Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (17), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1)   Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A Section 4

Insert:

State Minister means the responsible State Minister of Western Australia.

(2)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 5), omit "Titles Administrator", substitute "State Minister".

(3)   Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 7), omit "Titles Administrator's", substitute "State Minister's".

(4)   Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 8 to 10), omit the item, substitute:

3 Subsection 9(1)

Omit "Designated Authority", substitute "State Minister".

(5)   Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 11), before item 4, insert:

3A Paragraph 10(1)(a)

Omit "Designated Authority", substitute "State Minister".

3B Paragraphs 10(1)(b) and (c)

Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:

  (b)   is not payable in relation to petroleum if:

     (i)   the State Minister is satisfied that the petroleum was used by the registered holder of the petroleum exploration permit, petroleum retention lease or petroleum production licence for the purposes of petroleum exploration operations or operations for the recovery of petroleum; and

     (ii)   the use did not contravene the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 or regulations under that Act; and

  (c)   is not payable in relation to petroleum if:

     (i)   the State Minister is satisfied that the petroleum has been flared or vented in connection with operations for the recovery of petroleum; and

     (ii)   the flaring or venting did not contravene the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 or regulations under that Act.

3C Subsection 10(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2)   If petroleum has been recovered by the registered holder of:

  (a)   a petroleum exploration permit; or

  (b)   a petroleum retention lease; or

  (c)   a petroleum production licence;

royalty under this Act is not payable in relation to the petroleum because of that recovery if:

  (d)   the State Minister is satisfied that the petroleum has been returned to a natural reservoir; and

  (e)   the return of the petroleum to the reservoir did not contravene the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 or regulations under that Act.

(6)   Schedule 1, page 3, after proposed item 3C, insert:

3D Section 11

Omit "Designated Authority" (wherever occurring), substitute "State Minister".

(7)   Schedule 1, page 3, after proposed item 3D, insert:

3E Section 12

Omit "Designated Authority" (wherever occurring), substitute "State Minister".

(8)   Schedule 1, page 3, after proposed item 3E, insert:

3F Section 13

Omit "Designated Authority" (wherever occurring), substitute "State Minister".

(9)   Schedule 1, page 3, after proposed item 3F, insert:

3G Section 14

Omit "Designated Authority" (wherever occurring), substitute "State Minister".

10)   Schedule 1, page 3, after proposed item 3G, insert:

3H Subsection 15(1)

Omit "Designated Authority", substitute "State Minister".

(11)   Schedule 1, page 3, after proposed item 3H, insert:

3J After section 16

Insert:

16A Delegation by State Minister

     The State Minister may, by written instrument, delegate to an employee of Western Australia any or all of the powers or functions of the State Minister under this Act.

(12)   Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 18), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add "(other than paragraph 10(1)(b) or (c) or subsection 10(2))".

(13)   Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 21), omit "Titles Administrator", substitute "State Minister".

(14)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 25), omit "Titles Administrator", substitute "State Minister".

(15)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 31), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add "(other than paragraph 10(1)(b) or (c) or subsection 10(2))".

(16)   Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 3), omit "Titles Administrator", substitute "State Minister".

(17)   Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 5), at the end of the Schedule, add:

6 Application of amendments—exemptions from royalty

(1)   The amendments of section 10 of the Offshore Petroleum (Royalty) Act 2006 made by this Schedule, in so far as the amendments relate to a use of petroleum, apply to a use that occurs after the commencement of this item.

(2)   The amendments of section 10 of the Offshore Petroleum (Royalty) Act 2006 made by this Schedule, in so far as the amendments relate to the flaring or venting of petroleum, apply to flaring or venting that occurs after the commencement of this item.

(3)   The amendments of section 10 of the Offshore Petroleum (Royalty) Act 2006 made by this Schedule, in so far as the amendments relate to the return of petroleum to a natural reservoir, apply to a return that occurs after the commencement of this item.

In moving these amendments, the Australian government is responding to a recom­mendation of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry. The committee has recommended replacing the functions of the designated authority in the Offshore Petroleum (Royalty) Act 2006 with the responsible state minister. This amendment was sought by the Western Australian government to continue its role in the administration of offshore petroleum royalties from the North West Shelf project area. I note that offshore petroleum royalties only apply to the North West Shelf project area off Western Australia. In accordance with revenue sharing arrangements in the offshore legis­lation, the Western Australian government receives approximately two-thirds of the revenue collected. The government amend­ments propose to continue the Western Australian government's direct role in the administration of offshore petroleum royal­ties from Commonwealth waters. These waters currently raise significant revenue, estimated to be around $900 million for Western Australia and $450 million for the Commonwealth in 2010-11. The government amendments will enable the continued use of specialist royalty expertise in the Western Australian department. This amendment does not adversely impact on the integrity of the other reforms and the package of bills to establish a national offshore petroleum regulator. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill excludes application of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Minerals Act 1994. Under registration requirements in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, the regulator has the ability to refuse to approve a dealing in relation to a petroleum title, and the responsible Commonwealth minister has the ability to refuse to approve a dealing in relation to a greenhouse gas title. This ability to refuse approval and registration of an interest underpins the purpose of the regist­ration requirement, to enable the Australian government to ensure the suitability of the entities that potentially are able to exercise control over the exploitation of Australia’s offshore petroleum resources. Further to this, state and Northern Territory governments have advised the Commonwealth that they are electing to opt out of or exclude the operation of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 for their onshore mining schemes. Therefore, excluding application of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Minerals Act 1994 is important to ensure national consistency for the mining industry by minimising the regulatory burden and costs to the industry and its investors in complying with different registration requirements, to prevent skewing investment. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the fifth and final bill of a complex legislative instrument. Australian taxpayers should not have to bear the cost of regulating the offshore oil and gas activities. This bill will enable the recovery of the cost of regulation from industry, while minimising the regulatory burden on the industry.

This bill amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Act 2003 to allow two types of cost recovery levies: an annual titles administ­ration levy for an eligible title in force, for each year of the term of the title, to recover the new National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator (NOPTA) costs; and an environment plan levy to recover the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) costs.

In line with the Australian government's policy, NOPSEMA and NOPTA are to be funded on a full cost recovery basis with levies raised from the offshore petroleum industry. These fees will be reviewed regularly to ensure the fees reflect the cost of regulating the petroleum industry. The initial fees to recover the establishment and expansion costs for NOPTA and NOPSEMA have already undergone a cost recovery impact statement process. A further cost recovery impact statement will be undert­aken in the second half of 2011 covering NOPTA's and NOPSEMA's operating costs after 1 January 2012. These new levies will, on balance, be less than the fees levied under the current designated authority system and will reflect the true cost of offshore regulation. These reforms reduce the unnecessary compliance burden on industry of compliance and ensure the development of our offshore resources for the benefit of all Australians.

I also say, in seeking to bring this debate to conclusion, I appreciate the contribution to this debate by a range of members in the House and, importantly, the constructive engagement I have had with the opposition over an extended period in seeking to get to this point. The petroleum industry is very important to Australia's economic future. Gas is also regarded as a clean fuel in a transition to a lower emission economy; hence, the constructive development of this industry is essential to Australia's economic and environmental future. We therefore must work collectively together to maintain our social licence to operate in this industry. The experiences of the last 18 months to two years, both in the US with Macondo in the Gulf and in Australia with Montara, have sent a serious message to each and every one of us that we have to work to improve our performance when it comes to best practice in terms of the regulatory regime applicable in this industry. It is the intent of all members of the House to achieve that objective, and I am very lucky to have the support of the House with respect to that very objective.

As is always the case with respect to the reports that I have had to consider and the preparation of the legislative instruments, I, and previously the member for Groom, as minister, rely on a very good Public Service team to do all the necessary hard work. I say to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, particularly the team responsible which is with us in the House today, thank you for a job well done. It is a huge effort, and the Australian community will be the beneficiary of your detailed commitment to consultation in the preparation of the bills which will soon come to conclusion in consideration of the House. I also say that I will continue to work with the Western Australian government to try and reach a conclusion on what I think is an objective being pursued both by Minister Moore, in Western Australia, and me, in the Common­wealth, with the support of the member for Groom, the shadow minister, to ensure not only that, at the end of this debate, there is agreement but that we are all satisfied we have best practice when it comes to the regulation of the petroleum industry in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise briefly to associate myself with the comments that the Minister for Resources and Energy has just made and to reinforce a few of those comments. Firstly, as to the terms of the social licence of the oil and gas industry to operate in Australia, that is a key issue in terms of this industry going forward. As the minister said, it has a critical, if not crucial, role to play in a low-emissions economy, but it has to do that within the community expectations and the environmental constraints that are placed on the industry and it has to do it in such a way that the industry has the absolute confidence of the community.

Secondly, I would like to join the minister in thanking the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism for their role in this legislation. As the minister suggested, it is very complex legislation and there is a set of quite complex amendments to go with it. It has been crucially important, as has been emphasised by those on both sides of the House, that we get this legislation right. It underpins the legislative framework which will ensure the safety of not only those who work in this industry but also, and just as importantly, the environment which hosts this industry. I thank the department, which is, from my personal experience as a minister, the best department in Australia, and I say that without reservation.

Finally, I thank the minister for the time that he has spent in negotiating with Minister Moore in Western Australia and I thank him for his commitment going forward that those negotiations will continue with the goal of reaching a conclusion. It is important that all parties in this debate do each have the opportunity to express their views. It has been very much a hallmark, starting with the inquiry after the Montara disaster, that all stakeholders in this debate have been able to participate, so I welcome the commitment of the minister going forward.

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

It is a bit odd to let the member for Groom speak after the minister has summed up. He was on indulgence and given the nature of the debate and all the rest of it—and my confusion with what is going on—I am going to thank everyone for their assistance at this time. I have located my children!

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I compliment you on your handling of this complex debate. In no way did we ever get the impression that you were confused about the nature of the bills before the chair.

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

I am just pleased I was not actually speaking on them!

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011. Whilst this is a relatively dry bill—just updating some definitions within the framework of the free trade agreement that we have with our very good partner New Zealand—I think it is a reasonable time for us to think about the success of that free trade agreement. It was Australia's first free trade agreement. It was negotiated in the early 1980s and implemented in 1983, at a time when free trade was probably less fashionable than it is now. You will obviously still hear arguments for and against free trade now and those arguments have been ongoing literally for centuries within the political sphere. But this agreement has done a lot to advance the economic interests of Australia and the economic interests of our partner New Zealand. Although this is a relatively dry bill, it is important for us as a parliament to reflect on the success of that free trade agreement and about how it was a precursor for future free trade agreements that we negotiated with other partners.

I always like to refer back to Adam Smith when we look at economic issues. Although he wrote many centuries ago, his insights into the way an economy works are still relevant today. On trade, he said:

It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. ... If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

Essentially he was talking about the economic law of comparative advantage—though he would not have called it this at the time—which was developed slightly later by another British economist. But the words that Adam Smith wrote in his classic book The Wealth of Nations are still very relevant to us today, and a great reminder about how important free trade is and about how politicians constantly get people arguing with us about why free trade is not that important. The way those arguments are put to us varies greatly. In the old days, there were mercantile arguments between free traders and protectionists, about why it was in the national interest not to trade freely with other countries. Now these arguments come to us in different ways. They come to us in possibly more sophisticated ways. They come to us in ways in relation to industry policy or in the guise of fair trade, which is a term which I do not think is necessarily very well understood.

I see the member for Brand at the table. I am sure his father-in-law would have agreed with what I am saying. If the Labor Party still had men of that calibre, I suspect they would not be having the political problems they are having today.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have never mentioned my father-in-law.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to acknowledge that interjection, so it is on the record and can be raised at the minister's next family Christmas!

This bill really just updates some definitions and some other nomenclature issues within the closer economic relation­ship framework that we have with our brothers in New Zealand. Whilst this bill is rather technical in nature, it is timely that the parliament discusses it in the wake of the visit and the historic address to this parliament by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Rt Hon. John Key. Australia's economic relationship with New Zealand is one of the most diverse and comprehensive we have with any country. Australia is New Zealand's largest export market. Prime Minister Key made that point when he addressed the parliament. More than half of direct foreign investment in New Zealand, around $50 billion, comes from Australia. Last year, Australian exports to New Zealand totalled just over $8 billion, which is actually not far from the $9 billion that we exported to the United States. That gives you some idea about the vital importance of the economic relationship that we share with New Zealand.

There is no doubt that Australia and New Zealand share a unique relationship nurtured by a number of factors: geographic prox­imity, obviously; shared histories as members of the British Commonwealth; a shared culture; and a shared Anzac tradition. This relationship has led to arrangements that enable citizens of Australia and New Zealand to migrate freely between the two countries. Over recent decades, the most significant trans-Tasman movements have been of New Zealanders moving to Australia, with the movements generally reflecting the economic conditions and opportunities within our two countries. There are presently over half a million New Zealanders living in Australia.

Our two countries also have very close military ties going back to the First World War where soldiers of both countries were formed into the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps. Together Australia and New Zealand saw their first major military action at the Battle of Gallipoli. Today our military ties continue with a combined effort in the maintenance of peace and stability in East Timor. The combined force in East Timor, which is entitled the International Stabilis­ation Force, has developed over time and presently consists of approximately 460 personnel with the Australian Defence Force contributing 390 of those and the New Zealand Defence Force contributing 70. Our two countries' forces are complementary in equipment and in culture. We work well together in East Timor and also in other battlefields and other conflicts around the world. We have a tremendous history together. The bond between our defence forces remains incredibly strong with a high degree of common purpose.

This common purpose also forms the cornerstone of our trade and economic relationships in the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agree­ment, which came into effect on 1 January 1983 and is, as I have mentioned, one of Australia's most important economic treaties. The agreement is comprehensive and wide ranging and provides New Zealand and Australia with liberal access to each others goods, services and investment markets. As noted on the DFAT website, the objectives of the Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement are to strengthen the broad relationship between Australia and New Zealand, to develop closer economic relations between member states through a mutually beneficial expansion of free trade between New Zealand and Australia, to eliminate barriers to trade between Australia and New Zealand in a gradual and progres­sive manner under an agreed timetable and within minimum disruption, and to develop trade between Australia and New Zealand under conditions of fair competition. The agreement reaffirms the close relationship between Australia and New Zealand. On 1 January 2007 the agreement rules of origin provision underwent significant change to allow both the change in tariff classification method and the regional value content method to be used to establish whether goods are New Zealand-originating goods.

As part of the 2007 amendments to the agreement both parties also agreed to perform a review of the new rules of origin within three years of these new rules taking effect. This review, which was commenced in late 2008 and completed in March of last year, resulted in amendments to the text of article 3, rules of origin, and related product specific rules in annex G to the agreement. The modifications to the agreement will lessen the administrative burden on business and will assist the eligibility for duty-free entry of goods into both markets. The amendments will also provide greater consistency between the rules of origin in the agreement and those in other free trade agreements entered into by Australia. That obviously came to pass as this agreement is approaching its 30th anniversary and over time the definitions that are used within international free trade agreements change, and this bill reflects those more modern terminologies.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 to implement amend­ments to the rules of origin requirements under the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement and amend definitions within the act. These requirements are outlined in article 3 and annex G of the agreement. The amendments to the Customs Act implements the amendments to article 3 of the agreement. Amendments to the Customs (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Regulations 2006 will implement the amendment at annex G of the agreement. As has been noted in this bill's explanatory memorandum, the bill will amend division 1E of part VIII of the Customs Act to insert a new definition of 'aquaculture', to amend the definition of 'manufacture', to amend the definition of 'produce', to amend the provisions dealing with wholly obtained goods, to amend the provisions dealing with eligibility based on the last process of manufacture, to insert a new section to provide that goods are not New Zealand originating goods merely because of the certain operations, and make consequential amendments to the verification powers in division 4D of part VI of the Customs Act.

The practical effects of this bill are relatively limited; it is not just a definitional bill. It is, as I said at the outset, a timely reminder to this parliament about the importance of the trade agreement we have with New Zealand. This is a pretty unique agreement in the world. It is underpinned by free movement of people between two countries. There are very few pairs of nations around the world that have such a close economic relationship as Australia and New Zealand. In fact, there are very few nations around the world that have such close political and defence ties. Indeed, New Zealand is actually mentioned as one of the possible constituent parts of the Common­wealth of Australia in our Constitution; my home state of Western Australia is not. This just shows you the way that history has developed between our two countries and about how important it is to both countries.

I acknowledge the fact that former Prime Minister John Howard and former Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer were pivotal during their years in office in advancing economic and cultural relation­ships with New Zealand. On this side of the House, as indeed on the other side of the House, the relationship is valued and we value our partnership with our brother country, New Zealand. It is a partnership that has just been highlighted again by the visit of the New Zealand Prime Minister and his historic address to this parliament. The opposition supports the passage of this bill and we support the strengthening of our economic, political and cultural ties with our fellow brother country, New Zealand.

Debate adjourned.

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

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

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

It is with great pleasure that I rise just weeks after this parliament was addressed by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Prime Minister Key, to speak in favour of the Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011. The ties that bind Australia and New Zealand go back to the very origins of our two great nations. We are the closest neighbours and the very best of friends and allies, apart from on the rugby field. We share the Anzac heritage and conflicts both in our mutual past and through to today with our mutual commitment to eliminating terrorism in Afghanistan and bringing stability to that nation.

However, our ties go beyond conflict. We share a mutual culture and many Australians have fallen so in love with New Zealand that they have made it their permanent home or at least a regular tourist destination. Who has not heard it said that there are more New Zealanders living in Bondi than in Auckland? Even Prime Minister Key, who was here a few weeks ago, himself admitted that he has also lived in Australia. I think he was down in Bondi but he was in Sydney.

My sister is married to a New Zealander. They have a debate going on amongst themselves. They have two children born in Chile. I think the eldest girl is going to be an Australian and the younger boy is going to be a New Zealander, so they will have these different nationalities, which is very interesting. The ties are very thick and close.

It is because of this closeness that we have all been so deeply affected by the earthquakes in Christchurch where there is a need to demolish some 10,000 houses, where the elderly have been moved to other parts of the country and where schools are doubling up on students just to make sure that their education continues. We have heard that Christchurch's CBD has been shattered and may never recover and that so much has been destroyed and there is so much uncertainty that they are not sure whether to rebuild. I know that the spirit is very strong there and that they are keen to rebuild, but they have a big job ahead of them. I know that all the Australians are out gunning for them to succeed in that mission.

We have heard that 181 people have lost their lives and that the cost to the New Zealand economy will be huge. It is estimated that there will be a loss to the GDP of some $15 billion. This is a hit to their economy of such epic proportions it will take time to recover. This recovery will very much involve Australia. We have already provided rescue and emergency teams, but we will also provide our assistance in economic terms as well. To this end I was very interested to hear Prime Minister Key talk about exactly how much economic investment flows between Australia and New Zealand. We would all be aware that he said some $50 billion of investment in New Zealand is from Australia. I was also interested to hear that exports to New Zealand total some $8 billion.

Given our focus on China and Asia generally and the large investments made there, we at times can tend to forget the importance of New Zealand for the prosperity of our export trade. While the New Zealand trade may be small, the proximity of New Zealand, our shared culture and our trade agreements make it in many ways a more enticing offering for many businesses. Perhaps it is for this reason that Prime Minister Key noted that so many small and medium Australian businesses cut their teeth in the international market by first exporting and investing in New Zealand.

This bill has been made possible by the close trade relationships that have developed between New Zealand and Australia over time. A cornerstone of this closeness in recent history could be said to be the Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, signed in 1983, and known widely as the CER, a free trade agreement that is widely acknowledged as a model of the standards to which such agreements should aspire but which many, if not most, fail to achieve. This agreement is Australia's longest standing bilateral free trade agreement. It provides both Australia and New Zealand with liberal access to goods, services and investment markets. Many Australian jobs and busin­esses are underpinned by this agreement.

The legislation before us today seeks to amend the provision of this agreement and its subsequent act to alter the rules of origin provisions. Rules of origin are those provisions—be they legislative, regulatory, administrative rulings—that are used to determine the country of origin of a good or service or investment. They are of import­ance in world trade, especially in a world that is characterised by the ever-growing globalisation of production.

These matters may appear technical or details of little interest, but the functioning of a bilateral trade agreement depends crucially on getting these details right. It is another reminder of the more workaday details that lie behind the big picture items that grab the headlines. It reminds us that the hard work of reform takes place on many levels and involves unglamorous hard work and careful attention to detail, very often performed by public servants in my own electorate who I know are here today to see their bill hopefully come to fruition. I am sure plenty of hours and midnight oil has been spent on this. I congratulate them on their work. There have been lots of public servants involved and lots of people committed to making a difference.

The current rules of origin for the free trade agreement entered into force on 1 January 2007. When negotiating these rules it was agreed by both Australia and New Zealand that there would be a review conducted after three years of the rules taking effect. This review began in 2008 by both Australian and New Zealand officials and was completed early last year. The review resulted in agreement to make amendments to the text of article 3, rules of origin, and the related product specific rules in annex G that deal with the definitions of particular industries and processes. These are the changes we make today. Specifically this bill inserts new definitions for aquaculture and amends the definitions for manufacture and produce. It also amends the provision dealing with wholly obtained goods and the provision dealing with eligibility based on the last process of manufacture. In addition, it inserts a new section to provide that goods are not treated as having originated in New Zealand merely because of certain operations being performed.

The government consulted Australian industry throughout the process of review. In addition, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties conducted three public hearings on the treaty changes before recommending that Australia take binding treaty action. The changes to the trade agreement will reduce the administrative burden on business and will facilitate the eligibility for duty-free entry of goods into both markets. The amendments will also provide greater consistency between the rules of origin in the agreement and those in other free trade agreements entered into by Australia, which is very important. The amendments to article 3 will enter into force on the date when the Australian and New Zealand governments notify each other by an exchange of diplomatic notes that they have completed their respective domestic processes to bring the amendments into force.

The CER agreement is the standard by which bilateral free trade agreements are judged. For almost 30 years, it has played a significant part in the prosperity of Australia's export trade and our economy. The provisions before us today are good for the Australian economy, are good for the New Zealand economy and are an important part of the ongoing achievements of the government in support of the economic wellbeing of all Australians. These provisions are also good for the economic wellbeing of New Zealanders, the economic wellbeing of people who need employment and Australian exports. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901, a very, very old act. It is more than 100 years old. This act has been part of the laws of this nation since Federation, so today we are amending one of the original acts of parliament. The bill will amend the Customs Act 1901 to implement amendments to the rules of origin requirements under the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, which is a very important trade agreement between our two nations. The Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement came into effect on 1 January 1983 and it is fundamental to the Australia-New Zealand trade and economic relationship. According to the explanatory memorandum:

The Agreement is a comprehensive and wide-ranging agreement that provides New Zealand and Australia with liberal access to each other's goods, services and investments markets.

It is the umbrella for close collaboration across quarantine—which I want to touch on before I conclude—customs, transport, regulatory and product standards and business law issues.

The agreement reaffirms the close relationship between Australia and New Zealand. On 1 January 2007 the agreement's rules of origin provision underwent considerable change to permit both the change in tariff classification method and the regional value content method to be used to establish whether goods are of New Zealand origin. As part of the 2007 amendments to the agreement, both parties also agreed to perform a review of the new rules of origin within three years of these new rules taking effect. This review, which commenced in late 2008 and was completed in March 2010, resulted in amendments to the text of article 3, rules of origin, and the related product specific rules in annex G to the agreement. The modification to the agreement will lessen the administrative burden on business and will assist in the eligibility of duty-free entry of goods into both markets. The amendments will also provide greater consistency between the rules of origin in the agreement and those in other free trade agreements entered into by Australia.

Although the coalition does not consider this bill to be controversial, it still has significant effects on many agricultural industries within the electorate of Maranoa. I particularly want to make sure that we capitalise on our competitive edge as a nation. They may be our cousins across the Tasman, but charity begins at home. Wool production, for instance, is the second most common enterprise on Australian farms. In the eastern states most wool is grown west of the Great Dividing Range and the total wool produced in Australia amounts to some 370,610 tonnes, with Queensland contribut­ing over 10,000 tonnes of wool annually. Australia is the world's dominant producer and exporter of wool, accounting for some 67 per cent of the world's wool exports from major producing countries.

Australian wool growers have recently enjoyed an increase in demand and also, related to that, an increase in price for their product, which I can assure you is long overdue. That is due to a lower supply and much higher demand coming out of China. The late autumn wool market defied the trend of cautious international buying by jumping some 56 per cent over the past year at a time when the Australian dollar surged 20 per cent. So it is even more remarkable that we have seen this price increase and increased interest from the international sector sustained against the backdrop of a higher Australian dollar.

I want to touch on the wool industry because Australia and New Zealand are significant producers of wool and there have been some tariff issues in the past. I think we have disadvantaged ourselves a little bit to the advantage of New Zealand when it came to some of the made-up products, particularly suit products, and have given New Zealand an edge over Australia when it came to using Australian made fabrics to produce suiting and other apparel. The wool industry is important to both our nations. In the international arena, we have worked cooperatively in the past but now, through Australian Wool Innovation, we are again seeing a cooperation which had perhaps been lost for many years. And it is important we include New Zealand as part of that cooperation.

It was last year that His Royal Highness Prince Charles launched an initiative aimed at increasing demand for British wool and wool from the Commonwealth, obviously including New Zealand. The wool project will see diverse groups from across the wool sector, including textile designers and the carpet and fashion industries, work together to improve public awareness of the benefits of this very sustainable product. Prince Charles has long been concerned about the low prices farmers have been receiving for their wool, so last year his Royal Highness brought the wool industry together, including New Zealand producers, fabric makers, carpet industries and textile designers, to see how they could work together globally to put wool onto a more sustainable economic footing.

I was very pleased to see the Governor-General involved in this wool initiative, which includes not only Australian wool but New Zealand wool, through the Australian Wool Innovation launch at Admiralty House in Sydney earlier this year. This initiative will see a world wool day later this year—in the first week of October, I think. I hope that this parliament takes up that opportunity—although we are sitting not that week but the following one—to participate in world wool day because wool is one of the great products of the world. It is sustainable and it is also a product that was very much instrumental in the early development and economic growth of this wonderful nation, Australia.

So I am looking forward to seeing how these amendments enable us to work with the New Zealand wool industry. I am of course interested in cooperation with many other New Zealand industries, but I am particularly interested to see how this will play out with our cousins in the wool industry, whether in textiles, apparel, nonapparel or design. I will be interested to see how we can—not only here in the Australian and New Zealand wool industry, from the producing and processing sectors right through, but also globally—push our advantages and the uniqueness of our wool fibres into other markets. I wanted to link the issue of wool into this bill because I think it is important that we work together in this industry. In the past, we worked together through what was called the International Wool Secretariat, but now we have Prince Charles's wool initiative pushing wool, through the Commonwealth countries, around the world. I think his initiative has certainly given things a great impetus.

Recently, in New York, London and Europe, I saw the effect of this wool initiative. I saw how wool is being increas­ingly seen by consumers as a sustainable product. I think the initiative is going to continue to help our wool producers—as well as New Zealand wool producers—and that part of the wool industry which is beyond the farm gate. It will help us to promote wool from Australia and New Zealand and to promote our competitive advantages, particularly in processing. It will help us to promote that we are able to produce not just the raw product but the manufactured product and to export these products into other countries.

As I foreshadowed, I turn now to quarantine. It is important that we have this free trade between our two countries, but quarantine becomes a significant issue. The issue I refer to here is the proposal to import apples from New Zealand into Australia, although I know that a final decision is not due until next month. The only apple industry in Queensland is in my electorate of Maranoa, down on the Granite Belt in Stanthorpe. If the decision under this agreement is to allow New Zealand apples into Australia, it will be the first time in 90 years we have seen apples imported from New Zealand into Australia. The restriction which has always kept New Zealand apples out of Australia has been a quarantine restriction. That is because New Zealand has a disease in apples called fire blight while Australia does not. If, through a breakdown in quarantine, we saw apples with fire blight brought into Australia and then saw fire blight accidentally ending up in our apple and pear orchards, we would decimate our industry. There are only two ways you can control a fire blight outbreak. One way is with very heavy herbicide use. The only other way is to destroy the tree totally—in other words, cut it down.

I know that the apple growers of my electorate, and pear growers across Australia, are very concerned about the protocol under this quarantine agreement. Unless something changes and New Zealand apples are not allowed to come in as a result of the decision to be made in August, the protocol means that New Zealand apple orchardists will themselves be clearing their apples for export into our markets here in Australia. The apple growers in my electorate of Maranoa, in the Granite Belt, and pear growers across Australia are very concerned at the protocol that is in place. We believe that this is terribly important, notwith­standing this free trade agreement, and that the risk remains too great. To orchardists in the apple and pear history, fire blight would be what foot-and-mouth disease is to the beef industry. We should take it just as seriously as we take foot-in-mouth, because one of the great advantages we have, and one of the great pleasures we enjoy in this country, is the fact we have clean, green food. It is one of the things we seem to take for granted. I think consumers across Australia are so lucky to have this clean, green, high-quality food at an affordable price. If we were to find under this free trade agreement that New Zealand apples were allowed into Australia and there was an accidental—and it would be accidental—outbreak of fire blight in our apple and pear industry, it would be directly related to the protocols, which I believe are too lax and run an unnecessary risk. I say to the Prime Minister and to the government: think again about allowing apples from New Zealand into Australia. The risk is too great. Fire blight would decimate our industry and the many family farmers who produce these wonderful products for us.

They say an apple a day keeps the doctor away. I say, 'Let's make sure we keep New Zealand apples with fire blight away.' Other than that, I support this bill. But, in the next month or so, we have to make sure that we continue our campaign to ensure that the government has listened to the industry and that it understands the risk of accidental entry, under quarantine rules as they are proposed, of apples from New Zealand into Australia. This could lead, as I said, to the decimation of our industry. Once again: an apple a day will keep the doctor away. Let us make sure that we keep New Zealand apples away while ever there is a threat of fire blight being brought into Australia.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011. This bill contains amendments to the Customs Act 1901 to implement changes to article 3 of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agree­ment.

The Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, otherwise known as ANZCERTA, is Australia's longest standing bilateral free trade agreement, having been in force since 1983. One aspect of ANZCERTA is the rules of origin, often referred to by its acronym ROO. In negotiating the current rules of origin, which came into force on 1 January 2007, it was agreed that a review should take place within three years of the rules taking effect. Australian and New Zealand officials commenced the review in late 2008 and completed it in March 2010. The amend­ments in the bill address some imperfections identified in that review. The amendments will result in a range of practical changes. For example, the changes made to ANZCERTA will reduce the administrative burden on business and will facilitate the eligibility for duty-free entry of goods into both markets. It is expected that these benefits would be passed onto consumers. The amendments will also provide greater consistency between the rules of origin in the ANZCERTA and the free trade agreements that Australia has with other countries.

The ANZCERTA amendments were tabled in parliament in June last year, and I understand that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties inquired into those amendments. Public hearings were conduc­ted in November 2010 as well as a further two hearings in February 2011. On 11 May 2011, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommended that Australia take binding treaty action. The government also consulted widely with the Australian indus­try throughout the process. Specifically, the bill will amend division 1E of part VIII of the Customs Act to (a) insert a new definition of 'aquaculture', (b) amend the definition of 'manufacture', (c) amend the definition of 'produce', (d) amend the provisions dealing with 'wholly obtained goods', (e) amend the provisions dealing with eligibility based on the last process of manufacture, (f) insert a new section to provide that goods are not New Zealand-originating goods merely because of certain operations and (g) make consequential amendments to the verification powers in division 4D of part VI of the Customs Act.

These amendments make sensible changes to definitions under the Customs Act, and I support them. They also highlight issues of concern that have arisen in recent years as a result of trade agreements between Australia and other countries, particularly with New Zealand. There is growing concern amongst Australian primary producers that Australian primary production is being increasingly placed at risk because of imported products which can either originate in a country of concern or come into Australia via a country like New Zealand, which Australia would generally feel secure in trading with.

A current example is the concern of Australian potato growers that the import­ation of New Zealand potatoes could place at risk the Australian potato-growing industry because of the zebra chip disease that has been detected in New Zealand grown potatoes. The zebra chip disease was first detected in Central America in the 1990s. It then made its way to New Zealand, where it was first detected in 2008. If the Australian potato industry were infected with the zebra chip disease, the livelihoods of over 2,000 Australian potato-growing families would be placed at risk because there is currently no known effective control procedure for this disease. I have to date presented petitions to this House signed by around 648 growers who are concerned about this matter. Their concern relates to the fact that they understand that there is a push to have potatoes imported from New Zealand.

The member for Maranoa touched on another matter that I also wish to speak on, and that is the issue of apple growers in this country and their concerns about the importation of apples from New Zealand. In particular, they are concerned that the disease fire blight has been detected in New Zealand apples and, not surprisingly, they do not want to risk that disease being brought into Australia. Australia lost its appeal to the World Trade Organisation on this matter. I must say that I commend the minister for having appealed it in the first place. But, unfortunately, we lost the appeal. I underst­and that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig, has now ordered that an import risk analysis be carried out prior to any approval of apple imports into Australia from New Zealand.

In South Australia we also have an important apple industry—particularly in the Adelaide Hills, which adjoins my electorate of Makin. I know that the apple growers there are concerned about the importation of New Zealand apples into this country. I have spoken with them on several occasions and in fact was able to organise a meeting between them and the previous agriculture minister, Tony Burke, to discuss their concerns. They have argued quite strongly that if we are going to allow in apples from New Zealand then at the very least we need to ensure we have the necessary safeguards in place and that those safeguards are well policed. They too are very concerned about the disease fire blight coming into this country, and I understand that one of the very reasons Australia is able to export much of its fruit and vegetable produce is that it is seen as a country that is relatively free of many of the diseases that other countries unfortunately have. If we were to in any way infect our own products, that would no longer be the case and I have no doubt that it would affect the export of Australian produce to overseas countries.

In that respect, I understand that over the past year Australia has imported vegetables worth $555 million which is in fact $306 million more than the export value of Australian vegetables over the same period. So we have already reached a situation where we are importing more vegetables than we are exporting. Australian growers, faced with the increased value of the Australian dollar and generally higher production overheads, are already at a disadvantage when competing with overseas growers. The one advantage that they have, and which they value, is the quality of the produce grown here. Jeopardising that quality by importing products from countries where disease has been detected is a risk that they simply do not need. Even with Aust­ralia's strict biosecurity system, prevention of disease entering Australia can never be 100 per cent guaranteed.

It is of additional concern that product originally exported to New Zealand by another country may find its way into Australia. Not all countries grow produce in accordance with Australian and New Zeal­and standards, particularly with respect to the type of chemicals used in production. They may in fact use chemicals that have been banned in Australia. The sooner we have clear country of origin labelling in place in Australia, the sooner Australian consumers will be able to make an informed choice about the products they purchase.

Australia has a very close working relationship with New Zealand. We share food standard regulations under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand process. Both countries, however, enter into their own trade agreements with other countries, which in turn may create a pathway for non-New Zealand product which Australia has conc­erns with entering Australia.

We clearly need to be vigilant in our customs and, in particular, biosecurity processes. The Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agree­ment attempts to define the nature of the trade between the two countries and in turn provide certainty for producers and exporters. The amendments in this bill make clearer definitions in the agreement. I commend the bill to the House.

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

New Zealand is our close neighbour, earnest rival and great friend. The rivalry we have in cricket, rugby and netball is legendary and it is mostly friendly and conducted in a manner befitting such noble sports. But it is not just in sport that Australia has close ties with our trans-Tasman neighbour. About half a million New Zealanders live in Australia and 65,000 Australians live in New Zealand. Twenty-three per cent, or $7.2 billion worth, of New Zealand exports end up in Australia. In return, 18 per cent of New Zealand imports originate here. On top of that, there is $6 billion worth of two-way trade in services.

The population of New Zealand is around 4.4 million, or around one-fifth of Austral­ia's, which of course means that Australia's market is a much larger and more encour­aging market for New Zealand. We both have similar histories of reliance on agriculture and, even though Australia has moved further away from this agricultural economic dominance, both nations are key exporters of agricultural products, including food. In this agricultural trade our two nations could be described as natural rivals, producing many similar products. So how do we differentiate our product in Australia, not just compared to New Zealand product but compared to product from around the world? More importantly at this point, how do we ensure that New Zealand produce is exactly that and not rebadged imports?

The Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill before the House purports to set out the rules for determining whether goods are New Zealand-originating goods and therefore eligible for a preferential rate of customs duty under the Customs Tariff Act 1995. However, in the vague laws of international trade such rules always seem open to interpretation and, in spite of the intent in this bill, indeed this seems to be the case in this bill.

There is no greater acknowledgement of the lack of equity and vagaries in trade policy than the failure of the world to deliver, particularly in agriculture, through the DOHA Round of world trade talks. We really do need to ensure that this bill and any others actually enhance real trade in an open, honest and transparent manner. The Aust­ralian community needs to be assured that goods from other countries are not entering Australia branded as a product of New Zealand thanks to a brief stopover, but the bill really does not guarantee that.

Subdivision G of the act:

… sets out when goods are New Zealand originating goods because their last process of manufacture is performed in New Zealand. It is repealed on 1 January 2012.

The bill inserts after subdivision G an extra statement, subdivision GA, which:

… provides that goods are not New Zealand originating goods under this Division merely because of certain operations.

It goes further, in identifying that goods are not New Zealand-originating goods under this division merely because of the following operations:

(a) operations to preserve goods in good condition for the purposes of transport or storage;

(b) disassembly of goods;

(c) affixing of marks, labels or other similar distinguishing signs on goods or their packaging;

(d) packaging, changes to packaging, the breaking up or assembly of packages or presenting goods for transport or sale;

(e) quality control inspections;

(f) any combination of operations referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e).

This suggests that goods that have been repackaged in New Zealand cannot simply be badged as a product of New Zealand and sent at reduced duty to Australia, but it does not really address partially manufactured or processed products made from foreign ingredients. The bill seeks to omit the statement:

Subdivision B provides that goods are New Zealand originating goods if they are wholly obtained in New Zealand or in New Zealand and Australia.

In turn it inserts:

Subdivision B provides that goods are New Zealand originating goods if they are wholly obtained or produced in New Zealand or in New Zealand and Australia.

The government and the minister need to explain the exact impact of that change. I note that when the minister introduced this bill to the parliament on 16 June he explained the process by which these changes were developed but did not explain what outcomes would come about as a result of the amendments. That is something that we as parliamentarians and growers in Australia need to be aware of. The minister's speech of about four full paragraphs did not contain that sort of detail. The minister said in that speech that changes:

… will reduce the administrative burden on businesses, facilitate the eligibility for duty free entry of goods into both markets, and provide greater consistency between the ANZCERTA Rules of Origin and those of other trade agreements negotiated by Australia.

But I ask the minister to explain how the proposed changes will prevent foreign goods entering Australia through New Zealand in that so-called 'grey marketplace'.

I know that much has been said about this grey marketplace and there is quite a bit of information out there about what has gone on. I saw a Today Tonight feature in which they investigated and tracked raw products to factories where they were processed, repackaged and exported. These products were branded with, as they said in this article, the trusty 'made in New Zealand' label. It stated that in the last year—this was 2010—officially 45 per cent was coming from New Zealand, 16 per cent from China and 12 per cent from Canada. China has more than doubled the amount of food it is sending into Australia, but that does not include food it is sending which is processed in New Zealand and then gets sent here. We hear constantly about Australian growers being unable to compete, and it comes as a result of some of this.

I need to know from the minister whether the entry of such goods will be made easier or more difficult with the proposed changes and why. We need explanations that will work in practical terms and we need to know whether any proposed reduction in administration will result in a reduction in accountability. We cannot afford to lower our standards. The other issue relating to this is food labelling. I have raised the accuracy of food labelling in this place on numerous occasions. Products coming through New Zealand to Australia must be adequately and properly labelled. As we hear frequently in this place, the quality of Australian products should not be put at risk.

There is no doubt that the clean, disease-free status of Australian food and produce is absolutely paramount. That is why so many Australians are outraged at the continual undermining of our biosecurity. The govern­ment is not acting on this. The 2009 budget slashed $35.8 million from quarantine and biosecurity and we have seen $58 million slashed from the customs budget. Fewer cargo consignments are inspected and fewer vessels boarded on arrival. In 2011 another $32 million was cut from the operation of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, reducing the capacity of the department to deliver services to Australian agriculture.

The latest example, which we heard today in this chamber, is the recommendation by Biosecurity Australia to abandon adequate protocols to prevent the incursion of serious diseases like fire blight with the importation of New Zealand apples. This comes on the back of the Prime Minister visiting the New Zealand parliament and making an ann­ouncement that we would accept their apples. This was said without the completion of an import risk analysis. So Biosecurity Australia, in my view, has had to try to cut its cloth to fit the Prime Minister's statement. But this is an abandonment of the quarantine principles that have made Australia amongst the cleanest producers of high-quality food in the world. We know that the Beale quarantine and biosecurity review, commis­sioned by Labor, called for many millions more to be spent on AQIS and quarantine to provide real protection for our border. But the government has failed to act and has actually stripped funding.

In relation to the apple imports, 75 per cent of Western Australia's apples and pears are produced in my electorate. So the potential for harm to those growers and to our industry in Western Australia is signific­ant. We know that the biosecurity measures and protocols that we expect, and that are part of what we do on farm in Australia, will be less than those required in the United States. That is what will be applied to the importation of apples from New Zealand. We know that our growers are very concerned about the potential for fire blight, european canker and leaf-curling midge. It only takes that little piece of trash to come in with those apples. When we look at what is being asked of inspectors in New Zealanders, it could come down to as few as one apple in a million being inspected, and those apples could come from a diversity of properties.

We know that fire blight in New Zealand is not a declarable or reportable disease. So how are we going to know which orchards are affected and whether any of those apples will be coming into Australia? We know that the disease can manifest itself in the calyx, so the inspections are particularly important to maintaining our biosecurity. Unfortunate­ly, when you go to New Zealand and see how the industry runs you see that Australia's biosecurity will be in the hands of a backpacker having a great day, every day, picking and packing apples in New Zealand to be sent to Australia. I do not think that is an appropriate place for our biosecurity to rest. I think this is a very serious issue for us in Australia.

The other question that I would ask is: who is going to pay the compensation to a grower who has to get rid of their crop and pull out their trees to deal with fire blight? Who is going to be responsible for that when that comes as a result of fire blight introduced through the importation of New Zealand apples? You can understand the concerns of industry on this issue. We have enjoyed some of the most rigorous bio­security standards, but unfortunately we are now seeing that Biosecurity Australia is being asked—or instructed, I would think—to provide an import risk analysis that reflects the statement the Prime Minister made in the New Zealand parliament. That is simply not good enough. Australia produces some of the best quality food in the world—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The best!

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

and we do tend to take it for granted—the member for McMillan would agree with this—that we can go and buy some of the best quality food in the world in our country. We seem to think that it will be there forever, but it will not be if our biosecurity is put at risk as it is being put at risk now. We take it for granted when we go to buy our fruit and vegetables at the local fruit and vegetable market, or wherever we go, that they are going to be of the quality and standard that we expect and demand and enjoy. I have great faith in our growers, but I am very concerned about the organic growers, because they cannot use strept­omycin. How does an organic grower deal with fire blight in that instance? This has the potential to do a lot of harm and it also affects a whole range of other genera. We know that well. It could well affect the cotoneaster group. There are a whole lot of ornamental pear trees as well, in a whole lot of gardens right around this nation, that could be affected by this.

So this is not a simple issue. Certainly Biosecurity Australia should be applying the utmost rigour to this and not be trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole. The debate on this bill covers quite a bit of ground, but it hits on the importance of biosecurity and the types of products coming to Australia, where they emanate from, how they are grown, how they are produced and whether they meet the standards that we in Australia comply with and that give us the opportunity be the producers of some of the best food in the world. This is very important in consideration of this bill, and I put those concerns on the table.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 16 February this year the Prime Minister addressed the New Zealand parliament and, in an act of treachery to Australian apple-growing families, agreed to give carte blanche to allow New Zealand apples into our country. This was, in every sense, a betrayal of the worst kind—an Australian Prime Minister being disloyal to Australian people. Never mind the utterings that this rollover—and that is what it is—complies with the World Trade Organisation or anything else offered as some sort of feeble excuse. It is incomprehensible that our Prime Minister, as unpopular as she is in this country, would go across the Tasman to try to win a few friends over there in this way.

It was an executive decision to do this because in December last year the Australian and New Zealand governments agreed that a review of the situation would be completed on 17 August 2011, still many weeks from now. Despite this, our Prime Minister jumped the gun by several months and, in doing so—in wrongly doing so—opened the floodgates to New Zealand apples, placing our own apple industry in harm's way, risking fire blight and a flooded market. She did the same with live cattle exports, making an executive decision to ban the whole live trade to Indonesia, despite there being abattoirs which comply with Australian killing standards. It makes you wonder what the Prime Minister has against regional Australia.

On 1 June Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, APAL, which has been fighting the good fight against this Labor government's ineptitude and this Prime Minister's arro­gance, released a summary of a Centre for International Economics report commis­sioned by Horticulture Australia Ltd. The very first paragraph of the summary spells out the trouble we now face:

The Australian apple industry is likely to endure significant structural changes resulting from the introduction of apple imports, starting January 2011, with wholesale prices expected to be about 20 per cent lower and farm income about 30 per cent lower. Imported apples will be sold in Australia as a result of changes made by Biosecurity Australia to quarantine restrictions.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Joe Ludwig, attended the announcement of the report, which was made by APAL chairman Darral Ashton, of Batlow, a town in my Riverina electorate which faces a bleak outlook thanks to our Prime Minister's sell-out. I met Mr Ashton and an APAL delegation about 20 minutes ago in my office. They are very worried about Labor's attitude towards agriculture, and they have every reason to be concerned.

I hope the minister listened on 1 June. Moreover, I hope he takes some action to do something to help save what has been and could and should continue to be a great Australian industry, a great Australian trad­ition. I hope that, unlike with the cattle trade, Senator Ludwig does not cave in to orders from above, from a Prime Minister who puts everything into the delay basket, hoping that it gets lost in the 24-hour media cycle on which her government runs, hoping the next latte-sipping, union-grovelling, leftie focus group moves on to some other issue to appease the city dwellers or the rabid Greens to whom this Labor government is so beholden.

Meanwhile, regional Australia suffers. Meanwhile, our apple growers wonder if there will be a future. Meanwhile, New Zealand apple growers prepare for an assault on Australian markets which the APAL report said will have dire consequences for our industry. The Economic impact of apple imports from China, New Zealand and the USA on the Australian apple industry report suggests:

The immediate impact of the increased import competition that will result from relaxing quarantine restrictions will be to lower the domestic price. CIE used a model developed for a HAL Future Focus project, the Hi_Link model, to estimate the various adjustments that are likely to occur in response to estimated price changes. CIE estimated that relaxing quarantine restrictions on apple imports from China, New Zealand and the United States will have the following impacts on the Australian apple industry by around 2014:

Can we afford to allow this to happen to Australian apple growers, Aussie farmers? This is the first time in 90 years that apples are being imported into Australia. It is the biggest challenge the apple industry has had to face since England joined the Common Market in 1972. Apple imports could poten­tially cripple and undermine the economic prosperity of the Batlow and Tumut districts in the Riverina.

New Zealand initially applied to export apples to Australia in December 1995. Since that time, APAL and citrus fruit growers have done their utmost to ensure that, if New Zealand apples are brought into Australia, exotic pests and diseases present in New Zealand do not also arrive on our shores and end up in our orchards and, as the member for Forrest quite rightly pointed out, in our ornamental gardens as well.

On 1 January 2007, the agreement's rules of origin provision underwent considerable change to permit both the 'change in tariff classification' method and the 'regional value content' method to be used to establish whether goods are New Zealand-originating goods.

As part of the 2007 amendments to the agreement, both parties have agreed to perform a review of the new rules of origin within three years of these new rules taking effect. However, in the same year New Zealand lodged a dispute with the World Trade Organisation on the basis that Australian measures were inconsistent with Australia's international obligations under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. This critical step entailed the decision-making process being taken out of the hands of both countries and all power given to the WTO—an international body committed to free trade, not fair trade. In August 2010, the WTO ruled that Australia's phytosanitary measures for New Zealand apples were not justified. An appeal was lodged but lost, in November 2010, and there were no further avenues for appeal by Australia.

Yet—and this is crucial to the whole argument—the two governments agreed to complete a review of the matter, which will not be finalised until next month, six months and one day after our Prime Minister made her great backdown speech in the New Zealand parliament. At present, Biosecurity Australia relies on New Zealand's standard orchard practices as the quarantine standard sufficient to protect Australia from a number of extremely damaging pests and diseases not present in Australia.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

This is a very serious subject, but I will take that interjection from the shadow minister—sorry, not shadow. He will be a shadow in the next parliament—trust me! These practices include application of the integ­rated fruit production system, or an equivalent, to manage pests and diseases in the orchards; testing to ensure that only mature fruit is exported to Australia; maintenance of sanitary conditions in dump tank water; high-pressure water washing and brushing of fruit in the packing house; and a minimum 600-fruit sample from each lot of fruit packed be inspected and found free of quarantine pests for Australia.

However, all horticultural industries in virtually all countries have standard practices designed to minimise the risk and spread of diseases. But the efficacy of those practices depends on many factors which are not always in the control of the orchardist or industry personnel. The standard practices, like any other code of practice, are open to potential flaws such as human interpretation and application of the standard practices, which invariably differ from grower to grower and from region to region. Without a significant level of auditing, there is no way of judging compliance with the standard orchard practices and, in New Zealand, there appears to be no single organisation which manages and audits the process across all export orchards to ensure accuracy and consistency and to deal with noncompliance.

Pest pressure, both on-farm and from neighbouring properties, choice and efficacy of application of control agents, and orchard canopy and design are also standard practices which can be open to issue and noncompliance. While in New Zealand it is mandatory to comply with standard orchard practices if fruit is to be exported, it is not mandatory to have all aspects of the program conducted in the expected manner. Whilst the modifications to the agreement will lessen the administrative burden on business and will assist the eligibility for duty-free entry of goods into both markets, the amendments will also provide greater consistency between the rules of origin in the agreement and those in other free trade agreements entered into by Australia.

Certain industries will indeed suffer from a decrease in prices and the importation of pest and diseases. This is just another blow to Australian farmers, who must feel that under this government they cannot take a trick. Foreign apples should never have been allowed into our country in the first place. Our apple industry is free of fire blight and is self-sustaining. All this has done is undermine and potentially cripple what was a vibrant Australian industry, which meant so much to the economic prosperity of Batlow and Tumut and many other regional areas as well. We have already seen what pests and diseases such as the asian bee and greening disease can do to countries with horticulture such as citrus.

Today, the shadow minister for agric­ulture and food security has circulated a private member's bill to safeguard against fire blight in the face of the Gillard government issuing permits to import apples from New Zealand. Australia's robust, science based quarantine protections must not be compromised. Our pest and disease-free status has been hard won and the government's bid to rubber-stamp New Zealand apples into Australia, without the same checks and balances that are applied to other countries, sets a very dangerous precedent.

While we have Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service inspectors on the ground in China, undertaking rigorous checks, we are expected to simply accept that practices across the Tasman in New Zealand adequately manage endemic fire blight risk in that country, despite not having a single inspector to check that the right thing is being done. Apples are apples, and the same scientific standards should be applied to apples, regardless of where they are imported from.

The coalition is so worried about the lax attitude to quarantine and biosecurity in Australia that we have put forward the Quarantine Legislation Amendment (Apples) Bill 2011, a bill which makes a permit to import apples a disallowable instrument. This bill puts the government and Biosecurity Australia on notice that, if they ignore the science and put trade before quarantine, this parliament can disallow permits and direct them to ensure that adequate protections against foreign pests and diseases are in place. Biosecurity Australia needs to clearly justify the risk factors and why Australia is allowing lower standards for New Zealand than those required to import apples from China. There is a very real risk of fire blight entering Australia and, of the 49 countries which have contracted fire blight, not one has eradicated it.

Fire blight is not a notifiable disease. There has, apparently, been no serious fire blight outbreak reported in New Zealand since 1998. But how would anyone know whether one has occurred? Indeed, when Biosecurity Australia inspectors visited New Zealand in March and inspected six orchards and five packing houses they found fire blight. The reckless pursuit by the government to import New Zealand apples without adequately managing the risk of fire blight will be a death sentence for our country's apple producers. This decision to make the permit to import apples a disallowable instrument is not a decision the coalition has taken lightly, but such is the lax attitude towards biosecurity by this govern­ment that we were left with no other choice. We have a duty to proactively protect Australia's shores from pests and diseases. After all, mangoes from Queensland are placed under very strict quarantine measures by New Zealand for fear of fruit fly, yet we are not supposed to have similar tight rules to guard against fire blight from New Zealand apples. The federal government has wiped its hands of agriculture. It constantly proves this with its laxity in biosecurity laws, suspension of live exports and failure to gain an understanding of the way of rural life through listening to the people who know best. One of those people is Hannah Cathels, part of the third generation of her family to grow and sell Australian apples. She wrote to me recently, and her correspondence is worth listening to. Her uncle Ian Cathels operates three orchards in Batlow, New South Wales, and her father, Rob, operates five divisions in the Sydney markets, where she works. The futures of her siblings and cousins, also part of that third generation, will be dramatically impacted should pests and diseases from New Zealand enter their orchards. Hannah says that this business producing and selling Australian apples has allowed her grand­father, father and uncle to provide for their family for the past 60 years, and she fears that without proper protocols in place for New Zealand apple imports she, her siblings and her cousins will not be able to do the same for their families in the future.

In Batlow, her grandfather bought his first apple orchard and now has three orchards and a large packing shed, packing for over 20 local growers. Hannah wonders what will happen to those people if the New Zealand apples come in and flood our markets. They employ 250-plus staff in New South Wales. Consider the 250-plus staff and their families also without an income if the New Zealand apples bring pests and diseases, which will, as she says, 'decimate' her industry—what she really means is 'devastate'. It is not going to divide it by 10; it is going to completely cripple the industry. 'It is extremely hard for me to understand,' she writes, 'how Biosecur­ity Australia and the Australian government can expect us to believe or even accept that New Zealand apple growers will honestly attempt to control the entry of their pests and diseases into our country if there is no auditing process and when they stand to receive significant financial benefits through the import of their apples into our country.' The Prime Minister should heed the words of Hannah, wise beyond her 22 years, and do everything she can to protect and preserve Australia's apple industry—not simply sell it up the river in yet another cheap political stunt.

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

I too wish to stand to make a contribution to the debate on the Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011. The bill amends the Customs Act 1901, which addresses the rules of origin requirements under the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, which came into force in 1983. The requirements are outlined in article 3 and annex G to the agreement. There are a number of specific amendments to division 1E of part VIII of the Customs Act which insert new definitions of, for example, 'aquaculture', 'manufacture' and 'produce' as well as amend provisions for wholly obtained goods. Although aquacult­ure was included in the agreement from 2007, there was no specific definition of what was meant by the term. While 'manufacture' was defined, a number of exclusions, such as restoration or renovation processes, have now been included.

The bill also amends the provision dealing with eligibility based on the last process of manufacture. It is of course very important that we sort this issue out. The modifications to the agreement are expected to lessen the administrative burden on businesses and assist the eligibility for duty-free entry of goods into both markets. It is interesting, I have to say, that we very often quote that something we do is to lessen the administrative burden, but in fact each time we say that it would seem there is an incremental increase in the number of public servants we have in this country, both state and federal.

The amendments will also provide greater consistency between the rules of origin in the agreement and those in other free trade agreements entered into by Australia. A review was commenced in late 2008 and completed in March 2010, resulting in amendments to the text of article 3, on rules of origin, and the related product-specific rules in annex G to the agreement. In particular, the rules for determining whether the goods originate in New Zealand have been clarified. New Zealand-originating goods are eligible for a preferred rate of customs duty. In most cases this is a free rate. And there are now defined non-qualifying operations listed which will exclude items from the preferential treatment.

So this is a very important bill, and the coalition is supportive of making sure all of those definitions are refined and the smooth operation of the closer economic relationship occurs. But there are very serious concerns about our interactions now and the trade between the two countries, Australia and New Zealand. One of these is very close to my interests, for example the announcement the other day that the Heinz tomato sauce factory at Girgarre is closing and will go to New Zealand. It will go there and work out of a factory it already owns, but it is going to produce tomato sauce and tomato ketchup in New Zealand, despite that country not growing the tomatoes which are required for their manufacture. So it is going to be interesting to see just how the country-of-origin labelling will work. Wherever the tomato paste is imported from into New Zealand for their tomato sauce manufacture in the future—whether it comes from China, South Africa, Chile or wherever the cheapest going rate for the commodity is for the year—it will be very important that our country-of-origin information on those labels reflects absolutely and accurately all of the realities about that Big Red Tomato Sauce bottle sitting on the barbecue. Clearly, there are all sorts of interesting ways that one could understand a marketing advantage, if there is in fact a label which simply says 'Product of New Zealand'.

We also have a major concern in Australia right now about how our closer economic relationship is working and how, despite us having this extraordinarily close relationship with New Zealand, both countries still must be guardians of their quarantine status. In the case of Australia we are an island nation—as is New Zealand—but our quarantine services have managed to guard us from so many diseases which sadly, indeed tragically for New Zealand, has not been their experience. For example, New Zealand almost a century ago had the dreaded apple fire blight come into their country—probably from plant stock from the United States. The disease is one of the serious problems for pome fruit, and it also affects rosaceae species—and in Australia that includes a number of native species besides your good old-fashioned rose bush growing in your garden. Plants like cotoneaster are also vulnerable to fire blight. We had an extraordinary situation in Australia some 12 or 13 years ago, so we know what it feels like to have an incursion of fire blight, in Victoria at least. We know the costs to the industry. We know the damage it does to the reputation of apple and pear producers.

I stress the word 'pear' because unfortunately fire blight does not simply affect apples. We know that you can have an apple industry with fire blight—obviously New Zealand is an example of this. Fire blight affects the apple orchards of lots of countries around the world, and those countries continue to have a viable industry. But you do not have viable pear industries where you have fire blight. With apples, you can just keep chainsawing off the dead and dying limbs that have been affected by the bacteria, but when it comes to pears the tree is killed.

In my electorate of Murray we grow 80 per cent of Australia's pears. We also grow a substantial proportion of the apples of the nation. The pears are vital for our fruit manufacturing. They are the equivalent of the building block of much of our manufactured food product, whether it is baby foods, sauces or preserved fruits. If we have our pear trees, our pear orchards, wiped out by this disease, there are serious implications for fruit and food manufacturing in the 23 food factories in my electorate. We employ thousands of people, not just directly as they move a product from farm to factory but also in transporting that product to the markets around Australia and indeed to the rest of the world.

Pears are vital to the continuing viability of Australia's food manufacturing. Pears are killed by the apple fire blight disease. It is not just a case of getting out the chainsaw and regularly cutting your trees where the fire blight affects them. It is not a case either of saturating the trees with streptomycin sprays, which is what New Zealand does. In Australia we are very fussy about the chemicals that we put on our plants and that we might inoculate our animals with and we do not want to have to use streptomycin, currently a prohibited substance in our orchards on our food products. But that is what the New Zealanders are forced to do to try and keep their disease in check.

Also, it is not just a case of our orchards being vulnerable. We have a Mediterranean climate in northern Victoria—and in places like Harcourt, in the seat of Bendigo, where of course those apple orchardists are absolutely beside themselves about the decision of this government to allow imports of fresh apples to Australia. We also have a huge threat to crop pollination through the demise of our bee industry. The apiculture industry is at risk from fire blight. Any outbreak would potentially devastate the livelihood of the hundreds of commercial beekeepers in Australia. Worse than that, it would wipe out our capacity to naturally pollinate our commercial and non-commercial species throughout Australia.

Honey bees are the major vector for fire blight bacteria spores. Just as pollen grains adhere to the bees' bodies, so too do the fire blight bacterial spores. They are spread from flower to flower, from orchard to orchard and from bee to bee. There is a fire blight contingency plan in Australia. It was developed prior to the 1997 scare, which I have referred to. The fire blight contingency plan for Australia calls for the destruction of all beehives in a declared fire blight quarantine area.

Honey bees, as I am sure most of us in this chamber know, are the efficient pollinators of food crops for Australia. Currently there are over 40,000 managed beehives engaged in contract pollination across Victoria. That includes crops of apples, pears, almonds, cherries, kiwifruit and a whole range of small seeds and nuts. The almond industry in particular is totally dependent on bee pollination. We had a major disaster recently with beehive popul­ations being killed by the floods, and we are already suffering the consequences of that as we wait for those hives to be rebuilt. Imagine the disaster: fire blight in Australia equals the destruction of beehives in the pome fruit areas.

The apiculture industry is extraordinarily exercised and concerned about this problem. Streptomycin—which is, as I have said, an accepted form of antibiotic control for fire blight in New Zealand—also poses a major risk to the apiculture, or beekeeping, industry. This antibiotic control, if it were to be allowed into Australia, would be a major problem for the bee industry. This antibiotic has been banned in Australia for the treatment of bee diseases for many years. Streptomycin does not break down. If sprayed on fruit blossoms it would be collected by honey bees in the nectar secreted by the plant and become a chemical contaminant in the honey. In addition to the negative impact of fire blight on beekeepers' livelihoods, which is one thing, this contaminant would also damage the clean image of Australia's honey in both domestic and export markets.

Fire blight is not just a problem for the pome fruit industry of Australia, particularly pears but, of course, also apples. It is a problem because fresh fruit imports from New Zealand also carry other pest species. They were well understood and explained in the WTO investigations, plus the appeals which the Australian government brought when we lost the case initially for trying to ban fresh apple imports from New Zealand. Those other pest species, if they got out of control, would affect not just the pome fruit industry but also cereals and other horticultural crops—a serious problem for us.

We are devastated by the idea that we should have MAF, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in New Zealand, in charge of the process—apparently—of oversighting merely the domestic protocols that are to be put into force in New Zealand. Whatever the orchards have to do to sell their boxes of apples from Auckland to Wellington, apparently those same rules and procedures will be okay when the product is sent across to Australia. We find this a complete abrogation of the responsibility of a country. Never before has the Australian government allowed the domestic protocols existing in a country to be used as the export protocol equivalency.

We just wonder: was it to do with that speech the Prime Minister made and got the standing ovation for in the parliament of New Zealand a few months ago? Is that why this government has capitulated and allowed the local primary producers of apples in New Zealand to simply stick the fruit in a box, with a bit of trash if it happens to be there, plonk it on a truck and then into a container to send it across the sea with the fresh apple and accompanying bacterial spores ready for release into the Australian environment? It is a shocking dilemma for Australian primary producers. I have recommendations from the Turnbull Brothers Orchards, particularly Chris Turnbull. His recommendations are about the quarantine practices that would replace the domestic protocols which this government has said it does not really care about or is not fussed about—'They will do.' He says there must be more inspections of New Zealand orchards, increasing inspect­ions from one to three between flowering and harvesting to ensure there are no outbreaks of fire blight or european canker in the months before Biosecurity Australia's proposed single inspection. Blocks where there are symptoms of fire blight or evidence of fire blight being removed should be excluded from export to Australia. Blocks where there has been an outbreak of fire blight should be excluded from the Australian market for two years. Packing lines should be fully disinfected by steam cleaning before being used to pack fruit for Australia. He recommends more rigorous inspections for potentially bacteria-carrying plant trash, an increase in the rate of inspections from 600 apples to 600 cartons, and scientific investigation to determine the actual risks of fire blight and european canker in areas of New Zealand where Biosecurity Australia currently guesses the risk.

The Turnbull Brothers have been established since 1892 with orchards in the Goulburn Valley. They know their business. They are committed to intergenerational growing of fruit which is healthy with a clean green image and where the orchard can be sustained year after year because it is healthy and does not require the use of currently condemned chemicals. So we have here Mr Chris Turnbull proposing other measures.

Today in this parliament we have had the Quarantine Legislation Amendment (Apples) Bill put forward by the shadow agriculture minister calling for a disallowable instrument in a desperate move to try and get this government to see reason, not to expose our country to a disease which is incurable, has never been cured in any country where it has taken hold. We have fresh apple imports from China. It is not the issue of fresh apple imports that is the problem; it is the importation of fruit which is a known carrier of an incurable disease and a bacteria which will feel very at home once it is able to get loose into our Australian Mediterranean climate.

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

I personally consider Australia and New Zealand for most purposes to effectively be one country. I think it is an aberration of history that we are in fact not. New Zealand opted not to become part of the Australian Federation prior to 1901. We all know that prior to the time when the Australian colonies became a nation, New Zealand was for a very long time part of those procedures. The then Premier of New Zealand said there were 1,200 reasons why New Zealand would not become part of the Australian Federation but that he wished the colonies that were entering Federation all the best. Those 1,200 reasons, of course, were the 1,200 miles across the Tasman—across the ditch, as people say. I think that everyone would agree, though, that continental Australia and New Zealand can boast one of the best relationships in an international sense.

I hesitate to talk about an international relationship and I very strongly support the position that was taken by the former Prime Minister, now Minister for Foreign Affairs, and by Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand, that we ought to have a common border between Australia on this side of the Tasman and New Zealand on the other. Unfortunately that has not yet been achieved, but I believe that the closer economic relationship ought to be advanced substan­tially so that we are able to attain something like a joint market across the Tasman. While I understand the concerns of the member for Murray in relation to the products from her electorate, I think it is vital to recognise that Australasia is in fact an entity and if there is a problem on one side of the Tasman then those on the other side of the Tasman should join in attempting to solve it.

In the last parliament where the Howard government was in office, I was Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We had a reference from the then minister, the member for Berowra, to look at harmonisation of laws within Australia and between Australia and New Zealand. Our committee made a whole series of recomm­endations, some of which were accepted by the government and some of which were not, which could have led to levels of greater integration, from possibly becoming one country through to a confederation through to sharing a telecommunications market and maybe having a common currency through to a whole range of issues. There are many levels of integration short of New Zealand becoming part of Australia.

I support this bill. I think it is a very positive step. Australia and New Zealand share so many things, including a love of freedom and honour for our countries—a fact borne out by the Anzac legend. We exchange students, we exchange tourists, we share a love of sports like rugby union, cricket and even rugby league and we share some legal frameworks and business relations. We even joke about each other, and if there is one thing that is an indicator of friendship and respect it is being able to share a good-hearted joke at each other's expense.

I was on Q+A New Zealand about 12 months ago and at that time there was a situation where the New Zealand public in a fairly substantial number had suggested that ultimately they saw New Zealand becoming part of the Commonwealth of Australia. On that program were Don McKinnon, Phil Goff and a number of other people. There was discussion in relation to the way forward. I do not believe that New Zealand should be forced into a relationship with Australia which reduces New Zealand to a state. There are many levels of integration short of that, which I think is something we want to achieve. When one looks at what the EU has been able to attain, given the history of Europe, particularly in the 20th century, surely it should be so much easier for the Australian states and New Zealand to be able to come to some suitable accommodation. It really is not a matter at issue in this parliament that we need a closer relationship with New Zealand. This bill is a very positive step forward, though I believe it is simply an incremental step forward and that there is very much a greater distance to travel. We are similar people with similar values and we get on very well together. Put differently, we are the same people, some of whom happen to carry a New Zealand passport and others of whom carry an Australian passport. When one looks at the natural tragedies we have had on this side of the Tasman and the support we got from New Zealand, and similarly with the earthquakes in New Zealand and the support that came from this side of the Tasman, the suggestion that we are two separate count­ries, while legally accurate, is one which does not, in the mind, I think, convince many people. Most Australians would consider New Zealanders to be kith and kin, and the relationship between Australia and New Zealand is not really an international relationship; it is a domestic regional relationship and one that we ought to encourage.

This bill modifies the Customs Act 1901 to bring in changes to the rules of origin provisions, which are outlined in the key trade agreement between our two nations, the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. The changes afforded by this bill today result from a review and amendments to the trade agreement in 2007, when it was agreed that a further review would be conducted three years later, in 2010. These changes are mostly technical in nature, inserting and amending definitions and making clarific­ations. The changes will improve the efficient running of the agreement.

The need for such modifications is a positive symptom of a document that is getting good use. The agreement is nearing 30 years old and needs to be tweaked from time to time. To be honest, it is probably regrettable that Australia and New Zealand have not moved further. Thirty years ago this was a land-breaking agreement, but many other countries have been able to come to other agreements and they have bypassed us because we simply have not been prepared to grasp the nettle and move forward as we should.

The changes in this bill include inserting definitions for the terms 'aquaculture', 'manufacture' and 'produce' as well as amending the provisions dealing with 'wholly obtained goods' and also amending the provisions that deal with eligibility of the last process of manufacture. For example, the previous version of the agreement included aquaculture as an eligible activity but it did not include an actual definition of aquaculture, so that is an anomaly which the provisions of this bill will address. Further, this bill modifies the definition of 'manufacture' to also include activities that may not have previously come under the banner of manufacturing, such as restoration or renovation processes. The definition for 'produce' is modified to remove the refer­ences to 'disassemble', substituting it with the terms 'restore or renovate'. This is relevant in that, under the definition of 'produce', goods needed to be entirely produced in New Zealand from materials sourced in New Zealand or Australia. However, in previous versions of the agreement, items that were disassembled and/or reassembled in New Zealand could slip through and inadvertently be labelled as 'Made in New Zealand', which was inaccurate. This has sensibly been changed—a change that will bring integrity to the agreement with respect to making New Zealand and Australian goods.

While I support this bill, I think the necessity for this bill indicates that we still have a long way to go. The fact that we are talking about this bill indicates that, as two nations, we have failed the challenge of bringing our economies together. We have failed the challenge of putting aside the fact that there might be 1,200 miles between the former British colony in Australia and the former British colony in New Zealand. The fact that we are in a sense wasting so much bureaucratic time on talking about these matters, as though we are perpetually going to be two separate countries, I think is eminently regrettable.

It is incumbent on governments on both sides of the Tasman to accept a challenge that was made by former Prime Minister Rudd in talking about an ever-closer relationship between New Zealand and the Australian states. We share a history, we share geography, we share destiny and we share values. While this bill is worthy of support, much more has to be done.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members for Fisher, Murray, Riverina, Forrest, Makin, Maranoa, Canberra and Stirling for their contributions to the debate on the Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011. I need to respond in some respects to the contributions made by members in relation to the import of apples from New Zealand. The Australian apple industry supports many regional communities and the Gillard government supports Australian apple growers and will always encourage Australians to buy Australian grown produce.

It is unfortunate that the PM's comments to the New Zealand parliament have been misquoted by those opposite. The Prime Minister said:

… Australia accepts the verdict of the global umpire and will implement the World Trade Organisation ruling on the importation of New Zealand apples into Australia. We accept the obligations of free trade, just as we embrace the possibilities of free trade.

This means that the government accepts the WTO rulings and has commenced a science based review of the import policy relating to New Zealand apples, in accordance with the WTO decision. That review is undertaken by Biosecurity Australia, oversighted by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig. A draft of the review has been made available for public comment and submissions received on the science contained in the review. Apples will not be imported into Australia from New Zealand until Australia's quarantine officials are satisfied that they can be imported whilst meeting Australia's very high quarantine standards.

I would also like to respond quickly to the matter that the member for Forrest raised about the operation of the amendments and whether they relax the rules of origin. I can assure the member for Forrest and this House that the changes implemented by this bill do not relax the rules of origin. The changes facilitate trade by providing importers and exporters of both countries with greater clarity and certainty about the rules of origin.

The Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011 implements changes to article 3 of the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, ANZCERTA. The ANZCERTA is Australia’s longest standing bilateral free trade agreement, having been in force since 1983. Article 3 of ANZCERTA deals with rules of origin, which determine the eligib­ility of goods for preferential tariff treatment under the agreement. Such rules prevent the benefits of trade agreement tariff commit­ments extending to goods produced or manufactured in countries other than those who are party to the agreement. The current ANZCERTA rules of origin entered into force on 1 January 2007. In negotiating these rules both countries agreed to include in ANZCERTA a provision requiring the review of rules of origin within three years of the new rules taking effect. Australian and New Zealand officials commenced the review in late 2008 and completed it in March 2010, resulting in agreement to make amendments to the text of ANZCERTA article 3, rules of origin, and the related product specific rules in annex G.

The changes to ANZCERTA will reduce the administrative burden on business and will facilitate the eligibility for duty-free entry of goods into both markets. The amendments will also provide greater consistency between the rules of origin in ANZCERTA and those in other free trade agreements entered into by Australia. This bill is the legislative vehicle for domestic implementation of the ANZCERTA article 3 changes.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

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

The National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011 proposes to establish a new statutory authority, the National Health Performance Authority. It introduces amend­ments to the legislation brought about by the National Health and Hospitals Network Bill 2010, only passed by the House on 21 March this year. The National Health and Hospitals Network Bill established the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care as an independent statutory authority. If enacted, this bill will amend the National Health and Hospitals and Network Act by changing its title to the National Health Reform Act 2011. Still to come is further legislation that will establish a third statutory authority, the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority.

All of this legislation arises out of the convoluted so-called health reform engin­eered by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd—I am very pleased to have him in the chamber listening to this speech today—and Minister Roxon at the height of their reform frenzy last year preceding Mr Rudd's most undignified demise at the hands of the current Prime Minister. Both Mr Rudd and the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, promised at the time that these changes would not lead to further bureauc­racy in the health sector—clearly yet another hollow promise from this Labor government, for here the parliament is being asked to grow the bureaucracy with the first of two new authorities and the attendant boards, secretariats and associated staff.

When the initial bill was introduced last year the coalition called for the government to provide all the provisions to establish all of these bodies at the one time so that the House, the stakeholders and the community could see the full intent of the government and, crucially, see exactly the interaction between these bodies. As is usual for this health minister, what we have is a piecemeal approach of bill after bill and amendment after amendment with all the attendant risks for poor outcomes as this minister tries to get it right. That is what we see here today—page after page of amendments to the legislation.

I will come to those amendments later. They are a humiliating rebuttal of this government and this minister—the minister for health is having to stand in this House and introduce amendments which clearly say she cannot be trusted to run the nation's health system, and the states will ensure that she does not get the opportunity to step in and override their authority. First, though, it is worth recounting very quickly the history relating to this bill, the authority it creates and the warnings and concerns that have been sounded loudly. It is an outstanding example of the ineptitude of this govern­ment. When the minister introduced the initial bill, the National Health and Hospitals Network Bill, in September last year, as with virtually anything this government attempts to do with health it was described as historic and delivering on the government's health reform agenda. Of course the so-called health reform agenda was somewhat different back then. These were the Rudd-Roxon reforms and, as the minister told the House, they were all about a hospitals network that would be funded nationally and run locally. At that time now Prime Minister Julia Gillard was still on board with Kevin Rudd and his reforms, telling the Committee for Economic Development in November last year:

From July 1 the Commonwealth's share of hospital funding will increase to sixty per cent ... GST retention and dedication to health care will commence.

Like so much of what this government promises, that also did not come to pass. Julia Gillard earlier this year—

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

The member for Dickson ought to refer to the Prime Minister by her title, under standing order 64.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The current Prime Minister earlier this year unceremoniously dumped the Rudd clawback of GST and the commitment to major funding to public hospitals and is now only going to provide around 40 per cent of public hospital funding. Yet in last year's election campaign the Prime Minister also stated:

… I regard health care as one of the greatest responsibilities of any government.

  …   …   …

If my government is returned to office on August 21, I will pursue our national reforms until the job is done.

We all know that standing by commitments and promises to the Australian people is not a high priority for this Prime Minister or indeed her government. Her actions in health are every bit as egregious as the reversal of her promise that no government she led would introduce a carbon tax—a tax the Australian people do not want but one she steadfastly insists upon inflicting on them by mid next year.

Despite multiple and embarrassing backdowns in health, the overblown rhetoric of this government does not disappear and consequently Labor's self-assessed historic Council of Australian Governments agreem­ent of April last year has been replaced by another historic agreement of the COAG meeting of February this year, according to the minister when introducing this bill. It seems historic agreements come and go quickly under this Labor government. It remains to be seen whether Ms Gillard's efforts will survive longer than her predeces­sor's, for all she has at the moment is an agreement to reach an agreement and she is still negotiating with the states to get a final deal. We will see the final outcome at the next COAG meeting, whenever that might be, but, as the amendments now before the House make clear, the states are not accepting Labor's so-called reforms. We know that in the last 24 hours the planned COAG meeting has been delayed because they cannot get agreement—

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

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member Dickson will then have the opportunity to continue his remarks.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to congratulate the organisers of the Mudgeeraba Agricultural Show, includ­ing the president, Helen Rippa, and show secretary, Kylie Holzinger, along with the committee and all the volunteers, for the work that they have done to make the 83rd Annual Mudgeeraba Agricultural Show such a great success.

Mudgeeraba is a beautiful part of the Gold Coast within my electorate of McPherson. The Mudgeeraba Show started as a small fete and flower show, and it was first run 79 years ago to raise money for improvements to the Memorial Hall. In 1973 there was a need to form a show society and register the event as an agricultural show. More than 10 years later, in 1985, a permanent pavilion at the showgrounds was provided by the Albert Shire Council and leased to the show society.

From its humble beginnings, the Mudgeeraba Show has now grown into a two-day weekend event, labelled as the 'little Ekka' with more than 15,000 Gold Coasters turning up on the first day this year, giving a welcome boost the local economy. The event hosts horse events, handicrafts, horticultural exhibits, cooking and preserves, a pet parade, wood chopping, ring events and a showgirl pageant, to name but a few. The show would not be a success without the force of the community supporting it. The volunteers and the public ensure the event continues. I look forward to attending it next year and I encourage everyone to join me.

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

I take this opportunity to congratulate the SES, police, emergency services and local government workers of the Illawarra and Southern Highlands. As many members in this place would be aware, those areas have had some pretty wild weather over the last 24 hours. Winds of around 60 kilometres an hour, with gusts of up to 110 kilometres an hour, have hit the Southern Highlands and the Illawarra, bringing down trees and powerlines. Power was cut to 33,000 homes across southern New South Wales yesterday and last night. The SES was reported to have had almost 1,000 calls for help throughout New South Wales, with the majority of these coming from the Blue Mountains, Wingecaribee, Illawarra and South Coast areas. Over 7,000 homes and businesses lost power, including around 2,800 in Bowral, 1,400 in Bundanoon, over 1,000 in Mittagong and 180 in the Hill Top, Colo Vale, High Range and Moss Vale areas. Also, the Illawarra Highway was closed at Moss Vale when a falling tree brought down powerlines.

The weather affected train services and signalling systems on the Southern Highlands and South Coast lines, with delays of up to 30 minutes. It has had a devastating impact on the region. Local residents have been very patient and have been pulling together to assist each other to get through this very difficult time. I would like to once again congratulate all of the emergency service workers and volunteers who have assisted in bringing some normality back to the community. (Time expired)

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

I rise to make a statement about the deadly hendra virus. I know that the minister at the table, the member for Griffith, would be well familiar with the hendra virus in Queensland. The hendra virus is spread from fruit bats or flying foxes, via their secretions, to horses and then to humans. It is a deadly virus that has already taken the lives of four Queenslanders in recent years. There is a recent outbreak in northern New South Wales and in the southern parts of Queensland.

I hope the Prime Minister and the government are listening, because what we need to do is provide some $250,000 for protective clothing for the veterinarians and their staff who have to go to the suspected outbreaks and deal with those horses. Right now there are some 17 Queenslanders who are basically sitting on death row, wondering whether they have contracted this deadly disease. I am sure all of us in this place hope that they get a negative result from the tests that are currently being carried out. We also need to make sure that these kits are available in the vehicles of these veterinarians for use by them and their staff when they go to the suspected outbreaks.

The other thing we need to do is fast track the vaccine that is being developed by the Australian Animal Health Laboratory as quickly as possible because that is another way of breaking the cycle between bats, horses and humans, and it will ultimately save lives. We need to make sure that this is done quickly and I call on the government to act on this deadly disease. (Time expired)

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

I rise today to offer my condolences to the family of Air Commodore Keith Parsons. I would like to recognise the service and bravery of this dedicated pilot and Air Force officer. He was born in the great Tasmanian town of Scottsdale—and I note in the gallery Paul Ranson, the manager of B&E, who is also a Scottsdale boy. Keith Parsons was born in 1914 and joined the Royal Australian Air Force as a cadet in 1935. After learning to fly a Tiger Moth, he taught other pilots to fly both Tiger Moth and Liberator aircraft.

He saw combat as a commanding officer, and later wing commander, of No. 7 Squadron. His courage, hard work and devotion to duty saw him awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. In 1944 Air Commodore Keith Parsons was posted to bomber command in the United Kingdom and flew over 100 combat missions in the European theatre in the Second World War. After the war he returned to Australia to take up various postings, such as air attache in Washington and commanding officer of the RAAF Butterworth base in Malaysia. In 1961 he was promoted to Air Commodore and he retired in 1969. Air Commodore Parsons passed away on 27 June, one day short of his 96th birthday. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the diligence, bravery, dedication and service of this remarkable Tasmanian. (Time expired)

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

Austin Cove Baptist College was opened on 2 February 2011 and immediately the school community was tested with the unfortunate passing of Lauren Ames, a 13-year-old student, in a tragic car accident. Also, early on the morning on 4 May 2011, an explosion ripped through a tent in a Mandurah caravan park, in which a family was temporarily staying while the father dealt with financial issues. Tragically, all three family members perished. The youngest victim, 13-year-old Georgie Spies, was a student at Austin Cove Baptist College. Soon afterwards, a popular parent of a student passed away.

Austin Cove's Principal, Orlando dos Santos, is a fantastic leader of the school. After the fallout from the tragedies became clear, students and staff were obviously having a difficult time processing the heartbreaking events. So Mr dos Santos applied to the National School Chaplaincy Program—a marvellous program started by the Howard government. On 13 May 2011, I wrote to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, the Hon. Peter Garrett, seeking his urgent intervention because the school needed support. After seven weeks of hounding Minister Garrett's office, I finally got an answer:

Whilst I am sympathetic to the needs expressed by Mr dos Santos, the pressures on the Budget are significant and there is no latitude—

basically, the answer was no. This is a very unfortunate, substandard, lazy, dismissive and indifferent response. It is indicative of the minister's own abilities and is symptomatic of a federal government which has completely lost touch with the Australian community.

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

It is with great pleasure I rise today to congratulate my constituent Jeeven Nadanakumar for winning the inaugural national My First Speech Competition for Young Australians. The competition gave young Australians the opportunity to outline in three minutes their vision for their communities as if giving their first speech to parliament—and the members for Moreton, Richmond and I are very afraid. In his entry, Jeeven—who is in the chamber today with his family; welcome—outlined a strong vision for the future of Canberra and the country. He articulated values close to my heart and to many in this chamber. He talked about the virtues of Canberra and the value of small business and multiculturalism. He spoke about the need for every Australian to get quality education and health care. He also spoke of his passion for the environment and the need for a sustainable Australia. In just three minutes, he eloquently articulated his vision—one which I suspect many in this House, including me, would struggle with.

It is quite clear from his entry and his extracurricular activities that Jeeven is an individual who will never be content to sit by and let others do what must be done. He will always act for the benefit of his community. Congratulations, Jeeven. You should be proud of your achievements. I hope you continue with your passionate advocacy for your community. Also, congratulations to the teachers at Marist College for promoting this fantastic competition.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today in Australia's north, farmers will start shooting cattle. Tonight in Indonesia, children will go to bed hungry. It is a national disgrace that this government will not resume the live cattle export trade to those abattoirs which comply with Australian killing standards. Waiting to board ships there are Australian cattle which could be sent to Australian-owned feedlots in Indon­esia and killed according to international animal welfare standards. However, the issue has been put into the Labor government's ever-growing delay basket. The Labor government says they want to trace these animals and that that is the important issue. Well, they will be able to trace them all the way to the pits where these dead animals will be dumped. Meanwhile, people go hungry.

Labor's refusal to do anything positive about this issue beggars belief and will cost this country jobs and millions of dollars. This has caused a diplomatic debacle which will have long-term repercussions. Labor's way is to turn it into a welfare issue by offering a $30 million compensation pack­age. What is needed is the immediate resumption of trade to those abattoirs which comply with Australian standards—that is, killing by stunning. Last week, I attended the Tumbarumba branch of the New South Wales Farmers Association annual meeting at Tooma where members expressed their disgust at the knee-jerk reaction to ban the trade. Many other local beef producers have also told me they cannot understand why the Gillard government will not listen to reason. Rest assured, I will continue to lobby for the immediate resumption of the trade to abattoirs which comply with our animal welfare standards. (Time expired)

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recently attended the annual ball of the Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation, a locally based organisation which essent­ially raises money for the local community. In a period of 12 years they have raised $2 million from their efforts and each year they contribute $250,000 between Camden and Campbelltown hospitals. Also, they created the children's gardens at Campbelltown Hospital, updated the training of medical employees and raised money towards community health centres. Under the leadership of Bruce Hanrahan they have managed, with the support of Bottlemart, Macarthur Travel, various clubs in the region, Woolworths and the Rotary Club of Narellan, to become a very strong organis­ation.

One of the cultures of the Campbelltown region which I have not previously witnessed is an attitude that money raised within the region should stay there. The Macarthur area is very separate and endeavours there should go to local purposes, thereby engendering far more local support. The latest venture is to build a charity house which will later be auctioned. This project has had help from Fairmont Homes and Dart West Develop­ments, who are basically doing things at cost. There is also significant support from some volunteers in the region.

It was interesting at the function to hear from Professor John Whitehall, the new professor of paediatrics at the Western Sydney University—and the creation of a medical faculty there is a major step forward for this institution in gaining national recog­nition. Again I commend the Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation, a locally based organisation doing worthwhile things in the community.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to the proposed carbon tax. It appears the Prime Minister has done a deal with the Greens and with the Independents, but she has not done a deal with Latrobe Valley power station workers and she has not done a deal with the Australian people. This Prime Minister has not dealt with her fundamental breach of trust—'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' This begs the question: is she really leading this government? No, it is Bob Brown who is in power. Bob Brown was on TV last night and he was smiling way too much. When the Greens are smiling, regional Australians know they are about to cop it in the neck. They want to shut down the coal industry, shut down the export of live cattle, shut down rodeos and shut down steeplechases.

Regional Australians have had an absolute gutful of being told what to do by city based Greens and city based Labor MPs. What happened to your grand old party? You used to stand up for workers. What happened to your party? It is no wonder regional MPs on the other side are afraid to go home. I feel sorry for them. They want to seek refuge. They are probably lining up at the immig­ration minister's office now saying, 'Can I buy a boat?'

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

Order! It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded.

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

I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Minister for Indigenous Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of ANZAC will be absent from the beginning of question time today as he is attending the Victorian RSL State Congress. The Minister for Defence will answer questions in relation to Defence Science and Personnel, the Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions in relation to Indigenous Health and the Minister for Defence Materiel will answer questions in relation to Veterans' Affairs and the Centenary of ANZAC on his behalf.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister wear out her shoe leather next week visiting car workers at Geelong, steelworkers at Port Kembla, coalminers in the Hunter and the Illawarra, and transport workers in Queanbeyan, as I have? Why won't the Prime Minister talk to the workers—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! Those on my right will come to order.

Dr Emerson interjecting—

Order! The Minister for Trade!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Throw him out!

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

I do not need the member for Riverina to give me assistance. The Leader of the Opposition has the call and he will be heard in silence.

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

Why won't this Prime Minister talk to the workers whose jobs her carbon tax will kill?

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

I certainly will be out speaking to Australians next week about the facts about carbon pricing, and I trust the Leader of the Opposition is out apologising to people for the false claims he has made.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

He can start by apologising to everybody that he told about a 6.5c a litre increase in the price of petrol—wholly untrue and something that the Leader of the Opposition has been around the country trying to raise fear about. As I am around the country talking to Australian workers and Australian families about the facts on carbon pricing, I hope the Leader of the Opposition is out telling them the facts about his 'subsidy for polluters' plan and, most particularly, the entry on page 14 that records his plan to penalise businesses, to put penalties on them. I hope he is out and about telling Australian workers whether it is their business that he is going to put a penalty on. I hope he is out and about telling Australian families about the cost impacts which will flow through to them because of those penalties and I hope he tells those families that he is not proposing to give them any assistance at all, that what he wants to do is take $720 off them and give it to big polluters. I hope he is out and about with those facts.

I will be out and about talking to people about the truth about carbon pricing; about the science and the need to act; about the imposition of a price on the biggest polluters in this country, on big businesses; about the way that will enable them to innovate and cut carbon pollution; about the jobs that our clean energy future will promise this country; about the tax cuts and increases in pensions and payments for Australian families; about the measures to protect Australian jobs and the measures to tackle climate change. I will certainly be very proud to be out and about talking about those facts.

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

I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister is wearing out her shoe leather, will she apologise to the Australian people for saying, six days before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? And, Mr Speaker, she will not face the workers, she will not face the people, she will not face the parliament.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order!

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Isn't it true that she has stopped listening to—

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The last two-thirds of that alleged question from the Leader of the Opposition was nothing like a question. It was just a rant from the Leader of the Opposition.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! I declare a general warning and I am very serious about it. The first question from the Leader of the Opposition was met with great noise from my right and, equally, the response from the Prime Minister was met with great noise from my left. I have a sense that members in this chamber are really ignoring how we are perceived from outside. I do not need people's assistance about naming people; you are now all under a warning. I will simply respond to the Leader of the House's point of order by saying, yes, there is a limit to my tolerance about argument in questions but there was such uproar that, whilst I had a feeling where the question was going, I did not hear it. But I say to the Leader of the Opposition that there is a limit even to the licence that is given to leaders of parties.

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

My supplementary question to the Prime Minister is: while she is wearing out her shoe leather next week will she apologise to the Australian people for saying, six days before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? I further ask the Prime Minister on this supplementary: is it not true that she has stopped listening to the people and the people have stopped listening to her?

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

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: anger is no substitute for leadership and personal insults are no substitute for policy. I will be out and about around the nation next week, talking to Australians about a strong future for this country. I will be out and about talking about the challenge that climate change poses to the future of our nation. I accept the science. I will be out and about talking to Australians about the most efficient way of tackling carbon pollution. I accept the expert advice of economists. I will be talking to them—

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. What about that word 'sorry', Prime Minister?

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

The Leader of the Opposition knows that was not a point of order. He knows that there was a general warning.

Mr Symon interjecting—

He was a saved species already, member for Deakin, but I think that somebody might tell you what a general warning means. I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition that he is very lucky. I want to operate a chamber that can work and I am not sure that, if I were to take the appropriate action against him, we would have the chamber. My tolerance is at its complete limit. That was not a point of order, and I think that these types of actions should be quietened down. The Prime Minister has the call; she will be heard in silence.

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

I will be talking about the most efficient way of cutting carbon pollution, which is to put a price on carbon. I will be talking about how Prime Minister Howard believed that. I will be talking to Australian families about the cost-of-living pressures on their shoulders and, consequ­ently, I will be explaining to them our plan to assist nine out of ten households through tax cuts and payment increases. I will be talking to Australian families about their rightful concern about job security. There is nothing more important to Australian families than having the benefits of—

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

The Prime Minister will resume her seat. I am not running a commentary, but read the second part of the question and then come back to me at some stage and tell me why this response is not relevant or even directly relevant to that part. I am indicating to the Leader of the Opposition that the line has well and truly been met. The Prime Minister has the call and she will be heard in silence.

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

I understand that Australian families have legitimate concerns about job security. There is nothing more important to people than having the benefits of work. Consequently, I will be explaining to them how the carbon pricing package will protect Australian jobs today and ensure that our nation is prosperous and has the benefits of a clean-energy future.

I will of course be speaking to Australians about any issue they want to raise with me. I suspect that they will want to raise issues with me about what was said during the election campaign, and I will be happy to answer their questions. I will be happy to explain to them that the carbon tax is temporary and that the emissions trading scheme is permanent. I will be happy to explain to them that I always wanted to achieve an emissions trading scheme for this nation, and we will. I will be happy to explain to them that we have got there via a different route than the one I foresaw at the election campaign, but we will seize that clean-energy future.

I will be explaining to them that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the Howard cabinet that authorised an emissions trading scheme. I will be explaining to them that the Leader of the Opposition has been in favour of an emissions trading scheme and in favour of a carbon tax. I will be explaining to them that he is now opposed to a carbon tax and he is now opposed to an emissions trading scheme. I will be explaining to them that that is not leadership. Leadership is about saying to the country that we have to chart the best course for the future. Leadership is about saying to the country that there are difficult things we need to do in order to do the right thing by our environment and by our economy for the future.

I will be saying to the country that, as a nation, as a people we are up to doing this together. The time to do it is now. Our economy is strong, and while our economy is strong is the right time to be addressing a major reform. Nothing hard gets easier because you leave it in the too-hard basket, so I will be explaining to them that, as Prime Minister, I intend to lead this nation through this difficult reform. It will strengthen us for the future and we will get it done.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, why is it important to the Australian economy that the government put a price on carbon pollution? Treasurer, 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 Braddon for that question. We on this side of the House have understood for a long time the dangers of ignoring climate change in terms of our environment and our economy. We have understood the need to tackle climate change in the most cost-efficient way possible. We also understand that, if you put a price on carbon pollution, you have to assist households and you have to support jobs. We are putting a price on carbon pollution, to be paid by up to 1,000 of our largest polluters.

We simply cannot afford to put this challenge in the too hard-basket for any longer. Certainty demands action. That is why we are seeing such strong support from the business community for a price on carbon pollution. Overnight, 55 companies have come out in support of putting a price on carbon pollution—companies such as GE, Grocon, AGL, IKEA and so on. This is what the CEO of Grocon had to say:

Personally, I’m in favour of a cost on carbon. As I look forward in Australia, I see us at the threshold of some fantastic times and I get disillusioned when I see some critical decisions that need to be made for our future getting bogged down in politics.

He is absolutely correct. Of course that is why organisations such as the BCA and the AiG are supporting a price on carbon, and that is why some of our biggest energy companies are also supporting a price on carbon—companies such as Santos, Rio Tinto, BHP, Origin Energy, Gloucester Coal and so on. That is why on this side of the House we understand that we must make this transition to a clean energy future. As we make that transition we do have to provide support to households. Nine in 10 households will receive a combination of tax cuts, increased payments and pension increases. Of course we will provide additional assistance to those on the lowest incomes.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the approach of others who have a policy of subsidies for polluters and, of course, a policy which will not provide any assistance to households. The Leader of the Opposition was on The7.30 Report a couple of nights ago and he finally admitted that his policy will result in a direct slug on households—a direct slug of $720 per household. Of course that money will go directly to the biggest polluters in the country. You cannot put a slug of $720 on households and then pretend that you care about cost-of-living pressures in our community.

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

Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The level of chatter was too high and, from the grins, I have seen a set-up before. I did spend 11 long years in opposition and I know the tactics. I indicate that I might have to choose some of the people in leadership positions who might take the rap for the rest. The Treasurer has the call.

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

You cannot say that you care about cost-of-living pressures when you are going to rip back tax cuts. You certainly cannot say that you care about cost-of-living pressures when you are going to slug households $720. Of course we all know that the Leader of the Opposition has no respect for economists and those on his backbench have no respect for his economics as well because we have a new underground econ­omic policy group, which has been formed by the member for Higgins, because they are so aghast at the lack of any alternative economic policy from the opposition benches. It is going to take a lot more than dusting off Work Choices and promising unfunded tax cuts to give this Leader of the Opposition some economic credibility. (Time expired)

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

Order! Before I decide whether I give the member for Wright or the member for Swan the call, I inform the House that we have in the gallery today the three winners of the My First Speech competition conducted by the International and Community Relations Office of the parliament. They are Jeeven Nadanakumar, Timothy Lo Surdo and Penelope Meeves. On behalf of members I again congratulate you and wish you all the best in your future careers.\

Honourable members: Hear, Hear!

I thank you for getting the House together with one aim, so thank you very much.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency that, 'The introduction of a carbon price in Australia will not reduce global temperatures over the next five, 10 or 50 years.' With the forgotten families of Australia already struggling with the rising cost of living, why is the Prime Minister introducing a carbon tax that, for them, is all pain and no gain?

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

I thank the member for his quest­ion. I think it is very important that there is a shared and respectful understanding of the science of climate change. Where that shared and respectful understanding of the science of climate change leads us is that we live in a world where, as a result of human activity and the way we live today—the industr­ialised high-energy way we live today—we generate more carbon pollution than at any other time in human history. What that means is that there is a level of damage already done which we cannot unthink or undo. There is a level of damage that lies in front of us and we can make a difference to that—that is, we can act to cut carbon pollution. Rather than saying, as a nation, that we are prepared to just allow whatever the future gives us in terms of levels of carbon pollution with all of the danger that that would create for our nation, we can act to reduce those levels of carbon pollution. I believe in doing that. I believe as a nation which is amongst the 20 biggest polluters in our world, we should be acting to cut carbon pollution.

I am a little bit surprised about this question because I would have to say that, unless there has been a big change in opposition policy, I thought members of the opposition said that they supported cutting carbon pollution too. Maybe I am wrong about that. I know, of course, that climate change scepticism has swept through the Liberal Party and claimed the Leader of the Opposition, so now maybe they reject the need to do anything about carbon pollution and simply deny its existence.

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

Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Swan on a point of order.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my question was about the cost of living in introducing a carbon tax, and relevance.

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

The member for Swan would also acknowledge that there are other elements to the question as well. The Prime Minister is responding.

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

There may have been a change in the opposition because I note that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in this place referred to so-called carbon pollution, so maybe climate change sceptic­ism is now ruling entirely. They reject the science out of hand and they reject the existence of carbon pollution out of hand. But we, on this side of the parliament, accept the science. We believe we should act to reduce carbon pollution. We accept the economic advice that the best way to do that is by pricing carbon. Then, of course, because we want as a Labor government to look after those in our community who need the most assistance, we will ensure that the money polluters pay funds tax cuts and payment increases for nine out of 10 households.

The member in his point of order said that he was concerned about cost of living. He needs to make a comparison between tax cuts and payment increases for nine out of 10 households versus the plan of the Leader of the Opposition to charge households an extra $720 per year in tax, something that would impact on people's cost of living.

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

That is simply untrue.

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

Order!I simply say to the member for Flinders I have two options in dealing with him. He will leave the chamber for one hour under 94(a), the lesser of the two evils.

The member for Flinders then left the chamber .

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

On the question of cost of living, the member who asked the question may want to refer to the policy of his own political party, particularly page 14—that is the plan to put penalties on businesses, businesses in his electorate. I do not know how many businesses in his electorate would get which size penalty. He may have to ask the Leader of the Opposition about that and how many of them it would drive out of business. I cannot help him with that; it is the plan of the Leader of the Opposition. But, of course, the penalty put on businesses would flow through presumably to the prices that they charge and into cost of living pressures. He may ask the Leader of the Opposition to come clean about that as well because the Leader of the Opposition wants to make a charge of $720 per family. He has this plan for penalties, rising cost-of-living pressures and he is planning no assistance. In fact he is planning to take back the tax cuts and pension increases that this government will provide.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency which states, 'The introduction of a carbon price in Australia will not reduce global temperatures.'

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

Leave is not granted.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The member for Flinders might feel aggrieved if I allow this to go on for too long.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. What are the facts about the current state of the Australian coal industry and its future outlook and what is the response of the government to any claims to the contrary?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hunter for his question because he, like this side of the House, understands that the Australian coal industry has an excellent future. That is very important for Australia because that is about jobs, exports and revenue. That importantly is related to our capacity to invest in a nation in fundamental government services such as education, health and child care.

Let us deal with a few facts because this goes to the heart of the matter. I firstly refer to the latest ABARES data estimates. They show a 24 per cent increase in export earnings from energy commodities in 2010-11 to $71 billion in 2011. They then suggest a further 25 per cent increase in 2011-12 to $89 billion; interestingly driven by thermal coal, up 31 per cent to $18.3 billion; and metallurgical coal up 31 per cent to $31.9 billion. I understand economic figures bore the Leader of the Opposition, because they actually tell the real story.

In terms of future expansion of the industry, it even looks brighter—a forecast increase in exploration expenditure on coal of 12 per cent. We are, and we will continue to be, the world's largest exporter of coal and so we should be. Prices are high and there is significant investment in Australia. It is our responsibility to grab these economic opportunities whilst they are there for Australia to grab.

Just think about this: metallurgical coal prices have seen recent historic highs at $330 a tonne, thermal coal prices reached a record $131 a tonne, and the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk down the future of the coal industry in Australia that is not only economically significant to the nation at large but very significant to the economic opportunities in a range of key regions in many states and territories of Australia. I compare those prices to 10 years ago: in terms of coking coal, $50 a tonne—a sixth of what they are today; and thermal coal worth around $7 billion—a third of their predicted value today. You can see why this industry is important to Australia. Predictions are that these prices will continue and, more importantly, the pipeline of investment shows a huge potential expansion not only in the coal industry historically, in Australia, in areas such as the Hunter and the Bowen Basin but in the creation of a whole new coal corridor in the Galilee Basin, with a huge growth in demand out of India and potentially two major Indian investments in the coal industry in the Galilee Basin in Australia.

This is about real jobs in Australia. It is about our resource and energy sectors driving our future and they will continue to expand. Just think about the expansion of jobs. The expansion of this industry is creating new jobs. The mining industry took on an extra 35,200 workers in the year to May of this year. From our point of view, the government understands the importance of the coal industry. It also accepts that it has a very bright future. This is about jobs, exports and revenues, and it is about our capacity as a nation to look after the broader Australian community and to invest in services such as health, education and child care. We do not find economics boring—the Leader of the Opposition might—because this is fundam­ental to our economy. Start talking about the coal industry's bright future from the Leader of the Opposition's point of view rather than talking down investment and jobs in Aust­ralia.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to a statement by the new Labor Senator Alex Gallacher that a carbon tax on diesel fuel will force truckies to 'go broke or cut corners'. Additionally, the Western Australian secretary for the TWU, Paul Aslan, said: 'Truck drivers cart every darn thing in this country. Don't people realise how important they are?' With the forgotten families of Australia already struggling under the rising costs of living, why is the Prime Minister introducing a carbon tax that will push transport costs even higher and flow through to higher prices for everything?

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

I certainly do respect the work of truck drivers. They work very hard for this country. That is why I was so determined to replace Work Choices with the Fair Work system so that they had a safety net and the benefit of decent working conditions. I did not want to see people who worked as truck drivers have their penalty rates taken away and have the money in their pockets stripped away through Australian workplace agree­ments.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Say thank you with a carbon tax.

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

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

The member for Cook then left the chamber.

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

I did not want them to be able to be unfairly sacked for no reason at all. So we have acted to work with truck drivers on their terms and conditions. Of course, many of them are owner-drivers not employees, and we have worked constructively with the Transport Workers Union on issues associated with owner-drivers and we will continue to do so.

On the member's question about carbon pricing, can I suggest to the member that he study the details on Sunday when the full details of carbon pricing are released. He has asked me why I am pricing carbon. The answer to why is: I accept the science; I accept that our climate is changing; I accept that it is caused by human activity; I accept that means that we need to cut carbon pollution; and I accept the economic advice that the best way to do that is by putting a price on carbon—that is, on the economics of the proposition I accept the same propositions that Prime Minister John Howard did, that the Leader of the Opposition did when he sat in Prime Minister Howard's cabinet and which he has accepted on many occasions since but no longer accepts now. I certainly believe that system—

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: this was a question about a carbon tax pushing up transport costs and flowing through to consumers. The Prime Minister is not even attempting to answer that question. I would ask you to direct her to be directly relevant to the question.

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

The standing orders require that the Prime Minister be directly relevant to the question and the Prime Minister will respond in that fashion.

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

I was asked about trucks, carbon pricing and cost of living. I was just about to say that, on questions of cost of living, of course we want to work with Australian families. That is why nine out of 10 households will get the benefits of tax cuts or payment increases. What I do not want to see is the Leader of the Opposition's $720-a-year tax slug. What I do not want to see is the Leader of the Opposition's plan—

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—

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

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will respond directly to the question and, as I have said before, whilst standing orders as they stand allow debate in answers, I prefer that that be minimised. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I was responding to the member by saying it is my intention to work with Australian families to assist them with their cost-of-living pressures and it is my intention to defend them from alternative propositions to take money out of their pocket.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the very real concerns being expressed by northern Australian cattle producers in relation to the live cattle export issue, could the Prime Minister update the House on any protocol arrangements and any time lines on lifting the present ban on live exports?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! That was an example of behaviour that people outside this place think is very strange. When people can argue with a questioner and not show respect or civility to a fellow MP, that is of concern to many people who view us. The question was in order. The Prime Minister now has the call to respond to the question.

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

I thank the member for New England for his question. He is one of a number of members on all sides of the House, people of all political persuasions, who have personally raised with me concerns about the live cattle trade. Many people representing electorates that are home to numbers of producers want to know, understandably and somewhat anxiously, when the trade will be resumed. We are working hard and progress is being made to achieve our goal of having the trade resumed in circumstances where we can track and trace where Australian cattle are going and the conditions under which they are slaughtered in the abattoirs that they go to in Indonesia. Progress is being made. We do need to continue to work hard on this. As progress is being made there are some more things to do, but I can certainly say to the member for New England that we are not letting a day go by, an hour go by, so that this trade is not suspended for longer than it needs to be. I understand the pressure that is putting on the shoulders of people in the live cattle industry. We are of course working with people in the live cattle industry to meet their needs and concerns at this time. There is a $5 million animal welfare package and a $30 million industry support fund. I know that some owners and growers have been distressed. There was, for example, a gentleman in Western Australia yesterday who made clear his distress publicly. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ensured that he was contacted by the Cattle Council and by Centrelink so he could take full advantage of the support packages that are available to him. We will continue to work with the cattle industry, making those support packages available as we continue to work hard to resume this trade. I want to resume this trade in circumstances where we are confident the animal welfare issues have been addressed.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Mackellar will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). There is a general warning.

The member for Mackellar then left the chamber.

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

We will resume this trade in circumstances where we are confident the animal welfare issues have been addressed so the trade can have a strong and sustained future for the long term. I do not want to see a resumption of the trade in circumstances where questions remain about animal welfare, only to have the industry again confront a problem like this in six months time or 12 months time or two years time. We want to get this on the right footing for the long term. So we will continue to work hard and of course as soon as I am in a position to give any further advice publicly, I will certainly do so.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice. Why is the government's package of improvements to Australia's antidumping system needed to help protect Australian manufacturers and primary producers from unfair trading practices? What has been the response to the government's antidumping measures and is the minister aware of any other approaches?

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Oxley for his question and his ongoing interest in jobs and manufacturing businesses in his electorate. Last week the government announced reforms, indeed 29 improvements, to strengthen the antidumping regime in this country. Those improvements will see greater resources and more expertise dedicated to investigating cases of dumping which may affect Australian businesses and Australian jobs. We will extend 'material injury' to ensure the remedy is commensurate with damage endured by local businesses, we will enable businesses to access measures more rapidly, we will speed up the process, we will allow greater transparency and we will prevent companies from circumventing duties by disaggregating or aggregating imported goods.

These are very long overdue reforms that have been well received by both industry and unions. Companies such as Capral, BlueScope, OneSteel and Orica have emb­raced the government's announcements of last week. Indeed, the Australian Industry Group responded to the reforms by indicating:

The new anti-dumping measures announced today by the Federal Government are a positive step to help rebalance the playing field for Australian Industry.

The National Farmers Federation responded by saying:

… we are pleased to hear that the Government will improve the resourcing of Customs to work on anti-dumping issues.

The honourable member asked about why these changes are needed and about what other approaches there are. These long overdue reforms are needed because those opposite neglected this area of reform while they were in government. For more than a decade these reforms were required, but the previous government did nothing. They did not listen to industry and they did not listen to workers in this country in order to provide that support. Instead, the Leader of the Opposition decided to set up a task force in opposition—he should have been supporting industry and workers in government—led by the member for Indi, of all people, to go around the country to promise everything but deliver nothing. We, in contrast, have been looking at the Productivity Commission report recommendations and we have been considering the private member's bill introduced into the Senate by Senator Xenophon—and these reforms are compre­hensive. They are comprehensive and they redress the deficiencies that existed under the Howard government when it came to dealing with dumping that caused injury to Austr­alian businesses. The problem with the Leader of the Opposition is that he either just says no or does nothing when it comes to public policy.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The minister will conclude his answer.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He says no or does nothing. They are his two approaches to every public policy matter. That is apparent on this issue and on other matters.

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

Order! Is the minister concluding his answer?

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was asked what the government are doing. The government are responding to this issue. We responded to and dealt with the global financial crisis and supported workers and businesses. We dealt with that issue. We were the party that rid this country of the most extreme IR laws since Federation. We will continue to do the right thing as we have done in this area.

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

Order! The minister will conclude.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will continue to do the right thing by workers and business in this country.

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

Order! The minister will conclude!

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

My question is to the Treasurer. Is the government planning to use the contingency reserve of the budget to provide loans or to guarantee risk on behalf of power companies that cannot finance their debt as a result of the carbon tax?

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

No.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What action has the government taken to remove glamour from cigarettes and reduce the influence of tobacco companies? What reaction has there been and what is the government's response?

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

I thank the member for Banks for his question. I am very proud to say that today I introduced into the parliament the world's first legislation for the plain packaging of tobacco products. This legislation means that all tobacco products sold in Australia will, in the future, have no industry logos, no brand imagery, no colours and no promotional text. They will just be in a drab, dark brown pack with health warnings that will cover 75 per cent of the front of the pack and 90 per cent of the back of the pack. Those who manufacture, sell or distribute tobacco products could face fines of over a million dollars if they breach this legislation. I am pleased to say that at last the Leader of the Opposition—although he has been dragged kicking and screa­ming—has indicated that the Liberal Party will support this measure, which I hope will be followed through on. However, I did notice last night in the House that the member for Mitchell put on the record his opposition to these measures. He outed himself as one of the supporters of tobacco in the Liberal Party room. He said that plain packaging was 'an example of ill thought-out proposals put forward by government committees' and that this was 'a ridiculous form of nanny state legislative response to ordinary, everyday problems'.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! There is still a general warning. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

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

Mr Speaker, the opposition understands there is a general warning and therefore is operating in an environment of listening to the minister's response. But I ask you, Mr Speaker: what is going to stop this kind of slagging and bagging of members of the opposition, which only invites a response from the opposition?

Mr Albanese interjecting—

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

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. First of all, I invite the Manager of Opposition Business to withdraw a remark that has got a lot of response from within and outside the chamber. I have been charitable enough to indicate that I do not believe that the perception is correct, but I cannot propose that to be the intention. So I would ask the manager to withdraw that remark.

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

Mr Speaker, if there is any offence taken to a currency that that remark has had attached to it, I withdraw it. But I still make the serious point about the minister's attack on members of the opposition, notwithstanding the general warning.

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

Yes, I will respond to that. That was the second point. I am thankful that you have made the admission that, because of the new environment just for this question time, people are listening—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

I take that in the spirit that it was offered. I have indicated that the complication for any occupant of the chair is to allow debate either way. You know that I have perhaps been easier than I should have been about debate within the questions. When you look at the standing orders—and this is my reading of them—if debate is directly relevant, it is allowable. On this occasion, I would say to the minister that she should relate her material in a directly relevant manner in her response. I would not want to be a member of the commentariat who indicated that I did not think it was relevant to mention the member for Mitchell in a question that talked about glamour, but I think we do know that there has to be a confinement in the response to its direct relevance.

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

I think perhaps amongst the hubbub people did not understand that I am actually quoting from a speech that the member for Mitchell gave last night in opposition to the plain packaging legislation that has been introduced in the parliament today—the very question that I have been asked. What the member for Mitchell said was that he did not think this sort of legislation was a decent response to 'ordinary, everyday problems'. The reason I quote this is that I take issue with the inference that it is ordinary, everyday Australians who are the ones who are not being harmed; in fact, 15,000 Australians each and every year who still die from tobacco related illnesses. If that number was distributed, the member for Mitchell, like every member in this House, would see on average 100 people die every year in his electorate because of tobacco related illnesses. I think that is an everyday problem that ordinary Australians do face and it is why we are taking action on plain packaging.

Opposition members interjecting—

The interjections we hear from those opposite just show that they are still reluctant converts. And we know why they are reluctant converts, because they are receiving thousands and thousands of dollars in donations all the time and they are embarrassed about it. The member for Goldstein, the member for Indi, the member for Sturt are all receiving thousands of dollars in donations still, and that is why they are so reluctant to support this legislation.

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

The minister will resume her seat. And the minister has concluded?

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

Yes.

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. Given the circumstances of the House that you have insisted upon since the beginning of question time, which is entirely within your power to do so as the Speaker, how is it in order for the minister to deliver that diatribe and then simply say she has concluded her answer and face absolutely no admonition?

Ms Roxon interjecting—

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

Order! One would have noticed that many people either in the chamber or in the galleries—I do not know what is going out on the air—probably did not hear the conclusion of the answer because I allowed, even though there was a general warning, a response that, having been here for 25 years, I understood the answer would get. I indicate that the question about whether the minister had concluded was to ascertain whether it had to be brought to a conclusion by the chair. You can scratch it on a barrel that I sat a minister down; I do not really mind. I am again indicating that, whilst it might be considered by some to be over the top and it might be considered debate over and above what one would expect in response, once debate is allowed in the responses this is what is going to happen. I have been saying this, I now realise, for many years, even before I was the Speaker. I think that the problem we have not got our heads around is that if you want to have question and answer, have a question and have an answer; do not have debate entwined in it and do not have things being done to get 10-second grabs for other purposes. The member for Forrest has the call, and I expect that the whole chamber will take note, as has been described, of the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

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

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to Graham Manning, a dairy farmer in Harvey, Western Australia. One of the biggest costs in his small business is electricity, because he refrigerates thousands of litres of milk every day. Does the Treasurer expect him to absorb the cost of the carbon tax, or will this cost simply be passed on to the consumer through higher prices for milk?

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

I thank the member for her question. We have made it very clear that all of the detail for pricing carbon will be provided on Sunday. We have made it very clear that we will be putting a price on carbon pollution on up to 100—sorry, up to 1,000—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could be a hundred.

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

of our largest polluters—

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

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for Curtin then left the chamber.

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I simply say, on behalf of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that when you were speaking earlier on the point of order that I made, the minister for health interjected and you told her to be quiet but did not remove her from the chamber under 94(a). Yet the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been removed under 94 (a). I simply ask if you think that is fair.

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

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I know I will get the emails that I have not been fair. I indicated to him at the end of the answer of the Minister for Health and Ageing that nobody could have heard the answer because so many people were interjecting and I took no action at that. If I am allowed to make stanzas of what is happening here in question time, I will. I can assure him: if I had tossed out everybody who transgressed since the gener­al warning I would be very comfortable but very lonely in the chamber.

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

We have already made it very clear that the consequence of putting a price on carbon pollution for up to 1,000 of our largest polluters will have modest price increases. We have made that very clear. And of course they will flow through the system, which is why the government is so intent on putting in place additional assis­tance for households, and we have outlined the principles that that will be based on. There will also be—

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

The Treasurer will resume his place. Whoever has the phone that just went off is very lucky. Under a general warning that would be worth a naming, but I cannot find out who it is. The member for Forrest has the call on a point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point of order is relevance. The question was about Graham Manning, a dairy farmer, and the increased electricity costs to his small business.

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

I was making it very clear that there will be additional assistance for households: there will be tax cuts, there will be increases in family payments and there will be increases in pensions. All of those things are very important. I know they do not matter to those opposite, because if they were in power they would simply rip them out.

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

Order! The Treasurer will respond to the question.

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

I am responding to the question, Mr Speaker. All of the detail will be there on Sunday for everybody to see, and can I just make this point: we absolutely look forward to this debate in the weeks ahead so that all of the scaremongering that has come from those opposite can be exposed for what it is.

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

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Why is the government's plan for a price on carbon the most effective way to help Australia cut pollution while supporting households? How has this been received and what is the government's response?

An opposition member: You'll have to wait till Sunday!

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

Of course—on Sunday—the government will be announcing the details of a carbon price package that will cut pollution and—

Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—

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

As a new member of the House, the member for Higgins may not realise that once I have given a general warning there are a number of options that I can take. I might chance my arm and name somebody soon. She is absolutely warned, because I intend to name her if she does not take recognition of the general warning.

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

As I was saying, the government will be announcing the details of the carbon price. It will cut pollution, it will drive investment in clean energy and it will provide strong support for households and jobs.

This morning the government's plan to put a price on carbon pollution received more support from the business community. Companies like AGL, Fujitsu, Ikea and General Electric, and 51 others, are now part of an organisation called Businesses for a Clean Economy, and in a statement released today these and a host of other businesses stated:

As major Australian and international corporations and representative associations operating across the Australian economy we strongly support the introduction of a well designed carbon price to support the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Those companies, which are major corporations operating within our economy, know, along with every credible economist, that putting a price on carbon pollution is the cheapest and most cost-effective way of cutting pollution. Of course, it is not a tax on households; it is a charge that will be paid by fewer than 1,000 of the largest polluters in the economy for every tonne of pollution that they produce.

The carbon price will be good for the economy and it will be good for the environment, whilst households will be assisted to meet the modest cost impacts of the introduction of a carbon price. Nine out of 10 households will get some combination of tax cuts and increased payments. Pensioners will benefit from an increase in the pension. Many self-funded retirees will receive assistance equal to the extra payments that we will provide to other pensioners, part pensioners and carers. At least three million households will also get a 20 per cent buffer over and above the average price impacts of the carbon price to give them that bit of extra cash. Families, tradespeople and of course small businesses with light commercial vehicles will not face a fuel price rise as a result of the introduction of a carbon price. These are very important commitments to accompany the introduction of the carbon price in our economy.

Households should also be very clear that the Leader of the Opposition intends taking all of these rises in the pension, intends clawing back the tax cuts, intends taking back all of the assistance—

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

Mr Speaker—

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order!

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The minister and the Manager of Opposition Business will resume their seats. There are some people that I do not hear from at the best of times; I am disappointed to hear from them during a general warning, and they will remain unnamed. The Manager of Opposition Business has a point of order.

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

Mr Speaker, I simply point out that the minister was not asked to debate the question. He was not asked to attack the opposition. I would ask you to draw him back to the question or sit him down.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business has made a relevant point of order. I cringe when I hear a question that finishes with: 'How has it been received and what is the government's response?' but I do have an expectation that ministers will try to relate their material directly to that aspect of the question without just going into debate willy-nilly. The minister has the call and he should recognise that point.

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

Of course, I was asked how the government's announcement of a carbon price has been received and what the government's response to that is. It is relevant, I would submit, that the opposition has a position that it would take away the benefits that the government intends provid­ing as part of this package to pensioners, self-funded retirees and families.

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

He is defying your ruling, Mr Speaker.

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

You might consider that he is defying, but I am simply absolutely trying to indicate the difficulties that the chair has under the present standing orders that allow questions that have this type of addition at the end. I will listen carefully, very carefully, to the way in which the minister relates his material directly, because that is the new standing order. Under the previous standing order, ministers from both sides of politics perfected ways of making a smidgen of relevance, but this has to be directly relevant. Therefore the preamble of the question is very important. The minister.

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

The choice for the Australian people in relation to this issue is very clear. The government wants to provide tax cuts, pension increases and increased payments for households. The Leader of the Opposition wants to tax households an extra $720 a year to pay money—

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

The minister will resume his seat.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the plight of Jeff Gilbert, who yesterday was charged an extra eight per cent to post an item from the Alexandra post office in Victoria and was told, 'because of the carbon tax'.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! The House will come to order.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No more feigned laughter there. Against that background, I ask: with people already being ripped off before your carbon tax has even been introduced, how will you protect consumers if it does become law?

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under standing order 100(d)(vi) and (vii), that question is out of order.

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

Going to the point of order on the whole, the member has mentioned a person's name. It is usual that one would take on face value that the member is quoting what he has been informed by the person he has named. This is a question that I have heard in its manifestation over a number of proposals put before this parliament by both sides and I indicate that I will allow the question. I am sure the Treasurer will now respond in a directly relevant manner.

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

I thank the member for his question. He has raised the instance of price gouging and deceptive behaviour. These matters are dealt with by our competition and consumer watchdog, the ACCC, which has full powers to deal with them. I am more than happy to take up his case. He should provide the full details to me to pass onto the ACCC so it can do its job.

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

My question is to the Minister for Schools, Early Childhood and Youth representing the Minister for Science and Innovation. Will the Minister inform the House about the consensus in the scientific community over the threat of dangerous climate change? How has this been received, and what is the government doing to address the issue?

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Parramatta for her question. The fact is that climate change is real and we know this because our scientific community, particularly climate scientists, have a consensus about it. An open letter from the scientific community in June of this year said:

The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.

There is a context in which we should understand what our scientists are telling us. The fact is that science underpins the quality of life that we have in Australia. In 2011-12 the Commonwealth will invest an estimated $9.4 billion in science, research and innovation through programs across the Australian government—some 43 per cent higher than the high-water mark, so called, of the Howard government. There are 55,000 researchers working in Australia's univer­sities and tens of thousands of researchers working in CSIRO, the public service and cultural institutions in the not-for-profit sector.

Scientific knowledge starts at school and of course as education minister I do know that many of our best and brightest started learning about science when they were at school. Australia's record in science is a proud one. I think of the Tidbinbilla deep space tracking station, quite close to us here in Parliament House, and great Australian scientists like Howard Florey, who shared the Nobel Prize in 1945 for his discovery of penicillin. There are many, many others. Scientists lead the research that drives a modern economy; scientists lead the fight against disease; scientists are immunising our children, fighting cancer and looking into space—and the same body of people is telling us, using the same scientific methods, that climate change is real and we must take action. Sir Gustav Nossal, made Australian of the Year in 2000 for his pioneering work in immunology, is highly respected amongst the global scientific community and he told the Sydney Morning Herald last month:

I believe global warming is real. Action has to start now, if not the day before yesterday, for the simple reason that the effects are so long-lasting and so dire that they will linger well into the future.

Regrettably members opposite do not share the views of the scientific community. Senator Bernardi says:

Quite simply, the concept that there is a consensus on the science is one of many fabrications undertaken by the alarmists that has now been debunked.

The Leader of The Nationals in the Senate has said:

I never believed the science is settled. If the science was settled, Copernicus would be dead.

The Leader of the Opposition himself has said that the argument on climate change is absolute crap.

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. The minister was not asked, in any part of what appeared to be a serious question, about anything to do with the opposition's policies or views, so how could this be in the least bit directly relevant to the question he was asked?

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

I will listen carefully to the minister's response as it relates to the rider to the question that seems to open the door to some of this discussion. I again indicate to the minister that he should not overextend—his answer has to be related to the main part of the question as well.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The fact is that these are statements on the record by our leading climate scientists compared and contrasted with statements on the record by opposition politicians.

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

Mr Speaker, on the previous point of order: the minister is now attempting, again, to return to the matter about which you made your point before. He should relate his answer to the question. Obviously under the new paradigm that you have imposed today—perhaps the government did not get the memo—they cannot just go back to the old attacking the opposition answers that they have been engaged in since the election. Clearly you have made it obvious to the opposition how we should behave and therefore the minister must respond accordingly, too.

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

I simply say to the minister and the Manager of Opposition Business that I will be listening, hopefully not to the full 36 seconds remaining, to see how the answer relates to how this policy is being received and what is the government's response. There has to be greater effort by ministers, if that is going to be used as cover.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not surprised this causes those opposite some discomfort, but the fact is that what this government is doing about climate change is taking action: supporting renewable energy, supporting some of the biggest solar power stations in the world with the announcement made recently about the solar power stations at Chinchilla and Moree, and most importantly putting a price on carbon—the most environmentally effective and economically efficient way to deal with the dangers of climate change—with a policy that is informed by scientists that have made our country great and with a recognition that we need to get on with the job.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, will the minister table the document that he was obviously reading from word for word?

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

Was the minister reading from a confidential document?

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the uncertainty facing Kangaroo Bus Lines in my electorate. It is a privately owned bus company that uses 1½ million litres of diesel fuel each year. Will the Treasurer advise whether the carbon tax will apply to the fuel used by Kangaroo Bus Lines?

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

All the detail will be there on Sunday. We look forward to a very full and informed debate about all these issues so that the scaremongering from those opposite can be fully exposed.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, 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 how the Australian government is supporting Australians with a disability?

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 Bass for his question because he knows it has been this government that has put disability on the national agenda. It was this government that delivered record increases in the disability support pension and the carer payment. These have been very important increases in these pensions that help carers and people with disabilities.

Just today I have introduced legislation into the parliament to help make sure that the impairment tables that help to determine access to the disability support pension are regularly updated. The last time they were updated was in 1993, so it is certainly high time that they were updated to reflect advances in medicine and rehabilitation practice. Just last Friday the Better Start for Children with Disability program started. I want to say to every member of the House just how important this program will be to the around 9,000 children we expect to benefit. For children who have cerebral palsy, fragile X syndrome, Down syndrome, and children born with sight or hearing difficulties, their parents will now be able to get access to financial support so that they can afford early intervention services for those children. This builds on the very successful program we have delivered over the last few years for children with autism, and we understand around 12,000 families and their children have benefited from early intervention services as a result of that initiative.

Mr Speaker, I hope you do not mind me mentioning that there have been 67 local councils sharing in grants of around $100,000 to help people with disability to get access to local facilities, and one of those facilities is in the local arts and convention centre in the City of Whittlesea. Another initiative that is taking place, and which was one of our election commitments, is the building of 150 supported accommodation places for people with disability through a new innovation fund.

As part of our efforts to deliver a clean energy future, we will be providing assistance to people on the disability support pension and those on the carer payment. We are very pleased to be able to provide additional support through an extra payment to those who are eligible for Australian government concession cards and who have high essential electricity costs due to a medical condition or disability. Those people will be provided with additional support as we deliver a clean energy future.

Very importantly, we understand that there is more to be done and that is why the government gave a very important reference to the Productivity Commission that asks them to inquire into the feasibility of a long-term care and support initiative for people with disability. It has never been done before in this country. It is a very important initiative and we look forward to receiving the Productivity Commission's final report at the end of this month.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to Prime Minister Bob Brown's—sorry, I mean Senator Bob Brown's—statement that the coal industry should be phased out and Senator Lee Rhiannon's statement that the coal industry can be closed within a decade. Prime Minister, have you received any represent­ations from the member for Capricornia, the member for Throsby, the member for Cunningham or the member for Hunter seeking a guarantee that no coalmine will close and that no coalminer will lose their job as a result of your carbon tax?

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

Firstly, I believe that the coal industry has a bright future in this country—that is, I completely disagree with the outlook and analysis of Senator Bob Brown and others on this question. I believe the coal industry has a bright future in this country. The members named by the member for Paterson represent their electorates well in this parliament and they frequently raise issues with me in relation to their elect­orates—issues about jobs, health, education and meeting the assistance that families need with cost-of-living pressures. But on the coal industry they, like me, understand that this is an industry with a very bright future. It is an important part of our economy and it is an industry that has experienced very solid growth.

I will remind this parliament how strong our coal industry is right now. The spot price of coking coal is over $300 per tonne and it is around $120 per tonne for thermal coal—that is, it has doubled since 2008-09. The industry's gross value added was $22.5 billion. The near-term outlook is strong. Our experts are advising that for coal alone there is an investment pipeline of over $70 billion. Nineteen mine projects are committed or under construction and are expected to add around 60 million tonnes of additional mine capacity per year by the end of 2014, and a further 64 mine projects in the coal pipeline are awaiting approvals. So it is a strong industry with a bright future and with great employment prospects associated with it. The member has asked about the impact of carbon pricing on this industry. The best way I can respond to that is to use the words of James MacKenzie of Gloucester Coal, who talked about the expected impact of a price on carbon. The words of James MacKenzie, who works in the coal industry, are:

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 ...

He also said:

I was in London last week on a road show for Gloucester Coal, so I would have seen 20 institutional investors. There was not one grizzle about the carbon tax. Not one mention of it.

Not one grizzle about the carbon tax; simply not mentioned! I understand that the member who asked this question will be out there trying to spread fear in coal communities but I say to coal communities that they should feel absolutely reassured that this industry has a bright future, that employment will continue to grow. Even those in the coal industry who have been critical of the government's plan, such as Ralph Hillman of the Australian Coal Association, have confirmed that the coal industry will continue to grow and employment prospects will continue to grow in this industry.

There is a bright future for coal with a carbon price. There are a limited number of particularly gassy mines which the government will assist as we work with the coal industry but it would be wrong, irresponsible and not in the national interest for people to try to distort the facts and claim that the coal industry does not have a bright future. It does.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing. Will the minister outline how the government is delivering on the Prime Minister's commitment to make mental health a priority?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bendigo for his question. This year's budget delivers on the Prime Minister's commitment to make mental health reform a priority for this term of government. The budget delivers the largest mental health package ever with $2.2 billion worth of new measures delivered over five years. The government is moving quickly to roll out some of these measures.

Last week, I was pleased to announce that mobile phone calls to Lifeline made from anywhere in Australia will now be free of charge, thanks to an agreement between the Australian government and the three major mobile carriers—delivering a key election commitment made by the government last year. Around one-third of the 450,000 calls that Lifeline receives every year are made from mobiles. The average call to Lifeline lasts around 20 minutes and obviously some of the calls from more distressed people last significantly longer. This is a significant cost to Australians in crisis who often are also suffering financially.

Many people calling Lifeline would be on prepaid mobile plans. The last thing any of us want is to be cut off in the middle of what might be a life-saving telephone convers­ation with a Lifeline counsellor. I want to place on record the government's gratitude to the three carriers and their representatives for their cooperation on this measure—not only for the technical changes which needed to be made but also for them bearing a share of forgone revenue along with the significant compensation payments the government will be making to them. This measure undoub­tedly will save lives.

Last week I announced that up to $4 million will be invested to establish a new national mental health consumer organis­ation. The new organisation will be hosted initially by the Consumers Health Forum, CHF, and will ensure that the voice of mental health consumers is heard loudly and clearly as the government delivers on mental health reform.

Funding has become available for divisions of general practice and ultimately Medicare Locals to provide crisis counse­lling on an emergency basis for people who are referred by their GP or from emergency departments and are at risk of suicide. Divisions are also receiving a substantial increase in their base-level funding for psychological services targeted particularly to people on low incomes and to people in rural and remote Australia. Headspace services across the country now qualify for huge increases in their core funding, allowing them to expand services like outreach to schools and to homeless youths. Having recently announced providers for 10 new services, expressions of interest will be sought over the next several months for the next tranche of 15 new headspaces.

A number of initiatives from the Prime Minister's taking action to tackle suicide package also became available last Friday including funding for preventative infrastru­cture at suicide hotspots, funding for an outreach service to schools affected by suicide, recognising tragically that still two or three high school students die by suicide every week, raising the risk of copycat attempts at those school communities, and also, funding for community led suicide prevention initiatives with a particular focus on Indigenous communities, which we know are at higher risk.

This reform package is comprehensive, balanced and targeted across the lifespan. It will make a meaningful difference to the many tens of thousands of Australians living with mental illness and their families.

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.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

I have a matter to raise with you on indulgence, Mr Speaker.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

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

I have given indulgence.

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

Mr Speaker, I took this point of order about 30 seconds ago when it was not 3.30 and 20 questions had not been asked. In the agreement before the parliament, it says question time will conclude no later than 3.30, enabling 20 questions each day in the normal course of events. It is not 3.30, there have not been 20 questions and we have a member on his feet who would then make it nine questions from the opposition.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business has had his indulgence. I get into trouble because, as I get told, I am too touchy but I was not in on the deal and it is not in the standing orders. The standing orders indicate that the Prime Minister can do what she wanted to do, the Prime Minister did it and now she has sought my indulgence and she has my indulgence.

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

by leave—The events of 1914 to 1918 constitute one of our nation's finest hours. In those dark and demanding days, our people were able to achieve great things, able to meet the test of history with courage and resolve as the Australian people always do. And though everyone who fought in the Great War is now gone, their deeds will never be forgotten. As honourable members will be aware, we are preparing for the centenary of Anzac. The Commission on the Commemoration of the Anzac Centenary presented its report to the government on 28 March this year. The commission included two distinguished former prime ministers, Bob Hawke and Malcolm Fraser, a fine example of bipartisan cooperation and goodwill. Now the time has come to turn their blueprint into detailed programs and activities that will commemorate, in a worthy way, this important centenary, the most important national anniversary since the centenary of Federation and the Bicentenary.

To lead the way, I am pleased to inform the House that the government will create a new Anzac centenary advisory board which will work closely with Minister Snowdon to develop a commemorative program covering the period 2014 to 2018. Naturally, the focus of all of this will be the events of Gallipoli but it will also ensure that the whole scope of World War I is appropriately honoured from beginning to end, including efforts here on the home front. The board will also oversee the commemoration of various other significant military anniversaries that fall during the period 2014 to 2018 including the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, in 2015, and the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, in 2016. Board and committee members will be announced in coming months but, of course, the role of chair of the Anzac Centenary Advisory Board is a crucial one because it will set the tone and direction for the whole period of commemoration. I am therefore delighted to be able to advise the House that it will be filled by a very distinguished Australian, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston. Angus Houston handed over command of the Australian Defence Force on Sunday night and he will bring to this new role his wisdom, his love of history, his deep sense of dignity and his integrity. I thank Air Chief Marshal Houston for agreeing to continue his journey of public service in another capacity. I am sure the full parliament knows that he will do an outstanding job.

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

I rise to welcome the appointment of Air Chief Marshal Houston to this important role. It is very important that we never forget the example of the original Anzacs, of whom Charles Bean said, 'Their story rises as it will always rise above the mists of ages, an example of great-hearted men.' Charles Bean said it very well, and we should remember them and Angus Houston will help us to do that.

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

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

That the House take note of the following document:

Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports – Response to the Schedule Tabled by the Speaker of the House of Representatives on 25 November 2010.

Debate adjourned.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

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

Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Most grievously.

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

Please proceed.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In an article in dailytelegraph.com today I was reported as throwing a diary across the room during the opposition party meeting yesterday. I want to put on record I did not throw a diary across any party room. Also, in an article by Peter van Onselen in today's Australian it was reported that I took my leader to task for allowing one of his staff to gag the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull. I made no such comment.

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

I thank the member for Hume for the exemplary way in which he made his personal explanation. I hope people will take note of the way that it is done properly.

I have received a letter from the Leader of the Nationals proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The social and economic impact of the carbon tax on regional Australia.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Within just a few days the government will be announcing a great big new tax on all Australians. The government themselves say that this is the biggest economic change in history and yet they are waiting until after the rising of the parliament to make this so-called important announcement. They would not answer any questions during this week on the nature of this great big new tax. They wait until everybody has left Canberra so that their announcement cannot be subject to the scrutiny that parliament should be providing. This is no small tax. This will be the biggest carbon tax in the world. It will add to the cost of everything we do every day of our lives. It will make our businesses in this country less competitive. It will cost jobs. Yet the government do not think it is important enough for this to be debated and considered in the federal parliament. This tax will have an enormous impact on all Australians, but its impact in regional areas will be particularly severe because there are higher costs already in regional commun­ities. This tax will add to every single one of them. On top of that, most of the jobs that will be lost in the first round of this tax are in regional communities. So this will have a devastating impact on our nation but, in particular, it will have a devastating effect on people who live outside the capital cities.

This is a carbon tax that the Prime Minister said we would never have under a government she leads.

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

She's not leading the government.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The lady who will come out and announce this new tax is the same one who told the Australian people repeatedly before the last election that there would be no such tax. That was an untruth. A few days ago she said she did not mean to mislead. That was another untruth. She waited until she was in the Lodge and she had the keys before she told the truth to the Australian people.

Now she asks us to believe that she did not really mean to mislead. If she did not mean to mislead why did she not correct the newspaper headlines in the days that were available before the election? Why did she not ring up the television news services and say: 'You got it wrong. I did not say that at all'? What she said before the election was 'there will be no carbon tax'. There was no lack of intention to mislead. Let us make that absolutely clear.

That is not the end of the untruths that the government has told us already about this tax. For instance, it repeatedly says that only a thousand big polluters will pay. Everyone knows that is untrue. If you want any greater expert to make that observation, just ask Professor Garnaut or read his last climate review. This is the man who the government paid for several years to give it advice on this question—their trusted confidant—and he said, 'Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost'. Of course, that is the real truth. What the government told us about there being only a thousand payers is an untruth.

An opposition member: 22 million Australians.

Ordinary families will cop the carbon tax in the neck.

An opposition member: They will cop the lot.

They will pay the lot. Their electricity bills at a carbon tax rate of $25 a tonne will go up by around $500; gas will go up by 10 per cent; there will be increases in fuel costs; groceries will be up by at least five per cent—everything will be slugged. New South Wales consumers are likely to wear a thousand-dollar-a-year extra costs. The South Australian Council of Social Service said a few days ago that it expected the cost of living in South Australia to rise by $1,200 and a significant proportion of that would be the carbon tax.

That is only the start. The Greens have made it absolutely clear that they want a carbon tax of at least $100 a tonne so that people will change their behaviour. It would close the coal fired power stations. They want a much more severe tax than whatever number is announced on Sunday. That is not a scare tactic. This tax is supposed to hurt. It is designed to hurt so much that people will stop doing the things that they normally do. They will leave their car at home rather than visit their sick mother on the other side of town. They will walk to school or walk to work, or sell their house and buy a new one near their job so that they will keep their vehicle at home. They will switch off their heater on a cold Canberra morning, or they will not turn on their cooling system on a hot summer's day. This is a tax that is designed to hurt. It is designed to hurt so much that people will change their very behaviour.

The Prime Minister has said that we have got to do this because we are being left behind by the rest of the world. That is another untruth. The Productivity Commis­sion report commissioned by the government made it absolutely clear that Australia's efforts in this regard are about average, similar to what other countries are doing. Another untruth that the government keeps telling us is that—

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

Order! I am reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Nationals but I do want to draw to his attention the provisions of standing order 90. To accuse the Prime Minister of an untruth is skating very close to a personal reflection.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I am saying is that the statements made by the Prime Minister and indeed by others are incorrect. They are wrong. For instance, her statement that this tax will start small is incorrect. It is untrue. The reality is that this will be the biggest carbon tax anywhere in the world. Evidence given to the Senate Select Committee on Scrutiny of New Taxes on 9 June stated the proposed Australian carbon tax would raise more money in its first three months than the European scheme raised since it began 5½ years ago.

It is only going to take us three months with Labor's proposed carbon tax to raise the same amount of money as Europe has raised since their scheme started, and it is supposed to be the example of the nation that is tough on carbon emissions. The Australian emis­sions trading scheme will raise more revenue in its first month than the US scheme has raised in the two years that it has been operating. It will take only one month to raise more money than the North American scheme has raised since it began.

We are also told, incorrectly, that Australia is the biggest emitter in the world. China is only going to take about seven or eight months to increase its emissions by the amount that we have promised to reduce ours by 2015. That assumes that China actually meets its commitment to only increase its emissions by 496 per cent. The reality is that the government's statements about this are completely inaccurate.

It is also not true to say that we are the biggest per capita emitter of carbon in the world. It is quite clear that because we are a major energy producing country we have higher emissions than some other places, but if you want to look around at who are the biggest per capita emitters in the world you cannot go past Qatar, which has double our emissions, or countries like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, even Luxem­bourg. They all emit significantly more than Australia. The government is misleading Australian consumers if it makes this claim that we have to do this because we will be left behind by the rest of the world. Here is another really sad untruth inflicted upon the people of Australia. This is really sad and perhaps the sorriest of the misleading statements being made by the government: that we have to have a carbon tax to boost jobs. That is simply untrue. It is ridiculous to suggest that a tax like this is going to make extra jobs. Access Economics predicts the number of job losses at 126,000—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, I rise on a point of order. I tried to give the Leader of the Nationals free rein but when he is surrounded by people who are interjecting out of their seats constantly—

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

Order! The minister will resume his seat. The minister does make a valid point. Honourable memb­ers ought not to interject from outside their seats, and that includes the honourable member for Dawson. The Leader of the Nationals.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ACIL Tasman has said that 16 coal mines will close costing 10,000 jobs. But the Greens, who are driving this agenda, want every mine closed—every single mine closed. That will cost hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs. In addition to that we have the extra costs that are going to be imposed on every business in this country, meaning they will be less competitive. There will be sectors right across the country that will have to bear bigger costs—agriculture for instance—even if Labor exempts agriculture at the first point. Professor Garnaut has made it clear that he wants agriculture in within two or three years. Australian farmers will be the only ones in the world to pay a carbon tax on the production of food for our nation.

In addition to that, of course, there is the processing of food. It seems that Australian dairy processors are to be the only dairy processors in the world to be paying a carbon tax. How does that enable them to compete with New Zealanders and others on world markets? When we look at the cost of transport and the cost to farmers of fertilisers and inputs, they are going to be less competitive and that, of course, means more lost jobs in regional areas. If you need any further advice about where the government's policy is heading, just take the words of Senator Hanson-Young whose advice to everybody was to close down the OneSteel plant at Whyalla—it will only cost 4,000 jobs—'and we will replace them by building windmills'. Let us have windmills all over the place because we will not have any other jobs.

Another statement that the Prime Minister made, which she has simply failed to honour, is the promise to compensate people for these extra costs. The government have already said that only half of the money raised will be used as compensation. But no-one can compensate people for the loss of their job, for the closure of whole industries and therefore, potentially, whole towns. There will be no compensation for those people. In fact, if you are not being paid anything because you have not got a job, no compensation will make up for the higher prices they have to pay.

Let me make another point, which I think is very important, the Prime Minister made another promise before the election. She promised that she would build community consensus before doing anything at all. Maybe she has not broken that promise. There is community consensus and the Australian people have made it absolutely clear that they have made up their mind and they do not want a carbon tax. The latest poll suggests over three-quarters of Australians do not want the tax. There is a community consensus and the government should listen. Call off Sunday. Do not have this big announcement. They have not achieved the consensus or, if they have, the consensus is there should be no tax at all.

Is it any wonder that ordinary Australians feel shut out and betrayed by what this government have said. They have not been consulted in the process. This has all been put together by some so-called multiparty committee, which is in fact an alliance between the Greens and the ALP with a couple of Independents as cheerleaders. The reality is that the Australian people have not been given the opportunity to have their say. The government did not tell the truth with the Australian people before the election. Now they are having a tax imposed on them that they had made absolutely clear they did not want, and they are not being consulted or given a chance to have any say.

What is going to be the benefit of this tax? The parliament secretary let the cat out of the bag when he said in a letter that this tax will make no difference even in 50 years' time. Professor Flannery, another one of the Labor Party's favoured sons in this particular area, went further. He said that if the whole of the world stopped emitting immediately it would not make any difference to the temperature for a thousand years. Yet this government believe that for Australia, which produces 1.4 per cent of global emissions, a tax is going to change the world. That is complete nonsense.

I ask the government: on Sunday do not tell us how much you are going to tax us and how you are going to distribute that money around the place, but tell us how many polar bears you expect the tax is actually going to save. Tell us how much better off the Barrier Reef is going to be because of the $25 a tonne Labor imposed tax, or whatever the price might be, on Australian consumers. Tell us how often the Murray will fill because this tax has been imposed.

I have never seen a tax in my life that changes the climate. Sometimes it makes people get hot under the collar, but to suggest that a new tax is actually going to make our planet cooler is clearly a nonsense. If taxes made the country cooler, under a Labor government we would be frozen over from west to east. There are plenty of taxes already. The government have no mandate for a carbon tax. They have no legitimacy for government. They said they will not have a plebiscite. If you will not have a plebiscite then you must have an election to decide this issue. (Time expired)

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

If I have ever heard a speech of so much negativity delivered with crocodile tears, that takes the cake. Let me take the crocodile tears for a start. First of all, they said they wanted to ask questions about the impact on regional development. The shadow minister who spoke, the Leader of the National Party, is shadow minister for regional development. Not only has he not asked me a question this week in parliament about regional development, he has not asked me since we have been returned. Not only that, in the Leader of the Opposition's speech in reply to the budget, there was not one mention of regional development within that speech. The regional rorts program that they presided over was an absolute disgrace and we know why. The Howard government in office was on the record as saying that it never saw a clear rationale and a constitut­ional basis for Commonwealth involvement in regional development. So do not give us this cant and hypocrisy about your concern for regional development. Look at the history.

The history of this country is that it has been Labor governments that have always been the dynamic and the momentum for regional development. The Whitlam govern­ment, the Hawke government, the Keating government, the Rudd government and now the Gillard government are the ones that have taken the initiative. When the Howard government came to office, they abolished the Department of Regional Development and they declared that they saw no clear constitutional rationale for that involvement. Not only is the Labor Party the best party to manage regional development; it is the party best equipped to manage the challenge of structural adjustment. There is no greater structural adjustment confronting this economy than the challenge of climate change. That is why we are facing up to it.

The Liberal Party really seriously need to question its credentials. What we are propos­ing is the movement towards a market based mechanism which we use to adjust for the challenge of climate change. I would have thought that the party that prided itself in the principles of the market and free enterprise would have embraced this but, no, what do what we see from them? They have embraced, through direct action campaign, industry intervention and business welfare. They have embraced a mechanism that will impose on every individual in this country a $720 a year ticket to pay for those business welfare measures. And they have the gall to come into this place and talk about cost of living and impact on consumers—$720 from every man, woman and child in this country per year to pay the big polluters. We actually believe the reverse should be the case.

We believe that the tax should fall on the big polluters. We believe that that tax should move to a price on carbon so that the market clears it and we believe in compensating households for that cost. This is the principle of the compensation: nine out of 10 house­holds will be compensated for the impact on them. Pensioners will get a 20 per cent supplement.

Our measures are designed to get people to change their behaviour, to reduce their carbon footprint and to reduce the impact of climate change. If they follow that behav­iour, they will be get a net gain from the benefit because we are compensating them to stand still but encouraging them to make the changes. If they make the changes, they will be better off. Under the Liberals, of course, with their direct action campaign, they will be worse off—$720 a year worse off. I must say the modern Liberal Party under Tony Abbott has become an absolute disgrace. Not only is it driven by negativity; it has turned its back on all the principles on which it claimed to be formed.

The principle of the market mechanism is terribly important in this equation because, if the market is clearing, the market rewards better behaviour. Let us take the case of coal because there has been a lot of talk about this. In comparison to the coal production of other countries, if the market mechanism is established properly coal to coal there will be a benefit to our coal producers vis-a-vis the rest of the world. That is why we need a market mechanism that is internationally recognised. But if people move to gas, and the market mechanism prices the relativity, then there are benefits to the industry producing the gas. This is rejected by those who sit on the other side now but it was not rejected by them, including by the shadow minister who just spoke, when he sat in the Howard government's cabinet and they adopted the very same approach—a market mechanism. What they are advocating today is not what they sought to implement when they were in government. I ask the public to judge on that basis. They have done a complete backflip in terms of what they were arguing when they were in government compared to what they argue today.

Let me also make the point about the hypocrisy of their position. Their policy, like ours, is to make an unconditional commit­ment to a five per cent reduction in greenhouse gases. That is correct. Both parties have that bipartisan position. The real issue here is: how do you achieve that? We are proposing an initiative—the details of which will be fully released on Sunday by us—and they are proposing their direct action campaign. Not only will their direct action campaign cost the individual $720 a year; it has been ridiculed by all the experts, including Professor Garnaut, whom the Leader of the National Party was so keen to quote in his speech recently, as well as the Productivity Commission. Direct action is not an answer. It is costly, it costs consumers, it costs the public purse and the reason they run the fear campaign is because they do not want to talk about that and embrace it.

In the context of this motion that is before us, which talks about the impact on regional development, let me just make this point: the circumstances that we as an economy confront today suit the agenda for regional development. We are trying to adjust the patchwork nature of the economy and, when you think about it, the regions are the patches. If the argument is that we have to sustain the economy beyond the resources boom, which is the economy in transition, which our budget underpinned, it is essential that we get local input and local engagement from the patches and embrace that transitory nature that challenges us. So we are an economy in transition. The regions need to respond and they need to respond in a way that also factors in the impact of the climate change debate. We are better placed than any country in the world for two reasons. First of all, we are the only developed country in the world to have avoided going into recession during the global financial crisis meltdown—there are a number of reasons for that, which I do not have time to go into here—and we are the envy of the rest of the world. Every time I have attended international confere­nces, countries have come up to me and said, 'How did you do it? How did you avoid it?' The second point that is in our favour is that we engaged, because of previous policies by both governments, but initiated by the Hawke and Keating government, with Asia at a time when it was not popular to do so. We engaged with Asia, which is now the fastest growing region in the world. Not only have we avoided the recession, not only have we got this engagement with Asia, that is what is continuing to fuel our resources boom. But the resources boom will not last forever and that is why we need to position ourselves and ensure that the economy diversifies. The best way to get that diversification is to engage the regions and that is why the policy prescription that we have set down, including in the budget, is all about doing that.

Climate change is part of the transition. We are seeking to take advantage of the market mechanism we are working to estab­lish to better position ourselves to make that transition. Cleaner coal, gas and renewables are all commitments that we are making. But it is not just us arguing that; the regions themselves are embracing this. I say to the member who has already spoken in this debate and to those who follow him: when they talk about the threat to regional Australia, they should get out properly in the regions instead of spreading their fear campaign and ask the regions how they are facing up to this challenge.

It is very interesting that, through the regional development structure we have established, just about every one of the regional development organisations in this country is embracing the challenge of climate change and looking to undertake initiatives that do develop green jobs and do give them cleaner living environments. Some examples of that are developing a renewable energy strategy in far west New South Wales, collaborating with neighbouring regions on climate change on the mid North Coast, supporting the uptake of alternative energy sources in the Northern Rivers, reskilling of existing occupations on the Central Coast, immediate development of a green economy strategy in the Murray region and environmentally sustainable housing design and construction in Ipswich and West Moreton. They are not proposals that we have suggested. These are proposals that the locals themselves have been developing.

I will mention a couple of good examples very briefly because I visited the Gascoyne region of Western Australia and Geraldton. Geraldton has committed itself to becoming a carbon neutral city. They want to source through renewables the energy base upon which the iron ore development in that area, which will become a second Pilbara, is powered. The region itself is coming to grips with it. The Leader of the National Party talked about windmills replacing things. He ought to get down to the Eyre Peninsula and see the wind power initiatives that are already down there. That region wants to turn itself into a renewable energy sourced region.

I say to the member who spoke: do not just go out and run the negative argument. We know how well negative arguments can work. We have practised them before. But in the end, truth comes to bear. In this case what we are seeing is the opportunity out there. The regions understand not just the threat those on the other side would have us believe is going to come from our initiative but they see opportunity. That is where we should be challenging regional Australia, not scaring them. We should actually be encouraging them to grasp the opportunity, take the initiative, seize the moment and diversify their economic base. All of the regions should be tasked with this initiative by us saying, 'You identify how you want your patch to work better.' The vast bulk of the regions are embracing the renewable energy strategy, the green jobs strategy and the challenge of climate change.

Members opposite should support their regions in meeting the challenge. They should support their regions in grasping the opportunity. They should stop the fear campaign. By the way, once the full details are out on Sunday, they will be looking like very hollow people indeed. The fear campaign can only work for a certain distance. The truth of the matter is that the detail out there, the compensation measures, the industry support measures, the commit­ment to actually leading on this, the understanding of our intrinsic strength, the understanding that we do need to diversify the economic base and actually prepare the regions and support them in doing it, will win through. In the end, as I said at the beginning, the only party that has ever had this commitment to regional development is Labor. Labor will again do it and we will also ensure that the structural adjustment is done in such a way that people are helped to make the adjustment, not be threatened by it.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard a speech from the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, a man who claims he travels so much around Australia. He might have travelled around Australia but he has not listened to regional Australia, because regional Australia, by and large, says no to a climate tax.

The matter of public importance before the House today is:

The social and economic impact of the carbon tax on regional Australia.

This tax will hit regional Australia harder than any other area. It will hit regional and rural Australia harder than it will hit those who live in the capital cities. We know because we go there; we come from there. We have more members in regional and rural Australia than the government and that is why we understand the arguments.

Australians have faced massive increases in the cost of living under this Labor government. Electricity has gone up by more than 50 per cent in their term, gas is up 30 per cent, the cost of water and sewerage is up 45 per cent, health costs are up 20 per cent, education costs are up 24 per cent and food is up 14 per cent. The cost of paying these bills and doing the weekly shopping has become so much higher under this Gillard government. Why does the Labor govern­ment want to make everything so much more expensive? Why do they want to make things even more expensive with a carbon tax? It is because the Prime Minister is beholden to the radical agenda of the Greens.

Quite frankly, the Greens do not give a stuff about people living in regional and rural Australia. This carbon tax is one of those poorly thought out, fringe party policies that seeks to please the few by harming the majority. It is an embarrassment for this Prime Minister and the Labor Party that not only has a carbon tax become the policy of a major political party, it has become the centrepiece of their government. As the Productivity Commission, a statutory author­ity of the Commonwealth, found recently, there is not a single other country—not one—which is planning to impose an economy wide carbon tax. There is a reason for that—it is not good policy.

I was contacted recently by a small-business owner who employs 10 staff as the operator of a 24-room motel in the Hunter electorate. The member for Hunter's constituent wrote to me and said:

Our electricity price has been progressively increasing. As we are a motel, our guests often do not really care how much power they are consuming, as they do not pay the bill. We have increased our room tariffs, however, looking at this year's financial figures to date our operating costs have increased more than we have been able to recoup through price increases. What worries me is that particularly being in a regional area, it is difficult to keep increasing rates, as people are only prepared to pay so much. I fear the uncertainty of this proposed tax, and worry that it could spell the end of many small businesses, who will find it difficult to pass on the increases, and simply do not have the capital to invest in alternative power solutions.

Why does the member for Hunter support Labor's carbon tax when it will have such a devastating impact on his constituents?

I was contacted today by Joe Sepos from JS Transport Group in the member for Newcastle's electorate. JS Transport are a major livestock, chicken and general cargo transport operation. He said to me that he is concerned that Labor's carbon tax will push up the costs of his trucking business and that that will flow through to the everyday costs of everything on supermarket shelves, everything we buy. He believes the carbon tax will put up prices by at least five per cent because that is what he thinks it will increase the cost base of his business by.

As I said, those costs will flow through the supply chain right to the kitchen table. What this government does not seem to understand is that the tyranny of distance means that Labor's carbon tax will hit the kitchen tables in regional Australia so much harder. Goods are transported by trucks everywhere across Australia. Everything we use and everything we consume is transported by trucks. This government's decision to put a tax on the diesel used by heavy trucks will drive up prices—and they are going to be so proud of that!

What makes Labor's carbon tax on regional Australia even more offensive is that it will come with no environmental outcome. Between 2000 and 2008, the cost of electricity in Australia rose by 55.9 per cent. Over that same period, consumption rose by 10 per cent—from 10,194 kilowatt hours per capita to 11,217 kilowatt hours per capita. So where is the link between pushing up the price of electricity and reducing consumption? It is not there. These are statistics; these are not lies or inferences. You cannot cut back on the essentials of life and this insidious Labor tax grab will not reduce emissions one iota. It will only reduce affordability for people living in regional Australia.

Labor members in steel electorates, coal electorates and in motor and other manuf­acturing electorates know that jobs will go under this tax, but they are too frightened to admit it. Businesses have warned them and the unions have warned them, but they are too frightened to admit it. One day, however, they are going to have to front their electorates and explain why jobs have gone. They will have to answer the questions that their electorates will ask them about the electricity price hikes, the food price hikes and the grocery price hikes. The whole point of the carbon tax—and let us be very clear about this—is to drive up prices to reduce consumption.

In question time today, the member for Forrest asked the Treasurer about the cost impact of the carbon tax on a dairy farmer, Graham Manning, in her electorate. Do you know what? The Treasurer would not answer the question. She asked about the increased cost of electricity because electricity is a major cost for a dairy farmer—in refrig­eration and in operating their dairy facilities. The only thing I can see happening with this carbon tax, in regional Australia in particular, is jobs being driven away from our region.

There are some people who need to come in here and explain things to this parliament. The member for Capricornia has 2,000 coalminers in her electorate to explain to, the members for Corangamite and Corio have 1,300 car workers to explain to, the member for Hunter has 2,700 coal workers to explain to, the members for Throsby and Cunning­ham have 2,000 coal workers to explain to, the member for Throsby has a further 5,300 steelworkers to explain to, the member for Wakefield has 2,700 car workers to explain to, the member for Lingiari has 850 aluminium workers to explain to and the member for Bass has 560 aluminium workers to explain to. Those 17,410 workers in regional Australia do not have a voice on the Labor side. They are taken for granted.

I want to reassure those in the gallery of one thing: the coalition and the Labor government have the same target—five per cent by 2020. The difference is that the government wants to penalise and tax and shift money around.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tax and spend.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, tax and spend, whereas the coalition government want to incentivise, educate and deliver by direct action. As I said earlier, if increasing the price of electricity was going to change habits then we would not have seen a 10 per cent increase in consumption per capita while electricity prices rose by 55 per cent in that same period. It was the former Prime Minister in 2009 who said, 'Climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time'. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker: the greatest moral challenge that we face in this nation today is the honesty and integrity of our Prime Minister, who said just days before the election: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' To address the greatest moral challenge we now face, it is very clear what should be done. This Prime Minister, if she had an ounce of integrity or honesty, would go to the polls and seek a mandate. This Prime Minister has not listened to the people, because if she had listened to the people she would have heard very clearly that they do not want a carbon tax. People in the gallery: do you want a carbon tax? Do you want to be penalised? These are the questions that need to be answered, because the Prime Minister will not get out there and talk to people like you.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Paterson should not misrepresent the people in the gallery. They have no opportunity to respond.

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

There is no point of order.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we have another member of parliament who refuses to listen to people just like the good people here in the gallery. He refuses to listen to people—like all Labor members, it is all tell and no listen. What you have to do, if you want to embark on the process, is take people on the journey with you, and they have not done that. (Time expired)

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is appropriate that we have heard just now a reference from the member for Paterson to the bipartisan target of five per cent reduction in emissions below 2000 levels by 2020. The only problem is that those opposite have no plan that will enable our country to reach that target. The only thing they have put forward is a plan which will cost billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Under their plan, Australia will not reach that emissions reduction target or anything like it by 2020. If we proceed down the path that the coalition is proceeding on, it will commit Australia to purchasing international permits at a cost of billions and billions of dollars to the taxpayers of this country.

We also just heard the member for Paterson read out a long list of electorates. He asserts that the members of those electorates should explain their position on action on climate change or action on pricing carbon to the people of their electorates. I would call on all members opposite to explain to the constituents in their electorates why they have adopted no effective policy on climate change and why they have embarked on a script—and they have all got a script; we heard it today from the Leader of the Nationals and from the member for Paterson—which is basically about instilling fear in the people of Australia and deceiving the people of Australia. Those opposite have been engaging in dumb stunts all over the country, and in no sense have they been engaging in the kind of debate that we need to be having.

Having said that there is a bipartisan target of five per cent cuts of 2000 levels by 2020, we could then go to the fact that those opposite went to the 2007 election committed to an emissions trading scheme. The Howard government, of which the present Leader of the Opposition was part of the cabinet—he has got a bit of explaining to do—adopted an emissions trading scheme as the policy of the coalition before the 2007 election. Until four days before the second time on which the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was voted on in 2009, it was the policy of the coalition that there should be an emissions trading scheme in this country, as some of those opposite now listening to me know only too well.

The other comment that I would make on the contributions we heard from the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Paterson in this discussion is that entirely absent from anything they have said is any reference to why we are engaging in this policy and why we have adopted as a bipartisan target a cut in Australia's emissions. Of course, the reason is that we on this side of the House care about the future of our children. We care about the future of our children's children. We care about the future of the planet. We know the best target that we can now get to is the stabilisation of world temperatures at around two degrees by 2050 and, to do so, we have to immediately start cutting global emissions, which includes cutting Australia's emissions.

This is said to be a matter of public importance that raises consequences for rural and regional Australia. Of course it is the case that rural and regional Australia will be hit at least as hard, if not harder, as any other part of Australia by climate change. In particular, farming activities and other agricultural activities across our country are going to be hit by dangerous climate change. People in rural and regional Australia understand that only too well, because in many rural areas of Australia they are already experiencing the effects of dangerous climate change. That is why our government is embarking on a carbon price mechanism for Australia, the details of which are going to be announced this Sunday by the Prime Minister.

You would not think that the details were going to be announced if you listened to either of the contributions we heard today from the Leader of the Nationals or the member for Paterson. They were doing what the coalition has been doing for at least the past four months, which is going around and making stuff up—in other words, just invent­ing details about our carbon price scheme before any announcement of its detail. This is part of their scare campaign and misleading of the Australian people. Indeed, it would include attacking anyone who does not agree with what the Leader of the Opposition or members of the coalition might say. We have had month after month of this scare campaign by the opposition and month after month of them making stuff up. The recent attack that the Leader of the Opposition made on economists was someth­ing to behold. It is hard to believe that any responsible national leader in our country could have made the kinds of comments that the Leader of the Opposition made last Friday about economists. But you can perhaps understand why the Leader of the Opposition made the comments if you take a single example. A group of exceptionally eminent economists wrote an open letter on 2 June this year explaining their view about putting a price on carbon pollution. I will read one of their key conclusions and then explain who they are. They said:

We are all of the view that the introduction of an emissions trading scheme is a necessary and desirable structural reform of the Australian economy, designed to change relative prices in a way that provides an effective incentive to consumers and producers to shift over time to more low carbon energy efficient patterns of consumption and production.

It is incredibly clear. They also said:

… a price on carbon pollution, preferably an emissions trading scheme, is the best way to reduce carbon emissions over time …

The signatories to this letter, who have all signed in an individual capacity, included Paul Brennan, the head of economics at Citigroup Global Markets; Chris Caton, chief economist at the BT Financial Group; Besa Deda, chief economist at St George; Saul Eslake from the Grattan Institute and former chief economist at the ANZ Bank; Bill Evans, the chief economist at Westpac; Joshua Gans, Professor of Management at Melbourne Business School; Richard Gibbs, the global head of economics at Macquarie Bank; Stephen Grenville at the Lowy Institute for International Policy; Stephen Halmarick, Chairman, Australian Business Economists; John Hewson, known eminent economist and of course former leader of the Liberal Party; Raja Junankar, professorial visiting fellow at the School of Economics and Finance at the University of New South Wales; Geoff Weir, Director of Financial Sector Services; and Glenn Withers, the chief executive of Universities Australia. They are all eminent economists.

What was the response of the Leader of the Opposition not only to what those economists had to say but to what a whole range of other economists have had to say and, indeed, what Australian business leaders have had to say for months now? This is what the Leader of the Opposition said on 1 July: 'It may well be that most Australian economists think that a carbon tax is the way to go. Maybe that is a comment on the quality of our economists rather than on the merits of the argument.' What a cheap shot! What a disgraceful thing to say! But it is typical of the Leader of the Opposition, who, whenever anybody does not agree with him or the coalition's supposed policies, thinks that the appropriate response is simply to attack them personally.

There was an extraordinary statement made today by the Leader of the Opposition, who at a doorstop criticised the government for going to talk to the Australian people, which he described as—and this is pretty rich coming from the Leader of the Opposi­tion—'carefully choreographing photo opp­ortunities'. Think for a moment about who said that, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was the present Leader of the Opposition. What hypocrisy! The Leader of the Opposition never does anything other than carefully choreograph photo opportunities. All we have had for the last four months, since the Prime Minister's announcement of the broad framework of the scheme, is such carefully choreographed photo opportunities. He refuses to be interviewed, refuses to do anything other than hand out slogans.

I would have thought that today, in this debate raised by the Leader of the Nationals, we might have heard something about the government's Carbon Farming Initiative, which provides opportunities for revenue and jobs in rural and regional Australia, arising from people in the land sector, farmers across Australia, participating in reducing Australia's emissions and, in doing so, to earn income. It is supported by the National Farmers Federation, but of course the National Party in this place and their colleagues in the Liberal Party have decided to oppose this opportunity for farmers across Australia to participate in reducing Aust­ralia's emissions and, for that matter, to earn revenue for themselves. We have had months of them talking down the Australian economy, talking down our skills. We are a clever, creative nation, and it is about time those opposite recognised that and assisted us in designing an appropriate carbon price for Australia. (Time expired)

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have heard it from the honourable member for Isaacs and there has been a lot of discussion on this issue, none of which the Australian people are much interested in hearing politicians talk about.

Today I want to talk to people like the member for Hunter and the member for Robertson, who are in the chamber. If I could have the indulgence of those in the gallery and the truck drivers on the lonely roads across Australia, whom I know listen to our addresses, today I am going to talk not to you but to those on the other side of the House.

I want to talk about history and I will start with the history now. As the member for Hunter knows, I am the only person in this House who has been defeated twice in elections held on tax. When Paul Keating stood at the dispatch box and I was sitting in the seat right in front of where I am now, he leaned across and said, 'Son, you're gone.' I was. It was not because I had not worked hard as a member, not because I was not highly talented—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. It was because we had a tax debate and the member for Hotham—and I know he is watching right now—propagated and managed the mother of all scare campaigns ever to be launched in this country against a good taxation change for the benefit of the community, called the GST. It was the mother of all scare campaigns, run by the member for Hotham. By the way, a member who just left the chamber, Alan Griffin, now the member for Bruce, came in on that campaign, which I was thrown out on, in 1993. He is still here. He remembers what happened.

He also saw the amazing scare campaign of 1998. What was it on? It was on tax. What was the tax? A GST. How many seats did the government of the day lose during the tax debate? Nineteen seats. I am saying to the backbench of the Labor Party right now: there is a huge issue. The leaders in your party got you into this mess. Have a look at the percentages by which most of your leadership, except for your Treasurer, hold their seats and ask whether they will be here after the next election. The answer is: yes, they will be here. Will you be here? No, you will not be here. Not just on the current trends—I am talking about when you are arguing to us about a major scare campaign on a tax, having been in that place where you are today, holding your seat, wondering whether you are going to make it, wondering whether you are going to have a wage into the future. It has been hard to get there; it is hard to hold. I am talking to every member of your backbench in this government now, and those that have been around for a while know exactly what I am talking about here. You have one way out of this.

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

You can serve the national interest.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can talk about serving the national interest, you can talk about doing the right thing for the environment, but now I talk about the reality and the truth. The truth is that, in relation to this tax, the Productivity Commission, commissioned by the government, asked to return their findings early because they had not much to discover. What they did discover was that there is no country in the whole world that is going to introduce a tax like this—not one country in the whole world: read the Productivity Commission report. It was not a positive report for the tax. It did not put Australia in a good light. It did not say that we should be leading the world. It did not say that we should be putting our workers at disadvantage; we should not be trading green jobs overseas. The member for Hunter knows exactly what I am talking about. There will be green jobs, all right. Do you know where they will be? They will be in China, India and Indonesia. They will not be here for our workers. Is that understood? There will be green jobs. Perhaps the truck drivers across the nation now are hearing this: you will not be carting the stuff that you are carting today, because it will be carted around in China, where the pollution will be greater than in this country.

What I am putting to you is that there is a very strong argument against this tax, whatever the politics of it are. But I will come back and say to those members of parliament who are sitting in this place today, who have a desire for the betterment of the nation, who are concerned about their kids, who are concerned about their future, whose husbands would like to have a job, whose wives would like to have a job, whose kids want a job, whose partners want a job, that we have a nation led by a leader that says, 'I am prepared to trade off those jobs and those opportunities in this country and trade them into another country,' for heaven's sake. I thought the first responsibility of a Prime Minister of this nation was for the health and wellbeing of its people, its economy and its defence.

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

Now and into the future.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now and into the future. Thank you, member for Robertson. That is not what is being shown by this Prime Minister.

You know what you have to do. You know that you are completely shackled to this Prime Minister through this carbon tax, about which she has already deceived the Australian people for base political reasons in the middle of an election campaign by saying: 'I am not going to have this tax. Do not worry anybody; we are not going to have a tax.' That is what she was really saying. She was told to by her minders to say, 'We can't have a tax.'

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

She lied.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She lied, in that instance. She made a statement to the Australian people in the middle of an election campaign when they were about to vote. She said: 'Have confidence in me. It is all right. I won't put a new tax on you.' Who would be a young person these days, as compared to the generations that have gone before us, when they have the property taxes, when they have the GST, which our parents did not have, and when they have all the other taxes, which the Treasurer, coming into the room, knows all about? It is hard to get ahead these days because of those taxes.

I say to the Labor government of the day, because of my experience in 1993 of being thrown out and my experience in 1998 of being thrown out: it is fine if you have got a big margin, but if you have not got a big margin, you are likely to lose your seat in a taxation election campaign, and that is what is about to happen to many of you in the Labor Party at the next election. It may happen to you anyway—we work hard to get rid of you. But this will go all the way up to the member for Hunter. If you are under that, you are gone; if you have special interests in your electorate, you are gone. If you come from Geelong or the Illawarra or La Trobe Valley and you are a Labor representative, you are gone. What I learned was, no matter how many times I reassured my community that we could compensate them for the GST, the Labor Party sent out one more scare campaign with Alan Griffin's name on it and I was dead again. It was simply a scare campaign.

You have a carbuncle, and that carbuncle is recognisable to you and every other Aust­ralian. I am not criticising the office of Prime Minister. I am saying your party has a carbuncle and that carbuncle is Julia Gillard, who is locked into that tax. What you need to do is rip that carbuncle out of your party and get rid of it.

An opposition member: Like a boil, it needs to be lanced.

I do not need words put into my mouth; it is hard enough getting this out as it is. It is a carbuncle that you have to remove. If you do not remove it, the Australian people are going to remove it for you, along with many of you.

Take it from my experience: it is not a good feeling to go down once, it is not a good feeling to go down twice, it is not a good feeling to go down three times and it is not a good feeling to lose four times, two of them on tax. Just remember that. It is taxation: you will have to know every detail of it. I have lived it; I have worked it. It is very, very hard and it is near impossible to win. I challenge you that you will not be able to win this argument. The member for McEwen has just come in. Mate, I have been there once or twice in this place and the rest of the people do not think much of you when you come back. Coming back is hard.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Paterson, and I will return to him a little later. I am almost disappointed to be following the member for McMillan—I like him, he is a good bloke, generally speaking he makes a sensible contribution to public policy debate and he takes a pragmatic approach—but after his contribution I must attack him on this occasion. The first thing I would say to him is that it is not about you, mate. It is not about me, either, and it is not about the member for McEwen—it is about the national interest. While the member for McMillan takes some comfort in the fact that his losses were never his fault, what we need to be doing in this place is putting the national interest ahead of our own interests. That is exactly what the government is doing with the introduction of this very important public policy reform.

I start by reminding people of what this debate is and what it is not. What it is not is a debate about the science of climate change. The Leader of the Opposition and members on the other side generally have accepted that we must tackle climate change and that human beings make a contribution to the warming of the planet. That is why the Leader of the Opposition and all those who sit opposite have their own policy. Indeed, as the member for Paterson reminded us, they have the same targets on carbon reduction as the government. This is really only a debate about the relative policies of the major parties—what we intend to do and what they intend to do in response to this pressing environmental challenge.

On this side, of course, we are prop­osing—and the details will be announced on Sunday—an emissions trading scheme; a charge on the big polluters who on a daily basis emit their greenhouse gases into the atmosphere free of charge. Have a think about that in economic terms. This represents a big economic distortion. Small businesses who generate waste have to take their waste to the dump—they pay. Large chemical businesses have an expensive process for disposing of their waste, and they pay. You and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, when we do our additional gardening at home, for example, go to the garbage dump—we compost as much as we can, of course—and we pay to dump our waste.

When you have these inconsistencies you have economic distortions, and those distort­ions affect investment decisions. People ask me why we are charging the polluters and compensating them, the people, as consum­ers. Unfortunately businesses, where they can, will pass some of those additional and new business costs onto consumers, and we will protect those consumers. We are not so much seeking to change the behaviour of consumers, considerable merit though that may have; we are trying to change the habits, first, of investors who with a level playing field after the introduction of an ETS will be more likely to invest in renewable tech­nologies, and, second, we are trying to change the behaviour of the polluters themselves, giving them the incentive to invest in new technology, in innovation, to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. We are using a market mechanism to get there. Many of those who spoke on the other side have referred to the Productivity Commission's report, and I thank them because what that report showed more clearly than anything else was that the most efficient and the cheapest way to address greenhouse gas emissions is with a market-based mechanism, which is exactly what the Prime Minister will be announcing on Sunday.

By contrast, the Leader of the Opposition and all those who sit behind him, including the member for Paterson and the member for McMillan, want to tax people more—they want tax increases in this country to the tune of tens of billions of dollars—and transfer that wealth to the big polluters. They are going to tax people more, hand that money to the polluters and say, 'We are going to help you introduce those new technologies; we will help you get your emissions down.' There are no guarantees; no contracts—they will hand all that money over to the big polluters in the hope they will do the right thing and invest in technologies and reduce their carbon emissions. Let there be no mistake: this is not a debate about the science of climate change; it is not a debate about whether we should do something about climate change—it is only a debate about how we address climate change in this country.

Let me deal with some of the other myths, given that there is such a fondness on the other side for the Productivity Commission's report—something that shocks me. The first myth is that no-one else is acting. The Productivity Commission looked at a number of countries—the UK, the US, Germany, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand. What do those opposite think the Productivity Commission was looking at? What do they think the Productivity Commission would have been studying in those countries if those countries had not taken action on climate change? Of course they have taken action, and they are taking very substantial action. Australia is being left behind. We can get a good illustration of how we are being left behind by reflecting on the fact that the former Prime Minister, John Howard, went to the 2007 election, four years ago, promising to introduce an emissions trading scheme. Here we are, still debating it mid-2011, notwithstanding the fact that, at the time, most members on the other side—including I think the Leader of the Opposition but certainly the former Leader of the Opposition and the former former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Nelson—supported Mr Howard's policy.

The second myth is that this is going to put downward pressure on employment, that jobs are going to be lost in industries like coalmining. That is absolute rubbish. Even the coal industry's own modelling did not show a loss of jobs in the coalmining industry, as some people have suggested. It did suggest—I am not saying I agree with it, because modelling is modelling as we all know—that there would be potentially a growth in jobs if this system were introduced. So let us not have these misrepresentations. I am certainly not concerned about job losses in coalmining in my electorate. I can assure you, thanks to heavy demand in Asia for our resources, that jobs in coalmining in my electorate will continue to grow—and the investment pipeline is already in place. The third myth is that the sky will fall. The sky did not fall in New Zealand, the sky did not fall in California and the sky has not fallen anywhere where carbon abatement has become a serious government policy. The member for Paterson predictably spent a little bit of time zeroing in on my electorate and Hunter region more generally. It just goes to show how totally out of touch he is with community sentiment in the Hunter Valley, where the overwhelming majority of people are now concerned about the environment and the cumulative impacts of industries like coalmining. We have huge land use conflicts. People are saying in increasing numbers that they want to ensure that the coalmining industry—as important as it has been to us but which will maybe last for 30 years—does not impact on sustainable industries such as agriculture, thoroughbred breeding and viticulture. These are industries that have supported us and provided us with an income for many decades and will hopefully sustain us into the next century and beyond.

By applying the true costs of doing business on these businesses we will get a real measure of the negative externalities on local communities and I think that will become an important part of the equation. People working in coalmines in my elect­orate are not fearful that the ETS is going to cost them their job. They have not been fooled by the scare campaign of the opposition, as much as I hate to disappoint the member for McMillan. They want bal­ance and through the minerals resource rent tax they want to get their fair share of the product that comes out of the ground locally. They want to ensure that the environment is protected and that the true cost of the coalmines is reflected in government policy, and that those sustainable industries are not destroyed by the coalmining industry. There is a balance there.

Following the announcement on Sunday, this policy will dominate the media and public debate in the coming months. I hope and pray that the debate is dominated by the facts of this policy, but I feel very pessimistic, given the contributions from those opposite today.

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

Order! The discussion is now concluded.

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

by leave—It was less than three years ago that the world was witnessing an unprecedented meltdown in the global financial system. Not long after, the global economy plunged into the depths of recession—the worst the world had endured in 75 years. Throughout this period, I have from time to time provided an update on events to the parliament. In light of events in Europe in the past week and broader challenges facing parts of the global economy, it is appropriate that I do this again before members rise for the winter break.

Recovering from such a widespread and severe financial crisis was always going to be hard. It was never going to be speedy; it was never going to be seamless. The IMF made this point back in April 2009, in its World economic outlook, when it said:

So it should come as no surprise that many economies are still coming to terms with the considerable legacies of the crisis. It is important to remember that Australia is in a far stronger position than most advanced economies. This is because we heeded these very warnings from the International Monetary Fund and the broader international community that it would be harder for economies to recover from a recession that was induced by a financial crisis. It is exactly why we acted to avert a recession at home.

It is because of the action that we took at the heart of global financial crisis, and the hard work of the Australian people, that we now have a strong outlook, strong job creation and a strong fiscal position. And despite the fact that we have been hit hard by natural disasters, we continue to have one of the most enviable economic scorecards of the developed world. We are not immune from global uncertainty—and this is clearly reflected in some of the patchy economic conditions we are experiencing at home. But it does not change the fact that we face a dramatically different set of challenges to many of our peers. As I have said before, our challenges are far better challenges to have.

International uncertainty

For some time now, I have characterised the global recovery as uneven and subject to risk. In recent weeks these risks have become more pronounced and the global recovery has weakened. We have seen a hit to the Japanese economy from the earth­quake, tsunami and nuclear disaster as well as disruption to international supply chains. In the United States, a depressed labour market, unprecedented weakness in the housing market and high oil prices are still holding back recovery.

Most significantly, we have seen debt problems confronting a number of European economies—especially Greece. The uncert­ainty surrounding the situation in Europe has weighed on markets and generated signific­ant volatility in these past few weeks. The Greek parliament approved last week a further package of austerity measures which will allow for the provision of the next tranche of its existing EU and IMF assistance package.

I welcome Greek and European efforts to avert what would have been an immediate default. But we should not underestimate the challenges ahead for Greece and Europe more generally. It must deal with a huge debt overhang, and a projected fiscal consolid­ation of around 12 per cent of GDP over the next five years. This comes on top of the unprecedented consolidation already imp­lemented, worth eight per cent of GDP.

Greece, Portugal and Ireland are by themselves relatively small parts of the global economy, so the direct impact of their issues is limited. However, given their status as euro area members, the potential for contagion is significant, particularly in the event of a disorderly default. With banks in Europe and the US holding significant amounts of European government debt, such contagion could generate renewed financial market turmoil globally.

These challenges were underlined just last night when Moody’s cut Portugal’s credit rating by four notches to below investment grade. Moody’s pointed to a growing risk that Portugal would also need further financial support and that it may be unable to meet its deficit reduction targets.

The role of European authorities and EU member states in confronting the challenges facing Greece, Portugal and Ireland is crucial, and it is essential that they take decisive action. These issues also go to the heart of the work I am doing with my G20 colleagues to bring about strong, sustainable and balanced global growth.

Even beyond these immediate challenges, Europe’s high government debt, persistently high unemployment and structural rigidities, suggest it is unlikely to contribute substant­ially to global growth for some considerable time.

It is not just Europe that faces continued sluggish growth and challenges in addressing fiscal sustainability. The United States and Japan are faced with balancing the need to avoid undermining their economic recoveries in the short term, while setting in place credible medium-term plans to address high and rising public debt. As the IMF warned last week, the failure by the United States to move quickly to increase its borrowing authority could result in a severe shock to global financial markets.

Asian c entury

Despite the fragile global outlook, we can take confidence in the fact that the outlook for our own region remains bright.

If the events in Europe did trigger a more serious disruption in global financial markets or significantly stalled the global recovery, this would have implications for us and our neighbours. But from where we sit now, we are well placed to benefit from strong conditions on our doorstep, which are expected to continue for some time.

Unlike many advanced economies in the West, emerging Asia recovered relatively quickly from the GFC, and is now growing strongly. This strong growth in Asia is helping to accelerate the transformation that was already underway in the global economy before the crisis hit.

Twenty years ago China and India together accounted for less than one-tenth of world production. Today that share has doubled and by the end of this decade it is expected to be over a quarter of world production.

We can see the first manifestation of the Asian century on Australia in the mining boom. But there will be just as pronounced an impact on the rest of our economy in future as the growth in Asia’s middle class drives demand for the rest of our goods and services.

This means that enormous opportunities are unfolding on our doorstep. It also means that we need to ensure the Australian econ­omy has the productive capacity and the right long-term settings in place to allow us to grab this opportunity and not let go.

The opportunities of the Asian century are not just on offer to us because of our positioning in the global economy. The fact is, we are only in a position to capitalise on these opportunities because of our strong economic foundations.

If we had not weathered the global financial crisis as we did, if we had instead followed the rest of the world into recession, then we would be in a very different position today. While many of our peers are still struggling to make up for lost ground, Australia’s GDP is now significantly ahead of what it was at the start of the crisis.

This has meant we have avoided the high rates of unemployment that now plague many advanced economies. While our unemployment rate stands at just 4.9 per cent, economies like the US and euro area are grappling with unemployment rates in excess of nine per cent.

We have also emerged from the global recession with lower government debt and lower deficits than any of the major advanced economies. Net government debt is expected to peak at 7.2 per cent of GDP in 2011-12 and decline thereafter. Even at its peak, Australia’s net debt will be less than one tenth of the average of the major advanced economies.

But despite our impressive scorecard, we know that the GFC is still having a lingering impact on some parts of the economy, as is the continued uncertainty in the global economy. Consumers are still more cautious than they have been in the period before the crisis—spending less and saving a bit more. This is not surprising given the subdued recovery in household wealth since the global financial crisis and the uncertainty surrounding the global outlook. Credit conditions also remain tight.

On top of this, we have taken a huge hit from last summer’s natural disasters, and although we have made significant progress in recovery, there is still a long way to go.

The higher dollar—a sign of our relative economic strength—is also a burden for many of our industries, such as manuf­acturing and tourism.

But despite these soft spots, we need to remember that our fundamentals are strong, and we are well positioned to benefit from robust growth in the most dynamic corner of the global economy. And the historic shift in the global gravity from East to West is taking our terms of trade to record heights, and is driving an unprecedented pipeline of business investment—with ABARES estim­ating a pipeline of $430 billion in resources alone.

So Australia is located in the right part of the world at the right time—the prospects for our region remain much stronger as the weight of global activity continues to shift in our favour.

Australian banks have also strengthened their regulatory capital and maintained sound provisioning levels. Local banks now depend less on wholesale funding from abroad than during the global financial crisis because they are attracting more local deposits. Their foreign currency denominated funding rem­ains fully hedged into Australian dollars.

All of these factors mean that Australian banks are in a good position to meet future challenges. But it is important that we build on our existing regulatory framework to ensure that we maintain a world-class, efficient and safe financial sector.

The government is committed to implem­enting the Basel III reforms to ensure banks have sufficient liquidity to withstand stress in global funding markets and appropriate capital levels as a buffer against unexpected losses. The government is also taking action through its competitive and sustainable banking system reforms to help consumers get a better deal, while also securing the long-term safety and sustainability of our financial system. This government is clearly focused on the challenges facing the global economy and what this means for us.

That is why we are investing in our economic capacity to make sure it can withstand any future shocks and maximise the opportunities that will flow to us in the Asian century. This means serious economic reforms like putting in place a price on carbon to drive investment in the clean-energy technologies of the future. It means continuing our record of serious tax reform, where we are introducing a broad range of reforms, like the minerals resource rent tax and a cut to the company tax rate.

It also means announcing in the budget a record skills and training package that converts the prosperity of the mining boom into more and better jobs—for both the min­ing and non-mining sectors of our economy. And it does mean increasing our skilled migration program to ensure it is supplem­enting our labour needs of the future.

Despite the challenges facing the global economy, the government’s reform agenda and our solid foundations will ensure the Australian economy remains the envy of the developed world. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for North Sydney to speak for 13 minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Hockey speaking in reply to my statement for a period not exceeding 13 minutes.

Question agreed to.

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

It is curious that the Treasurer feels the need to make a ministerial statement on the economy just four days before the release of the details on the carbon tax—and yet, from what I heard, the carbon tax rates only one mention in the ministerial statement. Surely, of all the issues that the Treasurer could discuss, the detail on the carbon tax would be of the most immediate interest to the House and the Australian people. What the Treas­urer has done is to outline some of the risks as to the international outlook. In particular, he has noted concerns over sovereign debt in Europe and the challenge of addressing fiscal sustainability in Europe, Japan and the USA. The coalition shares these concerns.

But I am somewhat perplexed that the Treasurer does not draw out the lessons of the international experience for Australia. The Treasurer does not seem to realise that it is the continued uncertainty and risks in the international environment which make it critically important that Australia gets its fiscal house in order. The Treasurer does not seem to realise that federal government debt itself represents a risk, and that the debt should be paid down as soon as possible, not at some uncertain date at the decade's end. The Treasurer does not seem to realise that maintaining a stable and certain policy envir­onment for investors is critically important to preserving confidence and investment, part­icularly at a time when sovereign risk is high in the list of concerns for the international community about Australia.

The Treasurer makes brief mention of economic conditions in Australia, noting some patchiness and also that consumers remain cautious. Well, I think he is tiptoeing around the true state of our economy. This country should be going at full speed ahead, with the terms of trade at 140-year highs delivering an unprecedented boost to nat­ional income. But we now find that consumers and businesses are increasingly uncertain and lack confidence. Recent economic indicators show that the Australian economy is going throng a soft patch. Let me run through the evidence. Consumer confidence was down 2.6 per cent in June, to the lowest level since June 2009. Retail spending was down 0.6 per cent in May. In trend terms, Australian turnover for retail in May was only 2.4 per cent higher than in May 2010, which is a very weak increase in the space of a year. Investment in dwellings is collapsing. Dwelling construction approv­als were down 7.9 per cent in May and in trend terms have fallen for seven consecutive months. House prices are down, with industry data showing capital city values falling in the five months to May. Demand for credit is weak, with household borrowing for housing rising at the slowest pace in a generation. And this household caution has led to consumers cocooning, with the house­hold savings ratio rising to 11.5 per cent in the March quarter to around the highs of the financial crisis a few years ago. So it is no surprise this is reflecting in a softening in business conditions, with the ACCI reporting business conditions in the June quarter down to levels not seen since its survey began in 1998, 13 years ago.

The Treasurer should be focusing on these statistics and he should be looking for causes and coming up with solutions. Perhaps he wants us to believe that this loss of confidence is linked to concerns on the international front. I note Australia has been through bouts of international uncertainty before. Australia sailed through the Asian crisis of 1998, in spite of concerns in some quarters that our close ties with Asia would lead to severe repercussions for our economy, and I well recall the Australian dollar falling to near-record lows at that time. Australia was relatively unaffected by the near-recession in the developed world in 2001 in the face of significant headwinds. And we were arguably the developed country least affected by the North Atlantic financial crisis of 2007 and 2008.

What the Treasurer will not admit is that it is his own actions and the policies of this government which have caused such a severe loss of consumer and business confidence. There are many, many elements to this. Taxation policy is just one. The govern­ment's approach to taxation reform is to milk the economy for all it can get. The government has introduced, increased or foreshadowed 19 taxes since it came to power just over three years ago. From 1 July this year—just five days ago—workers are now paying the flood levy. That is an extra half of one per cent in increased personal income taxes for people with an income between $50,000 and $100,000, so up to $250 a year, and one per cent for incomes above that. Households now have a little less spending power than they had a week ago. That is unlikely to make them more confident about the future, especially whilst they are facing massive increases in elect­ricity prices, water prices and transport prices. The government's behaviour in refusing to release the details of the carbon tax while parliament is sitting, to allow proper scrutiny, is not helping confidence. Australians have many legitimate questions about this tax. The coalition has been asking these questions for months and, especially, this week. But the government just refuses to answer. This refusal to answer has left many thousands of households and businesses in limbo. Will the carbon tax apply to diesel for the trucks and other vehicles run by small businesses? The government announced an initiative in relation to petrol but then it did not want to explain who it would apply to and who it did not apply to.

Then there is the compensation issue. The government has announced part of the compensation equation but it will not tell anyone about the rest of the equation. What will be the price per tonne of carbon? We have had members of the committee responsible for shaping the carbon tax speculating about a price of up to $100 a tonne. In some cases it is settling on $40 a tonne, yet this just creates further uncertainty. How quickly will this tax rise? Again, an unknown issue that has not been addressed yet.

It is not as though the government does not already have the information. We know from the information that has been selective­ly leaked to the media that the carbon committee has thrashed out the details. Although, we do know that not all the members of cabinet have seen the details of the carbon tax. The entry of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the chamber is very timely because I understand he will not see the details of the carbon tax until Friday or Saturday. It is the case that the Independents and the Greens know more about the carbon tax package than those government members who are members of cabinet, and who are meant to approve it. It shows how totally dysfunctional the decision making is in this government.

All we are getting from the arrogant government is delaying tactics. The Treasu­rer says further detail will be there on Sunday. The Leader of the House screams into the microphone, 'Wait five more sleeps for an answer.' These are not things that inspire confidence in the government. These are not statements that encourage consumers to go out there and buy a new TV or upgrade their car, or to go and buy that house. These are not the things that inspire confidence amongst the enterprises of Australia.

It is no surprise that households and businesses are hoarding funds for a rainy day. That is a natural response when the economic future becomes uncertain. Aust­ralians have understandably lost confidence in the quality of the economic management of this government. Australia has never before had a government that is so cavalier with taxpayers' money, spending billions of dollars to install pink batts and millions more to inspect them and remove them. School halls and other school buildings were built well above the normal price that should be paid in the private sector. Computers in schools are another cracker; GP superclinics, which have been overpromised and under­delivered; stimulus cheques for $900 being sent to dead people and overseas—the list goes on and on. The budget remains in a mediocre state: four budgets and four deficits, including the largest peacetime deficits on record.

The Treasurer wants credit for a surplus. He has not delivered a surplus. I suspect he never will deliver a surplus.

Ms O'Neill interjecting—

I understand the new member is interjecting. I would warn her to get her facts right. Australians shake their heads in disbelief when the government claims to be a responsible economic manager even while it is running huge budget deficits at a time when we are experiencing the best terms of trade in 140 years. Australians shake their heads in disbelief when the government continues to compete for funds in the capital markets and puts upward pressure on interest rates at a time when households and businesses are already struggling with the impact of seven recent increases in less than two years.

Australians have lost trust in this government. We have a Prime Minister who says one thing before an election and then does the opposite after the election. This government is failing in its long term planning to provide the future underpinnings for the economy. Sir Rod Eddington, Chairman of Infrastructure Australia, bel­ieves Australia's infrastructure networks are barely adequate for current needs and are beginning to impose significant long-term costs. He believes there has been a collective failure by governments to give the issue of infrastructure planning and financing the priority it needs.

One of the unfortunate consequences of Labor's mismanagement of the economy is a stalling of productivity. I well remember the now Minister for Foreign Affairs being on this side of the chamber talking about prod­uctivity, and being asked about productivity. The GDP per hour worked in the March quarter this year was lower than the last full quarter of the coalition government. Productivity has actually fallen after 3½ years of Labor. By comparison, over the life of the coalition GDP per hour worked rose by over 25 per cent.

Of course, the Treasurer will not tell you this. It is not something he wants to focus on. He does not want to talk about productivity; or smaller government, or economic effic­iency, or real tax reform or the things that lay down strong foundations for the future of the Australian economy.

A recent private sector report to both domestic and international investors says it all:

The key issue is that Australian economic and taxation policy remains unpredictable, with foreign investors displeased with the continual surprise movement of the regulatory goal posts in Australia.

What Australia needs right now is a government that is consistent, capable and able to deliver on what it promises. It needs a government which keeps one eye on the international environment but which streng­thens and inoculates the Australian economy against almost any eventuality. We need a government that will restore the trust and confidence of Australians and restore Austr­alia as an attractive place to do business. What this country now needs is a coalition government.

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

by leave—I present a copy of An effective aid program for Australia: making a real difference—delivering real results and the Independent review of aid effectiveness,April 2011. I wish to update the House on the future directions of Australia’s aid program. As members will be aware, in November 2010 the government commissioned an indepen­dent review of aid effectiveness. This was the first independent review of Australia's aid program since 1996. It was time to take a comprehensive look at the management and quality of our aid and to give direction to the future of our aid program. The panel submitted its report to me at the end of April. Today, in releasing the report, I wish to advise the House on the outcomes of the review and to outline the government’s response to the recommendations contained in it.

For more than half a century, Australian governments of both political persuasions have supported the Australian aid program. Australians are deeply concerned about people living in poverty and abject disad­vantage, but we want assurance that an aid program is well spent, that it reflects value for money for the taxpayers' dollar and that it is as effective as it can be.

The review was commissioned against the backdrop of an expansion of Australia’s aid program in recent years and of the govern­ment’s commitment to further increase the proportion of our gross national income spent on aid to 0.5 per cent by 2015-16. Meeting this target would put us equal with the average OECD commitment. I welcome the fact that this commitment is shared by the opposition.

The terms of reference for the review were to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the Australian aid program and to make recommendations to improve its structure and delivery. As I said in announc­ing the review, our overriding objective should be to make a good aid program even better. The review was conducted by a panel of eminent Australians chaired by Mr Sandy Hollway AO. Other members of the panel were Ms Margaret Reid AO, former President of the Senate; Mr Bill Farmer AO, former Australian Ambassador to Indonesia; Dr Stephen Howes; and Mr John Denton of the Business Council of Australia.

The panel consulted extensively both domestically and internationally, including with governments in Asia, the Pacific and Africa, and with non-government organis­ations, think tanks, bilateral and multilateral donors, Australian business and private sector representatives, as well as with a range of Australian government departments. The panel received around 300 public submissions from a wide cross-section of the Australian and international community. I take this opportunity to place on the parliamentary record my appreciation to the members of the panel for the dedicated and professional approach they brought to this task. They delivered the report on time and on budget.

Since 2007, the government has taken a range of steps to improve the effectiveness of our aid program. We have, for instance, consolidated our projects and programs around internationally agreed development goals—education, health and food security. While the aid program has increased by almost two-thirds since 2006-07, this has not resulted in an increase in the number of individual aid programs. Indeed, since 2007, the number of aid programs managed by the government fell from 1,884 to 1,349. This has meant less time spent on administering small programs, and more resources devoted to building effective long-term partnerships and delivering better results for the poor.

Since 2007, the government has also enhanced its strategic focus in key countries. In three of Australia’s largest country programs—Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and East Timor—we have sharpened our focus on key development sectors and, critically, reduced the number of individual projects. We have also become more innovative through the introduction of new partnerships for development with countries in the Pacific. These provide a framework for accelerating progress against the Millennium Development Goals and the development priorities of these countries. They are agreements addressed in terms of results, not simply financial inputs.

The independent review found that Australia has a good aid program that is effective by global standards. It found that the program is capable of improvement and that many of these improvements are already well underway. The review makes 39 recom­mendations to improve the aid program. The review highlighted that Australia continues to be recognised internationally for the important leadership role it plays in the Asia-Pacific region on development matters. It noted our strong record in areas such as disability-inclusive development, perform­ance management and transparency. The review found that fraud in the aid program was very, very low and that AusAID has strong systems for fraud detection and prevention. It also found that AusAID is well led and that its staff are generally highly motivated and capable.

The review also provides the basis to ensure a good aid program delivers even better outcomes in the future. This commitment is set out in the document I am pleased to have launched today, and tabled in the House, entitled An effective aid program for Australia: making a real difference—delivering real results. The overall theme of this document is very simple: how to maximise the effectiveness of the Australian aid program.

Australia can and should do better. The recommendations of the aid effectiveness review will help us deliver that. They deal with the purpose of our aid program, the effectiveness of our aid program, the type of aid program we deliver, where we will deliver our aid and how we deliver that aid. The cornerstone, however, of this entire reform is the maximisation of aid effectiveness.

Why do we give aid? We have accepted the review’s recommendation that there should be a clearly defined purpose for Australian aid. As defined in the review's recommendation and accepted by the government:

The fundamental purpose of Australian aid is to help people overcome poverty. This also serves Australia's national interests by promoting stability and prosperity both in our region and beyond. We focus our effort in areas where Australia can make a difference and where our resources can most effectively and efficiently be deployed.

This is an important statement. It goes to three core principles: (1) that poverty eradication is our core objective, (2) that, as well as being the right thing to do, it is in our national security interests and (3) that we focus on those areas where we can make a real difference. In doing so, we align ourselves with the Millennium Development Goals.

Around 1.4 billion members of the human family—one fifth of our total number—suffer the degradation of poverty, and two-thirds of these are within our region. We believe the right thing to do is to help our fellow human beings out of poverty, because as Australians it is not in our nature to be indifferent to the sufferings of others. Our belief in a fair go does not stop at the Australian continental shelf. Our aid program is therefore a product of our own values. But we are also hard-nosed enough to know that we do so in a manner which supports our nation’s interests. We want to build stability in our region, because that enhances the security of us all. The aid program helps to uphold this system of global cooperation, and that is critical for us all. We therefore want to make sure that we are enhancing our overall position within the region. What we therefore have as both an expression of our values and our interests is an expression of good international citizenship. Increasing our assistance will enhance Australia’s international reputation and influence in global and regional affairs. Australia has a strong interest in enhancing a global and regional system that promotes cooperation and partnership between countries.

An effectively functioning global system brings with it benefits for Australia by: strengthening economic management; impr­oving security; improving environmental management; promoting human rights; coordinating development assistance and delivering humanitarian assistance as well. The aid program helps to uphold this system of global cooperation. We want to sustain and enhance an international system that deals with global changes in an orderly manner through global agencies that deal with economic development, that deal with natural disasters and that deal with humanitarian conflict. The alternative would be absolute chaos: every person, every country, simply fending for themselves through a beggar-thy-neighbour approach. The massive, destabilising dispersals of peoples from one point of the world to another, of the type we have seen throughout much of world history, would continue on a grander scale than ever before and with potentially disastrous consequences for us all. We therefore have a deep national interest, and we have deep national values at stake, in building a global rules-based order that deals with poverty, that deals with humanitarian issues and that deals with human rights.

Making Australian aid more e ffective

This commitment will build on reforms already underway to make effectiveness a cornerstone of Australia’s overall aid program. We have already made a good start on this by reducing the number of technical advisers by 25 per cent over the next two years and further reducing unreasonable remuneration levels for ongoing advisers so we get maximum return on the aid dollar. We must also maintain what the aid effectiveness review describes as the 'serious and systematic approach within AusAID to fraud management'. AusAID maintains zero tolerance towards any fraud in the aid program and this assists us to minimise fraud, by any credible global standard. For example, in 2010-11 the estimated potential loss due to fraud was 0.021 per cent of AusAID's appropriated funds—I repeat: 0.021 per cent. In other words: that is 21c for every $1,000 spent. This is a much lower rate of loss than that recorded by most other government agencies, private sector compan­ies and other aid donors. This has been a strong achievement by AusAID, given so many of the countries in which Australian aid operates have weak probity systems and rate poorly on most international corruption indicators.

The government is committed to further strengthening AusAID’s already robust fraud management scheme. In addition to fraud management, AusAID has a four-point perf­ormance management system which deals with any quality challenges with the program as they arise. This involves AusAID’s own internal quality-reporting system, the Office of Development Effectiveness, the Aust­ralian National Audit Office and the OECD Development Assistance Committee peer review system. The strength of these systems was endorsed, for example, in the 2009 ANAO review that concluded: 'AusAID has managed the expansion of the aid program in a way that supports the delivery of effective aid.' Australia has also been commended in the most recent OECD DAC peer review of the AusAID program.

To strengthen the comprehensiveness of these measures, the government has comm­itted that all overseas development assistance funds spent by Australia will be subject to quality processes, not just those spent by AusAID itself. Moreover, AusAID will prov­ide a ratings system for all of its international development partners in order to ensure that we maximise the use of those agencies which rate highest. We will establish a new Transparency Charter in order to provide more accessible information on what we fund and the results we achieve. We will use this to encourage debate and contestability and, in turn, improve our effectiveness. The Transparency Charter will record where pro­grams are going well and, where programs may not be going well, it will record that as well—the whole point being to be open and accountable to the Australian public about how their aid dollar is being spent.

The government will also develop a four-year, whole-of-aid-budget strategy covering the aid efforts of all relevant Australian government agencies under one coherent plan that outlines the key results we aim to achieve. In the past this was not the case as AusAID-delivered funds were treated separ­ately within the process of government to aid funds delivered by other government depart­ments. This will now change. We will review annually our progress against the results in the four-year budget strategy. We will undertake a substantive external review of the entire program every five years. We will act quickly and decisively where we find that aid programs are not delivering. Non-performing programs will be abolished and, for those in need of reform, reform will be delivered. And we will enhance further the capacity of AusAID, the government’s lead agency in the fight against global poverty, to manage an increasing aid budget effectively.

What a id w ill w e d eliver ?

Consistent with the review's recommend­ations, the government will make its decisions based on three sets of criteria:

Looking ahead, we will continue to align our aid program with our commitments to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Within this, we will focus our efforts on five key strategic goals:

Human rights, also for the first time therefore, has been formally included within the core development objectives of the Aust­ralian aid program. The net impact of this methodology is to maximise focus within an expanding Australian international develop­ment assistance program and also bring focus to bear on things that we have not adequately emphasised in the past—in particular those suffering from disabilities and the application of human rights disciplines across the totality of the aid program.

Where we will work

The Asia-Pacific region remains the area of focus for Australia’s development assistance program. It is the region which we believe we can be most effective in. It is the region where two-thirds of the world’s poverty currently lies. It is the region where the rest of the world often expects Australia to provide leadership. And it is the region of the world where our most direct, strategic and economic interests lie. It is for these reasons that the Asia-Pacific occupies in 2011-12 nearly 75 per cent of Australia’s bilateral aid. For the purposes of the debate, I emphasise to the House that back in 2004-05 the Asia-Pacific represented, I think, only 67 per cent of the total aid program administered by the Australian government.

Within this allocation to the region, the dominant recipients of Australia’s develop­ment assistance remain Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and East Timor. This will continue into the future. In Indonesia, around 30 million Indonesians live on less than $1.25 a day and more than 100 million live on $2 a day or less. Many poor Indonesians do not have access to basic food, education or health services. In line with the findings of the review, Australia will increase its aid to Indonesia and more aid will be directed at key sectors where Australia is having the greatest impact.

Papua New Guinea is our nearest neighbour. Improving the lives of poor people and promoting stability are central to Australian interests in PNG. East Timor and the Solomons have both experienced violent conflict over the past decade and are still rebuilding their societies to provide people with security and access to the most basic of services. Elsewhere in the Pacific, Australian aid will increase where we assess it can make the most difference.

Beyond our region, support for global programs will be used to extend the reach and impact of our aid. We will increase support for multilateral organisations such as the World Bank, the global vaccine alliance (GAVI), and UN development agencies that we assess as effective, that are consistent with Australian priorities and that deliver the best value for money.

Currently 14 per cent of our aid goes to south and west Asia—principally Afghani­stan and Pakistan, but also including Bangladesh. We will continue to play our part in international efforts to bring development to those countries. Building a lasting peace in Afghanistan will only be achieved if there are decent opportunities and services for the Afghan people—in particular Afghan women and girls.

A further 11 per cent of our development assistance goes to Africa and the Middle East. This is a necessary reflection on recent turbulence within the Middle East region and the range of interests which Australia has alive in that part of the world. The government accepts the review recomm­endation to the extent that in Latin America and the Caribbean, increases in aid will be modest and will be primarily delivered through partnerships with effective multilateral and non-government organis­ations.

We will be ending our bilateral aid program in India and China. These will be phased down over time. Both these countries are amongst the 10 largest economies in the world and have considerable resources to meet their own development challenges. The government will continue to provide limited targeted assistance to China and India through multilateral organisations and reg­ional programs, where we can make a difference to poor people in those countries.

The way we deliver aid

Direct country-to-country delivery will remain our primary vehicle of assistance in East Asia and the Pacific where Australia is a major donor, and where we have a well-developed field presence. In these countries Australia will take a donor-leadership role, particularly in the Pacific, where Australia provides around half of all ODA. In south and west Asia, Africa as well as Latin America and the Caribbean we will make greater use of effective multilateral partners and our partnerships with other donor count­ries including emerging donors.

Australia will also continue to increase our assistance to civil society organisations, including non-government organisations, where they are effective and provide the best delivery mechanism to achieve results. In addition to increased funding, reforms to our NGO program include high-level strategic partnerships between AusAID and some of Australia’s largest NGOs, including World Vision Australia, Oxfam Australia, Caritas Australia, Plan International Australia and Child Fund Australia. The government intends to double the AusAID NGO Coop­eration Program, the ANCP, which will support more Australian non-government organisations to participate in the overall delivery of the aid program.

The government will also be making increasing use of Australian Volunteers for International Development. Currently, we have volunteers deployed in 33 developing countries around the world. As for the Austr­alian Civilian Corps, this too has recently been brought into being under legislation by the Australian government. The first Aust­ralian Civilian Corps specialists have already been deployed in the field. And the ACC register of those with specialist crisis emergency skills is expected to reach 500 screened and trained personnel by June 2014. For the information of the House, these initiatives for an integrated Australian vol­unteers program abroad together with the Australian Civilian Corps were very much products of the 2020 Summit which was held in this place in 2008.

Conclusion

We in Australia have made a substantive response to the independent aid review. The government has agreed, or agreed in-prin­ciple, to 38 of these recommendations put forward by the review and noted one concerning the formal description of the portfolio, as this forms part of considerations of future administrative arrangements. I wish to further acknowledge the continued bipar­tisan support for the government’s objective of increasing ODA to 0.5 per cent of GNI by 2015. Today I have outlined the govern­ment’s commitment to a larger and more effective aid program. The government’s efforts to strengthen the effectiveness of the aid program, including its response to the independent review, represent some of the most far-reaching changes to the aid program in more than a decade. This will be an enduring effort. Increasing aid effectiveness is the major objective and will require persistence, it will require continuing focus and it will require determination on the part of officials and those who partner with us, both in Australia and abroad. Above all, as minister, I want to see an aid program that is world-leading in its effectiveness, a program that delivers real and measurable results in reducing poverty on the ground and a program of which all Australians can and should be proud. I am therefore very pleased to table both the Independent review of aid effectiveness and the government’s response, An effective aid program for Australia, today. I commend these reports to the House.

I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Curtin to speak for 22 minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms J. Bishop (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) speaking for a period not exceeding 22 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition has previously welcomed the dec­ision of the government to conduct an independent review of aid effectiveness, and we welcome the release today of this report from that review. It was former coalition policy, prior to the last election, that there be an independent inquiry into our aid budget. It was not the policy of the Labor Party at the last election to conduct such a review. To his credit, the Minister for Foreign Affairs adopted our policy and this independent review was conducted.

Our call for an independent review stemmed in part from a report released by the Australian National Audit Office in 2009 which raised concerns about the management of our aid budget, particularly an over-reliance on 'technical assistance'—which I think members of this House can be assured is code for 'highly paid consultants'. Money spent on consultants is money not spent on programs, money not spent on particular outcomes. Highly paid consultants do not immediately translate into more effective aid delivery, and it was found that Australia's aid program was utilising such consultants at roughly double the OECD average.

In my meetings with heads of state and government representatives from countries receiving Australian aid, this use of highly paid consultants has been one of the more common complaints. Former PNG Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare famously dubbed it 'boomerang aid', to highlight what he saw as aid to PNG that mostly returned to Australia through the high salaries paid to Australian consultants and experts. The National Audit Office report also raised important concerns about AusAID's ability to effectively manage the forecast large increases in the aid budget required to reach the bipartisan commitment of 0.5 per cent of gross national income, on top of the large increases in the years preceding that audit in 2009.

The coalition's concerns about the management of the aid budget were comp­ounded by reports by investigative journalist Steve Lewis, published widely in 2010, about allegations of waste, mismanagement and questionable priorities. He uncovered examples which were given wide media coverage at the time where the foreign aid program was directed to priorities such as $12 million to the Royal Zoological Society of South Australia to research the giant panda in China and over $300,000 to the Australian Football League for promotion in South Africa. The Australian National Univ­ersity's entrepreneurial arm, ANU Enterprise, received $637,557 for a survey of people in the Solomon Islands. The New South Wales Rural Fire Service received $319,000 for a scoping mission in Botswana. The Altern­ative Technology Association was paid $358,923 to conduct solar power training in East Timor. Millions extra was paid to various firms to promote AusAID's global agenda, including $185,866 to sell Austr­alia's aid message in Africa. Some $330,000 was paid for a one-month communications research project and $12.8 million was awarded for the redevelopment of just one school in Nauru. Each one of these initiatives may well have been worth while. Each one of these initiatives may well have been justifiable. But these were the kinds of reports that attracted public attention and public concern, and a vigorous debate in the community ensued.

More troublingly, there have been reports of corruption and fraud within Australia's aid program, with media reports in 2010—and, indeed, another report published in newspapers today—showing that fraud has increased markedly in recent years. Some of this information has come from questions in writing that I have asked in this parliament. These questions have been part of the increased scrutiny under which our aid program finds itself. Scrutiny is vital because of the large sums of taxpayer dollars at stake.

At the heart of this debate are simple questions. Why do we have a foreign aid program? Why are Australian taxpayer dollars spent to help people in developing countries? What is the purpose and worth of our foreign aid program? The simple answer is that we do it because it is a moral obligation of developed countries to assist developing countries. We support them because our funds can reduce infant mortality, reduce maternal mortality, provide clean water, support economic development and foster more stable and prosperous societies. This support is not provided purely because we should assist those worse off than ourselves; it is also firmly in our national interest. Foreign aid should be directed to encouraging self-sufficiency in recipient countries and not welfare depend­ency. It is interesting to look back at recent history of foreign aid programs around the world. Foreign aid grew exponentially in the wake of World War II. Europe and Japan received enormous sums of money from the United States in particular, as war-torn nations had to rebuild their countries, their national economies and their national infrastructure. The support was designed to prevent a recurrence of the cycle that led the world from World War I to World War II. It was seen as an investment in stability so that millions of lives would not be lost on the battlefields of Europe again. No-one would question the wisdom of that approach.

Australia fortunately does not face that scenario in its sphere of influence in this region. However, we do have many countries where poverty is rampant and health and development lag most of the world. Many of the nations in the lowest range of the United Nations human development index are in our region. A significant percentage of the world's poor live in our region in Oceania, South Asia and West Asia. It is important that we support the development of these countries in terms of compassion and human development but also to try and prevent the collapse of governments and societies. Failed nations are far more costly to stabilise and rebuild than investment through foreign aid which can provide stability.

Foreign aid should be used to promote standards of living and human welfare and economic development. However, the qual­ity of a recipient nation's government and the social and economic policies of that government are the most important aspects in building prosperity and promoting and sustaining economic growth in developing countries.

The independent panel of Margaret Reid, Sandy Hollway, John Denton, Stephen Howes and Bill Farmer have produced a quality report. The 39 recommendations are well worth considering in detail. I partic­ularly welcome the recommendations relat­ing to greater levels of accountability and transparency. There has been a culture of nondisclosure around the delivery of Australia's aid program for too long, and it is vital that accountability is at the highest level. Arguably the most important recomm­endation is the final one, recommendation 39, which refers to, in effect, performance benchmarks. The report states:

It is sensible to recognise that the upward trajectory to 0.5 per cent of GNI is steep and challenging. It makes sense that budget appropriations each year be contingent on things going to plan and existing monies being spent effectively.

Third, failure to achieve a hurdle, or to fully achieve it, must have consequences. For example, the government could reduce the rate of increase or withhold all or part of the funding unless and until the hurdle is achieved.

It is therefore critical that the Minister for Foreign Affairs details the nature of the performance benchmarks that AusAID will be required to meet, how those performance benchmarks will be measured and how AusAID will be measured against those benchmarks, and the consequence of failure to meet its performance targets.

Accountability is important to ensure that the public retains confidence in the foreign aid program. Australians are a generous people and give private donations to many worthy causes in developing countries around the world. However, they do want confidence that their private donations and their taxpayer funds provided to the govern­ment for aid are actually being spent to alleviate poverty and to help countries to develop self-sufficiency. The ultimate goal must be to build that self-reliance, of course, and not to entrench reliance or develop a welfare mentality.

I also welcome the recommendation that the major focus of the foreign aid budget remain on areas of Australia's national inter­est primarily in our region, consistent with longstanding coalition policy. The recomm­endation that aid increases be higher to nations with higher standards of governance is also sensible and will help reduce corruption and waste within the program. There must be a zero-tolerance approach not only to fraud and corruption but also to waste and mismanagement in the aid program.

The coalition has been consistent in its view that the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions are the areas where we have the most influence and can do the most good. While there is great need for aid in other parts of the world, Australia's aid budget should be focused on our region, where there are billions of people still living in poverty. The development challenges facing countries in our region were highlighted during a Senate inquiry in 2009 into the economic challenges facing Papua New Guinea and island states of the south-west Pacific. According to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, development indicat­ors in Papua New Guinea went backwards between 2000 and 2005. In 2008 the human development index, which measures life expectancy, literacy, education, standard of living and GDP per capita, ranked the Solomon Islands 125th and Papua New Guinea 137th on a list of 169 countries.

I propose visiting Papua New Guinea this weekend and I intend to discuss ways that we can better work with Papua New Guinea, particularly in areas of a transfer of know-how and expertise in mining and resource sectors, so that PNG can develop its considerable natural assets for the benefit of its people.

In my view, the review is correct to recommend that aid to Pacific Island countries be prioritised over assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean. We should resist the temptation to spread our aid budget too thinly, particularly if it is in the pursuit of political or other goals. I have been critical of the government's use of our aid budget to bolster the government's campaign to win a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council in 2013-14.

One issue that the review did not discuss was another aspect of coalition policy which called for a separate minister for internat­ional development with responsibility for the management of the Australian Agency for International Development and our overseas aid effort. We believe this is an important step in maximising transparency and accountability in Australia's aid delivery and would be a further significant step towards greater efficiency and effectiveness in the foreign aid program.

The push for greater transparency and accountability in our aid program was initiated by the Howard government. In 2006, the Howard government established the Office of Development Effectiveness to monitor and assess the quality and impact of our aid spending. The steering committee set up to oversee the office included represent­atives from the departments of the Prime Minister and cabinet, Treasury and finance. This initiative was flagged by the government in its 2006 white paper on Australia's overseas aid program. The Office of Development Effectiveness was given responsibility for publishing an annual review of development effectiveness, acting as a resource for government agencies involved in Office of Development Effectiveness eligible expenditure, evaluat­ing the implementation of country strategies and policies and publicising the results, undertaking reviews and periodic spot checks, and supporting the application of sound management principles. Other work undertaken by the Office of Development Effectiveness in those early years included country assessments of Indonesia and the Philippines. I note that the report of the independent review of aid effectiveness referred to the Office of Development Effectiveness in these terms:

The creation in 2006 of the Office of Development Effectiveness and its Annual Review of Development Effectiveness (ARDE) were no doubt important initiatives that have helped prioritise aid effectiveness. No other bilateral donor has an equivalent to the ARDE. Overall, however, the ARDE has been a limited success, being released with increasing delay.

The Review Panel proposes that the Office of Development Effectiveness remain within AusAID, but change its name to the Office of Aid Effectiveness and focus more on evaluation. It would be responsible for undertaking and publishing each year a manageable number (say, 10–20) of high quality evaluations. The Office would also publish an annual synthesis of evaluations and a quality assurance assessment of the aid program’s performance management system.

The review also went on to suggest:

A small Independent Evaluation Committee should be appointed (with both AusAID staff and several external members, including the Chair). All draft independent evaluations and the new annual synthesis report would be discussed and then cleared by the Independent Evaluation Committee (not AusAID) and then published.

I think that these recommendations are cert­ainly worth deep consideration. The coalition firmly believes in an evidence based approach to the aid program.

Foreign aid and overseas development assistance will continue to be the subject of vigorous debate within our community and within this parliament. The coalition will continue to scrutinise the aid budget. We will consider this report in detail and we will closely monitor the government's response. In particular we will hold the government to account over its implementation of the recommendations and the development of performance benchmarks. The coalition will continue to develop our priorities for the foreign aid budget. We will no doubt use the recommendations contained in this report released today to influence and inform our deliberations.

In closing, may I acknowledge the efforts of my shadow parliamentary secretary for overseas development assistance, the mem­ber for Brisbane, for the work and effort that she has put into developing coalition policy and raising coalition concerns over the delivery of aid. The size of our aid budget and the forecast increases mean that we must use all tools at our disposal to ensure accountability and transparency. The Aust­ralian public deserve and demand no less.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2011 contains a number of amendments to protect the integrity of Australia's social security system.

Australia is a society that looks to provide a safety net for those that are most in need. Social security payments provide that safety net to many thousands of Australians.

While the great majority of social security recipients claim payments to which they are rightfully entitled, successive Australian governments have recognised that some people will attempt to receive payments to which they are not entitled. It is necessary, therefore, that there are robust measures in place to ensure the integrity of the social security system.

The bill amends the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, the administ­ration act, to address issues that have been identified, dating back to the commencement of the administration act in 2000, as a result of the recent case of Poniatowska versus the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

For many years the CDPP has prosecuted cases involving social security fraud under various sections of the Criminal Code, particularly section 135.2, 'Obtaining a finan­cial advantage'. These offence provisions involve, for the physical element of the offence, proving that the defendant engaged in conduct, where the relevant conduct is an omission—namely, failing to inform the department of an event or change of circumstances that might affect the person's social security payment or qualification for a concession card.

Section 4.1 of the Criminal Code provides that engaging in conduct includes an omission to perform an act. Section 4.3 provides that an omission to perform an act can only be a physical element of an offence if (a) the law creating the offence makes it so; or (b) the law creating the offence impliedly provides that the offence is committed by an omission to perform an act that by law there is a duty to perform.

In the recent case of Poniatowska, a majority of the full court of the Supreme Court of South Australia held that 'section 135.2 does not define any duty or obligation relevant to an offence committed by way of omission'. It further noted that the CDPP had not relied on any notice issued to the defendant to establish a duty to inform the department of an event or change of circumstances, and that the administration act did 'not create a separate "stand alone" obligation'. On this basis, the court set aside the convictions which had been recorded against the defendant.

The Commonwealth has appealed the Poniatowska decision to the High Court, which has reserved its decision. The current position is that a large number of past convictions are at risk of being overturned on appeal on the basis of the decision in Poniatowska.

Since the decision, the CDPP has adjourned or discontinued a large number of matters of this kind before the courts. The CDPP is also not commencing new procee­dings of this kind, pending the determination of the appeal before the High Court.

Since the 2000-01 financial year, the CDPP has prosecuted approximately 36,500 defendants for social security fraud. Without a detailed analysis of each case, it is not possible to state definitively how many matters of social security fraud have been committed via omission since the introduc­tion of the Criminal Code. However, the government's best estimate is that as many as 40 per cent of this number, or around 15,000 convictions, may now be open to question as a consequence of the decision in Poniat­owska. To ensure the past convictions cannot be called into question, this bill amends the administration act to insert a stand-alone obligation for a person to inform the department of events or changes of circum­stances that might affect the payment of a social security payment to the person or the person's qualification for a concession card.

This provision will operate both prospec­tively and retrospectively to 20 March 2000, the date that the administration act comm­enced.

Successive Australian governments have not lightly pursued retrospective legislation. However, in this case there are exceptional circumstances justifying retrospectivity, namely that it would not be appropriate for a significant number of prosecutions condu­cted from 2000 for social security fraud to be overturned on the basis of previously unidentified legal technicalities.

One of the criticisms that can be directed at retrospective legislation in relation to criminal offences is that people will be unaware that their conduct is an offence. In this case, however, the convicted persons would all have been aware that they should have informed the department of the specified events and changes of circumst­ances listed in the notices given to them by Centrelink in relation to their social security payment or concession card. The effect of the retrospective application of this provision is to confirm convictions already made.

As members would be aware, Centrelink has more than seven million customers. Its operations depend on the use of computer programs to generate decisions based on the requirements of the social security legis­lation.

Considerations in light of the Poniatowska decision have also raised some doubt that there is sufficient evidence to prove that, with respect to the period from 12 June 2001 to the present, decisions made by Centrelink under the social security law by the operation of computer programs have satisfied all legislative requirements.

To ensure that these decisions are not open to question, the bill provides that the requirements of subsection 6A(1) of the administration act are taken to have been complied with in relation to decisions made under the social security law by the operation of a computer program for the period 12 June 2001 to the date of royal assent.

Finally, the bill makes technical amend­ments to the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other Measures) Act 2011 and to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Rebate) Act 2011 to correct drafting oversights.

I conclude by noting that the bill has been designed such that there will be no practical impact on the ordinary course of Centrelink's business, or on a person's obligations to rep­ort changes in their circumstances to Centrelink.

Every person who receives a social security payment or a concession card is currently sent notices by Centrelink. These notices require that the person inform the department of events or changes of circum­stances which might affect the person's social security payment or qualification for a concession card. This will not change as a result of this bill.

The bill is necessary to protect the integrity of the social security system. It has been brought forward by the government, based on advice from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Solicitor-General, to address technical issues that have been brought to light by recent litigation. It does so without disturbing the existing protections that the law guarantees for Centrelink clients.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.

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

Australia has a generous social welfare system. When people find themselves in necessitous circumstances whether by way of unemployment or disability, or some other affliction in their lives, then the commitment of the Australian people shared across the aisle of politics is that we provide them with welfare. That has been done for many decades in Australia and, by any internat­ional standards, the provision of that welfare in this country is most generous.

That welfare, of course, does not come out of nowhere. It comes from the taxes which are contributed by other Australians to ensuring the common good of all people in this country. I say that because there is a concomitant responsibility or duty on the part of people who are in receipt of welfare, and part of that duty is to be truthful and frank about their financial circumstances. If, for example, a person's financial circum­stances change and they are in receipt of more income than they were at the time that they received their welfare or they become the owner of some asset, they have the responsibility to inform the social security authorities through Centrelink of those changed circumstances so that a reassess­ment of their situation can be made consistent with providing welfare to them and consistent with the broader objective of meeting the common good of all Australians.

That is why the social security legislation contains provisions that require a person whose circumstances have changed finan­cially to notify the department or notify Centrelink about those changes. This is something which is commonly understood and known throughout the Australian population. Indeed, if a person was unaware of that and they are in receipt of welfare, they are regularly reminded of that comm­itment, that obligation, in letters that they receive in regard to their particular payment from the government.

This bill arises because of a difficulty, which has come to light, in relation to people who have defrauded the Commonwealth. Defrauding the Commonwealth might sound like the defrauding of some remote institution, but the reality is that defrauding the Commonwealth is defrauding all Austra­lians, because all Australians who are taxpayers make contributions to the funds which enable these payments of welfare to be made.

It was assumed, as the minister has pointed out, for quite a number of years after the implementation of the Criminal Code in this area that a prosecution brought pursuant to the Criminal Code met all the legal requirements. However, in a case in the South Australian jurisdiction that ultimately ended up in the full court of the Supreme Court of South Australia—the case of Poniatowska—it was decided in a majority decision that one of the elements was missing, namely, that the legislation did not define a duty by way of an omission, and therefore, on technical grounds, what were thought to be proper and appropriate and lawful prosecutions that had been brought over a number of years are in danger of being overturned. Indeed, if that was the last say on that case in those particular circumstances, the prosecution would have been overturned. The minister said that this is a matter currently before the High Court and we are waiting for the High Court to pass judgment.

It could be argued that the parliament should wait for the High Court to hand down its judgment. That is a principle which I think in most cases we would subscribe to, because until the High Court does hand down that judgment there is still some uncertainty or some final determination to be made by the judicial officers of this land. However, the danger in this case is that, if we do wait, there are potentially thousands of cases that could be overturned, and not only overturned by people seeking to quash those convictions but potentially compen­sation claims made against the Common­wealth.

The principle of retrospectivity, which has been mentioned in this debate, is an important one. Nobody in a legislative mode approaches retrospectivity lightly. As a general proposition, we do not wish to say that something which was regarded as lawful in the past is now unlawful and to go back to those past events. It is one thing to do it prospectively but it is another thing entirely to do it retrospectively. So it is appropriate that concerns about retrospectivity be raised in relation to this case. However, there is a difference here. We are not creating an offence anew. People have been charged with offences and they have been convicted of welfare fraud. Nobody will be affected or captured by this legislation who had not already been caught and penalised before. In fact, if the legislation does not pass and the High Court upholds the majority finding in the South Australian Supreme Court, the prospect is that many people who had been convicted of offences before may be able to seek to have those convictions quashed and be paid compensation.

I say this is different because it is quite clear on the face of the social security legislation that there is that obligation to inform Centrelink, the social security authorities, of a change of circumstances. Whilst one may argue about the technic­alities of the law, this is a case where we ought to go back to what the law is based on. The law is based on a moral or ethical principle which I was seeking to describe at the outset. Yes, we are generous in terms of welfare, but a person in receipt of welfare has to be honest and frank about their particular financial circumstances.

It would not be justice for society generally and the community, and it certainly would not be justice for the taxpayers whose taxes contribute to welfare payments, if a situation were to arise where, because of the technical interaction between the Criminal Code and the social security legislation, for what had been regarded properly as welfare fraud offences were overturned. Whatever one argues about the legal technicalities of this case—being a lawyer myself, one can always find a legal argument to advance, and I am not convinced that this is retrospectivity as we normally understand it—even if one does not agree with me, I think there is in this case a broader moral or ethical principle that this parliament should seek to uphold. It is for that reason we on this side of the chamber will not be opposing this legislation that the government has brought forward.

I will refer to some cases, because we are talking in many instances not about some mere trifle where somebody had overlooked the fact that they had mown the lawns a couple of times for neighbours and been paid $20, $30 or $50 for that but about very substantial fraud against the taxpayer, against the Commonwealth, in many cases. Let me just give the chamber some examples. These are drawn from the annual reports of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. One is that over a period of more than 10 years a person failed to notify Centrelink that they had worked and earned income while in receipt of Centrelink benefits. As a result, the person obtained social security payments to which they were not entitled of over $100,000. The person was charged pursuant to the Criminal Code, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

Another case was that of a person with power of attorney over a parent's financial affairs who failed to inform Centrelink of the parent's death and continued to receive the parent's fortnightly payments for around 10 years. The person defrauded the Common­wealth of over $80,000. Again, there was a prosecution, a conviction and a sentence of imprisonment.

The third case is one where, over two separate periods totalling eight years, a person claimed parenting payment (single) while living with a partner. The person neglected to inform Centrelink when the couple had reconciled and, in relation to a separate period, falsely claimed that the couple had separated. The person received over $80,000 in social security payments to which they were not entitled. In this case they were charged under the Criminal Code, convicted and released on condition that they be of good behaviour for a specified period.

I will give the House one more example. Over almost seven years, a person received over $70,000 in social security payments to which they were not entitled through failing to inform Centrelink of their earnings from full-time employment. The fraud was discovered as a result of a data-matching exercise between Centrelink and the Aust­ralian Taxation Office. Again, this person was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment. I do not believe that any reasonable Australian would regard a circumstance where, because of what is largely a legal technicality, people who had been convicted in those circumstances would have the possibility opened up to them to quash those convictions and, more than that, possibly even claim compensation from the Commonwealth. To use a colloquial expres­sion, it fails the front pub test. It fails the common-sense test of ordinary Australians. That common-sense test is based on this notion that, yes, we are generous, but there is a concomitant duty or responsibility to those who are generous in relation to these payments. It is on the basis of that principle that we will not be opposing this legislation.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak very briefly on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2011. I do think this is a very important bill that should be passed by the House and I am pleased that there is support on both sides of the chamber. I am very proud to be an Australian because in Australia we do provide a safety net for those in need. This is something that is ingrained in our psyche as Australians. When people are doing it tough, they do get assistance. I think there is broad support in our community for those who need help to actually get that help. So I am proud that we have a safety net and a social security system in this country.

This bill reinforces that the social security system has integrity. The vast majority of Australians that go into their local Centrelink in times of trouble and times of need are very upfront and honest and deserve the support that they get, but there are instances, as the previous speaker pointed out, where this is not abided by. A very small minority go in and are not upfront and honest, despite knowing that they should be. This does unfortunately call into question the integrity of all those people receiving these social security payments. It is unfair that the actions of the few cast aspersions on the many who do that right thing. I believe these amendments are very important for the integrity of this system.

As the previous speakers have outlined, this bill arose as a result of a court case in South Australia. I believe the intentions of the Commonwealth and the requirements placed on social security recipients have been clear, but based on this technicality that clarity is being called into question. As a result, in many instances where fraud has been proven in a court of law people may get off those charges. That is a concern. It is also a concern that new charges of defrauding the Commonwealth are not necessarily proceed­ing as quickly as they could have because of the lack of clarity at the moment. It is important that we bring forward and pass this legislation, despite the fact that this matter is still going through the High Court. It is the duty of the parliament and the Common­wealth, being responsible for the social security system, to bring this legislation forward. So I am pleased that it has the support of the House.

I want to use this opportunity to talk about the hardworking people at Centrelink. The many people around the country administ­ering our social security system do a great job on the front line. In my electorate there is a great amount of work being done at the Noarlunga Centrelink office. It is sometimes a tough job. At times there are distressed people, upset people and people in real difficulty, but I believe that Centrelink staff right around this country do a great job. I would like to talk about Noarlunga in particular because I know the staff there do not just sit back and wait for people to come to them; they play a real outreach role in the community. In fact, I attended a special fair day for those suffering from mental illness where all the services got together to talk to the local community. Centrelink was there with the staff and the manager. The manager of a large Centrelink office was there on the front line talking to people, letting them know what they can access and what is available. We know that those who are most vulnerable often do not know what they can access. They can access different payments and services, and sometimes they do not know. Our Centrelink staff have been out there doing that.

There have been many other opportunities where Centrelink staff from Noarlunga have done outreach work. Whether it be youth or Indigenous people, they go into those comm­unities to talk to those people in need who may benefit from a number of services and payments. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Centrelink staff, specifically at Noarlunga but also right around the country, who work in this area. They also need to have confidence that, when they assess someone and they are getting information, they can be confident to act on that information. This legislation ensures that there is that mutual responsib­ility for people to acknowledge when their income changes—and as the previous speaker said, it can be by quite a lot. People know that their income changes. While it might be only a few people, it is important that this legislation is supported. We have an obligation to support it and pass it through the House now because the Australian people, while very generous in their nature and willing to help people in need, do not want to be defrauded. This legislation is really important to ensure that we can have confidence in the integrity of our social security system, that we continue to support those people in need and that those people who defraud the Commonwealth face the consequences of doing so. I commend the bill to the House.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition support the government on this occasion, even though we appreciate that there is a significant element of retrospec­tivity in what is being introduced. We feel that it does not contravene any fundamental principles of fairness to do so and, on those grounds, we do support the bill. We also want to note that Australia has a long tradition, as previous speakers have noted, of a strong welfare safety net—but also a community expectation that the money has to come from somewhere. Therefore, we are one of the few countries that so effectively, and in such a targeted way, means-test our welfare payments.

Many people do not realise that many of the social welfare economies of the rest of the OECD do not means-test in the way we do. In fact, they are far less progressive in that way. They allow people to take an age welfare payment commensurate with their earnings through their career, something that does not happen in Australia. We never want to forget that many hard-working Australians end up being means-tested out of further state support. Regardless of your view about that, we need to remember there is a significant working middle class that do not get the aged-care support that in identical circumstances in other countries they might well have.

Over the last two decades, we have seen a shift in thinking from the belief that welfare is a fundamental right to the belief that it is, after all, a privilege—that it is first of all collected from other Australians and then paid as part of the privilege of being an Australian. We therefore have laws and expect everyone, from east coast to west coast and whatever their background, to adhere to those. You have to play by the rules. I think the Australian sense of fairness comes out no more strongly than in the idea that one should never abuse payments that one receives through our welfare system.

There are many dimensions to combating welfare fraud and I think every state wants to strike a balance between having strict eligibility tests that are easy enough to understand and that everyone can appreciate and feel are fair and having a robust prosecution policy for those who willingly and knowingly contravene the rules. The fact that there have been over 30,000 prosec­utions is, I think, a fair indication of the latter. Ordinary Australians out there would understand that being a dole cheat or a welfare cheat is not something that is acceptable any more, not something that you can laugh about or pat your mate on the back about. That change has come about, quite significantly, over the last two decades through the policies of successive adminis­trations.

One does not want to have such an invasive and aggressive policy that it deters people from applying for Centrelink support or an approach that it is overly intrusive or punitive. There still needs to be an element of self-reporting and that needs to be encouraged, not dissuaded. What is very important about this amendment is, as the shadow minister has suggested, that there will be no new prosecutions as a result of this change. It just ensures that none of the old prosecutions are brought back for review through, potentially, the new light of a High Court decision.

In all of this, you are constantly weighing up the prima facie case of whether there is a need to overturn versus the public interest. I think most people here, together with most Australians, would admit that it is in the public interest to support the prosecutions which have occurred over the last two decades. The great risk of not standing up to it is that fraud then becomes more prevalent and Australians around the country lose their confidence that this is a welfare system that properly targets those who need it most.

Social security recipients, certainly those in my electorate, understand the rules and will stand by them. But we feel that, if this legislation is not supported, a whole lot of new cases could potentially be opened. The last thing we want is those prosecutions being called into question. While there is not really any understanding of how many of those are potentially coming before the courts, it may only be a matter of days or weeks before that does occur. Were this bill not passed promptly and expeditiously, we could potentially be exposing Centrelink and the Commonwealth to an enormous burden in having to defend cases which, given how much time has passed and the level of detail in the records we hold, would be very difficult cases to defend.

These sorts of changes are, I think, completely in line with what the average person would have thought were held in the first place. Although it now looks like you can basically drive a bus through a loophole, at the time it was extremely difficult for those Centrelink drafters of Commonwealth law to understand that what they were drafting could run contrary to an element of the Criminal Code. That is a very important reason for the changes. We also note that the Commonwealth has ceased prosecuting a whole range of cases that, most of us would argue, should be prosecuted and not delayed. That is another very good reason to continue the great work that Australia has done in avoiding Centrelink fraud—to ensure that that is not derailed.

Finally, there are some changes which make it very clear that people currently making a claim for social security or access to a concession card, people currently receiving social security or who hold those concession privileges and people not currently receiving social security payments or holding a concession card but who have at one time been paid social security or received such concessions will also be subject to these new rules. I think it is completely reasonable that we should support these changes and I think it is very important that Centrelink fraud is never considered a legitimate activity in this country. That is the important reason both sides should be supporting these changes.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up, I thank the shadow minister for his contribution and for his support for this legislation. I also thank the member for Kingston and the member for Bowman for their contributions. It is a good thing that we have had the government, the opposition, the Independ­ents and the minor parties all agreeing it is very important to uphold the principle that, if someone has knowingly done the wrong thing and been pinged for it, they are not let off down the track on a legal technicality. I thank the House for its cooperation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

by leave—I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave, I move:

That the Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That business intervening before order of the day No. 10, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading, and:

(1) condemns the Government for its belated action to address the anti-competitive price signalling 'gap' in Australia's competition law;

(2) notes that the bill only arose following Coalition leadership to introduce the Competition and Consumer (Price Signalling) Amendment Bill 2010 as a private member's bill into this House;

(3) recognises the assessment by academics and leading competition law practitioners that the Coalition's bill is superior to the Government's bill and should be brought on for debate in the House;

(4) records its concern about the Government's failure to undertake proper and meaningful consultation on the preparation of its bill, or to allow the House Economics Committee to carry out its work to examine the bill and consider public submissions;

(5) notes the particular flaws in the Government's bill in that it:

(a) recklessly creates a per se liability for private communications without adequately justifying this approach in terms of economic policy or competition law principles;

(b) ignores that sound competition law should wherever possible have an economy wide application unless clear justification is provided to deviate from this settled approach;

(c) includes sector-specific application and per se prohibitions that give rise to a complex task of identifying all conceivable business transactions and conduct that have a legitimate business justification, as an exhaustive list of exemptions is manifestly incomplete;

(d) risks consumer and economic detriment by failing to adequately differentiate between information sharing that may be pro-consumer and pro-competitive from conduct that is clearly not; and

(e) creates uncertainty about which sectors and/or markets will be subject to the bill into the future, with the basis on which the application of the provisions will be extended remaining a substantial economic concern; and

(6) notes that these substantial deficiencies in the bill and their likely detriment to the Australian economy and the well-being of the Australian people means that this bill should not be passed in this form."

Close examination of the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011 is essential and incredibly important. The government's own explanatory memorandum concedes that the bill contains new concepts and key features that have no equivalent in the current law. By Labor's tactical man­oeuvrings, the government's bill has been spared the kind of close assessment and analytical rigour a change of economic regulation of this kind warrants. The government has truncated the work of the appointed Standing Committee on Econ­omics, disrespecting those who made considered submissions and dishonouring this parliament.

Despite being denied any opportunity to properly consider the government's bill or submissions on it, government members recommended that the bill pass unaltered. This was either a sense of a parliamentary committee made of up of clairvoyants able to foresee what they might have thought had they bothered to examine the evidence or a compliant committee where government members simply do what their government masters direct them to do. Thankfully, though, good sense has prevailed. Just as the Treasurer left his Labor colleagues on Standing Committee on Economics hanging with his own amendment to the bill, we had some constructive discussions regarding the consideration in detail amendments to the bill that have been circulated in my name.

The amendments that the coalition brought forward showed an interest in and a responsiveness to the serious concerns raised by stakeholders, expert competition lawyers, leading academics and practitioners. I am pleased to say that I think we found a meeting of minds with the government on a number of those amendments. I understand the government will be bringing forward its own version of those amendments, which will address a number of the concerns that we have raised. Those concerns include the need for an ordinary course of business exception for conduct that may be captured by the per se prohibition, a number of specific provisions relating to nominating the process where other markets may be captured by this law and also some specific amendments relating to the financial services sector. I am optimistic that we can find common ground in that area and move forward collaboratively on this bill. (Time expired)

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

Is the amendment seconded?

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

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

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dunkley has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with the view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

I rise to speak in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011. This is one of a number of bills that have come before the House recently to moderate the behaviour of Australia's banks—fine institutions that they are. However, one of the roles of government is to regulate and moderate our banks. This legislation says something about the Gillard government's commitment to ensure a better deal for Australian consumers and small businesses. Unfortunately, it might also reflect a general reluctance on the part of banks to always act in a competitive, consumer-friendly manner, without the gentle, moderating, guiding hand of the Gillard Labor government.

Where the market fails, responsible government must apply the law to ensure strength in our banking sector and a fair go for all Australian consumers. The banks have done very well for themselves from Australian consumers and businesses. There is no doubt about that. Consequently, they have a responsibility to act in the interests of their customers. This is their social licence. Our big four have reported first half-yearly profits of $11.9 billion. The Commonwealth Bank posted a profit of $3.3 billion to December 2010; NAB, $2.67 billion; Westpac, a cool $3.16 billion; and ANZ's six-month profit was up a massive 38 per cent to $2.66 billion. Nice work if you can get it.

I will describe the landscape in which these profits were delivered. This inform­ation is from the statistics and mapping section of the Parliamentary Library. I caution those opposite that I cannot guarantee that some of this information was not prepared by economists. I am pretty sure some of it would have been prepared by economists but I do not have their names to name them. Here are some of the key points. Looking at interest rates, we see the average home loan standard variable interest rate has remained steady for the past seven months at 7.8 per cent. Bankruptcies and business investments are always a good guide to what is actually going on in the money-making section of the community. In the March quarter 2011, total bankruptcies decreased by 17.4 per cent when compared to the same period last year. It is a bit constrained, a bit tight out there, but some of these key indicators suggest that the economy is holding firm. However, we obviously we need to do as much as we can to support it. This bill before the House will drive greater competition in the banking sector by empowering the ACCC to act against banks who signal their prices to competitors to undermine competition. I also note that the ANZ job ads were up and that unemployment was steady at 4.9 per cent.

The ACCC has reported evidence of anti-competitive price signalling by the banks. We are not talking about collusion but behaviour where the banks communicate their pricing intentions to competitors. We have seen the announcements on the TV quite regularly. This is usually done via press release and media rounds. We are not talking about backroom boys type of behaviour, but nevertheless it has aspects of collusion because the banks indicate their pricing intentions to their competitors. For example, they may signal in advance what their response will be to a change in interest rates by the Reserve Bank. That is followed by what is almost a nod and a wink, with the understanding 'if you raise your mortgage rates we'll raise ours too'. Our banks, reliable as they are, have been able to get away with this behaviour because it is done with no formal price agreement and, like a three card trick, it is always done right before our eyes—as I said, through the media. Unfortunately, the losers from this behaviour are Australian consumers, who because of reduced competition face higher interest rates.

Under current laws there is nothing to stop banks behaving in this way—and I stress again that it is not illegal or unlawful; it is just the resulting squeeze on consumers that is wrong—and that is why the Gillard Labor government has acted. The bill before the House amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to prohibit, firstly, the private disclosure of pricing information between competitors outright, which is called the per se prohibition, and, secondly, the disclosure of pricing or other information if made for the purpose of substantially lessening competition. Initially this will apply only to the banking sector, but it could be extended to other areas of the economy after further review.

The per se prohibition bans private communications between banks about their prices. This amendment targets disclosures that are clearly anticompetitive and damag­ing to consumers. For example, if one bank gets on the phone to another bank to tell them privately about a planned mortgage interest rate rise, the ACCC can take action. As I said, this bill also empowers the ACCC to prosecute a bank for communicating its pricing intentions to substantially lessen competition. This means a bank cannot inform its competitors that it will follow them if they raise mortgage rates.

These tough new laws are accompanied by strong civil penalties of up to $10 million, 10 per cent of a business's annual turnover or three times the benefit of the conduct—whichever is the higher. These are very, very strong civil penalties, but we are talking about banks; we are not talking about the local bowls club. These are significant institutions with significant resources. The prohibitions are, however, subject to specific exclusions to ensure pro-competitive behav­iour is not restricted. These exemptions allow banks to comply fully with their disclosure and legal obligations.

There will also be occasions when banks need legitimately to discuss pricing with their competitors. This bill ensures that these business activities can continue through the joint venture exception, which captures act­ual and proposed joint ventures. Banks will also be able to obtain immunity from the prohibition from the ACCC.

It is important that we close this loophole in competition law. It brings Australian law into line with those of the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union. These laws strike the right balance by enabling banks to get on with their legitimate business while providing the necessary protections for consumers by eliminating anticompetitive price signalling. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I am pleased to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011. On this side of the House we believe that this is a deeply flawed bill. We do not disagree that there is an issue which needs to be add­ressed, which is why the coalition brought forward our own bill, the Competition and Consumer (Price Signalling) Amendment Bill 2010. But we believe that the approach taken in the bill that the government has put before the House raises some very serious issues.

The stated purpose of the bill is to give powers to the ACCC to deal with the issue of price signalling, and it does this in both a public and a private context. In the private context it creates a so-called per se prohib­ition on the private disclosure of pricing information to competitors. 'Per se' means that the disclosure does not need to be for the purpose of substantially lessening compet­ition, nor does it need to have that effect. In both the private and the public contexts, the bill contains a general disclosure prohibition of the disclosure of pricing information. That is also, we will argue, a prohibition that raises significant policy issues.

The stated approach in this bill is to strike a balance. The explanatory note from Treasury states:

… it is recognised that any proposal to address anti-competitive price signalling and other information disclosures will need to carefully balance the potential anti-competitive impacts of particular information disclosures, with the benign and pro-competitive effects of other information disclosures.

On this side of the House we argue that this bill does not strike the right balance, and that argument is supported in the arguments made by many parties that made submissions in relation to this bill, including the Business Council of Australia and the Law Council of Australia. Unfortunately, the question of whether the balance has been properly struck is not the one which appears to be principally motivating the government in its approach to this piece of legislation. This legislation ultimately is being driven by political considerations and the desire of the Treasu­rer to be seen to be doing something. The result, unfortunately, is a piecemeal measure with, in its current form, many unintended consequences.

It is true, as has been noted, that some amendments are proposed, and to some extent that advances the position. But there remain many fundamentally troubling aspec­ts of this piece of legislation, and the basis upon which the legislation has been developed is also extremely troubling. The consultation process that was employed in arriving at the introduction of this bill was seriously flawed. A draft exposure bill, for example, was provided for comment on 12 December last year, with comments due by 14 January. It really is very far from good practice in consultation with industry to require very detailed consideration of wide-ranging reforms to be provided in the middle of the Christmas holiday period.

Let me make a number of specific points in the brief time available to me. The first point is that one of the central provisions of this bill, the so-called per se prohibition, is bad policy. I secondly want to argue that a measure which is specific to one sector—in this case, the banking sector—is also bad policy. I thirdly want to argue that to give the Treasurer the capacity to extend, by regulation, the measures contained in this bill to other sectors without needing to come back to the parliament is also bad policy. I fourthly want to highlight the poor policy consequences of the inconsistency between the regime set out in this bill and the well-established continuous disclosure rules which apply to listed companies, including of course the major banks which are listed.

Let me turn firstly, therefore, to the question of the per se prohibition to remind the House what this means. It means that if the specified conduct is found to have occurred then it becomes irrelevant as to whether there was any anticompetitive purpose in carrying out that conduct. Indeed it is also irrelevant whether there was any anticompetitive effect. In other words, if the conduct occurs then it matters not whether there was any intention, any purpose, to lessen competition. Nor does it matter whether there was actually the effect of lessening competition. There is simply a blanket prohibition on private disclosure of the relevant pricing information.

The arguments that can be made that circumstances in which one bank or executives of one bank meet privately with another to discuss pricing information and the arguments that can be made about the anticompetitive consequences of that are clearly forceful. But if you say, 'We do not really care whether the conduct actually has an anticompetitive effect. We do not really care whether there was an intention, a purpose, of reducing competition in meeting to have these private discussions,' then you are missing the whole point of what policy ought to do in the case of seeking to maintain and strengthen competition. Policy ought to focus on conduct which has an effect of reducing competition; policy also ought to focus on conduct which is intended to reduce competition—that is to say, which has the purpose of reducing competition—even if, for reasons that are beyond the capacity of those who have joined together to have the conversation, it does not result ultimately in the anticompetitive effect. But there is another even more fundamental point, which is this: there are often circumstances in which private disclosures can be procom­petitive, and there are certainly an extensive range of situations in which private disclosures can be necessary and desirable in the carrying on of business and are not harmful to competition. When you look at the provisions in the bill before the House, you will see that the scope of what is caught by this provision is very wide. It includes historic, aggregated and non-confidential data.

The submission from the Australian Bankers Association lists a range of situa­tions in which the bill will create great difficulties. They cite syndicated lending, which of necessity involves more than one bank. Typically in a syndicate there are many banks. They talk about loan switching, where a customer switches a loan from one bank to another, or a situation where two or more lenders are dealing with a financially distressed business—perhaps a business which has received loans from a syndicate and some time later it transpires that the business is in financial distress and the banks need to engage in consultations to work out how they are to deal with this business. The approach which the government has taken to this problem is to set out a specific range of exemptions in which the per se prohibition will not apply. But that is poor policy. It would be much more sensible not to start with a per se prohibition in the first place. It would be much more likely to produce a rational policy outcome.

Let me turn to the next point I want to make, which is that policy which is specific to one sector is bad policy. It is a very curious approach indeed to competition policy to say that certain conduct, if carried out by bankers, is anticompetitive; but, if carried out by airline executives or pharmac­eutical industry executives or telecomm­unications sector executives or agricultural industry executives, is not anticompetitive. Under the provisions contained in this bill conduct in one industry will attract potentially criminal penalties, whereas cond­uct of exactly the same kind carried out by executives in different industries, carried out by companies in different industries, will not attract a penalty. It is impossible to see the policy rationale for such inconsistent treat­ment. The Swanson, Hilmer and Dawson reviews all found that competition law prohibitions as a general principal ought to apply across the board.

Let me quote from the submission by the Law Council:

Any prohibition on price signalling should apply universally and not just to selected business sectors. Selective application of the proposed prohibitions and undermines the general application of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 across all industries on an equal basis.

It is interesting that the Australian Compet­ition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, also noted its scepticism of the approach of industry-specific competition prohibitions. The ACCC had the following to say:

… we would hope signalling laws would be of a general application rather than focusing on a particular sector, because we do not see that there is a reason for signalling out one sector as opposed to another.

Even Choice, the consumer advocacy group—they do very important work but are not known to be a friend of the big end of town—had this to say:

It is Choice's submission that legislation should be, to the extent possible, uniform in its approach to all industries across Australia.

So from first principles and in the submiss­ion of a wide range of parties the approach in this bill of establishing specific restrictions on price-signalling behaviour which apply only to the banking sector is extremely poor policy.

While it is poor policy to restrict this approach to one sector, another aspect of the bill which raises equally serious concerns is the fact that as a legal matter the bill emp­owers the Treasurer to extend this regulation to other sectors. This grants excessive disc­retion to the executive government. The perception, based upon what has been stated publicly by this government in seeking to justify the measures in this bill, is that this is a bill directed towards the banking sector. It is true that in its initial application it will apply only to the banking sector, but it also provides for other sectors to be specified by regulation and so the prohibitions in the bill will apply to them.

It is very hard to understand the policy rationale here. The preferred approach, as I have indicated, would be to have a legal regime in this area which applied uniformly. But if you are going to, as this government appears to be doing, introduce measures directed to one sector, it is then very hard to understand why you retain the flexibility, why you retain the discretion, to extend this to other sectors without coming back to the parliament. The imposition of the prohib­itions contained in this bill is a substantial policy matter and it is one which ought to be considered by the parliament rather than imposed by regulation.

The fourth point I wish to make in the brief time available to me is that there is a tension between the provisions contained in this bill and the obligations imposed upon the major banks which are listed to meet their continuous disclosure obligations under the ASX listing rules. It is one of the many aspects of this bill which does not appear to have been very well thought through, no doubt because the bill has been rushed through largely to achieve a set of political objectives.

This is a poor piece of legislation which is based upon bad policy, selective policy, and driven largely by political motives. We on this side of the House certainly think that very substantial amendment is needed before it can be supported.

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

I rise to speak in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1). This bill once again demonstrates the government's commitment to competition and consumer law reform and to ensuring that ordinary Australians experience the benefits of a strong economy. Those opposite attempt to decry the word 'competition' as a Labor word. I assert that in a genuinely competitive economy consumers benefit because of lower prices and the economy benefits as a whole because of the need for business to be more efficient. A truly competitive economy is a Labor ideal that benefits working families. It benefits working families bec­ause a competitive economy can provide goods and services that are of a lower cost and better quality. Whilst those opposite may argue that they are the party of small business and competition, it is the Labor Party and Labor governments that have successively and truly achieved central reform in this area.

The main issue addressed in this bill is the competition between banks and other financial institutions in home loan interest rates. The ideal of competition is that it lowers the ability of a business in a market where competition is ideal to increase or control prices. We have, sadly, been confronted with the issue that when the Reserve Bank increases its cash rate target the banks and other financial institutions increase their home loan interest rates beyond the Reserve Bank increase. This has occurred because banks are able to signal, before a potential increase in the cash rate targets, an intention to increase the home loan rate to a level beyond the cash rate. This lowers the fears of competitors that they might lose customers if they act in the same manner. The result of this signalling is a breakdown in the competitive forces in the provision of home loans and it negatively affects hardworking families for whom loan repayments can make up a really significant part of the family budget.

This bill will help address these issues by prohibiting banks from privately disclosing information on pricing policies to a competitor. Such disclosures are unfair and uncompetitive and result in home loan interest rates which are not reflective of the competitive ideal. This bill will prohibit outright a bank from disclosing privately to a competitor information regarding the market to which the price information relates. Additionally, this bill gives the ACCC vital powers to prosecute banks who communicate price intentions and other strategic informa­tion to a competitor for the purpose of substantially lessening competition.

I understand that regulation of the financial industry needs to be appropriate and cannot stifle the role of financial institutions in what is a healthy free market economy, but the regulations proposed in the bill are appropriate and needed because the banks need to be responsible when they are making their pricing decisions. The Aust­ralian banking sector remained stable during the global financial crisis. This was due to both good economic management by the Australian government and long-term good management of the banks. Despite this history of good management, the banks should not have the ability to engage in anticompetitive practices to the detriment of consumers. Indeed, our economy is greatly influenced by consumers who live in mortgage belt areas. The Central Coast and the seat of Robertson, which I am proud to represent in the parliament, display the typical characteristics of a mortgage belt area. The Central Coast is an outer suburban region which has had a fast-growing population over the last 30 years. The Gosford City local government area exper­ienced the 19th largest population growth in New South Wales.

Debate interrupted.

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

Order! It being 7 pm, I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on behalf of my constituents and the people of Australia in regard to the future direction of this country's foreign aid program. At a time of economic uncertainty, many Australian taxpayers understandably expect results and value for money. Australians are generous and have a long tradition of domestic and international giving.

Today I attended the presentation of the government's Independent review of aid effectiveness. I welcome the report and place on record my thanks for the dedicated work undertaken by the panel to produce this report. The 39 recommendations made by this report seek to do exactly what we in the coalition have always sought—that is, to increase transparency, scrutiny and effective­ness. In addition to the government's aid program we are fortunate, through the generosity of the people of this country, to have increased corporate social respon­sibility, volunteerism and cause related projects by NGOs which all give rise to substantial international giving.

The community's expectation is that their personal donations, corporate philanthropy, NGO fundraising and foreign aid money are spent on improving people's lives and we need to ensure that these goals are achieved. We also need to ensure that the effectiveness of our aid is maintained by increased scrutiny and transparency. The coalition not only believe in the delivery of a tougher, more accountable aid program but also have always believed that there should be greater emphasis on a cooperative approach, partic­ularly through working with other governments and other aid organisations, as well as with Australia's corporate sector.

Given the size and significance of our foreign aid program, the coalition will appoint a minister for international develop­ment assistance to work with the foreign affairs minister to oversee our aid budget and to have responsibility for AusAID and the delivery of aid. To maximise the benefits and assistance that we can provide, the coalition have always believed that Australia's corporate aid programs need to be well coordinated to mesh with our global focus and our country-specific programs. In addition to AusAID spending, greater coord­ination and tracking of international aid donations and philanthropy should be identified and coordinated.

The coalition's approach to international development assistance is to place a greater focus on harnessing the efforts of all contributors investing in the future of our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region. Internationally, Australia is recognised for its leading role in the region, particularly in PNG and near Pacific nations. Australia's aid is even more important given that two-thirds of the world's poor—some 800 million people—live in the Asia-Pacific region, yet receive less than one-third of global aid.

Our objective should be to support, encourage and work with our neighbours to invest in health and education, create employment, increase trade and investment, and pursue inclusive growth that benefits their populations. We believe a greater focus on basic education, particularly for girls, is the most effective form of long-term educational investment. Current rates of females being educated remain much lower than that of males, and addressing this is the first step in our commitment to the development of women leaders in our region. Improved educational opportunities for girls will also translate into improved economic and health outcomes.

It was a coalition government that established the Office of Development Effec­tiveness, which was designed to oversee the activities of our aid program. It is really disappointing to note that the last annual review published by the ODE was for the year 2009. Therefore, I wholeheartedly welcome recommendation 30, which would enhance the oversight undertaken by the ODE. I also support a whole-of-government approach to strengthening planning, mon­itoring and reporting. The establishment of the Development Effectiveness Steering Committee to achieve this is also very welcome.

Our focus should be on the Asia-Pacific region, but there is no question that we should continue to assist other areas of the world where the need arises. We recognise that foreign aid spending in other parts of the world is essential. We support the recommendations, and the major focus of the foreign aid budget should primarily be within our region and continue to grow there. The coalition welcome the report and its recommendations, particularly those that support our view, encourage greater transp­arency and describe steps and performance indicators that should be implemented to provide a further safeguard for Australia's aid program.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to talk about a suburb in my electorate that many people unfairly label. A neighbouring suburb of Dandenong was recently labelled by The Punch as one of the top 10 bogan places in Australia. Doveton unfortunately suffers from the same unfair description. Let me tell you about how one particular academic describes Doveton:

Who knows where Doveton is, and who cares? Is it an address to die for, like Pots Point or Peppermint Grove? You know it isn't. It's just another bogan suburb, out in the boondocks, whatever a boondock is; out in the sticks, or is it the Styx? What does Doveton have to show us about how those in the 'outer suburbs' might live? Doveton is dark, damp and quiet one morning early in winter. The Minaret College school bus pulls out of a driveway at 7.10 am. Around the corner a set of Venetian blinds have been pushed down diagonally by a terrier who sits on a chair behind the sill and barks enthusiastically at passers-by.

Let me tell you about the Doveton I know. It is a suburb with character, heart and a sense of community spirit. I know of the many warm and friendly community minded people that make Doveton a treasure of a suburb. These include people like Les Boyes, Jean Westerman and the late Heather Weston, whose contribution to Doveton I have raised in this place before.

Let me talk about Les. Community involvement has always been a passion of Les, who holds a life membership of the Oak Avenue Community Hall. The Oak Avenue Community Hall has held neighbourhood meetings and barbecues over the years to bring together the local neighbours. The 75-year-old is also a life member at Casey radio and on the committee of Myuna Farm. Every Thursday, Les and the other members at the Doveton club make children's toys out of egg cartons and cardboard boxes. Mr Boyes and his wife Helene have been living in their Oak Avenue home for 40 years. Les and Helene symbolise the Neighbour Day spirit—they have a tremendous amount of pride in their neighbourhood and a commitment to bring­ing people together to build a strong sense of community. I know Les is battling illness. I wish him a speedy recovery.

Jean Westerman has been involved in the community of Doveton for over 35 years, particularly in the local opportunity shop and at weekly luncheons at the Doveton Baptist Church. There is collectively a group called Salvo Access—volunteers who work at the Cranbourne Salvation Army opportunity shop, who devote a great deal of time to helping needy families in the area.

Heather Weston, was a Dovetonite thr­ough and through who, sadly, passed away in June of last year, but her legacy as a battler acts as an inspiration. She overcame the odds and her work influenced countless individ­uals who crossed her path. When Heather became involved with the Doveton Neighbourhood House she was, in her words, illiterate and often felt that she was 'good at nothing'. Not to be overcome by this, Heather quickly enrolled in basic English reading and writing courses at Doveton Neighbourhood House, forming an affinity with the centre that would see her spend 15 years on its committee, holding the positions of assistant to the treasurer, vice-president, secretary and president. In fact, Heather spent a total of three years as the centre's president. These are significant achievements in themselves, but Heather's true achievement—and, indeed, where her passion lay—was in inspiring and driving others. She used her success against her plight to empower others in the community to emulate her achievements.

One of the quintessential examples of Doveton community spirit is Ruth Murray. For over 10 years, Ruth and her daughter Jenny Colvin have run an annual Christmas BBQ for neighbours, local community members, family and old friends at their home in Power Road, Doveton. Over 150 people are invited to the local BBQ, which coincides with their amazing Christmas lights display.

After eight productive and memorable years, the Doveton Eumemmerring Neighbourhood Renewal project came to an end on 30 June 2011. There are so many achievements—I am going to run out of time talking about them—and successes of which the Doveton Eumemmerring community can be proud, including the formation of the Doveton Eumemmerring Township Assoc­iation and creating a community calendar filled with new events including the annual Doveton Show and Australia Day celebrat­ions, the monthly Open Mic night—thankfully I did not sing in that—the weekly fresh food market at Myuna Farm and establishing the Doveton Eumemmerring Resident of the Year Awards to recognise and celebrate the contributions of residents. Local parks, reserves, paths and facilities have been improved including development of the skate park and fitness stations at Waratah South Reserve, Linden Place playground, local pathway linkages, exten­sion to the Doveton Library and the Rowan Park House redevelopment.

A community infrastructure plan has been developed to understand current and future community needs. There have been more than 700 improvements to public housing properties and more than 600 residents have undertaken training or secured employment through supported programs. I have run out of time but this just shows what a great place it is, unlike what that person wrote in that damn book. (Time expired)

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to honour a select group of community minded people within my electorate who, for want of a better phrase, are a bunch of great old bastards. The group I speak of is, of course, the Camden Branch of the Australasian Order of Old Bastards. The Australasian Order of Old Bastards was begun, fittingly, in a Sydney pub in 1968 by arch bastard Leo Bradshaw MBE and a small band of brothers. This great organisation, which believes in joviality, good friendship and charity, has been faithfully serving the community through fundraising for over 40 years.

To date, the Australasian Order of Old Bastards has raised over $5 million dollars for their communities, including over $1.3 million dollars for the Westmead Children's Hospital. Leo Bradshaw, along with his wife Joan, will forever be remembered for their strong commitment to the community by the Leo Bradshaw Renal Research Laboratory at Westmead Children's Hospital.

The Camden Branch of the Australasian Order of Old Bastards was founded on the 6 March 2010 and has already raised significant funds for sick children in the Macarthur electorate, donating over $3,000 for the Westmead Children's Hospital renal clinic and laboratory, over $10,000 for the Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation, $6,000 for the Queensland Premier's flood relief with the assistance of Harvey Norman, $550 for the Starlight Children's Foundation and $400 from members for the purchase of a new BBQ.

Working hand in hand with the Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation, the Camden Branch of the Australasian Order of Old Bastards has been able to assist Campbel­ltown and Camden hospitals with fundraising for much needed technical and specialist paediatric equipment. Their contributions hit home for the Camden branch when one of their very own, Honorary Junior Vice President Declan Robert Sheehy, now aged 10 months, suffered complications after birth and required the use of a foetal monitor incubator, oxygen crib and ultraviolet light. It was this very equipment that the Kids of Macarthur, with support from the Camden old bastards, had purchased.

Declan is now fine and leading the next generation of old bastards to come along with the other members of the junior troop Honorary Junior President Jackson Gunn, Honorary Secretary Jaymee-Lee Keaple, Honorary Treasurer Joseph Andriotti and honorary members Aaron Gunn and Riley Auglys. I hope that this junior order will continue to keep the old bastard community spirit alive for many decades to come. Little Declan's story is a very real reminder of just how lucky the electorate of Macarthur is to have so many community-minded people contributing their time, effort and hard earned money towards the many charities and causes of the region.

I would like to thank the many members and volunteers of the Camden Branch of the Australasian Order of Old Bastard, along with a number of local businesses and organisations who have helped out along the way. I thank Camden and Campbelltown councils, the Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation, Pharmacy Express Mount Annan, Rosemeadow and Camden, Harvey Norman Campbelltown and head office, Narellan and Camden McDonalds, Clintons Toyota, Dilmah Teas, Nulon Australia Products, Greg Went, Wakeboard New South Wales, Greater West Fire Exting­uishers, Bunnings Warehouse Narellan, Campbelltown Mall, the workers of Tahmoor Colliery, Kwik Copy, Hoselink Australia, Nepean Engineering, along with the support and assistance of the Camden Narellan Advertiser, Macarthur Chronicleand TheDistrict Reporter, who have helped spread the message of the Order of Old Bastards across the Macarthur region.

I would also like to thank the committee members for their hard work and dedication to the order, in particular, the President of Camden Order of Old Bastards, 'Big Kev', Mr Kevin Gunn. Being a proud member myself of the Australasian Order of Old Bastards, I think it would be fitting to end with the universal catchcry of old bastards:

Whilst ever hops grow on this earth,

Let not plain water mar our mirth.

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

A most impressive contribution! I thank the member for Macarthur.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Saturday the world will welcome the 193rd country to the international community. Southern Sudan will be the youngest African nation when it is officially inaugurated on 9 July in its capital, Juba. The road to independence has not been easy for Southern Sudan, withstanding two decades of civil war which have seen the deaths of more than 2½ million people and the displacement of more than five million people. Many of us have followed over the years the struggle of the Christian and animist people of the south against an Islamist regime in Khartoum and we know that Omar al-Bashir, the head of Sudan, is still wanted by the International Criminal Court. However, in 2005 North Sudan and South Sudan signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which led to the end this civil war. In October of that year the autonomous government was formed in Southern Sudan, in line with the peace agreement. This was followed by two years of tension which saw intense fighting take place, specifically over the disputed oil-rich town of Abyei on the north-south divide, near the Nuba Mountains. That has resumed recently, constituting an issue that has been going on since the 2005 peace agreement.

In June this year, governments of both the north and south signed an accord to demilitarize Abyei and allow in a United Nations force of Ethiopian peacekeepers. I must praise the United States government for its role in seeing that a referendum of millions of Southern Sudanese took place peacefully with the cooperation of the government and pressure from the Obama administration on Khartoum. According to the UN, clashes between Sudanese govern­ment forces and units of the South Sudan army in Southern Kordofan have led to more than 73,000 people fleeing their homes since 5 June—so the problem there has started again.

In 2008 the leaders of the north and the south reached a deal on the terms of a referendum on independence, which was decided in 2011. To their great credit, in January this year 98 per cent of the 8.5 million people of Southern Sudan, many of whom are illiterate, simply drew a hand with the word 'separation' on it, voting in favour of independence. At the time I hailed the vote, stating:

The people of Southern Sudan have today voted for freedom, for democracy and for peace. Southern Sudan has suffered ... poverty, war, devastation and destruction for too long. Today the people have spoken for a better world.

On Saturday we will see the fruit of the Southern Sudanese struggle for independ­ence come to fruition when the independence ceremonies take place in Juba. However, the flourishing of Southern Sudan as a nation can only be successful with the support of the international community. We must not let that region slide back into civil war. Many members of this House have a more intimate involvement with that situation, having many fine immigrants—indeed refugees—from Sudan in their electorates. Despite the momentous vote for independence, Southern Sudan faces enormous obstacles on becoming a new nation. Only 15 per cent of adults can read and write, more than half the population live on less than 75c a day, 47 per cent of the populace is described as being 'food deprived' and the life expectancy at birth is 42. Despite the current 6.7 billion barrels of oil reserves of Sudan, being the nation in general, Southern Sudan is heavily underdeveloped. Prior to its independence, 470,000 barrels of oil were pumped per day, three-quarters of which came from the south and the border regions. Unfortunately, the people of that region have not benefited from that. With reports of crackdowns and violence in the Nuba Mountains and in Northern Kordofan and continued tensions over Abyei, where the oil is produced, Southern Sudan faces an enormous challenge. As the United States Agency for International Development has characterised the situation in Southern Sudan, there is no greater post-conflict reconstruction challenge that has been faced anywhere else in the world. Within our humanity we should strive to give our children better than we ourselves received. If Australia can play its small part in lifting the children of Southern Sudan out of abject poverty, by assisting with the development of universal education and with nation building, we will surely be on our way to alleviating some of the ills that the Southern Sudanese people have suffered. The hope that was shown by the Southern Sudanese people who came out and voted in droves for independence and their belief that the day after tomorrow will be a better one than the one before should show that this newest country, even with its enormous challenges, is capable—as all people are—of overcoming obstacles for a brighter future. I hope to attend the independence celebrations in Southern Sudan, and I know that the people of Australia wish the people of Southern Sudan well. (Time expired)

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to address the most dangerous issue facing Australia right now: the Labor-Greens carbon tax. Australians in the majority do not want this tax which will clean out their wallets and cost jobs without doing a single thing for the environment. This debate should be about the best way to achieve a five per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. On one hand, you have the Labor-Greens tax, which will add hundreds of dollars to the average household budget and cripple our mining and aluminium industries forcing jobs, investment and emissions offshore. On the other hand, you have the coalition's direct action plan, which will use incentives and investment to make a real change in people's habits. The Labor-Greens alliance has made this a debate about party politics. Prime Minister Gillard has sacrificed the will of the people she represents for her own political desires. She has fallen to the whim 'co-Prime Minister' Bob Brown in order to stay in government. The frustration and anger in my electorate of Paterson is palpable. For Labor, politics no longer means representing the people. It means representing self interest. Take, for example, this today. Adela from Duckenfield wrote to me to say:

Why are Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan so determined to push this through when there is so much opposition? It will do absolutely nothing to assist in a change of carbon emissions in Australia and yet will cost our country untold amounts.

Aaron, from Raworth, wrote:

I cannot fathom how this insipid, incompetent, weak, pathetic, directionless, soul-less, foolish government is not getting the message that working Australia will not tolerate this tax, let alone from a prime minister who blatantly lied to Australians.

We cannot take more taxing; working families and working Australians are struggling and we have had enough.

Please help working families in your electorate Bob. Keep working hard for the people of Paterson and keep working for the will of the silent majority who aren't out there protesting, who aren't pushing the ideals of a green fascist party led by extremists who are holding an incompetent government desperate to hold on to power. We are just trying terms of reference make ends meet.

People are desperate to have their say on this nation-changing issue. They have suggested a referendum, plebiscite, new election—the list goes on. These people are not heartless. They want to know what they can do to improve the environment and reduce carbon emissions. They just know that a tax will not achieve it.

I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister promise yesterday that she would go and meet with the people directly to talk about her tax. I have already sent her an invitation to come to my electorate of Paterson to participate in a town hall discussion. That way, Ms Gillard can address the concerns about job losses and rising household budget pressures. The Prime Minister can also try to explain to local residents how on earth a tax will help the environment. I look forward to her response and yet for some reason I do not think that she will accept.

After all, this is the same Prime Minister who promised just days before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Her colleague the Treasurer also said in the August before the election:

Certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.

And yet, here we are. What an amazing turn around. Talk about being creative with the truth.

The people of Paterson do not want a carbon tax. Judging by the number of people calling me from the member for Lyne's electorate, they do not want a carbon tax either. The same goes for callers from the electorates of Hunter, Newcastle, Charlton and Shortland. They call my office because they know they fall upon deaf ears when they ring those members. That is why I am here fighting for the future of our country, which will be so heavily disadvantaged by a carbon tax, not only economically but also environmentally. I urge the Prime Minister and her colleagues to listen to the people who voted for them.

I end with a couple of facts. Firstly, there are 146 members of this House of Representatives who ran at the last election with a no carbon tax policy. Only four members in this House ran on a pro-carbon tax policy. Secondly, the Treasurer called the coalition 'hysterical scaremongers' when we tried to tell the people there would be a carbon tax under a Labor government. This debate is about basic democratic principles because the ALP, the Greens and Independents have wrested democracy from the Australian people.

The Prime Minister, at the top, is arrogantly defying the will of the people, talking down to them in the name of a dirty deal with the Greens. Talk about dirty deeds done dirt cheap. This is a bad tax. We do not want it and we do not need it. (Time expired)

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

I congratulate the Clarence Valley Town Crier, Trevor Green, who, in the words of our local paper the Daily Examiner,has 'cleaned up at the 21st National Town Crier Championships in Maryborough on Saturday'. I am not too sure how many people still have a town crier but we are fortunate to have one in the Clarence Valley. It is an old and great tradition that we all love.

Trevor Green said that he was surprised that he won three out of five of the awards at the championships and he paid tribute to some others. There had been a town crier before him, Roy Bowling, who had been there for a long time. Trevor paid tribute to him and said Roy had been a mentor. He said his win was not just about the voice, volume level and control. Clearly, it is about voice clarity, pronunciation, volume control, volume level and the cries—those are assessed—but it is also the costume, known as regalia. He has that custom made, and donated, by Kerri Benson, of Sea Eagle Fashions in Maclean. Maclean is in the neighbouring seat of Cowper but is very close to my electorate.

Trevor was quite excited that this had happened to him. I have written him a letter of congratulations. On his first occasion of being the town crier, I was there to see him perform. Of course, everybody was sad to see his predecessor Roy go but it was great to see somebody want to take it up. As well as being the town crier, Trevor Green is a paramedic so he has a very noble day job. Well done, Trevor, and may we continue to hear the town crying go on and continue that tradition.

In the same vein, I also congratulate another person in my electorate. Gary Amedee has gone from the farm to fudge. He was a farmer in Tabulam and he has now set up a business that makes fudge, called Byron Bay Fudge Factory. Byron Bay is a name that a lot of people know, but he has set up the Byron Bay Fudge Factory in Ballina. It is in the local paper Northern Star this week with a photo of Gary outside his shop, which is a far cry from cattle farming.

Gary says he felt good about making fudge, although he said it might be a risky move. Setting up any small business can be seen as a risk but isn't it wonderful that we have people who take that risk. He also said he had been making fudge for as long as he can remember, since he was five or six. He said his mother taught him how to make it—it is his grandma's recipe—but that it was also an art and a science. I make fudge, but for me it is neither an art nor a science. It is a long time since I have made it and I am sure it would not be anything like Gary's. I will just keep eating his fudge.

He said:

You think I would get sick of eating fudge, but I don't. It's just so good—if I do say so myself.

It is wonderful to see someone have that commitment and that sort of courage to set up a small business. Everybody likes fudge, so I am sure he will continue to do well.

That leads me into our economy. Often people say, 'I am too scared to do this and that with small business'. If you have a look at our economy we have some really good figures that can get lost in this place, in the media and in the debates that we have—unemployment 4.9 per cent; inflation 2.7 per cent; public net debt is about seven per cent of GDP; RBA interest rate 4.75 per cent; and growth rate 3.3 per cent. When you look at the Aussie versus the US dollar—and I know we always have a debate about who it is impacting on—the upshot is that to have it at 1.0703 is a good figure. Trade surplus was $2.23 billion in May 2011. Australian families depending on one breadwinner pay among that lowest amounts of tax in the world and have become better off under the Gillard government. (Time expired)

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

I am compelled to respond and make some observations in relation to the Channel 4 video which was shown on Four Corners last Monday night in relation to the final days and hours of the Sri Lankan civil war. I do so because in my role as the Deputy Chair of the Sri Lankan Group and my general interest in Sri Lanka there are some issues that need to be put on the record. I say at the outset that the images and action shown on that Four Corners program were horrific, brutal and degrading and if they are, in fact, genuine they cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with.

I visited Sri Lanka in the last few weeks. There is a process in Sri Lanka to deal with these issues and they are being dealt with by the Sri Lankan government through the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commis­sion, which has full judicial powers. This is a commission based on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, post apartheid South Africa. In the meantime the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon commissioned a report from an expert panel, which has three experts on it—a South African, an American and an Indonesian. The panel has already reported, basically, on the issues raised on the Channel 4 video. The annoyance that has come from the Tamil diaspora, generally overseas, is the fact that there has been no action on this panel because the Sri Lankan government has rejected the report as fundamentally flawed because the facts have not been proven.

Further to that, in the Sri Lankan Daily News on Wednesday, 22 June this year, Professor GL Peiris, who is the external affairs minister, and somebody we met, pointed out that not only has the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission invited international organisations such as the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to provide information about these videos to facilitate the commission's inquiry but, he said:

No organization has accepted this invitation extended by the Commission.

These organizations are pointing fingers at the government and the Security Forces without making representations to the independent body set up in Sri Lanka probing such matters.

As has been pointed out by the Secretary-General, unless Sri Lanka does respond, he has two choices and one would be to launch an investigation with the agreement of the Sri Lankan government. If that does not work the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, would have to get the United Nations to provide a resolution. None of that has happened.

The fact is Sri Lanka is a democratic nation emerging from a 28- to 30-year-old civil war. It was a brutal civil war where atrocities were committed on both sides. We know that the LTTE, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, were one of the most ruthless killing machines that has ever been known. We visited the north, areas like Pallai, Vavuniya and Jaffna, and we met people on the ground. I went to Manik Farm, for example, with my colleagues where we met over 200,000 people who were refugees. There are now only 17,000. They are free to leave. In fact, a bus pulls up outside the camp and people are free to leave at any time they choose. We discussed this with the people in their homes. They cannot return to their villages because they are still mined. Many of them do not have a village to return to because it was shelled and demolished during the civil war. In fact, the people I spoke to at Manik Farm quite often do not have a place to go to because, as I said, it has been ruined.

I congratulate the Australian government for providing 5,000 houses already. The Indian government has promised 50,000 but has not built one, so it was a very shallow promise. I say to those who want to criticise this democratically elected government in its efforts to provide reconciliation and reconstruction: you need to get across the facts before you slur a democratically elected government like the sovereign state of Sri Lanka.

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

I want to take the opportunity in the adjournment debate tonight to address an area of particular importance to my region, and I acknowledge that the member for Paterson preceded me earlier in this adjournment debate with more of his hot air on the future of the mining industry. It is an industry that is important not only to my region but to me personally. I am a fifth generation coal­mining family in the Illawarra region. At the end of this month I will be participating in a very important ceremony that remembers the terrible mining disaster at Mount Kembla in 1902. In fact, three members of my mother's family were killed at the time. I take the future of the industry in my region very seriously.

There is no doubt in my mind that we must take action on climate change and this government is pursuing exactly the right direction in achieving that. In doing that we will get the balance right in supporting jobs in areas like mine. Beyond that I have been working with the member for Throsby and with some people from local industry including: the local Australian Industry Group; the i3net, which is a very innovative group of manufacturers who meet and look to advance local industry; AusIndustry's Mr John Grace; and a great advocate for the local mining industry, Mr Ray Tolhurst. Ray was known to me previously in his life as a TAFE leader and as a TAFE teacher I worked closely with him, but Ray now represents the mining engineers organisation in my area. For a while now we have been working on a particular project that the federal government has been supporting financially. We launched it last Friday in the electorate. This is a new online service directory that will bring together all of the Illawarra mining technology service and manufacturing businesses in one place, so that we can reach into the capacity for these businesses to be part of the current and what I am absolutely certain will be the ongoing mining boom in this nation.

We attended a local manufacturer Ringway at Unanderra. Ringway is a local business that is an electronics and electrical supplier to the mining industry. Ringway Control are a part of i3net that I referred to earlier, the innovative engineering and manufacturing sector in my region. We were joined there by various representatives, including Ray Tolhurst representing the Aus­tralian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Illawarra branch and representatives of Ringway business including local represen­tatives of the Ai Group, and we launched this fantastic website.

As I indicated, it is an initiative that we believe reflects our confidence and optimism for the future of this sector in the local area. I certainly encourage anybody who is not already on the directory to join up. It is at www.miningsupplierdirectory.com.au. More importantly, we are hoping that mining sectors across the nation wanting suppliers and manufacturers to provide for their boom period will look to this directory to provide new employment and job opportunities to our region. It is a very important capacity for building our manufacturing and services sector locally, in particular allowing them to participate and take advantage of the mining boom as it rolls out across the nation.

I also want to thank Rod Brown from Ringway who hosted the event and is also the chair of the i3net sector. He gave me a tour. I had a look at a lot of the equipment and the work that they were doing there, particularly around the conveyor belt safety systems, a really good initiative. My father was an electrical mines inspector, so it was very interesting to me to see some of the advances that have occurred in the industry. I thank Rod and his team for their hospitality in taking us through that. I finish up each expressing my great optimism in the future not only of the mining sector in the Illawarra but also of its associated manufacturing base.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I speak of the oppression and the persecution of the Montagnard people who live in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Prior to the Vietnam War, the Montagnards lived in hill tribe societies existing primarily through agriculture, hunting and gathering. Today, however, the Montagnards have found themselves marginalised minorities and in the words of Human Rights Watch 'have been repressed for decades'. This is due to an increasing program of ethnic relocations, beginning in the mid-1950s after the withdrawal of the French with groups being moved from the north as the Communist government in North Vietnam began to assert control over the region. The current government of Vietnam continues with this land confiscation and forced relocations as well as targeting Christian Montagnards with religious persecution.

There is a long history of issues between the Vietnamese and the Montagnard people because, while the Vietnamese are racially diverse themselves, they do share language and culture but the Montagnard do not share that commonality. The Montagnards have for several decades sensed that their language and culture were under threat, including land ownership, education, resources and political domination. Formal opposition to the domination by the Vietnamese began in 1958 as the tribes united and even formed a military force, known as the United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races.

It was no surprise that, when the American forces began to build up in Vietnam, some 40,000 Montagnards fought on the side of the Americans. During the war it is estimated that some 100,000 served alongside the US as allies. It should be remembered that about half the Montagnards are Protestant and 20 per cent are Catholic.

We should remember that in 1973 peace accords were agreed to and the conflict entered a ceasefire. The United States in their compliance with the agreement began withdrawing forces. Eventually the North Vietnamese Army and the Vietcong began advancing south and, without the support of the Americans, Saigon and the south finally fell on 30 April 1975. Clearly, the North Vietnamese broke the peace treaty and they took advantage of the demise of President Nixon in 1974 and the reticence of the Democratic Party controlled congress to back the government of South Vietnam with bombing of the north.

With the fall of the south retribution followed. Thousands of Montagnards fled Vietnam to Cambodia while several thousand were resettled in the United States. Many Montagnard political and religious leaders were executed by the communists. The Montagnard suffered greatly during the Vietnam War. I have been told that 200,000 died and 85 per cent of their traditional villages were destroyed. Since then their existence has been defined by persecution on the basis of post-war retribution and religious persecution.

I am fortunate to have as a constituent a leading Western human rights activist, the Australian lawyer and writer Scott Johnson. Scott has been to the Central Highlands and he has seen the terrible conditions of poverty under which the Montagnards live. Scott has told me that there is no evidence whatsoever of Montagnard resistance movements that advocate armed opposition and violence. Yet there is a paranoia from the Vietnamese government who choose to see the refusal of Montagnards to worship in the state controlled churches as a cover for an independence movement.

A report from Human Rights Watch released in March this year reported that since 2001 more than 350 Montagnards have been sentenced to long prison sentences, all based on vague national security charges, because of their involvement in public protests and in unregistered house churches, the only way to worship if you refuse to be in a state controlled church. I find it incredible that such nebulous charges as undermining national solidarity or disrupting security can result in a person being jailed, but that is the reality in Vietnam. I also note that Human Rights Watch report that some 25 Montagnard prisoners have died while in custody or shortly after release.

I really do wonder how the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam think on these matters. They confiscate land and give it to non-Montagnard people. They oppress those who wish to worship freely and then, when there is resentment and protest, the Communist officials actually wonder why. It seems that this is a case of delusional paranoia. If the Vietnamese government left the Montagnards alone, they would not have such problems.

I thank Scott Johnson for his assistance to me and of course I thank him for his great work toward achieving justice for the Montagnards. I conclude by calling upon the government of Vietnam to restore the ancestral lands they have taken from the Montagnards, to release the hundreds of Montagnard religious and political prisoners currently held in Vietnam and to allow religious freedom across Vietnam.

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

I rise this evening to present two petitions. The first petition of 13,828 citizens asks the House to ensure that medical research remains properly funded and is resourced into the future. The second petition of 345 citizens requests the House to legislate to put a price on pollution that reduces carbon emissions and to protect the Murray-Darling Basin for future generations. To assist proceedings, I can inform the House that both have been examined by the Petitions Committee and have been found to be in order.

The community response to speculation that the government was planning to cut somewhere in the order of $300 million from medical research in the most recent budget was overwhelming, and the ultimate preserv­ation of medical research funding in the budget is testament to the strength of that community response. The Discoveries Need Dollars campaign united community groups and sector workers from across the country. I congratulate that campaign and the scores of grassroots campaigners—some of whom I hope are watching now and are using the Twitter hashtag '#protectresearch'—who worked to achieve such an important outcome in the budget, particularly in protecting funding to the NHMRC. Had the budget been cut, the consequences would have been disastrous The development of new treatments would have slowed and Australians suffering from chronic illnesses would have had their opportunities for recovery hindered.

During the course of the campaign, I was privileged to meet a number of people who are working on trials and new discoveries in my electorate, as well as the people who are benefiting from them. My memory of meeting Pat stands out. She was a diabetic and had been so for many years, but she had spent a year without having to have insulin injections because of a treatment being developed at St Vincent's using eyelets. That treatment has the potential to revolutionise the lives of those who are suffering from diabetes as well as the lives of their families. That is just one of the many forms of research that are being undertaken in my electorate of Melbourne.

Had the cuts gone ahead, researchers and clinicians careers would have been impeded. That consequence is a very important one because, as I have said, the electorate of Melbourne has more health and medical researchers than any other electorate in the country and, if we are serious about improving the quality of life of Australians and continuing to lead the world in medical discovery, as many of those people in Melbourne do, we should be steadily increasing funding, not potentially decrea­sing it. The quality and security of funding is just as important as the amount. One of the things that is increasingly clear is that, because funding is often only on a rolling three-year basis and is so insecure, many young researchers are choosing to go overseas not to broaden their knowledge but because it is one of the few places they can be guaranteed tenure and a secure career. Researchers have obligations, mortgages and rent to pay just like everyone else and their funding, their salaries and their livelihoods should not depend on rolling three-year contracts if they are lucky.

Twelve thousand people attended the Rally for Research events held in Melbourne and elsewhere across the country and 15,000 letters and postcards were sent to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the health minister, the mental health and ageing minister, and other local members and senators. Close to 14,000 people signed the petition that I am proud to present today. I know that the government has commissioned a strategic review of Australian medical research fund­ing, with the terms of reference announced today, to better plan the resourcing of the sector, to focus its work on community expectations and to improve accessibility and affordability of disease treatments and diagnosis methods that arise from a properly funded research sector. This is a tremendous outcome from the campaign and I congratulate the minister for taking this step. Parliament should stand reminded of the strength of the medical research community and the expectations of the wider comm­unity. Australians value public investment in medical research and will not support any further attempts to undermine the sector. Lastly, I would like to pay special tribute to the staff and directors at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute who coordinated within a very short period of time a fantastic campaign that really rammed home just how important those working in the sector and the broader community consider medical research to be.

The timing of the presentation of the second petition regarding a price on pollution could not be more timely. I very much look forward to Sunday and the announcement that we will take the country's first step towards putting a price on pollution.

The petition s read as follows—

Save Health and Medical Research

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives

This petition of concerned citizens draws to the attention of the house of the need for funded medical research.

Cuts to medical research will halt vital research to diagnose, prevent and treat disease in areas such as; heart disease, obesity, diabetes and cancer as well as research on 'closing the gap' and improving the health and wellbeing of indigenous Australia. Cuts will also affect the economy and cause job losses around the county.

We there for ask the house to not support any cuts made to Medical Research in the federal budget.

from 13, 828 citizens.

TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

This petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that

The 2011 World Environment Day is Sunday, 5 June: the time is ripe for Australia to make two big steps forward for our environment.

We therefore ask the House to put a price on pollution that reduces carbon emissions and replaces Australia's

dirtiest power stations, like Hazelwood, with clean energy. Furthermore, it's time to get serious about saving Australia's lifeblood - the mighty Murray-Darling - for future generations. The Basin Plan must return enough water to save the Murray Darling river system.

2011 is the year to get serious about safeguarding our environment. This year, put an effective price on pollution and save the Murray-Darling, forever.

PRINCIPAL PETITIONER

from 345 citizens.

Petitions received.

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

Last week I held a community meeting in my electorate and one of the issues that was raised by a number of people present was concern about the purchase by Chinese interests of agricultural land, particularly for mining purposes. We had a good discussion at that meeting and a range of views were expressed, including a number of people highlighting the importance to Australia of foreign investment. This issue has been getting a lot of scrutiny recently. I want to make three key points in the brief time available: first, to welcome some of the additional scrutiny; second, to make a key point about the two issues involved, on the one hand foreign ownership and on the other hand the impact of mining on agricultural land; third, to highlight the importance of foreign investment.

Let me start by saying that I welcome the fact that there are a range of processes underway to give greater policy scrutiny to these questions, including the fact that the coalition has established a working group to deal with this issue. I want to make the point that there are two conceptually separate issues that can sometimes get bundled together as the one issue. The first issue is the general question of foreign ownership of Australian assets, including agricultural land amongst a range of other assets based or located in Australia. That is one issue. The second issue, which is a conceptually distinct issue, is the impact of mining on agricultural land. A range of concerns have been expressed about this issue by residents of affected communities and this is an issue which is, as are many others, always susceptible to further investigation. I think it is important that we do not automatically conflate the two issues and assume that the central question, in thinking about the impact of mining on agricultural land, is the ownership of the mining company. It seems to me that the central question is the trade-off between the competing uses of land. As I have indicated, I certainly welcome the fact there is scrutiny of both sets of issues. Once that process has been worked through, no doubt there will be some recommendations to consider.

My final point is to highlight the importance of foreign investment in the Australian economy and to note, therefore, that it is a factor we should pay very careful regard to as we think about the question of foreign ownership of any kind of asset, including Australian agricultural assets. Australia is a net importer of capital. In the March quarter of 2011, net inflow was $780 billion. Outflows of capital were $1.24 trillion; inflows were $2.02 trillion—in other words, a lot more money came in than went out. It is, I think, quite self-evident, when you look at the Australian economy and the prosperity we enjoy, that a significant contributor to that prosperity has been foreign investment.

It is also worth making the point that that foreign investment comes from a wide range of countries. In 2009, the stock of total foreign investment was $3,200 billion. Of that, 27 per cent was from the US, 26 per cent was from the UK and the third biggest source was Japan at 5.4 per cent. Total inflows of foreign investment in the year 2009 were $160 billion and, of that, $94 billion came from the US and $34 billion came from the UK. So the Australian economy has always depended very heavily on the inflow of foreign capital. The prosperity of Australia and its people is heavily dependent, I would argue, upon continuing to have a set of policies and a set of frameworks which are attractive to foreign capital. We are competing with many other countries around the world for investment and that is a factor that we need bear mind as we weigh up all the considerations in this set of issues I have raised—a set of issues which is attracting continuing public scrutiny and on which there is, properly, policy scrutiny. We must bear in mind, I would argue, the importance of foreign investment to Australia's prosperity.

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

Recently, during a visit of my mobile office to Woodcroft, I was approached by a number of community members from the Australian and Egyptian Coptic seniors, including Mr Wadi Botros from Hebersham, Samir Hanna from the Universal Peace Federation's Australian peace embassy and Kamal Iskandar. They related stories to me of friends and loved ones suffering in fear of religious perse­cution in Egypt. While we have obviously been moved by the vision of everyday Egyptians taking such courageous steps to bring democracy to the lives of the many who have sought it, there have been disturbing stories emerging which, to a great degree, cast a shadow on the events we have witnessed. I, like many others, was stunned by the New Year's Day attacks on the Al-Qiddissin Church, the Church of the Two Saints, in Alexandria, Egypt. Courage and tenacity has driven the Egyptians in their fight for democratic rights, but with this fight there must be an equal determination to honour the right to freedom of religion and culture. I wish to place on record my dismay and opposition to the persecution of Egyptian Copts. They deserve what we all enjoy: freedom, peace, security and the right to practice their religion free from persecution.

At a local level, I want to acknowledge the efforts of our Australian Coptic Christian Orthodox community. Approximately 63 per cent of Coptics live in Sydney and one of 14 Coptic churches in the archdiocese of Sydney is in the electorate of Chifley—Archangel Michael and St Bishoy located in Mt Druitt. We are also blessed by the presence of the St Bishoy Coptic Orthodox College, along with many active youth groups and organisations. A special mention goes to the great work of the Coptic Orthodox Youth Association, formerly the Coptic Youth Centre. I acknowledge and commend their local work and seek to reassure them of my abiding commitment to represent their concerns to the Australian government.

I also wanted to let the House know of an exercise I was very pleased to be associated with a few weeks ago. I have previously indicated that nearly a third of the Chifley electorate is under the age of 19. Ensuring that more young people maximise their time in education and training, as well as ensuring they maintain a focus on their own health and wellbeing, are critical priorities for our area. That is why I was so keen to host a recent visit to three local primary schools by the Sydney Kings NBL team. Three young players—Ben Hollis, Jarrod Weeks and Nathan Wilson—along with coach Ian 'Moose' Robilliard and assistant coach Tim Hudson dropped into Willmot Public School, Tregear Public School and Plumpton's Good Shepherd Primary School. While there, they engaged the students in some basketball exercises. They also delivered some import­ant messages to the students about the need to build their bank of personal skills by staying on in school as long as they can and about ensuring they eat well and exercise often to see the benefit this generates for their personal health.

It was a sensational day and the 200 or so students—and the players—enjoyed the opportunity to mix and learn about these important issues. I want to thank the teachers and staff for their help, especially principals Maureen Johnson, Russell Hawkins and Mary Creenaune for helping with the organisation of the day. I was also especially grateful to the Sydney Kings for their time on the day and was really pleased to hear from the players how impressed they were with the students and how much they enjoyed the visits.

A person central to the organisation of the day was Bob Turner. It is rare to describe someone as iconic, but, when it comes to Sydney basketball, Bob Turner wears that label well. I was not the only Sydneysider celebrating the return of an NBL side to our great city last year. Bob Turner played a healthy part in making that happen and, in his own way, he helped draw some of the biggest crowds in the league. It was terrific to be present for some fantastic home games at the Kingdome. Bob was also instrumental in beginning to refashion the franchise's approach to community engagement. It became something of an emerging, fast-growing passion for Bob—using his love of the game to try to shape closer links between the sport and community.

Just as so many Sydneysiders were delighted that Bob was able to bring the Kings back to Sydney, there are many who are saddened by the fact he is moving on to other ventures. He may have left the Kings, but basketball is ingrained in his DNA and it is great to hear that he is moving to set up a not-for-profit organisation called B'Ball4A11, designed to use the best aspects of the sport to open up opportunities for young people doing it tough. I wish Bob and his wife Alison every success and happiness in future endeavours and I thank them for their commitment to the game of basketball in this country—for what they have done and what Bob Turner will do.

House adjourned at 20:00

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

to move:

That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 7 July 2011.

to move:

That the time for the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests to present its report on the inquiry into a Draft Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament be extended to the end of 2011.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Defence Force Academy redev­elopment, Canberra, ACT.

to move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development and construction of housing for the Department of Defence at Muirhead, Darwin, NT.

to move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Robertson Barracks electrical reticulation system upgrade, Darwin, NT.

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

to move:

That standing order 1, Maximum speaking times, section headed Suspension of standing or other orders without notice, be amended to read as follows:

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The late Bishop John Wilson, bishop, pastor, friend and father: I want to recognise what he did when I asked him to write a preamble for a petition with regard to the Lord's Prayer, which we say every morning here in this parliament. His preamble draws the attention of the House to its practice. This is what he wrote about saying the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each sitting of our parliamentary houses:

We therefore ask the House to take consideration of the following:

We the undersigned as citizens of Australia ask that the use of the LORD’S PRAYER BE RETAINED by Parliament as integral to good government and Australia’s national heritage.

The prayer acknowledges our shared and common humanity under a caring God, in a context of humility and respect;

It asks God to fulfil his just purposes for the earth;

It seeks from God the provision of our daily needs and requires by implication generosity on our part;

It confesses our need to be forgiven and to forgive;

It recognises the lure of corruption and our entanglement with evil, from which we need to be delivered;

Finally, it places our lives and actions in an eternal perspective.

Even for those who do not pray to God, the recitation of these words at the beginning of the Parliamentary day allows a few moments for quiet reflection on our shared humanity, our daily dependence on the good things of the earth, our need to forgive and be forgiven, the temptations of office, and the broader perspective against which our efforts must be judged.

Such a time is not wasted.

This was very important at the time because I believed that there was a threat in this parliament, and I believe there could be a threat today, to the recognition and moment of the Lord's Prayer. There are those who would like it removed from this House or both houses. That is not something we agree with and it is why many thousands of people signed this petition during the last parliament to cement this act of faith and quietness and, as John Wilson said, for those who do not pray, this time of reflection. It is something we can give back to the nation and ourselves, and I hope and pray that this parliament, the House and the Senate, will continue with the practice of using the Lord's Prayer every day that we come together to meet.

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

On Monday, 27 June I had the great honour of officially opening the new multipurpose hall at Rangeview Primary School in the suburb of Mitcham, which is right in the middle of my electorate of Deakin. Liz Barr, the Principal, and Ian Buston, the Assistant Principal, were on hand to greet me, along with the school captains, Joel Fung and Jacinta Leed. The previous principal, Jack Fisher, was unable to attend the ceremony but conveyed his apologies. I spent a lot of time talking with Jack about the design of the building during 2009 and 2010 to make sure it was what the school wanted and also that it fitted in with the area and took account of the residents. Although it was a long process, we got to the point where the school got exactly what they wanted, which was what we were after the whole time.

Also in attendance on the day were Chris Cotching, the school principal prior to Jack Fisher, and his predecessor, Hugh McCartney. That meant that we had every school principal since the school was merged from three into one recognised at the ceremony. We also had the President of the School Council, Lloyd Lazaro, and the former school council president, Tim Purkis—not forgetting that we had there all of the staff, more than 550 students and many parents as well. It was a very big event.

All of those people—all of the students, all of the staff and particularly all of the school councillors and the principals—have done so much along the way to ensure that the school has the result they were after. In fact, it is fair to say that it would not have happened without their help. Rangeview is a great local school and has a proud history of excellence in education and it has grown to become one of the biggest and most popular government schools within the electorate of Deakin. In fact, if you are not in the zone, it is particularly hard to now get into the school. At the opening ceremony, the school band and choir put on a great performance and a skipping troupe finished off the ceremony. I have not seen kids do that sort of thing with skipping ropes before, but it was very impressive. I am sure that some of them will go to feature in a TV show or two if they can keep that type of effort up.

Rangeview is yet another one of these schools in Victoria that, although large and growing, had nowhere to hold school assemblies. I have been to Rangeview on many occasions and they have had to hold school assemblies outside. I have also attended the school on days on which there has not been a school assembly because it has been cancelled due to rain. Now with a full-size hall they can fit the whole school within that hall and have their assemblies at any time they like, as well as using it for sport, music and after-school-hours care. It is a great addition to the school. I am sure that it is something that will be there for many years to come not only for the students who are currently there but hopefully for students from generations well beyond them. I congratulate Rangeview Primary School on their great result under the P21 and encourage more schools to take advantage of that.

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

I rise today to speak about the importance of small business to my electorate and to the Australian economy in terms of both our economic performance and also job opportunities for young Australians and for Australians of every ilk. It is true to say that at the moment survey after survey is telling us that small business in Australia is finding the conditions very difficult to manage. We saw yesterday the Dun and Bradstreet national business expectations hit a two-year low. We have seen the Westpac consumer sentiment index show another soft result. We have seen the ACCI survey on investor confidence decline in terms of business confidence. We have also seen in the Sensis business index that small business had a massive drop in their confidence, falling from 44 per cent to 28 per cent, the second biggest drop in the 18-year history of the index.

It is not hard to work out why small business lacks confidence in a government that spends too much money and is not able to make the tough decisions about its own spending, which puts more pressure on small businesses and the ability of their owners to run them. It is a fundamentally important part of our economy that the Labor Party do not appreciate and have never appreciated. They are interested in big employer organisations, big industry associations and big unions. That is what Labor have always stood for. They have never been interested in the forgotten people in our economy, the heartbeat of the economy who provide 48 per cent of private sector employment. There are some 731,000 small businesses in Australia employing from one to 20 people. There are over one million small businesses defined as not employing people. That means that there are nearly two million in total. In Mayo alone, there are over 4,000 employing between one and 20 people and 8,500 defined as non-employing. That is 12,000 in total.

Small businesses are a fundamental part of our economy that the Labor Party are completely abandoning. Worse than that, they are putting more pressure on them. Before the 2007 election there was this grand promise of one regulation in for one regulation out. What we have seen from the Labor Party in this area is some 12,835 new regulations with a reduction of only 58. This is not one in, one out—far from it. It is a concerted attack on the heartbeat of our economy. It is an area for which we must stand up. We must represent our constituency in this respect. We have to take the pressure off small business. They are the great entrepreneurs in our economy; they are the great employment growth centre of our economy. At the moment, they are under significant pressure. It is the responsibility of our side of politics to hold his government to account and to outline how we would manage that part of the economy far better than the Labor Party.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the recent Refugee Week celebrations held in my electorate and I remind the House that I have the honour of representing the most multicultural electorate in the country. Hundreds of people gathered in local schools and other locations, such as Macquarie Street Mall in Liverpool and the Freedom Plaza in Cabramatta, as well as the Bonnie community centre, to celebrate Refugee Week. There were photo exhibitions and cultural performances from the South-East Asian, Chinese, Russian, Middle Eastern, Latin American and African communities.

This annual event recognises the enormous contribution made by the 750,000 refugees who have adopted Australia as their homeland. They have chosen to raise their families here, and their young people are our future doctors, tradespeople, volunteers, defence personnel and many more. I thank them for sharing their heritage, culture, religious festivals and language and for helping us to celebrate Australia's diversity.

One such person is Lina Tjoeng, the president of Khmer Community of New South Wales. Lina fled Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime more than 30 years ago and now serves our community as an interpreter, translator, social worker, solicitor and community leader. I thank her and the Khmer community for what they have achieved in the south-west of Sydney. Another is Mohammed Omar, a teacher at Cabramatta High School, who recently received a humanitarian award for mentoring young refugees. He fled war-torn Somalia when he was only eight years of age.

Lurnea High School celebrated Refugee Week with students involved in storytelling presentations. One student spoke about arriving in Australia after living in a refugee camp in Syria, but sadly is still waiting for their father to join them. A student at Liverpool Boys High School escaped war-torn Congo. He spent five years in a refugee camp in Kenya before arriving in Australia. Like many other refugee children he excels in his education, taking advantage of what we in this country have to offer.

A week ago I met with members of one of the newest community organisations in my electorate: the Australian Ethiopian Community Association. As a member of parliament I have the pleasure of supporting and assisting the great work that many of these community organisations do. I look forward to working closely with them into the future. I thank Solomon Tesfay for the work he is doing on behalf of his community. I also mention the great work that is being done by the Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre and the Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre. I praise the efforts of Kamalle Dabboussy and Ricci Bartels. They certainly do understand the need to help resettle people, including refugees, and the trauma associated with these people's migration to Australia. (Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise the issue of the effect of the carbon tax on local councils—in particular on the Liverpool City Council in south-west Sydney. Last week I attended a council meeting with the member for Werriwa. Several councillors raised their great concern about how they would be able to balance their budget under the carbon tax. It appears they will have to wait until Sunday to find out more information, but in the meantime they face great uncertainty about what will be taxed and what expenses the local council will face.

In the financial year to June 2008, Liverpool City Council spent $2.4 million on electricity. This figure is for the period before the recent very large increases in the price of electricity, so for the last financial year Liverpool council is looking at somewhere around $3 million for its electricity bill. If the rumours we hear are true, Liverpool council could be faced with a $500,000, $600,000 or $700,000 increase in its electricity bill. This places the council in a position where it does not know how it will find the extra $500,000 or $600,000. It has two choices: cut back on services or raise its rates to residents. If it cuts back on services, what is it going to do? Is it going to turn off the street lights at night? That will add to residents' security fears. Is it going to cut back on the childcare centres and early childhood services it operates? Is it going to cut back on its migrant resource centres? Is it going to cut back on its rubbish and recycling collection? These are decisions that will face every council in our nation in the coming weeks—what services they will cut back because of this new tax that Labor is implementing. Perhaps there is just one more thing we can be certain about, that this pervasive tax will weave its way through the economy, both with a devastating effect on the cost of living and placing Australian businesses at a competitive disadvantage internationally. Or, as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry put it, the impact of the carbon tax 'will be widespread, cascading throughout the economy, adding inflationary pressures, diminishing competitiveness and reducing earnings'. And all for what?

Does anyone in this parliament seriously think that this tax will reduce the temperature of the globe? Can someone stand up and tell us how much this carbon tax will reduce the temperature by, because that is what it is aimed at doing? If we cannot answer that, why are we putting our local councils under so much pressure where they will have to reduce so many services? (Time expired)

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

I wish to express my despair at the collapse of good governance in my home state of Tasmania. The Tasmanian government is poised to lend an undisclosed amount of taxpayers' money to a newly registered $24 company so it can purchase Gunns' foundering Triabunna woodchip mill. This is outrageous, because the handout would be just another thinly veiled payout to the company struggling to manage its daily cash flow, let alone build its stinking Tamar Valley pulp mill.

That this deal is even being considered dashes the hopes of those of us desperate to believe that new Premier Lara Giddings would do things differently or that the Greens elevation to state government would curb Labor's appetite for dodgy deals. Apparently, the loan has been all but signed off. But the Tasmanian government, true to form, are refusing to tell us how much of our money they are pouring into the deal and under what conditions.

Tasmanians are used to watching in disgust as their government tramples on proper process and shows contempt for the community's demand for competence and transparency. But this deal is particularly distasteful because it comes at a time when the Labor-Greens government is so cash strapped that it has been canvassing the idea of closing some of our very best schools and is set to cut the number of nurses and police.

This is relevant to the federal parliament because, since my election, there has been a line of community groups calling at my office for support after their long-term state government funding has been either slashed or axed completely. Just last week, for example, the federal government needed to intervene and grant $50,000 to keep Sustainable Living Tasmania afloat. And, in April, federal funding of $350,000 was provided to allow the Holyoake organisation to revive its drug, alcohol and gambling addiction service. I despair that I have got a long list of other worthy electorate causes in need, most of which must go unmet.

The Tasmanian government keeps telling us that there is no hay in the barn for such groups, yet it does not hesitate in pouring money into football sponsorships and now providing this proxy loan to an old forestry mate. And, in another stunning measure of the government, this year $11 million was allocated on the sly for a racetrack, despite the state government preparing to bring down a horror budget.

Frankly, we in Tasmania are exhausted by the endless displays of government dishonesty and ineptitude, not to mention the complete abandonment of the public interest in favour of vested and party political interests. It does not have to be this way.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was listening very carefully to what the member for Denison was talking about before. He was talking about the problems with the Tasmanian Labor-Greens government. Today I rise to speak in my constituency statement to also talk about problems with the current federal Labor-Greens government. The issue that I am going to focus on today is of concern to all Australians and, in particular, to those in my federal electorate of Higgins, and that is to ensure that all Australians receive the very best health care that they can and receive the best health care when they need it. For many Australians, the opportunity for choice in their health care was broadened very significantly when the coalition government brought in government rebates for private health insurance and made it more affordable for many Australians and their families. This week, though, the government will again attempt—for the third time—to means-test the private health insurance rebate.

With the new Greens balance of power in the Senate, the Labor-Greens alliance will try to ram through this legislation in the Senate and, again, in the House and—who knows?—maybe they have also cut a deal with the Independents. If you can say one thing about the Greens on this particular issue, it is: at least they have been consistent. They are ideologically opposed to private health insurance and will do everything within their power to stop any government rebate for private health insurance. The Labor Party, however, has been much more duplicitous. To get an idea of how duplicitous the Labor Party has been on this issue, let us take a look back. On 20 November 2007, just four days before he became Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd wrote:

Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates …

Then, in October 2008, Labor increased the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds from $50,000 to $70,000 per year for single people and from $100,000 to $140,000 per year for couples or families. Following this, Nicola Roxon said, in 2009:

The Government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates.

Now, right on cue, we have the latest attempt to make it harder for Australians to access private health insurance: means-testing the health insurance rebates. Labor's legislation will make it far more expensive. It will have a very real impact on people's ability to keep and hold their private health insurance and it will have a very real impact on the public health budget as well, as more Australians will be forced into the public health system.

This year the budget for health came in at just over $59 billion. It was the third most significant item in the government's expenditure. We know from the Intergenerational report that that amount will continue to increase, with health costs continuing to blow out. Seventy-seven per cent of my electorate of Higgins have private health insurance, and this will affect each and every one of them. I will continue to fight to retain proper funding for private health insurance. (Time expired)

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

In recent times there has been considerable public concern about the level of foreign ownership of Australian resources, in particular our food and mineral resources. Foreign investment in Australia is not a new phenomenon, with substantial assets having originated from foreign investment. It can fairly be argued that foreign investment has brought with it considerable prosperity. But times are changing. With the world population predicted to exceed nine billion, the earth's resources are becoming more valuable. Food, water and mineral resources are being depleted, whilst demand for those resources simultaneously increases.

Australia is in a unique and secure position in that we have both mineral resources and food production capacity. Other countries are not so fortunate. Whereas in the past foreign investment was primarily driven by private sector investment opportunities and business growth, in the future it will be more about food and resource security. There is a clear pattern emerging. Global resources, including those in Australia, are being targeted by foreign governments with hungry, growing populations. Already, substantial levels of foreign investment are being made in resources and food production in South America, Africa and Australia, sometimes by agencies acting on behalf of other national governments.

Australia is particularly attractive to foreign investment because Australia is seen as a low-risk, stable country. However, we do not see very much large-scale foreign investment in manufacturing and other non-resource and non-food sectors, unless it is part of a global strategy to control the global supply of goods. In a recent speech relating to the Foreign Investment Review Board's decision not to recommend the Singapore stock exchange acquisition of the Australia Securities Exchange, the Treasurer stated:

No proposal has been rejected since 2001, and since we came to Government, over 99 per cent of applications have been approved without conditions.

I understand that over 40,000 applications have been approved by the FIRB over the past eight years. Those statistics should be cause for concern. The government has asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation to investigate the level of foreign ownership in rural land. I welcome that decision.

National security begins with food security and access to necessary resources. Foreign governments understand that. The Shenhua investment in the Liverpool Plains of New South Wales has exposed the changing nature of foreign investment in Australia and the long-term ramifications for our country. Australia's foreign investment review guidelines need to reflect both the changes that are driving foreign investment in Australia and the long-term risk to Australia of foreign ownership of Australian food and natural resources. Short-term gains may cost Australia dearly in the long term.

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

I was heartened that the government reversed its plan to cut funding for medical research. The huge reaction around the nation proved that this truly vital sector is critical if we are to maintain our present health and wellbeing and, more importantly, to make discoveries which continue to change our lives and ease the burden of health costs on the economy for the future. I find it incomprehensible that the Gillard government considered cutting funding to medical research whilst we are undergoing one of the most significant changes to our demographic in Australian history. The rapid ageing of our population is placing a major burden on our society. A large proportion of the financial burden will, of course, be in health care. It is estimated that, whilst the baby boomer generation gained about $3 value for every $1 they contributed in taxes, generation Y and those following will conversely contribute approximately $3 in taxes for every $1 of government spending they receive. This is just one of the reasons we must continue to fund medical research. Another is value for money. It is estimated that medical research returns up to $6 for every $1 invested in its development. That is considered a good return in any business model.

We should recognise the research that is currently being undertaken in Australia and applaud what our researchers have to offer. The Institute for Molecular Bioscience is one such research centre. It is delivering life-changing discoveries and developing treatments you and I can hardly imagine. Last year the IMB, a research centre based at the University of Queensland in my electorate of Ryan, received $6 million in funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council to fund some amazing and extraordinary projects. These included the development of growing therapeutic drugs in seeds and fighting tumours with scorpion venom.

As well as breaking ground with the new, some of the institute's most important work tackles the old. Antibiotics transformed medicine when first discovered in 1928. Their discovery dramatically improved the standard of living, increasing the ease with which disease can be treated to an extent where we can hardly imagine a world without them. However, like all things in our ever-changing world, bacteria have adapted and developed new resistance mechanisms to overcome the effects of many antibiotics in their current form. This means that some patients cannot be treated for life-threatening infections such as golden staph. This is why Professor Matt Cooper has received a grant to develop ways to overcome these new superbugs, targeting two existing antibiotics to create new, more powerful drugs which can treat these infections. Professor Cooper and his team aim to have these drugs ready for human clinical trial within the next five years. (Time expired)

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take very seriously the interests of members of the public, particularly when it comes to the provision of essential services. One of those essential services is access to a post office. Recently, Australia Post identified the Kensington Post Office as an underperforming post office. Whilst no decision was made to close the facility, I thought it was particularly important that residents had an opportunity to show the level of support they have for that local post office.

We invited representatives from Australia Post to attend a public meeting that I convened at Kensington Post Office and I was pleased that senior officers from Australia Post were able to attend. I made clear to them at that time that this post office was one which was very important to the citizens of Kensington. I have 6,001 enrolled residents of Kensington and about 1,600 of them are aged 60 and over. I have a particular concern that, if this post office were to be closed, these elderly residents and residents that might have difficulty getting to an adjoining suburb such as Kingsford or Randwick, where the post offices are highly patronised, would experience significant additional inconvenience.

Added to this, approval of a development application by Randwick Council in Anzac Parade, Kensington will allow a building of up to seven storeys with 59 residential units and ground floor retail spaces, basement parking and the like. This is a suburb which is likely to see increasing numbers of people moving there, particularly as developments like this are considered by the local council.

It is very important that our elderly residents have the kind of service that is provided by an Australia Post office within walking distance and accessible in their suburb. In the case of Kensington, I am absolutely determined to see that this service remains open, and I know that the local newspaper, the Southern Courier, and local residents have been very active and vocal on this issue. I want to thank residents for getting involved in this campaign. I seek leave to present a petition asking the House to take whatever steps are required to ensure that the Kensington Post Office remains open and that its postal services remain available to the community. I have this petition here and I seek leave to table it.

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

There is no need to seek leave as the petition has already been accepted. You are able to present the petition and get your photograph taken!

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that case we will take the opportunity for the assistants of the Table Office to be taken as well.

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

To end up in the local paper—they will be very excited about that!

The petition read as follows—

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives

This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: the possible closure of the Kensington Post Office at 168 Anzac Parade Kensington NSW 2033.

We therefore ask the House to: take whatever steps are required to ensure that the Kensington Post Office remains open and its postal services remain available to the community.

from 1,055 citizens

Petition received.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

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

It is always reassuring when those of us in this parliament are able to look at legislation and realise that we are at one in seeking to achieve better outcomes for all sections of the Australian community, including Indigenous Australians. While there has been some criticism by the opposition of elements of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill, all members believe it is absolutely vital that Indigenous Australians be given the same educational opportunities as other Australians and when we do see areas of disadvantage we as a parliament have a responsibility to provide the resources, to give a helping hand, to Indigenous Australians to make sure that they are able to achieve in the same way as other Australians are. To fail to do so would not be equitable; it would not be an appropriate action by a First World country in 2011.

The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011 is supported by both sides of the House. It relates to programs which were instituted by the former Howard government—the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, which aims to help young Indigenous people move away from home to gain the skills they need to get a job in their community or elsewhere, and the Sporting Chance Program, which is an Australian government initiative which started operating in schools in 2007. Its aim is to encourage positive educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

These are good initiatives; they are initiatives that have worked. There is broad acceptance in the community that they are desirable and that they should continue. However, the situation is that, while this bill enables these programs to have additional funding and to continue, it regrettably does not give permanence to them. The government says that the programs are under review, and I suspect that most people would agree that this is a government by review. There are excessive reviews by this government. By all means review those matters which need to be reviewed but, when there is bipartisan agreement on the very successful nature of the programs mentioned in the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill, why investigate something that everyone agrees is going well?

It is regrettable that the one-year extension of funding for the second year in a row does not give certainty, does not give confidence, to Indigenous Australians, although it does give a measure of reassurance that at least for the time being these important programs will continue to be funded. I suspect that, while a review is underway, ultimately the government will support the ongoing nature of these programs, but since there seems to be a community consensus and certainly a consensus in the parliament, and the results are clear on the board, about these programs they ought not continue to be 'reviewed'; they ought to be the subject of a statement by the minister saying these are good programs, these are programs which will be funded indefinitely into the future. Frankly, as a nation we do not have a lot to be proud of in the area of Indigenous affairs. As I was saying yesterday, we sought to throw money at the problem; we tried to salve the nation's collective conscience by throwing money at the problem without focusing on necessary outcomes.

Like other honourable members I was enormously proud when the member for Hasluck was elected. He is the first member of the House of Representatives to identify as Indigenous. I was really impressed when the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs crossed the chamber and congratulated the member for Hasluck, who is a role model for all Indigenous Australians. The member for Hasluck—and I do not really like to talk about someone else's philosophy—sees education as being the way forward and the way to address disadvantage. When one sees the success that the member for Hasluck has been in his life, starting from a position of relative disadvantage, it is very clear that education is extraordinarily important.

That is why the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, which continues funding, at least for the time being, for these programs, is a very important bill. It is a bill that I commend and support, but I ask the government to cease reviewing these programs and give them a tick of permanence. They deserve it, they have got outcomes and they are achieving what they seek to achieve. The result is that young Indigenous Australians have a better chance of taking their place as people who are able to be successful Australians in every sphere of endeavour. So this is a good bill and these are good programs with which good outcomes are being achieved. I think, though, that the community and the parliament need reassurance from the government that these programs are going to be permanently funded and permanently supported, because they are doing such a wonderful job for those Australians who for too long have been disadvantaged. I commend the bill to the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Highly respected Aboriginal woman Yvonne Butler said:

Education is the greatest single weapon to overcome disadvantage and the impact of this denial of education affects me and other Indigenous people to this day. Education is the base upon which society relies, passing on our knowledge and teachings from one generation to the next.

Why should one group in society miss out on the wonders of education just because this government cannot commit to a decision of extending its financial aid?

The purpose of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011 is to amend funding under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to include an additional calendar year, 2013, so that the facilities providing educational assistance can make a long-term commitment to bettering future generations of our Aboriginal population. The bill provides for the appropriation of $133.5 million for non-Abstudy payments over 2013. This funding amount also includes adjustments to appropriations made as a result of previous decisions of government, including in relation to the new federal financial arrangements framework. In accordance with the government's policy, the legislated figure will be adjusted for price movements. The bill also provides $25.5 million for Abstudy away-from-base payments. The total appropriation for both components is $159 million in 2013. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 provides a legislative basis and appropriate funding for a variety of Aboriginal education programs for the tertiary sector.

Sporting Chance and the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program are two initiatives of the previous coalition government that have been continued by the current Labor/Greens/Independents government. Both programs have achieved considerable success in retaining students in school as well as increasing their participation and success rates. However, this Labor government has not committed to long-term funding for these two initiatives. Instead, it has simply provided a 12-month extension in the past two budgets. The extension has been described as being necessary to allow for the completion and release of the Review of Funding for Schooling report, which is due some time in 2011. But by the government's own admission the review is focused on the mainstream. There may—only 'may'—be some implications for the design and operation of programs run by the IETA Act.

The Australian government, along with all state and territory governments, endorses and promotes the 21 common and agreed national goals of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy. Labor is paralysed by endless reviews. It has described this year as the year of delivery and decision. I say it is the year of more debt and more delay. At least the Prime Minister got the Ds right. A one-year extension of funding for the second year in a row by the Gillard Labor government limits the funding and therefore holds hostage future planning for more successful programs and long-term funding prospects. It seems this uncommitted government is trying to drive a wedge in good programs which re-engage Aboriginal students with learning and bettering their future.

The original initiative was a great initiative, introduced by the coalition government in 2000. The act allowed the minister to make an agreement with education providers, or other persons or bodies, authorising payments during the 2001 to 2009 calendar years. There is enormous frustration that this Gillard-Rudd government is simply without ideas. We have had 4½ years of Labor rolling off figures about Aboriginal disadvantage; however, even when the solution is handed to it from the previous coalition government, it still does not seem fit to implement it. It may want to set a 'closing the gap' figure for 2020, long after this government is gone and hopefully some of its mess is cleaned up; however, it will be unable to account for its lack of action. That will lie in the hands of future generations.

Following from this, if there is not proper funding for the education of Aborigines then we may not see a future generation. This government is quite happy to apologise for the actions of others generations ago, but it seems it is unable to face up to its own inaction and apologise for it. There are many opportunities for Aboriginal youth to do better and to involve themselves in the community, and with help from government a re-engagement with learning can be instilled into these children. But, if this government will not commit to ensuring long-term education funding, how can the children commit to their own education? This government is not really showing a good example. Given opportunity, Aboriginal children are just as capable as any other children of succeeding in our community.

In the Riverina there are just so many sporting opportunities, and we should be doing everything we can to involve Indigenous youths in one of their passions: sport. It is a passion that they are so very good at. Too often Aboriginal youths are overrepresented among those displaying antisocial behaviour. That seems to occur across Australia and it certainly occurs in the Riverina. It is because in some cases they do not get the proper parental direction, or because they have nothing meaningful to do with their lives because there is not the opportunity that should be encouraged more and more by government, or because, in some instances, they just do not know how to be involved in the wider community.

There are avenues other than sport, and one that comes to mind is participation in the Australian Defence Force Cadets. Those young Aboriginal men and women who do join cadet units have the time of their lives. I encourage Indigenous youth to participate. We have seen over many, many years—over decades—how Aboriginal men and women have engaged in our defence forces and been remarkable participants in keeping our nation safe so that today we may live in peace and in a democracy. In Wagga Wagga we have an Army cadet unit, and cadets of all races and ethnicities have risen to the highest ranks of this service. It is a mark of just what can be achieved. I never fail to be impressed with the young men and women in the cadet forces. They are future leaders of our country, and by continuing the funding at great length we can and will encourage Aboriginal Australians.

There is no denying the commitment both sides of the chamber have to Indigenous programs. The Gillard-Rudd Labor government has made a lot of promises under its Closing the Gap initiative; however, we and they, the Aboriginal population, need more than just words. Aboriginal Australians are counting on the Prime Minister to deliver real action and real results in education, housing, health care and, of course, sporting opportunities. Unfortunately this government has proven too many times to be nothing but talk.

The bill today provides more funding for a successful coalition government program. This is highly commendable and I thank the government for supporting the coalition initiative that has been developed over so many years. The previous coalition government was committed to Indigenous programs and in the 2007-08 budget $4 billion was put aside for Aboriginal programs and services. There was a 67 per cent real increase on the amount that had been spent by the Keating Labor government in 1995-96. The coalition government was particularly committed to Indigenous education through initiatives such as the Clontarf Foundation. From 1998 to 2005, the participation of Aboriginal students in year 12 increased from 32 per cent to 40 per cent. Participation in year 11 increased from 52 per cent to 62 per cent. But we can always do better and we must do better. Education is one of the many ways to the future for Aboriginal Australians.

These are just some of the outcomes of some of the projects carried out by the previous coalition government. The Labor-Green-Independents government has professed the same commitment but we have yet to see any real positive action. There is a long way to go in Indigenous education. On such an important issue, the government needs to do more than just expand coalition initiatives. However, it seems that this government just wants to take the easy option and that is costing Aboriginal students the right to a better life.

In recent times, this has been evident with the suspension of the live cattle trade in the north. The largest population per capita of Aboriginal Australians is in Northern Queensland, the Northern Territory and Northern Western Australia, the predominant areas for live export. Many Aboriginal men and women have worked long and hard to gain experience in managing all aspects of the live cattle trade industry. Jobs have not just been lost in droving the herds onto boats. There are also bookkeepers, jackaroos and jillaroos, farm managers and drovers. And many of those workers are Aboriginal people, who through the benefits provided by the coalition government, have re-engaged with the need for better education and worked their way into good jobs—only to have them suspended in another misled decision by this government. And what is the government's solution to this suspension? They have banned the live cattle trade. They have sent all of these Aboriginal workers to Centrelink for compensation—the very place that many like to avoid.

More programs such as the Aboriginal Environmental Education Centre in Brungle in New South Wales in the Riverina in my electorate need to be operated. This is an area in my electorate where education on Aboriginal tradition is threaded into the curriculum. Brungle Public School, which is close to Gundagai and Tumut, has developed programs and the grounds to provide a better understanding of Aboriginal culture. I commend them for the work that they are doing. Students will experience traditional greetings and meet Aboriginal elders in the dreaming room. They will also learn traditional skills, history, Dreamtime legends, implement making and the Wiradjuri language. They will learn about scar trees, bush tucker and plant and animal usage. Aboriginal activist and lawyer Noel Pearson once said that there is no self-esteem and self-worth without capability and there is no road to capability without education.

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

I too rise to speak to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, which amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 by extending the existing funding arrangements, including indexation, for the 2013 calendar year. The bill extends funding totalling $133.5 million for non-Abstudy payments, including a number of Indigenous school programs. It will align the payment period under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act with other funding for school education legislation and agreements. We are supporting this bill because these were originally coalition initiatives.

What concerns us, though, as the previous speaker said, is that this is a recognition that we are not doing well enough in terms of outcomes for Indigenous students. Today there has been a lot of media focus on the fact that Australian children do well comparatively internationally in terms of life chances, with the exception in particular of Indigenous children. There is a growing gap, in fact, between the life chances and outcomes for Indigenous children—including both remote and metropolitan Indigenous children—compared to those for non-Indigenous young people in the Australian society. Quite obviously, that cannot be tolerated in a country like ours.

I have to say that I am very disappointed that, while this government has paid a lot of lip-service to our intervention program, which we introduced just before they were elected nearly five years ago, and to closing the gap as a policy package and an ideal, we are not seeing any major indicators of improvement. For example, with Indigenous adolescent incarceration, the rates of incarceration both for young men and women—teenage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders—are increasing at a dramatic rate. The recidivism rates are increasing dramatically. These are wasted lives—lost lives—with young people spending much of their lives behind barbed wire. On the health of young Indigenous Australians: while morbidity rates are declining, we still have diseases you would expect to more commonly find in Third World countries. The levels of deafness and eyesight damage are just intolerable. In mainstream Australian society, a condition like otitis media, for example, is absolutely preventable or able to be cured in a way that does not leave permanent damage. But it too often leads to deafness in Aboriginal children before they reach their second birthday. There are implications of loss of hearing in terms of education, lifelong opportunities and even being able to participate in your home community. All of your chances are fewer if you have deafness and there is very little opportunity to get aids or even to learn signing to deal with it. This just should not be the case in Australia.

Then there is the business of car injury. Transport related injury is a leading cause of death and serious disability among both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, but it is often overlooked that Indigenous infants, children and adults are all much more likely to have a fatal transport related injury than their non-Indigenous peers. Compared to people in non-Indigenous Australia, Indigenous people who die from this sort of injury have more often been a vehicle passenger or a pedestrian. The risk factors are environment related, vehicle related and behaviour related and are different to those for the rest of the population.

Indigenous people have generally not experienced the reduction in road fatalities that the rest of the Australian population have experienced through effective road safety interventions like wearing seat belts or reducing road speed. Indigenous people are two to three times as likely as non-Indigenous Australians to have a transport related fatal injury and 30 per cent more likely to have a transport related serious injury. Seventy-five per cent of these injuries or deaths are in regional and remote areas. But even in urban locations Indigenous people have a two to three times higher rate of transport related fatal injuries. In some areas, the death rate may be 17 times greater than it is for the general population. This death rate occurs for all ages, including infants and children less than four years old, and there is a peak among 18- to 25-year-olds. The rate of 18 to 25-year-olds having accidents is a serious problem for non-Indigenous Australians too, but in the Indigenous community we have these young children and babies being killed as well. There are more likely to be single vehicle rollovers, and Indigenous people are 10 times more likely than non-Indigenous people to die as a pedestrian—35 per cent versus 13 per cent of all transport related fatalities respectively.

This seems an extraordinary set of data. Why are Australian Indigenous people more likely than non-Indigenous Australians to die in cars—as drivers or passengers—or as pedestrians? The answers are not very hard to find. The conditions of outback roads are very bad. Often there is less maintenance available for vehicles. Often these vehicles are poorly maintained, damaged and unroadworthy. Most cars in remote communities develop mechanical problems within six months and last less than 2½ years.

We need to look very closely at this whole business of deaths in vehicle related accidents. With this bill targeting Indigenous education assistance, we are talking about more students having opportunities to be mobile, to move away to other places and to be involved in sports related programs. Some of those programs are very excellent indeed but, unless we also go to the nub of the problems associated with young people being killed in car accidents, we are not paying attention to the whole problem, with its complexities and its cultural differences.

One of the clear problems for Indigenous young Australians in remote communities is that they do not tend to speak English. They cannot get drivers licences. The nonsensical requirements now applying in most states and territories stipulating how many hours of pre-licence driving you do with a mentor or a parent in the vehicle just cannot apply in outback Australia. In Queensland you are supposed to have some 100 hours of pre-licence driving experience, but some islands in the Torres Strait, for example, might only have a couple of kilometres, if you are lucky, of main road. So how can a young Indigenous person from a Torres Strait island abide by the law and get their drivers licence lawfully with proper experience of driving during the day and night and in all sorts of conditions? They simply cannot. So they are set up to fail in terms of their own safety behind the wheel and also in terms of being law-abiding when it comes to being stopped by police and asked for their drivers licence. These young Indigenous people do not learn English because they are not at school long enough, because their attendance is poor or because the teaching of English at their school is inadequate. There is no special provision for that situation when it comes to these young people being given special driver education. Perhaps there should be a special drivers licence for people from remote areas. That would acknowledge the special problems associated with pre-licence driving experience by providing them with assistance from someone who has a licence.

We often ignore the impacts of the remote geography of our country. I have been quoting these statistics from Monash University and the Foundation for Surgery, which have been doing a lot of work researching injuries and health outcomes of young Australians, particularly Indigenous young Australians. They have come up with some suggestions on what to do to prevent Indigenous mortalities from road trauma. They suggest that there should be more school based education and post-licence education. They say there should be educational and social marketing—in other words, fear messages—in relation to these problems on the road.

The trouble is that it is not just post-licence education; we are talking about pre-licence education. The Foundation for Surgery, Monash University and also the National Trauma Research Institute say we have dealt with these problems for non-Indigenous populations through street lighting, red-light cameras, the promotion of seatbelt use, random breath tests, mass media campaigns on safe driving and speed limit enforcement through speed detection devices. Clearly none of those measures makes much sense for Indigenous populations when we are talking about dirt roads out the back of Uluru or Halls Creek or Kununurra in Western Australia, so we need different approaches.

The coalition supports any measures that will assist Indigenous Australians to have a better life and to have the same opportunities as other Australians. Extending the funding for these programs is important but, I am sad to say, this is just a very small measure in terms of the huge task that confronts us. We have a lot of evidence that we are not doing any better in terms of how our Indigenous young Australians are experiencing life in our great country. I began by saying they are more likely to be locked up, homeless, have mental health problems, have alcohol and drug dependency problems, be assaulted and experience violence. They are more likely to be killed or seriously injured as a result of road trauma. The carers of those road trauma victims are more likely to have their own lives disadvantaged by the fact that they are caring for someone who is physically or brain injured—those with brain injuries may be damaged for life—and they are trying to deal with those things in a remote community.

Along with my coalition colleagues I support this bill, but we have to look much harder at the situation in Australia for Indigenous people. We cannot go on having Indigenous Australians being out of sight and out of mind because of where they live. We need an integrated approach to what we do with the states and territories and non-government agencies. We need to collect a lot more data and monitor the outcomes of a program if it appears to be successful, because too often we do not properly monitor outcomes. The program has short-term funding. The staff who are working with that program become disenchanted when they are on a six-month or 12-month program lifecycle. And, if it succeeds, then maybe in five or 20 years time there will be another program echoing almost exactly the parameters of the first—reinventing the wheel. Meanwhile, Indigenous communities become despairing of a churn of people coming to assist them. They have no sense that there is any continuity of care or understanding of their issues and problems. And we go on having children in Australia who are more likely to be blind through, for example, the instance of cataract conditions; more likely to be deaf; more likely to have brain damage due to foetal alcohol syndrome; more likely to be incarcerated and more likely to suffer death and injury through road trauma—all in all, in every way not able to fully enjoy the opportunities of this great country of ours.

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

I rise today to address the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011. This proposed legislation amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000, the IETA Act, by extending the existing funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements, for the 2013 calendar year.

The Sporting Chance Program and Indigenous Youth Mobility Program, IYMP, are Howard government initiatives. Both programs have achieved success in retaining students in school as well as increasing their participation and success rates. The Sporting Chance Program was originally announced in the 2006-07 budget, with the objective of using sport and recreation as a tool to not only increase the level of educational participation of Indigenous students but also improve their final learning outcome. The Indigenous Youth Mobility Program allows Indigenous youth aged between 16 and 24 to relocate from remote communities to gain qualifications to increase their chance of getting a good job. Indigenous youth from cities and regional towns are also eligible for the program if they relocate to another IYMP host location to gain qualifications or to take up an apprenticeship.

I fully support this bill as I have seen firsthand what the Sporting Chance Program is achieving in Durack. Since opening its first academy for 25 boys on the campus of the Clontarf Aboriginal College in Perth, Western Australia, in 2000, the foundation has grown rapidly and has been consistently successful. They now cater for over 2,500 boys in 45 schools across Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Victoria.

Using the passion that Aboriginal boys have for football allows Clontarf to attract the boys to school. But it is not just a sporting program; rather, the Clontarf Foundation exists to improve the education, discipline, self-esteem, life skills and employment prospects of young Aboriginal men and, by doing so, equip them to participate more meaningfully in society.

The Clontarf Foundation has nine academies in Durack, with 658 students in total. The achievements of the Clontarf Foundation are remarkable. With school attendance rates of 80 per cent, year-to-year retention of not less than 90 per cent and 75 per cent of graduates gaining full-time employment within one year of leaving school, something is right. Wouldn't it be great if, rather than needing to use the passion for football to educate our Indigenous people, we could instigate a passion for education at an early age. Indigenous teenage males have a life expectancy of 17 years less than non-Indigenous teenage males and are 28 times more likely to be imprisoned. They have a truancy rate of about 45 per cent and are more likely to leave school prematurely, some as young as nine.

I, along with the rest of Australia, would like to, in the not too distant future, view these statistics simply as a relic of the history of Indigenous education. I want the Indigenous people of Australia to be able to stand proud and say, 'That was what it used to be like,' when they get up on the podium of success and reflect on how much they have achieved.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-14, released in early June this year, tells us:

Attending school and engaging with learning is fundamentally important in helping young Australians to acquire the skills they need for life. Successful learning cannot be built on irregular attendance. There is evidence to suggest that the more regularly students attend school the greater their success in learning.

Whacko; this is mind-boggling stuff—a 49-page report, at a huge cost, to tell us what we already know: if you do not go to school you cannot hope to learn! Amazing! Whoever would have thought that would be the case! The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-14 is without doubt well intentioned; however, I do wonder, given this Labor government's love of rhetoric and lack of discipline in following through, whether any of the report's goals will ever be achieved.

In fact, we have seen several cases of where even the reporting of this government's many and varied inquiries, committees and commissions cannot be achieved due to the lack of data. Recently the Council of Australian Governments Reform Council confessed on behalf of the Gillard government that they do not know if people with disabilities are getting improved services under the National Disability Agreement. The COAG Reform Council's 2009-10 performance report into the National Disability Agreement said:

In this second year report, the council finds that out-of-date data for some indicators, the lack of any data for a number of further indicators, and the absence of agreed measures for others, make it difficult to determine whether progress has been made toward meeting COAG’s overall objective.

This is consistent with the National Affordable Housing Agreement performance report 2009-10, where the COAG Reform Council could not provide a progress report on four partnerships that make up the agreement—again, due to lack of data. Page 39 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-14 states:

Data improvements may also lead to the development of more refined measures and reporting of performance against the closing the gaps targets. For example, there is currently no agreed trajectory associated with the target to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in remote communities have the opportunity to access to an early learning program in the year before school. The COAG Reform Council has recommended that data development in this area be given high priority. However, as an indication of work in this area, Figure 1 presents an Australian Government estimate based on Commonwealth funding for Universal Access to early childhood education. Once this data is refined to report on children from remote areas, reporting to Ministers will also be updated.

There we go—an admission of the inability to reach targets due to the lack of data, before the pursuit even begins.

The recent COAG Reform Council data released recently—data which I am sure the Labor government would prefer had not been released—proves that the great Closing the Gap idea is not working. In fact, the gap has widened between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students in year 9. The report, based on the NAPLAN data, shows that less than two-thirds of Indigenous year 9 students can read at the national average standard. This, so early on in the plan to halve the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students before 2018, is very troubling news. In what appears to be a distortion of the NAPLAN data, some believe assessments are actually being skewed to what is being taught rather than what children know.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-14 report is full of outcomes, targets, performance indicators, national collaborative action, systemic level action and local level action. But I note the report has not once mentioned the two words that are needed when dealing with Indigenous education: tough love. Instead, we have a report tarted up with socially and academically acceptable words so as not to offend anyone. Well, I think it is time that we offended people. I think it is time we set it straight and stopped pussyfooting around. For far too long Indigenous communities have existed rather than thrived, due to welfare handouts. We cannot educate the young before educating the educator.

In mainstream society, school attendance and education are accepted as the norm. That is not the case in Indigenous communities. The necessity of sending children to school needs to be embraced by the entire Indigenous population. An entrenched welfare philosophy exists within our Indigenous communities. Our passive love has not worked and will not ever work. We need more rigour. We need to impose welfare recipient restrictions in line with school attendance. We need to make full welfare payments dependent upon full school attendance.

The biggest issue in Indigenous education is, without doubt, attendance. It is all very well to spruik enrolment figures, but these figures are generally much higher than the true attendance rate and skew the picture completely. Exceptional headmasters and teachers and strong parental involvement can break the pattern, but school attendance in Aboriginal communities generally is far below that of the rest of the community. There is a culture of non-attendance because of funerals, extended absence for numerous reasons, overcrowding, housing, revolting abuse, sleep deprivation, lack of motivation through lack of purpose, lack of role models, no appreciation of need and no parental insistence.

The longer we keep handing out welfare with no expectation in return, the longer we will have a society within a society. First and foremost, we are all Australians; we are not Indigenous or non-Indigenous. We must stop the inequality of expectation between black and white. We need to change our mindset. We need to expect the same of all children, regardless of their colour or cultural background. By lowering our expectations for one sector of society, we do not allow them choices in life that other sectors take for granted—choices such as education, employment, success and, above all, hope. We can keep throwing money at communities with no real expectation of anyone improving their lives—it has worked for decades. Sure, we all feel better—out of sight, out of mind. We have done our bit, given money, eased our conscience, got to sleep nights and moved on—moved on until a hungry young reporter or a seasoned photographer pricks our conscience with a story about the trouble in our Indigenous communities.

Let us be honest with ourselves: it is just not working. Because the do-gooders of this country have brought a race to its knees, it is time to show tough love in order to restore dignity to our Indigenous people. All people need to have an education. As was pointed out in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014, there is evidence to suggest that the more regularly students attend school, the greater their success in learning.

The actions and initiatives of this Labor government are not working in any area, but especially not in Indigenous matters. Prior to the 2007 federal election, Labor promised it would contribute funds towards the construction and operation of three new boarding colleges for Indigenous secondary school students in years 8 to 12 in the Northern Territory. In 2008-09 the federal budget provided $28.9 million over four years towards this project—$18.8 million was to be spent in 2008-09 and $5.1 million, $2.5 million and $2.5 million over the following three financial years to 2011-12—with the Indigenous Land Corporation to contribute a further $15 million towards construction costs. So far, construction has begun on one site, and that has progressed to formwork only. Nearly three years after the specific commitment made by Mr Rudd, only one of the promised 38 Indigenous children and family centres will have been opened by 30 June this year. The Indigenous children and family centres, part of the Indigenous early childhood development national partnership, are designed to provide quality early childhood services to Aboriginal children and their families.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, which recently tabled Doing timetime for doing, the report of its inquiry into the high level of involvement of Indigenous juveniles and young adults in the criminal justice system. The inquiry showed that not only are Indigenous youth 28 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-Indigenous youth, but if you are an Indigenous woman you are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised by partner abuse than a non-Indigenous woman. Those figures are atrocious, yet the Greens have the audacity to demonstrate their ignorance by introducing to parliament bills condemning the intervention on the basis of human rights. Basic human rights, proclaimed and agreed upon, say that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind—such as those of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. These rights recognise that a child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment—in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding. A child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society. To deny children an education is to deny them basic human rights. So long as we continue to accept a culture that says, 'We will pay welfare with no expectation of something in return'—that is, the right of children to be educated—we are denying those children their natural human rights.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to provide some summing-up comments on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011, noting the contributions that have been made by members in this debate and reflecting that we do have support in the House for the amendments that have been identified in this bill.

The bill's primary purpose is to extend existing funding arrangements under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000, including indexation for the 2013 calendar year. Through the act, the Australian government funds a range of programs to support the attendance, engagement and learning of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. I will take the opportunity to provide a few examples of the kinds of programs that are funded under this act and draw the attention of members opposite in particular to those programs.

On literacy and numeracy, funds from the act are expanding the use of personalised learning plans for Indigenous students—learning plans which look at where each student is up to and which help teachers tailor their class work to ensure gaps are filled and every student is making progress. I consider as Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth that personalised learning plans are an essential component of the education provision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. I will be looking to work very closely with state jurisdictions as we continue to roll out this program.

On attendance, the act funds the Sporting Chance Program—which members will be aware of—engaging mainly Aboriginal boys who are passionate about sport, but taking that passion and using it to drive attendance and a connection with schools. I had the opportunity last week ,when we had a community cabinet in Darwin, to visit Casuarina Senior College, which is funded under this program and currently in its third year of that program. The school now has its largest ever cohort of Aboriginal boys undertaking year 12. That is a significant achievement and something that Casuarina Senior College and its students can be very proud of. It represents a quantum increase in the number of boys getting to year 12 and, once in year 12, having the opportunity to go on to further education, or to skills and vocation.

On community support for schooling, the act also fund projects that strengthen links between schools and parents, community members and, especially, elders. One good example is the Connecting Country initiative in New South Wales where new teachers in high Aboriginal enrolment schools are given an induction into the local community prior to taking up their position. This helps new teachers understand community needs and expectations. It builds a solid and productive working relationship with community leaders, which can be very useful in resolving attendance and a range of other issues that can arise from time to time. These are just a few examples of the programs that are funded under the act and which members need to be very aware of. The fact is that funding provided under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act is not the only way this government is supporting better results, better outcomes, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Under the Smarter Schools National Partnerships, the government is providing some $2.5 billion to expand literacy and numeracy programs and to improve teacher quality, specifically in schools serving the most disadvantaged around the country. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, like all students around the country, are benefiting from this significant investment, as well as from the investments that we are making in modernising school infrastructure, in providing technology for classrooms, in a high-quality Australian curriculum, in professional standards and improved training for teachers, in meaningful vocational training opportunities that students can still access while in secondary school and, again, in the provision of trade training centres, including those in the Northern Territory.

The fact is that this government has almost doubled federal investment in Australian school education, compared with the previous coalition government. That is the salient fact as we look at the resources that are being applied to make sure that every child, regardless of where they live, gets a great education. And the fact is that this government has set ambitious targets to improve educational outcomes for Indigenous students, to lift our efforts to meet the enormity of that challenge. We know that, within the aim of closing the gap, that task is a really urgent one.

I noted some of the comments by the member for Sturt about these targets, and they were reprised by the member for Durack. In particular, the member for Sturt mentioned that the COAG Reform Council found that data to monitor our commitment regarding early childhood education was not currently available. But what the member for Sturt failed to mention—it is always important to look at what he does not say as much as what he does—was that the COAG Reform Council reported that the work to collect those datasets is well advanced and will be in place for future years. So I caution the member for Sturt, when he comes into this House, not to make misleading use of statements and commentary by institutions such as the COAG Reform Council.

The member for Sturt also failed to mention that it was the previous coalition government that left us with no adequate national mechanism to actually collect data on participation in early childhood education. The member for Sturt failed to mention that it was the previous coalition government's policies that left an unacceptable number of young Australians without access to early childhood learning. So, when we came to government, we were faced with this deficit of policy, resources and support to enable young Australians, including young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, to get the best start in life that they can. So we started the massive task of improving service delivery and data collection, coming off a very inadequate base—the inadequate base that was the legacy of the Howard years—and when we finish, every child, no matter where they live in Australia, will have access to a quality preschool program delivered by qualified early learning teachers and access to the education resources that they need to make the best of their education journey.

I recently released a detailed blueprint describing our actions to ensure this universal access to early childhood learning is achieved for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Universal Access Strategy incorporates work on issues including the supply of places, workforce capacity and community awareness. Additionally, I should make mention of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan agreed through COAG, signed off by first ministers and chief ministers, which binds both the Commonwealth and state jurisdictions to specific, on-ground, targeted actions to make sure that our efforts in Indigenous education continue unabated. Of course, as members know, all aspects of school funding are currently under review, with the new funding model for schools to be put in place from 2013.

I will make one final comment about the contributions of the previous speakers. I too agree that attendance is a key and important issue in education for Indigenous kids, and we want to especially work closely with education authorities and school systems to make sure that attendance is given the priority that it both needs and deserves—and I will have more to say about that in the coming months. To summarise, the bill provides clarity that the Indigenous education funds under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act that the Australian government uses to support Indigenous school students will continue at least up until the new system comes into place and that there will be time for proper planning and consultation regarding any changes that might arise as a result of the review.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

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

I move:

That business intervening before order of the day No. 7, committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Question agreed to.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that in this place there is a very strong bipartisan aspiration for a better future for Indigenous Australians. This report is a very important contribution to our understanding of the current state of play. The concerning aspect of the report that is being debated today is how we have stood still on many indicators for Aboriginal Australians and, in some instances, how far we have gone backwards.

This report is focused on young people and their contact with the criminal justice system. I think it is very revealing to refer directly to the report, where it says:

Tragically, indigenous juveniles and young adults are more likely to be incarcerated today than at any other time since the release of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody final report in 1991.

It goes on to say:

This rise has occurred despite increased funding and the concern and efforts of community members, government officials, non-government organisations and the judiciary around Australia.

Specifically, the detention rate for Indigenous juveniles is 397 per 100,000 people, which is 28 times higher than the rate for non-Indigenous juveniles, which is only 14 per 100,000. The report goes on to say:

In 2007, Indigenous juveniles accounted for 59 percent of the total juvenile detention population.

This is very alarming indeed. It is very alarming to note just how significant this issue has become for young Indigenous Australians.

You can only consider this issue, however, when you look at the reasons behind it and the resultant behaviours. There is a picture that is painted by this report that these very high levels of incarceration reflect other problems—problems related to the breakdown in family relationships and the dysfunction of many family relationships, the lack of significant role models in Indigenous communities, the breakdown in social relationships within the community, health disadvantages and the terrible health statistics that belie the fact that we are a First World country. In fact, shockingly, the health statistics that are revealed indicate that we are on par with many Third World countries when we look to Indigenous health standards. There are issues of education and the fact that we have so many Indigenous Australians who are simply not attending school. There are also issues around housing, employment and economic opportunity.

There is much that is very worthy in the contributions made in this report but the fact remains that for nearly every government department that is involved with the Closing the Gap initiative that has been brought forward by this government there is very little data collection and coordination in the programs that are being put forward. The government is very focused on spending money but it is not particularly focused on the outcomes that are being delivered. It is my view that we must monitor very carefully and closely the outcomes of all programs and analyse the results so that successful programs can be expanded and those that are not successful can be modified or, in some cases, discontinued if they prove not to be worthy.

Noel Pearson, who is a very significant Indigenous leader, has for many, many years been critical in this debate about achieving better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, not only by identifying the problems, but by thinking in a very innovative way about some of the solutions. In doing so, he has challenged the philosophical orthodoxy on which a lot of the programs and government solutions to date have been based. I want specifically to look at education and the school attendance rate for Indigenous children. We know, looking at the figures, that on average attendance is less than 60 per cent and in remote communities it reaches barely 50 per cent. These children are being left behind.

In particular, I turn to the recommendations that this report has made regarding school and community relationships. Recommendation 16—and I do not propose to read all of it—specifically focuses on the importance of flying an Aboriginal and/or a Torres Strait Islander flag alongside the Australian flag within school grounds; learning about Indigenous sites of significance in the local area; incorporating an acknowledgement of country at the start of significant events as well as school assemblies; using local Indigenous language names for school classrooms or sporting houses and teams; celebrating Mabo Day, NAIDOC Week, Reconciliation Week and Harmony Day—it goes on. But what it does not talk about specifically is increasing what are, in my view, core skills of numeracy and literacy and equipping students today with the skills they are going to need to be fully engaged in realising the economic opportunities that are available to them as members of the broader Australian community. I think that this is a significant problem. While the other recommendations I refer to may be very worthy, they are not going to make a significant difference to the educational experiences and outcomes for Indigenous Australians. I think we need to be a lot stronger. Parents need to send their children to school or face income penalties. We know already that many parents are not prosecuted when in fact they do not send their children to school.

Noel Pearson has talked about the success of a number of programs that have been developed in Cape York. He has talked in particular about educational scholarships for students to be educated, sometimes outside the community. The results with those programs and educational scholarships have been quite outstanding, and I think we need to very seriously consider whether this is something that the government should be looking very closely at.

Noel Pearson has also talked, significantly, about mutual obligation, about the culture of personal responsibility and about empowerment for the individual and for the community. I think these are the values that should be the touchstones that shape Indigenous policy now and into the future.

It is very clear that an integrated approach to Indigenous policy is required. We need to look carefully at the way in which schools and education policy interact with broader employment and economic policy and with the health initiatives that are being put forward as well as at the support we provide to families in Indigenous communities. We all want Indigenous children and Indigenous people in this country to be equipped to participate fully in the many opportunities a country like ours has to offer.

We in the coalition have been particularly strong on these issues. While we might not always have been perfect in the response that we provided, we have made and will continue to make the hard decisions, such as the Northern Territory intervention, to tackle problems that we know exist, such as alcohol abuse and gambling. We will also continue to provide support to parents to get children to school and work with families and communities to remove hurdles that prevent school attendance. It is incumbent upon us as members in this place to break the cycle of expectation that young Indigenous people end up in detention and jail. We need to do this by attacking the problems at their core. We must do this together and as a matter of urgency.

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

I want to take the opportunity today to also contribute, along with the member for Higgins and others who have spoken previously, to the debate on this particularly important report, of June 2011, of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs that has been presented to the parliament Doing time—time for doing: Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system. I indicate the tremendous work that has been done by the committee and acknowledge Shane Neumann as the chair and Sharman Stone as the deputy chair of that committee. I note that the member for Durack is also a member of the committee and is here to participate in this debate.

Some reports are presented before this parliament that, I believe, are of such significance to the nation that all of us should engage with the report. I believe this is one of those reports. This particular report tells a story of our nation. It is a difficult one to hear and it confronts us with some real challenges. Sadly, they are not new challenges. The foreword of the report indicates that, in fact, it is 20 years since the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and, despite that report, over the time that has subsequently passed the incarceration rate of Indigenous Australians, including Indigenous youth, who are the subject of this report, has actually worsened. Sadly, Indigenous juveniles are 28 times more likely than non-Indigenous juveniles to be incarcerated, despite Indigenous peoples representing only 2.5 per cent of the Australian population. This is a state of affairs that I think requires the urgent attention of all governments, communities and people across this nation.

The report goes to great length and into great detail to outline the extensive social and economic disadvantage that contributes to the high levels of Indigenous contact with the criminal justice system. It is clear from the committee's investigation that there is intergenerational dysfunction in some Indigenous communities that presents a truly significant challenge of breaking that cycle of offending, recidivism and incarceration.

There is so much in this report that it would be difficult to encompass it all in a 15-minute contribution in this place. So I want to focus specifically on where we as a nation, sadly, sit in terms of these contacts and incarcerations. Secondly, I want to generally touch on some of those contributing factors and some of my own experiences in the field and then, finally, to talk about one local program in my area that I think is representative of the sorts of activities that can make a difference.

As I indicated, the final report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody came down in 1991. So this year, at the time of this report we are debating, we are 20 years down the track since that point in time. The committee drew together research and statistics gathered from state and national authorities. I want to indicate some of these to the House. I think they speak for themselves. Sometimes statistics can be a way of hiding the truth, as many have quoted the famous quote: 'Lies, damned lies and statistics.' However, I think in this case they actually illuminate for us very clearly the issue that we are dealing with.

The detention rate for Indigenous juveniles is 397, per 100,000. That is 28 times higher than the rate for non-Indigenous juveniles. In 2007 Indigenous juveniles accounted for 59 per cent of the total juvenile detention population, despite Indigenous people being 2.5 per cent of the total population. There is clearly a strong link between the disproportionate rate of juvenile detention and the disproportionate rate of adult imprisonment. Not surprisingly, if many of those adults being imprisoned are from Indigenous families then the flow-on impact on the children of those families sees an increase in their contact with the system and incarceration as well. At this time 25 per cent of all prisoners in Australia are Indigenous despite, as I said, being 2.5 per cent of the population.

Prison census data shows that between 2000 and 2010 the number of both Indigenous men and Indigenous women has increased markedly—Indigenous men by 55 per cent and Indigenous women by 47 per cent. When we comprehend how significant Indigenous women are to the fabric of Indigenous communities and to holding families together, from the increasing level of incarceration of those leaders in families and communities we can see why there are dysfunctional families with intergenerational problems and incarceration becoming a serious issue. Between 2000 and 2009 the imprisonment rate of Indigenous Australians increased 66 per cent. It is a really difficult statistic for us to get our heads around but, more importantly, it challenges us to say, 'This is something that we really need to seriously take on board to find strategies that work.'

Indigenous juveniles and young adults are much more likely to come into contact with police in comparison with their non-Indigenous counterparts. So the first point of contact is a place at which an important intervention can occur. In 2008 over 40 per cent of all Indigenous men in Australia reported having been formally charged with an offence by police before they reached the age of 25. That is 40 per cent of all Indigenous men.

Indigenous juveniles are overrepresented in both community and detention based supervision. Indigenous juveniles make up 53 per cent of all juveniles in detention and 39 per cent of all juveniles under community supervision. Importantly, they are younger than the average of those in the system. Twenty-two per cent of Indigenous juveniles in detention were aged 14 or younger, compared with only 14 per cent of non-Indigenous juveniles.

It should be also acknowledged—and the committee makes this important point—that the adverse contact with the criminal justice system for Indigenous people is not confined to their being offenders. It is also, sadly, the fact that they are more often than not victims of crime as well. In particular, they are more likely to be victims of violent crime than non-Indigenous people. The impact of that on communities is important to recognise.

Between 2006 and 2007 Indigenous women were 35 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of spousal partner violence than non-Indigenous women. When we think of the impact of that on families and young people and the direct link between violence in families and engagement with the criminal justice system, we can see why there is such a problem. The committee acknowledged in its report that Indigenous victimisation rates are an important part of the problem that need to be addressed.

In 1991 the royal commission indicated in its report:

The more fundamental causes of over-representation of Aboriginal people in custody are not to be found in the criminal justice system but those factors which bring Aboriginal people into conflict with the criminal justice system in the first place ... [and] the most significant contributing factor is the disadvantaged and unequal position in which Aboriginal people find themselves in society - socially, economically and culturally.

Twenty years later that still stands the test of time.

The committee report goes into significant coverage of the particular aspects of disadvantage and overrepresentation of Indigenous juveniles among young offenders. They include the broad categories of social norms and individual family dysfunction, which I have touched on to some extent, and connection to community and culture. There are some very moving stories in the report which were told by Indigenous elders, who talk about their young generation being caught between two worlds. It is not that they are connected to one and not the other; it is not that they are connected to the traditional culture and are therefore not able to participate in modern society or that they are connected to modern society and have lost their traditional culture. Rather it is that they are lost between the two, which is the worst possible circumstance you could imagine for them.

The health implications are talked about in the report. In particular, it discusses the issues around drug and alcohol abuse. It not only discusses drug and alcohol abuse in the environments in which young people are present but also discusses abuse by young people themselves and the impact it has on bringing them into the justice system. The education issues are talked about—the challenges not only of keeping young people in general engaged but also and in particular the challenges of keeping Indigenous young people engaged, and the member for Higgins talked about some of those. The employment link is discussed—getting through education and getting a job is also an important indicator and more of a challenge for our Indigenous young people than it is for our non-Indigenous young people. Accommodation is also discussed—the challenges around providing safe and secure housing and a permanent and ongoing address and how significant that is for young people. I recommend that all members of our communities have a look at both those aspects of the report in some detail and the very important recommendations that are made in the report.

In the few minutes I have left, I will make some observations about a recommendation of the report which addresses police training and Indigenous employment. Included in recommendation 23 is a suggestion for, 'Incentives to increase the employment of Indigenous police men and women and opportunities for mentoring and police work experience for Indigenous students.' I think that would be a very worthwhile initiative. One of the saddest comments I ever heard when I worked for juvenile justice was from a young Indigenous man who was in detention. He was completing his schooling—he was 17—and was engaged in some volunteer work for local emergency services. He said that the worst thing in his life that he could imagine was being released from detention and being sent back to his family and community. He knew that that the dysfunction there was such that it would be very hard for him to resist falling back into the old ways that had got him into trouble in the first place; it would also mean that it would be unlikely that he could continue with either his education or his potential employment opportunities, which were occurring because of his engagement in volunteering activity. I thought that was this saddest thing that I had ever heard—that a young person could say to me with years of experience under his belt that he was better off in detention than he would have been in the community, and I think that that remains a challenge for us.

I want to acknowledge Project Murra in my own area of the Illawarra. This project is conducted through Warrigal Employment and began in 2008 as a partnership between the local commander of the police service in Lake Illawarra, the local TAFE and Warrigal employment. It is a particularly successful two-year program of school based traineeships with the police service which has now been extended to other emergency services and been done in conjunction with the HSC. It keeps young Indigenous people engaged in school and provides some real connections to the police and emergency services. It contributes to crime prevention because the community is connected to the police service. It also contributes to school retention and is an important employment strategy. The program has been going so well that the police service have continued with it and, indeed, it has been extended to other emergency services. The program has been supported and funded by the federal Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations and by New South Wales TAFEs as well as by the services. It is creating a much stronger relationship between those services and the local Indigenous community, and in the class of 2009 there were 12 students—three with the Wollongong police, three with Lake Illawarra police, two with Nowra police, three with the New South Wales ambulance service and one with the state emergency service. That is the current cohort, which is going through to completion now. Overall, it is a really good program which has multiple benefits: it is well regarded by the community, it is a great asset to the broader community and it increases the capacity for young people to be connected. I understand that one of the young people is at the police academy completing the degree, continuing their enrolment and engagement with the police service. That is a good local story, but a small one. We all need to be focused on doing far more to address the issues that have been raised in this very important report.

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

As a member of the committee reporting on this issue in our report entitled Doing time: a time for doing, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to make a comment. This report was the result of almost two terms of government. We carried on with this inquiry as a new committee in this parliament. That gave us the opportunity to reflect on the wealth of knowledge that had been accumulated by the previous parliament and add to that with our own fortes and, to a degree, preconceptions. From a personal perspective, I had my first association—which is ongoing—with Indigenous Australians when I first started school. A substantial part of our rural community was Indigenous. In those years, their welfare had been dreadfully neglected. That was prior to 1967.

The conditions under which those Indigenous people lived were to say the least Third World. But there were a couple of remarkable things about that era for Indigenous people in agricultural Australia. Certainly I can speak with first hand knowledge of my Shackleton and Bruce Rock area. Firstly, all children attended school regularly. There was much less mobility of parents in those days. The second thing that is important to note is that the greatest majority of the male heads of households—and please do not pull me up for being sexist; in those days, it was the male of the household who went out to work and put bread on the table—were gainfully employed, receiving a weekly wage and providing for their families.

The shocking thing is to contrast that situation and the situation that exists as the norm today. In this place, we have been discussing sporting and other programs that are funded to encourage Indigenous male youth specifically to attend school on a regular basis. I am speaking about the Clontarf program, which is now spreading across Australia, having emerged from the Clontarf Aboriginal Hostel in Perth, Western Australia. There is no doubt that it is instructive for emerging families today that there will be a circle of experience as an Indigenous person growing up, maturing, having a family and passing on in today's Australian society. Sadly, that circle is generally welfare dependent. It involves youth with the judicial system, then corrective services, then welfare, then the judiciary and then corrective services. The statistics that have been gathered in this report, Doing time: a time for doing, clearly indicate that anything that we have done in the past has failed to address the issue of recalcitrant Indigenous youth moving through a revolving door system of welfare and incarceration.

Rational people could only conclude that anything that we have done in the past is something that we should avoid doing in the future and that we ought to use this report as a foundation of knowledge on which to build a different approach to the problem. And it is a problem. You cannot ignore the fact that Indigenous people represent 2.5 per cent of the Australian population and the statistic that, of incarcerated Australian youth, 53 per cent are Indigenous. That is a statistic that you cannot find anything but horrendous and unacceptable.

So what is the solution? We have made 40 recommendations, and I would be a liar if I were to stand here and suggest (a) that the 40 recommendations will be adopted and (b) that, should they be adopted, the problem would go away. It is irrational to suggest that. The problem has been entrenched for far too long. But there is no doubt in my mind that the major cause of the problem—that is, revolving door incarceration—is lack of education on the one hand and the present societal acceptance that education will not be absolutely necessary for Indigenous youth.

We need to change the mindset of the Australian people. Indigenous kids have every right to education, as much right as mainstream kids. There is no difference in their intellect and there ought to be no difference in their treatment, yet we excuse the lack of school attendance by Indigenous kids. We turn a blind eye. We speak to state governments about the employment of truancy officers to make sure that Aboriginal families know that their children are not attending school and that something must be done about it because the cultural expectation is that children will go to school, and state government education ministers say, 'Well, there's nothing we can do about it.'

I believe there is something we can do about it. We ought to tie welfare payments to school attendance. I further believe that to not do so, and therefore to excuse Indigenous families from the responsibility of making sure their children attend school, if you analyse it and extrapolate, is certainly a denial of the human rights of those children. It could almost be compared with genocide, because we are guilty as parliamentarians if we do not enact laws that create outcomes for Australian citizens. We are contributing to an ongoing sin, and that is the denial of Indigenous children's rights. Everyone has a right to an education in this country, but if you are Indigenous we do not insist that you attend an institution. If you are mainstream, we do. Parents who do not send their children to an educational institution are brought to account. But if you are an Indigenous parent there would appear to be very active ignorance. We do not even expect it.

I hear employees of Indigenous agencies say: 'Look, there's nothing we can do. They're just Indigenous people.' I think that is horrendous—totally unacceptable. There is no reason why we should not apply the same rigour in our requirements at law to Indigenous people as we do to mainstream society, and part of that requirement is to send kids to school. It is a parental responsibility and it is accepted generally at law that it is a parental responsibility—unless you are an Indigenous parent, it seems. Then we turn the blind eye.

We need to change that. We need to work on a policy and even, dare I say, ignore political correctness. We have already done so much damage to the Indigenous population, their expectations and their role as part of mainstream Australian society. We have already done so much damage. Well-intentioned decisions resulted in the denial of opportunity, because we denied our responsibility of insisting that Indigenous families maintain the same culture as mainstream families and accept education as the norm. I can tell my colleagues here in this place that school attendance in Indigenous remote communities is not the norm; it is far from the norm. And it is accepted by all and sundry as being okay, because, 'Well, the parents had to drive 2,000 kilometres to attend a funeral and they were going to go for a week but they stayed for three months, and that is okay because it is culturally appropriate.' I do not accept that children should be denied their human rights on the basis of our current interpretation of what is culturally correct.

There is a far greater need today for tough love: the application of rigour in Indigenous funding programs and a change in the commonly held attitude that we will fund an Indigenous program but not really expect high performance and positive outcomes, because it is an Indigenous program. It looks to me as though this is perhaps not the actual situation, but I can assure you that agency after agency will say, 'We have got a program. We have got a bucket of money and we are moving amongst Indigenous communities and we are looking for groups to take up this funding. So, would you, or you or you perhaps take this funding responsibility on and deliver for your community, because it is going to have a very positive outcome.' People are almost coerced, as Indigenous individuals, into participation in programs that have been well-meaningly funded by governments of all kind. But at the end of the day there is very little expectation, and almost no audit, that the outcomes achieved by that funding will be positive. After the expenditure of the funding somebody says, 'Well, that provided employment for a period of time and circulated taxpayer funding for a period of time and therefore it must have had a positive outcome.' Well, it is not the case. My experience clearly indicates that this effectively creates a privileged position for those who are directly involved in the particular program, but in the rest of the community it creates a degree of jealousy. Then, when everyone observes that the program has achieved no positive outcome, the rest of the community in the future is not reticent when putting their hand up for a government funded program, so that they, too, can be part of it. And because they believe there will be no requirement for rigour and no actual audit, and no-one will be criticised if there is no positive outcome.

We need tough love in our communities. We need to remove our focus on political correctness and we need to focus on the necessity of positive outcomes. If that requires us to follow the path proposed by Noel Pearson, I say 'Let's do it,' because everything we have done in the past of which Noel Pearson, amongst others, is extremely critical has been a collective failure. Look at just one area: education. The most educated, employable, capable and responsible Indigenous members of my community, the seat of Durack, are those who were educated under the mission system. We are all very quick to criticise the paternalism of the mission education system and how teaching with an iron rod is not acceptable these days, but the individuals who were educated at Mogumber, Moore River, Mount Margaret, Karalundi and numerous other missions under a rigorous system got a good education, and they attended school. There was direct connectivity between school attendance and learning, the expectation and the welfare that was provided by the mission.

Having believed that I would speak a few moments only on this, I find that there is just so much to say. In these closing seconds, let me implore my colleagues on both sides of the House: something needs to be done. The stats are all there. The knowledge has been collected. We know that what has happened in the past is not solving the problem. Fifty-three per cent of the juvenile prison population are Indigenous, although they make up just 2.5 per cent of the general population. The worst possible result of this report would be that we once again do nothing.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak today on the report tabled by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs entitled Doing time—time for doing: Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system. This topic makes my heart break. It is 20 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, with its nearly 340 recommendations; but today, among Aboriginal communities, incarceration levels are even higher than they were then. In the words of Mick Gooda, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner:

… we've failed miserably in the last 20 years.

Indigenous juveniles between the ages of 10 and 17 and Indigenous young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 make up a disproportionate part of our prison population. In fact, Indigenous juveniles account for 59 per cent of the juvenile prison population. They are 28 times more likely to be imprisoned than their non-Indigenous counterparts. According to prison census data taken between 2000 and 2010, the number of Indigenous Australians in custody has gone up by 55 per cent for men and 47 per cent for women—this at a time when the Indigenous population of Australia is only 2½ per cent of the entire population. Quite clearly, this is not good enough.

This report makes clear that the level of contact between our Indigenous youth and our criminal justice system is unacceptable; it is too high and it needs dramatic and drastic action. The impact of having such a high number of Indigenous youth in our criminal justice system has implications that are far and wide: implications for the family unit, for the broader community and for levels of school attendance—which in remote communities are less than 50 per cent—and, personally, for their subsequent employment chances and for the likelihood of their escaping the negative influences of substance and narcotic abuse.

We need programs that tackle the root causes of offences by Indigenous juveniles. We need to get the kids more engaged. We need to work with families. We need to create employment opportunities. We need to end the substance and narcotic abuse. We need an integrated, intergovernmental approach.

In this report, there are over 40 recommendations—recommendations that talk about engaging and empowering Indigenous communities in the development and implementation of programs; how to better integrate and coordinate initiatives by government agencies, non-government agencies and community groups; the need to focus on early intervention; and the need to engage Indigenous leaders, particularly elders. Those 40 recommendations contain some very important suggestions, including better funding for local mentoring programs and improving recreational and sport related activities, because such programs will offer Indigenous youth a better life and a better lifestyle; more gender appropriate accommodation for Indigenous youth, particularly housing plans that ensure they are better equipped when they leave detention; better funding for programs to deal with substance and narcotic abuse; and greater focus on mental health programs. Interestingly, the report recommends hearing tests for all children starting in preschool and training of police so they are more aware that the young people they encounter may have hearing loss. It also recommends incentives for school attendance, including breakfast and lunch programs. If we can get them to school, we offer them an alternative lifestyle to one spent in the prison system. Another recommendation is for teacher development programs to enable our teachers to recognise poor health in their students and to have a greater cultural awareness. This will help them engage with students who may have poor English language skills.

We need more incentives for employers to take on Indigenous apprenticeships. Interestingly and importantly, we need to raise the profile of the Australian Defence Force and provide recruitment opportunities among Indigenous youth. Norforce is a good example for many Indigenous youth, with their communities playing a vital role in the protection of our nation. Increasing employment opportunities for Indigenous men and women in the police force is another recommendation. Then there is the recommendation to establish and fund a national Indigenous interpreter service.

The Australian Institute of Criminology needs to do a more detailed analysis of sentencing options and outcomes for Indigenous Youth. They need to look into the use of diversionary options to determine whether there are alternative sentencing options other than incarceration for Indigenous youth. Critically, we have to examine the rehabilitation process. This report suggests assigning community service case workers, providing better counselling for substance and alcohol abuse and engaging the families of those who find their way into our criminal justice system.

Noel Pearson has written about a speech that a young 15-year-old Aboriginal woman named Tania Major gave in front of John Howard in 2003. She was from the Cape York Peninsula. In this speech, she told her audience, including the then Prime Minister, that she was the only student in her primary school class who went on to be successful. She was the only girl not to have a child at the age of 15 or before. She was one of only three children in her class not to become an alcoholic. Seven of her classmates had been in prison. Four had tragically committed suicide. She went on to get an education, including a university degree, and forged a new path for herself. If we get more Indigenous youth to school, if we lift the year 12 retention rates from around the 35 per cent or 36 per cent that they are today, if we get systematic help for those Indigenous youth in our prison system then we can have more achieve as she has done. In this report, there is mention of a study conducted in New South Wales that found that 90 per cent of Indigenous juveniles in the prison system tested positive to drugs, a remarkable statistic. If we show them the way through education and if we intervene to stop this economic disadvantage then we have a chance.

In conclusion, we must do better. We need to be innovative. We need to focus, as Noel Pearson and others have talked about, on the issue of personal responsibility. But we cannot leave people behind if they cannot help themselves. If Australians want to know what the true moral challenge for our time is it is Indigenous disadvantage and particularly, as we have learned from this report, the disproportionate and tragic numbers of Indigenous youth who are incarcerated in our jails today.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak to the report Doing time—time for doing. I congratulate and place on the record today my deepest esteem for my parliamentary colleagues on the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs who have produced this report, particularly the chair, the member for Blair, the deputy chair, the member for Murray, and all of the other committee members.

It is quite tragic to be standing here today as a long-time member of parliament talking about the same things we were talking about 15 or more years ago. It is a tragedy that we still have to have a report that has to delve into these particular issues of Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system in Australia. It highlights the appalling overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in detention right around this great country of ours. While Indigenous Australians make up only a very small percentage of the population—about 2.5 per cent—25 per cent of prisoners are Indigenous.

Various members before me have spoken about the report, about the 110 submissions that were received and about the very important 40 recommendations that were made to government. My colleagues found during the inquiry that a disproportionately high number of Indigenous young adults are caught up in the criminal justice system. It is an absolute travesty in this day and age that we have this major challenge confronting us here in this place and in communities all around Australia. Indigenous youth are 28 times more likely to offend and be incarcerated today than at any other time since the final report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was released in 1991. One of my assistants in Queensland at the time worked on that particular report. The devastating stories that she would tell me haunt me to this day. It was her role to assist the commissioner in obtaining evidence. It is sad that we are here 20 years later and we still have this incredible rise in Indigenous youth in detention despite the work of numerous government agencies, hundreds of community organisations, community elders and many other active volunteers.

I had a business life before I came into this place. I taught at a university. One of my saddest regrets when I was teaching students in the business school at the Queensland University of Technology was that I never encountered one student of Indigenous nationality. I would have Chinese students and African students. I would have students from every corner of the globe, but never once did I have the privilege of teaching a student from an Indigenous background. It is really sad when we look at the dropout rates. Many of the speakers today have spoken about the horrific dropout rates and nonattendance at school. There are people who are much more knowledgeable than I about this. One of our whips here, the member for Forrest, has a large Indigenous community. Earlier on we heard from Barry Haase, the member for Durack. He has a large number of Indigenous people in his electorate. We really need to do a lot more here. Education is where it really needs to start.

Just a year or so ago I had an important project in my own business. I had a retail seafood business, and I recognised some outstanding qualities in our assistant manager, who was of Indigenous background. I decided that I would work with her to be the best assistant manager that she could possibly be. But you have to take a holistic approach. There were issues of lack of good nutrition and work standards that we addressed. I think that was probably one of my greatest failings as an employer. While we worked very, very hard to get consistent attendance at work and we worked on some of the social aspects that were affecting her life as well as the nutritional aspects and also the lack of educational opportunities that she had had earlier, I am sad to say that I failed in my quest because it was beyond me. As much as one can help in all of those areas, there are some cultural issues that are stumbling blocks, and we need to address those. They are stopping business people from achieving their best potential. One of my greatest regrets is that we could not go any further there and I sincerely wish her the very best in whatever she endeavours to do in her life. But literacy was clearly an issue with my assistant manager. Whilst literacy issues are higher in Indigenous populations, they will not allow Indigenous people to go on to further education and to be skilled in the best possible way. We need to really work on that.

The report that we are talking about today deals with contact with the criminal justice system. It presents a whole range of problems for Indigenous youth in Australia. The report highlights the sad fact that Indigenous kids are more likely to come into contact with the police and the criminal justice system than non-Indigenous kids. Once you get into that terrible cycle it is hard to break, and it is a self-fulfilling cycle. The report identified a link between the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system and social factors. We have to look at these much more seriously. We have to look at educational levels, as I mentioned just earlier. We have to look at levels of alcohol and drug use, hearing loss and all of those self-esteem issues as well. The combination of all of those things in Indigenous youth has led to the outcome of this particular report.

The report also recommended a host of activities designed to address these problems and to reduce the level of incarceration. I note particularly that there is a lack of a holistic approach. Just as I tried to take a holistic approach in my workplace, I think we need to do that. We need to have better pathways for Indigenous people out there in the community. We have to take an absolutely holistic approach if we are to address these issues. The 40 recommendations outline a very clear strategy for improving positive social norms. They look at things like improving education and addressing employment, health issues and housing. The report also outlined the need for improvement in government policy on police education and training. We need to have more Indigenous police officers. I welcome the fact that state governments have increased the number of Indigenous officers, and we in Queensland have led the way there as well.

Indigenous kids aspire to the same things as their non-Indigenous counterparts. They want a good job. They want to feel great about themselves. They want to spend money on things that they see on TV, just like other kids, and they want to spend money on themselves. They get frustrated sometimes at not being able to attain these things by legitimately being employed and sometimes, sadly, they turn to offending. They see that as the only way to address these same aspirations that we all have.

Much has been written and much has been said. Many speakers before me have highlighted this tragedy and many, many millions of dollars have been spent to tackle the problem, and yet the rate of incarceration continues to rise. There appears to be a lot of short-term funding. I am not knocking some of the programs—they are very good programs—but sometimes they do not get to fully achieve their aims because they are such short-term programs.

The report also noted that there is a lack of clear targets and outcomes in programs aimed at reducing youth in detention. I want to take this opportunity to highlight one program that has very clear goals and aims. I want to commend Project 10%, which was launched last month in my electorate of Brisbane. Unfortunately, due to parliamentary commitments in Canberra I was not able to be there, but I really follow the project with interest. While Project 10% was officially launched last month, it is the result of many years of hard work and many dedicated volunteers. Project 10% is a campaign aimed at reducing Indigenous incarceration rates by 10 per cent per year. This project recently won the community partnership awards in the Queensland reconciliation awards. I congratulate them wholeheartedly on this wonderful achievement. I want to thank everyone who is involved in that program. Project 10% was sponsored by McCullough Robertson solicitors and is a collaboration between ANTaR Queensland, Murri Watch and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Legal and Advocacy Service, ATSIWLAS. It is a community based project, has clear goals and is served by a group of amazing and willing volunteers. I applaud the work of Project 10%.

I commend this report and its recommendations. It highlights that an incredible amount of work needs to be done in the areas of health, education, the intervention and housing, but it also highlights that we need to really try to reverse the terrible scenario of Indigenous incarceration in our legal system. I thank the committee for their very thorough and dedicated work on this report. I commend the report.

Debate adjourned.

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

I am very pleased to speak to the report Highwire act: cyber-safety and the young, a very substantial report that I was proud to be involved with, as a member of the Joint Committee on Cyber-Safety. I commend upfront the chair of the committee, Senator Dana Wortley, and the deputy chair, Mr Alex Hawke, the member for Mitchell, for the great work that they and the entire committee did. This report shows us in no uncertain terms what most of us already know, which is that much more needs to be done to address online safety for children in Australia. It was quite scary hearing some of the submissions. The internet offers great opportunities for our young people, through new technologies and greater connection. The internet came into my life when I was an educator, a teacher, and it was a wonderful learning opportunity for a schoolteacher to be able to access online rather than hard-copy resources. I left teaching to become a lawyer and, going back to classrooms now as a member of parliament, I see a completely different experience, because the internet is obviously in everybody's home—and with the rollout of the NBN we are facilitating that. But this great resource, which can offer so much good, has a darker side, and that is what this report is about.

There are very significant risks to the safety and privacy of young people—and of any people, including older people. Maybe the many things we have done to cultivate older people having connections to the internet are good, but there is then the capacity for them to strike up a friendship with a friendly young man from Nigeria or the like. But the focus of this inquiry was young people. Anybody who has young kids knows how tech-savvy they can be. I have a six-year-old and a two-year-old. The two-year-old is not quite computer-savvy but, my goodness, the six-year-old is incredible. I am no particular technophile, but I have seen the problems that can develop when he is on a free game site. I get recommendations from people whom I trust and who understand the internet about games he can play, and even with these games the ads that pop up are easy and tempting to click on for someone whose morality is not fully developed—and I think morality is fully developed for men at about 30. For some, it takes a little longer! I can see how tempting it is for young people—particularly young men, I would suggest—to make the foolish decision to click on something on the screen, when who knows what could happen.

One of the hallmarks of this inquiry, I am proud to say, was its engagement with young people to find out from them what is happening at the coalface. Much of what we learned during this inquiry we learned directly from the experiences of young Australians. As much as the committee appreciated the submissions of the other stakeholders that we heard from, hearing from the young people was particularly useful. They told us how they used the technology, which was scary, their awareness of the risks and also, thankfully, what they do to keep safe. Obviously, young people do make crazy decisions, but the crazy things that I did as a 10-year-old are long forgotten by everyone except me and maybe my brothers and sisters. What can happen now for a 10-year-old, a 12-year-old or a 15-year-old is that they lay mines that will explode much later in their life—the photograph, the blog or the comment that can go around the world. In the prism of parliamentary life we can see that we have to watch what we say—that maybe we should not slip on a tutu or a set of fishnet stockings when we are out, because it could haunt us for the rest of our life. But the reality is that young people tweet and blog and put things on Facebook, and do not realise that they are laying mines that will explode for them much later on. The classic would be someone like Corey Worthington—it might have seemed like a good idea as a 16-year-old, but when he goes to a job interview down the track they may ask, 'Are you that Corey Worthington?' Young people may not realise or understand the consequences of what they do.

One of the things the committee did to inform itself was put out a survey and get as many people as possible to complete it—33,750 people completed the survey. Many of the committee's recommendations came from the information that those people provided. The committee travelled to MacGregor State School, which is a very large school in my electorate and is one of the best schools in Queensland. Its year 7 students were actually one of the first to take part in an online survey. I thank the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Peter Garrett, and the Queensland Minister for Education, Cameron Dick, for attending MacGregor State School, but I particularly thank the MacGregor State School students and teachers. The survey got a lot of media attention in my electorate. All the students, particularly Carmen Zhu, Jason Tang, Linh-Dan Pham and Matthew Borka, were incredibly forthright. I particularly mention Matthew Borka, one of the school captains. He is a slight young man with glasses, who talked about his cyber-bullying experience. He is very switched on. I think it is easier to be elected to the federal parliament than it is to become a school captain at McGregor State School. They have this whole interview and speechmaking process. His platform was basically about combating bullying, both cyber-bullying and physical bullying, so it was a perfect school for us to attend and hear his experience. In an article in the Southern Star, local journalist Angela Ranke said:

Linh-Dan Pham knows first hand what happens when you stand up to bullies. The brave MacGregor State School student said she spoke up when she saw one of her peers being bullied and it put a stop to the behaviour.

"I've helped someone who was being bullied by doing that and it really worked," she said.

"We should stand up for the person who is being bullied and go tell a teacher."

Linh-Dan’s approach has the full endorsement of Mr Garrett.

This was just one example that helps us to realise how the world has changed because it is so interconnected and because of the land mines that exist.

Some of the committee's recommendations are common sense but it is salutary to revisit them, particularly the first recommendation: that we look at the feasibility of assisting preschools and kindergartens to start early on cyber-safety—so my six-year-old would already have had some support in relation to a cyber-safety education program, hopefully. The recommendations include simple things like coming up with an agreed definition of cyber-bullying and having a cyber-safety student mentoring program, so that those who understand the internet a bit better or have good computers at home are able to educate those who do not.

Of particular concern, as an Australian, is that, while we have good laws and a good social contract with our internet companies, they sometimes transfer personal information overseas and that the information is dealt with on a contractual basis with the overseas entities rather than under our laws. Even small businesses in my electorate do this. It is important that we make sure that information transferred overseas is protected in a manner that is at least equivalent to that provided for under Australia's privacy framework. I am reasonably happy with the Australian legislation but I am obviously not too sure what goes on in Mumbai and other places.

Some national core standards for cyber safety education in schools are being developed. We need to work with the teachers, the education ministers and the states to make sure that we have a core understanding of what we need to do to make our schools safe and to come up with some acceptable use agreements so that rather than all 9,800 schools having to reinvent the wheel we can say, 'These are the core things that every student in every school should be able to accept as acceptable use.'

Teachers are coming from a range of professions now. I know that you, Acting Deputy Speaker Bird, were a teacher in a former life. There are a lot of mature age students coming in. They bring life skills, but do not necessarily bring the internet and cyberworld skills that we need. So we need to ensure that all Australian universities that provide teacher training courses ensure that cyber safety material is incorporated into the core units in their curricula—not done as a standalone unit but embedded into the process.

One of the other particular recommendations is that we have the Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy invite the consultative working group on cyber safety to negotiate protocols with overseas social networking sites such as Facebook in particular to ensure that offensive material is taken down as soon as possible. Obviously, if you have to put a phone call through to San Francisco or somewhere like that it can be a bit hard. Incredible damage can be done very quickly with Facebook and other social networking sites. Things can go around the world before they can be taken down.

They are some commonsense recommendations that I look forward to the government and other entities embracing. Obviously, these recommendations will go some way to making things safer. But the obvious fact is that safety starts at home. Schools and legislation and informed teachers all help but it is obviously at home where we can best educate our children about the dangers. Even if we are not a techno savvy person, we can still educate our children about commonsense approaches to the dangers. In closing, I want to again thank the committee chair, Senator Dana Wortley, for her efforts in driving this inquiry. I wish her well in her future endeavours, whatever they might be. I commend this report to the House.

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

Unlike the member for Moreton, who was part of the whole process of creation of this report, I am a recent member of the cyber safety committee. Because it is an area in which I have a genuine interest and engagement, I am delighted to talk about the committee report, The highwire act: cyber safety and the young. I, like the previous speaker, want to acknowledge the chair, the deputy chair and the committee, who all did so much work on this report. It is a very good piece of work.

The previous speakers have spoken about the importance of cyber safety, particularly for young people. I am pleased that within the report there is acknowledgement of the need to engage with people at a very young age. This is really important. They need to be aware and alert. They are engaged with the internet at a very young age. They are, as we know, very savvy in this world. Not only that, they are very keen at a very young age to engage. But in doing so we have to make sure that they are aware, alert and protected. A lot of what is in this report reflects that intent, with some practical measures suggested to assist in that.

This year, it is important that we communicate directly with young people, as the committee did. We need to learn how they manage their issues and how they see things. That is a key part of why the recommendations out of this report will be useful and valuable, because young people have said, 'This is what we need; this is the world we're in.' I hope that the minister does respond to that, because the young people have said what they need and how they need things done. That engagement with young people is very important. I have a youth reference group that I meet on regular occasions. Interestingly, this year cybersafety was highlighted as one of the most important issues these young people are facing. Admittedly, this is an older age group, covering years 10 through 12. They raised really serious issues with me about online safety and even about being comfortable online. The use of social media sites is as much a threat to them and a challenge for them to deal with as it is an opportunity to engage and to be part of what young people do.

When you listen to young people it is interesting to learn that some of the things that come up on Facebook are not necessarily the things they want. The young people made me very aware of some of the Facebook issues, such as 'sexting', when we were having our discussion. Given their exposure to online scams and self-harm websites and the fact that they could be drawn into engaging with these sorts of websites and the behaviour that goes with that, they were very keen that education should start very young.

One thing that really concerned me was that cyberbullying happens 24 hours a day, seven days a week for some of our young people. That in itself is a major challenge. Those of us who were perhaps subjected to physical bullying were able to get away from it. However, a young person can become the target of cyberbullying that is then circulated to others. It is like a pack dog mentality whereby everybody gets involved and picks on that young person. It can create major social and emotional problems for that young person. Those who are picked on—to put it bluntly—in physical life can be the same young people who are very susceptible to being bullied online as well. They are quite vulnerable.

The young people told me that they were often concerned about talking to an adult about the fact that they were being bullied on the cyberscene. Whether it was their mobile phone with internet connection, their own computer or access to the internet at home, they did not want to lose that connection. One of the barriers to these young people getting the help they needed was the fact that they were often too scared to tell their mum or dad because they did not want to lose access. They were worried that that was how their mum and dad would react—that they would say, 'If that's what happening to you online then you just can't use it.' And of course it is so important to them for so many reasons, so often they do not engage with their parents or others in authority when this happens.

We need to give young people the tools to manage this themselves. I think it would be fantastic if there were more younger people actually delivering cybersafety messages to other young people, telling them: 'This is what happens in your world. This is what we do online. This is us on Facebook. Here is our page, and this is what you can and can't or should and shouldn't be doing.' All of those things matter to young people. They actually want to know what they can and cannot do safely.

I went to one of my primary schools and asked the young people there how many were on Facebook. These are children under the age of 12. We know that they are supposed to be over 13 to be on Facebook, but 75 per cent of the young people in that class put their hands up. They were all on Facebook. I asked them, 'How old are you saying you are when you sign up to be on Facebook?' Some of them said 16, and some said 18. Those children would be in receipt of inappropriate content as a result of that. Also, they were not aware that Facebook owns the photos, the words and everything else they put on Facebook. I hate to say it, but just as so many men do not read the fine print—more men than women do not read the fine print—the situation is the same with young boys on Facebook. More of the young girls were aware that Facebook owned everything they put on that website, such as photos, but the young boys were not as aware. A lot of young people were not aware that, despite the fact that they had deleted something, that material was still out there and would be there forever.

I heard different stories about young people's experiences on Facebook. I even spoke to some parents who would take photos of their children in their school uniforms and put them on Facebook. Any mature age predator would then know exactly what school that young person was going to and where they could access them if they chose to. So there are a range of issues that we need to manage.

But it is not just the physical side, which is something that young people on Facebook do not understand. I asked one young school child how many friends they had on Facebook, and it was almost like a competition—I need to be the one with the most. But, in being the one with the most, the risk is greater. I asked them, 'Do you actually know all these people?' 'Yes,' they replied, 'because they are my friends.' I asked, 'Do you know whether it is a 60 year-old person or a person of your own age?' The answer was that, no, they did not know. These were the simple things that a young person under the age of 12 was not necessarily aware of. Because they are young and innocent they assumed that everybody they accepted as a friend was indeed a friend and of the same age as them, which quite often they were not.

But it was not just that. I asked them, 'What do you talk about online with these 500 friends?' as one young person had. They replied, 'We talk about home and about mum and dad. We talk about when we are going on holidays. And we might talk about the fact that grandma cannot come and look after the house while we are away.' They would talk about when it was their birthday, when it was mum's or dad's birthday and who grandma was. Over a period of time these young people will be far more at risk of identity theft than they currently are, because collating the information they have in all innocence provided will give others an opportunity to steal their identity after they get their first credit card. Someone may collect enough information to change their password.

So there are some real issues facing young people, which we may not have had to face, out there alive and well. That is just on the Facebook side of things and perhaps on other social websites. But then there is the issue of using the internet for online banking or the myriad other things people might do online.

Equally, I have concerns about sexting. It is a major issue that has a very concerning impact on young people. At some stage, perhaps when they are at high school, they will have a special friendship with another young person that they may both believe is a very genuine relationship and they may send photos of parts of themselves to each other. But by one avenue or another those images can end up in the broader public arena, and that can do an incredible amount of damage. I had evidence from families of how it has destroyed young people and the value they place in themselves.

An employer once rang me, asking what to do about the fact that he had just received a photo showing a 16-year-old employee completely naked. According to the Australian Federal Police, if the individual saves or passes on that particular photo they are engaging in child pornography, which is a federal offence. So these are the issues. The employer was also concerned that every other member of the staff had received the photo. For that young person, who probably in all innocence provided those photos to someone, they will be there forever.

Of the work done by the committee, recommendations 1 to 3 in the report are very important. I am hoping that the minister follows many of those. I encourage all of us in our roles in parliament to do our best out in the community to inform and educate young people and keep them aware and alert. I encourage members to read this report and think how you can do something like that for the people you meet. Again, I like the idea of young people engaging with other young people, because they will take so much more notice of that.

I go to schools and meet fabulous young people with all the good intentions in the world and they want information and to be safe. They want to be aware and alert but they want to use this medium and they are going to. Part of what we need to do with this report is give them the tools to be safe, aware and alert in a way that will carry through to mature age. When they start doing tax and banking online it could evolve into online security that is a lifetime commitment. That is equally as important. I was involved in a previous inquiry where we heard so many stories of mature-age people who were subject to various forms of online scams and attacks. Right throughout the community now, I would think that every member in this place is seeing constantly in the papers the latest report about a young person on a social website. It was brought up so often by these young people from high schools as being something that influenced how happy or not they were at school and how they could cope in their life simply through this cyberworld that they live in and the actual damage that could be done to them in an emotional and physical sense.

This is a very timely report. As I said, it is extremely relevant, and the engagement of young people is critical to the results that this report has delivered. I would, again, commend all of the committee who were so involved in it. I see this as an opportunity to help young people deal with the issues that they have. I commend the report, the chair, the deputy chair and everyone involved. I am hoping that this report will be the beginning of engaging young people in a direct sense in their own safety and in their own futures in whatever way they engage with the internet and that when they are online they are able to enjoy it and be safe and protected and can pass that knowledge onto others.

The one thing I say to young people is to pay attention if they see a young person around them at school or wherever they are in a social sense and see them receive a message and either go very quiet and not want to read that message in front of them or go to the toilet or somewhere else and then come out visibly upset. We have a good program in Western Australia on other matters with young people that is called 'Are You Okay?' I say to these young people, 'Be prepared to ask your mates: are you okay? When you see them visibly upset when they receive a message—be it a computer message or other message—just ask them whether they are okay because quite often they are not and they just might need you to ask that question and encourage them to get support, whether it is from you or from someone else who can help but not someone that they would perhaps fear would take away the technology that is often their link to being mature, their link to the world and their link to engaging. That is all part of this report. I commend it to the House.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to speak very briefly, but as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety I would like to commend the committee's report, High-wire act: cyber-safety and the young. I was very pleased to be a part of this report because it allowed us to connect with a variety of different stakeholders and people involved in this area. It is not just young people who get caught up in some of these issues on the internet. In fact, what we did hear on the committee time and time again is that parents often have a fear of the unknown. When they do not know what is happening on the internet they can become quite worried and fearful. Part of the recommendations are looking at what we can do to empower young people to stay safe on the internet but also empower parents to feel that they are in control. There is a recommendation in the report for a self-assessment tool that allows people, whether they be parents or young people, to gauge exactly what they know and do not know.

For young people it was a different issue. They are so familiar with this technology and so comfortable with it that every now and again they do get caught out on some of the technicalities and localities and are less fearful about this. This was a very wide-ranging report. We as a committee did a survey. I think it is unique for House of Representatives, joint and select committees to directly go to young people. There were 60,000 comments received by the committee and over 7,000 responses directly from young people so that we could hear what they had to say. That was an important part of the committee's work. I must commend the chair, Senator Dana Wortley, and the deputy chair, the member for Mitchell. They worked very hard on this. The chair definitely took this up with a lot of passion and a lot of dedication. Hearing directly from young people was critically important.

This being a new area, it is at times difficult to find out where to go to report things—if people have experienced bullying, for example—or to learn that you are not alone. One of the recommendations that has come out is, while a lot of great tools have come out on what to do about cyberbullying, to centralise that and have a portal through which people can directly access information about where to go and what to do. This is a really important recommendation.

Another area that we looked at is what is happening in schools and with teachers. A lot of young people spend most of their time at school and with teachers during the week. We need to look at training teachers on how to watch out for this issue and how to be involved in this issue. We do not want them to preach to young people because, as I have said, young people know a lot more than a lot of older people sometimes about how to navigate the internet. But we want to teach them how to support young people in the constructive use of the internet. We want to teach them how to intervene if there is a problem online. Teacher training and cultures within school environments are things that this report makes some very good recommendations about.

There are also some regulatory recommendations about privacy. This is not just an issue concerning young people. A lot of people do not know what to expect when they go on to things like Facebook. While there is a lot of information out there, it is not always clear. One of the issues that I raised in the committee was the fact that privacy settings are made without notification. Privacy settings get changed and then suddenly your information has become available after you have set up that Facebook page doing everything that you could to protect your privacy. When a setting changes, you are not notified about it. Or, if you are notified, that notification is not very clear. When it comes to social networking sites, especially when offensive material is put up, there is room to improve things. While the government is somewhat restricted because this is an international issue, there are certainly regulations that we can look at to help ensure that people are safe.

But it is also about empowering young people, parents and teachers to protect themselves online. It is about helping them understand the gaps in their knowledge—things that they might not have thought about. For parents, it is about facing some of the unknowns, some of the things that they are not confident about and are concerned about.

Another recommendation, which was touched on by the previous speaker, was to do with the importance of peer-to-peer education campaigns. As I have mentioned, there is a gap. This was certainly evident in the survey. There is sometimes a gap between generations in their understanding of the internet and what can be done. I certainly know that. When I go to schools I see young people on laptops in year 2 and year 3 doing their research on the internet—these children are six and seven—and those children are often a lot more savvy than I am. There is certainly a gap, so having that peer-to-peer discussion or education is also critically important.

There was a lot of work done on this. I would like to thank all the members of the committee. I would also like to thank the secretariat, who worked very hard on this. I would like to thank all of the young people and others who gave evidence for their participation. It was greatly valued. It does provide a bit of a model for how committees can work in the future—going out and directly talking to young people or whichever different group is concerned. Directly consulting is a good idea. With 7,000 responses, this was of great interest, with young people really wanting to have their say. On that note, I commend the report to the House and thank everyone involved.

Debated adjourned.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I will not take too much of the committee's time. I did present the report some time ago in the House, but I was a little constrained in time when I did, so there are a number of things I want to briefly mention that I think are very relevant. I did not get the opportunity when I presented the report to acknowledge the good work done by the secretariat of this committee. This very lengthy report Inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime was compiled over approximately two years.

I would particularly like to express my thanks to the secretariat: to the secretary, Mr Jon Bell; the senior research officer, Mr Bill Bannear; and the admin officer, Rosalind McMahon. As I said, this report has been developed over a number of years and, as a consequence, a number of other people played a very significant role, in particular Tim Watling, who was the secretary up until recently; Dr Shona Batge; Dr Jacqueline Dewar; Dr Tim Kendall; Dr Robyn Clough; Nina Boughey; Danielle Oldfield; and Victoria Robinson-Conlon.

I also acknowledge the very good work of this committee over a number of years undertaken by its then chair, Senator Steve Hutchins. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, Senator Hutchins comes from a background which is certainly not in law enforcement. But he saw in this committee a significant opportunity not simply to undertake the primary role of the committee, which was to oversight the Australian Crime Commission, and more recently, the Australian Federal Police, but also identifying the role of this committee, trying to make a difference in the law enforcement space, trying to provide the regulatory support for those men and women who are brave enough to put on a police uniform and protect the community to ensure that they have the resources that they need and, more importantly, the regulatory and legislative support they need to undertake their vital work, which is to protect our communities.

I express my gratitude to Senator Steve Hutchins. I think the senator has played a very good role and provided leadership in this committee. He certainly had a passion for ensuring that this committee did what it aimed to do from the outset, which was to make a difference. Whether it be in the delivery of this particular report or in other measures that have been subject to this committee's recommendations, such as unexplained wealth and measures which are designed to combat serious and organised crime, I praise the efforts of Senator Hutchins. I would also like to put on record that, under his chairmanship, not once was a minority report delivered by this committee. It has been a truly bipartisan approach to law enforcement, and I think that is one of the virtues that he has been able to bring to bear as chair of the committee. Hopefully, in that respect I can continue in that role as I now take over as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.

One of the things I have often spoken about in this place is criminal enterprise, and we address that again in this report. I know a lot of people still take the view that is a game of cops and robbers, but modern-day criminal enterprise is certainly no game in terms of the people involved or the enterprises they undertake. One thing that is clear—and I think this is the modern thinking of law enforcement—is that it is an enterprise; it is a business. It is a nefarious business but nevertheless a business. It is a business that has a profit motive. As a matter of fact, the cost of this business to the Australian community, of the damage and everything else that it inflicts on the Australian community, is something like $15 billion annually, so it is quite substantial. I regard criminal enterprise as a business, one with a profit motive, but to address that we need to undermine the profit motive and the business model of that particular enterprise. We need to actually work with our law enforcement agencies to prevent, to disrupt and, where a crime is committed, to apprehend. But is in respect of prevention and disruption that I would like to briefly speak about.

The primary role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement is to oversee the activities of the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police. They are organisations that are extraordinary in various ways. Certainly, they both have extraordinary powers—the Australian Crime Commission in particular. They have coercive powers to force the giving of evidence. One of the reasons we oversight these two bodies is because of those extraordinary powers. The exercising of these powers is an infringement of civil liberties, but the government and previous governments, in their wisdom, have been able to take a responsible attitude in balancing the liberties and safeguards of our communities.

A role of this committee is to oversight law enforcement agencies, principally the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police but also other state and territory law enforcement bodies. The commissioner of police in each state and territory is on the board of the Australian Crime Commission. We are moving to ensure that there are not windows of opportunity for criminal enterprise to be able to play one state off against another. One thing that has become clear is that there is no point in looking at crime statistics for one state vis a vis another. Criminal enterprise and the criminals who run these enterprises do not go and look at the Constitution or at a map when deciding to plan their next endeavour. They will, however, look to loopholes in legislation—such as the ability of various agencies to do wire taps, telephone interceptions and things like that. Windows of opportunity will invite criminal elements to become involved and do significant damage to our communities.

Through this inquiry the committee brought down some clear recommendations to tighten up and strengthen the current regime for aviation security identification cards and maritime security identification cards. Having one of these cards gives the holder significant access to restricted areas in our airports or our maritime ports. One of the things we have been able to identify is the amount of contraband that comes through our ports at the moment, and we think that both the ASIC and MSIC regimes need to be significantly strengthened.

The ASIC and MSIC regimes came in following the September 11 attack, and it was very much to ensure that people working in the vicinity of our ports and airports were not likely to be involved in terrorist operations in those areas. Things have moved on from there. Whilst terrorism is always going to be significant to us and something we should never take for granted—we should never take our feet off the throats of those who could possibly be involved in those activities—significant damage is being done. And it is not just financial damage—the $15 billion I spoke about earlier; for every crime that is committed, there is a victim of crime.

Therefore, one of the things we strongly recommend is that, if there is compelling criminal intelligence that someone is involved in serious or organised crime, that should be a reason for withdrawing ASIC or MSIC cards and thereby withdrawing their access to aviation or maritime ports. We have attempted through the course of this report to ensure that we extend the good work that has flowed since September 11 in looking at the prevention of access to our ports and airports by people who may have an interest in a terrorist related endeavour. However, we think that, in view of airports and in particular seaports being the main point of entry for a lot of contraband, particularly illegal drugs and precursor chemicals, this is an area where not only do we need to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to police those sectors effectively but the community should also be comforted in the knowledge that people who have access to and work in and about those facilities are not engaged, directly or indirectly, in criminal activity and, as a consequence, helping to facilitate the importation of drugs or other illicit material.

A number of things that flow through in this report do probably raise the concerns of those who are very much the bastions of civil liberties. I understand that. As a matter of fact, many laws that we make in this place, in one way and another, affect one's freedoms. Given the dimensions of criminal enterprises and also the significant financial and physical harm that occurs as a consequence of these enterprises, we are certainly trying to move to address those issues to ensure that our police have the necessary backing so that they can do the job we require of them in protecting our community. In addition to that, we should be taking all steps possible to assure the community that the people associated with our wharves and our airports are of such a calibre that we have a reasonable expectation that they are not involved in criminal activity.

Once again, I praise the efforts of Senator Steve Hutchins in leading this inquiry and I also acknowledge the significant contribution of Senator Steve Fielding, who has also just retired from the Senate. Senator Fielding served on this committee for the last two years and he was involved in this inquiry. I know that he had very passionate feelings about this, particularly about protecting, as he saw it, the community of Victoria. I commend this report to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing report tabled on Monday, titled Before it’s too late, about youth suicide in Australia. The report focused on early intervention programs aimed at preventing youth suicide and covered two parliaments, those being the 42nd Parliament and the 43rd Parliament. I notice the member for Kingston is here in the chamber, who was on the committee during the 42ndParliament. It is regretful that she has left the committee and was not able to continue with her support on this particular inquiry. But I was very pleased when, in the 42nd Parliament, we decided to do this report, even though the Senate was also running a committee inquiry into suicide. As it states in the report:

Although the … Committee was aware that the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee had already initiated a comprehensive inquiry into suicide in Australia, it felt that a House of Representatives inquiry, if appropriately focussed, could complement that work.

Initially, when I requested that the committee look at the possibility of doing an inquiry into youth suicide, it was because of my personal involvement with groups such as Youth Focus and the Esther Foundation and as the patron of SIDS and Kids in Western Australia. It was also because I had met with parents who had experienced the loss of their children through suicide. As human beings we know that we are all going to have to deal with the loss of loved ones at some stage, whether it be through natural causes, accidents or suicide. Our communities have to deal with the effects of suicide, and that does provide many challenges for families, friends and schools, and those effects can be very damaging in more ways than the experience of grief. We could see that in the evidence we took, with cluster suicides now, unfortunately, becoming more common.

On Monday, when the report was tabled, I spoke about some personal experiences to bring a human touch to the launch of this report on suicide, which sees the loss of far too many of our most precious resource: the children and youth of our communities. I also spoke about the fact that as a nation we provide many millions of dollars to prevent road accidents and deaths in the workplace; I hope that this report will encourage our nation to provide and support early intervention programs that will reduce the number of suicides, whether they be youth or older people who take this step for many different reasons. Figures show that, in 2004, 500 more Australians committed suicide than died in road accidents in Australia.

On Monday I also detailed some of the important parts of this report and I would like to continue with that. I restate that the level of concern about the statistics on youth suicide is due to the fact that the statistics are not nationalised, with many states keep differing records, and this needs to be addressed. Statistics on suicide in Australia are available from a number of sources. National data on suicide is published in some years by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the ABS. The most recent data, published in 2007, contains summary statistics on deaths registered in 2005 where the cause of death was determined to be suicide. Even more recent, though less comprehensive, statistics on suicide in Australia are published annually in the ABS Causes of Death reports. The most recent report, released in 2011, provides information on suicides based on mortality data from 2009.

Coroners, through the National Coroners Information System, NCIS, are another significant source of suicide data. In addition, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has produced a number of publications based on information extracted from the AIHW mortality database. These data are supplemented by data collection and research conducted by academic institutions and community based organisations.

It is clear that there is a range of information on suicide being collected by different organisations with different collection and reporting standards. The committee understands that the lack of a nationwide, systematic approach limits the usefulness of suicide information. However, it is also evident that the problems associated with data collection on and the reporting of suicide, including youth suicide, are well recognised. In relation to this, the committee acknowledges that the ABS has already made significant efforts to implement reforms to improve the accuracy and quality of data on suicide and these processes are ongoing.

The first two recommendations of the committee's report are in regard to statistics. Recommendation 1 reads:

The Committee recommends that the National Committee for the Standardised Reporting of Suicide consider options for, and the feasibility of, extending the scope of social and demographic suicide data routinely collected and reported on, to include information on:

Recommendation 2 reads:

The Committee recommends that the National Committee for the Standardised Reporting of Suicide consider options for providing increased access to disaggregated suicide data.

The report goes on to say:

Of particular relevance to the issue of youth suicide, the Committee notes Recommendation 28 of the Senate report which calls for the ABS (and other relevant public agencies) to record and track suicides and attempted suicides in children aged under 15 years. As noted earlier in this Chapter, registered suicides in this group are relatively uncommon, though for a range of reasons it is likely that the reported figures are an underestimate. While acutely aware of the difficulties of establishing suicidal intent in this age group, and the extreme sensitivity for the families concerned, the Committee is keen to support initiatives which ensure that suicide in this demographic is not ‘hidden’. The Committee believes that appropriate recognition of suicide in the under 15 year age group is needed to ensure that prevention initiatives do not neglect these children. The Committee notes that the Senate recommendation has been referred to the ABS.

I know in my role as the patron of SIDS and Kids in Western Australia that the issue of suicide up to the age of 14 is handled by organisations such as SIDS and Kids, and they should be able to provide their statistics to a national body as well.

The report then moves into the area of understanding the factors that influence the likelihood of suicide. That will assist in developing strategies to reduce suicide rates. A significant body of research already exists which indicates that many factors contribute to the likelihood that someone will consider or attempt suicide or not. These factors generally act to either increase the likelihood of suicide—risk factors—or decrease this likelihood—protective factors.

Risk and protective factors are also categorised according to the level at which they are present—that is, individual, social and broad contextual. The report lists commonly cited risk and protective factors within each of the three categories. The risk factors for individual are listed in the report as:

The risk factors for social are:

The risk factors for contextual are:

The committee understands that there is a complex array of factors associated with suicide and cautions against an overly simplistic view of youth suicide and its causes. Access to accurate and comprehensive data and an improved understanding of the influence of risk and protective factors on young people are needed to support an improved understanding.

The committee recognises, however, that, while this will assist the identification of populations or groups at increased risk of suicide, it will still not be possible to precisely identify individuals at risk—hence the need for early intervention strategies. The committee understands that the main value of this information is to provide a good evidence base to inform the development and appropriate implementation of strategies for reducing rates of youth suicide and to enable effective evaluation of the impact of interventions.

Current approaches to suicide prevention in Australia are considered in chapter 3 of the report, including recently announced additional funding targeting suicide prevention by the government. I would like to mention that we in the coalition took a policy of early intervention to the last election. We committed to provide $440 million in funding towards 20 early psychosis intervention centres in major metropolitan and regional areas. These centres were to be based on the existing EPPIC model and were to provide comprehensive and targeted care for young Australians aged 15 to 24 years at clinical high risk and with first episode psychosis. The centres would have provided intensive interventions aimed at recovery and prevention of relapse. Four hundred million dollars was committed towards system design, service evaluation, workforce development, medical and allied health costs, case management, home and mobile care, and vocational recovery assistance provided by early psychosis intervention centres. Forty million dollars was to be provided towards additional capital costs of the centres.

There are many parts to this report, but one part that I took particular interest in was the gatekeeper training. One of the difficulties with early intervention is identifying individuals who need support and ensuring they get it. While noting that some have expressed reservations with the use of the term 'gatekeeper', in this context it is simply used to describe a diverse range of individuals who have regular contact with young people. These people include family, friends, teachers, youth workers, sports coaches, health professionals, law enforcement personnel and emergency services personnel. As noted in the submission from the Australian Psychological Society:

Each of these groups of people play two critical roles: to act as ‘detectors’ and monitor for early warning signs of young people at risk; and to act as ‘facilitators’—alerting and making appropriate referrals to specialist service providers as required.

Evidence suggests that building mental health literacy and providing ongoing training for people who have regular contact with young people so that they are better equipped to recognise early warning signs and make appropriate referral is likely to have benefits. Representing Lifeline Australia, Mr Alan Woodward reported:

We have found through our training of community personnel and what are known as ‘gatekeepers’—our health workers, youth workers and social workers and the like; people who are likely to come into contact with a suicidal person—that being able to explore that issue and provide an immediate and appropriate response is a very important step. We believe that that is also an area of suicide prevention which is known to be effective internationally and could be invested in further in Australia

Considering youth suicide prevention specifically, it is clear that family, friends and teachers have a significant role when it comes to managing the wellbeing of young people. Importantly, the committee does not expect these groups to assume the role of counsellor. Rather, the committee considers that it would be useful for parents, peers and teachers to be trained to recognise the signs of mental distress and be equipped to start a conversation providing 'at risk' young people with advice on the resources that are available or putting them in contact with a specialist service.

While acknowledging that teachers are already carrying significant responsibility when it comes to the health and wellbeing of young people, the committee believes that they are ideally placed as professionals, who have regular contact with young people, to play a significant role in the early identification of young people who may be experiencing difficulties and needing assistance. I am sure that any teacher would be willing to have the gatekeeper training, even if it meant saving only one life during their career.

Recommendation 10 of the report states:

The Committee recommends that teachers receive mandatory training on mental health awareness, including specific training to develop their capacity to recognise and assess suicidal risk.

The time to tackle mental illness is when it first occurs. Early intervention is important and the real focus of this report is on early intervention. As Patrick McGorry has said:

Evidence shows that with early and targeted treatment many young people are able to overcome their problems and return to health and lead socially and economically productive lives with lower incidence of progression or relapse.

Conversely, delay can be damaging, particularly for adolescents.

It is with this in mind that I conclude by thanking all the young people who made submissions to our inquiry. I thank them for their courage, as it made the committee's job easier. I see that the member for Robertson, who was on the committee, is in the chamber. I know that the evidence we took during that time was disturbing, but it was great to hear that the evidence that the young people gave was able to assist us in making the recommendations in this report. I thank everyone who was involved, particularly the secretariat and the chairman, the member for Hindmarsh. I commend the report to the House.

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

I commend the member for Swan for his comments on the report, which I think were fulsome and absolutely reflected the sentiments that we shared as we explored that territory. I rise in this place today to speak to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing Before it's too late: inquiry into early intervention programs aimed at preventing youth suicide. It is with sadness, but in a sense also with pride, that this work is being undertaken at this level with the intention of securing much better life outcomes for others on behalf of people who are now, sadly, on the record as having lost their life to the tragedy of suicide. As members of parliament moving around the community we hear these stories and we are very sensitive to the impact that they have on the members of our community.

The reality is that roughly 2,000 young Australians in the 14- to 24-year age group die each year due to suicide. They account for 20 per cent of all deaths. It is the second most common cause of death, after accidents, amongst young people. Tragically, the rate of death in young males is one in four, a much higher rate than suicide deaths amongst older men. Suicide rates for young females are also higher than they are for older females. They account for one in seven deaths where, for boys, it is one in four.

This issue is of such importance to so many people, but I want to applaud the work of this committee of the 42nd Parliament and the work of the secretariat from that time to this time. As a new member, this is the second report I have spoken to this week on important work which we completed, which was commenced in the 42nd Parliament. This report came up with 10 core recommendations. In terms of how they covered areas, this is essentially how I see it. The first two really talk about recording and reporting, and the member for Swan made considerable observations on that. We found as we were taking evidence that trying to get data in particular jurisdictions was quite difficult, and then to seek any comparability across jurisdictions was almost impossible. So this is an area that needs serious review and serious action. The third recommendation essentially dealt with research going forward.

Then there was a cluster of recommendations that related to DoHA, the national coordination and the need for a holistic response. In terms of a recommendation for the Department of Health and Ageing, we made a recommendation that they need to take a leadership role in the facilitation of the sharing of resources. What was really heartening was that, in each of these jurisdictions, people have responded—agencies have responded and government departments have responded—with a range of resources that they are using and implementing. The problem is that across jurisdictions—even within jurisdictions—some of those great resources are unknown to others. We also noticed that linkages between community education and other agencies was something that was not well constructed and needed further attention. I have mentioned the problems within jurisdictions. If you amplify that out across the nation, you can see that national coordination remains a problem as well.

A holistic response really was the recommendation. I think this outlines the complexity of this issue. It is not one agency or one issue that can be attacked here. There is a whole-of-government response that is required in terms of dealing with a whole person. Those areas of cultural identity, employment status and educational, social and economic disadvantage all figured prominently in some of the indicators of young people's journeys to the point where they were so desperate they felt there was no future for them in this amazing country in which we live. We have people lining up from all around the world who want to come and live here. We have tragically young Australians who feel so disconnected from a hopeful future that they give up that opportunity for life. It is not a small thing.

In the time that I have remaining I would like to particularly speak to recommendations 7, 8, 9 and 10. I want to do that particularly because of my experience as a teacher. I want to put on record a brief story of an occasion in 2000—quite a long time ago now when you think about it. In 2000, I had the benefit of having some Swedish experts who worked in education and in drug and alcohol reform come to Australia. They were speaking to some outstanding Australian educators, who have absolutely, without doubt, amazing commitment to education and young people. The Swedish people asked these Australian educators, 'What do you do if you have a student who presents with drug and alcohol problems?' There was a series of steady responses: a low-order response, 'Provide support to the student, try to link them into other agencies.' The Swedes asked, 'What if there is a second incident, with a student bringing drugs to school or having drug issues or reports of this?' The Australians said: 'We would escalate it. We would attempt to try and connect them into agencies outside. But the school could not really continue in this way.' With a third incident generally it triggered an expulsion. The Swedish response I thought was quite interesting. They said, 'Well, what do you do then?' Thinking it was a language problem, the Australian educators repeated an explanation of the process. The Swedes replied: 'Yes, we understand what you said. But our question remains: what do you do then?'

I think that is the question that is at the heart of how these young people got to this point. There is wonderful work being done in schools and, happily, our suicide rate is not higher because of the outstanding work that teachers are doing in terms of identifying young people who might be at risk. Our wonderful schools are connecting outside the boundaries of the school fence into local community and health support agencies. But clearly we have not got it right when we look at the statistics on what we are confronting.

To emphasise that, I want to put on record a story of evidence we heard in Adelaide recently of a young woman we met who was in a community setting and trying to get her life back on track, a very intelligent young girl who faced a lot of difficulties, and she had many of the risk factors that the member for Swan identified evident in her life. She was in a situation where there had been family breakdown. She had had an unstable upbringing in her adolescent years. She had felt isolated from her peers. She continued to attend school for some period of time but she was the first to admit she had become quite a problem in school. She reached the age of 17 and showed up at school on that day. She said, 'My present on my 17th birthday was a form to fill out for me to leave that school.' Because she was a problem she was sent away from school. That is not the case in most schools but it is the case in some schools.

It points to a resourcing problem for many schools but it also points to a question of whose job is this. Is it my job to really attend to the mental health and wellbeing of some young people? In my experience previously I had the real pleasure of working for the Hunter Institute of Mental Health to do some qualitative research analysis of the rollout of the national MindMatters program. That program is a very powerful tool that schools are using. But in that research it became very evident that there were teachers in the secondary setting who understood the need for care for young people and intervention when they needed to assist and also understood the implications of curriculum planning that could have positive or negative mental health outcomes for kids. But there was also one piece of evidence that was gathered that I read where a teacher of mathematics said, 'I teach mathematics. What I do has nothing to do with the mental health and wellbeing of the kids in my class.' I sense for that person, who was obviously dedicated to teaching and a long-term teacher, that while they saw their professional identity framed in terms of information and skill development in mathematics, that had somehow become divorced from their ethical, moral, spiritual and social responsibility to look after the whole person in their care in the classroom.

That is why I think recommendations 7, 8, 9 and 10 really do something to address the situation I have attempted to outline in those couple of vignettes. Recommendation 7 is that the Australian government, in consultation with state and territory governments and non-government stakeholders, establish partnerships between departments of education and community-based service providers to ensure continuity of care for school leavers by facilitating referral of students to external counselling services where appropriate. The need to make this recommendation is in some ways a little surprising, and I do note differences across the jurisdictions. For example, in Victoria I became quite aware some years ago that it was a funding requirement of local community agencies and health based agencies that they actively seek links with their local schools. That was not the case in New South Wales. Sadly, I have been in the situation in my own office at the university trying to make phone calls to get support for students with local agencies and actually being told, 'That's not our job.' These are cavernous cracks that open when agencies are not working with a person's wellbeing at the centre of their role definition and when we have got this, I suppose, boundary riding between different agencies.

The eighth recommendation is that the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority include social development education and mental health as a core component of the national curriculum for primary and secondary schools. This is a very significant recommendation. ACARA is undertaking significant reform at this point in time of the whole of the national curriculum. The reality is that if, as an educator, you have a student who is hungry or physically or mentally unwell then investing in attempting to get them to learn is a zero-sum game if you are not going to enable them to feel well about where they are.

This recommends that there be a course for students to learn. But I would like to add to that. In addition to the students being mentally healthy and well, we need to attend to the fact that teachers need to be mentally healthy and well. Sometimes recommendations for youth forget to look at those who are going to provide the services for the youth, and teachers are under pressure. It is a false assumption that every teacher has things so perfectly aligned in their life that they come to school equipped with resources enabling them to respond to the real and pressing needs of students who are at suicide ideation stage, for example, or even further down the track than that.

The ninth committee recommendation is that social development and mental health education for older secondary school students should include specific components to assist them to be better prepared for moving from school into the workforce and higher education and to make them aware of the full range of services available to assist them as they transition from child to adult services. The reality is that, as we move to increasing the number of students who participate in further and higher education, we are dealing with students who are transitioning from one place to another, and that is a risk factor. 'Where do I belong? How do I fit in? What skills do I have that make it okay for me to be at this university? Who will pay attention if I do not look like I am going too well?'

In my experience in the university sector there are amazing teachers who are employing what Nel Noddings calls 'ethics of care'—that there is an underpinning of care for the human beings who come into their classrooms. Sadly, sometimes performance criteria lead people to think that it is about creating numbers, data and pieces of work, and somehow students are sacrificed. Sadly, some students do not make the six-week cut-off for HECS and they just disappear. I hear that Swedish question again: whose responsibility are they now? What happens now? The end of the story from the Swedish people was that the community has invested so much in these young people—they have sent them to school, cared for them and provided health, education, resources and support—and here they are, on the cusp of a wonderful adulthood. Can there be any more important time for us to pay attention than right there and then as we launch them into that?

The final recommendation is a critical one. It is that teachers receive mandatory training in mental health awareness. I think that is for their benefit as well as that of their students. Looking after our colleagues is an important part of our role, as is looking after our students. The recommendation is for the inclusion of specific training to develop their capacity to recognise and assess suicidal risk. Teacher planning also needs to impact positively on students. (Time expired)

Sitti ng suspended from 13:13 to 16:01

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

It gives me great privilege to stand here and talk about a significant report, Before it's too late: report on early intervention programs aimed at preventing youth suicide, which goes to the crux of some of the challenges that we often do not talk about. Certainly as a member of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing hearing some of the representations from various groups, and having been involved within my electorate with a couple of families who have experienced suicide, I believe this is an important report in some of its recommendations—in particular, the need to coordinate not only between government agencies and between the Commonwealth and the state but with non-government organisations, which play a very key and vital role on the ground in influencing and impacting directly on those who experience moments of doubt or moments of depression or who contemplate suicide.

I was first introduced to this issue, strangely enough, back in the days when I worked for an undertaker. The thing that struck me was the number of people who committed suicide, because in that job I got to have an appreciation for the cause of death. Up until then, as a young 22-year-old, I had had no idea of the extent of the problem that existed. Certainly, now that experience is on my side in terms of life stage, suicide is something that has always sat there, that has been talked about quietly behind closed doors or that is often only talked about when it occurs directly for a family, where people do not understand the circumstances that a young person contemplates in taking their life—or ultimately those outside that.

Our focus was on youth because it is a transition period from being a primary school student or a 12-year-old through to that transition to adolescence and adulthood. I think sometimes that it is an area where we often do not contemplate the range of emotions that a young person experiences or the trials and tribulations that they are often faced with in the context of their social and peer interaction, and certainly within their own thinking, in terms of a professional pathway. I suppose what was most rewarding about the experience the committee had in this context was the brutal honesty of some of the young people in making very strong comment about their needs. I think as adults we make the mistake of not taking the time to listen or to reflect on what is required in order to address the needs and issues that young people are often faced with. One of the things I have always failed to comprehend or grasp is the lack of standardised reporting around suicide, because there are so many variables. I have worked in two jurisdictions in health, and, when we talked about overcoming Indigenous disadvantage for the Productivity Commission's report, the collections did not reflect the reality of what I knew on the ground. In Western Australia we had high rates of suicide in the Kimberley, but, equally, we had suicides—and the families were known to me—that were not reflected in the data.

The committee, in its considerations, talked about having a national standardised data collection that would encompass ethnicity, culture and geography. Geography is absolutely critical to the way decisions are made in the allocation of resources. It would also encompass educational attainment. I suspect, based on the work with the WA Institute for Child Health Research and the WA Aboriginal Child Health Survey that I had some involvement with, there were markers relating to the level of attainment. I noticed that young people who exited year 12 and who had a good grounding in education were in a better position to make informed choices about accessing services and where to direct their energy in seeking assistance. They knew there was a suite of opportunities for them to seek advice, to seek counsel. Particularly in the area of maternal child health, young people who left before year 10 were often constrained by their lack of educational attainment in understanding the opportunities and avenues through which they could seek the type of support that was required.

Employment status was also a factor considered by our committee. If you are unemployed, you have a low level of educational attainment and there are geographic issues, then coping in life becomes more complex, because there are added variables. Another factor that is absolutely critical that has to be considered in the context of a national standardised data collection, through every state and territory and nationally, is socioeconomic status. That is a factor that is often overlooked. It is understood in the conversations, but we do not have any rich information that informs the way in which agencies may respond.

One of the things that intrigues me is that Commonwealth funding, under both governments—the previous government and this government—is often allocated on the basis of responding to a need. But when I sought answers on how the decisions are made against a set of criteria—what is the basis for making those decisions using well-defined data, evidence and trending?—I was somewhat disappointed with the answer I received. It was really based on developing programs and developing policy that was meant to be universal across the nation and within jurisdictions. I often think that in that instance when we make those decisions, having been a public servant previously, we have not used the hard data to show the evidence of the exact degree of need by region and by locality. Until we do that, we will continue to not address the underlying issues that bring young people to a point at which their frustration and their anguish leads them to take their life.

I recently had a call from a constituent, a mother who rang me and said, 'Can you come and see me?' I had a notion that it was to do with a suicide, because I had heard from a club that her son was involved with that he was no longer there. I called in to see the mother, and I sat on her front veranda. She wanted us to use the front veranda so that we would have the opportunity of speaking privately. She said to me, 'You know my son committed suicide,' and I said, 'No, I did not know that exactly, but I had an inkling that that was a challenge that I would have to discuss with you this afternoon, and I am pleased to be here.' And what she talked to me about was the incomprehensible notion that her son had taken his life. I asked her whether there was any sign at any point, or any avenue of help for her. She said she did not know of any avenue of help other than where she could go for advice on his funeral. She said she had no inkling he was going to do this. She came home from work and then they had a conversation. He then spent time tidying up his bedroom and doing things that were not typical. She said that, in hindsight, she wished she had known that that was some indication there was a problem. She said he went about his business and then sat down and had tea with them. He asked for one of his favourite meals. He then spent some more time with the family and then said he was going to bed. But he came back out and asked his mother if he could take the dog in with him. His dog was always with him. She said that, later that morning, she heard him get up and go outside but, because of the nature of his job, she did not give any thought to that. About an hour later she thought to go outside and take a look, and what she found was that he had taken his life. She said to me, 'You and one other person are the only people who have come to talk to me about my anguish, my pain and my lack of understanding as to why my son, who had so much to give and so much to offer and was an integral part of the family, did this.' And his twin is also facing the same issue.

When we talked, what became absolutely apparent to me was that the knowledge of who was available in terms of help or who to turn to for an understanding of the signs and symptoms was just not there. She said that it would have helped if she had she known about and read about suicide. A thing that worried her was the notion of copycat suicides. She said that until we have the intervention, unless we have that type of support for these people——meaning the young men and women who associated with her son—something was likely to happen to another. They felt the grief, and that was certainly evident at the funeral.

This woman has now gone on to work with two gentlemen at the Swan Districts Football Club—in particular, the former West Coast Eagles player Peter Matera. What they have done is bring together the senior Aboriginal women. They have also brought together a whole group of young people to talk about what adults and elders within the community need to understand about suicide and the signs they should look for.

What I like about the work, the report and particularly the thinking of the committee is the need to connect the dots and look at the coordination that must exist between the Commonwealth, states and territories and the non-government sector and within the community. What we often heard was that the non-government sector had a reporting expectation but the sharing of information was not widespread or common. And yet they all had a patch in the suicide prevention field.

What I find sad is that we have a range of programs, often designed and developed by bureaucracies. The committee's report says we should listen to what young people flag as the issues. My colleagues on the committee talked about a roundtable they held in the south-eastern region of Australia. They talked about the richness of the shared experiences that young people provided to them as a committee. What they also found was a depth of feeling about the need for help. I hope that our report, before it is too late, will give young people the opportunity to influence the agenda. We have to think about every point of transaction and interaction between every form of government agency and non-government agency and the communities in which we live and which we influence. We need to think about the ways in which they can reach out and help people who are screaming out for the type of intervention that will set them on a pathway such that they will not take their life. We need to give these people the type of help that they need so that they can build the strength to take the pathway of opportunity that they were destined for. It is sad in our country to see loss of life when we could and should have intervened.

I will be working with my colleagues and many others to ensure that the messages in this report are permeated throughout the communities in which I am involved throughout my election—because I do have challenges in my electorate, as people are now raising this issue with me. And I want to work with them to look at the ways in which we can change and influence others so that we can bring about effective ways of saving lives and providing pathways of hope and opportunity. We need to give families the strength to have the discussions, to reach out, to understand and to influence their young family members so that in the future they will not have to experience grief.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to congratulate the member for Hasluck on his excellent contribution to this debate. It has been a pleasure working with him on this and other issues on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. He makes a real commitment and shows understanding of the issues that come before the committee. This is an issue that impacts on every member in this parliament. It is something that we have all be confronted with at some time or another: the news that a young person in our electorate has taken their life. Then you see the impact that that has on all the other young people within that school or their social group. It has this ripple effect and causes so much anxiety and pain to so many members of that community. It is very sad when a young life so full of promise ends without that promise being realised.

During this series of roundtables that were conducted, I was overwhelmed by the freedom in the way that the young people communicated with the committee and expressed what they thought and how they believed that the problem could be resolved. It was not just about sitting around a table and hearing about problems; it was about hearing about what problems there were now and looking towards the future to what actions could be taken to improve the situation. When we look at youth suicide, we all ask the question of why young people take their lives. One of the first things that comes to mind is the fact that young people tend to not think through the consequences of their actions. They do this without realising that if they take their lives there is no tomorrow; that is it. The friends that they believe will mourn for them will do so. But, unfortunately, they will never know about that, because once they have actually taken their lives that is the end of it. There has been a lot of research undertaken as to why young people take their lives and how, as a community, we can take action to prevent this and how it can be recognised before it happens. There is no one answer to the question. It is very varied. There are a number of different signals that can be given in relation to a person's intention to commit suicide. The member for Hasluck gave a perfect example of a young person who approached it in a very planned way. Quite often the young person will have an argument with somebody and does not think through the consequences of their actions.

There are some significant risk factors that relate to youth suicide. One of those is gender. There are many more young males who take their life than young females. The area in which a person lives also contributes to the likelihood that they will commit suicide. It is a well-known fact that is supported by research that young people living in rural and remote areas are more likely to take their lives. If you add to that the fact that they may be Indigenous, they are even more likely to take their own lives. So there are some particular geographic and social factors that can be indicators of the likelihood of a person committing suicide. Also things like unemployment, loss and separation, peer rejection, social isolation, imprisonment, poor communication skills and a family history of suicide and mental illness. It is important that as a society we recognise these as important issues.

One of the things that became very apparent to the committee during the hearing was that the data that is available around youth suicide is of variable quality. There does not seem to be a lot of consistency in it. There is a definite belief by professionals working in the field and by those people who are associated with recording the data that they do not truly reflect the number of youth suicides that take place. One explanation for this is that where it is uncertain, the coroner will always deliver an open verdict because it is much better, much easier for family and friends to cope with that fact. Also, there are reports of young people who drive their cars into a tree and it is recorded as a car accident not as a youth suicide.

There is a need for a standardised approach to the reporting of youth suicide and there needs to be more research done in this area. The committee recommended that this was one of the actions that should take place. It also recommended standardised reporting of ethnicity, culture, geography, educational attainment and employment status, which is a very big issue. Socioeconomic status is another factor as to whether a person is likely to take their own life. Young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tend to take their lives more frequently than those from a higher socioeconomic background. But, having said that, the fact is that young people who take their own lives come from all socioeconomic groups, and every young life that is lost is a loss for the future of this country—a loss of opportunity and an opportunity cost—and we should be working towards making sure it stops.

The committee held a number of roundtables, which I would say I was privileged to attend, in particular the roundtable that was held in Sydney. Part of that roundtable was earmarked as confidential because there were in attendance a group of young people who are openly shared with us their experiences. It was very moving. These young people told us how they had attempted to take their own life on a number of occasions or that they had had someone in their family take their own life, and how they had developed a support network that they were rolling out throughout communities across the country. The absolute openness of those young people was so refreshing, and it was enlightening—I learnt so much from them and their experiences. I also learnt that as a member of parliament there is a lot I can do, and a lot that we all can do.

Another thing I learnt was that young people these days communicate very differently from young people in my day. The internet—and communication via the net—is both a resource and a tool for young people who are contemplating taking their own life, but it is also one of the things that can cause a person to become extremely unhappy or depressed. I am sure I am not unique in this and that other members have also been contacted by parents whose children were subjected to cyberbullying, impacting those young people to the extent where they have had to be removed from school and come very close to taking their own lives. And the bullying that takes place not only does so in their locality but spreads to whole regions, and it is extremely traumatic for the young people involved.

The Inspire Foundation, an organisation that I directly contribute to on a monthly basis, does some excellent work using the net. It is the positive side of the net. It tries to counteract the negatives of the net and build on the positives by linking into the way that young people communicate these days.

The fact is that we have so many good people out there working in this area, in this space, providing programs and assistance; but, as the member for Hasluck said, in many cases they are not talking to each other. We have got the federal government putting out some wonderful programs which they started in the previous parliament—and there was much more money put into suicide prevention measures in this budget; then we have got the state governments all contributing and doing some excellent work in the area; and then there is the non-government sector, working long and hard to provide wonderful programs. The problem is that they are not talking to each other. So one of the things that the committee felt very strongly about was the need for everybody to talk to each other and work together and to remember that it is this young person who needs the assistance and the best way to do that is through a structured plan where that person is at the centre of it rather than through different organisations providing a fragmented service. It was also felt that there needed to be some sort of a continuation with programs once a person has either left an acute stage program or left the education system where they may have been receiving support so that the support and help that they got continues on.

This was a unanimous report of the committee. Every person on that committee was totally committed to all the recommendations that we have in this report. There are 10 in all. We need to have more research, we need to have more communication, we need to listen to what the young people say, the programs that are provided need to be integrated and we need to spend a lot more time on ensuring that we have the right sourced data. I will conclude by reading out a tweet that I received from YACWA after we had been over there. The tweet said, 'Thank you for contributing to the roundtable.' Young people appreciate our support and they communicate with us— (Time expired)

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): There are a lot of issues that get debated in this place, and they seem to take on life-and-death proportions inside the Canberra bubble of politicians, media commentators and bureaucrats. But today I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about an issue that really is of life-and-death proportions, and that is the appalling suicide rate in our nation and the need to take more action to reduce both the impact of suicide and suicide attempts within our community.

I am concerned primarily that it is an issue that we rarely talk about, even in this place. I happened to do a bit of a search through Hansard to see what other people have been saying about the issue of suicide in recent times. It surprised me that it has been mentioned only eight times over both chambers in the past two years. That is not meant to be a reflection on anyone at all; it just surprised me that there has not been much of a conversation in this place about the issue itself.

I would like to congratulate the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing for its report, Before it's too late. I also note that the document really does complement the Senate's report from last year titled The hidden toll: suicide in Australia. Although I was not part of the inquiry, I have read through both reports and I must say that the contents should be ringing alarm bells throughout this building and right across our nation.

I say at the outset—and other members have noted this as well—that it is a very complex and difficult challenge for us to deal with, and there is plenty of good work that has been done at many different levels in our community and by members of parliament. But we have such a very long way to go, and we need to challenge the taboo in raising this topic for a broader national conversation. One of our greatest challenges is to reduce or remove the stigma about suicide and to talk about it in a responsible and rational manner. I believe we need this national conversation because staying silent simply has not worked. I welcome this opportunity to speak in relation to the report by the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing.

My own experiences in relation to suicide through my previous career as a newspaper journalist perhaps highlight the point that I am trying to make. As a journalist on police rounds you would often be told about a death at the police station. But there was a policy in place within the media network and within our own newspaper not to report such incidents. The nearest comparison I can make is the old saying: if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If a person commits suicide and no-one is allowed to talk about it, do their family and friends ever really get to grieve? Although the answer, I think, is self-evident—of course they grieve—if suicide remains such a taboo subject in our community and friends and family are not really allowed to talk about it and family members are too ashamed to admit the actual cause of death, how does the grieving process really get started? Also, if we are not prepared to talk about it and get a better understanding of what happened, how do we as a community learn from that experience.

I take up the case study mentioned today by the member for Hasluck in what I thought was a terrific speech to the parliament. He highlighted some of the very real concerns where the family and friends of suicide victims—the ones who are left behind—have so many questions about what they could have done. Was there something they may have missed? For those of us who have never experienced a mental illness it is very difficult even to understand why a person would take their own life. Sometimes there are simply no reasons. The previous speaker mentioned some of the risk factors, and there are risk factors that are very well known. But on other occasions there are simply no explanations. Sometimes it really does make no sense at all.

As with any problem, if we can measure it we should be able to manage it. That is an issue in this case because we are talking about something—the suicide death rates in Australia—about which we do not know the full extent of the problem. The official statistics put the suicide rate in Australia at around about 2,000 to 2,200 people per year, but I have read reports in which estimates were put forward that the figure could be as much as 16 per cent higher, which means we could be talking about suicide deaths in the order of 3,000 people per year. Although this confusion is regrettable, it is also understandable because it is very difficult for the authorities involved to be determining the intent when assessing the cause of death in circumstances such as car accidents or drug overdoses. It is very difficult in the absence of compelling evidence like a suicide note to know for sure that the person intended to end their own life. Also, there is a stigma attached to a suicide and therefore pressure, whether it is implied or real, to protect the reputation of the surviving family members or friends, particularly in regional settings, where people get to hear about the suicide and wonder what was wrong and what was going on behind the scenes. Questions are asked, particularly in a smaller regional setting. I am not suggesting for a second that there is any impropriety or anything like that. I am just making the point that the investigators and the authorities are sometimes under implied pressure not to officially declare a suicide in circumstances where it is likely the death was probably self-inflicted and may well have been deliberate but there remained an element of doubt, so an open finding is given.

Whether the figure is 2,000 or 3,000 is probably not overly important in the context of our discussion here today, but it does inform our debate and the fact that we need to take more action as a nation. Even if we take that official figure of around 2,000 it is an alarming figure. It means that during the last four days of parliamentary sittings probably 25 Australians will have ended their lives deliberately.

In the context of the report, Before it's too late: report on early intervention programs aimed at preventing youth suicide, the rate of youth suicide, which is particularly focused on, is one of great concern to all of us in this place, particularly for those members who represent rural electorates, where the rates of suicide are much higher. Referring to the report, its finding was that for young people aged 15 to 24 suicide is the number one cause of death. Young males in particular in regional areas are one of the highest risk categories for premature death from suicide. Despite an increase in funding over the past decade it still receives less mainstream public policy attention than issues like road safety and even sun protection.

Among the key recommendations in both the reports I have referred to is the view that we need to undertake a national suicide prevention and awareness campaign over five years with adequate and sustained resources. I believe that is a critical step. Such a campaign should target the at-risk groups—other members have talked about the risk factors, which are reasonably well understood—but should also apply at a more universal level to help build resilience, to help an entire community understand what the risk factors may be and, perhaps, to drive the national conversation about this topic, which has been taboo for too long.

I am pleased to say that in Victoria, in a regional sense, that conversation has started in recent weeks, with the ABC regional Statewide Drive radio program playing a significant role. I would like to congratulate the program, its host, Kathy Bedford, and the producers and staff involved. They have tackled this in what I believe is a very sensitive manner. I am sure that it is confronting for people, but I think we need to do it, and the media is an important tool at our disposal for raising awareness and assisting our community. I noted in the report and in previous reports we had talks about developing the use of social media so that we are interacting with young people in a medium that suits them.

I would also like to congratulate the government while I have the opportunity on the $18.2 million provided last week for Lifeline to allow toll-free calls from mobile phones. Increasingly young people rely on their mobile phones, and you do not want anyone not being able to seek help simply because they are out of credit on their phone. So I think that is a very important initiative.

I also want to refer, while I have the opportunity, to the comment piece by the 2010 Australian of the Year, Patrick McGorry, who wrote about the type of conversation that I think we need to have. Regarding the taboo that surrounds suicide, in his comment piece he said:

This culture of secrecy not only increases the risk of suicide, it also hampers the ability of the bereaved families and friends to recover from their loss.

Unlike the road toll, which has reduced by one third to 1,600 deaths a year and continues to decline, suicide remains a taboo subject and is sidelined in social policy.

…   …   …

As a society we remain reluctant to talk about suicide for fear it will inspire "copy cat" behaviour. We have warned off journalists and editors who believe that the issue cannot be routinely covered.

As a result the media fails to bear witness to the corrosive effects of these daily deaths on the family and friends of those who take their lives.

And he goes on to say:

There is no evidence to suggest that sensitive and accurate reporting of suicide inspires others to follow. The exception is the celebrity suicide which the media typically does cover.

As with the road toll, the media should keep and frequently report a tally of the lives lost to suicide through a national campaign backed and funded by the federal government.

…   …   …

There are real solutions available to us to significantly reduce the numbers of Australians who needlessly die by suicide. But to solve this problem, we must first talk about it.

As members of this place, I believe, as the previous speaker indicated, that we do have a very important role to play in helping to deal with this issue. Other members, I am sure, like me, visit a lot of schools. We get to talk to a lot of young people. And we can help to pass on the critical messages which one day may help save a life.

I often think of youth suicide in particular as a permanent solution to what may have been a temporary problem, and I noted the previous speaker indicating that young people can be impetuous; they can take action without fully understanding the consequences. But, with support and treatment and early intervention, I am sure that we can help to save lives.

I am reminded again of an old saying about it taking a village to raise a child. We are all stakeholders in this issue and there is a lot of collective wisdom in this place. As much as we may belittle each other from time to time on different areas of policy, there is collective wisdom in this place, and we have the capacity in this place to do better on this issue. If we see a young person in our community who is struggling as a result of family breakdown, or abusing drugs and alcohol, or clearly suffering from some mental health issues, we need to be prepared to offer some level of support and be able to intervene. We need to have the tools at our disposal to be able to be the person who takes action and gets them the sort of help they need.

The report we are debating today does make that point. The report talks about the training of these so-called gatekeepers and the need for greater collaboration between all levels of government and service providers. One area that really does concern me is that we cannot afford to have these turf wars. We cannot have this silo mentality where one organisation is offering one level of assistance and another is offering something else and they become quite territorial. It makes it very hard for people, particularly young people who are not used to dealing with agencies and authorities and who may be disoriented anyway or unsure of what they need to do next; they do not need to be tied up in some sort of confusing maze of bureaucracy about which agency does what and who they need to go to see to seek help.

So I think there is a need for better collaboration. But, naturally, as a member from a regional area, I also believe there is a massive need for more investment in services in regional areas themselves, where it is often very difficult for people with mental health issues to receive support in their own communities. In my own electorate, almost invariably you have to travel if you need critical mental health assistance. I think we need to get the most out of every service that we already have and avoid duplication and confusion on the ground. On that gatekeeper training, I think that is a very important point made in the report. It is critical for people who work with younger members of our community that they have the skills to monitor, to detect any early warning signs, and then to help facilitate any treatment that may be available in that local community.

But I think the key point in all this is to remember that we can do it. We can save lives if we pass on the skills to our families and friends, and to teachers, youth workers, sports coaches, health professionals and law enforcement officers. Anyone who has regular contact with young people is in a position where they may be able to offer assistance with the right training in the future. As someone who is directly involved in surf lifesaving, I get to meet hundreds of young people in my community every year. They are almost without exception positive young achievers. But even among them you find issues of self-esteem, occasionally even bullying, even in a protected environment like a surf lifesaving club, where some kids do not feel quite up to it. You need to be able to help them to build their resilience and to take on challenges in a controlled manner. I think that is very important for them in helping them to build their self-esteem.

There are things we can do in our daily lives as active members of our community, beyond registered programs that may carry the banner of a suicide prevention program. I am a strong believer in the benefits of physical exercise, particularly in getting young people involved in team sports and community activities where they are part of something which is bigger than themselves and where they can find a role for themselves in the community. They will see that there is hope for them—they will find there is reason in their life and that they are part of something much bigger than they may have realised. On that point, there are many local solutions which we can help to drive within the broader national framework which the two reports talk about.

This is a very complex issue. Time for this discussion today is limited, but I encourage all members who are interested in the topic to continue to be involved. That we are having this conversation in this place is a major step forward; it is a very important step in the right direction. I know it is idealistic to believe that we can save every life, but I sincerely believe we can and must do better. I urge all members to work in a bipartisan manner to help prevent suicide in our community in future. Finally, I thank all the people in our community, the professional workers and the volunteers, who are already making a difference in this area. As a nation, we are indebted to you for the work you do for other people.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the report by the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing entitled Before it’s too late: report on early intervention programs aimed at preventing youth suicide. I will begin today by highlighting the importance of youth suicide prevention. In 2009, suicide was the leading cause of death for young people aged between 15 and 24, with 259 deaths. It continues to be the number one cause of death within the 15- to 24-year-old age group. Those at risk are often victims of bullying, including cyberbullying, harassment and discrimination. They can be made to feel worthless because they are socially isolated, are homeless or suffer mental illness like depression or anxiety. Developing a better understanding of why young people give in to suicidal tendencies will almost certainly help reduce the rate at which young people commit suicide.

Input from young people and community organisations has resulted in the key recommendations in the committee's report, which include approaches to reduce the rate of youth suicide, including research and evaluation to inform best practice strategies; collaboration; increasing mental health literacy; and gatekeeper training. There is no simple solution to the prevention of youth suicide, but one of the contributors to the report warns that a lack of action is only going to exacerbate the issue.

The Australian Psychological Society stated that it is in support of the committee's policy proposal. However, it suggests that intervention should be evidence based and it stresses the importance of tailored services, as there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all model. The APS suggests that those most well-equipped to intervene with young people at risk are qualified professionals, like psychologists, and that education and training for parents and carers, and for young people themselves, needs to be sustained by multiple sources. The APS also says that the problems or causes that lead to a young person taking their life need to be discovered and tackled head-on. Suggestions from the APS for an improved policy for preventing youth suicide include increasing frontline services, providing support for affected communities, targeting those who are at greatest risk, promoting mental health and wellbeing and creating additional 'headspace' and early psychosis prevention and intervention centres. Headspace was established with $69 million over five years by the Howard government in 2005 for the youth mental health initiative, and is an independent charitable foundation. It provides mental health and wellbeing support, information and services to young people between 12 and 25 years of age and their families. Headspace was established and funded by the coalition in 2006 across 30 sites around the country. The coalition's Real Action Plan for Better Mental Health included the provision of additional headspace sites throughout metropolitan, rural and regional areas.

The APS also highlighted a need for appropriate training for people who have regular contact with young people. At present, many professionals working with young people, the front-line staff and health professionals, will have completed the relevant course in mental first aid. The course is also available to others, including community staff, parents, carers and peers who are interested in completing the training. The APS has indicated that the key emphasis of this training is to take the information to the larger target audience rather than rely on traditional information-seeking behaviour. Therefore, the APS suggests distributing information about mental health issues in school newsletters and running information sessions at schools, community centres and local leisure centres.

Specifically, the role of schools and teachers is important in managing the impact of suicide on young people. A key secondary schools program is the MindMatters initiative, delivered by Principals Australia. This is a national mental health promotion, prevention and early intervention program delivered in 3,000 Australian secondary schools, including Elanora high school within the electorate of McPherson. MindMatters is working with high schools to embed promotion, prevention and early intervention activities for mental health and wellbeing and has been established since 2000. I believe programs like MindMatters, along with appropriate communication networks, are essential for the prevention of youth suicide.

In addition to being able to access relevant information, two-way methods of communication also need to be made readily available. Most of the time, those at risk of suicide need someone to talk to about the reasons they feel helpless. I would like to recognise the efforts of the Kids Helpline in providing a service to meet these young people's needs.

Kids Helpline is Australia's only national 24/7 confidential support and counselling service specifically for children and young people aged five to 25 years. It was only in 2003 that the helpline extended the target client age to 25 as an acknowledgement that people in that age group still struggle with the challenges of maturation.

The helpline has a referral database of more than 8,000 services, such as suicide prevention. Despite national data suggesting that the rate of youth suicide is on the decline, Kids Helpline is seeing an increase in the numbers of contacts from young people about suicide related issues. The organisation made a submission to the inquiry setting out a total of 11 recommendations. The submission provides information based on their work with young people and, in particular, the rate of suicidal thinking among young Australians and the types of programs that can both prevent suicide and reduce the rate at which acute distress turns into suicidal thoughts.

One of the recommendations was to ensure there is adequate public telephone coverage across Australia, particularly in rural and remote areas. Kids Helpline believes that ensuring free access to telephone services for all young people is essential in establishing contact with specialists who can help with youth issues and concerns. In 2009, one in five counselling sessions at the Kids Helpline were with a young person presenting with either a suicide related issue or self-harming behaviour, highlighting the need for our youth to be able to access pay phones not only for counselling purposes but also for their general safety and wellbeing. In addition to telecommunications, Kids Helpline has found that young people today prefer the anonymity of the online medium. During the last two years the rate of contact where current thoughts of suicide were expressed through the online medium was 33 per cent. The kidshelp.com.au website allows the opportunity to gather information and provides a two-way communication model through the 'Tell us your story' link, encouraging young people to share their experiences and the ways in which they overcame their problems. The organisation stresses the website is an example of an e-health initiative that can reduce the social isolation of children and young people through the power of modern information and communication technology.

Those who are seeking contact are mostly female, with males making up only 14 per cent of those contacting these services. This shows that young males are more likely to keep to themselves instead of reaching out. This is certainly of concern and should be of concern to us in the community. While thoughts of suicide remain higher with women, men are more likely to commit suicide, at a rate of four to one. This highlights the need to increase research into how we can engage with males to ensure that they are getting the help that they need.

It is relevant to note at this point that in submissions to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment's mental health and workforce participation inquiry, Dr Barnes from the Black Dog Institute said:

Depression has been described as a silent epidemic and you have properly heard lots of stats about that. However, we think it is worth repeating that one in five Australians will experience some type of mental illness in a year and the most common is depression and anxiety.

She then went on to say:

… mood disorders are a serious illness, potentially a fatal illness. We have some really shocking stats for Australian suicide rates. We know that around 40 people a week are killing themselves and, of those, around 30 are men. Obviously, every person, every individual is actually leaving a bereaved family member, co-worker and friends and the community, which then impacts on their mental health and then the ripples just sort of continue.

I would like to conclude on the issue of youth suicide today by highlighting the importance of continued support for mental health.

The coalition has a strong track record of taking mental health care seriously and providing the necessary funding to provide services to those suffering a mental disorder. In 2006 the former coalition government made the single biggest investment in mental health by any government in Australian history with $1.9 billion being committed over a five-year period for services for people with mental illness, their families and their carers. A commitment to mental health needs to be upheld, and I would hope that this would include support of early intervention programs aimed at reducing the rate of youth suicide, as these lives are certainly worth saving.

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

I am not into the whole black armband concept or the idea of national guilt but I have to say that one of the issues that I believe is quite clearly a national shame is that of youth suicide. I am very glad that you are in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, because I want to personally commend you on the report that we have before us and that we are discussing today, along with all the members of the committee and in particular my Nationals colleague the member for Parkes, who no doubt brought a regional and rural perspective to the committee. When I first came to this place I tried to get the committee to visit Mackay, given some issues that we have got there, but I understood it had moved on from the visits and that the public work was mainly done in the 42nd Parliament.

To get to the report, the statistics that are outlined in it are quite shocking, like the fact that one in five deaths in the 15-24 age bracket and one in three in the 20-24 age bracket are suicides. It is mentioned that suicide is the second most common cause of death after traffic accidents. We have to wonder, as is outlined further in the report, how many of those accidents may actually be suicides themselves when we have single-vehicle fatalities where it is not quite clear what the cause is. The report goes on to highlight that more than three-quarters of young people who commit suicide are male and that the suicide rate of people in rural areas is three times higher than that of their counterparts in cities. The fact that those statistics could be understated, as the report says—and there is certainly evidence outlined to that effect—is in itself shocking. The latest figures for suicide cited in the report are from 2009—and, as I said, they are probably underestimated—and show that, among those aged between 15 and 25, there were 259 suicides in that year. That means that, based on these rates, these understated rates, since we began sitting this week, there would have been two young people who have committed suicide and, by the time we finish, another two.

I want to get to the subject of statistics, as outlined in the report, and I had to dig to find statistics for the Mackay region. One report, put out by the Department of Health and Ageing, showed that we were, sadly, right up there. Mackay City part A was ranked second from 2001 to 2004 in terms of per capita suicide rates overall—not just youth suicide rates. Thankfully, that seems to have dropped somewhat in the following years, but we still have the reputation of being the region with the fifth highest suicide rate in Queensland. That, I have to say, was all done before the spate of youth suicides in Mackay which I outlined previously in this House, and I do want to touch on that issue again.

If anything, I think that the rate of youth suicide in the Mackay region has grown. As I said, Mackay has this terrible suicide rate; it used to be the fifth worst, but I am told it is now up to being the second worst in Queensland. That is in contrast with the view that Mackay, because of the mining boom, is financially advantaged. In fact, Mackay is extremely socially disadvantaged. We have families on high incomes but they are being fragmented by shiftwork, with fathers and husbands, often wives as well, being away from home. It is four days on, four days off in mine work, or worse than that. Families without the high incomes from mining pay a high social price for living in a boom town with astronomical rents and high prices. There are currently 30 to 40 young people per month that are identifying as homeless or experiencing severe family breakdown in the Mackay region as part of the mining boom. I state that because I really want to give the perspective of the Dawson electorate to feed into this report.

Again, I want to reflect, in this place, on the disturbing series of events that Mackay experienced in 2008. I will read from a report in our local newspaper, the Daily Mercury, from 4 September 2008 entitled 'Suicide watch'. It says:

POLICE and community groups are working together to protect a vulnerable group of street kids after their friend, a boy, 16, hanged himself in an abandoned house on Alfred Street.

The traumatised youths are now sleeping at the Youth Information Referral Service (YIRS), Victoria Street, to ensure no other member of the group harms themselves.

The death of the youth … was followed by three more suicides in the Mackay region and has prompted calls for a heightened awareness of the issue.

It was certainly a disturbing time for the whole community, when these events were prominent. But I have to say that the Youth Information and Referral Service in Mackay, now known as YIRS One Stop Youth Shop, transformed itself into this 24-hour, round-the-clock crisis centre, with staff monitoring and talking to the kids, patrolling the streets and doing all the things that needed to be done to ensure that these children did not take their own lives. I want to refer to Dannielle Wiseman who is a service manager for the YIRS One Stop Youth Shop. I have a statement of witness that the police took, which Dannielle has given to me to use in this respect. It really is a detailed and heart-wrenching report. The names are removed to allay any concerns, but she talks about YIRS providing service there and what they did. She says:

It was decided that the YIRS Service would be available on a 24 hour response basis with assistance from volunteers and community members.

YIRS assisted in the coordination of round the clock support with a minimum of one male one female available at all times.

They also assisted in the distribution of donated resources. There was to be no alcohol or drug use on the grounds. She goes on to say that she and her staff attended known locations where the group of children involved in this were meeting and practised suicide interventions. She personally took possession of:

… a number of items which were likely to have been used in hanging attempts by members of this group.

The response lasted for 10 days and nights from 1 September until 10 September. The work that was done by those people in this region on that issue is to be commended.

But we do have a startling lack of services in the Mackay region to deal with mental health. John Mendoza studied our mental health services in 2009, and his comments were that the community had:

… very little capacity to respond to the needs of those 3,000 adults who have severe levels of disability. At the very best, less than a third of the people with severe mental illness get any care at all and probably only 1 to 5 per cent are getting care that's adequate for them to function as well as possible …

He also said:

None of that service infrastructure exists in Mackay and it means that those in the acute care unit are constantly seeing people discharged being readmitted within a very short period of time.

That was a disgraceful indictment on the state of mental health services in the Mackay region.

Going back to the report: I have not read the whole thing. I have scoured it. But I am going to read it at length. Some of the recommendations that I have looked through revolved around improvement of services, particularly ones that have been seen to be working. The comment has come in there about headspace. Headspace is one of those recognised services that does something that actually works in this field.

I refer again to the police statement that Dannielle Wiseman has provided me with. In it, she mentions the coroner—and there is a coroner currently doing an inquest into these suicides in Mackay—and says:

I believe there should be a strong recommendation from the Coroner that our Service—

the YIRS service—

be provided with additional funding. This would provide a solid foundation of service delivery to young people to prevent a similar situation such as occurred in 2008 from occurring again in Mackay.

In addition I believe that the establishment of a "Headspace" facility attached to the One Stop Youth Shop Inc would allow the Service to expand and to meet the needs of young people in the Mackay Region. This would allow more clinical responses to be provided to assist in addressing this growing problem.

I absolutely concur with what Dannielle says and with what the report says. We do need an expansion of these services.

As I say, there is a current inquest into these deaths that occurred in Mackay, and we will get a series of recommendations from Magistrate Ross Risson, I understand in late August, about that. I do hope that one of those highlights the need for expanded youth mental health facilities in the Mackay region so that all levels of government take notice. Certainly this report points in that direction. The more ammunition that we can get as a community to address mental health issues and youth suicide in the Mackay region the better.

I will close by thanking a number of people who have been working with me on the concept of getting a headspace for the Mackay region. There is Dannielle Wiseman from YIRS. There is also Sandi Winner from the Mental Illness Fellowship of North Queensland. We have Colin McPherson from the Mackay Youth Connections Network and a range of other different groups and organisations. There is Leda Barnett—I could go on and on. People have been very willing to help, very willing to collect signatures for a petition on this issue. We got some 4,000 signatures, and the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing and their shadow counterparts are all aware of this petition. I do hope that at some stage we have some recognition of that.

When I was talking about this issue to young people in my electorate—and it is a very difficult issue to broach with some people because they have experienced suicide in their own family or amongst their friends—I got a statement from a girl in my electorate, Krissy Mulder, which I need to repeat to the House here. I will end with her words. She said:

I have walked to the very edge and almost jumped, but I turned around in time to see the love, that the people that matter, had for me. However it saddens me to say I know a 14 year old who never made it to 15, because he couldn't find a way back. A 20 year old that never had a 21st because to make the hurt stop he stopped everything, and last month another precious life gone at 22. I will never be a number, a statistic on a piece of paper for a faceless person who never knew me, to say what a shame. People need help the most when they say they don't, and any help is better than nothing, especially when they don't realise how close to the edge they are.

How true are those words from Krissy. Contained within this report are some of the answers. I know the government is working in this direction, but more needs to be done and more needs to be done soon, particularly in the Mackay region. I commend the report.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak following the tabling of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing titled Before it's too late: report on early intervention programs aimed at preventing youth suicide. I take this opportunity to congratulate the chairman and the deputy chairman of that committee as well as the secretariat on this important piece of work. As has been said by the previous speakers, more than 2,000 Australian lives are lost each year to suicide. Every day at least seven people lose their life through suicide. Every 15 minutes somebody around this great country attempts it.

With up to 50 per cent of young adults experiencing a diagnosable episode of mental illness between the ages of 12 and 25, this is a very important issue. With only 35 per cent of those with mental illness being able to get access to quality care, it is clear that more needs to be done around early detection and other measures. Indeed, in Australia, according to the ABS, suicide is the 14th most frequent cause of death. But in the age bracket of 15- to 24-year-olds it is the No. 1 cause of death. In 2009, 24 per cent of people in that age bracket died by suicide. It is more common in males than females. A remarkable 76 per cent of those who were lost through suicide in 2009 were males. In the 15 to 24 year age bracket, suicide rates are three times higher for those living in remote and rural locations, and the rate is four times higher for Indigenous people in the 12 to 24 age bracket. Hopefully those statistics give some sense of the scope and nature of the problem that we face.

In Australia, suicide and mental health has been a subject of taboo, but that is changing. We are confronting the statistics and working on innovative ways to tackle the problem. I pay credit to men like John Mendoza and Patrick McGorry, experts in their field, who have spoken up about this important issue and taken sometimes unpopular action which, at the end of the day, has led to greater government intervention in this area. I have been fortunate to speak on numerous occasions to both men, to speak in the parliament about this issue and to engage with groups like GROW and Lifeline and others that are doing work on the front line.

But what do we need to make the situation better? We clearly need more front-line psychological and psychiatric services. We need greater collaboration between service providers. We need additional support for those communities that are affected by suicide. We need to target those people, those individuals, who are at greatest risk of suicide. We need to promote the idea of wellbeing and mental health more robustly in our community. We need to improve the level of mental health literacy among all of us. Specifically, places like the headspace site referred to earlier are very, very important. Currently around Australia there are 30 of these sites, and I welcome moves to increase this number to 90.

I have had correspondence from people in my electorate about this issue. Laura Lloyd wrote to me about a girl named Prerna Diksha, from Fintona Girls School in Balwyn, in my electorate. Her brother, Abhishek Gaurav, who was a young teenager at Camberwell Grammar School, tragically took his own life, and she is asking why. Their family was actually from Boronia, and she is working with my friend and colleague the member for Aston, Alan Tudge, on getting a new headspace centre in the Knox shopping strip. This is a really worthwhile initiative and deserves to be supported. Likewise, in my own electorate of Kooyong I would like to see a headspace site. I think access to these services for young people would be a great improvement on what is currently available.

This report that has been tabled by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing looks at the risk factors for suicide and breaks them into three areas: the individual, the social and the contextual. Under the individual, it talks about substance abuse, homelessness, mental illness, poor coping skills, chronic pain or illness; under the social, it talks about abuse, violence, family dispute, conflict and dysfunction, peer rejection, social isolation and imprisonment; and, under the contextual, it talks about a lack of support services, poverty and neighbourhood violence. These are all factors that government experts tell us help to create a situation in which suicide is more likely.

While I welcome the government's initiative at the last budget to improve funding in mental health, I want to note that it has come at some expense, particularly the cuts to the Better Access program, where people were able to access psychologists and GPs and get rebates for those visits for treatment for mental health issues. That has been cut by this government. But, by and large, an investment of any new money is extremely important in the area of mental health.

Some of the other recommendations in this report which should be taken note of include the recommendation for standardised reporting of suicide figures. There is scope there for extending the data collection, taking into better account geography, culture, employment and socioeconomic status, and getting the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Suicide Prevention Advisory Council to work more closely on research initiatives and to develop a priority research agenda. While research funding has increased more than threefold since 2001-02, it still sits at only about $65 million per annum. There must be scope to explore new ways of capitalising on social media and the internet to engage with our young people to mitigate the risk of suicide. New youth suicide prevention measures are also recommended, as well as adopting an holistic approach to these new measures which takes into account cultural, educational, employment, social and economic disadvantage factors.

Better measures to provide continuity of care for school leavers is also recommended. Often you can find a school student getting advice and support on mental health related issues but once they leave school they are left to their own devices. We need better partnerships between the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and community based providers to ensure that these people do not fall between the cracks. We need to encourage our teachers to receive specific training on mental health awareness to increase their capacity to recognise and assess suicidal risk and to ensure that those people get the best attention.

This issue of youth suicide and mental health is an absolute priority for any government. I welcome new initiatives in this area. I pay particular credit to Tony Abbott for, ahead of the last election, taking the initiative in this area. I pay credit to those in the industry like Patrick McGorry, John Mendoza and many others people who have worked tirelessly behind the scenes for years to create greater awareness in government about what needs to be done. Not everything can be provided by the private sector. Not everything can be left to the market. Mental health is one such issue where governments need to step in.

If we take the measures recommended, together with others that are being undertaken, to encourage early detection, to better equip our service providers and our teachers, to provide better access for young people to headspace, EPPIC and other facilities as well as to remove the stigma that currently sometimes applies to mental health we will have a better chance of reducing these horrific figures where over 2,000 Australians die each year through suicide and where young Australians are disproportionately represented in those statistics.

I commend the committee and the secretariat for their work. Now that this body of work exists, it is incumbent upon government to take its recommendations, to consider them and hopefully to introduce them into Australian society.

Debate adjourned.

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

I rise to comment on the committee's report, Reclaiming public space: inquiry into the regulation of billboard and outdoor advertising. I have a particular interest in this area as a mother of two young girls. My interest in the external influences of the wallpaper of our society on my two girls has sparked a particular interest generally in this issue. I made some public comments recently about the importance of having appropriate images out there in the public domain. Like many others in the community and some organisations specifically established to comment on the inappropriateness of images in the public domain and the premature sexualisation of young children, I was waiting to see what the committee report would come up with. I have to say that I am bitterly disappointed. It is telling the advertising industry, 'It is okay, you can keep doing what you have been doing.' It is as effective as a slap with a wet lettuce. It is a total cop out. It is almost a waste of time for the committee to have sat and listened to evidence and then gone through the draft report and corrected it.

The committee has essentially recommended that the outdoor advertising industry be given one last chance. It has rejected calls for G-ratings on advertising billboards and it has called for advertisers to be named and shamed online if they put up inappropriate images. But I would argue that this would be as effective as Fuelwatch and Grocery Watch.

Outdoor advertising is in a different category to other sorts of advertising. It occupies public space. It is privileged space. It is open to all, whether it is on billboards, bus shelters or park benches. This unique character of outdoor advertising was accepted by the committee and that is what has brought it to the attention of so many Australians who are concerned about the issue.

On the one hand the report acknowledges the significant problems associated with self-regulation but then actually stops short of recommending a system of regulation or even co-regulation. They say this for two apparent reasons. One is that the industry does not want it—surprise, surprise. The other is that comparable countries have not done so yet. I think that is a total and utter cop out. The test should be: what does the public think is acceptable for our children to view and be affected by? What does medical evidence say about the images that continually bombard our children? The medical evidence is saying that all of these images are death by a thousand cuts; they are affecting our children's emotional development and they are affecting them later on in life. This is the sort of evidence that should be looked at. I am astounded that this did not weigh more heavily on the minds of the committee members. The committee stated:

Even though the Committee does not consider that government regulation of outdoor advertising content is warranted, the Committee expresses its strong view that the current self-regulatory system needs to be more rigorous and transparent in order to address the serious issues raised in the inquiry.

That is not going to happen. If you want evidence, just look at some of the reports in the print media of late on comments by the advertising industry. One of these reports states:

Advertising and media groups were putting a positive spin on the committee's findings yesterday, insisting they were a vote of confidence in the advertising self-regulatory system.

Of course they would, because that is what the report effectively is.

I also refer you to the following quote from Alina Bain:

We note the Committee has not recommended government regulation of outdoor advertising. This shows that they have taken into account the low levels of complaints and breaches under the AANA Codes, which indicates that our system is working well.

No, it does not indicate that the system is working well, because there would not be so much concern out there in the community if the system was working well. I wonder if Ms Bain has actually looked at the medical evidence, both in Australia and overseas, on the impact that inappropriate advertising—highly sexualised and suggestive advertising—is having on young children. Colleagues on both sides of the House, this is not about the rights of an advertiser against the rights of a so-called wowser who does not want to watch; this is about whether the advertising dollar is more important than the welfare of our children, whether the advertising dollar speaks louder than the collective public conscience about the sort of environment in which we want our children to grow up.

In comments from the industry, Outdoor Media Association Chief Executive Charmaine Moldrich said that the committee's recommendations that related to the outdoor ad industry 'have already been put in place or are in the process of occurring'. In other words: 'Thank you, little committee members; you've done your little work and, guess what, we're not going to take much notice of it because we're so good that we're already doing the things you want us to do.' Well, they are not acting appropriately, and this committee has let go of an ideal opportunity to actually do something real about this problem.

The report notes that the self-regulatory system has been 'largely reactive in nature, whether to public criticism or other threats to the status quo'. It goes on to say that 'the regulation of outdoor advertising should not be more lax than that of advertising in other media.' Yet we know that other forms of media are far more highly regulated, so this seems to be a contradiction in the report.

Self-regulation has failed. It is not the answer in so many other areas. We have the ACCC to look after the interests of small businesses and consumers. We have regulation in other parts of our life. One wonders why the committee were so hostile to actually having some form of real regulation in this area. I would not say that the personal views of members of the committee influenced their opinion about regulation about highly sexualised images; I would not say that the chair of the committee, the member for Moreton, who is known to be an author of highly racy novels, was influenced in the recommendations of the report by his personal opinions and the literature he has written—but others may.

The impact of outdoor media is significant. It is not like the television, which you can just switch off. This has been recognised by the Outdoor Media Association. They acknowledge the impact and the reach that their advertising has. They say that it can achieve direct communication with consumers wherever they go—'where they live, work, play, where they drive and shop, where they commute, and where they congregate'. Billboard and outdoor advertising is probably the most in-your-face, unavoidable form of public advertising, and there have been some pretty shocking and highly sexualised images in it over the last few years.

The Australian Advertising Standards Bureau has failed to protect our children from the content on these billboards. As I said before, it is about not just one image but an accumulation of images that have such an extraordinary impact. We as adults may be totally numb and immune to much of this imagery, but anyone who has had small children knows that they are sponges and absorb so much more in their environment than we do, which is why the failure of self-regulation is having such a disproportionately damaging impact on our young children.

We need regulation. I have said before—and I will repeat it in this chamber—that we need to have a statutory body with some real powers, including the power to issue serious fines to offenders. Why can't it be the time to codify community standards and put weight on medical opinion about the impacts on children? We err on the side of caution so often in public policy. We have heard of the precautionary principle when it comes to environmental policy, but where is the precautionary principle when it comes to protecting children and providing a safe environment in which they will grow and develop?

None of the evidence in the committee's report regarding these sexualised images and their impact on young children has been disputed, yet a parent cannot take a child to a park, to school or out to the shops without being subjected to outdoor advertising. So what is the answer? What does the committee say to parents who are concerned about this imagery, who have seen self-regulation fail, who have seen reports where the media mock the committee's recommendations, claiming the recommendations support their current position and what they are doing? What do you say to parents who say that you have failed as a committee?

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

The member for Indi must remember to avoid the use of 'you'—

Mr Neumann interjecting—

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

I am disappointed. I join many members of the public in being disappointed, because the medical evidence—

Mr Neumann interjecting—

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

The member for Blair will get his chance.

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

And I take your note, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—has not been taken into account, and nor have community standards. We are not talking about how liberal you are, your civil libertarian values, about what you should read or what you should see. You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home as long as it is legal. That is what we in the parliament, on both sides of the House, generally believe. I am not talking about that; I am talking about the protection of children. Some people have said to me, 'Oh, well, kids need to grow up; they need to know what it's like in the real world.' Actually, there is a time and a place that is appropriate for such knowledge, comments and imagery. Young children do not have the capacity to process and understand much of the sexual imagery with which they come into contact in the public domain.

Again, I express my disappointment in this committee report. I am sure it will be greeted with great acclaim by the sectors of the advertising industry that have not yet commented on it and with disappointment by the rest of the community that is focused on child welfare. Do not call us wowsers, because we are not. Do not call us people who want to restrict the free market, because we are not. We are looking after the health and welfare of young children. I am sure that one impact this report will have is to put wind into the sails of the community organisations and parents out there who are fighting this great problem in our community. Just because we as adults are immune, are numb or have become desensitised to certain images does not mean that our children are not affected by them.

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

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report, Reclaiming public space: inquiry into the regulation of billboard and outdoor advertising. The report, released on Monday, provides a comprehensive examination of billboard and outdoor advertising regulation. It also provides a number of important recommendations to help outdoor advertising better reflect community concerns.

I would firstly like to turn to the rationale for this inquiry. As the chair of the committee, the member for Moreton, has said on a number of occasions, the very nature of outdoor advertising makes it unavoidable. As University of Melbourne academic Lauren Rosewarne says:

Unlike the ‘private’ world of magazine and television advertising, outdoor advertising is displayed throughout public space, thus making regulation of the medium a pertinent public policy concern. The inescapable nature of outdoor advertising, compounded with the increasingly sexualised display of women within, demands that an active public policy response occurs.

This report into outdoor advertising directly addresses the issue of billboards and other outdoor media being inescapable for the whole of the community. When we drive down the major freeways of our big cities and even down our suburban streets, we are exposed to an onslaught of often highly provocative and highly effective outdoor advertising. From billboards, public transport shelters and kiosks to public toilets, park benches and phone booths, we live in a world saturated by advertising—and the committee took a wide range of evidence of these images, amongst other things. There is saturation with things like ads for nasal-delivery erectile dysfunction sprays, naked men pictured wearing dog collars and leashes to sell pantyhose and Lolita-like ads with women looking extremely childlike with lollipops, in seductive poses, to sell handbags. When people are faced with all this, I can fully understand why our community says, ''Enough is enough.' Unlike with other forms of advertising, we do not have the power to turn the page or change the channel. Every member of the community is stuck with the same overt billboard or other form of outdoor advertising until it is replaced by a potentially more contentious one.

In response to this, the committee received 51 submissions from stakeholders, all of which were thoroughly considered in producing this report. This report comprises five chapters containing 19 recommendations. As well as making these recommendations to the government, the committee has made them to relevant industry bodies, acknowledging that neither the government nor the committee has authority over these industry bodies in many respects. One of the major concerns being expressed by stakeholders is the fact that the advertising industry is a self-regulating one. The committee recognises that the advertising industry has demonstrated some willingness to review and make changes to this system of self-regulation. The committee understands that the advertising industry has the opportunity to implement the recommendations contained in this report in order to improve its own operation.

I would now like to discuss the issues of most concern to the people of Greenway, whom I represent, and to myself, which the committee addressed in producing this report. The first is the oversexualisation of advertising. We are increasingly being subjected to oversexualised displays in media and especially in advertising. Advertisers realise the effectiveness of using sex to sell, and they consistently rely on the objectification of the female body to convey many a message. The committee looked at a number of examples displaying overt sexualisation of the female body in outdoor advertising, some of which I am sure many members is this place would, unfortunately, be familiar with.

One submission presented to the committee a particularly provocative campaign from a prominent Australian clothing retail chain. This particular marketing campaign was entitled 'I love sex.' This campaign saw billboards displaying a naked woman, a man covering her breasts with his hands and the word 'sex' behind her head. I suppose one could be forgiven for thinking that this clothing chain is in the business of selling something other than clothes. As a result of the ad, a number of complaints by the public were made, including by one of my own constituents.

Because of the pervasive nature of billboard advertising, these images, which may be appropriate for certain magazines and television, are visible for all to see—men, women and children, 24 hours a day. These images can sometimes be located near places of worship, schools and childcare centres and, as a result, expose all parts of the community to often controversial messages that cannot be avoided.

At the core of this issue is the exposure of oversexualised images to children. One of the most concerning aspects of exposing our young people to such oversexualised images in such public places is the effect it can have on their body image and their expectations of the other sex. This issue becomes even more problematic when we see our young people so obsessed with the superficial and the glamorous. Adolescent psychologist Dr Sloane Madden of Westmead Childrens Hospital details the rather frightening realities that our young people are experiencing:

One third of 8 year olds are not happy with their weight and shape. Nearly 1 in 4 are dieting. I think there is a growing concern amongst eating disorder professionals around the world that children at this age are being subjected to increasingly sophisticated adult messages, messages equating thinness with success—sexualised images—presented to children at an age when really they're psychologically unable to understand those images.

This is the reality of what is happening to many of our young people. By exposing children to oversexualised images—which is what currently occurs, unfortunately, in some outdoor advertising—we leave open a range of social, psychological and physical problems for our young people. These are problems no child should have to face.

I now turn to discussing some of the existing regulations. It became apparent to the committee, in addressing these community concerns, that existing regulations on advertising had in many respects failed. I believe the recommendations that the committee understands will be adopted by industry will work to rectify these community concerns regarding the oversexualisation of advertising. The committee did look at the option of introducing a classification system that was submitted by the Australian Christian Lobby, who wanted a G rating for all outdoor advertising. However, as argued by the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, this could have the effect of excluding advertising that is in the public interest, such as illicit drug awareness and sexual health messages. The committee made 19 recommendations to industry to improve its processes. Some of these recommendations were as follows. The committee recommended that the Attorney-General's Department review by 30 June 2013 the self-regulatory system for advertising by evaluating industry's implementation reports and assessing the extent to which there has been effective implementation of the recommendations contained in the committee's report. Under recommendation 4, the committee recommended that the Attorney-General's Department look to include 'the unrestricted display of racist or sexualised images in the public space' in the scope of discriminatory practices with the intention of reducing the number of over-sexualised images that we currently see displayed on many billboards. Under recommendation 8, the committee recommended:

that the Australian Association of National Advertisers amend its advertising code of ethics to proscribe sexual objectification of men, women and children.

Under recommendation 9, which was made to the Advertising Standards Bureau, the committee recommended that research be conducted every two years into:

community perceptions of the use of sex, sexuality and nudity in advertising in general and specifically in outdoor advertising;

…   …   …

prevailing community standards on health and safety in advertising in general and specifically in outdoor advertising;

prevailing community standards on advertising to children …

To ensure that the industry makes a concerted effort in cleaning up its act in these matters, it has been recommended by the committee that the relevant industry groups provide a comprehensive report to the Attorney-General's Department by 30 December next year detailing their responses and how the relevant recommendations contained in the committee's report have been implemented. To ensure complaints from the public are dealt with in an effective manner, the committee has recommended that members of the Australian Association of National Advertisers and the Outdoor Media Association:

'forward complaints they receive from the public directly to the Advertising Standards Bureau'.

The final recommendation made by the committee was again to the Advertising Standards Bureau. It recommended that it strengthen its independent review process.

I believe the committee's recommendations are the appropriate measures to take at this point in time, as did the entire committee unanimously. The report has delivered 19 recommendations to government and industry in order to improve the processes governing outdoor advertising so that they better reflect community standards. I am sure that the committee's report will be welcomed by many in my electorate, where there has been considerable concern about the standard of outdoor advertising. In closing, I thank my fellow committee members for all their hard work in contributing to this report. I make special mention of the committee chair, the member for Moreton, and the committee deputy chair, the member for Pearce. I thank the committee secretary, Dr Anna Dacre, and everyone else involved with the committee secretariat. I believe we worked in a very constructive manner on a very important issue. We took a wide range of written and in-person evidence, all of which was taken seriously and analysed thoroughly. It has been a privilege to be part of this committee, and I do hope the recommendations outlined in this report go a long way to seeing us reclaim our public space.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The consumer has a choice about whether to view television, print, radio or internet advertising but no choice about whether to view outdoor advertising. Sexually exploitative, provocative, violent and discriminatory images can be shown in outdoor advertising, but the consumer cannot turn them off. Whether these images are on billboards, buses, bus shelters, taxis, toilets or transit centres, they are in your face. The community is justified in feeling concerned, if not angry, at the outdoor advertising we have seen. In my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland, on the Ipswich motorway, there have been a number of issues raised about billboard advertising, including evidence that came up during the inquiry of the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs about advertising for Sexpo. This matter was raised in letters to the editor in the Queensland Timesit wasraised in media locally—and there was consumer concern about it, because if you were driving towards Brisbane and had your children in the car, you had no alternative but to look at that billboard that was right there in your face. Self-regulation in its current form is not working; regulation needs to be strengthened.

I am pleased that the advertising industry, who—I must say—at first seemed reluctant, hesitant, self-defensive, have moved. During the course of the committee's inquiry, when there were seven public hearings—in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne—and 51 public submissions offered, we saw movement from the advertising industry. They have to accept that the community is concerned with sexually exploitative, provocative, violent or sexually discriminatory images that are shown clearly on places such as those adjacent to schools or churches, out the front of airports or on major highways, particularly in South-East Queensland, where I come from. At first the advertising industry were saying that statistics about this issue backed up their story, but in fact, when you delved deeper into this particular issue, you discovered that just over 2,000 complaints were forwarded to the Advertising Standards Bureau, of which just over 10 per cent were found to be in breach of the advertising codes of practice. It looked all right but, of those 2,000 complaints, 437 were for outdoor advertising and 35.7 per cent related to advertising that breached the codes of practice. Of the 90 outdoor advertisements that the Advertising Standards Board considered, 16.67 percent were found to be in breach, compared to less than 10 per cent for all other categories. So outdoor advertising breaches the codes of practice more frequently. Four of the top 10 most-complained-about issues about advertisements were for outdoor advertising.

The inquiry investigated whether self-regulation was effective for outdoor advertising and we found that, in relation to specific categories of advertising which required their specific codes of practice, those codes needed to be strengthened, particularly the need for a separate code where public space is occupied—that is for sure. Unrestricted, untargeted audiences can be seen, and this can have a cumulative effect, as the previous speaker said. There is concern in the committee and in the community about the complaints-based aspects and all the burden of complaint resting on the public. The public is not necessarily aware of how to make the complaint. Often the public, consumers, are time poor and not necessarily, as I said, aware of how to do it. We recommended that the Advertising Standards Bureau actually advertise the complaint process more and increase its accessibility.

The advertising standards boards make decisions on advertising contents relating to prevailing community standards, and I am not always convinced they get it right. The committee found that it is not clear how these standards are established and recommended that research be conducted to determine the prevailing community standards in relation to outdoor advertising; the use of sex, sexuality and nudity; health and safety; advertising food and beverages; advertising alcohol; and advertising to children. A wide variety of people and organisations lodged submissions: everyone from the Alcohol Policy Coalition to the Australian Christian Lobby, the Salvation Army, 2020women Inc., the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law and Collective Shout. Everyone from the whole spectrum, from the civil liberties groups to the more conservative Christian groups, lodged submissions in relation to this. They were not all saying the same thing, but it was interesting that many sang from the same hymn sheet, really, in relation to this issue. It was quite clear.

The outdoor advertising industry, if I can put it like that, is on its final notice. It must clean up its act. It may shape up and get its house in order or, by 2013, this report recommends the government intervene. This is a really big warning to that industry. It really needs to look at itself. The lack of enforcement powers and sanctions for noncompliance with the voluntary codes was a consistent criticism of the advertising self-regulatory system. The committee is of the view that, to instil public confidence in this system, you need to have muscle. For example, we need to have more public exposure and disclosure. The information, in relation to complaints decisions, should not be buried in websites or tucked away but should be transparent and obvious—listed by their parent company's name rather than the product name, for example, so everyone knows which company has offended against codes of practice. We think there should be a prominent webpage, dedicated to naming the products and the advertisers which breach, circulating the names of non-compliant advertisers to third-party media organisations such as the Outdoor Media Association, providing the names of non-compliant advertisers and getting this out into the public's domain—getting public scrutiny. Pre-vetting or copy advice is something which is world's best practice but it is not always done. Providing independent, non-binding copy advice to advertisers prior to running a campaign is recommended. Given the unavoidable impact of outdoor advertising, this can be done, but that advertisement can be displayed for a month or more before action is taken. So we think that it is necessary that copy advice or pre-vetting be provided for all outdoor advertising and we think there needs to be monitoring in this regard. The idea of world's best practice is simply to random-monitor outdoor advertising, so we think it should be complied with. We think compliance surveys should be conducted at locations such as near schools or sports grounds or for specific industries such as alcohol. The Australian Association of National Advertisers is currently reviewing its code, and it is not before time; it is the first time in over a decade. It plans to review other codes in the new year. The committee recommended that voluntary advertising codes be reviewed on an annual basis, or a regular basis certainly.

The committee is concerned about the proliferation of outdoor advertising of alcohol in areas such as public transport where young people could be exposed to it. We recommended that the alcohol beverages advertising code system be monitored by an intergovernmental committee. We were also concerned about the proximity and the juxtapositioning of alcohol with sports. The Australian Association of National Advertisers' food and beverage code restricts the advertising of unhealthy food products to children. The committee was disappointed that sports sponsorship was not included in the code and recommended that sports sponsorship be recognised as a form of advertising and therefore subject to advertising codes of practice relating to food and to children.

This was a bipartisan report, a unanimous report. The member for Indi is simply wrong to criticise her Liberal colleagues in the way she did. I want to commend the member for Moreton for his leadership as chair of this particular committee. To make the kind of surreptitious slurs that she did in relation to him was unseemly, unnecessary and beneath her. The member for Moreton did a fantastic job. I also want to commend the deputy chair, the member for Pearce, for the spirit in which she participated in this inquiry. This was a difficult inquiry and the coalition members contributed in an exemplary way. To cast aspersions on her own colleagues in the way the member for Indi did tonight is really quite shameful. They must have interesting party meetings. I would be very interested in how they might vote in any internal Liberal Party ballot in the future. It was a derogatory diatribe about the integrity of the committee, including her three Liberal colleagues. As I said, it was a unanimous bipartisan report. I congratulate the secretariat, who make us all look very good in this place.

The outdoor advertising industry and the advertising industry is on its last legs with respect to self-regulation. They must get this right. If they do not, a future of government intervention and co-regulation beckons for them. They must respond to community standards in a way that is relevant to what the community feels. They should not have the notion that they are above or beyond what the community has to say. It came through pretty clearly to me that at the beginning of this inquiry the industry was out of touch and by this inquiry was dragged kicking and screaming into a new world. Those media releases that the member for Indi read are making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It really is the case that the industry needs to have a good look at itself, not just in Western Sydney, not just in South-East Queensland but across the whole country.

I commend the members of the committee, the secretariat, the chair and deputy chair, and I urge the industry to have a look at itself and respond to the committee's recommendations, and the government as well.

Debate adjourned.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak following the tabling of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report into Australia's relationships with the countries of Africa. At this stage I would like to pay tribute to the chair of that committee, Senator Forshaw, and the deputy chair, the member for Gilmore, as well as the secretariat for their hard work in making this report possible.

Africa may not be in our diplomatic backyard like Asia or indeed the South Pacific, but it is an important part of Australia's foreign policy outlook. We have significant aid, strong people-to-people links and strategic interests and we engage in a multitude of global organisations with our African partners.

Africa is a continent of up to a billion people. It is made up of 53 countries, each with their different traditions, their different languages—some 3,000 different languages are spoken in Africa—and different religions, and this provides many challenges and opportunities. In terms of challenges, 33 of the 49 poorest countries in the world are in Africa. There are real issues around governance, but there is also great opportunity. People are innovative, there is extensive resource wealth, and there is a movement of many millions of people out of poverty into the middle classes. Australia has an opportunity to work with the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States and the Southern African Development Community to try to reach common answers to common problems.

In this report there are a number of significant recommendations, some of which I hope the government does take up. One is to call for greater cooperation between the private sector, government agencies and NGOs in developing and delivering aid to Africa. A second talks about a regulatory framework for the resources sector—Australia, using our own experience with our strong resources sector, could help develop such a regulatory framework that could assist countries in Africa to develop their resources.

Significantly, the report recommends that we review our diplomatic representation in Africa, particularly in the francophone countries. Our presence in Africa has decreased from 12 diplomatic missions to eight in the past 25 years. We have significantly less diplomatic representation than a number of our trading partners such as Canada, Korea and Malaysia—not to say that we have significantly less diplomatic representation in Africa than the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom. I welcome the opening of a mission in Addis Ababa, which is the headquarters of the African Union, and recognise that the committee has suggested we increase the number of honorary consuls in Africa as well as the A-based French-speaking diplomatic staff.

There are also opportunities for Australia to develop valuable ties in research, in higher education. This includes offering more scholarships for African students to study here and the interesting idea of a centre for African studies to be located at an Australian university. There is also scope for an Australia-Africa council which could be used to expand trade and cultural links. I remember when Alexander Downer was the foreign minister back in 2000 and the Council on Australia Latin America Relations was set up, and that helped deepen and strengthen the ties between Australia and Latin American countries. There are great trading opportunities in agriculture, resources and tourism. But if you look at the statistics today, less than one per cent of our imports come from Africa and just over 1.5 per cent of our exports go to Africa. So clearly there are great opportunities for Australian businesses to partner with African countries to our mutual benefit.

In conclusion, I just want to talk about one issue that I think is very important to Australia's policy on the African continent. That is about how we can improve the democratic rights of the Zimbabwean people. Back in 2005 I wrote an article that was published in the Courier Mail about the UN's failure to pressure Mugabe and how back then it was an indictment on the UN membership and the values that it professed to hold. The food basket of Africa was Zimbabwe and it has quickly turned into the basket case of Africa. President Mbeki was supposed to be the honest broker in trying to bring Zimbabwe to the table. That did not succeed. President Mugabe bulldozed hundreds of thousands of poor people's dwellings and temporary dwellings in Harare, leaving hundreds of thousands—it was estimated to be 700,000 people—homeless. Inflation and unemployment skyrocketed, the currency was worthless and still the international community, particularly Zimbabwe's African neighbours, stood still and stayed quiet. Would you believe that Zimbabwe was elected to a three-year term to the UN's Human Rights Council? I am all for international bodies, but when they kick dirt in our faces by electing the likes of Zimbabwe to a UN human rights body you have to ask, 'What is it all about?' Clearly, quiet diplomacy does not work with Zimbabwe and something more dramatic needs to be done.

People may be aware that after the failed elections in 2008 there was a so-called power-sharing agreement between President Mugabe and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai from the Movement For Democratic Change. Lo and behold, nothing has happened. We have not had fresh elections, we have not had a new constitution and we are now a couple of years on. Why aren't Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard speaking about this more often? Why aren't they speaking to the Australian public and to their partners in Africa and elsewhere about the disgrace that is Zimbabwe? I notice that the South African development community has recently said that Zimbabwe and leaders need to be urged to 'create a conducive environment to the holding of elections that will be free and fair, under conditions of a level playing field.'

But I also note that the so-called electoral commission in Zimbabwe is telling us that a third of the people whose names are on the electors roll are dead and that the government has no money to conduct a new election. That is no excuse to abuse human rights and suspend democracy. Mugabe is a dictator of the worst kind. It is an indictment on many of our international partners that something more has not been done. The ZANU-PF, Mugabe's military and political arm, are thugs. They try to intimidate their political opponents. The rapes, the bashings, the poverty, the lack of education and health systems to speak of—thousands of people have died of cholera—are completely intolerable. I know that Kevin Rudd thinks that he is going to bring peace to mankind, and particularly to Libya, but why does he not pay more attention to Zimbabwe? Isn't it time that Australia, as a Commonwealth nation, made Zimbabwe an absolute priority for our foreign policy? There might be a power-sharing agreement between Morgan Tsvangirai and President Mugabe, but it is a power-sharing agreement in name only. There is no real democracy, there are no human rights and millions and millions of people lie scared in their beds.

This report from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade committee is a valuable contribution. It points to how we can strengthen our relationships with the countries of Africa. As I said at the start, Africa may not be in our diplomatic backyard, like Asia and the South Pacific, but it is a very valuable country in terms of Australia's global interests, and we have a moral obligation to help the millions of people in Africa who are dealing with extreme poverty and a lack of governance. I pay tribute to the chair of the committee, Senator Forshaw, his deputy chair, the member for Gilmore, and the secretariat for their important work. But I say to our Minister for Foreign Affairs and to our Prime Minister: Zimbabwe under Mugabe is a blight on the world and it is a blight on your foreign policy record. With CHOGM to take place in Australia, there is no better time for you as the Australian government to use your voice in international forums and here at home to make the case for change in Zimbabwe and the end of the disastrous dictatorship that is the Mugabe regime.

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

I am very pleased to speak to this report as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and as someone who has taken a keen interest in this inquiry into Australia's relationship with the countries of Africa. For too long, Africa has been a continent that has not received from Australia the attention it deserves, except perhaps in the form of the images of non-government organisations delivering aid projects in Africa and, to a lesser extent, of Australia's participation in UN peacekeeping missions. Unfortunately, this has meant that some Australians tend to associate Africa only with extreme poverty, corruption and conflict.

While these aspects still exist in some parts of Africa, the reality is, as DFAT submitted to the inquiry, that Africa is changing for the better. Overall, it is a more stable, free and prosperous continent than 10 years ago. Following economic reforms, many African countries have enjoyed strong growth in recent years. Africa is especially rich in resources, offering major economic opportunities but posing a challenge to governments. Collectively, African countries are becoming more important in global economic and political terms. They play an influential role in multilateral forums, including in the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations. African countries make up 25 per cent of each body.

Of course, the growing involvement of Australian companies in mining in Africa has led to the continent being viewed more recently through the prism of our economic interests. The reality is that Africa is significant to Australia's interests in so many ways, not just economically, but also politically, strategically, educationally, environmentally and socially and from a global and regional security point of view. Indeed, it is a matter of common sense that we should engage comprehensively with a continent of nearly one billion people that comprises more than 50 countries. Importantly, witnesses to the inquiry emphasised that the 53 countries of Africa are extremely diverse and should not be considered as a homogeneous group of nations. For example, according to Ms Margaret O'Callaghan's submission:

… so often "Africa" is taken to be one homogenous mass. It is far from being that, with significant economic, historical and social differences between regions and countries. Factors such as population size, extent of urbanization, type of resources, human resource capacity, infrastructure, agricultural base, type of climate and geography and disease burden vary considerably.

Professor Gareth Evans is quoted as follows:

I think it is most unwise to try and impose any kind of cookie cutter analysis, any more than it is wise to impose cookie cutter solutions.

I am also pleased that the committee quickly dispatched the notion that Australia is only interested in Africa now because of its candidacy for a UN Security Council seat. As noted in the report:

The Committee is of the firm view that Australia’s increased interest in Africa is not motivated by its seeking a seat on the UN Security Council. Rather, it is motivated by a commitment to contribute to the development of the continent including through trade and investment, education and research links, and achieving progress towards the MDGs. As Mr Negin noted, if the aim was to buy a place through the aid dollar, that strategy would be ineffective. The Committee considers Australia has a long-term commitment to the continent.

While Australia's involvement in aid security and mining in Africa are clearly among the important issues examined in this report, the inquiry also carried out an examination of Australia's education and research involvement, its governmental, parliamentary and people-to-people links with African countries. The committee has made some useful recommendations on those and other matters in this report, and I will canvass some of them now.

First, the report recommends enhancing Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa, particularly in Francophone, West Africa, where there is currently no Australian representation. The post introduced in Addis Ababa last year has been very helpful but, as noted just now by the member for Kooyong, Australia still only has eight high commission or embassy posts on the African continent. These are: Abuja, Nigeria; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Accra, Ghana; Cairo, Egypt; Harare, Zimbabwe; Nairobi, Kenya; Port Louis, Mauritius; and Pretoria, South Africa. To place our eight posts into context, the diplomatic representation of some other countries include Japan with 32, India with 26, Malaysia with 13, Korea with 16, Canada with 18, China with 41, the US with 47 and the UK with 34.

With regard to Australia's aid program, the report notes:

Australia‘s ODA to Africa, administered by AusAID, in the past has been modest, but it has been increasing in recent years. Budget papers for 2011–12 show actual AusAID expenditure on Africa in 2009–10 was $103 million; the estimated outcome for 2010–11 was $173 million; and the Budget estimate for 2011–12 was $218 million.

That is more than a 100 per cent increase over three budgets, which is significant and welcomed. It is pertinent to note that a large proportion of the money donated by Australians to NGOs goes to Africa. As noted in ACFID's submission:

In 2008, nearly 35 percent of these funds were used in NGO programs in Africa. In dollar terms, this amounts to $280 million in 2007—8.48 and $323 million in 2008—9.49. This money was used to support programs in 39 African countries.

This demonstrates that there is significant support within the Australian community for aid programs in Africa.

Australian NGOs have generated considerable expertise in a few areas, and given their extensive experience on the ground in Africa are well aware of priority areas for assistance. The programs they are engaged in are varied and diverse, and include such areas as HIV/AIDS and health; food security and emergency relief; refugees and internally displaced persons; literacy and education; rural development; and child sponsorship and children‘s issues more generally. CARE Australia drew attention to the ways in which Australian NGOs add value to Australia's official aid program, including through their ability to build civil society capacity in African countries; their ability to link communities to broader policy and program efforts; their orientation towards learning, experimenting and innovation; their capacity to work in places where direct bilateral engagement is not desirable or possible; their capacity to respond quickly and effectively to major humanitarian emergencies; and through their proven ability to transition to effective post-emergency recovery efforts. Australian NGOs are notable for their high degree of accountability. The report notes:

As Australia‘s aid budget for Africa expands there will be increasing opportunity to involve NGOs in delivery of aid projects in Africa.

I certainly welcome this.

The report also recommends that AusAID provide funding assistance to capacity building programs such as that conducted by the Australian Leadership Program for Africa and the expansion into Africa of AusAID's Australian Business Volunteers program, which currently only operates in the Asia Pacific. A witness to the inquiry, Mr David Wheen, argued that by extending the program to include African countries like Rwanda, recipient countries could achieve considerable gain with a minimal increase in spending on Australia‘s part. He noted that this would make a real contribution in enhancing the quality of public administration and that there are Australians, including retired businesspeople and public servants, with the skills and willingness to become involved. The committee also had regard to Australia's extensive experience and involvement in the mining industry and considered that this presents a major opportunity for the Australian government, state governments and the wider mining sector to assist the development, implementation and administration of sound mining codes and practices in a range of African countries. The committee also recommended that the government work with the mining industry to promote corporate social responsibility and to continue to promote the extractive industry's transparency initiative, or EITI, principles and other corporate social responsibility instruments to the Australian mining sector—in particular at the Australia Down Under Conference and especially to new entrants and small operators. The committee also recommended that the government undertake steps for Australia to become an EITI compliant country, given that Australia has been criticised for encouraging countries to implement the EITI while not yet taking steps to become an EITI compliant country.

With regard to education, the committee noted that there are Australian universities engaged in African studies, including Sydney University and Monash University, which also has a campus in South Africa. In my own state of Western Australia, Edith Cowan, Curtin, UWA and Murdoch University are all engaged in various programs with Africa. For example, Murdoch University's program in Africa includes work on the application of legumes to improve soil fertility under the supervision of Professor John Howieson, Director of the Crops and Plants Research Institute. Through Professor Martin Mhando, Murdoch has also undertaken work in the area of engaging with African Australians in order to explore the potential for such communities to enable better links between Australia—including Aboriginal communities—and African countries.

I also take this opportunity to congratulate Murdoch University for their Sustaining Reconciliation in Rwanda project, which aims over five years to support the success of the reconciliation process and also to spread the messages of that success and hope to an international audience. Professor Craig McGarty leads this effort. In the project team's own words, they are working to establish 'a broader view of Rwanda not only as a place where infamous atrocities took place but where compellingly positive expressions of reconciliation and renewal can be found'.

Despite the efforts of bodies like the African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific and Universities Australia the engagements on Africa of a number of Australian universities are as yet not widely known or as well coordinated as perhaps they might be. One witness, Dr David Lucas, commented that Australian universities did not specifically identify scholars engaged with Africa or highlight courses or projects in this area. Indeed, they appeared to be less than fully aware of such work being done within their own establishments. Other academics pointed to the lack of an Africa specific focus in relevant topics available to tertiary students and related observations touched on issues including the absence of dedicated academic appointments in the area, the closure of the only dedicated African research institute and an absence of jobs for African experts in Australia, whether in universities or in government. This is in sharp contrast to countries like the UK, the US, France, Canada and China, all of which have a strong African studies focus.

A number of submissions noted that Australia needed to improve its understanding of Africa if it were to improve its relationships with African countries and in order to more effectively pursue foreign policy objectives through bilateral and multilateral engagements. The committee noted evidence from Dr Dymock and Dr Lyons regarding the role of the former African Research Institute, which operated at La Trobe University from 1985 to 2006, and the committee considered whether a successor to the ARI would answer the needs identified for the revival of African studies in Australia. There was consensus around the desirability of creating a centre for African studies as a means to enhance Australia's engagement with Africa through a focus on teaching and research on Africa. The committee has made a recommendation to this effect.

With regard to parliamentary links, the report notes that processes are underway within the parliament to establish an Australia-Africa parliamentary friendship group. It is hoped that this will be the conduit for increased interaction between Australian parliamentarians and African parliamentarians, diplomats and others with an interest in Africa from across the spectrum of business, academia and civil society—including African migrant communities in Australia and NGOs that have significant operations in Africa.

There are many other aspects of this report that I have not had the time to speak to today, including the issue of scholarships, scientific and agricultural research, security and the need for better engagement with the Australian African community. But I hope that persons in this place and within the Australian community will have a chance to read the committee's report. In conclusion, I want to thank the chair of the committee, Senator Michael Forshaw, who took a great deal of interest and pride in this inquiry as the last one completed by the committee prior to his retirement from the Senate. I also thank my fellow committee members, especially Senator Russell Trood, who has been the distinguished and knowledgeable deputy chair of the Australia-UN Parliamentary Group since its establishment in early 2009 and who is now also retired from the Senate. Furthermore, I wish to thank the hardworking secretariat—in particular the secretary, John Carter—for whom this inquiry and this report have represented a massive amount of work—very worthwhile work, in my view. Finally, I wish to thank all of those people and organisations who made a submission, those who appeared in person before the committee and the individuals and organisations that the committee delegation met in Africa. It is through these contacts and on the basis of the information provided in the many submissions to this inquiry that the committee has been able to come up with a report that advances our understanding of Australia's relationships with the countries and peoples of Africa and that makes strategic and forward-looking recommendations which will, if adopted, enhance these relationships.

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

I am also rising to speak on the inquiry into Australia's relationship with the countries of Africa. This was an inquiry undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The inquiry commenced in late October 2009. Elections obviously intervened and so we did not finally have this report until June 2011, but it has been delivered at a time when Australian-African relationships are even more important than they were more than two years ago. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquired into the bilateral relations; economic, trade and investment issues; cultural, scientific and educational relations and exchanges; development assistance; cooperation; capacity building; defence cooperation; regional security and strategic issues; migration; and human rights issues.

It was an extraordinarily complex and wide-reaching inquiry. It did take a very long time. There were the submissions taken in Australia, and we need to acknowledge the generosity of members of the public, institutions and non-government organisations who came forward and very carefully forwarded their thoughts and made their recommendations in an inquiry like this. But, as well, in April 2011 a small committee delegation travelled to South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ghana and Ethiopia. I was very fortunate to be amongst that small group. We were able to visit and be briefed on a number of Australian aid projects. We met with parliamentarians in those four countries. We heard firsthand of their challenges. We heard of their very keen interest in forming a friendship group, particularly with members of parliament in Ghana. We were briefed by our ambassadors, by our Australian NGOs, by youth ambassadors and by volunteers who were awe inspiring in their commitment and the work they were doing, often in extreme circumstances. I will never forget the Australian women who were some of the few working with the homeless on the streets of Addis Ababa; they were literally finding shelter and food for numbers of young boys and girls made homeless or becoming homeless in the capital city of Ethiopia. In Zimbabwe we were able to hear and observe firsthand the response to Australia's targeted sanctions, which were imposed on some politicians and senior officials of state owned corporations some years ago when the democratic evolution of Zimbabwe went seriously off the rails.

Africa was at one time in the late 1800s top of mind for a number of Australians who had relatives or friends who had gone off to fight in the so called Boer War of the day. Since then the issues of Africa have tended to slip from the minds of consecutive governments, but at no time were Africa and Africa's countries completely out of mind for many of Australia's faith based and other non-government organisations. So it came as no surprise to me to find that Australia's aid to Africa amounted to some $184 million—that is, AusAID managed aid—in 2008-09, while our Australia NGOs contributed more than that amount, $323 million, in that same period. We were able to commend those NGOs—the Australian NGOs—and also institutions like Monash University, who were putting a great deal of effort into building relationships, growing capacity and giving students from all around Africa an opportunity to have world-class education, in this case on a campus in South Africa. Africa has about one billion people, compared to Australia's 22 million or so. It consists of 53 countries, and over the last 10 years we have seen an average of five to six per cent growth per year over those 53 countries. At the same time, though, we need to be reminded that, while many of those African countries are rich in natural resources, it is most unlikely that they will achieve the Millennium Development Goal of eradication of extreme poverty. It is a sad thing to observe almost a feeding frenzy in parts of Africa as more developed nations, particularly those wanting to lock in their own food security for years to come, are buying up arable land and fisheries and exploiting the mineral wealth of Africa, sometimes without putting much effort into technology transfer or building the capacity of those who work for them in extracting that mineral wealth to be sent offshore.

When we were in Africa, we were able to visit an Australian owned goldmining company in Ghana, and I was impressed with their attempts to make sure that the village that the open-cut mining had displaced was being rebuilt, with an excellent school, good housing and health services to come. Their policy of employment in the goldmining company and processing works was to make sure, as much as possible, that they employed local people, trained those local people and were closely in touch with the local African leadership. We met with those men, and I was proud to think that this was an Australian owned goldmining company. But, not very far from their activity, there was an enormous amount of illegal mining activity being undertaken by, in this case, China nationals.

It is extraordinary to think that some 70 per cent of Africa's arable land is still underdeveloped. We were able to meet with a consortium consisting of CSIRO and local interests in Ghana who were working out how to improve the productivity of their dryland agriculture, particularly their cereal growing. It impressed me that there was also an enormous potential to develop irrigation, particularly irrigated agriculture, in that country. They have significant water resources and dammed water resources. So we have enormous potential, given our expertise in irrigation system building and irrigation management, to help some of these African nations to make sure they do not make the sorts of mistakes we have made over centuries in Australia with irrigation and water management. They need to maximise their own water resources and their arable land so they can better feed themselves.

In the committee's recommendations, we acknowledge that we need to do much more when it comes to Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa. We do not have any posts in francophone Africa at the moment. We recommend that honorary consuls should be appointed as a short- to medium-term measure. Honorary consuls can go a long way towards filling the gap and meeting the needs of Australia's representation in countries where it is still not possible to put formal or full-time diplomatic representation. A number of our very excellent ambassadors and high commissioners must cover a number of countries, and that means in some cases only visiting one of the countries they are responsible for once or twice a year. Clearly that is not very satisfactory.

We also were concerned that AusAID scholarship programs, which have been significantly expanded this year, should involve study at African universities but also at Australian universities with links to Africa. I have already referred to Monash South Africa.

In this inquiry we also observed that a very great problem exists for various countries of Africa with the loss of their professional people—their nurses, doctors, lawyers—who have been trained, often at vast expense, in their home country. These are the kinds of people who are likely to have migrated to Australia under our skilled migration categories, when of course their home countries need their professional training, their expertise, much more than we do, you could argue.

Dr Catherine Hamlin is an extraordinary woman who has inspired generations of midwives and surgeons. She works at the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital in Ethiopia. She now has mentored the establishment of a midwifery training college, again in Addis Ababa, called the Hamlin College of Midwives. At the college they are trying to ensure that their own country's young women, mostly those from regional parts of Ethiopia, are being trained in modern midwifery. When I talked to them about the opportunity for their coming to Australia for a time to do an exchange or to study, the Australian women managing that college were most concerned that it could be a distraction rather than a help. The women needed to train in their home country and develop their professional careers in their home country well before they took any trips out of that country and saw other conditions and opportunities.

At the Fistula Hospital I was impressed with the ongoing commitment of that marvellous woman, Dr Hamlin, who is now in her eighties and still doing some operations. She is an inspiration to all of us. Clearly, in countries like Ethiopia the poverty, the nutritional problems and the age at which young girls are having their first pregnancy all combine to make the rate of injury and deaths of young women during delivery, and of the babies themselves, a significant problem for that country.

I need to also refer to the visit we had to a South African company that has understood the problems of young children, not just in South Africa but in Mozambique, where often there is no furniture in the school classrooms and sometimes there is not even a classroom. The young children sit under a tree or in the shade somewhere. If you do not have a desk or a chair it becomes very difficult to manage paper when you are trying to learn to write. So, lap desks have been developed by a private South African country. They consist of a boomerang shaped plastic tray that sits on the knees of children as they sit on the ground or in a chair. The lap desks serve as a writing surface for the children. It means that they can in fact progress in the same way as other students throughout the world who have a desk or some furniture in their classroom. It is great that the Australian government has funded some 22,000 lap desks. They have been distributed to children in Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe. It is a very simple technology, but we do not understand the need until we go to these countries and see the lack of facilities that we take for granted. It becomes obvious that a small boomerang shaped plastic tray can mean the difference between a child easily being able to learn to write and not being able to learn at all.

We also went to see water aid projects in Accra, Ghana, where, after years of neglect, the sewerage system has become blocked with sand and detritus. The problem is that the households in those settlements wash their dishes with sand rather than washing detergent. The sand goes into the system and blocks up the works. There has been an enormous amount of effort to help the settlements in the Sabon Zongo urban slum in Accra to once again have running water and not have a system so contaminated and blocked that cholera is a problem. Even though the work was being done by a small fergie tractor—one we would not have seen in Australia for many years—it was still an inspiration to see how much progress was being made. We also saw the repairing of the city sewerage system by the city council in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

For me one of the most important things I saw was a school in a slum in Ghana that had 900 student places but had no toilets. Boys and girls were supposed to go to this school but, because there were no toilets at the school for the 900 students, girls did not attend. With Australian aid toilets were built for the school. Girls were then able to attend the school and have access to a toilet. It is a very simple thing—toilets for girls and boys—and suddenly you had 900 students able to access education whereas before only half the local school population attended. We went there on a school holiday and the students had turned out in their school uniforms to greet us, armed with their brushes and dusters to demonstrate how well they were minding and cleaning these new toilets. I have to say that it was a proud moment for me. Building toilets for a school might be a simple technology, but the need was great and Australia was able to step up and do the task. I think that a hand of friendship needs to be extended from Australia to the countries in Africa which are resource-rich and have enormous potential by developing their own human capital. We now have a number of African migrants but also many refugees, particularly in my own community in Murray. We have many Sudanese, Congolese and Somalians. They are all making a major contribution to our economy already but, more importantly, to our cultural life. We feel rich with the Angel Voices choir, a Congolese young adult and children's choir that dances and sings its way through so many of our festival occasions in Murray. That was a group who were first settled in a regional centre in Australia—Shepparton—some five years ago. One of their number, Immaculate, has already run for local council, although not successfully. That is the spirit of the people of Africa. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Christmas Island tragedy occurred in the early hours of 15 December 2010 and is still very fresh and very raw in our minds, particularly for those who were there on that day, I have no doubt. It was a terrible tragedy that indelibly scarred the psyche of this nation and reached out through the images on our television screens and portrayed in our newspapers to touch the hearts and minds of Australians right around the country. As I said on that day, the lives of those lost were and remain as precious as our own. Though more than six months have since passed, the events linger with clarity in the minds of those who deal with these matters on a very regular basis but especially in the minds of those who were involved in the rescue and who were called into action in that desperate hour.

The report tabled this week in parliament that we are debating tonight brings some closure, albeit small, to this tragic chapter in our nation's history. The committee found that, given the terrible circumstances—namely, the ferocity of the foul weather that day—there was precious little that anything or anyone could have done differently to change that terrible outcome. It hardly bears thinking of but circumstances could certainly have been even bleaker. Had the boat arrived merely an hour earlier or one kilometre up the coast, there could have been no survivors. I think it is an absolute miracle that lives were saved at all on this occasion.

As it was, though we can never know exactly how many lives perished in those waters on that day, we do know that, against the odds, 42 lives were saved. Twenty-two men, nine women and 11 children were saved by the bravery of Australia's Defence Force, Customs officers, the Australian Federal Police and the residents of Christmas Island, who woke from their beds that terrible morning before dawn to the screams of those people, many of whom ultimately perished. Those rescuers deserve our commendation, and it is only fitting that this report recognises their heroism.

I have been to Christmas Island on several occasions and I have met many people who live on Christmas Island. It is a long way from our mainland and oftentimes, I suspect, those who live on Christmas Island feel a long way from Australia. But on that day they showed the bravery, courage and empathy that Australians are known for around the world. On that day we could not have felt closer to them as fellow Australians and we stood with them in their sorrow and their grief but also we were incredibly proud of the way that our fellow Australians on Christmas Island conducted themselves on that day and the many days that have since followed. The bodies of 30 men, women and children were recovered. Another 20 were missing and presumed dead, and they rest beneath the waves. On that fateful day, the weather off Christmas Island was the worst it had been in the living memory of many locals: 40-knot winds, thunderstorms, and ebbing and pitching waves of three to four metres. Those who have been to Christmas Island will know that, as you look out over Rocky Point, all you can see is a vast sea, and Christmas Island literally juts out of the sea. These sheer and ragged cliffs are basically the first things that the waves hit, with very little to impede their force as they wash across that sea. The conditions on that day rarely occur with that level of ferocity. But even on a still day you can see just how bad it could become in the worst set of conditions. Visibility was poor—you could barely see further than a rugby league field. And at the mercy of those churning seas, there was this wooden boat.

A Customs officer staying at the Mango Tree Lodge near Rocky Point first sighted the vessel at 5.40 am on 15 December. Authorities notified the naval vessel HMAS Pirie and the Customs vessel ACV Triton, which were sheltering on the leeward side of the island due to the severe weather. They made their way as fast as they possibly could to the scene.

As I said before, Rocky Point is grim on the clearest of days. The committee visited during the inquiry and their report attests to 'a dangerous, steep and slippery sheer rock face, even in good weather'. I have seen that rock face and many other rock faces around that island, and that is a very accurate description. Because of the rough sea, RHIBs were deployed—small inflatable rigid-hulled vessels. Naval and Customs officers were instructed to do all they could to help those in serious distress, and they did—above and beyond the call of duty. For many of those men and women, I suspect that this was a day on which they performed duties which they probably felt they had been called into naval service to one day potentially perform, and on that day they did not let down their oath, their service, their friends or those who had gone before them in these roles, and most of all they did not let down those who they had been sent to save.

SIEV221 battled huge swells in a futile attempt to reach the island. Then, the engines failed and inevitably the boat drifted towards the rocks. Locals were woken by screams for help. They ran down and stood on those perilous cliffs in the darkness. Local Raymond Murray was first to arrive. He told the inquiry, 'I will never forget seeing a woman holding up a baby, obviously wanting me to take it, and not being able to do anything.'

Some 60 people gathered on the slippery rocks. They threw life jackets into the water as the boat was dashed against the ragged coastline and people were hurled into the sea. Those on shore risked slipping on the sharp, uneven rocks into deep ravines; nevertheless, 'They tried their best to haul people out of the water with ropes tied to life jackets on those struggling to survive a few metres away.' There is only one word appropriate to describe the efforts of those who rendered assistance on that bleak morning, and the report uses it: 'herculean'.

Diesel had spilled in the ocean. As rescuers attempted to drag flailing people from the water, they slipped literally through their grasp. The committee noted that the availability of grenade life rings may have assisted those attempting to get immediate support to those in the water. We cannot know whether these could have resulted in a different outcome, but the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government has accepted advice to acquire this equipment. As my colleague the member for Stirling remarked, without the rescuers there is no question that those 42 people would have perished along with the other 50 lives that were lost.

The report finds no fault with the response by government agencies. It is vital that we acknowledge that here in this place and that those who were involved on that day understand that that is the finding of this report and that that is the view of this parliament. They need to cling to that. They need to know that this place and the members who represent Australians all around this country understand that that was the case. They can have great assurance that on that day they did all they could. There is no surveillance system available to the Australian government that is able to detect wooden hulled boats in such violent seas. The committee examined this extensively and found the intelligence community did all they could, based on the information they had, in relation to the arrival of SIEV221. The inquiry also spoke extensively to the people on the island who had responded. The report notes that many residents may retain horrific images in their memories—I have no doubt—and will grapple with questions and issues which are immensely difficult to cope with. That is why the inquiry recommends the provision of ongoing support not only to survivors but also to rescuers. Our hearts go out to them because these nightmares may remain not only immediately afterwards but also 12 months, five years or 10 years down the track.

There is another darker reality that lurks as we consider these matters in this report where 50 lives were lost—and other colleagues have alluded to it. This is not the first time that the tragedy of people being lost at sea has occurred in the sea lane between Indonesia and Christmas Island. We are aware—and there is credible evidence to suggest—that many other vessels that have left Indonesia have also gone off the radar and vanished somewhere in those millions of square nautical miles of water. Most recently, we are aware that a vessel departed a little more than six months ago with 91 people on board. Those people have never been heard of again. There will be no reports into what happened to them. There will be no inquiries. There will be no memorials. There will be none of that. But their loss is just as significant and relevant to the people here in this place who make decisions on these matters. And I remember another incident about two years ago when 109 people, all Afghans, left Indonesia on a vessel and were never heard of again. So I think we can say with some certainty that hundreds of people have lost their lives. It is our earnest hope that we will lose no more lives, and we need to do all we can to ensure that that is the outcome. No-one in this place would willingly endanger the lives of another, and members of this inquiry were profoundly affected by what they witnessed.

There is much said in this debate and it can get very, very heated. I would like to place on record my thanks to those who are involved most directly in this debate. I refer specifically to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. He and I both understand the moral and human consequences of the decisions that we will take and the positions that we will put forward, and events such as those that occurred at Christmas Island in December last year only reinforce that to all of those who participate in this debate. I think the most significant thing we must do is accept that, at the very least, in our participation in this debate there would be no-one in this place who wants to see harm come to anyone. We would hope that we endeavour to do what is in our national interest in addressing these matters and are very mindful of the moral issues that weigh heavily on officers who participate regularly in these issues.

I place on record my thanks in particular to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Minister for Home Affairs. I found their conduct over the course of those very, very difficult days to be outstanding. The minister was very open to our questions and ensured that we were able to get information quickly. In the most disappointing and upsetting of circumstances, that was the one thing where I thought those two ministers in particular engaged with members of the opposition and other members of this place in a very positive and responsible way. I thank them, on behalf of the opposition, for that. Briefings were made available through departmental officials—particularly Mr Carmody from the Customs and Border Protection Service—in circumstances where they had to deal with an unfolding situation. They made themselves available, and we sought not to detain them for long. The key message we sent to them at the time was to let every single one of the persons serving on behalf of the Australian government know that the people in this place were supportive of them and that they should get about their business and not be thinking of what might happen afterwards. I am pleased that in the course of this report and this inquiry their actions have been validated, their integrity has been reinforced and, indeed, their courage has been praised—as it should be. Those who at the time wanted to make different comments about those individuals will, I think, regret that. This report has more than vindicated the actions of our various service men and women, whichever government department or Defence agency they serve. They have performed outstandingly, so I thank them for that. I thank the ministers, again, for the way they have handled this matter. I hope we will not stand here in this place having conducted another inquiry into something of this nature, but we cannot be sure of that. It should only redouble our efforts to ensure that we do not see that happen again.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my time in this place I have served on many committees, as members do, but I have to say that this inquiry into the incident at Christmas Island has been the most personally challenging one. It was certainly a tragic incident. Much of the evidence we took—the images we saw and the witnesses we heard from—really did bring home what a harrowing event it was. It really was quite challenging to the members of the committee, on a number of different levels. Hearing the evidence, reading the evidence and seeing the evidence in detail did bring home the loss of life and the fact that we must do everything we can to prevent such tragedies.

I particularly thank the committee's chairman, Senator Marshall, and the deputy chair, the member for Stirling. I think they both did a very good job in handing down a bipartisan report—a report that I think will reassure Australians about the nature of this tragedy and the events surrounding it. This is very important for the country, because these events obviously have some capacity to divide the nation, and it is very important that there be a bipartisan approach to dealing with and reporting on such a harrowing and tragic event.

One cannot be anything but proud and moved by the response by Christmas Islanders that day and by the Australian Federal Police, Australian Defence Force personnel, Customs and Border Protection officials, DIAC, the Christmas Island medical services and all those involved—the people on the council and the people providing services. All the evidence we heard showed Australians acting at their best in a very trying set of circumstances. I know all the members of the committee were really in awe of their efforts, their bravery and the many small and large sacrifices they made during the course of the tragedy, the response to it and the months after it.

When you hear about the events on Rocky Point that day and when you go down there and see the cliff face and talk to some of the people who were there that morning you realise just how dangerous a situation it was and the heroism of many of those involved. We are indeed lucky that there was no Australian loss of life, and there was certainly some potential for that. There was great risk to our own countrymen. While we value every life, and we mourn those dead and missing, it did make me reflect on just how brave, how decent and how heroic those who protect our borders are and what a great job they do. I have many constituents who fly P3s out of Edinburgh. I had some idea of the vastness of the ocean and the challenges involved in border protection. But going to Christmas Island reinforced in my mind just how important their efforts are and just how honourable, decent and brave all those people are.

The response to the tragedy is outlined on pages 21 to 31 of the report. While the report notes some areas where some limited improvement could have been made—such as the grenade lifejackets and the like—it is inconceivable that we could have had a better effort made by all those involved. They responded very well. As other speakers have noted, if it had been a couple of hours earlier or a kilometre up or down the coast, it might well have been much worse. Indeed, the fact that we have 42 survivors is a tribute to all of those involved. They really did save lives that day.

The weather conditions were extreme, the worst in 30 years and possibly the worst in living memory. But when they are described to you and when you go down and see Rocky Point you understand just how challenging and difficult that it was. The report outlines those weather conditions. Those weather conditions also had a great effect on radar. Radar is of fairly limited use in spotting wooden hulled boats at any point in time, particularly in vast oceans. One important role that this report has is to put into context radar's ability to identify the small wooden fishing boats that are used for people-smuggling purposes. It puts into context the limits of human intelligence and the surveillance of vast oceans. No matter what the effort, if boats depart they will always get through. There is no perfect set of intelligence, radar or surveillance that can prevent such tragedies. It is very important that people be aware of that.

As I said before, this was a very challenging inquiry. Hearing the evidence was challenging. One thing that it brought home to me is just what a rancid trade people smuggling is. It preys on the hopes of people but it also preys on the misery of desperate people. It is a trade that plays Russian roulette with people's lives. It is also a trade that places in this circumstance our border protection forces at some risk of their lives and wellbeing. I do not think that it is a trade that is based on compassion. It is a trade that is based on greed and selfishness of the highest order. We must within the bounds of our domestic and international obligations and standards discourage this trade. It must be stopped because it can cost lives. That was the one thing I took away from being on the inquiry. We must do all we can to avert such tragedies, while acknowledging that this tragedy was a tragedy brought about by the terrible circumstances of that day.

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

Like the member for Wakefield, I too was a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Christmas Island Tragedy of 15 December 2010. I totally concur with him that, unlike any other inquiry I have done, I found this very moving and confronting on many levels. Up front I thank Senator Gavin Marshall, the chair, and the deputy chair, Michael Keenan, the member for Stirling, who, like Senator Marshall, did a sterling job in engaging with the stakeholders and engaging with the information and ensuring the inquiry was done as promptly and as thoroughly as possible.

It was, as I said, a very confronting inquiry. My wife works in child protection and she is a shift worker who works in a 24-hour service, so she often comes home at 10 o'clock or midnight. She often wants to unpack the details of some horrific tale—never breaching confidentiality but just sometimes talking about the circumstances. Obviously, lying in bed at 11 o'clock at night or midnight, the last thing I want to do is talk about these horrible things that go on out in the world in Queensland. But having been in this inquiry I now have a much better insight into why maybe I should just listen and talk about these things. Sometimes you just need to unpack the horrors and work through them so that you can put your head on your pillow and think that it is a wonderful world rather than a world of horror. So, yes, it was a very confronting inquiry; that is for sure.

Sometimes inquiry reports have interesting covers and interesting titles. The cover of this report is very nondescript and it has a very nondescript title, but so much in this inquiry report belies the tragedy that unfolded. Even the map on page 79 of the report is just a plain map with arrows and a very black and white strip showing what actually occurred, but it belies the horror that did occur. The reality is that on 15 December 2010 the conditions on Christmas Island were absolutely atrocious—40-knot winds, thunderstorms and wave heights of three to four metres, with some of the waves coming through at around four to five or six metres, according to the people at Rocky Point. There was very low visibility and certainly locals were saying it was the worst weather conditions some of them had ever experienced on the island when SIEV221 was sighted off Rocky Point at 5.40 am on 15 December. There was an incredible set of circumstances.

I have commended all of the committee, and I also want to particularly thank, as the chair has done, those from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Defence Force and the Christmas Island community—they all did incredible work on that day on the rocks. As the member for Wakefield indicated, people were very much at risk, and the lives of Christmas Island residents were saved. Some of them were so horrified by what they saw that they were willing to put their lives at risk—to the extent that, but for their being restrained, they would have lost their lives because the conditions were so horrible. People were being slammed into rocks—and they were very sharp rocks. It was a stark contrast to what it is like if you go down there on a calm day. As Mr Raymond Murray, one of the Rocky Point residents and one of the first people on the scene, said:

… there was this overwhelming feeling of helplessness. Standing right out on the edge of the rocks, there were times when the boat was closer than you are to me now.

People said it was two or three metres away from where they were standing on the edge—as close as I am to the member for Banks. Mr Murray said:

I will never forget seeing a woman holding up a baby, obviously wanting me to take it, and not being able to do anything. It was just a feeling of absolute hopelessness. It was like it was happening in slow motion. A wave would pick the boat up and almost hit the rocks and then go back again, and then finally it … exploded.

As has been mentioned by earlier speakers, people were trying to get life jackets to the people on the boat—life jackets from dive operators and from boats nearby. They were hurling them as far as they could into the water. Maybe if they had had grenade life jackets they would have been able to rescue more people. I point out the following: of the 42 people who survived, 41 had life jackets. So it is not very complicated: if you have life jackets in rough seas, there is more chance of surviving. I will mention the one survivor who did not have a life jacket in a minute. The reality is obviously that Australia will never have enough life jackets for all the people who want to come to Australia. There are 42 million displaced people in the world; we do not have enough life jackets for all of them. Obviously that is metaphorically speaking, but in this circumstance it was practically speaking, because the 30 people whose bodies were recovered and the 20 people who are missing obviously did not have life jackets. The people who were able to get life jackets either from the Navy or from the people on land did survive.

For one of the 42 who survived—one man—it just so happened that, as the boat turned around, he got on the bow and, as it turned and almost scraped against the cliff, he was able to jump from the bow of the boat to the land—to Australia. So he leapt from the boat to Australia. He got mauled by the rocks, but he survived. Compare that with other people, who actually got their hands on a rope and were pulled up onto the land but, when their hands hit the lip of the rock—because their hands were then ripped to shreds and, of course, the natural reaction is to let go—drowned. So they touched Australia but they drowned just because they were unlucky, I guess. As for the man who was able to jump from the boat, I would call him the luckiest man in Australia. I am reminded of a quote from a Clive James book I was reading recently. I think he was quoting the author and Holocaust survivor Primo Levi; it might have been someone else, but that is my recollection of it. The quote is, 'Only chance will save you.' That is why I am thinking it was Primo Levi. Look at those circumstances where that one guy was able to leap onto the shore.

Annabel Crabb wrote an article after speaking to me on Christmas Island, and I will quote from her article in The Drum on Friday, 10 June:

Mr Perrett was on Christmas Island, hearing first-hand the testimony of those who watched dozens of souls drown under the most traumatic of circumstances when their boat smashed to pieces against the island's cliffs last December. What (Mr Perrett asked in his text message) was that quote from Hamlet about being cruel to be kind?

The quote—"I must be cruel only to be kind. Thus bad begins and worse remains behind" …

The article then goes on to explore what that quote was about. But I do say that this whole experience made me realise how horrible people smuggling is and how we must do whatever we can to prevent such a circumstance arising again. As the member for Cook, Scott Morrison, indicated in his speech, there have been boats that have disappeared. This was a boat where 50 people lost their lives right in front of Australian observers, but there are other boats that just disappear out there. They do not disappear off the radar, because, as we know, radar will not pick up a 20-metre-long—or 20-foot-long, some of them—wooden vessel. We need to do whatever we can. We need to regulate government policy to make sure that we prevent such tragedies from happening again. I am pleased to say that the foreign minister, the immigration minister and the Prime Minister are working on making sure that we have a policy that breaks the people-smuggler business model.

I wish well all those people who saw the tragedy, because I know it affected a lot of the residents of Christmas Island. It affected the members of the committee hearing their testimony. To all of those who saw the tragedy and all of those who tried to avert the tragedy, especially from Australian Customs, the Australian Defence Force, the border protection people and DIAC, who had to deal with the aftermath of it: I wish all of you well. Most importantly, I particularly want to wish well the children, grandchildren and the great grandchildren of the 42 who survived the tragedy. I hope they make proud those who chance did not save.

Debate adjourned.

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

I am delighted today to speak in the parliament on the report Of drought and floodingrains, resulting from the inquiry into the impact of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. As members will know, this report and the Standing Committee on Regional Australia had an interesting history, coming about mainly because of the savage and bewildered reaction that basin communities had to the release of the first draft of the guide to the plan by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. No-one who lives and works in the Murray-Darling Basin could have escaped the feeling and the passion that was released about 24 hours after the first draft of the guide to the plan hit the decks.

One of the problems of course was that the authority was doing a quick swing through basin communities to spruik this document, which really only came off the printers the day before, and it made people angry that it was so sudden, that it was so rushed. When they picked it up and looked at it, it was so tough on their communities in terms of the direction in which it was heading. It also demonstrated that the authority at that stage really had very little understanding of what life was like, what the investment landscape was like and what people's circumstances were and had perhaps relied on desktop studies, scientific input—models that really did not mean much in the real world—and created this document that caused so much angst.

This committee was established and chaired by Tony Windsor, the member for New England, and it was truly a bipartisan committee. Four additional members were co-opted onto the committee apart from its regular membership, because of course it still continues as the regional Australia committee in this parliament, and I was one of those members. I am delighted that I was able to be a co-opted member on the committee, because, as the member for Farrer, whose electorate has a substantial part of the Murray River and a large part of the Darling River, I know the future of the basin is of very real concern to my constituents.

We as members in embarking on this inquiry took it very seriously. That goes without saying: every member of parliament that works on a committee does that in my experience. We travelled extensively throughout the basin. We made our first visits to Broken Hill and the Menindee Lakes in the middle of December last year. We travelled for 10 days in January when some members were taking a well-earned break—I am not saying all of the parliament was not working, but we were on a long bus tour throughout the basin. Then we visited Queensland, we visited further north in New South Wales and we had a really good look on the ground. We had many hearings in Canberra. I should know the number of submissions we received, but it was in the many hundreds—over 700 at least. I tried to read as many of them as possible. We took our job very seriously. But we realised there was not much point if we all approached this committee from the perspective of the individual areas that we represent because we would simply have a myriad of different views hitting the table at the end. It was important, therefore, that we all agreed on the final recommendations. It took us quite a few days, locked up in a committee room in Parliament House, but agree we did and that is why I will always be proud of the work that this committee did. Labor members, Liberal members, National Party members and the Independent chair came up with a set of recommendations that we all felt we could live with. And anyone who knows the politics of water knows how difficult that really is. We had members who represent the Lower Lakes and we had myself and the member for Riverina, who represent the biggest rice growers in the Basin. So if we could agree on something then surely that is something the government needs to take seriously, and I very much hope that they do.

I want to mention how disappointed I was in the relevant minister in parliament yesterday trivialising this issue. He made reference to 'apparently divergent views' within the federal coalition on Menindee. He perhaps needs to take a look behind him because it was a little over two months ago that the water minister's colleague, the minister for regional Australia, gave indicative support for a $100,000 grant to help the Menindee Lakes apply to become an internationally important wetland and tourism area. The minister yesterday was remarking on a tweet I posted saying I was pleased to see the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the New South Wales government effectively torn up with a view to being recreated later. That somehow pointed to these 'divergent views' within the coalition. But it really is essential for the future of the Menindee Lakes that we do not have this tit-for-tat argument. And as the local member who represents the lakes and represents Broken Hill, my perspective was that for my local community anything that trashes the future of the lakes, that does not look after them sufficiently, is going to be bad. There is nothing in coalition policy that suggests that. I do not think there is anything in government policy that suggests that either.

The point is that for a long time people have looked at the Menindee Lakes as a source of evaporation and savings. We will argue about the extent to which savings can be made there. There are four engineering options on the table and there are discussions around which one of those options will be the best one, that ultimately does save the water that can be saved in Menindee. I have always been supportive of the re-engineering of Menindee Lakes, so for the water minister to suggest that somehow I was not and therefore I was not aligned with coalition policy is disappointing.

It is also disappointing that inherent in his remarks was a suggestion that the New South Wales government was not either. Minister Katrina Hodgkinson's media release begins by reaffirming her commitment to investment in water-saving measures and environmental works in the Murray-Darling Basin. The main reason I welcomed the ending of the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and New South Wales was because one of its key ingredients was Broken Hill's water supply. Sure there was the re-engineering of Menindee Lakes, which I have just talked about, but there was also a 'solution' for Broken Hill's water issues—that is, an underground aquifer. Anyone who has visited the area and not just done the desktop studies that Geoscience have done—I am probably being a bit unfair; they probably have visited the area, but I do not think they have taken much in—would know that to cut off Broken Hill from the Menindee Lakes as its permanent water supply and to instead suggest that it gets its water from an underground aquifer, the science of which is still not decided, and that the people in the far west should be happy with that is quite patently ridiculous.

This MOU that quite sensibly the new minister in New South Wales has torn up was put together in a hurry by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, during the last election campaign and her unfortunate counterpart in New South Wales, Kristina Keneally. It was cobbled together in a hurry and it certainly is a good thing that it is now finished. However, I stand behind coalition policy, which does recognise the need to re-engineer Menindee Lakes and does say that we need a discussion about how that happens and does say that we need an agreement that every user in the basin can be happy with. I was disappointed that the water minister trivialised the issue to such an extent yesterday, because he is actually the one who is tasked with sorting this problem out. He has a set of recommendations in front of him which were made by a group of members of parliament from all sides. Those recommendations are quite sensible and have been well received by the communities. So I would ask the minister to actually focus on that and not the trivial politicising of the issue. I do not think people want to see a water minister trying to wedge the states against each other in a bid to cover up the lack of action and a completely botched report by the authority that he is supposed to administer. Let's face it, that is what happened. So, instead of spending their good time monitoring my Twitter account, perhaps the minister and his staff would be better off actually reading the report thoroughly and implementing some of the well-constructed and fully researched views of the Australian people, whom they claim to represent.

In the time I have left I want to briefly comment on the colour and flavour of the recommendations without going through every single one of them. Essentially the committee said that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority had not done a good job up until now. But we recognise that the authority's direction has changed under the new chair, Craig Knowles. It is much more responsive to communities, much more interested in what they think and certainly much more willing to take on the ideas of the communities. When you live in a regional area you do not see a lot of the activity happening in Canberra that relates to you. There is nothing worse than relying on models, bureaucratic studies and desktop studies by institutions in Canberra that do not ask for your input, use their own ideas and think they know what is best. That is why it is so important that Craig Knowles spend some time among basin communities. He has done that. I commend him for it and I am delighted that he has.

The committee saw some good models of water recovery which still look after the interests of the community. I commend the Water for Rivers model. The evidence that the Water for Rivers people gave us certainly demonstrated that you can have savings while investing in infrastructure but also leave behind something of value for the community. The Productivity Commission might say that, in strictly economic terms, this costs more, but we have to include other measures of value and benefit—that is, the sustainable nature of the community and the fact that the community will endure long after the spending takes place. We should not just confine it to what happens in terms of dollars saved per megalitre of water. And we all know how we could do that most cheaply. We could wait for the market to be where it is now and go in and buy out stressed sellers. But we should not be doing that.

I was disappointed that, very soon after these recommendations were released, another water buyback was announced. One of our first recommendations was that we stop non-strategic buybacks—in other words, that we listen to the communities and take on their ideas. People come to us with ideas about how we could better save water—I have a significant one in the lower Murrumbidgee in my electorate and there are many others. The communities are saying, 'If this is what you want to do let us show you the way.' A Swiss cheese type buyback that just sees water bought from all over the place in a patchwork sense leaves communities decimated as a result. It is actually not necessary. You can achieve the same result in a much more strategic way if you apply what is not much more than basic common sense.

I really want to commend the people who came forward and spoke to us as committee members. We all have our favourite towns in our electorate. The 2½ days we spent in Deniliquin were very special to me, as was the time in Menindee and Broken Hill and in Mildura and Wentworth, where we saw the significance of the junctions of the Murray and Darling rivers and quite a different type of agriculture from that of the general water security users further upstream. We also went to South Australia and visited the Lower Lakes, and I understand how difficult life has been for them as well. The heartache, distress and concern on the faces and in the voices of the people who spoke to us made me realise how important our task was. I can remember people one after the other, in the chance that they had at the end of the meeting, standing up and saying in just 1½ minutes how they felt. That meant more to us than a ream of carefully constructed arguments, to be honest. People said that they were not farming in order to survive and that they were sick of governments saying to them, 'What do you need in order to survive?' One woman said to us: 'We do not want to survive; we want to thrive; we want to have something to pass on to future generations; we want to do something that's meaningful. We have a history here; we can remember how our forefathers developed the area, digging irrigation ditches with a shovel. We can remember how the horse drawn carts were involved; we have the pictures in our homesteads. This is something that matters a great deal to us in terms of our heritage. And you people from Canberra'—as they said to us—'just do not get it, do you? You want to come down here and tell us what we need in order to survive, and it is just not about that.' Many indicated that they were not going to give up what they had worked so hard for without a fight.

Unfortunately, in some media that was portrayed as them being a bit bolshie and aggressive. But that was not really the argument; that was not really the perspective that they were coming from. They had just reached a point of exhaustion and distress and had no other way of expressing themselves. I thank everyone who stepped up and talked and poured out their heart and soul or wrote us submissions and say to them that this was an example of their voices being heard—they really were. Everything that they said mattered.

I also thank the members of the committee, the secretary and especially Siobhan Leyne, who came on every single visit and had to put up with perhaps sometimes a bunch of spoilt parliamentarians, although I like to think that we did not behave that badly too much of the time. She did a fantastic job in supporting our work.

Debate adjourned.

Main Committee adjourned at 19:31

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

asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 3 March 2011:

(1) How many personal staff are employed by the Minister.

(2) What is the (a) total cost, and (b) breakdown of costs, of all capital works and acquisitions in the Minister's private office since 3 December 2007.

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

The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

(1) The employment of staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. On 22 February 2011, the Department tabled with the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee a list of Government Personal Staff Positions as at 1 February 2011.

(2) The cost of capital works and acquisitions for ministers' offices is shared by the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS), Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD) and home departments in line with Appendix 2 of Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 10 May 2011:

In respect of recommendation 28 of the 'Henry Tax Review' (Australia's Future Tax System Review Panel, Australia's Future Tax System: Report to the Treasurer, December 2009), that statutory effective life caps and other concessional write-offs be reviewed, has the Government accepted this recommendation; if not, why not; if so, (a) on what date did the review (i) commence, and (ii) conclude, (b) what statutory cap for the effective life of aircraft did the review advise, and (c) has the Government accepted this advice.

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

The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

The Government has responded to the AFTS report on 2 May 2010 and in a number of subsequent policy announcements. The Government acted on some of the AFTS review recommendations and ruled out some recommendations that were inconsistent with our policy priorities.

The AFTS report observes that "it is neither possible nor desirable to make all of these changes too quickly." A number of the recommendations in the AFTS report require further community debate, which is why the Government will hold a public tax forum in October to continue the national conversation on tax reform that we started with the release of the report.

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

asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 26 May 2011:

(1) Is he aware that the Queensland Department of Main Roads has identified a preferred option (called 'Option 5') for the provision of a second crossing of the Burdekin River (and associated Bruce Highway bypass of the township of Ayr) and has already proceeded with resumption of land transactions.

(2) Is he aware that 'Option 5' includes adverse impacts on Ayr businesses and the loss of large amounts of some of Australia's most productive agricultural land.

(3) Has he requested that the Queensland Department of Main Roads thoroughly investigates and costs all options for a second crossing of the Burdekin River (and associated Bruce Highway bypass of the township of Ayr) before any federal funding is committed to this project; if not, why not; if so, can he provide the Department of Main Road's reply.

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

The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

The Howard Government funded a study into potential realignment options for the Bruce Highway through Burdekin. It was finalised in 2001. Following the completion of the study, the Howard Government had six years to commit funding to the project but never did.

Meanwhile, the Gillard Labor Government is investing $2.8 billion for work on the Bruce Highway through the Nation Building Program. That is in stark contrast to the $1.2 billion the Howard Government spent on the Bruce Highway during its entire 12 years in government.

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

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 1 June 2011:

(1) Why has the Government restricted awarding the National Police Service Medal (NPSM) to officers retiring on or after the 30 October 2008.

(2) Is it a fact that police officers who have served more then 15 years, but retired before the cut off date above, are ineligible to be awarded the NPSM.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

(1) At the 2007 election, Labor supported a proposal from the Police Federation of Australia to create a National Police Service Medal while the Coalition refused to support the proposal.

On coming to Government, Labor engaged in an extensive consultation process with Federal, State and Territory Police Commissioners and policing unions to formulate the criteria for awarding the NPSM. All these parties contributed their views about the qualification criteria for recipients of the medal and all agreed on the final eligibility criteria.

On 30 October 2008, the Queen gave in-principle approval to create a new Australian police medal. As this was the earliest date that the NPSM had any formal existence, it was decided that a person would need to be a sworn member of an Australian police force on or after this date to be eligible to receive the medal.

I am very pleased that Labor will be the party to deliver on such an important recognition of the fine work Australia's police forces do every day.

(2) Police who retired prior to 30 October 2008 are not eligible for the NPSM. They may however, be eligible or able to be nominated for other awards in the Australian honours system. More information about awards in the Australian honours system, including application and nomination processes, is available at www.itsanhonour.gov.au