keep our economy strong, to sustain the growth, to keep the employment going and to make sure our prosperity into the future matches what has happened in the past. Those opposite did not just disinvest in health, neglect infrastructure and fail in health and hospital outcomes but they also failed so much in terms of education and Indigenous issues. It was not just that they did not say sorry; they did not put the money towards Indigenous targets and programs. The commitment that we have is to close the gap, not just in jobs and health but in education as well.

We are delivering real and measurable outcomes in this regard. We have supported 168 Indigenous businesses or community projects Australia wide and achieved over 43,000 job or training placements for Indigenous Australians. We have a commitment under our Indigenous Employment Program of $650 million to support businesses and community projects to make sure Indigenous job seekers get work. The precursor to getting a job is a good education, so it is absolutely vital that we do this. I have seen this locally in my electorate and I have seen it across my home state of Queensland. We are supporting Indigenous students from remote areas to access places in very high-performing schools such as Ipswich Grammar School and Ipswich Girls Grammar School. I have spoken to a number of the Indigenous students from places in Far North Queensland who are boarding at the grammar schools, where they are getting the best quality education possible in very high-performing schools. In particular, we are providing $20 million to the Australian Indigenous Education Fund, run by a private group of business people who want to make a difference in the lives of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. By the way, they are committed to matching the government's contribution by raising another $20 million through business. Over the next 10 years this fund, of $40 million, will send 2,000 talented, young Indigenous students to very high-performing secondary schools, many of them in the Blair electorate—great schools such as Ipswich Grammar School and Ipswich Girls Grammar School.

The legislation that is before the chamber today amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act to extend the current quadrennium to incorporate the 2013 calendar year. It is about amending the appropriation of that legislation to formalise previous decisions the government has made, including, as I said, an election commitment to increase support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from remote communities to access schools both in my electorate and across the country.

This amending legislation will provide certainty until the government has had the opportunity to look at, consider and act upon the finding, due in 2011, by Professor Gonski, of the review of funding for schooling. We want to determine the funding. Hopefully, we will make some significant changes, because everyone who works in the sector knows that the SES model has not delivered the most just and fair outcome possible. Recently, I was in Ipswich speaking to some members from the Independent Education Union. They know that in private schools in my electorate the best outcomes have not been achieved. Recently, I was speaking to a number of public school teachers in my electorate—who were attending a Queensland Teachers Union conference there—from schools such as Minden State School, Ipswich Special School and Ipswich West Special School to find out what they thought. The legislation before us is about extending the funding until such time as the decision of the Gonski review is handed down and we can then act upon it.

I cannot let the member for Sturt get by without saying something about what he said in relation to some of their funding. There is a huge difference between us and them in terms of education. I accept that there is a bipartisan commitment to the targets with respect to closing the gap—halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements for Indigenous children within a decade and halving the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 attainment, or equivalent attainment, by 2020. I accept that those opposite have said that they want to agree to this. How we get there is another story. Those opposite do not think we are doing the right thing in that regard. We are backing up our commitment to closing the gap by not just putting initiatives or programs in place but also actually backing up with real money, real dollars. Yet those opposite seem to whinge, carry on and carp at education programs that we have brought in, when they know very well from visiting schools in their electorate that they are happy.

The member for Sturt waxed on about our computers in schools program, saying, 'You've only delivered 434,000 computers in local schools.' Go to schools like Bundamba State Secondary College, which has a very high number of Indigenous students and tell the students and the school administration that the computers in schools program is not successful and not good for their school. Go and tell them that. Go to Bremer State High School, which has a very high component of Indigenous students. Currently, that school has about 1,500 students. Next year, there will be 1,600 students. Go and tell them that that program is not appropriate and it is not good for their education outcome.

The other side went to an election last year proposing to abolish the computers in schools program and the trade training centres. All the time they claim that they are going to achieve good outcomes for education should they get on the treasury bench, but they are always critical of what we are doing. In this budget and in previous budgets and through this legislation here, we are benefiting not just non-Indigenous students but Indigenous students through things such as trade training centres. The Ipswich Trade Training Centre has both the Ipswich Girls Grammar School and the Ipswich Grammar School, where those Indigenous students are boarding under the programs covered by the legislation here. They attend the Ipswich Trade Training Centre, located at St Edmund's College, a Catholic school. There is a partnership of three schools. The Indigenous students boarding at those schools enjoy the benefit of the Ipswich Trade Training Centre.

And we have another one coming to my electorate: the Ipswich region trade training centre. It is going to be located at the Ipswich State High School, another school with a very high number of Indigenous students. Again they will benefit, not just from the BER program we put in for the Japanese immersion centre we have already located at that school but from the trade training centre. About 40 per cent of the kids who go to Ipswich State High School end up with trades. There are so many Indigenous students at that school. You only have to go to the assembly to realise that. But those opposite continue to oppose these initiatives, all of which would help not just non-Indigenous students but Indigenous students in my electorate.

And then we get to the BER funding—the multipurpose halls and libraries, all of which help non-Indigenous students and Indigenous students. The Ipswich-Logan corridor in South-East Queensland—I represent most of Ipswich—has a very high number of Indigenous students in its schools and Indigenous people in the local community, the jobs and the businesses across the area. Kambu Medical Centre, in my area, has a huge number of patients. It is a great Indigenous medical centre, well funded by the federal and state governments. I was there just last week talking about it.

It is not just in health and not just in jobs but in education that we are benefiting Indigenous students. The initiatives here are very important because the legislation talks about school programs, early childhood programs, vocational education programs and tertiary programs. The background to this legislation in terms of the programs is extremely important. The member for Sturt was talking about a number of programs which are important, and I think it is worth mentioning them as well. They are really important programs under this legislation. Being funded are things like the Indigenous education consultative bodies and the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program, which funds scholarships, boarding, tuition, leadership development and other educational costs for selected secondary and tertiary students aged to 25 attending participating schools—such as Ipswich Girls Grammar School and Ipswich Grammar School—and universities. Most of those young people in Ipswich come, as I said, from Far North Queensland. The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program assists young people with accommodation and other support to facilitate their take-up of apprenticeships, VET or university in 16 major centres nationally. You can see the benefit of those sorts of programs in South-East Queensland, with great TAFE institutions like the Bremer Institute of TAFE, located in the western corridor from Brisbane through to Ipswich as well. The objective of the Sporting Chance Program is to encourage improved educational outcomes for Indigenous students, boys and girls, using sport and recreation. That is so important.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we handed down the report Doing time—time for doing: Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system in the House of Representatives. As chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs I know we saw the value as we went around the countryside. There were 110 submissions and about 18 public hearings, including a roundtable at Redfern. We saw the benefit of Indigenous sporting programs. We saw the benefit of schools connecting to local Indigenous communities. We saw the benefit of mentors. We saw the benefit of real recognition of Aboriginal communities, the importance of cultural awareness and the importance of Indigenous language.

Programs such as these on the ground can make a difference in the lives of young people, making sure that they stay at school, do not engage in truancy and get an education. Getting an education is not just important to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty, violence, domestic abuse and incarceration but important for financial security as well. This legislation is really important because it is—

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, under standing order 66A, I want to acknowledge the comments that the member is making. Can I ask him what the educational attainment levels are, what the outcomes are and what the employment opportunities are, given what he has been expanding upon?

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I do not have to take the question.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why doesn't he put that on notice if he is happy to do so. If I am making a speech—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. The member for Blair will continue.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member wants to put that question to the minister, he may do so—or ask a more important, relevant and sensible question than he asked in question time today. As to this particular legislation, I think it is important to note that what we have said in relation to the Gonski review, and what we have said to Indigenous students and to the private school community and the public school community, is that we in this government believe strongly that the arguments in relation to private versus public education are well and truly gone. We believe that parents have the right to send their children to whatever school they want and that kids have the right to go to a good public school as well. The public school system is the backbone of education. That is why so many students go to a state school, as we call them in Queensland, at primary school level, often then going on to schools such as St Edmund's College or Ipswich Grammar School or Ipswich Girls' Grammar School for seniors. But it is really important to make sure that we fund the system appropriately and well.

I have said before that this legislation gets us through to looking at the review and deciding how we are going to take funding in the future. But, as I have also said before, the previous government put in about $32.9 billion over the previous four years of their government. That was their commitment. That sounds like a lot of money, but we made a greater commitment to education: we put in $64.9 billion in funding for government and non-government schools over 2009 to 2012.

That is very important. There are also the national partnerships which assist not just Indigenous but also non-Indigenous students. We can see that. I was recently at Leichardt State School, a school in what we used to call a working-class area in my electorate, rebuilt through the State Schools of Tomorrow program and the state government's work in that school, and rebuilt, through the BER funding, with a new multipurpose hall and new library—a national partnership school which has made a huge difference. If you go there you will see that the connectivity between the local Indigenous community and the school is very strong—really strong. Lee Gerchow, the principal, is doing a fantastic job. And that is the difference that good funding for Indigenous students and non-Indigenous students can make in an area where there is a high Indigenous population. You can see that. We have seen the NAPLAN results. We have seen the improvements in attendance at that school. We have seen the improvements in literacy and numeracy. I support this legislation because it will make a big difference in the lives of the schools in my community. (Time expired)

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011. At the outset, may I comment on the question asked by my friend the member for Hasluck because it goes to the core of the issue, and that is: what are the educational outcomes that are being achieved by Indigenous children? That is a question which should be answered. It is at the core, as I said, of this and other legislation and programs. When millions and millions of dollars are spent on programs but they are not raising the educational outcomes for Indigenous children then questions should be raised about the programs upon which that money is being spent. That is not because there is any sense that it is inappropriate to spend the money; of course it is appropriate to spend money. But one must also ask whether or not the outcomes are being achieved, because, if they are not, then maybe there are other ways of spending money that will achieve the outcomes.

This bill amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to extend the existing funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements for the 2013 calendar year. Initiatives included are the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Sporting Chance Program. After passing through the parliament, a similar bill, entitled Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2010, received assent on 29 June 2010. That bill provided a 12-month extension to program funding in order to align the funding with other school program funding periods.

Sporting Chance and the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program are two initiatives of the previous coalition government that have been continued by the Rudd-Gillard Labor government. Both programs have achieved success in retaining students at schools as well as increasing their participation and success rates. The Gillard Labor government have not committed to long-term funding for these initiatives. Instead, they have simply provided a 12-month extension in the last two budgets.

The Sporting Chance Program commenced in 2007 under the then coalition government with the objective of encouraging positive educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. In 2011, a total of 22 providers delivered 68 projects under the Sporting Chance Program for up to 11,000 primary and secondary school students at risk of not completing their schooling. The use of sport as a key engagement tool in assisting in the educational development of young Indigenous people has been successful. The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program helps young Indigenous people move away from their home to gain the skills one needs to get a job, whether it is in their community or somewhere else. Youth Indigenous people aged 16 to 24 from remote areas can relocate to a program host location to undertake post-secondary education and training options. Training options include Australian apprenticeships, vocational education and training, and higher education options that lead to qualifications in nursing, teaching, business administration and accounting, to name but a few possibilities.

This extension is described as being necessary to allow for the completion and release of the review of funding for schooling report due sometime in 2011. By the government's own admission, the review is focused on the mainstream but there may be some implications for the design and operation of these programs. Longer term funding, and therefore future planning, for successful programs is now being held hostage to the Gillard Labor government's endless reviews. This is yet another example of the Rudd-Gillard government's approach to policy and law-making: indecision, ineptness, reviews and, of course, short-term fixes. Labor has failed to pay due attention to what is an important issue and failed to provide any long-term commitment to programs that are improving school attendance and completion rates.

The coalition supports this bill. It builds on the good work done by the coalition in introducing programs, but there is a stark difference, I am afraid, between the coalition and the government. We make decisions; we take action. This Labor government is crippled by indecision and inaction.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011. In doing so, I am reminded of some comments I made at a recent event for Mabo Day. In honouring the life of Eddie Mabo, I stated that this country had come a long way in achieving a true reconciliation between Indigenous and white Australia.

It was a proud day for me as a citizen of this country to watch the former Prime Minister make a historic apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples. However, an apology alone is not enough. While important in acknowledging past wrongdoings and hurt, an apology cannot fix today's problems. If we are to achieve a true reconciliation, we must bridge the gap in health, education, jobs and opportunities that exists between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians. In the 21st century we should not accept that Aboriginal children have lower life expectancies than their non-Aboriginal peers. We should not accept that they do not have the same outcomes in education. We should not accept that they do not have the same meaningful opportunities for work. Most importantly, we should not accept that it is beyond the people in this place to fix this problem, to ensure that there is no difference between opportunities for all of Australia's children. We have to work hard as a nation to bridge the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We have to work hard to deliver the same opportunities to all Australians regardless of their background. I believe that to do otherwise would be a serious failure of government, a serious failure of parliament and a serious failure of each member of this House.

For this reason, I am very pleased to be able to speak this afternoon on this bill and on what this government is doing to support Indigenous education. I have said many times in this House that education through all levels of life is a silver bullet to solving poverty, improving health outcomes and increasing employment and productivity. I am very pleased to be in this place and to be part of a government that has education at its core—to be part of a government that understands the great transformative power of education to build confidence, to create opportunities and to deliver happiness and hope to so many Australians, not least of which are Indigenous Australians. Given that the government have an education reform agenda, it should come as no surprise to any member of this House that our approach to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous includes comprehensive policies designed to support the education of young Indigenous people. This bill provides a raft of programs to encourage and enhance the educational outcomes of students. In my electorate there are a number of programs that are helping Indigenous families and students get the education that is their right as Australians. The federal government has provided as part of the Parent and Community Engagement Program almost $360,000 for the Northside Community Service's Tuck-In education program that encourages parents to play an active role in their child's learning. It also strengthens the community's capacity to involve themselves in the school community.

Similarly, over $70,000 was provided to the Tuggeranong Child and Family Centre for its Our Mob Tuggeranong project that builds the knowledge of Indigenous parents, grandparents, family members and carers so they can engage with confidence and effectiveness with their school communities. There is also half a million dollars for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community literacy project. The project aims to improve the literacy skills of at-risk Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in years 6 to 9.

Finally, 68 of 72 Canberra schools are members of the Dare to Lead program, a $13.6 million program that provides principals and other school leaders with local school situation strategies that promote awareness and provide the drive to address educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Through professional development and cultural awareness activities, workshops and seminars, principals and school leadership teams are able to enhance their understanding of the educational needs of these students and to promote reconciliation in all schools.

These are four local Canberra projects but they exemplify what this act is doing nationwide. In highlighting these examples, I want to pay tribute to the teachers and the schools, to the doctors and nurses, to the community groups and to the Indigenous community themselves who are responsible for the ongoing success of these programs. While it is our responsibility in this House to provide the leadership and funding that allows these successful programs to continue, we should not forget that it is these individuals who are responsible for delivering the success of these programs on the ground day in, day out. It is these dedicated individuals and organisations that are making the changes that must be made person by person, family by family, community by community.

In my electorate, I have seen firsthand the work of dedicated teachers at Richardson Primary School and their commitment to Indigenous education. I have seen the fantastic work of the Winnunga aboriginal health service down in Narrabundah and its dedicated staff who provide a raft of initiatives and programs for people in dental health, diabetes health, infant welfare health, maternal health—a range of programs there; just a phenomenal organisation. It is through the work of these individuals passionate about the cause and committed to the very end that the gap will be bridged, and we must do what we can to support their efforts.

In this light, the amendment before this House today extends the funding for the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to incorporate the 2013 calendar year to line up with the Schools Assistance Act 2008, also recently extended, and timing of the review of funding for schooling. It will appropriate $159 million for 2013 to continue to fund those programs I have mentioned. The government does this to give sufficient time to consider any recommendations from the review of education funding while also ensuring that adequate and appropriate consultation is given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and organisations. This is appropriate as nowhere is there a greater need to improve education than for our Indigenous communities.

I acknowledge that much has been achieved and there have been real successes in this area; nevertheless there is much more that still needs to be done. This will require an ongoing commitment from government across Australia, and I believe that this government has that commitment. This is a government that has the drive and the will to see this through to make policies that close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. In my own life a good education changed what was possible for me, and I believe the same is very much true for ensuring what is possible for Indigenous Australians: it is the great enabler. In speaking on another bill in this place, I said that I would always stand up here in support of those bills that seek to enhance the access and outcomes of education for all Australians. I do so again today and I commend this bill to the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011. This bill seeks to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. The bill seeks to extend the funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements, for the 2013 calendar year for non-Abstudy payments. Non-Abstudy payments include funding for a number of Indigenous school programs, including the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Sporting Chance Program, which I want to talk about mostly because I am sure everyone else has covered every other aspect.

I support his bill but I have a number of concerns. The current bill seeks to extend the current funding arrangements only for another 12 months out, for the 2013 calendar year. The Labor government has failed to provide funding security for this education sector and instead has simply provided for 12-month extensions in the last two budgets. Extensions are no good. Ongoing funding in the forward estimates is what is really needed. The government claims that a short-term, 12-month commitment is necessary because of the Review of Funding for Schooling report, which is due some time later this year. The binding up of legislation through inquiry after inquiry and review after review is just typical of this current Labor government, which cannot make effective and timely decisions. This is seen in everything they do.

Thankfully the Labor government was wise enough to continue two important programs originally initiated by the coalition government. They are the Sporting Chance and Indigenous Youth Mobility programs. I could say much about these and talk about the fact that the Indigenous education programs are something that all governments commit to, and some eventually get somewhere towards their commitments.

The program I mainly want to talk about, Sporting Chance, has been a most successful program for Indigenous boys. The program was originally begun by Gerard Neesham of the Clontarf Football Academy. For those who are not aware, I will give a brief history. Clontarf is a former Christian Brothers school on banks of the river in Perth. It fell on hard times and then, in 2000, with a group of just 25 boys Gerard Neesham went there with a number of other school teachers who had decided to do something for Indigenous boys. For those who do not know Gerard Neesham, he was a very good AFL player who played for the Sydney Swans, amongst others. He also played football for Graylands Teachers College, where I knew him. He and I played together on that side. I think he made me look good! Eventually Gerard was the inaugural coach for the Fremantle Dockers. So his football pedigree is unbelievable. His whole family, the Neeshams, the Regans and the Millers are legendary in that area.

For Gerard to begin this, post his Dockers coaching, was something quite admirable. That is when I reconnected with him, after teachers college. With the support of the federal and state governments and the private sector the group of 25 boys grew into 400 boys in six academies. I first met Gerard out there under the ATSIC days when Philip Ruddock went out there to help him get money he was owed by ATSIC—$30,000, which was not much at the time. He then came to Canberra with Ross Kelly, the chairman of the Clontarf Foundation and put a case to the then education minister and, interestingly, his staff member Alan Tudge, who is now the member for Aston, came up with $100,000, which was just fantastic. Gerard then got bogged and came back with Ross Kelly again and asked for $1 million to continue his program. Gerard got this, on behalf of the foundation, through Dr Nelson.

I said to Gerard at the time, 'Be careful whatever you do. Once you start rolling out away from one academy you will lose control of the levers. You need to be hands-on yourself.' I was wrong because Gerard was able to roll out a number of academies in Western Australia by using ex-AFL footballers and people in the AFL and football industry who were very good at what they did. So, his selection of personnel has been the secret to his ability to run academies. The other part of his successful template is that he attaches himself to existing schools. For example, I went to the Broome High School when he launched a program there. I was representing Julie Bishop at the time, the federal minister. State members of parliament also attended, as well as Michael Chaney from the NAB and a representative of Goldman Sachs, who were there to help with private sector funding. This model does not rely on one bucket of money; it relies on money from three sources: federal money, state money and corporate money. This means that it is not dependent on one or the other and that means that should one decide to not deliver then the program would not be left stranded.

Gerard was invited by Clare Martin, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory at the time, to go into the Northern Territory. Some of the Aboriginal communities there, as we know, had become very dysfunctional. But what Aboriginal boys in particular do know about is AFL football. As Gerard tells me, you can ask any boy anywhere in Australia whether they know who the full forward for St Kilda is or who plays centre for Carlton and they can tell you. They wear their footy jumpers with pride in the heat and in the cold in the outback. AFL is a currency among Indigenous kids.

Why is this template so successful? Because it gets them to school with the hook of playing football. Some of them have gone on to be AFL footballers. There are quite a number who are currently playing AFL who came through the Clontarf academy. But the reality is that very few of them end up in the AFL. They end up playing football, but they go to school. That is the secret of the whole program: they go to school. When they get to school, their health improves. Their dysfunctional behaviour improves. Gerard quotes the figure of how much it costs to keeps a boy at Clontarf against the figure of how much it costs to keep him incarcerated. It is light years away. A program like this sees boys not only improve their health and their behaviour but also get into jobs. Clontarf delivers them not only to year 12 but also into employment and the workforce after year 12.

At the moment, over 80 per cent of Clontarf year 12 students are placed in employment or training within six months of completing school. Of the 160 boys who completed year 12 last year, 75 are currently in employment or further training. This goes on. The fact is that this program is highly effective because it gets the boys to school and gets them into a pattern. They stop sleeping in. They get out of their dysfunctional environment, because they are among peers. And this is where Gerard is also successful: he brings in Aboriginal mentors, particularly from the footballing fraternity, and these kids look up to them. They want to be at school.

Clontarf has a very ambitious program. Dare I say that this transcends both sides. This is not a Liberal Party thing or a Labor Party thing; this is a bipartisan arrangement. I mentioned Julie Bishop and Brendan Nelson. But when the government changed in 2011, Kevin Rudd, in an article from Thursday 11 December 2008—and Kevin loved a photo and next to the article there he is with the Clontarf boys in Perth—promised $10 million. And that was delivered. The state government under Alan Carpenter delivered his moneys, $4 million. The corporate world continues, through BHP and others, with their support.

The only thing that I will say to the members opposite is that the money that comes through the federal government and other governments is always a bit slow, because it is handed out piecemeal. There needs to be an ongoing commitment to the funding of these programs into the future, because their outcomes are so successful.

There have been other instances in which Indigenous people post their football life decide to start up some sort of program for Aboriginal kids. It seldom works. They get themselves a car and an office—in other words, a job—and there is no widespread effect; it is a one-man band. Eventually, once the money has gone, the program goes. This is a program for the future. This is a program, dare I say, is in the business of saving a generation of Aboriginal boys. We almost lost a generation of Aboriginal young men through alcoholism and dysfunction, mainly because, as most people know, they became dependent on welfare and the Centrelink model. This is getting them back into real jobs, getting them away from alcohol, getting them away from dysfunctional behaviour and showing them that there is another way. This does not just apply to football—and I will get onto that in a moment for my learned friend from New South Wales, and demonstrate that this model can be rolled out there. In Western Australia there are 21 academies with 1,335 participants. At one stage, three out of every four boys in year 12 were in the Aboriginal academies doing year 12. It was something that was unheard of—17-year-old Aboriginal boys doing year 12. In the Northern Territory there are currently 15 academies with 1,015 boys. In Victoria there are five academies with 190 boys. There is nothing in Queensland and nothing in South Australia.

The federal government currently contributes one-third of the Clontarf Foundation's operating costs—that is, $5.7 million per annum or $2,244 per participant. There is a way forward, and they want the federal government to continue its commitment. In the 2014-15 forward years they would like to have 28 academies in Western Australia with over 2,000 boys; 19 academies in the Northern Territory, with 1,490 boys; and five academies in Victoria with 550 boys—because there is a low Indigenous population in Victoria.

We know that New South Wales does not have AFL but the template works for football, and a well-known rugby enthusiast and champion, Smiley Johnson, is involved in this program and he is going to be part of the template in New South Wales to roll out this program for rugby for Indigenous boys. They are looking to have 44 of these academies and to include 2,820 boys. There is the same thing with rugby in Queensland. Big news: we have got the State of Origin coming up this Wednesday night and we know how big it is. They are looking to have 30 academies with 1,740 boys. In South Australia they are looking to have eight academies with 400 boys.

So we want to go from 2,500 boys in this current financial year to more than 9,000 boys. To make this happen, the federal government has to commit to an increment of $4 million a year so that they can continue building these academies on a sound footing. If the $4 million is not committed over and above current funding per annum, they cannot do this, because it ratchets up the other help from the state governments. They are obliged to come in with complementary funds, as is the private sector.

This is an outstanding opportunity for us to do something meaningful and real through the sporting champions funding for Indigenous boys. Dare I say it will work for Indigenous girls, with netball and other sports. But, as Gerard says to me, where the boys are the girls will be—and, if you go out to Clontarf, you see that the girls are at school, because the boys are at school. That is how it works.

I would advise those who want to criticise and say, 'This is a private arrangement,' et cetera, that this is audited and all the salaries are benchmarked on tertiary pay scales for principals, teachers et cetera. I implore this House to continue the support for this marvellous program for now and into the future. We know that there are lots of reasons that Aboriginal men go so well in the AFL. They seem to be particularly adept at it. It is a bit like the young men from the Balkans—the Jakoviches et cetera. They seem to have the physical shape to play football. Aboriginal kids from the Tiwi Islands through to Tasmania are really good footballers. The fact that about 2½ per cent of the population are Indigenous and yet more than six per cent of the AFL population are Indigenous says something about the ability of Aboriginal people in this sport. I commend this bill to the House and I implore the government to continue its meaningful and ongoing funding, because the program and the template work.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The 13th of February 2008 was a historic day for Australia. On that day, for the first time, an Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, officially apologised to the stolen generations. This was a historic moment for Australia—a moment when we acknowledged the tragedies of the past and looked with a fresh eye to the future, a future in which there is no gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in life expectancy, educational achievement or economic opportunity.

When the Labor government took office in 2007, we inherited an appalling legacy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander inequalities. In the areas of housing, poverty and health, large gaps persisted under the Howard government. We know that Indigenous Australians have a substantially shorter life expectancy. When a young Indigenous baby is born, he or she can expect to live a decade or two fewer than a non-Indigenous baby. It should be simply unacceptable to all of us in this place. It is something that must change—something that will be changed.

Another main issue is improving the educational levels of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Improving education is fundamental to improving welfare and improving living standards. This government has set out to close the gaps in Indigenous disadvantage. We have set out to close the life expectancy gaps, to close the child mortality gaps, to close the gaps in employment opportunities and to close the gaps in access to early childhood education and educational attainment.

Horace Mann, the early 19th century US congressman and education reformer, whose personal political persuasions were actually more closely akin to those of members opposite, once stated:

Education … beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great equalizer of conditions of men—the balance wheel of the social machinery.

This Labor government shares those sentiments, regardless of the political alignment of their initial spokesperson. The importance of education extends well beyond partisan politics.

Education's place in helping to overcome inequality and disadvantage was reinforced for me when I visited Cape York last year and earlier this year, travelling with the House Standing Committee on Economics. Our task was to consider Indigenous economic development, so I used the chance to ask some of the witnesses about the local schools. It was an issue that had come up when we were chatting outside during the coffee break but which did not seem to be getting air time inside the room. Phyllis Yunkaporta, a witness appearing before the committee, told me:

The education system, as I knew it before, has been of low standard. The curriculum in the past, as it is in all cape Aboriginal communities, has been of very low standard. By the time our children go out to mainstream schools they are hardly there—a child in grade 8 still has the understanding of a child in grade 1. Speaking for Aurukun, I was one of the persons who were invited to the States last October; I went to New York and Los Angeles visiting African-American schools. What we have brought back to Aurukun is a new kind of teaching method and we are having that implemented in the school. Of course it took time. At the beginning it pretty much had been, in my words, chaos before that. Since having this new program come in, if you come to the classrooms in Aurukun the kids are fully focused. This new method of teaching has got them going. The teacher is full-on with the tasks given and you cannot believe it when you enter those classrooms—it is as if some of those kids are play-acting. They are not; they are just full-on, focused. I guess in time we have to have expectations for our children to be educated in a way where they have to balance both worlds—the Western world and the traditional way. Of course we want them to hang onto the traditional way because that is where they are going to be identifying themselves for the future. And with them having to venture out into mainstream, we want them to compete. It is a competitive world out there. We want our black little kids to start taking on the world. That is the aim of all this.

No words could be closer to the truth. In work that I did as a professor of economics at ANU with Xiaodong Gong, which was published in Education Economics, we looked at the educational attainment gap in Australian schools. We found that when Indigenous children first enter school they are about a year of educational achievement behind their non-Indigenous peers. We also found that by the time Indigenous children have got to the end of primary school the gap has widened—it is then about two years of educational attainment. Our view is that, perversely, that is something to be optimistic about, because there is something going on in the school system—a system which I think government policies are far more amenable to fixing than would have been the case had we discovered that, for example, the gap was already there when the children first entered school. So that work gives me optimism; it gives me a sense that we can do something about closing the gaps between the performance of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children.

But those gaps, make no mistake, are substantial. In 2006, 58 per cent of Indigenous children were rated by their teachers as having low academic performance. In contrast, only 19 per cent of non-Indigenous students were rated as having low academic performance. Of those who started year 11, only 22 per cent of Indigenous students went on to complete the year 12 certificate, compared to 62 per cent of non-Indigenous students. These figures provide some sense of the magnitude of the task faced by this Labor government in addressing the gross inequality in educational attainment in Australia.

Since 2008, the Gillard government has invested over $51 million in Indigenous literacy and numeracy projects. Over 20,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in over 670 schools across the nation have benefited directly from this assistance. Over the 2009-12 period this government has invested $56.4 million nationally to expand literacy and numeracy programs for Indigenous students. We have provided professional support to assist teachers to develop personalised learning plans for their students. We now have 200 additional teachers in the Northern Territory. The $2½ billion Smarter Schools National Partnerships, which holds Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education as a key focus, has been introduced to target disadvantage and to contribute to improving literacy and numeracy outcomes. We have also approved more than $25 million for 17 projects, over 2011-12, to continue these efforts.

We have seen the early results of such initiatives. The share of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders obtaining year 10 and year 12 certificates has gradually grown, as has the number of Indigenous students undertaking university education and achieving bachelor degrees. It is important that we continue to track these measures and hold our higher education institutions to account to ensure that the educational outcome that we want—boosting bachelor graduation—is actually achieved. It is my view that we should ask universities to publish as much data as they can not only on the number of Indigenous students who are accepted into the institutions but also on the persistence of those students through the system; the ability of our universities to hold on to Indigenous university students at the same rate as they hold on to non-Indigenous university students. Improving the standard of education among Indigenous communities is at the heart of this government's endeavours to affect broad social and cultural change and break the cycle of disadvantage that plagues these communities.

There are three initiatives that I am particularly proud of in my electorate of Fraser—Learning Journeys, the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program and the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program. Learning Journeys, which is administered by the Northside Community Service, is a $359,000 program which started in May 2010 and is expected to finish at the end of June 2012. It focuses on the development and implementation of creative and innovative approaches to improving educational outcomes for young Indigenous people as well as on improving parental engagement in schools and with education providers and on the engagement of parents with children's education at home. The project focuses on motivating and encouraging adults within families to play an active role in their children's learning journey. This is the kind of active role that we know is so important to educational success. It aims to strengthen the capacity of communities to become active in the school community and to feel respected and empowered to comment on and contribute to the development of schools. It has been a little over 12 months since the program's commencement but already we can point towards a number of outcomes: 82 per cent of parents involved have reported a greater engagement with the local schools; 76 per cent of parents have reported increased presence in the local school community; and 58 per cent of parents say they attended extracurricular events at their school.

The Indigenous Youth Leadership Program likewise is helping to close the gap in Indigenous education disadvantage through support for disadvantaged Indigenous students, mostly from remote and regional areas. There are now six tertiary education students studying in my electorate of Fraser with the support of an Indigenous Youth Leadership Program scholarship. I would like to pay tribute to those students and wish them all the best in their continued studies.

Thirdly, the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program supports young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students aged 16 to 24. This program is administered in the ACT by Auswide Projects, which was originally assisting around 16 participants and due to an increase in demand has now increased its number of places to 24 participants within the ACT.

It is absolutely imperative to the welfare and the quality of life of Indigenous communities that we maintain these efforts. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill will ensure the government's good work to date will continue. The current Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act provides funding over the 2009-12 period and this bill will extend the current quadrennium to incorporate the 2013 calendar, bringing it into line with the recently extended Schools Assistance Act. This will coincide with the timing of the review of funding for schooling, allowing the government to consider the findings of that report and determine the future structure of funding run under that program.

By re-aligning the legislation to reflect the Schools Assistance Act, we can make sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education programs are afforded the attention they deserve. It allows us to engage in close consultation with Indigenous communities and create a cooperative and inclusive learning environment. Such a learning environment has been brought home to me in my own electorate of Fraser, which includes the Jervis Bay Territory. In May I visited Jervis Bay Primary, a school for the children of Defence Force personnel serving at HMAS Creswell and the children of the Wreck Bay Indigenous community. The school has the lowest ICSEA score of any school in my electorate but, when you do a like-schools comparison—as is possible under the government's terrific MySchool website—you actually see that on a like-schools basis Jervis Bay Primary is one of the top performing schools in the ACT system on pretty much every measure you look at.

Jervis Bay Primary is also one of the most beautiful schools in the electorate of Fraser. The oval looks out across the kangaroos to the Pacific Ocean. You get a real sense that this natural environment is part of what builds a strong sense of community in the local school. There are only 84 students, 63 per cent of whom are Indigenous, but everyone seems to know everyone else. As I walked through the K-2 room with two women from the P&C, I heard behind me one of the boys say, 'What are you doing here, Mum?'

I would like to pay tribute to the principal, Bob Pastor, who coordinated a Learning 4 Life meeting, a really valuable initiative which brings together representatives from the local school community as well as Vincentia High School, the main school into which Jervis Bay Primary feeds, the University of Wollongong, Noah's Ark, Booderee National Park, and local preschools and childcare centres. The group promotes the value of education to Indigenous parents and students, with involvement right through the education spectrum from early childhood right up to TAFE and university. It is that lifelong learning philosophy that pervades the bill that is before us today.

The existing range of programs funded under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act are aimed at improving educational outcomes for Indigenous people, taking a well-rounded approach to improving education outcomes and life opportunities for Indigenous students. The programs are designed to build strong relationships between Indigenous communities—children, parents and teachers—and the government to ensure that specific needs are met with targeted and effective attention. Such programs include the Sporting Chance Program, the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program, the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, and the Parental and Community Engagement Program. These programs that are delivered under the act are complementary to mainstream schooling activities. The extension of funding for such programs until the end of 2013 will ensure providers, as well as the Indigenous communities, have certainty of continued program operation. I would like to use this opportunity to commend the bill to the House and extend my praise to all those who have worked in its drafting. (Time expired)

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, which extends the funding arrangements for the 2013 calendar year. I do so on the basis of my experience within a raft of key areas—not only my personal experiences over the last 59 years but also my experience of involvement with the Commonwealth Schools Commission when it was in existence, and the structures that sat underneath it; of the National Aboriginal Education Committee; of the period of the AESIP or Aboriginal Education Strategic Initiatives Program, which became IESIP when 'Aboriginal' was changed to 'Indigenous'; and of two MCEETYA taskforces.

'Education is the great engine of personal development. It is through education that the daughter of a peasant can become a doctor, that the son of a mineworker can become the head of a mine, and that the child of a farm worker can become the president of a great nation.' That is a set of words that have always been dear to me because Nelson Mandela goes to the crux of the importance of education in all its facets. The programs that are there to support and make a difference are absolutely critical. So this bill is important.

I also want to commend both the member for Canberra and the member for Fraser—the member for Fraser in particular, for having gone out and sat with people and listened to their views and heard their opinions. That is an important element if we are going to change things. Our destiny is shaped by the choices we make and the decisions each of us enact in our professional, personal and social pathways. What is critical to bringing about success is our individual preparedness to challenge and overcome barriers and to deal with the setbacks to our dreams and aspirations. That is often underpinned by good education. A well-grounded education is fundamental to success, although many have transcended this through personal drive—and all of us have experiences of people who did not finish school but who became highly successful and for whom every interaction with another individual provides an avenue to acquire knowledge, information and experiences that enhance their repertoire of skills.

The preliminaries to the National Indigenous Reform Agreement Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations articulate the challenge for all Australian governments:

Despite the concerted efforts of successive Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to address Indigenous disadvantage, there have been only modest improvements in outcomes in some areas such as education and health, with other areas either remaining static or worsening. Even in those areas where there have been improvements, the outcomes for Indigenous Australians remain far short of the outcomes for non-Indigenous Australians.

In December 2007, the Council of Australian Governments, or COAG, agreed to the National Indigenous Reform Agreement partnership between all levels of government. It included a number of other elements in terms of NPAs that went to education, employment, early years and health, but particularly education. It also provided links to those national agreements and national partnership agreements across COAG, which include elements targeted at closing the gap in Indigenous affairs, and particularly targeted at Indigenous disadvantage. The National Indigenous Reform Agreement is the basis of this reform, and the bill, in promulgating funding for another 12 months, is important in achieving closure of those gaps. COAG recognises that individuals and communities should have the opportunity to benefit from the mainstream economy through real jobs, business opportunities, economic independence and wealth creation. Ultimately, Indigenous economic development is about providing Indigenous people with the same opportunities as non-Indigenous Australians. They will not achieve this universally, but education is the cornerstone of change and a prerequisite for employment within our contemporary society for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

I was invited to write the foreword to the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey Volume 3: the Educational Experiences of Aboriginal Children and Young People, which was officially launched on 24 March 2006. I will cite from what I wrote. Of the numerous research projects into Aboriginal education there is none so profound as the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey, Improving the educational experiences of Aboriginal children and young people. It provided confronting evidence that the benefits of education remain poorly realised by the vast majority of Western Australian Aboriginal children, and you could translate that across all jurisdictional regions of this country. The more fundamental issue is the failure over the past 35 years by education providers to improve the educational outcomes of the vast majority of Aboriginal students. It is important to accept the reality that failure over the past 30 years to improve educational outcomes of the vast majority of Aboriginal school children has affected three generations of Aboriginal children and young people who are highly likely to have limited access to lifelong learning, employment and economic opportunities.

There has been tacit acceptance of the nonachievement of educational standards by Aboriginal children and young people, and the resultant acceptance of this lack of educational success has had a cumulative effect—hence my question to the member for Blair. It is fine talking about programs, initiatives and funding, but what of the educational attainments at the end of 12 years of schooling? What of the outcomes after tertiary level education, be they through the vocational education training sector or through the universities? If our results show that the proportion has not increased on a comparative basis to Australian society in mainstream youth and young people going through, then we have a challenge that we still have to address, and we certainly need to look at those targeted outcomes.

It is based on the belief that Aboriginal children and young people will never reach their full potential and if they fall behind society then welfare will protect them. Their low level of educational success is accepted as a normative expectation. This has to change. If we are to change the outcomes, if we are to close gaps and if we are to take the advice that the women gave the member for Fraser, and others that I have been involved with, then we have to raise the bar. We have to say that programs are fine—funding does not solve the problems that become inherent when you fail within systems, because the outcomes that any society seeks will not be attained. Certainly, there is resentment at the level of funding that is channelled into welfare and supporting people who become passive recipients of programs and services. I would want them to be responsive. I would want them to be shaping the direction for the future. I would want them to be, as you described, part of the process, and where people are part of the process, things change. It has become acceptable for Aboriginal children and young people to work at their level unless it becomes problematic or the sociopolitical structures are pressured to bring about change. There is a moral obligation to redress the needs of Aboriginal children and young people to be successful and to achieve the level of educational attainment that builds social and human capital to be achievers in the Australian and global community.

The act as it stands has provided numerous opportunities over a period of time but I think the accountability that I wish we could emulate in what we are seeking in the new structures for the health reform agenda and the accountability of states and territories that go to some critical elements of health reform should be equally applied with passion within this arena. Otherwise, we are inconsistent in the way we address the gap that exists, because the problem with the lack of education and the lack of attainment is that we then see the cyclic pattern of people with generations of family members who have never been employed because their education attainment does not make them competitive within the society in which they move, live, work and play. We have to change that.

There is bilateral agreement. Those societies which continue to invest in the education, training and employment of their people have prospered and enjoy a high standard of living and access to resources , health and human and social capital, which builds upon individual and societal successes. All Australian governments acknowledge that investing in education and training is essential for Australia's economic and social prosperity. It is also about positioning Australia to meet the new challenges and opportunities, as I have said previously, in international markets in a world without economic borders, the emerging new knowledge based society, with the pressures for change, global and international competitiveness, access to information and technology and new and emerging global clients, which we often refer to in this House in terms of other legislation.

Australia will require a flexible, well-educated, well-trained, high-performing workforce to achieve and sustain these reforms. This will pose problems for the majority of Aboriginal children and young people, who continue to perform poorly in their education because they will not access the opportunities which will flow for well-educated Australians. Although I agree that we have had successes and we are seeing some good outcomes, they are not uniform—and we are seeing people succeed, even against the barriers, including barriers of racism in instances. But they have not given up, nor have they surrendered their will to achieve and to contribute.

There is growing demand for an educated, more highly trained and more technically skilled workforce. However, most Aboriginal workers are at the lower, shrinking end of the employment market and are becoming part of the growing underclass. The question that arises for Aboriginal children and people is: why are they excluded from the advantages of being an integral part of a vision in which Australia's global competitiveness and future depends upon all Australians having the necessary education, training and learning ability and that is dependent upon the application of knowledge to support innovation, stimulate business development and improve workforce productivity to live productive and fulfilling lives?

It is important for Aboriginal children and young people to acquire the same proficient standard Australian English, as well as to be taught to recognise the way in which language is used, contextualised, understood and applied in a global and knowledge based society, in order to participate in Australia's economy. The task of developing appropriate resources and teaching Aboriginal students to become proficient in standard Australian English should be achievable. Over a period of 12 years, a student should be able to learn English, when it is considered in this context. English has 26 letters and only 44 sounds. It has an approximate total of 550,000 words, and 2,000 words make up 90 per cent of most speech. Four hundred words make up to 65 per cent of most writing, and there are only 70 main spelling combinations. Graduation from the final year of secondary schooling provides measures of success, including the completion of school entry, to university and higher education, access to TAFE, apprenticeships, traineeships, employment and an income. Aboriginal children and young people who do not achieve secondary education and who do not acquire the basic skills of literacy and numeracy are unlikely to be competitive in the labour market, and that goes for any student who fails at schooling. They will subsequently be vulnerable to structural change within the labour market government reform and therefore will be reliant on government income support. Seriously, if you do not achieve year 10 graduation then you are doomed eternally to welfare dependency, unless there are interventions that break that dependency.

One thing is that we have got to stop focusing on programs, which is the reason I asked the member for Blair the question about understanding what the educational outcomes are. We have to stop focusing purely on money. The question that we as members all need to ask and know the answer to with a degree of certainty within our electorates is: what is the educational attainment not only of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children but of any child who experiences socioeconomic challenges and difficulty? I think it is beholden upon us to know what the gaps are within our electorates so that we can address them and advocate for and champion those who need the champions of this House. It is only through the processes of strong bilateral commitment that we will see the changes that are absolutely necessary for any child who requires a level of support and intervention, in particular in this bill.

I commend this bill to the parliament.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I commence speaking in support of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, I am proud to follow the member for Hasluck and the member for Fraser—the member for Hasluck because of his particular authentic voice in this debate as the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives and the member for Fraser because of his obvious passion for and commitment to education. In these times when politics and politicians are maligned nearly as much as climate scientists and economists, I think it is important for people who might be listening to this debate to understand that the work of the House involves people working across boundaries in the interests of the nation. That is the kind of work that I came here to do as the member for Robertson, and that is why I am very, very proud to be speaking today to this bill, which is firmly and squarely targeted at changing life outcomes for the most underprivileged and most isolated people in this great nation of Australia, our Indigenous people.

This bill itself demonstrates that the Gillard government are deeply committed to governing with a clear and dedicated focus on closing the gap that we have to simply accept exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in terms of not just living standards but every possible measure of life outcome: health, wellbeing, educational status and opportunity. Of all the tools at our disposal to achieve these equitable goals, education, in my view, is the most powerful one—and there is much research to support this. The adequate provision of education has been proven over and over, time and time again, as the greatest equaliser of opportunity available to a society. The Gillard government is absolutely committed to closing the gap in Indigenous education disadvantage. In my view, it is essential that it remain our most important objective.

Of all the national issues, this one, perhaps more than others, has a very particular local face in a range of different settings across the nation. I will always—and as I speak here today I want to particularly—value and appreciate the local Indigenous community in my electorate. The Central Coast is an area that has been proudly inhabited by the Darkinjung-Guringai people. I will always feel privileged to be the representative in this parliament of the land in which the Aboriginal elders of my region continue to hold their custodianship with such care. The coast certainly has a proud Indigenous history, and members of the Indigenous community have always sought to maintain and strengthen their cultural heritage, but the reality on the Central Coast is similar to the reality around the rest of the nation: our Indigenous kids are underrepresented in terms of health and wellbeing, they are underrepresented in the successful completion of schooling, they are underrepresented in our universities and they are underrepresented in their opportunities to be full, successful and participating members of our society with all the choices that are afforded to children who are born to non-Indigenous parents.

The purpose of this amendment bill is to extend funding amounting to $133.5 million for non-Abstudy payments for the calendar year 2013. Additionally, this bill will reduce by $157.7 million in net terms the appropriations allocated for non-Abstudy payments to fund previously agreed government policy and initiatives. While decision making that shifts money in economically responsible ways is necessarily a difficult task for all governments, we in this government understand that we must remember, in the allocation of funding, that it must go to where it is most needed and can have a powerful and positive impact on our communities. The changes to funding arrangements reflected here reflect changed arrangements which were implemented under reforms to federal financial relations.

It is always important to consider that not only is it important to provide welfare to Indigenous communities but its provision must be enabling for the communities. It must be efficient, it must be effective and it must be—as the member for Hasluck so clearly outlined—directed at real, practical outcomes. 'It's not about the money,' he said. 'It's about what we actually make happen, what we make possible, what we envision and what we deliver for Indigenous communities with Indigenous communities.' The new arrangements reflected in this bill provide greater autonomy for states and territories to tailor their own policies to suit local circumstances. This is a very important part of the bill—that the face of need in each community is different and that that needs to be taken into consideration at the state level as well as at the totally local level. The circumstances faced by Indigenous Australians vary phenomenally throughout this Commonwealth. It is appropriate, then, that policies in relation to education should also vary. Reform to the Commonwealth-state relations in Indigenous education policy has been immensely beneficial in the development of a policy aimed at closing the gap. An example is the approximately $80 million transferred to the Northern Territory national partnership agreement. This COAG agreement is aimed at closing the gap, and a significant part of the agreement is the National Partnership Agreement for Indigenous Early Childhood Development. When it comes to changing outcomes for Indigenous children, we must constantly acknowledge the power of investing in early education.

We talk about expectations—and I want to say a little more about that later. Expectation about what is possible for every child is at the heart of a teacher's role, but teachers do not do this alone; it is parents and the community in toto. It is often said it is not just the family that raises a child—it is not just the mother and father—it is the village. Early childhood exposure to great quality education changes expectations for everyone. It changes expectations for the children themselves when they begin to see other ways of doing, other ways of being, other ways of knowing, other ways of listening and other ways of speaking. In a clearly and carefully dedicated formal education setting that is combined with the sound advice of policy and research in early childhood, we begin early on the journey that might have positive outcomes for future generations of Indigenous Australians.

The National Partnership Agreement for Indigenous Early Childhood Development commits $564.6 million—that is a large amount of money—over six years. It is currently funding 36 children and family centres. I have not had the opportunity yet to visit one of those, but I certainly hope that I will have the opportunity, because the people working there are doing some of the most important work in our community. They are the people who will build these potential futures. This COAG agreement is designed to meet the specific needs pertaining to particular states and territories, who will develop and implement their own plans in consultation with their local communities.

The bill also reflects the government's election commitment to increase support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from remote Indigenous communities attending non-government and non-remote boarding schools. This initiative is really about making it possible for individuals who have different needs to receive different responses. There is no one Aboriginal culture; there are multiple Aboriginal cultures. There is no universal student; there are multiple individuals, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who need particular responses. The uniqueness of the human person is a challenge for all educators. This bill does many of the structural things that allow teachers to actually begin to do that kind of dedicated work.

Sadly, not every Indigenous Australian child will have access to the program, but significant numbers will. This really does have the potential to change lives. As a former teacher, I am very well aware, having spent 25 years in classrooms, that education transforms lives. I am passionate about education because I have seen it. I have seen kids arrive with low expectations and I have seen them at the end of 13 years of schooling, having been well engaged, being able to do wonderful things and fulfil their dreams. Sadly, some children have never had those possibilities offered to them. I see Australians who represent great resources, to themselves, to their families, to their local communities, to their nation and, indeed, potentially to the world, who, by the time they have left school, do not have the skills or the belief in themselves that they need to advance and really become the best people that they can be. Education is a rich field in which to work and a great education is a holistic experience. It empowers students intellectually, socially and, just as importantly, emotionally and culturally. This program of supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from remote areas to attend non-government schools has the potential to provide that empowering experience. But such programs must always be mindful of the challenges faced when moving from one cultural setting into another cultural setting. There is a lot of research about students from disadvantaged social backgrounds having two language practices, trying to identify in a tertiary setting and using a particular discourse capacity in that context and then also having to go back to their own families and talk, live, work and speak in different ways. This is not a small thing that we are asking. That is why it needs to be offered to particular kids who look like they are able to take up that opportunity and why it needs to match their particular needs.

Every Indigenous student who finishes secondary education and gains a tertiary qualification is benefiting their community. They are benefiting their local community, the Aboriginal community and the Australian community. The more successful we are at promoting education in remote Indigenous communities, the more able we are to improve the life outcomes of those individuals and their communities and to close the gap, which really is a shame and a blight on our national history at this point in time.

As a member of this parliament and this Australian community in 2011, I often hear the general public's frustration at the Commonwealth-state blame game. Indeed, I understand that in our federal system Commonwealth and state governments inevitably dispute. However, Indigenous affairs is an area of policy where we must not fail. We must not allow this gap to be maintained. It is for this reason that I am heartened by the fact that there is a defined COAG agreement, aimed at closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

Commitment to cooperative targets is also demonstrated by the newly updated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014. This action plan commits the Australian government to 55 clear actions concerning the educational outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. These 55 actions are linked to six priority domains, which are reflective of an outcomes based holistic approach to education: school readiness; engagement and connection; attendance; literacy and numeracy; leadership, quality teaching and workforce development; and pathways to real postschool options.

These six areas are critical and foremost and, under this agreement, each state was able to tailor how they approach those policy objectives in their own context. One approach I found particularly encouraging was the New South Wales strategy of developing a personalised learning plan for all Aboriginal students, in conjunction with students, parents and/or caregivers and teachers, including Aboriginal school personnel. In particular, it was focused on students' wellbeing in spiritual, cultural and personal domains. If we do not attend to those realities, then students will not be likely to engage in the intellectual domain.

This approach demonstrates the ideal that each student is a unique individual, with different strengths and weaknesses and a different personality that needs different responses. We must never forget that this legislation and the COAG agreement are being discussed here in this place today because, in 1967, again, very belatedly, the Australian people voted to enable the Commonwealth to legislate for Indigenous Australians. It is our responsibility in this federal place to have high expectations of ourselves and of the Indigenous community to be able to achieve these goals. It is therefore imperative that the Commonwealth use every power that we have at our disposal to assist in improving the educational outcomes of Indigenous students.

It remains a concern to me that, in 2010, only 64 per cent of year 9 Indigenous students achieved at or above the minimum standard in reading, compared to 92 per cent of non-Indigenous students. Twenty-four per cent of Indigenous students in remote areas achieved the national minimum reading standards. That is just not good enough.

Despite the challenges that face us, the Australian Labor Party and this government understand the importance of education and its enabling capacity. As a member of the House, I certainly have a vision for an Australia where Indigenous Australians have equity in outcomes and, on the basis of that, I commend this bill to the House. (Time expired)

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011 and give it my qualified support. In fact, a lot of my thoughts will be exactly the same as those of the member for Robertson. My wife is in fact an early childhood teacher. One thing that I would like to see in the future is equalised funding going to primary schools and, in particular, to early childhood centres, because that is where the battle is won or lost. If we can get these kids into a classroom, get them to know their alphabet and learn the outcome based education, then we will all be a lot better off.

As I said, a lot of the things I will be covering here will be covered with exactly the same feeling as that of the member for Robertson; I will just come at it from a different direction. The good part of this bill is that it extends the current funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements, for the 2013 calendar year. The funding covers programs such as the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, helping Indigenous youth move away from home to gain skills for employment. In the city of Townsville a number of people are prepared to assist with this. We have a fantastic TAFE, Tec-NQ and we also have Shalom Christian College. St Pats, run by the Sisters of Mercy, is a great school. It has an incredible population of Torres Strait Islander and Palm Islander girls, who come across there to complete their education all the way through, from grade 8 to grade 12.

The bill also covers funding for the Sporting Chance Program, which uses sport and recreation activities as a means of increasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement in school. Both these programs were implemented by the coalition and, to the government's credit, both these good programs have been continued. Both have been successful in increasing student participation and retention rates. This so-called necessary extension of funding is because we have to allow time for the report, which is due sometime this year, following the review of funding for schools. The government has acknowledged that this review may have implications for the programs run under the IETA Act. I would urge the government not to touch the programs that are working to get kids into schools.

This is where I start to have problems with this legislation and, by extension, all the legislation relating to Aboriginal and Islander affairs. For a start we have these good programs, using sport and recreation, which actually get the kids into school. When we get them there, we sit them down and either they participate in the NAPLAN or we make them prepare for NAPLAN. Too many schools these days are wasting time just preparing for tests and going through tests to get them ready. So we say to the kids from the missions: 'Come in, go to school.' We use sport, music, dance and art to get them in there and, as soon as we do, we throw that out of the window and they no longer participate and we wonder why they do not go back to school.

I agree with the member for Robertson: we as a community have to look at and decide what success is. Is the fact that they can actually speak English by the time they finish school a success? In some cases, it should be. But how do we qualify that and how do we ensure that they are getting the right funding? Those are the questions that we have to ask.

I recognise that this is a big issue. But, for the life of me, and the First Australians of my electorate, we cannot see where all the money is going. For all its good intentions, this place must see the frustration. For all its well-thought-out plans, bills and amendments we are still seeing a complete lack of clear results in our communities. Our Aboriginal and Islander school children remain the most troubled group. They are the most likely to be truant. They are the most likely to finish their education early. They are more likely not to possess the basic literacy skills required to achieve anything above menial labour. They are more likely to die young and they are more likely to suffer substance abuse. I have been a member of this House for less than a year, and yet I feel a great frustration when it comes to the provision of services for our First Australians. In my maiden speech, I pointed to people and organisations who were trying to make a difference. They are making a difference in the community by targeting specific groups, specific programs and specific native groups of people to get things done.

I continue to talk about, for want of a better term, federalising the industry of Aboriginal and Islander affairs, and the member for Robertson addressed that matter as well. I am not a federalist by nature. But, for the life of me, when I speak to the mayor of Palm Island, the mayor of Yarrabah or to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders in my community they do not know where the money is going. It goes from federal to state, to local and there is a trickle that comes out the bottom. They are raising concerns with me as to where the money is going. Are there too many consultants? Are the state governments robbing us blind? Is the federal government through the Public Service not getting the funds through? Those are the questions that just do not seem to be heard, because it all leads to money not getting to the pointy end—and that is what we need. Too often we see people falling through the gaps. We now have more people in care than during the stolen generation. When you think about how much money we have thrown at the issue, you have to pause and ask, 'To what end?'

I was at the Cleveland Youth Detention Centre recently. They have instigated a program where the boys in the centre are exposed to normal businesspeople who mentor them in life. They do not judge the boys nor do they care what they have done. The people who participate are there to see if there is anything that they can offer, anything in their own lives which they have done which could give these boys a chance they so desperately need. These people are not qualified as social workers; they are qualified as people who have jobs and who have life experience. They spend time with the boys. There are some of the Cowboys players that are so welcome in that place but, more often than not, they are just businesspeople going in and spending time with them.

When you go into Cleveland Youth you see the existence of foetal alcohol syndrome and abuse they have suffered are rife in the inmates in the centre. The blame for that lies across the whole region and the whole community. But the mentors do not let them make excuses. They tell them that sometimes bad things happen; some things are beyond their control; and sometimes you just have to suck it up and have a go. That is the mentors' basic message: have a red hot go, be prepared to fail and fall over but have a go.

It is with this in mind that I suggest that we change the way we do things. The current way is simply not good enough. If it was a business venture, you would have cut its head off long ago—too much money and very little return. I was on Palm Island last week and I sat down with Mayor Alf Lacey and acting council CEO Jeff Brown. Alf's mantra is: 'Do not talk to me about welfare. We are over it. What we want to talk about is economic opportunity to be masters of our own destiny.' To that end, Palm Island council are working as a council and as a community to try to lift the island's profile in Townsville for its economic opportunities.

You only have to come over the hill to see what they are doing with weed eradication, the way the town square has been spruced up with paint and the way the council chambers have been cleaned up. What a pretty place it is and is going to be. There is cyclone damage across the foreshore roads where you still have power poles basically in the sand. It is a long road to travel, but they are heading in the right direction.

We need to look at opportunities for our first Australians but we cannot have some bureaucrat or politician in Canberra telling them what that opportunity is and the money will be that and they will be doing this and they will be getting paid that. We need these communities to stand up and tell us what they want to do. We need to help out as a silent partner with business plans and paperwork. Let the residents have a go. Let them drive their own future. We need to micro manage each of these. We need to see what can be done and fund it directly. We need our ministers to do more. We need our directors-general to do that. We need our public servants to change the basic way they are dealing with this part of Australia's life.

For too long we have been giving money over and patting them on the back and sending them on their way. This has to stop. If there is an Aboriginal or Islander person who wants to change and wants to step up, we should be handling their case as a single unit. We need to set out goals and manage their future along with them until they have made it. We also have to acknowledge that this is not for everyone. The more we look at this issue, the deeper it gets; the deeper it gets, the less we do; and the less we do, the more money it costs us.

This is not a swipe at the government, but I do believe that spreading the portfolio of Aboriginal and Islander affairs across so many portfolios and having it as a small part of mega large departments does not seem to be the answer. I do not question the commitment of Minister Snowdon or Minister Macklin, but it is too easy for staff of the department and for even the ministers to say that it is the duty of another portfolio and another department and wipe their hands. That goes across the state as well.

We need to change our focus. We need to be outcomes focused and not budget focused. We need to have as the focus of each member of the Public Service that we want to educate our Aboriginal and Islander children, teenagers and adults. Those who want to work for it will be rewarded with the gift of literacy and better health and jobs and futures. We have to do this one person at a time. This year's theme for NAIDOC Week is 'The next step is ours'. Let us be right there with those who want to take that step and give them the assistance they require. No-one wants any more than that. They are not asking for any more than that. If I am to be accused of being simplistic, then so be it. My idea may not work. But what has?

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill. Can I begin by acknowledging that we are celebrating NAIDOC Week this week, between 3 and 10 July—a week that has been recognised by Indigenous people in this country for almost 70 years. It started off with William Cooper back in the 1930s, when he formed the Australian Aborigines League, and at the time there was even a call for Indigenous people to b e represented in this place. What was originally considered to be a day of mourning has now become a week of celebration for Indigenous people across the country, and I certainly wish them well in the celebrations of this week because I know that, right across the country, in many, many communities, there are individual events taking place.

The purpose of this bill is to extend funding for existing programs under the Indigenous education targeted assistance for a further year and to reallocate some funds to other programs and initiatives. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011 aligns funding so that the review of funding for schooling, due to report in 2011, can be considered and any changes implemented with adequate planning and consultation. In 2007 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to six targets for closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, including in relation to educational achievement. Some of those targets were to halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements for Indigenous children within a decade, and to halve the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 attainment rates by the year 2020. These targets were formalised in the National Indigenous Reform Agreement (Closing the Gap) agreed by COAG in October 2008. The bill aims to extend the funding for the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to incorporate the 2013 calendar year to line up with the Schools Assistance Act 2008, and timing of the review of funding for schooling. This extension, if passed, will appropriate an approximate total of $150 million under the act for 2013.

Nowhere is the need for improving education greater than in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I think that everyone in this House would agree that, if we are ever to overcome disadvantage for any group within our community, then we should begin with improving the education standards. I think it is universally agreed across the world that that is the single thing that makes so much difference to the lives of people. Certainly here in Australia, where we know that Indigenous people are more disadvantaged than the rest of the people in this nation, then starting with a good education outcome is an important priority for the government, and it should be for the nation.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education focused programs run under the act are critical to the future of Indigenous Australia. Initiatives in funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are already underway and there are a range of commitments that this government has already made with respect to reducing Indigenous disadvantage. I want to go through what some of those are. The sum of $56.5 million has been allocated nationally to expand literacy and numeracy programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and to provide professional support to assist teachers to develop personalised learning plans for students over the period 2009 to 2012. The government is honouring its 2007 election commitment of $21.9 million to support students from remote communities attending non-remote boarding schools. The government has also allocated $28.9 million for three new boarding facilities in the Northern Territory to support Indigenous kids to achieve a year 12 certificate; $23 million has been allocated for a quality teaching package to upskill and retain the education workforce in Northern Territory schools; $22.7 million has been allocated for on-site accelerated literacy and numeracy support for teaching staff in the Northern Territory; $107.8 million over four years for an additional 200 teachers in the Northern Territory has also been allocated; $35.4 million has been set aside for the school nutrition program for remote schools in the Northern Territory; $9.1 million of funding was announced in the 2009 budget to support creches; $8.9 million was allocated under the Building the Education Revolution for additional classrooms for remote communities, as was $2.5 billion of Smarter Schools National Partnerships funding which targets disadvantage and contributes to improving literacy and numeracy outcomes, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education a key of that focus.

All of those amounts highlight an additional important point—that is, if we are going to address Indigenous disadvantage and lift education standards of Indigenous people across the country, then we need to target funding to specific needs because the reality is that across Australia different communities do have different needs. If we do not recognise that then we will find that, all too often, money that has been allocated in fact does not target the people who need it the most. So by breaking it down into those specific allocations that I have just run through, it means the government well understands what the priorities ought to be and where the focus ought to be of that funding.

When I look at the programs covered in the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 it is evident that many programs are aimed at engagement as well as education. The programs delivered under the act are complementary to mainstream schooling and employ a range of diverse programs designed to improve educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Sporting Chance Program combines school-based sports academies with education engagement strategies that provide a range of sport, recreation and education activities for primary and secondary school students. Other programs include the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, supplementary recurrent assistance for both non-government vocational education and training and early childhood, as well as Abstudy and mixed mode Away From Base assistance.

If we are going to engage more children in our education sector, we need to begin by also engaging the parents. The act is also about community involvement, as is evidenced by the Parental and Community Engagement Program. The importance of community engagement should never be understated. Historically, low Indigenous engagement in the education system as well as poor education and employment outcomes mean that Indigenous students are less likely to have parental assistance in their studies than non-Indigenous students. The reality has several flow-on effects. Low parental and family education has: firstly, negatively affected Indigenous experiences of and attitudes towards the education system; secondly, reduced the capacity of Indigenous parents and families to engage effectively with the education system; thirdly, reduced parental involvement in school based activities and decision making; and, fourthly, limited the capacity of Indigenous parents and families to support their children in education and employment. The Parental and Community Engagement Program aims to reverse this situation. The government will continue to work at building and strengthening partnerships between families and schools supported by government funding and unflagging determination. In my electorate of Makin, there is an example of the Parental and Community Engagement strategy in place at the North Ingle school at Ingle Farm. The program, which is being run by Centacare Catholic Family Services, has been allocated $23,650 of funding for the family wellbeing project. The project started in January 2010 and is expected to finish on 30 December this year. Centrecare is conducting workshops to empower parents and caregivers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students who attend the North Ingle School to engage with school staff and support their children at the school. It is a good example of what can be done at the local level when you understand what the needs are.

The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 also aims to empower young Indigenous people through the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program. The role Indigenous mentors and role models play in the community is an important one. This program also has the potential to underline the importance of culture, community development and governance in the school environment. The Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan was developed by the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs and launched on 9 June 2011. The action plan includes targeting approximately 900 focus schools and outlines 55 actions at national, systemic and local levels across the following six key areas: readiness for school; engagement and connections; attendance; literacy and numeracy; leadership; quality teaching and workforce development; and pathways to real post-school options.

In last year's budget $15.4 million over four years was prioritised to deliver on the government's commitments under the action plan. We have also approved more than $25 million for projects over 2011 and 2012 to expand intensive literacy and numeracy approaches for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Indeed, since 2008 the government has invested $51.5 million in Indigenous literacy and numeracy projects. Over 20,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in over 670 schools across Australia will benefit from this assistance.

In my home state of South Australia $1 million was provided to Catholic schools for their intensive literacy and numeracy program for Indigenous students and their whole-school planning for targeted personalised learning, with the dual focus on school intervention and literacy and numeracy. Government schools in South Australia will receive a further $1 million for the Unlocking the Future program, which is focused on literacy and teacher capacity. All schools in South Australia—that is, government, Catholic and independent schools—will receive over $3 million to deliver a national program known as Make It Count. This program is focused on improving literacy and teacher capacity.

I close by talking about a local project in the northern and north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide which was undertaken as a partnership between the federal government, the state government of South Australia, Woolworths and two training organisations: Trainme and Globally Make a Difference. It was put together by the Mining, Energy and Engineering Academy of South Australia. This is a program whereby Indigenous people of all ages are selected from the community. Woolworths, as one of key partners, guarantees them a job if they undergo a training program, which in turn gives them a Certificate I or Certificate II in Retail Operations. The program has been an incredible success. Roughly 100 people were originally listed for the program. To date, 91 of those people have commenced the program, 72 have graduated, 42 are currently working with Woolworths and 22 are doing further training. I think those figures are remarkable—remarkable because these were people of all ages who in many cases had never worked before. They were people who had found an incredible number of barriers along the way to getting them into the workforce. But providing them with an opportunity of training and, in turn, the guarantee of a job at the end of that training made a world of difference.

What also made a world of difference was that the two training organisations—and, in particular, Mark Siaosi from Trainme and Melinda Cates from Globally Make a Difference—really understood the people they were working with. They understood them well enough to understand how they should best tailor the training programs that they were providing. They worked with the trainees from start to finish to ensure that they not only completed their training but also participated in the employment experience that was provided by Woolworths along the way. It shows that, when you understand how to run a program and you can guarantee people a job at the end of it, you will get outcomes. I particularly commend Mike Batycki from Woolworths, who is the state manager in South Australia, for overseeing this program and making it available. I have now attended two graduations of the program—this year and last year. I was indeed impressed to see the people coming through the program having graduated and to see the excitement on their faces to think that they had actually achieved something and they had a job waiting for them at the end of the program. That is another good example of where sometimes, if you want results, you have to tailor make the whole program. The federal government has provided $1.2 million of funding as part of its Indigenous Employment Program to fund the program, and it is working. To those people involved—Alan Tidswell, from the Mining Energy and Engineering Academy; Mark Siaosi;Melinda Cates; and Michael Batycki—I say thank you and well done.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In considering the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, the question that comes before anyone who debates this issue on either side of this chamber is the No. 1 concern of school attendance. While we as politicians can continue to mouth the promises of small programs, small financial transfers and small gains in attendance in restricted areas and small cohorts in different parts of Australia, the only thing that will measure our time in public life will be whether we have turned education for Indigenous Australians in remote and rural Australia around so that attendance is something equivalent to what we see in the mainstream. It is great to focus on closing the gap, but today I want to look through the prism of the national quality framework and see what we have achieved since it was first raised back on 3 July 2008, to see some progress in Indigenous outcomes in both early childhood and later education. Secondly, I will look at the human rights issues around school attendance and compare them to worldwide concerns. Thirdly, I will look at the social and, fourthly, the economic implications of school attendance.

When we listen to our words today decades from now, the question will be not, 'Could we fill our 20 minutes with examples of what a government is doing?' but, 'Were we actually achieving any change whatsoever?' There are scarce few examples in this country of successful achievement in getting Aboriginal kids to school. I can start with a list of reasons, but our job is not to continue to expand on the list of reasons. We have one single role in this place, and that is to turn our words—our good words on both sides of the chamber—into reality, particularly in remote and rural Australia. So, while I have seen very, very alarming statistics that talk about only 24 per cent of Indigenous Australians even having a high school in their community and 40 per cent of Indigenous Australians completing year 12 but only 10 per cent of Indigenous Australians actually graduating from year 12, let us remember that it is magnified enormously the more remote or rural the area is. So, in areas like the Warlpiri communities around the Tanami of Yuendumu and Lajamanu, we have seen massive falls in school attendance at the same time as we were attempting the Northern Territory emergency intervention. It was not through any fault of the intervention. The intervention made it clear: send your child to school or face the impact of quarantining. The great problem is that quarantining was extended to absolutely everyone, and here we are, three to four years later, with an almost anthropological fascination with the intervention—watching, looking, talking about it and measuring it—but school attendance has not changed. No, school attendance flatlined for three years after we brought this intervention in. We got an initial 20 per cent jump, and it has sat there at 60 per cent ever since.

My great concern in those prescribed communities is that 40 to 45 per cent of Indigenous children simply do not go to school. I will say it again, and it will be remembered decades from now: it is Australia's greatest human rights violation that Indigenous Australians do not go to school. There is no greater tragedy for this nation. We know that levels of maternal education predict the futures of kids. We know that should be our No. 1 priority after child safety. But we are getting nowhere.

As I said, through the prism of the national quality framework, we talked about it in July 2008. We then talked about it again in October 2008. Then, Indigenous Australians can be delighted to know that on 2 July 2009 we accepted a revised version of the previous year's document—so there went one year. And now I move forward to 2011, and I say to Indigenous Australians, what have we delivered to you in the form of Children and Family Centres? This conversation started years ago. The kids who were most vulnerable in grade 1 are now most of the way through primary school, and what can I report to you? I can report that we had a press release in May saying that they were looking at setting up, in temporary premises, in the middle of this year, an arrangement for Doomadgee, Mareeba, Mount Isa, Ipswich, Mornington Island and Cairns. What about the other 16 remote Queensland communities? Nothing. It is one thing to run around and look for pilot schemes and roll things out in selected communities, but ultimately we need to remember we have two concurrent objectives here. One is the quality numerator—that is, how well we teach the kids. But no matter how good the quality is, if the denominator of school attendance is not there then quality means nothing. The great challenge is that we will have a rollcall and report that an Indigenous child has turned up at school but they are not there at lunchtime. They are gone by lunch, and they are not there on the other days when we are not counting the roll.

I now move to the second issue, the social issues in remote Australia. We put way too much pressure on bureaucrats and, in particular, on principals to be policing and pushing Indigenous liaison workers out to pick kids up from school in buses and cars. And for too long we have hung off the excuses of not having a pair of shoes or food in your tummy as an excuse not to go to school. But it is the other way round; the kids must be at school. There is no corner of this nation where there is not a law that clearly and explicitly points out that very fact. We are failing to apply ordinary laws that apply to the rest of Australia in remote Indigenous Australia. We are effectively creating a racial divide: a two-tiered system where the very rules that apply in most of Australia are exempted in Central Australia. And all most people would ask for is that the rules are applied.

As I said in my second point, from a social perspective I can appreciate there are damaged and incapacitated people in every community. There may well be more in some than others. So it is beholden upon us to identify those people and help their children because that is a child protection issue and that is No. 1. We know from the Bath report that there are 800-plus reports of completely uninvestigated child welfare issues. That is a failure, and without that being fixed we cannot even talk about education.

I have a fair bit of respect for teachers who say we need more resourcing, that we need better skilled teachers in remote areas and that we need to keep them there longer. They are all very important issues of continuity and quality of education. But, as I have said before, the denominator here is attendance. If kids cannot turn up then their parents need to bring them. And if kids will not stay at school because the minute the parents leave the children leave, then we have an issue where we must ask our parents to stay at school. We may well have to rethink education models and admit that, as was traditionally the case in Indigenous Australia, education was a multigenerational process. It is quite possible that caregivers need to remain at school and be accommodated in school grounds. I just ask the question: are we prepared to reconsider the way we deliver a Western education to promote attendance? I will have any discussion in any community about parts of the syllabus which Indigenous Australians do not support or have concerns about, but ultimately this is a discussion we should have had decades ago.

Fred Hollows identified this in the seventies. He found out a century too late for Indigenous Australia that education fundamentally had to be a buy-in process from the very families who send their kids to school. I can understand that it looks like there are no jobs at the end of the tunnel, but that is an argument for another day because No. 1 has to be school attendance, and that comes only through parental acceptance of its importance. When I visit Indigenous communities parents do tell me just that, but they will also tell me: 'Whether I send my kids to school or not, I'm quarantined. So there's no great incentive if I've improved my efforts in sending a kid to school. I don't see many carrots for sending my kid to school in a direct and real time. And ultimately if I thumb my nose at the system and I say, "Well, you've quarantined me and there's nothing more you can do," the reality is it is quite right, there is very little that the system can do.' So at some point we need to say that kids not attending school is just as serious as a range of other child welfare issues, and we need to be able to talk to aunties and extended families about ways of getting those kids to school.

There is a very easy way to reduce the number of kids that are in this situation—that is, to engage a community and ensure there is buy-in. There is nothing worse than going to a remote community where they say: 'We don't have much to do with that mob. We don't know the teachers very well; they come and go. We certainly don't have confidence that they're teaching the right things.' Then there is a driver for engagement with the community, and I would like to see more flexible state education systems start that conversation.

When Marion Scrymgour, as the NT education minister, moved English to a position of pre-eminence and then the intervention backed it up with mandatory four hours of English education at the start of the day, I can see what they were trying to do. But we have thrown out the entire cultural underpinnings of bilingual education for Indigenous Australians. Every other part of Australia teaches languages other than English as an alternative for kids, but we have lost that in many parts of Indigenous Australia that develop fabulous bilingual curricula. We need to bring that back, in no way threatening English because you need to learn English to be able to learn in English, so English must be a core part of education. But to remove the right of a community to have cultural and traditional elements in their curriculum is inviting disaster and disengagement. What we cannot afford is to lose these wonderful young kids at the ages of 10 or 12 when they go through subincision and other traditional processes and we lose them to education until they have gone through their final ceremony. In that period between 12 and 16 we have our greatest challenge in retaining kids, particularly in remote Australia, within our schools. The answer to that is simple: the answer to that is to talk about extended families and to talk to the senior caregiver—who is not always the mother. We need to talk to aunties and elders and ask them what we have to do for the children in your care in terms of keeping them at school. Once we have had that discussion in a community about what is valued in a curriculum it becomes far more powerful.

I have the sense that we are caught somewhere either side of this debate. Centrelink can approach an individual for not sending a child to school, and then at a community level we are trying to negotiate with elders. But in the middle there we need to remember that the strongest remaining part of Indigenous culture is the family group. Perhaps we have to talk to parents and say that part of the parenting payment is being a parent and part of being a parent is sending your kid to school. If they are not sending them to school, I would genuinely ask the question as to whether they are fulfilling their obligations in a modern society to your children.

Noel Pearson said in his Quarterly essay that we need to start thinking about Indigenous Australia not as being doubly disadvantaged but as being able to walk in both worlds and having the best of both. It is completely possible that Indigenous Australia, if it thinks about where it wants to be a decade or a generation or more from now, will say: 'We can retain our connection to land but we do not have to live there 100 per cent of the time. We can go and live where there is work. We can orbit from our communities and have the best of mainstream culture while having our connection to spirituality and the land.' Perhaps that is where we are heading. But it is time for Indigenous Australia to have that debate with itself, because that is a uniquely Aboriginal discussion to be had. I know that if that was to occur then education would be a fundamental part of it.

From our point of view, in the mainstream we need to recognise the important role that mothers, aunties and grandmothers play in education. I cannot see why in remote Indigenous Australia mums and aunties cannot be more than just teacher aides; they can be fundamental parts of an auxiliary volunteer education arm in a school. They could come along and do what auxiliaries do in hospitals, which is support your own education system. We have seen at Batchelor college the important role that elders can play through staying in residential colleges. That should apply in every community in which there is a school. The last thing that we can afford is to set up creches, preschools and kindergartens where Aboriginal families are encouraged to hand the kids over the fence and walk away. That works if you have to go to work, but leaving Indigenous parents completely separated from the education system that is over that fence is not the future.

We may have to be novel; we may have to try new things. But there is one thing that we should never back away from here: we must achieve the same school attendance results that we achieve in the mainstream in remote Australia. That can only start by allowing education departments flexibility, supporting the principals and not making them the policeman at the same time and having Centrelink work very closely on early identification of kids who do not go to school.

In the end, I appreciate that not all parents have the capacity to ensure that their kids go to school every day. But that is a child welfare issue as much as it is an education one. We need to take those children and talk to the extended family—the aunties—about getting them to school. As I have said before, we need to get them engaged with extended family.

Once we achieve that, the final part is the economic implications of school attendance. Everywhere you go, you will see worldwide that an extra year of formal education can do incredible things to a family's earnings over a life. So our priority must be to keep Indigenous kids at school—and particularly when they hit grade 7, because we know that from grade 7 to grade 9 when there is no high school to go to we have a huge drop out of kids.

Those figures that tell us that only one in four Aboriginal kids who stay to grade 12 actually graduate from grade 12 present us with another challenge, and that is whether we should be shifting large numbers of remote and rural Indigenous Australians onto welfare through Newstart. Is it right that large numbers of kids in areas where employment levels are down below 25 per cent should be shifted straight on to welfare payments? My argument is that that mitigates against exactly what we are trying to do, which is engagement through workforce participation. What we know is that all of the antisocial elements—such as alcohol or drug abuse—will always be higher where workforce participation is lower. It simply stands to reason. There are certain social problems that can only be addressed by engaging a greater proportion of people in the workforce. So as long as those figures roll along at around 25 per cent, I argue we can never ever start to get any form of improvement in social issues such as drugs, petrol and alcohol. It starts at school: once you keep kids at school, you give them a chance to transition to meaningful work, training or orbiting. We can do that in the time we have here in public life. But it will take the enforcement of laws that exist in this country now, throughout central, remote and rural Indigenous Australia.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I am indebted to my friend the honourable member for Dawson for reminding me that private members business commences once again at 6.30, so my contribution will necessarily be brief tonight.

It is important, as a compassionate society, and as a society that seeks equality for all of its citizens, that we do whatever we can to improve educational outcomes for all Australians, including those Australians who are Indigenous. As a nation, we do not have a lot to be proud of with respect to Indigenous affairs. Governments on both sides, historically, have sought to solve the problem through throwing money at the problem, rather than focusing on practical outcomes and practical solutions to very substantial problems. The former Howard government had a much better policy than prior governments and it sought to achieve practical reconciliation and sought to improve outcomes. As chairman of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, I was appalled to discover that Indigenous males live approximately 20 years less than non-Indigenous males. When one looks at Indigenous health, we see that so much more has to be achieved. Similarly with respect to education.

That is why I am very pleased to be able to support the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, although with some reservations. This bill is a positive bill. It builds on the initiatives of the former Howard Liberal-National government. It essentially seeks to extend the funding for two Howard government programs. It is unfortunate though that the Labor Party has constantly indulged in reviews. Simply giving a one-year extension in funding for the second year in a row does not permit long-term planning and does not build on the very positive outcomes which these programs have successfully achieved in the years since they were implemented.

The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program along with the Sporting Chance Program endeavour to assist Indigenous young people. The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program helps young Indigenous people move away from home to gain the skills they need to get a job in their community or elsewhere. The Sporting Chance Program is an Australia government initiative that started operations in schools in 2007, with the objective of encouraging positive educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

It really is important to make sure that Indigenous Australians have appropriate educational opportunities, because as we all know the key to success in life is a good education. If someone is able to read, write and count, then the employment prognosis is infinitely better. It really is important also to recognise that many in the Indigenous community have not enjoyed the opportunities of others in the wider Australian community and that governments must therefore focus on doing whatever they can to build positive futures for Indigenous people. The way to a positive future for Indigenous people is by building up the prospects of children and future generations of Indigenous people. It is important they are given the support they need to receive a good education and receive the guidance they require to make them move into a rewarding career where they can become well-rounded and contributing members of the community generally, and become positive role models for other Indigenous Australians. It is probable that the challenges and difficulties faced by the Indigenous community may be addressed and their harshness reduced if the current generation of young people are able to build their abilities and educational opportunities in the future.

Debate adjourned.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a member of federal parliament I feel I have made a commitment to publicly condemning blatant violations of basic human rights. In moving this motion I sought to bring attention to atrocities that are currently occurring in Vietnam against freedom and justice. Though we may call Vietnam our South-East Asian neighbour and our valued trading partner, I for one am appalled that there are more than 400 people currently incarcerated in Vietnam for exercising their fundamental human rights. I refer to people whose only crime is to support political groups not recognised by the state, to criticise government policy or to call for democracy. Today I wish to highlight some recent cases of this.

In Vietnam in recent years there have been a growing number of individuals and activist groups openly voicing their opposition to the government. In response, the Communist regime has been attempting to silence this dissent through imprisonment. The arrest of those advocates of human rights and those seeking democracy is arbitrary, and their trials have been unjust. Beginning in summer 2010, the Vietnamese government embarked on one of the biggest crackdowns on dissidents, specifically targeting land rights activists, most of whom belong to the Mennonite Church, in the Mekong River Delta region. Among those arrested I specifically refer to the seven people I referred to in my notice of motion.

The story of these people is appalling. All seven are members of the Cattle Shed Congregation of the Mennonite Church, the name of which refers to the fact that they have to practice their religion in a cattle shed. In what can only be seen as a severe miscarriage of justice, these seven individuals were detained and held incommunicado from July 2010 until their trial on 30 May 2011 without access to legal counsel or access to their families. When the accused were finally brought before the People's Court of Ben Tre, the hearing, which lasted less than one day, was closed to the public, the defence had limited access to the evidence against their clients and all requests for foreign diplomats to attend the proceedings were denied. To further compound these shocking circumstances, the lawyer Huynh Van Dong, who was appearing for two of the defendants, was ejected from the courtroom during the argument stage of the case. Following the trial, Huynh Van Dong said that the court itself had violated the law from the very beginning. He claimed that any statements that he made in the court room on behalf of his clients were cut off by the judges—in other words, he was effectively silenced.

Due to their association with Viet Tan, a pro-democracy organisation, the seven were charged under article 79 of the Vietnamese penal code, which cited their attempt to overthrow the socialist government. They were accused of the following so-called criminal acts: attending a seminar on non-violent protests, publishing signs concerning Vietnamese ownership of the Paracel and Spratly Islands and organising farmers to protest against corruption. These activities are hardly objectionable by any reasonable standard, and each of them is acceptable and fully within the framework of international law. Collectively they were sentenced to 33 years of imprisonment and 28 years of house arrest. Article 79 of the Vietnamese penal code is vague. It does not distinguish between violent acts endangering national security and peaceful political advocacy. It appears to me that the Vietnamese government has exploited this and in doing so has violated numerous articles of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both of which apply in Vietnam as they are a signatory. To any reasonable person, the action of these seven standing up against corruption, seeking to avail themselves of constitutional rights, could hardly be seen to be criminal but rather the actions of a true patriot. They have been faithful to their religious ideals. They have been selflessly serving their communities. They rightly claim that the communist authorities in Vietnam are using the penal code to rationalise human rights abuses and the silencing of peaceful opposition. In any objective sense the Vietnamese government has failed in every way to prove that these seven people engaged in a single illegal act under international law and therefore the enforcement of article 79 of the code in this manner simply punishes the individuals for exercising their rights to freedom of association, freedom of assembly and participation in national affairs.

I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that as Australian parliamentarians we are not alone in our concern about Vietnam's arbitrary detention and conviction of innocent individuals who are fighting for freedom and justice. Human rights groups, elected officials and foreign embassies all around the world have criticised the regime and its actions. In another case of Vietnamese suppression a 50-year-old novelist and journalist, Tran Khai Thanh Thuy, was recently deported to the United States on humanitarian grounds following fierce pressure from the United States State Department and strong backing of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. Thuy had been sentenced to 3½ years imprisonment earlier that year on assault charge. The charge had been found to be a complete fabrication and an excuse by the government to arrest Thuy for her involvement in the pro-democratic movement, particularly her association with Viet Tan. Thuy's case is a landmark and it is the first time international pressure has been successful in affecting the actions of the Vietnamese government. As a signatory to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Vietnam has willingly agreed to grant its citizens the rights of freedom, particularly freedom of association.

As a trading partner and an aid donor, I believe Australia has a right to demand that Vietnam abide by its international legal obligations. On numerous occasions I have drawn the parliament's attention to the ongoing human rights abuses in Vietnam. Recently I spoke about three people who were jailed for nine years for organising a strike at a shoe factory in pursuit of fair wages and conditions. I have also spoken about the legal scholar, Cu Huy Ha Vu, jailed for seven years for initiating legal action in respect of a Chinese mining project and challenging the constitutional validity of a prohibition order against class actions.

We do not need to chronicle the human rights abuses; we need to see genuine progress. Positive outcomes can be achieved when pressure is placed on the Vietnamese government, as in the release of Tran Khai Thanh Thuy. This case is evidence that when we work in conjunction with the international community and put full pressure on the Vietnamese government we can work towards ending these atrocities. At the very minimum Australia, along with the international community, should demand that the undertakings given by the Vietnamese government in signing the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be honoured. As I say, that should be seen as an absolute minimum.

As you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, in my electorate I have the good fortune to represent a large number of Vietnamese people. Since the fall of Saigon some 36 years ago Australia has received 200,000 Vietnamese refugees. To Vietnamese people, this is still very real. We are not talking about something in a distant land; or about something in their immediate past, but their families and their welfare.

We have taken a leading role within our region in pursuing human rights and we should be proud of that. We have taken a leading role in developing trade in countries such as Vietnam. Again, that is something we should be proud of. In doing that, we need to go further. We should now be demanding of those countries that sign for whatever reason, trade based or otherwise, the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights that not only the spirit of that convention be upheld but each and every one of its articles, as they apply to its people—that is, in respect of the freedoms associated with the application of those conventions—also be honoured. It is not too much to ask that we, along with our international colleagues, work collectively to ensure that progress is made in improving human rights in Vietnam.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to protest against the abuse by the government of Vietnam of human rights and the outrageous treatment of human rights activists, dissidents and supporters of a democratic Vietnam. It was certainly the case that when the detail of this motion was distributed I immediately sought the opportunity to speak. I believe that I am on the record in this place as being very strongly on the side of a free and democratic Vietnam. I thank my friends from the WA Vietnamese community: Peter Le, the president; Dai Nguyen, the vice-president; the committee, as well as my friends in Viet Tan, the Vietnam Reform Party; and the master of the Vietnamese temple, the venerable Thich Phuoc Nhon.

I am particularly keen to participate because of my personal link in this matter. I say that because I worshipped with the members of the Cow Shed congregation of the Mennonite Church on Sunday, 9 January this year, and met with the friends and family of the seven people named in this motion. I sang with the members of the church and I prayed with them on that day. In speaking with the members of the church, we spoke of five of those mentioned in the motion: Pastor Khai; Evangelist Nguyen Chi Thanh; and followers Pham Van Thong, Nguyen Thanh Tam and Pham Ngoc Hoa. All were in jail at the time of my visit to the flooded Chuong Bo Church in Saigon.

It is tragic that there were arrests and now sentencing, on 30 May 2011, of the seven activists. It is in fact an indictment of the Vietnamese system of government and justice system that they should be able to be convicted of a charge of attempting to overthrow the people's administration when what they did was to support open and accountable government, support human rights and act as patriots of a free and independent Vietnam. That is what they did when they chose to advocate for democratic reform; engage in non-violent protests to prepare and distribute materials affirming Vietnamese sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands; petition the state for redress on behalf of local landowners; and engage in peaceful advocacy for social justice.

When I think of how these courageous people suffer for an excellent cause, I think back to that morning I spent with their family and friends. I will not name who was there in the church on that day, because I know that what I have said in the past here is read by the Vietnamese Ministry for Foreign Affairs and I do not want to put them at any more risk than they have already endured. However, there is not a day that goes by when I do not think of the Cow Shed Church and its members. I think of their fearlessness, their courage and their determination in the face of a government determined to maintain power, using security forces that amount to one officer for every 10 families in Vietnam. There is little doubt that those who choose to resist risk a great deal for their cause and their faith. Pastor Duong Kim Khai was evicted from his home where the congregation had met and had to move to the cow shed. So when I think of the wooden framed shed, with the palm tree frond roof and the flaps of silver insulation on the side and of the wooden plank that his wife has to sleep on it reminds me that there are big problems in Vietnam. It reminds me that the country is not democratic and that many people are oppressed by this regime.

I recall how I got to the church that day after changing transport on many occasions just to avoid being followed. Yet for me that was just one morning, whereas for those who are still there it is their life and that breaks my heart. I therefore fully support the view expressed in this motion that the authorities of Vietnam use legal processes to rationalise human rights abuse and to silence peaceful opposition. We call on the federal government to use the full weight of their diplomatic relations with Vietnam to lobby for substantial reform in human rights and basic freedoms in accordance with the provisions of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, to which both Australia and Vietnam are parties. It is, however, right that I take this opportunity to speak more widely of religious freedom in Vietnam. From my two visits to Vietnam I am committed to the view that there is no religious freedom in Vietnam. If you want to worship you can do so, but you must provide the list of your congregation members to the authorities. You must also provide the names of anyone who visits your church or temple. Your minister must also be registered. So if you do all that, along with ensuring that any sermons are not critical of the government and that you fly the flag of the state in front of your church, then you can carry on. But I do not call that freedom of religion; that is just state controlled religion, and it is not what we would accept here in Australia.

On the matter of religious freedom in Vietnam, as part of my visit to Vietnam in January this year I had two meetings that I specifically wanted to achieve. I wanted to visit the Roman Catholic priest in Hue, Father Ly, and I wanted to visit the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do in Saigon, both of whom I have previously spoken about in the parliament, as has the member for Fowler. Father Ly, who was born in 1947, has spent more than 15 years in jail for his belief in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. He is a man committed to peaceful and non-violent protest. Father Ly has been speaking about and taking action for democracy and religious freedom for many years. Since 1977 he has been harassed, arrested, brutalised and jailed for his activities.

On 8 April 2006, a group of dissidents signed the Manifesto on Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam. The manifesto calls for a multiparty state in Vietnam and that group became known as Bloc 8406, named for the date they signed the manifesto. It calls for democracy, and Father Ly was a founding member for Bloc 8406. In September of that year, Father Ly was also involved in the establishment of the Vietnam Progression Party. For his courage and commitment to democracy and for his support of Bloc 8406, Father Ly was jailed for eight years on 30 March 2007. He had been arrested on 19 February after a raid by security police in the Catholic Archdiocese of Hue. Father Ly is a courageous and honourable man who has made great sacrifices for his beliefs. He has spent many years in jail. He has spent many years being harassed and brutalised by an oppressive regime. After suffering a stroke, he was released from jail and remains under house arrest in Hue.

My meeting with Father Ly was scheduled for 7 January 2011. On 6 January, in Hanoi, I met the Deputy Director-General of the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr Hoang Chi Trung said that if I attempted to visit Father Ly in Hue they could not guarantee my safety, which I took to mean I would be arrested and probably deported. Mr Trung also made reference to my support of what he called a 'terrorist organisation', the Viet Tan. In speaking of Father Ly, it was clear that the view of the deputy director-general was that any suggestion by Father Ly or others of establishing opposition parties or opposition bodies outside of state affiliation or agencies constituted a direct threat to national security. In this case, rather than risk deportation, I decided to go to Saigon and attempt to meet with the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do on 8 January.

After being picked up in a taxi by two of the Most Venerable's followers, we drove into the suburbs of Saigon followed by security force officers. Despite being followed, we arrived at the Thanh Minh temple and were not stopped by the plain clothes security officers across the road. So in that regard I am grateful to the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for allowing that meeting to take place. In that meeting, the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do stated that nothing had changed in the last 30 years. He said that in Vietnam you must bow down to the communists and follow their orders. He said that in Vietnam, there is one police officer or security person for every 10 families and that while it was bad in Saigon, with security police ruling each district, it was worse in the country, where the security forces could oppress the local people extremely and easily, monitoring or stopping meetings taking place. Life in the country was already bad because people did not have enough food to eat.

Thich Quang Do also said to me that he and his supporters were always followed wherever they went and therefore he rarely went out other than for medical reasons, normally. It was clear on my arrival that plain clothes security personnel were across the laneway from the temple. He also said that he had never been charged, tried or convicted of any crime but he has been verbally told that he is under house arrest. But they are careful to ensure that there is no hard evidence of this abuse of his human rights.

In speaking about the situation in Vietnam, he said that the communists rule for themselves and they will never give up or share the power in Vietnam. He said they sell the country to China and reap the profits themselves as a small ruling elite. He said that many had died at the hands of the communists but another very important problem is the bribes and corruption. Corruption takes place from the local offices all the way up to the top officials.

It is certainly the case that when you look at what takes place in Vietnam, despite the assertions made by the ruling party in the country, there is a long way to go before there will be religious freedom. There is oppression that takes place across the whole spectrum, in religion as well as democracy—the oppression of the Montagnards, the Mennonite followers, the dissident Catholics, the dissident Buddhists. There is oppression everywhere and there is very little reform. So it is right that we talk about it in this place. We hope that the government will take it forward and continue to apply pressure, and apply more pressure, on the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to pursue dramatic reforms of human rights and freedoms via our diplomatic relations with that country.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fowler for his motion and the member for Cowan for his words tonight. The motion that we are speaking to highlights the importance of Human Rights Day and details the difficult circumstances faced by many of the world's human rights defenders. I note the member has a particular focus on the situation in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, where the human rights situation continues to be dire in terms of freedoms of speech, press, assembly, movement and association and where political activists, unionists and human rights defenders continue to be arrested, detained and subjected to unfair trials in addition to lengthy periods of incarceration.

On 30 May this year, seven activists in Ben Tre were jailed for 'attempting to overthrow the people's administration' by engaging in such activities as attending courses on non-violent protest and assisting victims of government corruption. Human Rights Watch has called for the release of a number of corruption-busting human rights lawyers and legal defenders who have been arbitrarily arrested, detained, disbarred and pressured not to represent political or religious activists. Human Rights Watch has also noted in its country summary:

Vietnam, which served as the chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2010, demonstrated little respect for core principles in the … (ASEAN) Charter to "strengthen democracy" and "protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms."

Earlier this year Amnesty International called for the release of Vi Duc Hoi, who was given an eight-year prison sentence for posting articles on the internet calling for democracy.

It is for reasons like these that the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has commenced an inquiry into Australia's annual human rights dialogues with Vietnam and China. One of the main aims of the inquiry will be to ascertain whether Australian parliamentarians might have an expanded role in these dialogues.

Of course, as the member for Fowler has noted in his motion, instances of suppression of freedom of speech and of democratic participation are not confined to Vietnam and China. It is important that we continue to speak up for the benefit of human rights and democracy defenders in Burma, Iran, Syria, Bahrain, Pakistan, Western Sahara, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Russia and other countries and that, to use Aung San Suu Kyi's words, we use our liberty to promote theirs.

In 2008 one of my favourite poets, Seamus Heaney, reflected on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in an essay called The Poetic Redress, in which he wrote, inter alia:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

In the boldness and buoyancy of these words there are echoes of many of the great foundational texts of western civilisation, from Sophocles' "wonders of man" chorus through Christ's Sermon on the Mount on up to the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. So even if this First Article cannot guarantee what it declares, if its writ cannot be made to run in China or Zimbabwe or Guantanamo, it nevertheless gestures so confidently towards what human beings desire that it fortifies a conviction that the desirable can in fact be realised.

…   …   …

Since it was framed, the Declaration has succeeded in creating an international moral consensus. It is always there as a means of highlighting abuse if not always as a remedy: it exists instead in the moral imagination as an equivalent of the gold standard in the monetary system. The articulation of its tenets has made them into world currency of a negotiable sort. Even if its Articles are ignored or flouted—in many cases by governments who have signed up to them—it provides a worldwide amplification system for "the still, small voice".

…   …   …

Flouted though the Articles have been and continue to be, their vulnerability should perhaps be regarded as an earnest of their ultimate value. If, for example, an effort were to be made to enforce them by the exercise of military power—as in the effort to enforce "democracy" on Iraq—it would not only end in failure but would discredit utterly the very concept of human rights. They would be stigmatised as the attributes of an imperium rather than an inherent endowment of the species.

It is this vulnerable yet spiritually inviolate quality which makes them attractive not only to the wronged and the oppressed of the Earth, but to writers and poets as well. The Universal Declaration is not a sure-fire panacea for the world's ills; it is more geared to effect what I once called "the redress of poetry" than to intervene like a superpower. This idea of redress I discovered first in Simone Weil's book, Gravity and Grace, where she observes that if we know the way society is unbalanced, we must do what we can to add weight to the lighter side of the scale. The Universal Declaration, it seems to me, adds this kind of weight and contributes thereby to the maintenance of an equilibrium—never entirely achieved—between the rights and wrongs.

I thank the member for Fowler for once again reminding us of this international moral consensus and adding weight and buoyancy to the lighter side of the scale.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like my colleagues who have spoken before me, can I congratulate the member for Fowler for bringing this matter forward. Unlike the member for Fowler, I have few Vietnamese living in my electorate and have, over a long period of time, taken a personal interest in these issues—only contained from the time I fulfilled ministerial responsibilities and was not free to speak beyond my portfolio responsibilities. But I must say that I was very impressed with the member for Cowan's comments about his activist role in relation to Vietnam. It reminded me of the time in which I visited Vietnam myself as a backbencher seeking the release of Vho Dey Thong, who was held in what was euphemistically known as the Hanoi Hilton. We were, I might say, able to secure his release. I do not know that it was all my efforts; it may have had something to do with someone well known to the member for Fremantle, the former foreign minister, Senator Evans, who I know took the matter up forcibly as well.

I command the member for Fremantle in relation to her comments tonight because they enabled us to focus on one area of the parliament—that is, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and its Human Rights Subcommittee, which has had an opportunity to hear recently from a number of Vietnamese representatives about what was happening in Vietnam and inviting us to play a more active role. I might say that I particularly asked them after those hearings to obtain some information about what the international bodies are doing in relation to this matter—organisations like the United Nations Human Rights Council, who often opine on matters even relevant here in Australia. I wondered how active they were as part of the broader international community in taking these matters forward.

For my own part, I was for a long time associated with the Australian committee for a free Vietnam. I played a part in many debates about this matter of human rights in Vietnam since 1976, when the Communist Party came to power. I, like many, hoped in 1986, when they started to embark upon certain economic reforms, that we would see some change in their modus operandi. It is the case that the government has fostered economic growth and there has been some increase in standard of living. But it has also been accompanied by allegations of corruption and disputes over access to resources, particularly land, and we have seen a situation where the oppressive banning of political parties as well as trade unions and human rights organisations continues. The fact is that Vietnamese law has discriminated very significantly against religious groups, which are required to register. The adherents and some unregistered groups have been subjected to harassment and house arrest and detention. We have heard mention of that in relation to Protestant religious groups, the Roman Catholic Church and the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, of which my friend Thich Quang Do in Canberra is very much associated.

I too read with great alarm the reports of what has happened to the seven people who have recently been convicted in a closed one-day trial. That is obviously what prompted this motion. I hope that the parliament will continue to take an interest in these matters. I would like to see the government play an active role in these matters, although I suspect that the member may not get what he seeks from the government. But I am sure, in the bilateral dialogues and in the human rights dialogues which the former government initiated, this would be a matter that people would want to see raised. I hope, through the monitoring of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, we can play a part in ensuring that those matters are addressed very positively when that dialogue occurs. I thank the honourable member for raising the matter. I am sure his constituents will very much appreciate the effort that he has put in. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By conferring the title 'Royal' on the Australian Navy 100 years ago, King George V signalled his belief in Australia's ability and preparedness to effectively look after its own maritime defence. The bravery and resilience shown by Navy personnel since that momentous occasion has helped protect the nation and has shaped our reputation of distinction abroad. It is fitting that next week, on 10 July, we recognise and celebrate 100 years of distinguished service by the Royal Australian Navy.

For a newly federated nation with a coastline of 59,736 kilometres, maritime defence was always going to be of utmost importance. From settlement, Australia's defence was dependent upon units detached from the British Empire's Royal Navy Sydney Base. In 1859, Australia was established as a separate British naval station with a fleet to be financed and controlled by the Australian Commonwealth. At a conference on naval expansion in 1909, the Australian government and the British Admiralty agreed to establish the Australian Fleet Unit. This unit was to include at least one battlecruiser, three submarines, three second-class cruisers, six destroyers and several auxiliary support vehicles. Whilst this fleet is diminutive by today's standards, it signalled to the world that Australia as a nation had come of age and was ready to handle its own maritime affairs.

On 10 July 1911, King George V granted the prefix 'Royal' to the Australian Navy in honour of its increased size and status. This decision was formally promulgated by the Australian Commonwealth Navy Board later that year on 5 October. From that point in time, all Australian ships were to fly the Royal Navy's White Ensign beside the Australian flag. In just three years time, the new maritime force would be dragged into a war of historically unprecedented proportions. The immediate role of the Royal Australian Navy was to annex all of Germany's Pacific colonies to secure supply and trade routes. The Royal Australian Navy's first maritime battle was with the German light cruiser the SMS Emden. Von Spee had detached the Emden to roam the Indian Ocean independent of his command. From the period 1 August 1914 to 9 November 1914, the Emden sank or captured 30 Allied warships and merchant vessels. Captained by Karl von Muller, the single cruiser effectively brought the Indian Ocean to a standstill. To strengthen his dominance of the Indian Ocean, Captain Muller decided to send a landing party to Direction Island in the Cocos Islands to destroy a radio tower that served as a critical piece of wireless ship-to-ship communication infrastructure. When the Emdenlanded on 9 November 1914, the people of Direction Island managed to radio for help to HMAS Sydney, which was 80 kilometres away. Upon arrival, the Emden engaged the Sydney. The Royal Australian Navy's first sea battle ensued. Fighting valiantly and demonstrating the nation's newfound capability to defend itself, the Sydney's losses were four dead and 13 wounded, whilst the Emden sustained large-scale damage, with 131 dead and 65 wounded soldiers.

It is rare for a new naval force to have such a large-scale success in its first engagement; it was even rarer for this success to be achieved against a vessel from an empire that was one of the most powerful of its time. The personnel aboard the HMAS Sydney set the tone and high standard for members of the Royal Australian Navy for years to come. It was their original success that allowed the Royal Australian navy's culture of distinction and achievement to take its roots.

The centenary of the Royal Australian Navy also holds an element of personal significance. The electorate of Bennelong has many retired and current naval officers, including retired Navy Chief Harvey Porter, President of the Northern Metropolitan District Council of RSL Sub-Branches in New South Wales and President of Lane Cove RSL sub-branch. I wish to thank Mr Porter for his assistance in compiling the research on this motion.

Bennelong has a significant history in the construction of naval ships. When boat builder Lars Halvorsen died in 1936 from a bone infection at the age of 49, his will specified that his large estate be divided between his wife and seven children. This would have effectively dismantled the company. Backed by the entire family, the five sons went to court and convinced the judge that, despite their youth, they should continue to successfully operate their father's company. The new company that was formed was named Lars Halvorsen and Sons, headquartered in the suburb of Ryde, and grew to become the largest fully undercover factory of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere.

During World War II, over 250 Halvorsen ships were deployed by the Royal Australian Navy, the Dutch navy and the US navy. There were 112-foot Fairmiles, 60-foot torpedo boats and 38-foot air-sea rescue boats involved in many conflicts and proved vital in saving the lives of Australian naval officers. Two Halvorsens were involved in the chasing and depth-charging of Japanese midget submarines during the 1942 attack on Sydney Harbour. The Halvorsen's factory in Ryde built 237 vessels with a workforce of 350 who worked 24 hours a day.

In its short life, the Royal Australian Navy has distinguished itself in every ocean, with operations throughout Europe, North Africa, Asia and the Pacific. It has assisted the United Nations several times in global and regional peace-keeping missions. Just this year, the Royal Australian Navy rapidly responded to aid Australians in need following the horrific floods and cyclones in Queensland. Every day the fleet contributes to the security of our region, whilst upholding their core values of honour, honesty, courage, integrity and loyalty.

Last Thursday I was privileged to represent the Leader of the Opposition to welcome home the men and women of the HMAS Stuart. The tight-knit community recognises, respects and supports these great Australians who heroically choose to defend us and preserve our national sovereignty. Celebrating the first 100 years of the Royal Australian Navy and all of the heroism and selfless acts of bravery in the face of fire should focus our attention on those brave soldiers who so richly deserve recognition for their valour in the presence of the enemy in form of our nation's highest award, the Victoria Cross. In Senate estimates hearings last October, Senator Barnett raised the question of why none of Australia's 97 Victoria Cross recipients have hailed from the Royal Australian Navy. I am informed that two members of the Royal Australian Navy are now being considered for this rare honour. This would be a most fitting tribute in this year, the Centenary of the Royal Australian Navy.

This motion recognises the achievements of the men and women who have contributed their unique skills, expertise and courage towards our nation's defences, and those who continue to do so, and congratulates the Royal Australian Navy on a proud history over the past century. One hundred years may not be a long time in world history, yet for our nation it represents a great part of our history. The Royal Australian Navy is a great part of our history. I commend this motion to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a Flight Lieutenant in the RAAF Reserve, it is with a little bit of trepidation that I stand to second the motion of the member for Bennelong on the Centenary of the Royal Australian Navy. But I am standing here as a politician, so I do so proudly and commend him on his motion. I also wish him many happy returns—on something short of his 100th birthday! That is a special occasion as well. This year was also the RAAF's 90th birthday. Everyone in the RAAF refers to the Navy as the 'Senior Service'. I think that is sometimes just to annoy the people in the Army, but the reality is that it is always called the Senior Service, because it has been around for so long. The 100 years we are celebrating today obviously recognises when King George V granted the 'Royal' title to what was then a 10-year-old Commonwealth naval force and also naval forces that were pulled from the colonies, because they had a history long before the Federation of Australia.

It is appropriate that we recognise the birthday—the Centenary, 100 years, of the very proud Royal Australian Navy—and I commend the member for Bennelong on the motion, particularly as a Queenslander. This year, a year of floods and cyclones, the Royal Australian Navy responded in a wonderful way when things were tough, when things were grim. When the floods and cyclones were in force all over Queensland, the Royal Australian Navy stepped up. I noticed that the commander-in-chief—a Queenslander, Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce—also noted that in her message marking 100 years of the Royal Australian Navy.

By way of history, I will start by acknowledging that during the First World War the Royal Australian Navy possessed 63 ships, 22 of which were requisitioned, and lost only two vessels, both submarines. From my vague recollection of school history, I think the first was in an operation in Germany-controlled Paua New Guinea, and I think the very first fatality in World War I might have been a Queensland sailor. I did not have a chance to track that down—the first fatality in the AE1—because today has been a busy day, but hopefully I will be able to track it down. The other RAN vessel that went down was at Gallipoli, running the blockade of Turkish forts. So only two vessels were lost. I think it is appropriate that I mention that these two vessels that went down were submarines—and I will return to this at the end of my contribution—because anyone who is connected with the Navy knows that whilst you need an incredible amount of courage to go to sea, it takes a particular type of courage to go under the sea—one might say a crazy-brave sort of courage—but I do commend them. One of the aged care facilities at Salisbury in my electorate is actually named after the submarine, so there is a particular connection there with my electorate. We do not have a naval base on the Brisbane River in my electorate as yet, but I will see what transpires. So World War I was the sign of a developing Navy.

Then if we turn to the Second World War our fleet had expanded significantly, and I am going to mention some of the names of these ships because they are connected with so many people in my electorate and with my RSLs. We have HMAS Australia, HMAS Canberra, HMAS Hobart, HMAS Sydney, HMAS Voyager, HMAS Swan and HMAS Yarrasome of those are famous names for all of us. By the time it came to later in the war, there were over 200 vessels in our fleet ranging from fleet oilers to other repair ships—an incredible number. Of the ships in commission prior to the outbreak of war, all except the Hobart and Swan were sunk. When you read statistics like that, it is easy to say it as though it did not impact on the lives of the families and the communities that come with those sorts of disasters, although the Hobart did sustain serious damage as a result of a torpedo hit. I will particularly turn to that because I would like to mention a Mr Chas Taylor and Mr Eric Wright who are both members of the Sunnybank RSL in my electorate—I would suggest one of the best RSLs in Australia.

Mr Chas Taylor and Mr Eric Wright are proud former members of the Royal Australian Navy and they served on HMAS Hobart during World War II. Mr Taylor joined the Navy in 1941 and was posted to the Hobart to the following year as a stores supply and gunnery control specialist. Mr Taylor was aboard the ship when it was torpedoed by Japanese forces near the Solomon Islands on 20 July 1943 where 13 crew and a US officer died. In fact, a piece of the boardroom table from HMAS Hobart is on the wall of the Sunnybank RSL.

On 2 September 1945 from the their vantage points aboard HMAS Hobart, Chas Taylor and Eric Wright, two of my constituents, witnessed the end of World War II. It is amazing what they saw. The two men were strangers at the time but they were sailors on their ship HMAS Hobart which moored in Tokyo Harbour not far from the USS Missouri aboard which the Japanese signed the surrender documents. They could see the USS Missouri and the surrender ceremonies through binoculars. Here they are, and I wish them well. I know Mr Wright is having a tough time at the moment.

It was interesting to hear from the member for Bennelong about the fact that, of the 97 Victoria Crosses awarded, none have been awarded to sailors, I think is what he said. Obviously no-one would doubt the courage of the people in the senior service, as I am sure the member opposite would acknowledge. However, when the member for Bass speaks on this motion, I think he is going to talk a bit further about how perhaps there should be two Tasmanians recognised, and I wish him well with that.

Obviously the Navy has taken shape from the days of having two submarines to the present where we have the Navy working in concert with Customs and the Air Force patrolling our borders. During the Christmas Island inquiry that I was on recently, we heard that basically they are deployed to look after 11 per cent of the world's surface, which is a lot of space for not many people and they see all sorts of things. They are trying to patrol our economic interests in keeping our fishing banks safe and in intercepting illegal maritime vessels to make sure that there is a control process in terms of immigration. They do incredible work. It was an honour and a pleasure to meet them on Christmas Island.

The people that get on these ships say goodbye to their family. I know this occurs for Army and Air Force personnel when they go on a posting overseas, but when you get on a ship it is a completely different experience because you are cut off from the rest of the community for such a long time.

I said I would return to the submariners in particular because I think it takes a particular courage to do the things that they do. If you have seen the circumstances inside the submarines, they are a little bit better than the submarines that sank in Papua New Guinea and at Gallipoli. However, I particularly wanted to mention the courage of the submariners and all the people in the Royal Australian Navy. I have been going to the Coral Sea commemoration service every year for the last four years, and it is amazing to see the camaraderie and hear the history and the events that occurred in the Battle of the Coral Sea. Admittedly, I would point out that it was the Air Force working in concert with the Navy that created that first victory—or the first victory we claimed. I think the Japanese claim it as a victory as well. It was definitely a successful operation and the first time that we had been able to halt that onslaught. It is amazing to hear the stories and see the people from World War II in particular, who are obviously not getting any younger. I just want to particularly thank them for their contribution during World War II and in Vietnam and beyond, Vietnam particularly, and wish them Happy Birthday.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the brilliant motion by the member for Bennelong in recognising 100 years of service of the Royal Australian Navy and recognising the unique contribution made by the Royal Australian Navy not only to our national defence and security but also to the wider cultural fabric of our nation.

The motion seeks to recognise the naming of Australian Navy by King George V on 10 July 1911—in fact, the anniversary is in six days time—as a significant step forward towards Australia's independence from colonial rule, with independence having come a mere 11 years earlier. It also notes the significant role played by the electorate of Bennelong in the development of the Royal Australian Navy, particularly the construction of Halvorsen ships in Ryde. So it is fitting that this parliament rises to recognise 100 years of distinguished service.

It would be remiss of me as a graduate of the Royal Military College of Duntroon not to also mention that this year of course is the centenary of RMC Duntroon, which has for 100 years been putting out Australian military officers who have fought on the battlefields across the world.

But tonight we focus on the senior service, the Navy. I am sure the member for Bennelong has discussed the Navy's first maritime battle against the German light cruiser the SMS Emden seeking to move against Direction Island in the Cocos groups on 9 November. The first sea battle of course was the Emden versus HMAS Sydney. Whilst Sydney was to indeed lose four men killed in action and 13 wounded, the Emden sustained significantly larger damage with over 131 killed in action during that conflict.

Since then the Royal Australian Navy has distinguished itself from the launching of two submarines AE1 and AE2 in the First World War through to a more substantial fleet; in fact, one of the favourite maritime stories I share is of an AE1 stuck in the Dardanelles. As it sought to move through that thin sliver of water, it got stuck on the ocean floor directly below a significant fortified position on the cliffs of the Dardanelles. As the tide went out, the superstructure of the AE1 was exposed. Unfortunately, the canons in the fort, when lowered down, could not lower that far down into the ocean because of the proximity of the submarine to the cliffs. The submarine endured small arms fire until the tide rose and the AE1 slipped silently under the water. Could you imagine being a submariner inside your tin can whilst enemy combatants fired upon you? Such was the mettle of the Royal Australian Navy, which at that point was a mere three years old.

It is also important to realise that when our navy took our fighting men to Gallipoli, they left from Albany in Western Australia in 1949. Two Royal Australian Navy ships were taking our military to fight escorted by a Japanese warship. It just goes to show that our maritime cooperation with countries in our region stretches back almost 100 years.

It is fitting also that this week we remembered the greatest maritime loss of all time, which was the sinking of the Montevideo Maru sunk by the USS Sturgeon, an American submarine. Of course the Montevideo Maru was carrying over 100,000 prisoners of war and civilian prisoners and was lost. I have been public in my call for us to spend time and resources and indeed treasure to find the Montevideo Maru as we have spent time, resources and treasure finding HMAS Sydney and of course recently the HMAS Centaur. The Montevideo Maru is our nation's most significant naval disaster, and the ship deserves to be found. I have had communication with the great ship hunter who found the Centaur and HMAS Sydney, who has a fairly good bearing on where the Montevideo Maru would be. It is also instructive to note that, during World War II, over 170 submarines operated from Fremantle. It was the second largest submarine base in the world. We do indeed have a rich naval history.

Our modern navy will undergo significant changes: two LHDs are coming on board, as are three air warfare destroyers. There will be the replacement of our minesweepers and our hydrographic and Armidale class vessels with over 20 littoral ships and of course the submarine replacements. Our current operations include frigates in the Gulf where we have had one frigate continuously since 2001 and the work of our Armidale class patrol boats which continue to provide day and night border protection. We indeed have much to be proud of. (Time expired)

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In July 1940, Leading Seaman Jack Mantle, although mortally wounded, kept firing his gun right to the end as a swarm of Nazi stukas attacked his anti-aircraft ship, HMAS Foylebank, in the English harbour of Portland. For his valour Jack Mantle was fittingly awarded a Victoria Cross.

A statutory declaration by Colin Madigan AO, declared on 28 May 2008, states:

I, Colin Madigan AO, make the following declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959:

I served in HMAS Armidale throughout her short life of six months from launching to sinking in action on December 1, 1942.

My action station was on the bridge in the Asdic cabinet and when they order "Abandon ship" was given I had difficulty extricating myself because of my Mae West, which was inflated. I could hear Teddy Sheean's Oerlikon firing all the time and when I eventually got into the water I saw his tracer shells coming up from under the surface. He had gone down with the ship, still fighting.

This act was awe-inspiring. It enters the universal temple Pantheon which records the world's great legends and in this instance combines that rarest of all qualities, altruism. The official gazettal of a Victoria Cross is overdue.

…   …   …

Since 2001, I have sought to have the actions of Teddy Sheean recognised both in this parliament and by the posthumous award of a Victoria Cross. I note that, in relation to this and similar episodes such as that by Richard Emms in Darwin when Darwin was being bombed and by other members of the Royal Australian Navy, not one member of the Royal Australian Navy has ever been awarded the Victoria Cross. After investigating the history of these cases, the only reason for this that I can find is that the RAN had a different honours system of advocacy from the Royal Australian Air Force and the AIF. Until recently, recommendations for a Victoria Cross and other honours for members of the Royal Australian Navy went through the Admiralty and not through the RAN. I think that in the instance of Teddy Sheean and others, like Robert Rankin, that is in a sense scandalous. No one wants to pit the feats of heroism of one person against another. Jack Mantle rightly received a Victoria Cross for what he did; Teddy Sheean was mentioned in dispatches for what he did. I have other records from those who were on the Armidale when it was sunk and subsequently strafed by Japanese fighters and bombers. I will quote from Ray Raymond, who says: 'At 3.15 on 1 December 1942, HMAS Armidale was attacked by 13 Japanese planes, with the result that the ship was hit by a torpedo on the port side abreast of the bridge.' He goes on to give descriptions of where he was. He swam 40 yards away from the ship when confronted by a torpedo. The bridge section of the ship sank first as a result of the section filling with water after the first torpedo. The aftersection righted itself 'from the tilt and after the Oerlikon came into sight, being manned by Teddy Sheehan, who was still firing the gun, which resulted in him shooting down one Japanese plane and damaging possibly two others'. He went on to say, 'As the ship broke in halves, both sections sank from the centre, with the result that Teddy Sheehan was still firing the Oerlikon gun as the aftersection of the ship disappeared below the surface, never to appear again.' That was witnessed by others, and I believe that this new honour system and the tribunal to review this should award a posthumous Victoria Cross. (Time expired)

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I first congratulate the member for Bennelong for giving us the opportunity today to talk about the centenary of the Royal Australian Navy. We are all very proud of the Royal Australian Navy. No-one is more proud than the citizens of my electorate of Wentworth. Our nation was founded by naval servicemen in the 18th century—Captain Arthur Phillip was an officer in the Royal Navy and all of the leading figures in the early years of our colony in New South Wales were naval officers. The governor, after whom I am named but from whom I am not descended, William Bligh, was a very distinguished admiral noted for his very delicate interpersonal skills.

In the electorate of Wentworth there are a series of important naval establishments which have been there for many years. The Australian Navy is commanded from Fleet Base East at Garden Island, at HMAS Kuttabul, one of the several stone frigates in my electorate. That has been so since 1856, since the New South Wales government granted Garden Island—when it was genuinely an island—to the Royal Navy for use as a place to moor and provision warships. Since then, the land behind the headland of Potts Point and Garden Island has been filled in and a vast dockyard has been created. It is one of the leading naval bases in the Southern Hemisphere. And it is right in the centre of our city. It is a remarkable and wonderful thing. People often talk about the Navy moving somewhere else, but I think that it is wonderful thing to have that vast naval and military establishment right there on the doorstep of our city—only a few hundred metres from the CBD.

If you go further east in my electorate out to South Head, you have HMAS Watson, an important training establishment for the Navy. Indeed, until relatively recent decades there was another training establishment at Rushcutter's Bay, HMAS Rushcutter. Fleet Base East or Garden Island is the home for some very important vessels, not of the stone variety but of the floating variety, including three Anzac-class frigates, the Stuart,Parramatta, and Ballarat; four Adelaide-class frigates, the Sydney, Darwin, Melbourne and Newcastle; two amphibious vessels, Tobruk and Kanimbla; and the supply ship HMAS Success. This is an important assemblage of our naval armoury and it is a reminder that we are a maritime power—not the greatest maritime power in the world; that honour belongs to the United States of America. Nonetheless, as an island entirely dependent on the seaways for our trade it is vital that our Navy is strong and that the traditions of endurance, determination and above all valour are maintained in the years ahead. There is not a patch of land in the electorate of Wentworth that has not been touched by the Navy. Every headland has been, at one point, involved with naval operations. People walking along the bush track from Rose Bay around to Nielsen Parkwould think they are in a nice, rustic domain, but if they venture out onto Steele Point, just a few metres away from the track, they will find a big sandstone gun emplacement built in the 19th century with VRI—Victoria Regina Imperatrix—carved into the stone. This is one of so many gun emplacements across the headlands of Sydney Harbour—across most of the headlands in Wentworth in fact—designed to protect the ships of the Royal Navy within Sydney Harbour and of course to sink the ships of whatever navy, presumably the Russian navy, that was going to attack us.

The Royal Australian Navy is a matter of great pride to all Australians, and particularly the residents of Wentworth, because, truly, the Navy is part of the Australian family and, above all, part of our family in Wentworth.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to recognise the contribution that the Royal Australian Navy has made to our defence since its inception 100 years ago. The Navy has seen tremendous expansion from its beginnings as a small coastal defence force to a navy capable of defending Australia's maritime interests and contributing to regional defence. This year, 10 July will mark the centenary of King George V's approval of Australia's request to have the prefix 'Royal' attached to the Navy's title. This approval marked a significant step towards Australia's post-Federation independence from colonial rule, and reflected the growing responsibility and maturity of the national navy at a time of increasing international tensions. Indeed, it was less than a year before the outbreak of World War I when the flagship HMAS Australia led a force of cruisers and destroyers into Sydney Harbour for the first time. In 1914, the fleet was completed with the arrival of Australia's first submarines. The Royal Australian Navy played an important role throughout the First World War in defeating and deterring enemy forces, and protecting Australia's ports and shipping and trade routes.

During the Second World War, service men and women of the Royal Australian Navy took part in almost every major naval battle in World War II. A major turning point of World War II was the Battle of the Coral Sea. It was the first time in World War II that the Japanese experienced failure in a major operation, and the battle stopped the Japanese seaborne invasion of Port Moresby. However, the price of an eventual allied victory was high. The HMAS Sydney and one of two light cruisers were lost in battle. The Sydney famously sank an Italian cruiser in the Battle of Cape Spada earlier in the war. The ship was later involved in a battle with the German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran and was lost at sea with all 645 crew members aboard. Those men and women were among the over 2,000 Royal Australian Navy personnel who lost their lives during World War II. Since the end of that war, men and women of the Navy have served with courage and discipline through some six decades of military action and peacekeeping duties.

Just as the Royal Australian Navy has played an integral part in the defence and protection of this country, it has, similarly, been just as important in shaping our national identity. Although the wartime stories may not be as well known as the Anzac legend, they are equally devastating and inspiring to hear. Often, the virtues of daring, mateship and courage under fire feature in these tales. I was especially thrilled to hear that, in the centenary year, the awarding of the Victoria Cross to Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheeanand Leading Cook Francis Bassett Emms is currently being considered by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. It is with pride and honour that I am able to join my Tasmanian Labor colleague the member for Braddon who has, since 2001, sought the recognition of the courageous deeds and sacrifice of these brave young Tasmanians, and I know, from the member for Braddon's large file here, the amount of research he has done. We are all hoping that in the centenary year Teddy and Francis will receive this great honour. Teddy's act of courage is one of wartime's great gallantry stories. Teddy was serving on the Armidale and was ordered to undertake the resupply and evacuation of Japanese occupied Timor. The Japanese attacked the Armidale, which was hit by two aircraft launched torpedoes. The ship began to sink. Although wounded, rather than abandon ship Teddy strapped himself to the cannon and began to engage the attacking aircraft. He shot down two planes, and his crewmates recall seeing the tracer rising from beneath the surface as he was dragged underwater.

I look forward to the findings of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal and hope that the service and sacrifice of both Teddy and Francis can be formally recognised through the honour of receiving a Victoria Cross. The actions of these brave young men epitomise the virtues of the Royal Australian Navy which are being celebrated as we commemorate 100 years of service to this nation. Once again, I would like to acknowledge the Royal Australian Navy in this centenary year of service and sacrifice to our nation, and I congratulate the member for Braddon for the years of work he has put into supporting these two applications.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak this evening on a matter about which I am quite passionate and also concerned—the impact of cancer, particularly brain cancer, on individuals and their families. I want to thank Michelle Rowland, the member for Greenway, for seconding this motion when it went before the Selection Committee, and I also thank the members for McPherson, Cowan and Capricornia in advance for speaking on this debate this evening and for their contributions to a balanced and careful discussion of an area of emerging interest and emerging research to which I think we should be paying some considerable attention.

I put on the record here also that Senator Catryna Bilyk will put this matter on the record in the Senate. As a brain cancer survivor herself, and as the chair of the parliamentary friendship group for brain cancer research, Catryna Bilyk is undertaking the very challenging work of being a senator here in this parliament. Catryna's own story is one of full recovery and full participation in the challenging workplace that is part of the life of a parliamentarian. I think her story of full recovery is a story of really significant hope that we need to put on the record in this debate here this evening, because families who have somebody who is diagnosed today or tomorrow or was diagnosed yesterday with brain cancer face an uncertain future, and it is important to know that people do manage to get past the challenge that cancer can provide.

Officially, I put on the record again the exact notice of motion. It is that this House notes five elements, firstly:

… the release by the World Health Organisation's cancer research report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which says that radio frequency electromagnetic fields generated by mobile phones are 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' and asserts that heavy usage could lead to a possible increased risk of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer …

Secondly, I want the House to note the warnings of Dr Charlie Teo. He is one of Australia's leading brain surgeons and a former Australian of the Year finalist. He states that 'there is an increasing body of evidence that there is an association between brain tumours and mobile phones'. Thirdly:

… the Australian Government, through the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), welcomes the report and considers that the classification by IARC corresponds to the current ARPANSA advice, including its advice on practical ways in which people can reduce their exposure to the electromagnetic fields produced by wireless telephones …

Fourthly:

… the methods to reduce exposure include:

(a) limiting call time;

(b) preferring the use of land line phones;

(c) using hands free or speaker options;

(d) texting instead of making voice calls; and

(e) using phones in good signal areas which reduce power levels for communication…

The fifth thing is:

… that ARPANSA has also recommended parents encourage their children to use these methods of reducing exposure.

They are the five things that I really want to put on this public record and note on this day in the middle of 2011. My hope in bringing this matter to the House is to continue the public debate which surfaced earlier this year and to share information about the increasing body of evidence that indicates there is a possible link between brain tumours and heavy mobile phone use. In essence, this speech is my way of doing what I can do right now to prevent the risky behaviours that make brain cancer more likely. But there is also an intensely personal reason that I do this. My brother, Sean Patrick O'Neill, was born 41 years ago just three days before St Patrick's Day—I often think that if my mother had not allowed the doctor to induce her he would have been a 17 March St Patrick's Day birth. Sean was diagnosed with stage 2 glioma at the end of last year. In fact, at 10 o'clock, when I was signing the caucus book, my brother was having an MRI and they were finding that brain cancer. When we found out a little bit more information I was with him in the surgery of Dr Charlie Teo. He found out after his surgery that he was fortunate to have a level 2 glioma and that he did not have to have radiotherapy or chemotherapy, which was a great blessing and a great relief to our family. We are close, Sean and I, and when I suggested that I might put this matter before the House he gave me great encouragement to put it on the record. He is all for sharing his story and his experience if it can encourage other people to make choices that will decrease their chance of contracting brain cancer.

Sean and his wife, Jacqui, have already lost a great deal to cancer. They lost their beautiful daughter Lucy to liver cancer in March 2003. They still have four wonderful children, Eilish, Rosie, Jack and Meg, but that family know too intimately the challenges that cancer presents to families to love and care for the ones that they too often lose. Right now Sean and his whole family are learning to live a little differently while Sean gets on with getting better and strives each day to get back to his business and to full health. Sean is working hard on his recovery and every day my family and I are very proud of him, but I am sure he would rather be cancer-free, and we would certainly rather it was that way too.

What is the purpose of my speech here this evening? What do we know right now, and how should we respond? What we know right now is that, courtesy of the World Health Organisation, a body called the International Agency for Research on Cancer Classification of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, the IARC, exists. We have a monograph from that group that is the product of work they undertook earlier this year in Lyon from 24 to 31 May. It involved 31 scientists from 14 countries. They examined and assessed the peer reviewed scientific evidence on mobile phone use in relation to increased risk of cancer. Importantly, at this time when there is so much debate that involves science and scientists are so maligned, I want to put on the record that there is a really significant difference between a matter of opinion and a matter of research. These scientists were looking at research that has been generated and not just created by somebody out of personal interest and a description without any review. It is not as if it is an internet site where somebody can put up something and they can simply make a claim; the evidence that this IARC group looked at was peer reviewed research that had to be published in journals where people's reputations demand that they apply most rigorous scientific standards and expectations. So we have a body of scientific literature on which to draw here. To be clear, they did not actually assess the level of risk associated with particular levels of exposure, but they did note an increasing body of evidence indicating that there is a possible link between glioma and the use of mobile phones.

In response, here in Australia, the government through the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA, will continue to oversight emerging research such as this. What we do know is that there are four levels in the IARC's evaluation of carcinogenic risks. Group 1 includes things such as tobacco smoking and solar radiation. Group 2A relates to the risk of carcinogens from diesel engine exhaust and UVA and UVB. Group 2B includes things which are possibly carcinogenic to humans, such as magnetic fields, gasoline and fibreglass insulation, and it is in this group that the research currently indicates that there is a link between mobile phone use and possible glioma.

Critically, the group in their analysis had shown that in one study there was a 40 per cent increased risk of gliomas amongst the heaviest mobile phone users, which they categorise as people who use their phone for 30 minutes a day over 10 years. I just look at your reaction there, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that but it is not what we would think of as heavy use. 30 minutes is very common use. I think many Australians put ourselves in the heavy use category all too promptly.

What do we do with this information? My hope is that we can change our use and that we can certainly change it in our children, because that is ARPANSA's recognition of what we might do at this point as a responsible response to the information. So, where possible, use a landline. Use a hands-free or a speaker option. Text instead of making a phone call and use your phone in a good signal area. I commend this motion to the House. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for that very courageous speech. The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the member for McPherson.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the motion before the House relating to the cancer research report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer released by the World Health Organisation. I would like to acknowledge the member for Robertson and thank her for sharing with us her personal insight into this issue. I know that I, along with I am sure many other people, would be wishing her brother all the very best for the future. The report has noted that the radio frequency electromagnetic fields generated by mobile phones are possibly carcinogenic to humans. The findings of this report have been assessed by many specialists, including the Cancer Council. Professor Bernard Stewart, the Cancer Council's scientific advisor and international carcinogens expert, reinforced that the findings released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the IARC, found a possible link between mobile phones and cancer but that that link has not been proven at this stage. I stress the possible link not to devalue or attempt to undermine any of the research but to try and ensure a sensible and meaningful debate on this most important social and health issue for us.

There has been an eight-day meeting of 31 scientists from 14 countries who have reviewed the results of hundreds of studies covering exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. According to Professor Stewart, these findings show limited evidence linking mobile phones to glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate evidence to draw conclusions for any other types of cancer. However, he believes—and I agree with this—that more research needs to be undertaken in this area. The chair of the Cancer Council Australia's Occupational and Environmental Cancer Risk Committee, Terry Slevin, said that mobile phone users should take care, particularly heavy users—and I note that heavy usage is defined as being at least 30 minutes per day, which I agree would certainly include many of the people that I know, including young people, which is of great concern. The general view is that measures should be taken to try and reduce the use of mobile phones, particularly by heavy users.

The expanding use of mobile phones in the 1990s and the increasing rate at which they were used prompted several expert groups to critically review the evidence on health effects of low-level exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. This resulted in the recommendation of research into the possible adverse health effects of mobile phone use. The Interphone study was the largest case-control study of mobile phone use and brain tumours. The study group consisted of 21 scientists and the objective was to see if mobile phone use increased the risk of tumours. The findings of the Interphone study were released in May 2010, and on review of the findings, Dr Christopher Wild, the Director of IARC, said:

An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data … However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period … particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.

The Cancer Council observed the Interphone study and found that there was no evidence to suggest normal usage of mobile phones—which is less than 30 minutes a day for a period of 12 months—could cause brain cancer, but the Cancer Council found the Interphone study results were consistent with other research in that area. However, there was a small subset of patients, classified as the heavy users, with glioma and tumours on the same side of the head where they held their mobile phones. At this stage, the debate between whether there will be an increase in the amount of cases in the next 25 years is unknown, and experts like the Cancer Council are suggesting more study needs to be undertaken, particularly in the case of heavy mobile phone users. There are also calls to investigate the impact mobile phone use will have on our children.

As a mother, I have witnessed my own children's use of mobile phones and the use that their friends make of mobile phones. Many children and teenagers carry their own mobile phones, complete with interactive features like games, music, movies and social networking, enticing the younger generation to use them more frequently than those before them. As parents and responsible adults, we need to ensure that excessive use of these mobile devices are kept at reasonable levels while further studies are undertaken to determine possible risks to our children. In the meantime, the Cancer Council also suggests that anyone who is worried about the possible link between radio frequency electromagnetic fields and mobile phones looks at using hands-free devices or texting to reduce the amount of time the phone is held to the ear.

Locally, members of the United Brain Tumour Support Group on the Gold Coast have been putting this practice into place. Founder Peter McLaughlin has said mobile phone use is a concern amongst his members. Mr McLaughlin was diagnosed in 2001 with a brain tumour. He was 27 years old at the time and had been married for only two weeks. Mr McLaughlin has spent years as a support volunteer with the Cancer Connect program run by the Cancer Council. He has been offering peer emotional support and information for people who have been affected by cancer and offers the type of advice that comes from living through the same traumatic experiences. Mr McLaughlin has been there to listen and help patients through a time when family and friends find it difficult to talk about the diagnosis, unaware of what they should say. In 2007, Mr McLaughlin decided to start the United Brain Tumour Support Group on the Gold Coast. It is the only support group of its kind on the Gold Coast offering support to those affected by brain cancer. The members meet every third Wednesday of each month at the Tugun Surf Life Saving Club within the electorate of McPherson. There are around eight to 12 members at any time, ranging from 20 years to 70 years of age, coming along to those meetings. The meetings allow for the discussion of the latest information on brain cancer with advice and support. It has been within these meetings that the issue of the use of mobile phones has been discussed and members talk about ways of reducing the use of their mobile phones.

I would like to recognise the efforts that Mr McLaughlin has gone to in order to provide the only support group on the Gold Coast for those experiencing brain cancer. He is presently organising the third annual fundraiser walk, which will be held on 17 July, to raise month for the United Brain Tumour Support Group and cancer research. The walk will take place on the Gold Coast along the beach between Burleigh Heads and Miami, and Mr McLaughlin hopes that more than 200 people will get involved with the walk this year. All proceeds from the day will go towards funding research into brain cancer and building the support group. Support groups provide an exceptional service to the community, and I hope the United Brain Tumour Support Group continues to operate and provide the much-needed support to those affected by brain cancer.

While research is continuing, we need to remember that there are other, more established cancer risks that we can act on every day. The McPherson electorate is famous for its beautiful beaches and I would hope that, while the public remain concerned over mobile phone use, they also take care with known risks, like UV exposure, to avoid cases of melanoma.

According to the World Health Organisation, many cancers are not detectable for many years after the interactions that led to a tumour. And since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, studies at present can only assess those cancers that are evident within shorter time frames. In conclusion, given the large number of mobile phone users—currently estimated to be 4.6 billion, which is an extraordinary number—it is important to investigate, understand and monitor any potential public health impact. While the findings of the discussed reports remain inconclusive, there should be further ongoing studies to fully assess potential long-term effects of mobile phone use. In the meantime, as I have already discussed today, there are many ways the public can look at decreasing their use of mobile phones and electromagnetic fields. (Time expired.)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For a long time we have had suspicions that mobile telephones are a source of health problems for users. With around 4.5 billion users around the world, the results of all studies into the effects of mobile telephones is of ever increasing interest.

On 31 May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer provided the World Health Organisation with a cancer research report. As stated in the motion, the electromagnetic fields created by mobile telephones:

… are 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' and asserts that heavy usage could lead to a possible increased risk of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer

When you read the results of the report, it is certainly by no means categorical in the links. What it does say is that there is a limited link between mobile telephone users and glioma and acoustic neuroma and an inadequate link between the use of mobile phones and other types of cancer. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity is defined as the observation of:

… a positive association … between exposure … and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered credible, but chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

The inadequate link with other types of cancer is defined as:

… available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association—

between exposure and the cancer—

or no data on cancer in humans are available.

Although it is right to say that the report falls well short of being conclusive, it should ring alarm bells for all of us who hold our phones to our ears, but even more so when we think of all the children and young people, who are still developing mentally and physically, with an increasing reliance on mobile telephones. Any research of the internet will reveal the widespread concerns that exist around the world, and it is right that parents in particular should take heed of what this cancer report shows, as well as the practical advice to reduce the risk as put forward by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.

Members would be aware that there are an increasing number of Australian households that have elected to not even have a landline, instead relying completely on their mobile telephones. They should also take heed of the risk mitigation advice, in particular the limiting of call time; the use of landlines where possible; using the speaker or hands-free option to get that handset away from your head; the use of texting, which at least seems to be an option well supported by many young people, even if that is borne out of financial necessity rather than a fear of radiation; and using phones in the strongest signal areas so that the power output from the phone itself is lower. I certainly advocate such precautions, and it is something that all Australians should take into consideration right now.

I also want to raise briefly the interesting subtext of this issue. We are used to health concerns about mobile telephone relay towers in our suburbs, and there is strong opposition to many of their locations. But what is particularly interesting is the viewpoint that, in putting up more towers, there are better signals and therefore the mobile telephones that we carry around do not have to use as strong a power. Therefore, it would seem that more towers equals reduced electromagnetic radiation from our personal mobile telephones and therefore less radiation and a reduction in potential harm to the individual user. This is an interesting point given the conventional wisdom that these towers are bad, and perhaps that is a very good focus for future research.

As sobering as the International Agency for Research on Cancer's report is, despite its lack of conclusive links, since then there has been another review of scientific studies in the same area. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection's committee on epidemiology wrote in the monthly journal of the US National Institute of Environmental Sciences that studies from several countries have failed to show an increase in brain tumours as many as 20 years after mobile phones were introduced and 10 years after the technology became widespread.

David Spiegelhalter, the University of Cambridge's Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, said:

This is a really difficult issue to research. Even given the limitations of the evidence, this report is clear that any risk appears to be so small that it is very hard to detect, even in the masses of people now using mobile phones.

Leader of the review and an overseer of a team in the largest epidemiological study to date, known as Interphone, Anthony Swerdlow, a professor of epidemiology, said they had failed to find a definitive link between mobile phone use and certain types of brain tumours.

The reality is therefore that the link between mobile telephone use and cancer is still not definitive. However, over time that evidence may become stronger and there are only benefits to paying attention to risk reduction advice such as that provided by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. It is in all our best interests to pay heed to that and to comply with it.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to join with other members in speaking on the member for Robertson's motion here tonight and commend her for bringing the matter before the parliament. Members could not have missed the media stories earlier this month that reported the conclusions reached by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that radio frequency electromagnetic fields—that is, the ones that power mobile phones—should be classified as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans'.

I know that I was in the Parliament House gym with many other members and senators, with the early morning news on in the background, and everyone stopped to listen just that bit harder to what was being said. And no wonder, when you think of how much all of us here rely on our mobile phones to do our jobs and to organise our lives. It is no different for our constituents who are the owners of Australia's share of the five billion mobile phones in Australia around the world. Any suggestion that mobile phone use could be dangerous to our health was sure to send shockwaves not just through Parliament House but across the country.

This motion is in no way intended to hype up or sensationalise the findings of the IARC but rather to assess exactly what this research means and what our response here in Australia should properly be. The first thing to note is that the evidence about links between mobile phone use and cancer is not conclusive. That was clear to me when I started doing some research for this speech. Every reference to a study supporting a link between mobile phones and cancer was matched by another study rejecting such a link.

There is no doubt, however, that the widespread use of mobile phones means that research into the effects of such long-term exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields has to be ongoing and deserves the attention of national and international health agencies. That is what has happened here. The International Agency for Research on Cancer is a specialised agency within the World Health Organisation. Its mission, among other things, is to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer and the mechanisms of carcinogenesis.

In this case, a 31-member IARC working group made up of expert scientists from 14 countries deliberated over eight days in May this year, reviewing a large body of peer reviewed research into the effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Those studies were mainly epidemiological studies of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer which was found to occur more frequently in heavy users of mobile phones. It was following that meeting that the IARC announced their finding that those radio frequency electromagnetic fields could correctly be classified as a 2B carcinogen. In other words, it is possibly carcinogenic to humans. The category has also been described as being used when a causal association is considered credible but when other factors cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence. By contrast, tobacco and solar radiation are in the group 1 classification with proven causal links to cancer in humans. Clearly there needs to be more research in this area to come up with more conclusive evidence one way or another. In the meantime, it makes sense for government and relevant health and scientific agencies to take a precautionary and proactive approach to something that has been identified as a possible risk. That has certainly been the reaction of ARPANSA, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. ARPANSA has said that it will consider the implications of the IARC announcement and the underlying scientific evidence and, if necessary, review the current standards and other means of protecting the public. All Australians would be reassured to know that ARPANSA has indicated an open-minded and proactive approach on this important issue of public safety.

ARPANSA has also been amongst a number of well-respected people and organisations, including the Cancer Council and neurosurgeon Dr Charlie Teo, urging people to take sensible and practical steps to reduce their exposure to the fields powering mobile phones. The advice from the World Health Organisation is that the power and therefore radiofrequency exposure to a user falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the handset. A person using a mobile phone 30 to 40 centimetres away from their body when texting or talking hands-free will have a much lower exposure than someone holding a handset against their head. The simple message from these organisations and from tonight's motion is: why take the risk? We should be doing everything we can to encourage safe and sensible mobile use and, very importantly, encouraging our kids to do the same, by texting, favouring landline use, using hands-free wherever we can and limiting call time, until we have more certainty about the true nature of possible health risks from mobile phones.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this issue of great importance to regional Australia. In speaking on this motion, I want to refer to an article in the Sunday Age newspaper on the weekend. It referred to a situation in the suburb of Macleod, where a lady by the name of Amanda Tattam reported on the loss of her six chooks. The chooks were named Honey, Honeyhead, Hannah Montana, Alannah, Chloe and Delta. The chooks were taken by foxes over two consecutive events. She is quoted as saying:

I was devastated, absolutely gutted. We'd raised them from a very young age. I've got high fences and they're well housed, and this latest entry by a fox, everything was bolted.

She went on to say:

The problem is that no one takes responsibility. There is a lot of buck-passing going on … and everyone has given up on even trying to control them.

I do not wish to sound flippant, because I know such a loss is devastating, particularly with young children involved, but all I can say to suburban chook farmers is: welcome to our world. The article refers to foxes, but it could just as easily be referring to wild dogs and their impact on Australian farmers. Wild dog predation on stock and native fauna is destroying regional life in many areas of this country, and I fear that people in the city do not even know that it is happening.

Part of my motivation in moving this motion was to help bridge that gap—to start building an understanding in metropolitan areas about the devastating losses caused by wild dogs. I fear that it will take an attack on a bushwalker by a pack of wild dogs before this issue is brought to the attention of the vast majority of Australians. That is not hyperbole or fear-mongering. The Queensland government's report and economic assessment of wild dogs made a similar point:

As with semi-urban areas, wild dogs can lower the quality of life in rural areas by posing a constant threat to livestock and, in exceptional circumstances, posing a threat to human safety. Threats to human safety are known to escalate when wild dogs encroach on settlements and are not actively repelled. The tendency for this is greatest at tourist attractions … where some people seek or encourage 'contact' with the wild dogs.

I stress that we are talking about exceptional circumstances in this regard, but there nonetheless is a risk to human safety. I am already hearing anecdotal reports in my electorate of Gippsland of wild dogs becoming less frightened, less timid. Farmers are telling me of packs of dogs shadowing their moves from a distance as they tend to their stock. I fear that an injured bushwalker or a young child could be at risk from attack in the future, and I fear that it will take such a horrible incident to make decision makers at all levels of government properly fund on-the-ground measures to reduce the impact of wild dogs on regional communities. I hope we do not need to have a person in my community injured before governments at all levels start taking the threat of wild dogs more seriously.

The motion before the House refers to the social, economic and environmental impacts of wild dogs on the agricultural sector and Australia's native wildlife. Wild dogs are conservatively estimated to cost the Australian agricultural sector in excess of $60 million per year, and they are an enormous source of anger and frustration in many regional communities. The constant predation in areas such as Gippsland, north-east Victoria and Eden-Monaro has resulted in sheep farmers retreating from some blocks of land, particularly those which interface with national parks. The loss of productivity in Gippsland alone is estimated at $60 million, as farmers have fled from those areas and no longer stock them with sheep. The costs that we are talking about are associated with the direct stock losses, the cost of prevention measures undertaken and the lost productivity. Of course, as stock prices have increased in recent times the value of those losses has escalated, and I think the $60 million figure is actually a conservative amount. I fear it could be much higher than that.

In addition to the economic cost in Victoria of $18 million per year, there are very significant social impacts. I have had the opportunity to speak to many landholders in my electorate, and the wives of farmers and farmers themselves report severe mental health issues stemming from regularly viewing very traumatic scenes of stock attacked by packs of wild dogs. I recently had the opportunity to attend a meeting in Omeo with the Victorian Farmers Federation where local residents stood up and provided their firsthand accounts of the damage that has been caused to their stock. I was there with the member for Gippsland East, Tim Bull, and the member for Benalla, Bill Sykes, who are both actively involved in this issue.

We are talking about hardened farmers, people who are used to seeing some difficult scenes on their properties, but they are relating events with tears in their eyes as they describe the horrific scenes they go out to in the morning and see in their paddocks. There are graphic accounts of dogs emerging particularly from sections of public land and preying on young lambs. It is obvious just from talking to these people the stress that they are facing when they encounter such slaughter of stock, on an almost daily basis on many occasions. It is playing on the minds of many people in my community.

The tone of that meeting in Omeo was one of despair. It was also mixed with a barely concealed anger and frustration with the lack of action by governments at all levels. I have most recently been sent photos from one of the landholders in my electorate, and these are horrific scenes. I feel very fortunate that I have not had to go out and see the aftermath of such an attack. The photographs and the evidence of what is occurring, particularly in parts of the high country of Gippsland and the north-east, is something that I think everyone in this chamber should be made aware of. These farmers have the uncertainty when they go to bed at night of not knowing what they will wake up in the morning and find. They go to bed and they can listen to the dogs howling in the bush, and that must be playing on their minds. It is a very, very difficult issue for us. The emotional toll is enormous in regional communities.

One of the farmers in my electorate, Sally Moon, told the Bairnsdale Advertiser, my local paper, in May last year about the toll it was taking on her and her husband, Gordon, and her disappointment with the patronising attitude of government agencies. I will have to refer specifically to the former Brumby government in Victoria, which I feel over 11 years failed to do enough in this area. Sally said: 'I feel as if we are being totally abandoned. They treat us as if we are grass seed chewing idiots.' I think that sums up the attitude amongst many farmers—they feel that they are not getting support from governments.

The environmental impacts that I have referred to in this motion relate to the killing of native species by feral dogs, which I believe has been largely ignored by green groups who pretend to care for the environment. I have previously spoken in this place about these impacts, and I quoted at that time a man by the name of Robert Belcher from the Bonang area. He said that every time he opened up a wild dog after it was trapped or had been shot he found it 'chock-a-block full of either sheep and echidnas, and echidnas are native wildlife'. It is disappointing to me that we cannot hear the green groups talking about these issues. They spend more time talking about the need for humane dog traps than they do about the impact on wildlife or the thrill kills which see dogs ripping apart lambs or maiming sheep and just leaving them in the paddock. Remember that these dogs are not just in there for a feed; it is a thrill kill. There are massive amounts of stock being killed on an all too frequent basis.

The people in my electorate have combined to put a petition to the state government, and I acknowledge that the Victorian government is at least starting to take some serious action in this space. They have put together a $4 million commitment to provide a wild dog bounty and some aerial baiting. After years of neglect I think this is a very positive step in the right direction for the people of Victoria. I also acknowledge that this is primarily a state issue, but the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre was founded by the Commonwealth in 2004. The centre aims to counteract the impact of invasive animals through the development and application of new technologies and by integrating approaches across agencies and jurisdictions. These are words; they sound very impressive. But the people on the ground want action on the ground. Recently, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities a question in this place on the specific issue of feral animals and wild dogs. I quote from the answer that the minister gave me:

One of the challenges is that whenever we act we need to do it at the same time as the states are acting … Otherwise, all you do is keep trimming the numbers rather than making a real impact. When it can be coordinated, and from time to time it is done, there is an opportunity to be able to have a very direct impact on invasive species.

Given that the Victorian government is currently making a commitment to take direct action to reduce the impact of wild dogs, I would call on the federal government to be part of that solution.

I have a report here from the Parliamentary Library, which states that the funding allocated in 2009-10 for specific projects on invasive species, in particular, wild dog projects, amounted to $159,000. I do not suggest for a second that those are the only projects the government is undertaking in terms of feral animal control but, for projects specifically dealing with the wild dog issue, funding amounted to $159,000. I think there is now a real opportunity here for us, particularly in Victoria, to leverage off those state funds and make a serious attempt to reduce wild dog predation in Gippsland and right across Victoria.

Although my comments here tonight deal specifically with Victoria, because I am most familiar with those areas, I understand that this issue spreads right across Australia, into Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. It is an issue of great significance to many people who live in rural and regional areas. I am not suggesting at all that there is any easy solution to this problem. But we need to make it a bigger priority for government funding. It will take a partnership approach and a willingness from the new state government in Victoria to allow more flexible working arrangements, to allocate more resources to both professional trapping and shooting, and also helping to meet some of the fencing costs, particularly in those areas where Crown land is housing this menace.

We need to use all the tools that are at our disposal and, as I have said before in this place, we need to adopt a national approach and get serious about reducing the impact of these feral species across state borders. I will refer to my opening comments that, tragically, maybe it does take the slaughter of a few hens by foxes in a suburban environment to bring it home to all Australians that our farmers need more help to deal with wild dogs. (Time expired)

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Gippsland for bringing the motion to the attention of the House as it, again, underlines the findings of a report from an inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in 2005. Members may remember the report entitled Taking control: a national approach to pest animals. The inquiry was chaired so well at the time by the member for Hume, Alby Schultz, with me as deputy. We endeavoured to identify national significant pest animals issues and considered how existing Australian and state government processes could be better linked for more coordinated management of those issues across state boundaries. The member for Gippsland identified some of those issues, including the need to coordinate and work better in those areas. Many of the recommendations have already been taken up and, as time passed, other measures have been put into place that have now superseded much of what is contained in that report. We can look at the broader picture of a number of feral animals and their impact on agriculture, but I note this motion is concentrating on wild dogs and their impact on regional Australians, which is still an important issue.

The pest animals question has been a significant one for farmers over the years and the government has taken it very seriously. The impact of wild dogs on livestock production and our environment is significant. It has been estimated that wild dogs cause a production loss of $48.5 million per annum. But the management of wild dogs is primarily a state and territory responsibility. Most states and territories have legislation in place to manage wild dogs and pest animals more generally, mainly because pest animals vary from state to state and usually need specific action for effective eradication. The federal government has enacted legislation to support its responsibilities for managing pest animals, such as wild dogs, through the protection of areas of national environmental significance in accordance with the guiding principles of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBC Act. While state and territory governments and individual landowners have primary responsibility for the management of wild dogs, the Australian government coordinates and supports nationally significant activities to reduce the impacts of pest animals. Under the Caring for our Country initiative the Australian government funds projects to mitigate the impact of wild dogs. Wild dogs are a target for investment in the 2011-12 business plan. Open calls, through the priority investment, are made for protecting our biodiversity and natural icons. The budget for Caring for our Country in 2011-12 is $456 million. Grants are being sought for $183 million through the business plan. An amount of $178 million and community action grants of $5 million are open until August.

In addition, the Gillard government supports a national wild dog facilitator, through the Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre and the Australian Pest Animal Research Program, to promote and build capacity in developing and implementing strategic management approaches to control wild dogs. The Australian government provides other strategic investment in nationally significant research and best practice activities through the Australian Pest Animal Research Program and the Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre. Some of the projects funded through the Australian Pest Animal Research Program include best practice guidelines in the use of guard dogs. In the report we talked about the need for more research into guard animals such as alpacas, llamas and maremma dogs, which act as guards for livestock in many parts of the world and are very successful. We received evidence at the inquiry that a dog will not get off the back of a ute if there is an alpaca in the yard. Also, alpacas are very successful, evidently, against foxes, so they are useful around hen houses. There is also discussion of best practice baiting, dispersal, the seasonal movement of wild dogs and the evaluation and development of best practice for wild dog management.

The government has also presented through representation on committees such as the non-government National Wild Dog Management Advisory Group and the Vertebrate Pests Committee, which is a sectional committee reporting to the National Biosecurity Committee. So there is a considerable amount of material to work from. Each state has particular problems with pest animals as some feral animals have penetrated wider than others in this country.

I would also like to add to the debate by suggesting that there is some room for humane pest eradication, which could include our recreational shooters. I believe that recreational hunting in Australia is a legitimate pastime involving people of all ages on both private property and on government land, as permitted by each state's legislation. Hunting has been controversial in the past, but I believe the sporting shooters of Australia are working to spread a more educated and balanced message about the value of hunting as a conservation tool as well as a fast and humane way of despatching pest species. Therefore, they should be included in any pest management scheme, with the appropriate checks and balances required for pest removal. They present a very economically sound way of approaching feral pest eradication, because it is funded by the shooter themselves working in harmony with the farmers or the property managers.

The other part of this issue is education. Many of the subspecies of wild dogs are pests as a result of human carelessness. Dogs should not be allowed to interact with dingos and dingo numbers should be controlled so that they remain part of the wildlife food chain but are kept in their natural areas. A lot of our feral dogs and cats were not feral generations ago. They have been let loose for a number of reasons or they have been allowed to breed and their numbers have become so prolific that it becomes harder and harder to control them. It is not good to keep a pet without being responsible for its breeding habits. Much of the legislation in the cities of Australia is brought about because of the irresponsible breeding and unintended release of animals. Community education is needed to make sure that people understand that link between feral animals and pets. I would also add that we have had problems, in some instances, with pet shops and horrific puppy farms. I believe these add to the feral animal problem and do not encourage responsible ownership.

So there are many avenues, especially education about the link between feral animals and animals that have been neglected and have got away from the urban fringes of cities and that cause so many problems. As the member for Gippsland said, wild dogs not only attack domestic animals but also attack much wildlife and are a major problem in the protection of the wildlife of Australia. There is a great need to do that. In Tasmania we had a property based game management program, which was probably one of the best in Australia. It certainly worked at eradicating pests and also kept a balance in the wildlife on many of those properties that bounced up against Crown land.

This has certainly been a useful exercise and an opportunity to bring the federal government's program to the attention of the House. I believe this federal government is working hard and that on many aspects of the coordination mentioned in this motion we are heading in the right direction. The more connection we can have between the states and the federal government, the better off we will be. (Time expired)

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise this evening to speak on the motion of the member for Gippsland on the impact of wild dogs. I acknowledge his contribution and his genuine concern about this issue, and I also acknowledge the contribution of the member for Lyons and his long interest in this issue in this place.

This is not a minor problem. Wild dogs, as the member for Gippsland said, have an impact in excess of $60 million annually—and, quite frankly, that is a conservative estimate. Like the member for Lyons, I believe we have seen a quite remarkable decrease in funding, but, probably more important than that, we are actually seeing a change in focus on the way wild dogs are managed by different agencies and the Invasive Animals CRC. Particularly in a lot of our national parks, there is more of a focus on management of size—of numbers—than on eradication, and that is presenting a real problem. There is a lot of concern about the welfare of these wild dogs and the suffering that may be caused to them through trapping or baiting but very little focus on the pain and suffering or the welfare of the livestock they attack.

I do not come to this place without some knowledge of this. Indeed, some years ago we had one wild dog that came into the vicinity of our property. From memory, it took three months before my brother finally located this dog and shot it early one morning. The amount of damage that that one dog inflicted on our livestock was horrific, and not just on the ones that were killed. On one occasion we found a dozen prime lambs that had been driven into a dam and drowned. We saw sheep with their muzzles chewed off. Many sheep—more than dozens—had pieces chewed out of them in a feeding frenzy. So I know first-hand the pain and suffering that these dogs can inflict.

The problem we have is that a lot of the focus now from the CRCs and others is in putting barriers up for protection, with no disrespect to my learned colleague from Lyons, with maremma dogs and alpacas; and a lot of the focus has gone away from baiting. There is a campaign at the moment to move away from 1080 poison, which has been a very effective bait for many years. There is one source in the world that produces 1080 and there is a concern that the ongoing supply of 1080 is at risk not only for wild dogs but for rabbits, foxes and feral pigs. There is a real concern about that. I know that in national parks in lots of the Eastern Fall country in New South Wales rather than baiting to eliminate the dogs they are placing the baits at such large intervals apart that those dogs are not finding the baits or there are not enough baits to handle the number of dogs that are coming through. This is a problem not only in what we would consider the traditional sheep grazing areas but I know that in western Queensland in the south-west corner across millions of acres sheep are no longer run. The reports coming through now are that the cattle are at risk; that calves are being taken at birth. There are anecdotal reports that dogs are being relocated from places like Fraser Island and released in national parks in western Queensland, to be taken away from the human population, but exacerbating the problem in the west.

I support this motion. This is not a trivial matter, it is a serious economic matter, but it is also an animal welfare matter to the livestock right across Australia that are impacted by wild dogs. (Time expired)

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the motion and thank the honourable member for Gippsland for bringing this private member's motion before the House. I concur with points made by all speakers, including the member for Lyons and also the member for Parkes. It has been said that there are clear social and economic impacts of wild dogs on the grazing industry across Australia and the member for Parkes mentioned the amount of $60 million. I agree with him that would be a rather conservative estimate of the money. We know that the management of wild dogs is primarily a state and territory responsibility with local government and local management committees of varying names but the same type of responsibility involved. The Commonwealth has a place in this and has a concern about it as well, but at state level there is very specific legislation. It has been the subject of some debate in my local area this year and there has been coverage of it in the local papers, particularly in the Northern Star. There is a story about a private trapper in the shire next to mine, Byron Shire, and the success he has said in eradicating wild dogs in the region. On that issue of management and size and eradication, eradicating can be difficult in any area but it is something that we have to keep as a goal because it is something we have to be aiming towards.

The federal government has legislation to support responsibilities for managing pest animals such as wild dogs but it is through the protection of the national environmental significance areas through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The Gillard government takes the issue of wild dogs seriously. The federal government contributes to wild dog research and on-ground work. It contributes approximately 40 per cent of the cost of the National Wild Dog Facilitator, funds nationally significant research and best practice projects, provides grant opportunities through Caring for our Country and has representation on various committees, including, for example, the National Wild Dog Management Advisory Group.

Turning to the issue, I want to quote from locals who get on blogs and talk about this. I have a comment here from the Northern Star blog, which is our newspaper. It says, 'It is no good being squeamish, dismissive or do-gooder over the increasing feral dog problem.' I agree. These days, due to the legal requirement for soft jaw traps and animal welfare provision, I feel that wild dogs are handled and put down humanely. But laying dog traps is only part of an integrated feral animal control approach that includes baiting, shooting and other deterrence measures, such as guard animals et cetera. I will come back to the issue of guard animals.

Dog trapping takes a lot of time and skill to do properly, so most people cannot do it successfully without extensive training. Hence pooling money from landowners for the engagement of a trapper or licensed shooter makes sense. Daytime attacks on stock and people are becoming more common as dog packs and foxes increasingly lose their fear of mankind while obtaining food by predation of stock and native fauna. That is another of the issues in my area in particular. Some people have put in control measures and some people have the guard animals, but the predation is increasing in the daytime, so even when they have managed to fix the problem at night it is happening more in the daytime.

I will quote from another comment by a local person. They use different names on the blogs, so not being funny the person I quoted earlier was called Big Bunny. This person is Horizon. Those names do not detract from the seriousness of the issue, but those are the names that people use on the blogs. These are farmers; these are landholders. They know the nature of this. Big Bunny and Horizon. Horizon is from Wollongbar. You might have seen Wollongbar in the news, because the Hendra virus has been found in one horse in Wollongbar, which is in my electorate. He says: 'Get yourself a Maremma dog or two and problem solved permanently and instantly. I had the exact same problem with foxes and domesticated neighbouring dogs on the loose in Wollongbar and tried everything. I was constantly losing sheep and goats. Local government bodies are hopeless as usual'—that is not my comment, but his—'I introduced one Maremma and the problem was solved.' (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to this issue tonight, I want to consider how our reform agenda is progressing and what needs to be done to ensure that Australia is a world leader not only in transplant surgery but also in the number of organ and tissue donations that we are able to retrieve. It is a sad fact that many people are still unable to access this life-changing and life-saving surgery as we do not have enough organ and tissue donors. When I spoke previously on this issue, I noted that we were on the road to a record year. Indeed, that occurred in 2010, with 309 multiorgan donors who saved or improved the lives of 931 people. That is a 50 per cent improvement on the last 20 years, during which the numbers had flat lined at around 200 multiorgan donors. There were many more tissue donors who helped transform donors. Tissue donation is as important as organ donation. It helps sight to be restored and hearts to keep beating.

The outcomes for 2011 are also showing the likelihood of further steady improvement as we had already had 141 multiorgan donors as at 31 May, resulting in 416 transplants. At the same time last year, we had achieved about 110 donors, with 347 transplants. By any assessment, this improvement is significant. We now have clinical staff in 77 hospitals across Australia and coordinating staff in all jurisdictions. Prior to last year, which was our first full year of operation under the reform agenda, these staff were not available. They have certainly made a difference in identifying potential donors and ensuring that clinical staff are able to approach each and every family.

Death audits are undertaken and we know as a result of these audits that 100 per cent of potential donors are identified, with a consent rate of 70 per cent. Our objective, of course, is to reach a 100 per cent consent rate, so that everyone who is approached will agree to donate their loved one's organs.

We also know that many hospitals now are identifying potential donors and calling in retrieval teams, which has not occurred in the past. For example, we know that Calvary hospital in Canberra has had a multiple organ donor this year. In fact, the ACT was the proud leader of organ donation in 2010, with 27.9 donors per million population. Australia's overall rate of donors was 13.8 per million population.

We cannot change to become a world leader in this highly technical and specialised sector overnight. We are looking for steady and sustained improvement, and that is what we are seeing. This is similar to approaches in Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, when they embarked upon their programs of reform. It is interesting to note that each of those countries also asked families for approval for their loved ones to become organ donors. I note that Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania are currently looking at the opt-out system, but I hope they will put this to one side and continue on the path of reform that they confirmed in 2009. Some countries, such as Austria, do not have improved outcomes as a result of an opt out system. At this stage, we need cultural change, where we all know the wishes of our loved ones, rather than a legislative framework to commandeer their organs.

The important component of the reform agenda includes the media campaigns that have been successfully run by the Organ and Tissue Authority. The first major campaign, which began in May last year, focused on the three Ds: discover the facts about organ donation, decide what you want to do and sign on to the register and, most importantly, discuss your wishes with your family. The second campaign began in February this year during DonateLife Week. Its message was: any day is a good day to discuss organ and tissue donation. The third campaign builds on the work of the previous two campaigns, and the message is simple: know your family's wishes, discuss it today, OK.

I am pleased that each state and territory has reaffirmed its commitment to the reform agenda. At a meeting of Australia's health ministers in February 2011, a continuing commitment was made by jurisdictions to provide funding for increased activity in tissue typing, retrieval of organs and transplant surgery. This commitment is incredibly important and complements the injection of funds by the Commonwealth for state and territory hospitals to identify donors.

Finally, I pay for tribute to the foot soldiers, our community of volunteers, who work on this issue. They work tirelessly to support the reform agenda. They are the people who go out to community groups on cold evenings to promote the 'OK message'. It is a confronting message that they promote, and they undertake this activity with good grace and patience. On behalf of Canberrans and this parliament I thank them for their efforts. I urge all members and senators to hold a community information session in their electorates this year. We need to spread the message about it being OK to be an organ donor. (Time expired)

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the motion put forward by the member for Canberra that the House recognise the record year of organ donation in Australia in 2010, when there were 309 multiple organ donors. There are few other areas of policy and public debate as emotive as organ donation. There are also many myths surrounding the practice and procedure of extracting and implanting donor organs.

I acknowledge the good work of organisations such as DonateLife, which have played a major role in breaking down the barriers some people have put around organ donation. The development of the awareness of organ donation is increasing people's understanding and support of a family member's decision to donate. I also acknowledge the powerful advertising campaigns of recent times to encourage discussion with loved ones surrounding their thoughts on organ donation. In my electorate of Hasluck I know of people who need an organ transplant which would enable them to lead a fulfilling life or just survive.

My office and I are proudly part of the workplace Partnership for Life program run by the Organ Donation and Transplant Foundation of WA. We supply organ donation merchandise to local community groups, display posters in the office and include the organ donation banner on our email signatures. It is our effort to help raise awareness of this important issue, which has been neglected in the past. It is pleasing to be able to acknowledge the record of 309 multiple organ donors in 2010, which resulted in 931 recipients receiving transplants improving their quality of life and, ultimately, that of their family. So far in 2011 there has been a significant increase in a number of transplants. I commend and thank those individuals and families who have made the hard but benevolent decision to donate organs and human tissue so that someone else may live. There is no greater gift than the gift of life, and the families who made the decision to allow doctors to harvest their loved ones' organs are truly life savers.

The rise in organ donation and the role of families within this is not coincidental. The federal government, and I compliment the federal government's initiative, injected an additional $151 million into national hospitals to establish a more coordinated approach to organ donation. Since this funding became available, more than 240 staff in 77 hospitals around the country and in DonateLife organisations have been appointed. This helps the states and territories to work in a more coordinated manner to improve the rates of organ donation throughout Australia.

In Western Australia just 8.5 people per million donated their organs in 2009. Change has occurred. At a point in time four people were expected to die needlessly in Perth waiting for a liver transplant, while more than 120 people were waiting for kidney, lung, heart and liver transplants. In 2010 this has risen to 9.6 people per million, and the national average also rose from 11.3 to 13.8 people per million during the same period.

The true scale of people waiting for a transplant each year is often not known as many patients are not placed on the list. It is not until they are listed as being in critical need of a transplant that the true number is known. In 2007, for example, there were over 1,880 people listed as waiting for a transplant. This has since dropped to an average of 1,700 people waiting for a transplant.

I am pleased to be able to stand here today and say that in 2011 from January to May there have already been 141 people who have donated their organs. This has resulted in 416 people being given single or multiple organ donations, and for many a second chance at life. This is a trend that I hope continues. I acknowledge that any discussion with loved ones about their wishes to donate organs or human tissue is a challenging one—but an equally important one. According to DonateLife, only 17 per cent of Australians have had a conversation with their loved ones about this very issue, despite 98 per cent agreeing that organ donation has the potential to save and improve people's lives. This is crucial, as many organ donations still do not take place despite someone's wishes to do so if a family member is not fully informed of an individual's choice when the time comes.

Debate has been going on in Western Australia for some time surrounding so-called 'opt-in, opt-out' legislation which appears to have proven successful in countries like Spain, which have a donation rate of over 30 people per million compared to the Australian average of 13.8 in 2010. More research needs to be conducted into policies surrounding organ donation, and I would support moves by both sides of government to examine this issue. I am proud to acknowledge the good work undertaken so far in this field of medicine, and I hope we are witnessing the beginning of a renaissance in organ donation in Australia. Thank you (Time expired).

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by thanking the member for Canberra for bringing this important matter to our attention. I also bring the House's attention to the establishment of the Parliamentary Friends of Organ and Tissue Donation initiated by my colleague the member for Canberra and its inaugural meeting is going to be on this coming Wednesday.

Last year 309 organ donors gave 931 Australians a chance at a new life. Despite that being the highest number of donations in a decade, regrettably it still leaves 1,700 people waiting on the transplant list for organ donation. These individuals are often on the list for anywhere between six months to four years, and regrettably a lot of people die whilst waiting.

Despite having one of the highest rates of success of transplant operations in the world, Australia has one of the lowest organ donation rates in the developed world. Given the fact that Australians generally acknowledge organ donation as a good thing, regrettably that does not translate into a significant increase in the organ donation rate. Considering our well-known Australian spirit in lending a hand in times of adversity, similarly this spirit should apply to most people's thinking, and I think it generally does, when it comes to organ donation. The government's organ and tissue donation national reform package, which was introduced with the agreement of the states and is funded to the tune of $151 million, is a truly crucial step towards increasing awareness of organ donation and, in particular, towards informing people of what the true facts about it are. The government has established a coordinated approach to organ donation, using 240-odd staff working through about 77 different hospitals and DonateLife agencies across Australia, thus enabling the jurisdictions to work cooperatively to support and sustain improvements in the organ donation rate.

We often put ourselves in the hands of our doctors and rightfully put our trust in their judgment. That is why, in the interests of increasing the organ donation rate, I have entered into an arrangement with Dr Phan Giang Sang, who is a Vietnamese doctor in Cabramatta. As you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, 20 percent of people in my electorate speak Vietnamese at home. There is a very low organ donation rate in my electorate, so Dr Sang has written a number of books about organ donation. He is particularly committed to encouraging awareness among the Vietnamese community and people of other migrant backgrounds about organ donation and to debunking the misconception that organ donation is somehow contrary to various cultural or religious beliefs. Dr Sang has consented to having my flyer printed which is now going out to every one of the GPs in Cabramatta and is translated into Vietnamese with a view to trying to increase the take-up rate among Vietnamese people in my area. I would encourage members to enter into agreements with local doctors in an attempt to deliver better organ donation outcomes for our community.

I know organ donation is a very difficult subject—when a loved one dies, you do not expect to be asked about it. But I have often spoken on this in this parliament, and I refer now to very good friend of mine, Debbie Roberts. Her daughter who was only 20 at the time, died some years back. Fortunately, her daughter had the fortitude to have a good talk with her mum about what her intentions were should she die. Debbie often talks to me about the assistance that her daughter has given to other people—in fact, she has changed their lives. Four people now have healthy lives because of the generous position of her daughter Rebecca. (Time expired)

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source