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

Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:

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

( Mr Speaker, the petitions I have presented today on behalf of the House Standing Committee on Petitions represent the largest number of petitions tabled in a single announcement since the establishment of this committee. Today's presentation included 30 petitions, representing the views and concerns of a total of 60,316 citizens. The variety and, indeed, the volume of petitions presented today demonstrate the wish of many Australians to express their opinions to the House in this traditional way.

These petitions express a broad range of views held by citizens from all walks of life, residing in various parts of the country. The views included, for example, are as diverse as foreign affairs, battery hen farming and aircraft noise regulations. Petitions also hailed from a variety of places—from Broken Hill to metropolitan Melbourne.

On sitting Mondays at this time, I present petitions in my role as chair of the petitions committee. Before petitions are presented, the committee assesses whether they meet specific requirements of House standing orders. The committee neither endorses nor rejects petitions on the basis of the views expressed in them. It respects the rights of all petitioners to express their views to the House, and to have their petitions tabled—so long as they conform to the rules of the House.

In the same way that any member who lodges or presents a petition may or may not support its aims, in my capacity as chair I may present petitions that I do not necessarily agree with. However, my role, and indeed the role of all members of the House of Representatives, is framed by the standing orders of the House and its respect for freedom of speech. Thank you.

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

As deputy chair of the committee, I just wonder in the process of the number of petitions that have been presented today that the ministerial responses, whilst they are extremely important, are listed on the website of the petitions committee. The chairman might like to consider that ministerial responses as listed will be presented on the committee's website, and that might be for the consideration of the committee.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the listing of AQAP and the re-listing of six terrorist organisations. This report reviews the initial listing of the terrorist organisation known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the relisting of six previously listed terrorist organisations.

Due to the dissolution of the 42nd Parliament and the 2010 federal election, advice to the committee from the Attorney-General's Department of the new listing and the relistings was unavoidably delayed and the committee was therefore unable to review these organisations and report to the parliament within the disallowance period. However, the committee resolved to review the new listing of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the relisting of six other terrorist organisations and report to parliament, albeit outside the disallowance period.

Having completed its review, I can advise that the committee would not have recommended disallowance of the regulations for any of these seven organisations had the committee been able to complete its review within the disallowance period.

As with previous committee reports on listings and relistings and terrorist organisations, this report identifies issues relating to the current nature and reach of each of the organisations, with particular emphasis in the case of the six relistings on developments since the committee last reviewed these organisations. Information was drawn from the statement of reasons provided by the Attorney-General's Department and, when required, as on this occasion, from a private hearing with the Attorney-General's Department and ASIO.

As mentioned above, this is the first listing of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, known as AQAP. The committee took evidence that AQAP has been involved in a number of terrorist attacks in the Arabian Peninsula, both within and outside Yemen. The committee noted that in February this year the ABC's Foreign Correspondenttelevision program reported that Yemen is 'Al Qaeda's new frontier, and a launching pad for Jihadi inspired terrorism' and that the leader of AQAP, Anwar Al-Awlaki, is drawing recruits from many nations around the world, including Australia.

The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence has recently confirmed the activities of AQAP and its links to Australia as described in Foreign Correspondent. Terrorist attacks which AQAP have recently claimed responsibility for include one on 7 January this year, when 12 soldiers were killed when AQAP militants attacked three military vehicles in the city of Lawdar in Yemen. On 29 October last year, two improvised explosive devices were sent from Yemen using international courier companies and were intercepted in the United Kingdom and in the United Arab Emirates. The devices were disguised as packages and were addressed to synagogues in Chicago. AQAP claim responsibility for sending these devices. In claiming responsibility for the attempted IED attacks mentioned above, AQAP further claimed to have been responsible for the downing of a UPS cargo plane in Dubai in early September 2010 in which two crew members were killed. On 23 July 2010, AQAP militants ambushed a military patrol in the Shabwah province in Yemen, killing six soldiers.

The committee found that AQAP is engaged in activities that satisfy section 102.1 of the Criminal Code. The committee would have not recommended disallowance of the regulations to list AQAP. This is the fourth relisting of al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiah, al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, Jamiat ul-Ansar and the Abu Sayyaf Group, and it is a third relisting of al-Qaeda in Iraq. In each case, the committee was satisfied that each of these groups continues to engage in terrorist activities which could be a threat to Australia or Australian interests here or overseas.

I should note that in reviewing the evidence in support of the listings the committee draws largely on the statement of reasons which is prepared by ASIO in conjunction with the Attorney-General's office. However, completion of the statement of reasons would normally be at least one or two months prior to the committee writing its report, so in order to take into consideration the very latest information about each group the committee often refers to information on Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre website to support the evidence provided in the statement of reasons, and therefore information may be contained in this report which is more up to date than that which is contained in ASIO's statement of reasons. To sum up, I reiterate that if the committee had been able to report within the disallowance period it would not have recommended disallowance of the regulations in relation to any of the seven terrorist organisations mentioned above.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of the committee members, particularly the deputy chair, for their work in reviewing these terrorist organisations. Lastly, I would like to thank the secretariat. I commend this report to the House.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the opportunity of endorsing the comments of the chair. It was unusual, because of the nature of the dissolution of the parliament and the reconstitution of the new parliament and the committee membership, that this matter was not able to be considered within the time frame to enable disallowance of the proscription of the terrorist organisations named in the report. But it is clear that these are the most seminal terrorist organisations that might be considered for listing and it is important, I think, to focus on the fact that we are dealing with the generic names al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah, which have been the most significant terrorist organisations with potential links that can impact on Australians and have in fact taken the lives of numbers of Australians. So it was important, given the nature of the listing process, that the committee examine the evidence and it is important that the Australian public recognise from the evidence that has been adduced that these organisations still continue to pose significant threats to Australians, not necessarily in Australia but they can undertake actions and have undertaken actions which lead to the loss of Australian lives.

So what we have before us is a review of the initial listing of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the relisting of al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, al-Qaeda in the lands of the Islamic Maghreb, Jamaat Ansar and Abu Sayyaf group and al-Qaeda in Iraq. I certainly believe very strongly, on the basis of the evidence that was adduced to the committee but also on an enormous amount of publicly available information, that we should continue. Mention was made of Jane's. If you read the report you will find that material is there and one ought to be very conscious of it. When I looked at the material in relation to the new organisation that is being proscribed, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the committee's view is that this organisation is one that should be proscribed. We were not minded to see it disallowed even if the time frame permitted of it.

Outlined in the report is the engagement of this organisation in terrorism, but I think it is important to look at the linkages with Australia mentioned on page 13 of the report. In paragraph 2.16 of the statement of reasons it does say that in February 2011 it was claimed in ABC's Foreign Correspondent television program that Yemen is al-Qaeda's new frontier and a launching pad for jihad inspired terrorism and that the leader of AQAP is drawing recruits from many nations around the world, including Australia. If you look at the report of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, at a private hearing we have ASIO asserting that this organisation released four editions of its quarterly English magazine Inspire aimed at radicalising and mobilising Muslim youth in the West and Australia has been mentioned twice in the second edition, once as a suitable country for attacks. So I think it is important to recognise that these organisations, al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah, still pose threats to Australia. This is outlined in the report in detail. For those who have doubts and think that the situation has moved on and we should perhaps be easing off, this report should be compelling reading for all.

I endorse the comments of the chair in relation to the committee and can I add in relation to the named staff in the report Robert Little, who is here in the gallery, how much we appreciate the work that he and his colleagues have done. I might say this report is very important in bipartisan terms.

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

I think it is important that I did not cut off the member for Berowra for Mr Little's sake a few moments ago. The time allotted for the discussion has concluded.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Annual Report 2009-10. On behalf of the committee, I table the report.

In accordance with standing order 39(f), the report was made a parliamentary paper.

The review is the first conducted by the committee since 2001-02 and is very timely given the transformations taking place across the world and our region, particularly the rise of China and India as economic powers and to some extent military powers in our region, the economic turmoil in the United States and Europe and the uprisings in the Middle East which just this morning have led to the demise of the odious Gaddafi regime in Libya with the fleeing of the said gentleman. These are challenges that confront our political and national security and strategic policy interests. The review is structured around the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's three suggested outcomes but contains an additional chapter on other issues raised during the inquiry. I must say it is probably a good idea, in my view, that the committee look at the department's report on a more regular basis. The first outcome suggested by the department focuses on the advancement of Australia's international strategic, security and economic interests. This includes matters such as Australia's representation overseas, the department of foreign affairs' human rights activities and dialogues and the department's public diplomacy activity. While Australia maintains an extensive network of diplomatic posts, the committee found that there is a substantial question in relation to the adequacy of the services it provides overseas on behalf of Australia. The committee is of the view that a substantial inquiry needs to be undertaken on Australia's representation overseas so that comprehensive advice can be provided to the government on how Australia's interests might be better served by Australia's diplomats. Currently the number of Australian embassies and missions overseas totals 89. This is far below comparable countries in the OECD, which average 150. Of the 30 developed nations in the OECD, Australia has fewer missions than all but four.

In regard to the department of foreign affairs' human rights dialogues, the committee notes the role played in facilitating bilateral human rights dialogues with China, Vietnam and Iran—the one with Iran is now defunct—and looks forward to developing these dialogues, particularly with the ongoing involvement of Australian parliamentarians and oversight by this House. It is worth noting that the committee has recently received a reference from the minister to conduct an inquiry into Australia's human rights dialogues with Vietnam and China.

In the area of public diplomacy the committee considers that the department of foreign affairs needs to make stronger efforts to capitalise on the potential offered by modern communications technology in the dissemination and collection of information. Greater effort is needed by DFAT to understand current and future e-diplomacy opportunities.

The second outcome recommended by the department involves protection of Australians abroad and the provision of passport services. The committee found that the department of foreign affairs provides valuable advice to Australians travelling overseas; however, our efforts need to be directed towards increasing the proportion of Australians using Smartraveller. Furthermore, while travel advisories have always been contentious, liability issues associated with understanding the level of risk means it is wise to take a cautious approach in issuing travel advisories.

The third outcome details the department's efforts towards providing for a secure Australian government presence overseas via the provision of security services and the management of Australia's overseas owned estate. The committee is satisfied with the department's efforts in this area but cautions that the department of foreign affairs needs to maintain security of its e-network in particular.

Two other issues arose during the review: gender equality within the department and staffing implications of DFAT's funding. The committee noted the considerable gender disparity at the senior executive level, but the department made the point that very high proportions of graduate intakes are female. The committee is satisfied with the response to date.

There has been a long-term relative decline in the funding of the department. This has resulted in staff cutbacks experienced by the department under successive governments. Consequently, Australia has fewer diplomatic posts, as I said earlier, compared to comparable OECD countries. The committee is pleased to note, however, the recent increase in DFAT's funding. This trend should be continued and the number of overseas posts increased. I note the Lowy report was in the newspapers today. It makes a number of other suggestions.

I thank the committee secretariat—Dr Carter, James Bunce, Rhys Merrett, Jessica Butler and Sonya Gaspar—for all their great work. (Time expired)

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join the member for Melbourne Ports in providing some comment on the recent review of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade annual report 2009-10 by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I join him in thanking the secretariat for the wonderful work they have done. The chair of this committee has been far too generous of the state of the current Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade under the austere stewardship of the current Minister for Foreign Affairs, the member for Griffith. The department is becoming increasingly focused on Australia's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council to the detriment of so many other areas that it needs to focus on. One of those important areas is our relationship with Indonesia. The live trade debacle was a complete and utter fiasco, attributed in part to a DFAT that, unfortunately, has been utterly put to task by the foreign minister on a range of other matters. I am sure Australia's beef producers will be interested to hear that the foreign minister is far more interested in getting a spot for two years on the UN Security Council than he is in representing the interests of thousands of Australian families in the north of Australia.

Our relationships with our neighbours, such as PNG and Fiji, remain important but again are being left to deteriorate because of the foreign minister's unwavering and unexplainable obsession with getting Australia a two-year seat on the UN Security Council. His actions, frankly, are jeopardising Australia's place within the region and the world, not to put too fine a point on it. The shadow foreign affairs spokesperson, Julie Bishop, stated:

In the absence of a credible explanation, one can only assume it is an ego-driven campaign to satisfy Kevin Rudd's vanity.

These sentiments have been backed up by the recently released Lowy Institute report that is, frankly, damning of DFAT and its minister. The report speaks of a broken department and a grossly inadequate diplomatic footprint with too few international posts and too many bureaucrats in Canberra. Indeed, the report states that Australia has about 89 embassies and consulates compared to the OECD average of over 150. In the light of such numbers the report puts up one can only assume that Lowy has got it right—that it is grossly and utterly inadequate. Morocco has an embassy in Australia, yet our footprint in Africa is slight, to say the very least.

The report notes that there is exceptionally low foreign language capability. Less than a quarter of DFAT staff speak a second language and less than 10 per cent speak an Asian language. Minister Rudd's obsession with obtaining a place on the UN Security Council is debilitating an already overstretched department, which is failing to meet even basic demands. That is what the Lowy Institute report states. Despite some improvements at the margins, DFAT still faces serious shortfalls. The Lowy report states:

Unless these deficiencies are remedied, our economic, political and security interests could be seriously jeopardised.

Those are frightening words from an independent report looking at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade under the stewardship of this Labor government. I repeat, the report says:

Unless these deficiencies are remedied, our economic, political and security interests could be seriously jeopardised.

With 747 Kev flying around the world at twice the rate of any commensurable minister in the history of our nation, we still have an independent report saying that our interests could be seriously jeopardised. The report continues:

For a highly globalised country facing a more challenging external environment, Australia's diplomatic footprint remains too limited.

I am sure Prime Minister Gillard is more than happy for Foreign Minister Rudd to be travelling around the world and, frankly, not in Australia. It takes more than just flying in and flying out, Foreign Minister Rudd, to maintain close relationships with other nation states. The Lowy Institute poll goes on to say the real opportunity far exceeds the $23 million cost. I commend the report to the House. I ask the government to correct the deficiencies before it is too late. (Time expired)

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

() (): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Australia's trade and investment relations with Asia, the Pacific and Latin America.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.

It gives me great pleasure to present the committee's report for this parliament. Through a lengthy and informative inquiry, members of the Trade Subcommittee explored how we can improve Australia's trade and investment relations with the countries of Asia, the Pacific and the Americas. Trade is important to economic health and critical to the development of bilateral and multilateral relationships between countries.

On the eve of going to print with our report, the Minister for Trade, the Hon. Craig Emerson MP, informed the subcommittee that he would soon publish the government's trade policy statement. We agreed to wait for the statement and then took evidence on it. This has been incorporated into our report.

When we commenced the inquiry, little did we know that the global financial crisis was breathing down our neck and it came to besiege our nation and most of our trading partners. How Australia weathered the financial crisis is the envy of the world, in particular those with developed economies. Australia's economy is strong and is ranked 12th within the OECD for GDP purchasing power parity. Closer to home, most people seem surprised, when the miracle of Singapore is touted, to discover that the New South Wales economy is significantly larger than Singapore's.

The global financial crisis caused some alarm that commitment to open trade would dissolve, and in some cases it did. Surprisingly, though, the general commitment to open trade held largely in order to complete the Doha round of negotiations. Agricultural trade remains the most contentious issue not only for developing countries but for developed economies as well.

Trading figures for Australia are healthy and on the rise. The Australian dollar is currently trading at an all-time high against other major trading currencies. This generally has the effect of making Australian exports less competitive as the purchasing power of foreign currencies is reduced. Despite this, healthy export revenues are contributing to trade surpluses through strong market prices and demand for Australian resources. Conversely, a strong Australian dollar sees imported products becoming more competitively priced for Australian consumers, leading to increased consumption. Both of these strengths are reflected in the current health of Australia's economy.

During the inquiry, the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement was signed off in February 2009, which was greeted enthusiastically particularly by business. The Productivity Commission also released its report on bilateral free trade agreements. Both of these were the subject of much attention during the inquiry. The Productivity Commission's report noted, however, that there is little evidence to date to suggest that Australia's six free trade agreements have produced substantial commercial benefits. The Productivity Commission's report also found that where trade had increased it was due to trade diversion rather than trade creation. Trade facilitation features large in our report, as it did for all who gave evidence to the inquiry.

The report makes a number of recommendations focused on trade facilitation, including that Australia continue to strongly support the work in APEC on the identification and elimination of chokepoints in regional supply chains and the development of modern and efficient communication networks. The report recommends Australia work towards a complete introduction of paperless trading as soon as possible and encourage and, where necessary, assist its trading partners to achieve the same outcome.

The report also recommends that Australia should strongly encourage the complete acceptance of the APEC business travel card by the remaining members of APEC, and also explore the possibility of establishing a similar arrangement with other trading partners. It recommends COAG make improved cooperation between the Commonwealth and states, and between the states themselves, a high priority.

To achieve higher levels of efficiency in the transport and logistics supply chains, the report recommends the provision of infrastructure and trade facilitation. I note there was some movement on transport at the COAG meeting on the weekend. I note that because I prepared my contribution before that took place. The report also made several recommendations focused on boosting trade with Latin America, including improvements to visa application, skills recognition, working holiday programs and increased bilateral visits with countries in the region. Australian jobs depend in a large part on reciprocal trade and it is so for both city and country alike. This often gets lost in partisan political debate. (Time expired)

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

It is with great pleasure that I follow the Chair of the Trade Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the member for Page, on this very important inquiry into and report on Australia's trade and investment relations with Asia, the Pacific and Latin America. This inquiry commenced in the last parliament. That is not a reflection of the difficulties we had getting evidence; it is just that it is a very large region we were inquiring into. It included the Pacific Rim, North and South America and the Asian area including Russia, which was of interest. I think many people out there may not realise the important role that Russia and Latin America play in APEC discussions. I think that if you look at the three regions—Asia, the Pacific Rim and Latin America—geographically they are so close to Australia and very important to our trading relations in the years ahead. Whilst we may have taken into the second parliament to complete this report, I commend the recommendations and this report to the many out there interested in trading in this region.

I also want to acknowledge the people, the embassies and high commissions and the members of the business community who made submissions to our committee. They were always so professional, and I would leave those committee hearings thinking, 'If only we could do a bit more to facilitate trade and break down some of the inherent barriers that have been there,' because there is a desperate need to ensure we continue to grow our domestic economy but that also means seeing that the economies of the countries that we trade with continue to grow.

One of those areas that I was interested in, as the recommendations in the press release suggest, was breaking down and doing a lot more work through APEC on those choke points and supply chains, because that is about efficiency of delivery. Another one was the introduction of a paperless trading system, because it came up repeatedly that the paperwork can so often bog down and delay a delivery of a commodity, on both sides of the equation. We have to do more work through APEC in that regard, and it might also mean assisting other trading partners within this region to develop those paperless systems and moving away from multiple supply lines of paper that often gets lost. In the electronic age in which we live today, this is something we should facilitate as much as possible not only here in Australia but also in our trading partners to assist those companies that may not be able to do it as quickly as we would like. Perhaps, as the recommendation suggests, we could assist those other countries.

Another area was to encourage the acceptance of an APEC business travel card. We found that mentioned by a lot of businesspeople in their submissions—that sometimes where a visa is needed we could do more to facilitate cooperation and that investment. Also, it was seen sometimes as a barrier—'Can we go now and meet with another country where there may be a business opportunity?' So I commend that also; I would like to see more work done on that through APEC to encourage the acceptance of an APEC business travel card. It sounds small, but it was one of those things that sometimes became an annoyance. There should be that facilitation for visits to build greater confidence in trade.

Another one was to work through COAG with the state governments. Quite often we found that states were doing something to facilitate trade with a particular trading partner and the Commonwealth was also trying to do it. It sends a confusing message when it is the same nation as a whole trying to facilitate trade in other countries, and we need to work through COAG to get greater cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states and to avoid overlap when it comes to that work that is, at the end of the day, creating jobs in Australia.

Finally, I thank the secretariat for the wonderful work that they do. They are just tireless—Tas Luttrell, who we had for so long, and more recently other members of the departments here in Canberra. I thank them. I thank all of those who have participated, including the business community and the high commissions and embassies who have made submissions to this very important report. I commend the recommendations to the parliament.

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

Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired.

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

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.

Question agreed to.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, I wish to make a statement concerning the committee's inquiry into language learning in Indigenous communities. I am pleased to take this opportunity to update the House on the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, which is inquiring into language learning in Indigenous communities. During the committee's previous inquiry into Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system, the report of which was called Doing time—time for doing, language was identified as an important component of cultural connection and community building. Many people referred to language as playing a significant role in the wellbeing of Indigenous people. Aboriginal elders reiterated time and time again that their Indigenous languages keep culture alive.

The main aspects of the current inquiry will investigate the links between Indigenous languages and improved educational and community wellbeing; interpreting and translating services; and strategies to close the gap in Indigenous communities and end disadvantage. The committee will look into how the use of Indigenous languages, particularly in early education, can assist in improving educational and vocational outcomes where English is a second language. The Indigenous languages policies of Australian governments and the effectiveness of Indigenous language maintenance and revival will be investigated.

As part of the inquiry the committee invites submissions from interested organisations and individuals relating to the terms of reference. The committee has noted the positive response that this inquiry has generated, receiving many inquiries and submissions from all around Australia about the importance of this inquiry into language learning. In the early stages of this inquiry we were experiencing a groundswell of interest by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in protecting, maintaining and revitalising their diverse languages. In addition to submissions, the committee has developed a questionnaire that aims to find out about specific language projects in communities across Australia. It is hoped that smaller grassroots organisations will fill in the questionnaire in order to provide information to the committee. Of the 259 Indigenous languages in Australia, only 20 are now considered strong and even some of those are at risk of being lost. We have a poor track record in this country of recording, conserving and maintaining languages as part of the living heritage of Australia. Let me emphasise once again that languages contribute to culturally strong, efficient and resilient Indigenous communities. We must strive to improve the conservation and resilience of Indigenous languages.

The Commonwealth government is maintaining support for Indigenous languages through the Maintenance of Indigenous Languages and Records program, which is administered through the Office for the Arts within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The government has committed over $9 million to the program over the next year with the aim of protecting Indigenous languages. The MILR program is providing financial assistance to 67 projects in 2010-11 for the maintenance and revival of Indigenous languages. The MILR program provides support for a range of projects, including documentation and recording of Indigenous languages and the development of language resources and language databases to assist with the development and delivery of programs through language centres. It also supports greater coordination between language organisation activities that promote Indigenous languages in wider communities and innovative projects, including multimedia and new technologies.

As part of this inquiry, we will investigate the effectiveness of the Commonwealth government's Indigenous languages policy in developing and delivering its objectives, at the same time looking at the relevant policies of other state and territory governments. There seems to be a belief in Australia that we are a monolingual nation and only standard Australian English can benefit a person both educationally and vocationally. That is not correct. The evidence is overwhelming to the contrary. There is evidence that highlights many benefits for people being able to speak multiple languages. This is something that Australia really needs to open itself up to in the 21st century.

As part of the inquiry, the committee aims to look at what is working in Indigenous language learning as well as innovative measures to improve English competency in communities where English is a second language. We know that English is extremely important for educational outcomes and vocational attainment, as well as financial security across the country. This is an important second aspect of the inquiry. It is significant that for many Indigenous people in remote areas English is not their first language. Recently, we had the pleasure of meeting a group from the Utopia homelands, including Velda Morton whose children speak four languages. We need to be open to change the way we view languages. The committee expects to report to the House in the first half of 2012. We look forward to hearing responses. (Time expired)

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

As Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, I am very pleased to make some comments about this inquiry into language learning in Indigenous communities. Language is an essential component of cultural connection, intergenerational communication and cultural transmission. That is irrefutable—it is the same the world over. However, in Australia the some 250 languages that were spoken prior to colonisation are now down to about 20 and a number of those are also in danger of disappearing. They are no longer being actively and comprehensively spoken.

Language is particularly important in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures where the history is orally transmitted and there is no written culture. Unless you have Indigenous speakers from your culture who are competent in relaying the history and the language of their kinship and religion and can effectively communicate these to the next generation in that language the culture itself is under threat. It is very important that we in Australia do all we can to support the communities who still speak Indigenous languages. Some 33 per cent of Indigenous children in remote areas of Australia speak language at home. This is commendable. The problem is for a number of those children when they go to school—unfortunately, mostly intermittently—they are not being taught in a way that also makes them competent in English, the mainstream language that is needed in Australia to be able to get a job, to obtain various licences and to be independent in every sense and not exploited by others because they cannot read, write or speak English effectively. Our challenge is how to help our Indigenous speakers of language retain that language for generations to come while being taught very effectively, in English-as-a-second-language programs probably, to also be competent English language speakers and therefore have less disadvantage in the rest of their lives.

We have another group of Indigenous Australians, mostly from South East Australia, who tragically lost their language during colonisation. They wish to have the vestiges of their languages—perhaps only a number of words—preserved, researched and documented for their wellbeing and cultural understandings. They want those vestiges of language passed on to future generations. That is a very understandable and commendable objective of these Indigenous communities. This government is doing its best to reclaim parts of language that are in danger of being lost or are now confined to only a few very elderly speakers. This is the other important part of our inquiry, how to retain languages which are in danger of being lost to future generations for all time.

We have already taken evidence about the development of a Creole, a hybrid Indigenous English language which is not a disadvantaged language or a language that should be denigrated in any way. It is a language that has evolved through the colonisation of Australia and is widely spoken in northern parts. That language also needs to be understood and have its proper place in communication. It should be learned by those who offer Indigenous services or perhaps work in courts or other sectors that require close interaction with Indigenous communities.

This is a very important inquiry, I believe. It is about maintaining the rich cultural heritage of all Australians, in particular the First Australians, the original owners of the country. It shows an understanding and acknowledgement that language is a critical and essential component of your cultural connection: knowing who you are.

Given that a lot of our Indigenous Australians were separated by the stolen children policies over a number of generations, their language, in particular, becomes especially important to them. Often in the early schools in the colonial days, speaking Indigenous language was forbidden; children were punished and their parents were punished if they interacted in their home language. This is to be regretted, so it is time now to try to make sure Indigenous languages are kept and prosper in cultural connection, and also that these same speakers can speak English so they can fully and comprehensively participate in our communities.

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

Order! The time for this debate has expired.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report entitled Examination of the annual report of the Australian Federal Police 2009-10.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—In presenting the report I would like to indicate that the jurisdiction of the committee has recently widened to include the Australian Federal Police through the provisions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Act 2010. The committee now has a duty to examine each annual report of the Australian Federal Police and to report to the parliament on matters appearing in it and matters arising out of it in respect of the annual report itself.

The committee has therefore undertaken the first examination of the performance of the Australian Federal Police in 2009-10, and has found that the AFP has fulfilled all its reporting requirements. As is noted by the AFP commissioner, Tony Negus, in the AFP's first appearance before the committee:

… this is a significant milestone in the oversight of the AFP.

The AFP is the primary law enforcement agency through which the Australian government enforces Commonwealth laws. As Australia's national police force the AFP provides a range of investigation and operational support, security risk management, security vetting and information services to assist the public.

The nature of the AFP and what is required of it has changed significantly recently, and a greater focus is now cast on national and international operations. The AFP largely met its agreed performance indicators, with one exception: the Drug Harm Index. This is a measurement of the cost avoided by drug harm due to seizures and interdictions, and they achieved a result of $473 million. This actually fell short of the domestic target for the Drug Harm Index, which was $886 million. The committee heard that the Drug Harm Index is a complex measurement that has been developed with the University of Queensland as an innovative way to estimate the social harms around narcotics and in the broader return to the community as a result of investment in law enforcement.

However, it can be unduly influenced by a large number of seizures. The report notes that in 2010:

While total seizures of drugs by Federal agencies rose significantly during the reporting period, the total weight of drugs seized was lower than in previous years …

The AFP advised the committee that in response to that it launched an operation called 'Operation Novo'. This targeted parcel post, where people were mailing large volumes of small amounts of drugs through the post. As a result, 25 people were arrested in Australia and a number of others in South America. The AFP conducted a public campaign to prevent this type of drug importation, effectively: if you send drugs to Australia through the mail in small amounts you will be caught.

In February 2011 the ANAO presented a performance audit report into the AFP to parliament, Management of the implementation of new policy initiatives. This examined the AFP's management and implementation of new policy initiatives through which the AFP has grown substantially over the last decade. Whilst the AFP's performance and effectiveness remained high during this growth period, the ANAO identified a need for the agency to improve its implementation of new policies. It made four recommendations relating to internal governance, risk management, organisational capability and the oversight of new policy implementation. The AFP has endorsed all of these recommendations, and the committee looks forward to that implementation over time.

In the limited time I have can I just indicate that in February 2010 the AFP also opened the Australian Illicit Drug Data Centre, which analyses and helps to build a picture of drug distribution across Australia. It incorporates a number of existing functions within the AFP and two new projects which are funded through the proceeds of crime. The first of these is Profiling Australia's Drug Capacity, to develop a scientific basis for monitoring geographic regions, production methods and precursor use of supply of drugs in Australia. The second is the formal risk management methodologies for precursor chemicals.

We should be very proud of the Australian Federal Police. The committee applauds their engagement with us and looks forward to a very positive relationship in the future.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report entitled Examination of the annual report of the Australian Crime Commission 2009-10.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—the committee has a duty to examine each annual report of the Australian Crime Commission and to report to the parliament on any matters appearing in or arising out of it. The committee has therefore examined the Australian Crime Commission's account of its performance in 2009-2010 and has found that the ACC has fulfilled all its reporting requirements.

2009-2010 was a landmark year for the Australian Crime Commission after a period of significant change. The CEO, Mr John Lawler, described the agency as continuing to define a valuable role, adding value to the work of partner agencies in their pursuit of serious and organised crime. The Australian Crime Commission continues to unite the fight against serious and organised crime, operating as a conduit and a point of fusion for criminal intelligence across the country. In this respect, the committee was pleased to hear that the newly established criminal intelligence fusion capability has already identified 53 previously unknown serious and organised crime targets.

The ACC largely met its agreed performance indicators; however, only 67 per cent of partner agencies strongly agreed that their understanding of the overall criminal environment has increased as a result of the ACC's intelligence. The ACC has expressed its intention to improve upon this result and noted that the key performance indicators have since been adjusted to refer to the understanding of the serious and organised criminal environment to better reflect the ACC's intelligence.

A major issue that arose during the examination of the annual report was the authorisation process around controlled operations. The Commonwealth Ombudsman raised concerns in the report last year in the course of the annual briefing with the committee regarding the extension of controlled operations beyond the three months in a way that may have bypassed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal oversight mechanism established by legislation. The committee used the opportunity to consult with both the ACC and the Ombudsman regarding this issue and has made recommendations that would clarify the application of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's oversight in cases where controlled operations undergo significant change in addition to an extension of time. The committee is aware, however, that the effectiveness of controlled operations may require flexibility in the face of evolving case circumstances. Given the level of complexity and the global reach of criminal enterprise, a further review of the controlled operations regime may be appropriate to ensure that it remains an effective tool in the fight against serious and organised crime.

The report also provided details of three special intelligence operations which focused on the gathering of intelligence around particular criminal activity in 2009-10. These included intelligence operations into the illicit firearms market in New South Wales, amphetamine type stimulants and new synthetic drugs, and national Indigenous violence and child abuse. In addition, five special investigations designed to disrupt and deter criminal groups through the collection of evidence and intelligence took place in 2009-10. These investigations broadly related to high-risk crime groups.

Just by way of indicating the success of the Australian Crime Commission over the 2009-10 period, 102 people were charged, 96 convictions were achieved, $630,000 of proceeds of crime were restrained, $2.53 million of proceeds of crime were forfeited, approximately $10 million in tax was recovered or tax assessments issued, $13.7 million in cash was seized, and $74 million worth of illicit drugs was seized and therefore did not get to the markets within our community.

On behalf of the committee can I say that we recognise this was a most successful year for Australia's premier criminal intelligence agency. I also pay regard to the secretariat, Dr Jon Bell and Bill Bannear, and thank them for their assistance, which is invaluable. I commend the report to the House.

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

The Greens are committed to getting a better deal for customers, including small business, from Australia's banking sector. That is why we have been pushing hard for a strong commitment from this parliament for banking reform.

A sustainable banking and financial sector means ensuring a proper balance between effective banking and financial services for consumers and business, and fair rates of return to both the banks and the taxpayers. Up until now the balance has been wrong. Despite the global financial problems, Australia's banking sector is robust and the big four banks have been making record, excessive profits. We have one of the highest concentrations of bank ownership in the developed world, and Australian consumers are paying a premium as a result.

Improved bank competition is a key means of getting that balance right, as is proper regulation and tax regimes for the banking sector. That is why the Greens have moved to abolish $2 ATM fees; that is why we have proposed improved tax arrangements to properly reflect the taxpayers' effective subsidy of stability in the banking sector; that is why we have moved to protect smaller institutions from being swallowed up by the big four; and it is why we pushed hard to abolish mortgage exit fees over a number of years—a policy the government has since adopted. It is also why we have campaigned for account portability, the centrepiece of the bill that I will introduce today, because only when we rein in the banks' desire and ability to unreasonably boost profits at the expense of customers will we get the balance right.

If we saw the big four banks exposed to real competition from the rest of the banking sector we would see fees and charges go down, returns on deposits improved and better services delivered. But the focus needs to be on consumers. Banking is, in today's society, an essential service: one cannot but have a bank account. One's wages or one's allowances, if one is receiving transfer payments, get paid into electronic bank accounts. That is an enormous pool of money that is there available for the banks, and the banks should not be able to use what is in effect a licence to print money as a way of unreasonably and unfairly gouging consumers by charging excessive fees. That is why getting rid of exit fees is so important and why other barriers, such as refunding lenders' mortgage insurance, have to be addressed.

The report of the Fraser review, Banking services: cost-effective switching arrangements, released by the government yesterday, supports our view that we need reform to enable improved account portability and lender mortgage insurance arrangements. I welcome the government's support for these reforms and I indicate that the Greens are open to a discussion on how to progress them. As a starting point, this bill will address these aspects of competition and will also provide encouragement to customers to look around for a better deal before rolling over long-term deposits. Ultimately, we would like to see Australia shift to full account portability, with an account number that customers can take with them from bank to bank in the same way that mobile numbers can move. This must be the ultimate reform goal in this area, and we believe the Treasurer and the government should commit to making this a reality. The Greens will continue to advocate for a portable account number. However, we accept, as does the Fraser review, that such a goal is hard to achieve in the short term. In the meantime, there is no reason why a lesser but significant form of account portability cannot be put in place, and that is what my bill will do.

This bill will make four important improvements to the banking sector designed to get a better deal for consumers. Firstly, it will allow consumers to switch bank accounts more easily. It does this by amending the Banking Act to require banks to offer switching services for new customers. Upon signing with a new bank, consumers will be entitled to advise that bank to switch over all direct debits and credits from existing transaction accounts in their old bank, or banks, for 13 months. The bill will oblige the old banks to provide all the information necessary for the new bank to enable the switch. These provisions will allow switching between bank accounts to occur cleanly and without the hassle that is currently the case. The onus will be on the new bank to do what is currently the burden of consumers, thus removing what has traditionally been one of the greatest barriers to account switching and improving competition in the sector as a result.

Anecdotally, it has certainly been my experience with the small businesses that I have spoken to in my electorate that it is small businesses who suffer the most when customers change over. Often consumers or customers will forget to reroute their direct debits, and a small business that does not necessarily have the capability to follow up will find that a direct debit they have previously enjoyed has been switched off, usually through oversight by the customer rather than through deliberate action.

Secondly, this bill will provide consumers with more transparent information regarding their term deposits. It does this by amending the Banking Act to require a customer's bank to give written notice of the interest rate and the term that will apply if the money in the term deposit is automatically reinvested at the end of the current term. It also requires the bank to outline all special term interest rates and other special offers available from the bank at that time. This is an important principle of transparency which will prompt consumers into checking that they are indeed getting best value for money.

Thirdly, this bill will provide consumers with more transparent information about their rights under credit contracts. It does this by amending the National Credit Code to require any credit contract to expressly advise the debtor of any unjust transactions and unconscionable interest in other charges, as well as their rights in relation to those charges and the contract. This is another important principle of transparency which will empower consumers to enter into loans having their rights clearly spelled out.

Finally, this bill requires lenders mortgage insurance contracts to be terminated when the mortgage itself is terminated, and for a fair proportion of any rebates paid to be returned to the debtor upon termination. It does this by amending the National Credit Code to require the mortgage lender to return an actuarially fair proportion of the lenders mortgage insurance to the debtor and, in turn, to recover that amount from the provider of the lenders mortgage insurance. Lenders mortgage insurance can be a substantial and little understood burden for consumers and as such is often a secondary consideration to the terms of the mortgage itself when consumers decide whether or not to terminate or switch their mortgages. The provisions of this bill will allow consumers to have returned to them a fair proportion of lenders mortgage insurance, which will again have the upshot of removing barriers to switching and considerably removing competition in the mortgage market.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Despite the interjections that are coming from the opposition, I am pleased to say that these four initiatives offering a better deal for consumers have already been given indicative support by government and opposition MPs alike. The Senate Economics References Committee, in the opposition's majority report, conducted an extensive inquiry into competition within the Australian banking sector in 2010-11 and presented its report presented in May of this year. The four initiatives contained in this bill are entirely consistent with the recommendation of those four coalition senators, two Labor senators and Senator Xenophon. I now look forward to their colleagues in this House not only embracing the concepts recommended by their party colleagues in the other place but also having the will to implement them quickly and fully in legislation in the interests of getting a better deal for their constituents.

We have made some progress in the two years since the Greens first proposed to remove mortgage exit fees and scrap $2 ATM fees. The government has agreed to the exit fee ban and established a review of what can be done with ATM fees. We await the results of that review and hope and expect that it includes the removal of fees for on-screen balance inquiries as well. The Fraser review has now reported and makes a strong case for the bill I have put before the House today. I am hopeful that the government's acceptance of the Fraser review recommendations and this bill can form the basis of a discussion between the Greens, the government and others in this parliament on putting in place these important reforms. We will also continue to push for a commitment from this government to move to a system of portable account numbers in the medium term.

Unfortunately, it seems the government is not ready to do what is needed for lenders mortgage insurance. More information in this area is not enough, so we will be pursuing the measures outlined in this bill. Again, we are yet to hear where the government stands on term deposits and ensuring that customers are able to get the best deal when rolling over deposits at the end of the term. There is still much work to be done when it comes to banking reform. We are committed to reining in the excessive profits of the big banks, improving competition and getting a better deal for customers and small businesses. That is what this bill does and it is what we continue to work for. I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

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

In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

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

This Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 will establish the Parliamentary Budget Office. The need to establish the Parliamentary Budget Office has been unanimously agreed by all members of parliament. The coalition went to the 2010 federal election with a policy to establish the PBO. The establishment of the PBO was a key element in the agreements that the Gillard government formed with the member for Lyne, the member for New England, the member for Denison and the Greens. The government committed to establishing the PBO as part of the Agreement for a Better Parliament: Parliamentary Reform, which was the agreement negotiated between the coalition, the Labor Party and Independents at the commencement of the 43rd Parliament of Australia.

Funding for a PBO has already been provided, with the 2011-12 budget allocating funding over four years. Despite the agreement that the PBO is needed and the allocation of funding commencing on 1 July this year, the government has not yet introduced the enabling legislation, so this coalition bill expedites the process of establishing the PBO. The Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 will establish the PBO with the following features. It will be a new body accountable to the parliament rather than the executive, much like the Auditor-General or the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It will be independent to enhance the transparency and accountability of the budget process and help deliver better policy and financial outcomes for Australian taxpayers. It will be well resourced to ensure that it is effective. It will be headed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who will be appointed by the Presiding Officers of the Parliament on the advice of a committee of senior government officials. He or she will oversee an office of highly trained staff whose calibre will reflect the office's status as an independent body. It will be tasked with providing objective and impartial advice and analysis across the parliament on the Commonwealth budget and budget cycle, including the impact of major policy announcements. It will provide a confidential costing service for policies for all MPs and senators, both during and outside election periods.

The PBO established under this bill will differ in a number of ways from the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office. The PBO will provide a service to confidentially cost policies submitted by members and senators all year round. This overlaps with and goes beyond the costing service provided under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998, which provides for the public costing of policies only for the government and the opposition, not for the Independents or minor parties, and only during elections.

The joint select committee envisaged the services to cost policies provided by the PBO and under the Charter of Budget Honesty would run in parallel. This is unnecessary and wasteful duplication. The costing service provided to the opposition under the charter would effectively become redundant. A separate amendment to the Charter of Budget Honesty will delete the right of the opposition to submit policies for costing under the charter.

A further issue is the process by which the PBO will obtain information from government departments and agencies. The report of the joint select committee envisaged that there would need to be memoranda of understanding negotiated between the PBO and the Department of the Treasury and the department of finance. This bill removes the need for those MOUs by providing the PBO with distinct powers to obtain information from government departments and agencies. These powers are based on those of the Auditor-General, although the powers do not include search powers or the power to require information to be provided by other than public service agencies.

This bill also removes the need for the PBO to use the freedom of information processes, as the PBO has the power it needs to request and receive information from government departments and agencies as required. In saying this, there are restrictions on the power of the PBO to gather and publish information. The PBO will not be able to request and publish information that is cabinet-in-confidence. Also information cannot be published that would be contrary to the public interest.

With great power comes great responsibility. The substantial powers of the PBO to obtain information will be balanced with substantial provisions to prevent the inappropriate disclosure of information. Costings of policies submitted by MPs and senators and material gathered to perform these costings are to remain confidential unless express approval for public release is provided by the relevant MPs and senators. Breaches of the confidentiality provisions by staff of the PBO will carry heavy penalties.

The confidentiality provisions are an important feature of the PBO. They enable MPs and senators to enter into a private discourse with the PBO about the costs of policies. The costs of policies can then be released by the MPs and senators at their discretion and only after they are satisfied with the veracity of the costing. This prevents a situation which can arise under the existing costing parameters of the Charter of Budget Honesty, where costings of election policies are immediately made public by the departments of Treasury and finance without the opposition having the right of discourse or challenge.

The PBO will be adequately funded. The joint select committee recommended annual funding of no less than $6 million. The 2011-12 budget provided $24.9 million over the forward estimates. In an era of tight budgets and fiscal rectitude it seems inappropriate to guarantee any government department or agency a minimum fixed funding entitlement. This bill links the funding for the PBO to that provided for the Department of the Treasury, with funding set at a minimum of 3.5 per cent of the departmental appropriation for Treasury. That means that the PBO would benefit from greater funding should the functions of the Treasury be expanded but would also have to tighten its belt in times of fiscal restraint. That is appropriate.

In drafting this bill the coalition has also taken the time to consider the commitment provided under the parliamentary agreement that the PBO be located within Parliament House. However, under this bill the PBO will be an independent authority, so it will not be mandatory that the PBO be located in the Parliamentary Library.

The commitment to establish a strong, independent and well-resourced PBO has been a longstanding policy of the coalition. It is a key element of the agreement which underpins the new parliament. It is a commitment shared by the government, the opposition, the Independents and the Greens. The establishment of the PBO will improve scrutiny of the budget process and enhance the veracity of policies put forward by all MPs and senators. It is an important reform that builds on the Charter of Budget Honesty introduced by the former member for Higgins, Peter Costello. It ensures accountability and transparency in the management of our country's finances. On this basis, it is disappointing the government has not yet introduced the legislation. This bill will expedite the fulfilment of this important initiative, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a first time.

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

In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

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

This is an amendment to the Charter of Budget Honesty Act to remove clauses which provide for the costing of election commitments for the federal opposition. These provisions will become redundant following the establishment of the Parliamentary Budget Office.

I will briefly review the background of the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998. This groundbreaking economic reform was introduced by the Howard coalition government. Its introduction was intended to prevent a repeat of the fiscal misrepresentation of the Keating government during the 1996 election campaign.

During the campaign the then government claimed the budget would be in deficit by only $590 million in 1996-97 and it claimed it would be in surplus by $2.7 billion in 1997-98. After winning the election, the new coalition government found out the claimed deficit of $590 million was actually a forecast deficit of $7.6 billion. It also found the claimed surplus of $2.7 billion in 1997 was actually forecast to be a deficit of $7.3 billion.

Former Treasurer Peter Costello proposed legislation now known as the Charter of Budget Honesty Act to prevent future governments going to an election with misleading information on the fiscal and economic outlook. The charter provides for the publication of regular updates to the state of the nation's finances as a complement to the annual budget.

One of these is an update on the state of the budget prior to elections. It must be released within 10 days of the issue of the writs for a general election. This update known as PEFO—Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook—is prepared by the departments of Treasury and finance. It is not prepared by the government of the day. This prevents any political massaging of the figures and ensures integrity in the reporting of the financial position.

Another requirement is for the Treasurer to publicly release and table a Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, which we know as MYEFO, by the end of January in each year or within six months after the last budget, whichever is the later. This provides updated information to allow the assessment of the government's fiscal performance against the fiscal strategy set out in the budget. We will have more to say about that in the next few days. The MYEFO updates key information contained in the most recent budget economic and fiscal outlook report and contains a detailed statement of tax expenditures, presenting disaggregated information on tax expenditures.

The charter also requires the government to produce an intergenerational report every five years, and this provides an assessment of the implications of demographic change for economic growth. It also assesses the financial implications of continuing current policies and trends over the next four decades.

The charter also requires the government to introduce an annual fiscal strategy statement which outlines a fiscal outlook on how the government has delivered on its fiscal strategy. In addition, the charter formalises the publication of a final budget outcome to be produced annually by the government of the day and this presents final fiscal outcomes for the preceding year. It deals with the general government sector budget aggregates, Australian government financial statements, Australian government general government sector financial statements and federal financial relations.

The final reform of the charter was to provide for equal access for the government and the opposition to the departments of the Treasury and finance for the costing of election commitments. This was to ensure that election policies announced by both the government and the opposition were equally rigorously costed. This was intended to ensure the voting public was better informed about the financial implications of election commitments.

The charter provides that the request for election costings can only be made during the caretaker period by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. Requests by the Leader of the Opposition for policies to be costed must be through the office of the Prime Minister, so costings of submitted policies are publicly released by the relevant secretaries as soon as practicable after receiving a request.

Although the charter was introduced by the coalition, in recent years some shortcomings in the election policy costing process have emerged. The charter was intended to provide potential alternative governments with equal access to departmental costing of policies during the pre-election caretaker period consistent with the principle that governments should not have privileged access to the Public Service during that caretaker period.

The current arrangements prevent any dialogue in confidence between the opposition submitting the costing and the department carrying out the work. This prevents the discussion of issues or the challenging of departmental views. It closes off the opportunity for further analysis or reflection by the opposition. Costings are simply published by the relevant department as soon as the work is completed. So the charter fails to provide a facility for minor parties as well, or Independents, to access the departments of Treasury or finance for policy costings.

These shortcomings are addressed in my Parliamentary Budget Office Bill. The policy costing provisions in that bill provide for costings to be submitted by all non-government MPs and senators. They provide for policy costings to be submitted without the approval of the Prime Minister. They provide a policy costing service that is independent of the departments of Treasury and finance. They provide for policy costings to be confidential, with opportunity for dialogue and reassessment, which is hugely important. Costings are only made public with the permission of the relevant MP or senator. These provisions within the PBO Bill build on and improve the election costing provisions in the Charter of Budget Honesty. The passing of my PBO Bill will render superfluous the policy costing provisions in the Charter of Budget Honesty. The amendment I am introducing today will remove the redundant provisions of the charter. A related key point is that the introduction of a PBO will complement and enhance the fiscal reporting provisions of the charter through the requirement to publish regular reviews of the longer term implications for the budget of government policy decisions. This all adds to the integrity of the fiscal process.

The introduction of the PBO Bill today and the related amendment to the Charter of Budget Honesty Act represent another step in the coalition's reform program to ensure integrity and transparency in government finances. The establishment of a PBO was a key element of the agreement which underpins the 43rd Parliament. Funding has commenced, yet the PBO has not. The parliament should not have to wait any longer for this important reform. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

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

In accordance with the standing order 41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

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

Pursuant to standing order 113, I fix the next sitting Monday as the day for presenting the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Mining, Petroleum and Water Resources) Bill 2011.

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

This Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 is important legislation because it will, if passed, restore integrity to our democracy. It will, if passed, ensure that this fundamental principle is recognised and acted upon: that governments should have a mandate for the big changes that they seek to make. The problem which this bill seeks to address is the fact that this government, the Gillard government, has no mandate whatsoever for the biggest legislative change that it now seeks to make—namely, the introduction of a carbon tax. Not only does it not have a mandate for the carbon tax, but it has a mandate specifically not to introduce a carbon tax. This bill which I now speak to in the House is designed to give the government a chance to get back the political integrity that it forfeited by promising before the election not to introduce a carbon tax but doing precisely the opposite afterwards.

Much time of this parliament has been taken up this year with discussion of the carbon tax. The carbon tax has dominated public debate this year. The carbon tax is by far the biggest single issue in our public life right now, and yet the carbon tax does not have the kind of democratic mandate which any government seeking to make such a change should have for a change of this magnitude. Never let us forget that six days before the last election the Prime Minister said:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

This was not a statement which just slipped out. It was not just something that she blurted out unthinkingly in response to a question that she had not anticipated. This statement of the Prime Minister was a deeply calculated response to the statements that I had been making consistently throughout the campaign that 'as sure as night follows day, if this government is re-elected there will be a carbon tax'.

To the best of my knowledge, checking the transcripts, I made that observation on at least 15 separate occasions. I was not the only one who was saying that if the government was re-elected there would be a carbon tax. Many of my frontbench colleagues were making exactly the same point. So in order to defuse this issue the Prime Minister deliberately, with foreknowledge, with absolute cold-blooded purpose, went out and said six days before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' And she did not just say that. She said just before the election—it was on the front page of the Australian the day before the election—'I rule out a carbon tax.' And it was not just the Prime Minister deliberately saying that she ruled out a carbon tax and that there would not be a carbon tax 'under the government I lead'. The Treasurer also, on at least two occasions, said that claims that there would be a carbon tax if the government were re-elected were 'hysterical exaggerations'.

But it is not just the specific statements of the Prime Minister; it is not just the specific statements of the Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister; it is everything else that the Prime Minister said about a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme in the lead-up to the last election. Let us not forget this was a serious problem for the government. In the wake of the collapse of the Copenhagen conference, the government's previous policy to have an emissions trading scheme—the policy championed by the previous Prime Minister to address what he said repeatedly was not just a big issue but was nothing less than the 'greatest moral challenge of our time'—had become increasingly untenable and implausible. What happened was that the former Prime Minister was advised by the current Prime Minister and the current Deputy Prime Minister to drop it.

So back in April last year the government dropped their commitment to an emissions trading scheme and said that there would be no emissions trading scheme until the rest of the world had put something similar in place. That was the position in April. During the election campaign, to get this matter completely off the agenda, at the end of the first week of the campaign the Prime Minister made a major speech where she said that the whole question of climate change would be given over not to the parliament but to a citizens assembly and that no change whatsoever would be pursued by the government until, in the words of the Prime Minister, a 'deep and lasting consensus' had been achieved. So not only did she deny that there would be a carbon tax, and not only did the Treasurer deny that there would be a carbon tax, but everything the Prime Minister said during the election campaign was designed to convey that nothing at all would happen until a 'deep and lasting consensus' had been achieved—a consensus that, she said, would be impossible if the coalition stayed with the position that we had at the election campaign and, I hasten to add, have today.

It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards. Nothing could be more calculated to bring our democracy into disrepute and alienate the citizenry of Australia from their government than if governments were to establish by precedent that they could say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards.

The Prime Minister has sometimes alluded to the example of her distinguished predecessor, the former Prime Minister John Howard, in the course of this carbon tax debate. She said that John Howard had supported a GST and that he had then said, prior to the 1986 election, that there would not be a GST and that he had, in the course of the subsequent term of parliament, changed his mind and said there would be a GST. But the fundamental difference between the current Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister is that the former Prime Minister did not run away from the Australian people; he took his change of heart to the Australian people. He changed his mind in the 1996-1998 term of parliament and took his changed position to the public in the 1998 election. That is the course of conduct that the current Prime Minister should take.

If she really believes that the carbon tax is as necessary as she claims it to be and that the arguments in favour of a carbon tax are as compelling as she says they are, she should not run away from the Australian people; she should revel in the opportunity to take this matter to the Australian people. In fact, the Prime Minister whom the current Prime Minister most resembles in all of this is not former Prime Minister John Howard but former Prime Minister Paul Keating, who before the 1993 election said that tax cuts were 'l-a-w law'; but the 'l-a-w law' turned out to be an l-i-e lie. We all know the political fate of former Prime Minister Keating—a political fate sealed by that deceptive conduct at the 1993 election.

You might even say that, by putting forward this private member's bill for a plebiscite on a carbon tax, I am giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to redeem herself by making an honest politician of herself; that I am giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to overcome the democratic deficit and the honesty deficit which she currently displays. I am proposing in this bill that we can have a vote on the carbon tax without an election and without, necessarily, a change of government. I am making it easier with this bill to actually have this matter put to the people. By proposing a plebiscite I am allowing this matter to go to the public for a vote, as it should, without the prospect—indeed, under current circumstances, the probability—of an election producing a change of government. I am giving the government and other members of this parliament an opportunity to restore faith with fewer adverse consequences for themselves than would otherwise be the case.

I make it absolutely crystal clear that, should this bill pass the parliament and should there be a plebiscite on the issue of a carbon tax before the end of November, I will of course accept the result—as I hope the Prime Minister would accept the result should this bill pass. Whatever differences of opinion we might have in this chamber, in the end this is a democratic parliament—this is a democratic country—and every single member of this parliament has to accept the processes of our democracy. The result of a plebiscite may not change the argument one way or another about the merits or otherwise of a carbon tax, but I tell you this: it would certainly settle the politics of this issue once and for all, and that is what we need in the face of a divisive and damaging debate which is entirely the government's fault, because, if they had not made a commitment one way before the election while doing the opposite after the election, they would not be in their current predicament.

I draw the House's attention to a couple of features of the bill. The bill says:

The question to be submitted to electors in accordance with section 5 is "Do you support the Government's plan to introduce a price on carbon to deal with climate change?"

It is about as neutral question as I could possibly come up with. The actual formulation of that question was arrived at after consultation with independent members of this parliament, because I want to give independent members of this House and of the other chamber every opportunity to say yes to this bill; I do not want anyone to think that this plebiscite is some kind of stitch up, and, I think, no fair-minded observer could say that a question couched in those terms was anything other than a fair question. The other point I make about the legislation is that the plebiscite will in all other respects be conducted in the same way as a referendum would be conducted: with the usual provision for compulsory voting. It is a fair question, to let the people determine an essential point. This argument—should we or should we not have a carbon tax?—is so important that the public must have their say. It is important that the public should have their say before the government proceeds with legislation, not afterwards. That is what this bill is designed to achieve.

I say to decent, honest members of the government—and there is at least one of them sitting opposite now on the backbenches: there must be times when you are troubled in your souls on this whole question. How can decent, honest members of a government not feel embarrassed and ashamed of the fact that their Prime Minister said one thing before the election and is doing the complete opposite afterwards? She spoke for all of them; she was not just expressing a private view, you know. She was the leader of the Labor Party and the Prime Minister at the time, so she spoke for the member for Hunter, she spoke for the member for Werriwa and she spoke for the member for Brand. She spoke for them when she said there would be no—

An honourable member: He's the member for Fowler.

An honourable member: It was Werriwa then.

The member for Fowler—it is hard to keep up with the changes on the other side of the chamber!

But the Prime Minister spoke for all of these members when she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' They are all complicit in this deception, and this bill gives them a chance to come clean, to make a break with this deception and to redeem themselves with the electorate. So I urge them—as I urged the Independent members of this parliament—to consider this legislation.

I know the Independent members of this parliament do not want an election. They want to preserve their position in this parliament. My bill offers them a chance to keep faith with the electorate without prejudicing their position as balance-of-power Independents. I urge them if they do not want to change the government then to please, at the very least, let the people have a say on this matter by supporting my bill.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a fraught time in our nation's history. We know, because Paul Howse has told us, that there is a crisis in manufacturing. We have heard of the job losses from Qantas and from OneSteel. We learned today that BlueScope, our biggest steelmaker, is ceasing exporting steel because of the difficulties that manufacturing industry now faces. This country will not be an exporter of steel because of the difficulties that manufacturing industry faces.

I know that the carbon tax is not the only difficulty that manufacturing industry faces; I know that the carbon tax has not been an instrumental factor in the decision of BlueScope announced today. But let us not forget how the carbon tax is hovering over all the decisions that manufacturers are making right now. Let us not forget that companies like BlueScope have to make decisions now for the next 40 years, and the assistance package announced as part of the carbon tax lasts for but four years. Let us not forget the statement that the chairman of BlueScope made when the carbon tax was first announced back in February, that compensation for the steel industry would be like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. Let us not forget these statements. Let us not forget the tremor of fear, anxiety and uncertainty now running through manufacturing industry generally and manufacturing workers right around our country, and let us make a bad situation better by not proceeding with this carbon tax. This is the worst possible time to proceed with what is a bad tax, based on a lie. This bill of mine is a way of ensuring that the public have their chance to have their say.

I have often said, and members of this House will no doubt hear me say it again, there should be no new tax collection without an election. But this bill is an opportunity for members opposite to meet me halfway. It is an opportunity for members opposite and members on the crossbench to meet the Australian public halfway, to put this to a vote without necessarily changing the government and to put this to a vote without all of the trauma of an election. I think this is a good faith attempt by a democratic opposition to allow the government to do the right thing by the Australian people. That is why I commend this bill to the House, and I table the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.

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

I move:

That the Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting) Bill 2011 referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.

Question agreed to.

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

Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that in accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, Senator Madigan has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) 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.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 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.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 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.

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

I seek leave to move a motion that would require the member for Dobell to attend the House and make a personal explanation.

Leave not granted.

In which case, I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sturt from moving forthwith the following motion:

That the Member for Dobell:

(1) attend this Chamber without delay to make a personal explanation for a period not exceeding 15 minutes with respect to the following alleged misrepresentations made in the press. That during the period he was national secretary of the Health Services Union the following occurred:

(a) on 8 April 2005, a call was placed from his union-funded mobile telephone to a number listed as belonging to Sydney Outcalls and on 9 April 2005, a credit card voucher in the amount of $2,475 was issued against the HSU credit card in his name, bearing his signature and referencing his NSW driver's licence number;

(b) on 16 August 2007, a call was placed from his union-funded mobile telephone to a number listed as belonging to Sydney Outcalls and on 16 August 2007, a credit card voucher in the amount of $385 was issued against the HSU credit card in his name, bearing his signature and referencing his NSW driver's licence number;

(c) at diverse times between 2002 and 24 November 2007, he made cash withdrawals from automatic teller machines against his HSU credit card, without producing receipts acquitting or justifying such advances, in an amount totalling some $101,000;

(d) at diverse times between 2002 and 24 November 2007, credit card vouchers in the amount of $15,011 were issued against his HSU credit card in his name for restaurant bills, liquor, accommodation, electronics and a signed poster of motorcycle champion Mick Doohan;

(e) at diverse times between January 2003 and October 2007, credit card vouchers in the amount of $13,809 were issued against his HSU Diners Club card in his name for 19 separate airline tickets for someone other than himself; and

(f) before the 2007 Federal Election, credit card vouchers were issued against his HSU Master Card in his name in relation to the 2007 Federal Election in Dobell in the amount of $18,733 for radio advertising, $7,253 for postage and $13,648 for printing none of which were disclosed to the Australian Electoral Commission as is required under the electoral disclosure law;

(2) provide the factual basis for his statements on 1 August 2011 in the press, but not in this House, that the allegations above are a misrepresentation because while he had authorised payment by the HSU of these credit card transactions:

(a) he was not responsible for booking and making payment for services in question;

(b) the credit card had been used without his knowledge;

(c) his signature on the vouchers had been forged;

(d) that another person had accepted responsibility for payments to escort services; and

(e) that that other person had personally repaid $15,000 against that liability; and

(3) explain to this House why he did not register the payment of a substantial gift to him by the NSW Branch of the Australian Labor Party paid in May 2011, variously reported as being either $40,000, $90,000 or $150,000 towards the costs incurred in commencing and subsequently abandoning private defamation proceedings against Fairfax Media Ltd in the register of members' interests until at least 77 days after his receipt of those funds.

The member for Dobell needs to assure the House of these matters in a personal explanation or otherwise the Prime Minister's confidence in him is baseless and her protestations of his innocence sound hollow. The Prime Minister and the member for Dobell are essentially in lockstep today. The Prime Minister herself should demand that the member for Dobell attend the House and make a personal explanation dealing with each of these so-called misrepresentations. A personal explanation is the correct mechanism in this House for a member to dispel doubts about whether claims made about him or her are a misrepresentation. The fact that he has not done so suggests that he is not being—

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

Question put.

The House divided. [12:08]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

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

The member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion of the member for Sturt, and if the Labor Party had nothing to hide it would ask the member for Dobell to come in and account for his actions to this parliament.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: with regard to the motion that has been moved and now seconded before the chair, in the past motions have been ruled out of order because they were overly lengthy. This is a motion that took the mover some four minutes to read into Hansard.

Honourable members interjecting—

The member for Sturt concedes that he is slow, but it is not the case that the standing orders should be subverted by an overly long motion. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to rule it out of order.

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

Order! I stand by the decision of the person occupying the chair at the time to allow this suspension motion to proceed. It is of the A to Z that the Minister for Defence knows much about and the compromise there is that it takes four minutes to read and that is four minutes of a speech. I understand that the Leader of the House will have some grievance about the fact that he cannot move that the member be no longer heard until after that point, but I think that that is the accommodation. I agree with him that it would assist the House if motions were truncated, but on this occasion we have got this far.

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

I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

Question put.

The House divided. [12:25]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

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

The member's time has expired. The time allotted for the debate has expired. Whilst not by way of a point of order, I will explain that the problem is that the motion was never put to the House.

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

On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report entitled Report 4/2011: referrals made May to June 2011.

In accordance with standing order 39(f), the report was made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fourth report of 2011, addressing referrals made May to June 2011. This report deals with four inquiries with a total estimated cost of $117.6 million. In each case, the committee recommends the House of Representatives agree to the works proceeding. The report includes additional recommendations to the Department of Defence for preparing future proposals for the committee's consideration and a recommendation to develop protocols for dealing with contaminated sites on Defence properties. The new works include a fit-out of new leased premises for the Human Services portfolio in Canberra, a fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office in Brisbane, contamination remediation works at RAAF Base Williams at Point Cook in Victoria and a specific nutritional capability project for the Defence Science and Technology Organisation at Scottsdale in Tasmania.

Let me first deal with the fit-out of the new leased premises for the Human Services portfolio. The works are needed to accommodate a large portion of the portfolio's staff currently housed in different locations around Canberra. The majority of these leases are due to expire over the next three years. This proposal will reduce the number of leases and consolidate locations in line with the corporate office accommodation strategy. The committee was informed during the inquiry that the department undertook an initial procurement process for the works between 2007 and 2010 which was unsuccessful. The department had to undertake further negotiations with the first and second ranked tenderers before achieving a suitable proposal. The committee was concerned about this process, and notes in its report that all agencies should ensure their tender processes are robust and sufficiently informed by market conditions to avoid failure. Notwithstanding these concerns, the committee is satisfied that the project has merit and should proceed.

Moving to the second fit-out of Commonwealth leased premises, the committee considered a proposed fit-out of new premises for the Australian Taxation Office in the heart of Brisbane. This proposal will consolidate two premises currently housing ATO staff into a single building, achieve greater operational efficiencies, improve the standard of accommodation for staff and meet compulsory Commonwealth standards on its environmental impacts. The committee is satisfied that this project has merit and will achieve its outcomes of meeting Commonwealth property management guidelines, increase the department's ability to adapt to changing accommodation requirements in the future and achieve more collaborative work practices.

Chapter 4 of the report deals with proposed contamination remediation works at a former fire training area at RAAF Base Williams at Point Cook in Victoria. The committee inspected this site on 26 July 2011, witnessing firsthand the need for the works. The site was used in the 1980s for firefighting training. As a result, the soil now contains approximately 950,000 litres of toxic liquid waste called dense non-aqueous phase liquid. This liquid contains over 120 chemicals. While the toxic liquid is not yet in contact with nearby Port Phillip Bay, groundwater has moved through the soil on the site, dissolving chemicals which are now discharging into the bay. The physical barrier between the toxic substance and the bay is reducing due to coastal erosion, increasing the pressing need for contamination remediation works on the site. Whilst the committee observed that Defence continues to monitor the site and undertake rigorous testing, it is patently clear that remediation works are urgently needed to prevent future damage. As outlined in this report, the committee notes there are a number of other Defence sites around Australia that will require contamination remediation works in the near future. The committee recommends in its report that Defence ensure that all remediation works are of the highest standard and that contamination is removed entirely from each site. Defence must actively engage with and inform local land users, authorities and community groups, and demonstrate that each site poses no risk to human health or the environment. I move to the final proposal considered by the committee. This is the specific nutritional capability project for the Defence Science and Technology Organisation at Scottsdale in Tasmania. The project aims to address the shortcomings of the current facility. A cell culture laboratory will be established to enable DSTO to investigate the impact of nutrition on health and performance outcomes using modern techniques. It will present opportunities in the field of nutrigenomics and improve research and development into nutrition to meet the specific needs of the Australian Defence Force.

The committee inspected the current facility, which limits DSTO's ability to meet ADF directives and taskings in relation to nutrition and food science capabilities. The project is anticipated to cost $18.7 million. In reaching this proposal, DSTO considered a number of options which were brought to the committee's attention. Defence had also considered relocating the site to elsewhere in Australia; however, they did not address this option in their submissions to the committee.

Whilst the committee is satisfied that Defence considered all options available for the project proposal, the committee recommends that each and every option considered by Defence be discussed at length in their submissions for the committee's consideration in the future. I know the locals were very pleased that it is staying exactly where it is—but that is a separate issue.

I would like to thank members and senators for their work in these inquiries. In particular, I would like to thank and welcome Senator Alex Gallacher and Senator Anne Urquhart, who joined the committee since the tabling of our last report. I commend the report to the House.

(Quorum formed)

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

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I seek leave to make a statement on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011 in discharge of the committee's requirement to provide an advisory report on the bill and to present a copy of my statement.

Leave granted.

On 7 July 2011 the House of Representatives Selection Committee referred the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011 to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. The bill proposes to move the responsibility for the administration of the early release on compassionate grounds of benefits in a retirement savings account or superannuation benefits in an entity regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority from APRA to the Chief Executive of Medicare. Similarly, the general administration of the early release on compassionate grounds of superannuation benefits in a self-managed superannuation fund will be transferred from the Commissioner of Taxation to the Chief Executive of Medicare as well.

The amendment formalises an arrangement that has been in place since 3 February 2011, when APRA and Medicare Australia entered into a service delivery agreement for Medicare Australia to carry out the day-to-day function of the administration of early release of superannuation in APRA regulated superannuation entities under the delegation from APRA. At the same time, the day-to-day functions of the administration of early release of superannuation in self-managed superannuation funds under delegation from the Commissioner of Taxation was transferred from APRA to Medicare Australia. There are no extra costs associated with this amendment. Part 2 of schedule 1 of the bill amends the APRA Act 1998 so that the industry levy associated with the administration of the early release of superannuation benefits currently paid to APRA can be transferred to Medicare Australia to meet administrative costs. To support this arrangement, APRA officers were transferred to Medicare Australia in February of this year to undertake the administration of the early release function. The committee supports and endorses moves to formalise the interim arrangements that have been in place for over six months.

After consideration of the evidence, the committee has agreed not to inquire further into this bill and recommends that the House pass the bill. I take this opportunity to echo the comments made last week by Ms Rishworth in her statement as chair of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment when responding to a referral of a similarly uncontroversial bill. While supporting the referral of bills is an effective mechanism for increasing transparency and public consultation, the committee feels that the referral process would be more effective if an explanation were also provided as to why the bill was referred in the first place so that the committee can target its efforts more effectively. The bill is simply a formalisation of arrangements that are already in place and are thus supported by the stakeholders. The committee is agreed that no further action is required by them in relation to this bill. I also take this opportunity to welcome a new committee member, Senator Thistlethwaite, and thank him for his attendance at the previous meeting.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011, together with the minutes of proceedings. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with this report.

Leave granted.

The bills were referred to the committee by the selection committee on 7 July 2011. At the outset, I wish to comment briefly on the decision by the House of Representatives Selection Committee to refer these bills to the Health and Ageing Committee. While the referral provided an opportunity to consider the potential health impacts of the legislation in detail, the committee is aware that much of the debate surrounding these bills relates to economic or legal issues and their impact on the tobacco industry. While these issues have been briefly noted in the report, the committee considers them to be beyond its remit. It is for this reason that commentary in this report is largely confined to the health related aspects of the proposed legislation and the impacts on health that this bill would have.

I understand that the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011 was last week referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The Senate committee has been asked to inquire into the constitutionality of the provisions of the bill. This process will provide an avenue for those who wanted more detailed consideration of this aspect of the proposed legislation.

However, I am speaking today in my capacity as Chair of the Health and Ageing Committee. I have been pleased to have the opportunity to consider the health impacts of this legislation with my committee members and, clearly, the main objective of the proposed tobacco plain packaging legislation is to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco by lowering tobacco use through reducing the appeal of tobacco products and increasing the impact of the graphic health warnings on packaging.

The effect of the provisions set out in the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 will be to make it an offence to sell, supply, purchase, package or manufacture tobacco products or packaging for retail sale that are not compliant with plain packaging requirements. These offences will apply to manufacturers, packagers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers of tobacco products in Australia who fail to comply with the plain packaging requirements.

The main objectives of the accompanying trademark amendment bill is to ensure that applicants for trademark registration and registered owners of trademarks are not disadvantaged by the practical operation of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act. With a specific focus on the health related aspects of the proposed legislation, the main issue considered by the Health and Ageing Committee was whether there is sufficient evidence to indicate that tobacco plain packaging will improve health outcomes by reducing tobacco use. Overwhelmingly, public health advocates and preventative health experts expressed the view that the evidence to support plain packaging as an effective tobacco control measure is sufficiently robust to proceed. Although it is not a silver bullet, tobacco plain packaging emerged as one measure with the potential to contribute to a suite of tobacco control measures that are already in place, such as increased excise, indoor and outdoor smoking bans, increased access to nicotine replacement therapies and continued education about the harmful effects of tobacco. Over the last two decades, Australia has made significant progress in reducing tobacco use, and I quote from a recent OECD report which makes the following observation:

Australia provides an example of a country that has achieved remarkable progress in reducing tobacco consumption, cutting by half the percentage of adults who smoke daily …

So already, Australia has shown itself to be a world leader in tobacco control.

However, this is not the time to become complacent. Rather, Australia should continue to innovate, to maintain momentum and to decrease tobacco use further. Reducing tobacco use would not only save many thousands from unnecessary suffering and premature death but would also lessen the social and economic burden of smoking, which is estimated to cost the nation somewhere in the region of $30 billion each year. By supporting passage of the proposed legislation, the committee believes that Australia will once again be in a position to take the lead in the implementation of progressive tobacco control measures—a role it has willingly taken in the past. And it is with a focus on the beneficial health outcomes for Australians that I conclude by providing my complete support for the proposed tobacco plain packaging legislation. I commend the committee's report to the House.

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

by leave—I rise to speak on the report on the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011. I also congratulate the chairman of the committee who has just made his statement on the report. The report makes two recommendations. The first is:

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives pass the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011.

The purpose of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 is to improve health outcomes for Australians by reducing the use of and exposure to tobacco products by removing one of the last forms of tobacco advertising. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the bill will make it an offence to sell, supply, purchase, package or manufacture tobacco products or packaging for retail sale that are not compliant with plain packaging requirements. As the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 includes restrictions on the use of trademarks on tobacco products and the retail packaging of those products, the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011 was introduced on the same date to complement the main bill. In her second reading speech, the Minister for Health and Ageing explained:

This bill amends the Trade Marks Act to allow regulations to be made in relation to the operation of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011. The objective of any such regulations would be to ensure that the practical operation of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 does not prevent businesses from registering new trademarks, or from protecting registered trademarks against infringement.

Recommendation 2 was that the House of Representatives pass the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011. On 7 July 2011 the House of Representatives Selection Committee referred both bills to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing for inquiry.

Prior to introducing tobacco plain-packaging legislation the Australian government committed to consult broadly. The consultation process was administered by the Department of Health and Ageing. During the consultation DoHA met with representatives of the tobacco industry on a number of occasions to discuss issues of concern. DoHA also met with a number of retail organisations, including the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, the Australian newsagents association, Master Grocers Australia, the Service Station Owners' Association, the Tobacco Station Group, the National Independent Retailers Association and the two major supermarket chains: Coles and Woolworths. There are many small businesses and business associations who felt that the consultation process was poor and that they did not have enough time or opportunity to present or submit to this inquiry or to DoHA. The outcome of the DoHA consultation was described as follows:

There was strong support for the Bill amongst the public health and non-government organisations …

Some submissions opposing the Bill claimed a perceived inadequacy of evidence to justify the plain packaging measure; a potential for detrimental impact on the tobacco industry and retailers; and the potential for the Bill to be in breach of national trade mark and intellectual property rights as well as international law obligations.

Several submitters who did not support the introduction of plain packaging believed that there would be no health benefits at all. Some claimed that it would have unintended health consequences, leading to an increase in smoking or an increase in medical problems, due to the consumption of illegal and unregulated tobacco products. Some submitters also suggested that plain packaging would make it easier for tobacco products to be counterfeited and that increasing cigarette prices would be a more effective mechanism to reduce the smoking rate. It was also argued that plain packaging would force manufacturers to compete on price rather than brand, with the unintended consequence of reducing the price of tobacco products. The report also quotes those against the bills as saying:

Moreover, in promoting the plain-packaging proposal, the Consultation Paper fails to look at its impact on prices of tobacco products. Price is regarded as the single-most-important determinant of smoking behaviour, with higher prices leading to substantial reductions in smoking rates. By removing the only non-price factor that brands can use to inform customers and to compete, the only remaining form of competition will be price. Lower prices have long been shown to increase smoking rates. While Australia has significant taxes on tobacco, there are still substantial price differentials between branded and generic cigarettes in Australia's market. By removing trademarks and all other brand imagery and information from the packs, price competition is expected to intensify, which would likely increase tobacco consumption, especially by youth.

In sum, Australia's health justification for plain packaging is not supported by actual evidence and seems more likely to cause an increase in smoking rates, not a reduction.

The committee then went on to ask the representatives from DoHA whether the department was satisfied that sufficient evidence had been established to support plain packaging. It was informed by DoHA:

We absolutely have sufficient public health evidence to go forward with this legislation. This is as good a set of public health evidence as you get for preventative health measures.

The coalition support these bills going forward, but may not always agree with the process on the consultation that was taken during the committee inquiry as well. We would like to say that we do support this and that we will not oppose these bills.

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

I welcome the chance to resume my remarks in relation to the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2011. At the time of the interruption of my last remarks I was speaking about the impact upon smaller colleges and enterprises in Australia today and the sometimes unintended consequences of government regulation where there is an inconsistent policy approach.

Since I have had the opportunity to do so I have been reading further papers from the Council of Private Higher Education Incorporated, which has put together a worthwhile paper in relation to this area. I would like to quote from their paper in relation to what the role of government is in the private education sector. The council says, 'The international education sector does not expect a direct subsidy of the type variously afforded industries such as manufacturing; but nor does it expect excessive charges, even under the mantra of full cost recovery. Above all, it does not expect unhelpful and unnecessary policy settings, inconsistency between different arms of government and sudden, politically-driven policy changes without full industry consultation.'

Amen to that. At the moment, of course, we do have inconsistent approaches between state and federal governments for this sector. We do have excessive regulation and, indeed, this government is moving us towards full cost recovery for the industry. Some people might ask, 'What's wrong with that?' Indeed in many cases I am a supporter of full cost recovery, and the fee restructuring that is going on here is not all bad. However, the inconsistency in policy approach from this government, including the handling of visas and the regulatory framework that has surrounded the treatment of international students, has meant a diminishing of this vital industry for Australia. Once again, I would endorse the role that this industry plays; it was our third biggest export industry a few years ago and totalled $17 billion in income for our country. It allows Australia to provide a great source of regional foreign policy in educating students from all across Asia. Most of those students, of course, return to the countries they come from, well educated by our country and looking forward to seeking high roles in their countries, with a high view of this country and the education services that we provide: a great outcome for all concerned. So I do think that government does have a role to provide a much more balanced regulatory framework—as the council calls for—one that is not inconsistent, one that does provide certainty for the industry and with proper industry consultation. I think that, if the government had consulted further on this legislation, it could be improved. I think that it is reasonable to say that colleges with fewer than 30 international students could benefit from a cap on the fees that are being charged. That is not something that would cost government a lot. With proper consultation I think that small and very small colleges, those struggling to survive and those that are working their way up to become large colleges, could have their fees capped. I do not think that that is unreasonable. With minimum consultation, the government could have ascertained that that would be a good idea and approach and that we could improve the quality of this legislation. I want to say again that the government often fails to consult adequately with industry sectors and I do think that that has led to the inherent weaknesses in the legislation that we see put before us in this parliament.

We know that if a college has less than five per cent of international enrolments this will unfairly penalise them financially. With fewer than 30 international students, or less than five per cent of enrolments, there is a very low risk here of any kind of trouble for the government and what with full cost recovery and the nature of the return for the government it certainly seems to be a strange policy setting. It probably has more to do with the nature of the government debt burden we have at the moment than anything else.

Of course this legislation comes out of the Stronger, simpler, smarter ESOS: supporting international students review conducted by the Hon. Bruce Baird. It had many recommendations, some of which the government has adopted, some which it has not. That review had a certain point of view. I think that some of its recommendations were worth while; I think that others unfairly burden this industry. It is heavily regulated. There are providers in this sector that have continued to hold the accreditation required by state and federal governments over many, many years without incident. They have been proven to be effective providers of education at tertiary level and for other courses and therefore they do not need the same level of regulatory burden or increased regulatory burden that we might be looking to target institutions that do not have such a good record or that do have problems. That is where government does have a role to play, but we have to find ways to target our legislation at the problem we are seeking to address and not to burden unnecessarily the entire sector with increasing regulatory burdens and costs without any due return.

I just want to make that point before finishing my remarks. Here in this place we have some great providers of overseas education. Indeed, we ought to be encouraging this industry to continue to do the job that it has done so well over the last decade. Certainly, this sector is suffering, not exclusively but in part, due to government action. This kind of regulation, while it may look inherently good on the surface, will not help in general with the policy settings that the government has put in place in this sector. We should seek legislation and regulatory reform that recognises those worthwhile institutions that have been accredited for a long time and that are providing a service in this space and not causing any trouble, and remove burdens as well as increase the amount of legislation or amendments that we are passing in this place. We should also seek to make the job of independent providers easier in Australia.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those members who have spoken on the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2011 and the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Registration Charges Consequentials) Bill 2011. As we have made clear, the Australian government is deeply committed to ensuring that those international students who choose to study in Australia receive high-quality education and training. At the same time, the government maintains the same level of commitment to also ensuring that the international education services industry remains a robust and sustainable one. (Quorum formed)

The Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2011 and Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Registration Charges Consequentials) Bill 2011 build on recent changes to the ESOS Act through the reregistration of all providers and ensures a rigorous gateway to the industry in terms of ongoing registration and compliance activity. All international education providers are required to register on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students. Through the restructure and rebasing of the annual registration charge, the Commonwealth will be able to deliver a more direct and effective registration and supervisory regime for the international education industry.

The tiers of the restructure charge, which are outlined in this bill, reflect the different levels of regulatory risk presented by various categories of providers across the industry—something the government sees as appropriate. For example, new providers considered to be higher risk in the first three years of their operation will pay additional amounts in those initial years of operation. Providers who have had regulatory action taken against them will also pay additional amounts. Further, there is scope through regulation to allow certain providers such as public universities, technical and further education providers, and public schools to be exempted from certain elements in the new ARC such as the annual per course component. This rebasing and restructuring of the ARC is a significant milestone for the international education services industry.

The government is moving away from a charging arrangement that treats all categories of providers—all businesses in this industry—as having the same characteristics. Instead, the new ARC will reflect the different characteristics of the main subsectors across the industry, as these are reflected in the costs of registration and compliance activity. These amendments represent the first component of the government's second-phase response to the recommendations of the Baird review, which was released on 9 March 2010. In releasing the final report, the Prime Minister in her then role as Minister for Education noted that the government supports the recommendations made by the review relating to lifting the bar on entry to the international education industry. These bills take up the challenge of this recommendation by introducing an entry-to-market charge on providers seeking their first registration in the industry. This will also ensure that this group of providers is able to receive the requisite attention in their initial period of registration.

While the restructured ARC introduces more components than the existing arrangements, this bill will realise a fairer and more equitable distribution of the imposition of these charges across the industry. This will mean many providers across the industry will experience an overall reduction in the total amount of the ARC they pay, while the introduction of a risk based element in accordance with the recommendations of the Baird review will mean that some providers pay slightly more based on that risk assessment. In turn, those providers that present more regulatory risk will receive more regulatory attention.

The restructured and rebased ARC will help ensure a strong and vibrant industry where high-quality providers are able to flourish and those that present a higher regulatory effort are given the appropriate regulatory attention. This first component of the government's second-phase response to the recommendations of the Baird review will make a significant difference in ensuring the integrity and sustainability of the international education services industry in Australia. 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.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) 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.

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

I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011, which calls for changes to the implementation dates of the national curriculum for non-government schools. The concept of a national curriculum dates back to the 1980s; however, the states and the territories to this day have retained control over their own curricula. Historically, the attempts to introduce a national curriculum have failed and the idea has been widely criticised. The national curriculum was, however, endorsed in the leadup to the 2007 federal election and has been managed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.

At the time of the act's drafting in 2008 it was anticipated the rollout date of the national curriculum across all schools would be 31 January 2012. This bill proposes to alter the deadline for implementation to allow for a staged approach for the non-government schools sector implementation. The first part of this bill proposes to repeal the act's current implementation date for the Australian curriculum set out in the act as the original deadline. As an alternative to the original deadline the bill proposes variable implementation dates for various phases of the Australian curriculum. The Standing Council for School, Education and Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs will determine these new time lines. Due to the phased approach being undertaken to develop the national curriculum, the extent of consultations undertaken in the development and the need for flexibility have resulted in a need for a legislative amendment as prescribed in this bill. The amendment will provide a legal framework for the non-government sector to allow for the implementation and the appropriate administration of the implementation dates.

To advance on the national curriculum, all of the concerns need to be assessed to ensure that we are progressing positively with our education sector and not putting the sector in jeopardy for the sake of sticking to deadlines prescribed before all of the relevant stakeholders and representatives from government and non-government schools had a chance to be consulted as part of the development process. The national curriculum must exceed the expectations of the current state and territory curricula to be a step forward. It is an important change that needs to be carefully planned and executed to ensure we do not end up in an education bungle.

The coalition is supportive of the intent of a new national curriculum. However, there are some concerns with the prescribed documentation and the possibility that the content of these documents may very well overwhelm teachers who do not have the funding or support for the training that will be required before the rollout of the national curriculum occurs. For these reasons the coalition will move two amendments. The first relates to the importance of ensuring that schools are given the support they need to successfully implement the Australian curriculum. At the moment, a nationally agreed or consistent approach across all jurisdictions does not exist. This needs to occur so that schools and their teaching staff receive the professional training required to be able to implement the Australian curriculum.

The second amendment suggests a clear representation of the non-government schools with respect to the decision-making process for the future time frames of the national curriculum. In a media release issued last week by the Independent Education Union, the federal secretary, Chris Watt, said he welcomed the amendment. Mr Watt said that it is critical that non-government schools are part of the decision-making process so that they could put forward the needs of the sector. In a direct quote, Mr Watt said:

Around half of all students attend a non-government school at some stage in their life, and it is critical that these schools are a part of the national conversation.

I strongly agree with Mr Watt and believe that all non-government schools should be included in this national conversation.

In my electorate of McPherson there are a number of non-government schools, some of which include both primary and secondary education, including Hillcrest Christian College, King's Christian College, Marymount College, Somerset College, St Andrews Lutheran College and All Saints Anglican School. The non-government sector makes up around a third of the 33 schools within my electorate, and as their federal member I need to ensure that these non-government schools are afforded the same opportunities as their state counterparts when the national curriculum rolls out.

Currently, there is no specific representation from the non-government sector on either the standing council or its advisory officials committee, the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee. So far, all of the major non-government stakeholders that submitted to the inquiry into the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011 agreed with the bill's measures and the staged approach to the development and implementation of the Australian curriculum. However, both the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Schools Council of Australia raised concerns about the representation of the non-government sector in the development and consultation process, and had concerns about whether or not there would be support for staff and teachers during the rollout. Other stakeholders had similar concerns. I note from the submission of the Australian Primary Principals Association that it is concerned about the lack of a properly considered and cohesive national implementation plan, along with adequate resourcing to support the curriculum's implementation and the need for appropriate consultation with relevant stakeholders.

In addition to the concerns raised here today, I would like to highlight a local issue that is relevant to this debate on the implementation of the national curriculum. Many people relocate to the Gold Coast from interstate, and at present there is no direct correlation between the curricula in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. For example, a child who completed year 2 in Victoria could go into either year 2 or year 3 in Queensland. If the child transferred to the age-appropriate year 2 it is quite possible that the child will already have completed some of the curriculum interstate before transferring to Queensland. However, if the child were to transfer into year 3, that child would most likely have some gaps in their learning since there would be some of the curriculum that had not been covered and they would be a year younger than their classmates. This alone is likely to create angst for the child, their siblings, their parents and their teachers, and this certainly needs to be addressed.

Just this weekend an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin addressed the confusion over the starting age for school children. According to the article, parent groups are now pushing for a national school starting age. A reference to this 2006 report from Access Economics and Atelier Learning Solutions was included in the article to support the push. The report claimed 80,000 children were moved between states with their families each year. The article stated:

… a national school starting age could help children from low socio-economic families get into the education system and gain access to numeracy and literacy programs faster.

Currently in New South Wales, the primary education journey is from kindergarten through to year 6. This spans a total of seven years. The eighth year of schooling begins in year 7 at secondary school. Students are at least four years and five months of age when entering the New South Wales school system. In contrast, although children enter the Queensland system at four years and six months, they will spend eight years in primary school from prep to year 7, and move to secondary school in their ninth year of education to start year 8. In summary, Queensland students spend eight years in primary school and only five years in secondary school, while in New South Wales students spend seven years in primary and six years in secondary.

The Queensland school system is scheduled to be in line with the other jurisdictions by 2015, and year 7 students will make the move to Queensland high schools. Locally, one of our largest state high schools, the Palm Beach Currumbin State High School, is in the final stages of a $9 million expansion that will include classrooms to accommodate the 20 per cent increase in students predicted from the inclusion of year 7 in their school. Whilst this is obviously a separate issue to the bill we are speaking on, it is of paramount importance to Queensland schools and particularly to those schools in my electorate which will also be facing the additional expenses and administrative duties incurred in making room for these students at all schools in both the government and non-government sectors.

While the implementation of the national curriculum is being costed and planned for, these schools may also have to juggle the expansion and transition of year 7 to the high school sector. This is just one local example of the many issues surfacing in relation to the national curriculum. It needs to be considered when planning such a significant change to the existing education sector. In 2008, the Prime Minister said the curriculum would take three years to develop and that its implementation would take place in all jurisdictions from January 2011. It is now August 2011 and there are still many concerns and issues with the national curriculum. In the current legislation, all non-government schools are required to implement the national curriculum by 31 January 2012. We are only months away from that date, so it is imperative that these changes proposed in the bill be made to the existing legislation to allow for more flexibility and more forward planning.

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

We all come to this place to make a difference, to leave a mark and hope that by being here we have made a contribution to a better future—a better future for our children, communities, constituents and this country. That is why I am speaking in support of Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011. This bill is part of the passion and purpose this government has to provide a better future for our nation through providing our children with quality education for the next century, an education that prepares children for a life where they have the skills to adapt to the jobs of tomorrow and the building blocks of lifelong learning.

Consider, for example, the job of a mechanic. As one OECD official put it, 'In 1930 all the coded information for a General Motors car could be captured in 230 pages. Now a single car involves some 15,000 pages of coded knowledge which workers need to access, manage, integrate and evaluate.' As electric cars replace petrol ones and self-drive cars replace the ones we have today, the job of a mechanic is going to steadily change. That is why we need to provide learning opportunities and lifelong skills in an education system that gives all Australian children the same grounding to embark on a future that we can only imagine from its edges. The Australian curriculum is a big step towards such an educational system. (Quorum formed)

When I visit schools in my electorate of Fraser I am always inspired by the passion the children have for the future and by their enthusiasm, energy, imagination and ideas. I would like to pay tribute to the dedication and passion of the teachers who nurture and support the aspirations and goals of the students. Our schools are the places that teach creativity, instil a love of learning and impart critical skills such as literacy and numeracy that form the foundations of our future productivity and prosperity.

Under the Australian national curriculum all Australian children will be studying the same curriculum in the four key subjects of English, mathematics, science and history—key areas that will provide children with the confidence and skills they need for a great education. Developments for a national curriculum in geography, languages and the arts are also underway. As part of the curriculum reforms parents and teachers will be able to go to the Australian curriculum website and view what teachers are expected to teach and the quality of learning expected of students in the four learning areas.

In the ACT the government and non-government schools already commenced the implementation of the curriculum this year. I am pleased to say that schools in my electorate are among the first in the country to start teaching the Australian curriculum. Most other states and territories are using this year to prepare and trial the curriculum before commencing its implementation next year. Teachers are using the time to familiarise themselves with the curriculum and to prepare their teaching programs. In Western Australia schools are trialling the curriculum with a view to commencing implementation once final adjustments are made. In both Queensland and Tasmania the schools in the government, independent and Catholic sectors will introduce the English mathematics and science curricula next year, with history to start in 2013. By amending the Schools Assistance Act 2008 the implementation of the national curriculum will be able to be undertaken by states and territories in a manner that enables government and non-government schools to coordinate this according to an agreed time frame.

Under the National Education Agreement the states and territories have agreed to use resources for the professional support of teachers linked to the curriculum. We are providing support through the national digital resource collection managed by Education Services Australia. Schools and teachers will have access to over 5,000 resources aligned with the Australian curriculum with more to follow. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership is to deliver professional development through its Leading Curriculum Change professional learning flagship program which aims to build the capacity of teachers to enhance implementation of the curriculum. The government also has a major schools reform agenda, a digital strategy for teachers and school leaders, an improving teacher quality national partnership, a national partnership agreement on literacy and numeracy and a major national partnership for school reform in up to 1,500 low-socioeconomic status schools across the country. The last of these is a reform that I am particularly familiar with having been seconded to the Australian Treasury in 2008-09 to work in part on this national partnership. I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated Treasury officials in the Social Policy Division. These and the Australian curricula form part of the record investment of $66 billion in education over four years, investment that every parent, every teacher and every member of the school community will have seen on the ground as they visited Australian schools.

We on this side of the House take education seriously. We know that a great education is critical to raising productivity and living standards and that by boosting the quality and quantity of education we can increase innovation in the economy, provide the skills and do the jobs of the future. We are committed to this reform agenda which is based on Labor values: fairness, quality, accountability and transparency. But we have to compare this to the actions of those opposite. They want to cut $3 billion from our education system and that still does not help them with their $70 billion budget black hole. They do not have an alternative plan for education and they want to cut trade training centres. They want to reduce funding for improving teacher quality. They want to scrap online tools for parents. They are against My School 2.0, which provides an unprecedented level of transparency and information to Australia's parents.

Without a vision for education, you do not have a vision for the nation's future. Standing in the way of the Digital Education Revolution denies thousands of children access to new technology, to the tools of the future. Without the Smarter Schools program disadvantaged students miss out on support to improve their attendance and boost their learning once they arrive at school. Without a Reward for School Improvement program we will not see schools in disadvantaged communities get the recognition and rewards from continuing to improve their school and their education.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. This bill concerns the national curriculum not coalition policies on a variety of other areas.

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

I call the honourable member for Fraser.

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

What about the online diagnostic tool for parents and teachers? Under the coalition the schools would not benefit from the additional information and resources parents and teachers are now able to access. It is clear the coalition do not and will not stick up for students or schools. They are bereft of ideas, of passion and seemingly bereft of the desire to provide the best possible start to life for all the young Australians through education.

It is exactly this kind of hard work of education reform that we on this side of the House got into politics to achieve. Education is the best antipoverty vaccine that we have and provides the foundations on which Australians can build the life of their choosing. Education means that a child from Ilfracombe can become the first female member of the Queensland bar and our first female Governor-General. The Schools Assistance Amendment Bill brings Catholic independent schools in line with government schools so that all schools will have the same curriculum and the same curriculum implementation timetable. It provides certainty to non-government schools and treats all schools the same. The proposed amendment allows for a more certain legal framework for the non-government sector to implement the Australian curriculum and allow future editions and revisions of the curriculum to be made more efficiently each time it is updated.

The government recognises and respects the role of the non-government schools as part of the great education system of partners in our children's and our nation's future. I have had the privilege of visiting many of these non-government schools and government schools in my own electorate and I have seen with my own eyes the education reforms that are happening there and the great contribution that the Gillard government's school agenda is making. The Australian curriculum will deliver a national standard to all Australian children in English, mathematics, science and history, and making sure that we successfully implement it is absolutely critical.

At the start of the speech I talked about the need for our education system to prepare children for a life where they have the skills to adapt to the jobs of tomorrow and where they have the building blocks of lifelong learning. The amendment to the Schools Assistance Act 2008 is an important step towards providing greater certainty and alignment for all schools in the implementation of a national curriculum in key learning areas. The quality of our education system is our future. Studies have shown that countries with higher maths and science scores grow faster, innovate more, and have stronger economies.

This government takes educational opportunity seriously and we take reform seriously. We want every young Australian to have the chance to fulfil their potential and to be able to meet the demands of a labour market that will change as much in the next 50 years as it has over the last 50 years. I commend the bill to the House.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011. This bill removes the requirement that the national curriculum for the non-government schools must be implemented by 2012. The practical effects of the bill will be, in essence, to do what the coalition has been asking of the government since last November, and that is, firstly, to delay the start of the implementation of the national curriculum on the basis that it is simply not ready and, secondly, to ensure that the non-government schools can also implement the national curriculum to the same timetable as the government schools.

We asked for a delay last November in a motion put to this parliament by Christopher Pyne, the shadow education spokesperson, and seconded by me. We then further moved an amendment to the schools assistance bill in March to ensure that non-government schools would be able to implement the national curriculum at the same time as government schools. We moved these motions and amendments not because we wanted to be obstructionist with regard to the government's policies and plans, but simply because the national curriculum was not ready. Every single stakeholder knew this. The school principals did, the education authorities did, the teachers did, and the parents did. We could see as plain as day that the national curriculum was not ready. But of course the government did not see this and not only voted against our motion last November, but then also against our amendments in March.

It is worth reflecting on some of the stakeholder comments back in 2010. If you look across the board, almost every single stakeholder has said that the national curriculum has serious flaws and that more time was needed for its implementation. For example, the Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals has described the national curriculum as being:

… not up to scratch, drowning in content, overlapping subjects such as science and geography and contains no agreement as to how it would be assessed.

The Australian Council of Deans of Science wrote to Minister Garrett asking him to delay the implementation of the science curriculum. The President of the Science Teachers Association, Anna Davis, said there needs to be another round of consultation which includes teachers, which was not included in the first round.

The Mathematical Association of New South Wales claimed the maths courses proposed for years 11 and 12 were too difficult for students with learning difficulties but too easy for those who were gifted students. The History Teachers Association has also written to the minister expressing concern about the national curriculum—and I could go on.

We then had the problem that the government was willing to defer the implementation for the government schools sector but not for the non-government schools sector. For many, many years under both the coalition and Labor governments we have had an implied principle that every school policy that is introduced would apply equally to the government schools and the non-government schools, be that testing, National Safe Schools Frameworks, the My School framework, school starting ages et cetera. The only area where there is not consistency between the non-government schools and the government schools is in the area of funding. So amendments earlier in the year were simply to defer the starting date for the non-government schools sector and to bring it into line with the government schools sector. But of course the Labor government voted against that one also.

So it comes as somewhat of a surprise, but also a welcome surprise, that this amendment is put to the parliament now.

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

They have seen the light!

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have seen the light, as the member for Longman just pointed out. This amendment does give the discretion to the government to defer the implementation of the national curriculum for as long as is required and to ensure that the implementation start date will be consistent between the non-government school sector and the government school sector. We hope on this side of the House that they will defer it until the national curriculum is ready. It is a fairly simple proposition. We just simply ask that they defer the start date until the national curriculum is ready.

The national curriculum is not ready now and it may still take some time before it is ready. We suggest that the government not rush this process, that it takes its time and gets it right, unlike many other things which it rushes and gets wrong. This is a very important measure which they are trying to introduce. It has great impact across 10,000 schools across the country so we simply suggest that the government spends the time, does the work properly, consults with the appropriate groups and gets the national curriculum right before they try to introduce it.

I must say, I have never been enamoured with the concept of a national curriculum. I have always believed that we should have national consistency in our curriculum but not necessarily that we have to have exactly the same curriculum across every single school in the country. However, if we are going to proceed down this path then we need to get it right. I still have some serious concerns with the current draft as it exists at the moment. For example, there is little by way of an overarching framework or a clear direction for the curriculum as it stands. The curriculum has a heavy—

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

Order! It being 1:45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and at that time the honourable member for Aston will have leave to continue his remarks.

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

Saturday, 20 August was the first National Bookshop Day conducted in Australia. I was very pleased to participate at Robinsons Bookshop in Victoria, the oldest continuing independent bookseller in Victoria. The booksellers and bookshop community have had to come together because, rather than having a Minister for Small Business, we seem to have a 'minister against small business'. Senator Sherry predicted the demise of bookshops. At a time when all in the retail sector are doing it tough, the last thing they needed was a knife in the back from the Gillard government minister.

So the bookshop community thought it would not just stand back and bemoan the underperformance of the small business minister; it would get out there on the front foot to share with people that independent bookshops and booksellers do more than simply sell books. They are a great place to foster a love of reading, ensuring books are embedded in our culture. This could not be more true than for Robinsons Bookshop in Frankston in the community of Dunkley that I represent. It is right in the heart of Frankston. It is a fantastic place with a coffee shop at the back. There are dedicated staff sharing, as they did with me, their knowledge and expertise on good book purchases for loved ones, families and personal consumption. I was happy to buy another in the series of Slinky Malinki, a great children's book series.

As in so many policy areas, this government is not about abating emissions or sequestering carbon; it is about abating optimism and sequestering confidence. We need a change of government to support the retailers. (Time expired)

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

I rise to congratulate a special lady in my electorate of Bass, Jill Bell. Jill is a Launceston swim instructor who has won a national AUSTSWIM award. It is appropriate that Laurie Lawrence was in parliament today for a Do the Five promotion. Jill won the 2011 national AUSTSWIM Teacher of Infants and Preschool Aquatics award and is the first Tasmanian in six years to win a national AUSTSWIM award. Jill has over 30 years experience and was acknowledged in July for her commitment to and passion for teaching young children water safety and swimming. It was Jill who introduced infant aquatics programs to the Launceston Swim School. She is clearly passionate about teaching children to swim.

AUSTSWIM described the award as being the premier award presented to individuals that achieve the highest standard of aquatics education. With so many young people enjoying water related activities during the summer, water safety and learning to swim are becoming more important than ever. Every child should know how to swim and be competent in water safety. Knowing that we have such a skilled teacher is pleasing. Every child should be a swimmer and every swimmer has the potential to be a lifesaver. Again, I congratulate Jill for her hard work over the years. I wish her all the best as she continues her teaching career. Thank you, Jill.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last month I sent a brochure and a survey to residents of Boronia in my electorate. I received hundreds of responses to the survey. The biggest local issue that was raised concerned high-rise developments in the area of Boronia. Under the present guidelines, buildings of up to 11 metres could be built in the streets immediately surrounding shopping precincts. I have put to the Knox council that they should revert to the Boronia structure plan which was agreed in 2006. That was agreed after extensive consultation with local residents, and there was broad community support for the Boronia structure plan. The plan allowed for modest developments, not 11-metre-high buildings.

There are already a large number of houses planned for the Knox area: in the Mirvac estate in the area around Knox city, in the new areas of Rowville and in medium-density housing which is underway across Knox. We do not need high-rise developments in the Boronia area, which is almost 30 kilometres from the city centre. I have also suggested that we need to ensure that our infrastructure is in place before we considerably grow our population; otherwise we will end up having a larger economy but potentially a lower quality of life. (Time expired)

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

Today I would like to recognise the valuable contribution made by Dr Peter Sharp to improving health services for the Indigenous community in the ACT and region. Peter is the medical director of the Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service, which was established in 1988 to provide a culturally safe and holistic health service for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of the ACT and the region. He is also Winnunga's longest serving staff member.

Peter started work at Winnunga in 1989 while working at Campbelltown Hospital. He would travel down every weekend to run the clinic and to do home visits. He also volunteered as team doctor for local junior rugby league team the Bogong Warriors. In March 2000 Dr Sharp, together with Winnunga CEO Julie Tongs, established a medical outreach program to the Belconnen Remand Centre and, in July that year, Goulburn prison. Peter now runs clinics at the Alexander Maconochie Centre, Bimberi Youth Justice Centre, Cooma and Goulburn prisons and Narrabundah Primary School. Peter also works tirelessly helping people affected by alcohol and substance abuse and trains other medical professionals in Indigenous health. Through his work with the Indigenous community, he has a great understanding of the complex health, social, emotional and cultural needs of his patients. He is well regarded.

I pay this tribute today because Dr Peter Sharp is battling cancer at the moment. He is now working part time at Winnunga from a wheelchair, but he is still strongly committed to providing quality health services to the community there. (Time expired)

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was informed last week by the secretary of the Prahran RSL that their oldest member and a constituent of mine in Higgins, Robert Callaghan, had died at the age of 100 years. Private Robert Callaghan served in the Australian Army from 11 May 1943 to 1 July 1946. He served a total of 1,148 days in the 3/14 Australian Field Ambulance. Mr Callaghan really should be congratulated for the service that he gave to our country. Unfortunately, though, he experienced some great difficulty in the last six months of his life.

Earlier this year Mr Callaghan was the victim of crime of the lowest calibre. He fell outside his apartment and a passer-by noticed him, unlocked his premises and took the opportunity to rob him.

I would like to acknowledge and commend the efforts of those who came to his aid, in particular the people who helped him serve out the final years of his life in great dignity. Those people include Mr Wouter Spijker of the Sacred Heart Mission in Prahran; Mr Rod Coote, the President of the Prahran RSL; and Mr Noel Sanderson, the Secretary of the Prahran RSL.

I had the great honour of joining Mr Callaghan to celebrate his 100th birthday earlier this year. It was an occasion that was celebrated by so many.

I would like to take this opportunity in the parliament to thank him for his service to our country and to commend those community organisations that do great deeds in our community.

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

This morning BlueScope announced to the stock market that it had posted a $1 billion loss and that as a consequence it would make redundant about 1,000 workers from its operations in Victoria and in New South Wales, including 800 workers who mainly reside in my electorate of Throsby in the Illawarra. In its statement to the stock market, BlueScope cited high input costs, particularly coal and iron ore, the low prices internationally for steel and the very high Australian dollar as the principal reasons for its job losses. A careful reading of the statement shows that their domestic business remains viable but their international market is under incredibly difficult circumstances.

Members of the House would be aware that this is an incredibly difficult time for the workers who are affected, and it creates a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for the employees, contractors, their families and the entire region. I welcome the fact that the government has moved quickly to announce support in the form of a $140 million package. This includes a $30 million fund to assist in diversifying the economic base of the Illawarra, and $10 million which has been set aside for labour market adjustments.

No doubt the major driver is the high Australian dollar. We understand that this will correct in the near future but we must ensure that we have a manufacturing business in Australia when that re-correction occurs. (Time expired)

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

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells, shadow minister for ageing and mental health, for visiting my local community earlier this month. The senator and I went to local aged-care facilities, and we had a very honest, open and often robust discussion about the challenges facing aged care into our future. As policymakers in this place I think it is important that we rise to meet what will inevitably be a very significant challenge for our nation with the ageing of the population.

The senator and I then held yet another open forum with over 40 local service providers in the mental health area. Once again we had a very robust discussion about the challenges facing mental health service provision in my local community and across the nation. It was made evident that these challenges are roadblocks to all facets of our society, be they employment or social inclusion.

The senator and I engaged in the discussion about how we meet these challenges. It was made evident that locally, with nearly twice the average rate of suicide, we need 24-hour care, we need acute and subacute care and, in short, we need an Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre. This is something that was committed to by me and the coalition at the last federal election and something which we remain committed to. It is something which I am fighting for for my local community so that we can rise and meet the significant challenges as a society. (Time expired)

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

Today I want to recognise the achievements of Darcy Ward from Camira in my electorate of Oxley. Darcy is a young man who at the tender age of just 19 years is a two-time world under-21 speedway champion. Darcy competes professionally in Europe and is mainly based in Britain. As we know, speedway is very big in Britain and in Europe but it is much loved here in Australia as well. He started his career in Britain in 2008 and since 2009 he has been competing with the premier league club Kings Lynn. He has finished the 2009 season with the highest points average in the premier league.

In 2009 he won the league with the Kings Lynn club, and closer to home he also won the Queensland under-21 championship, the Australian under-21 championship and in October 2009 he won the world under-21 championship in Croatia as well. This is an outstanding achievement, a great track record and demonstrates once again the great talent that we have in this country.

In 2010 Darcy made the transition to the elite league in Britain. He helped his new team reach the end of the season play-offs where, unfortunately, they just missed out on the title. In 2010 Darcy won the New South Wales under-21 championship as well as the Australian under-21 championship. Remarkably, he also went on to defend his title and to win the world under-21 championships again. He is only the second ever rider in history to do that and retain his title. In January of this year he also won the Australian under-21 title for a third time. Darcy is a household name in the world of speedway, and he should also be one in Australia.

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

The Prime Minister promised to wear out her shoe leather explaining the carbon tax that she said she would never introduce. But it is a big country, and I understand that it is pretty hard to get around it all, and as I am a generous man I thought I would save her some time. I invited the people of the Latrobe Valley to send the Prime Minister a message. I invited Latrobe Valley residents to tell Julia Gillard what they thought about the carbon tax.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Those opposite who are interjecting now might be interested to hear what the Australian people are saying—what the hardworking mums and dads of the Latrobe Valley are saying—as they are in here talking about the big polluters. Let us hear what the mums and dads of the Latrobe Valley are saying about their carbon tax. From Ken in Traralgon: 'You pinched the last election with your lie. Prove how popular you are: call an election.' Then we have Brian from Willung: 'An absolute disaster for Latrobe Valley for families and workers alike.' And, finally, here is Natasha from Traralgon: 'It means that my husband may lose his job at the Hazelwood Power Station. We cannot provide to our children the simple things in life like a good education due to rising living expenses. Not good enough, Julia.'

Government members interjecting—

It is interesting that the others opposite are starting to interject. Why does one of you not have the spine to stand up for workers anymore? Why won't one of you stand up and have the spine for the workers? People in my community do not want your household assistance package and they do not want your jobs transition plan; they want the decency of keeping their jobs. You would have to be an absolute mug to support the introduction of a new tax which will make Australian companies less competitive during a time of great global economic uncertainty. (Time expired)

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

On 9 July South Sudan became an independent country under the name of Republic of South Sudan. On 14 July South Sudan became the 193rd member state of the United Nations, and on 28 July it joined the African Union as the 54th member state. I congratulate my local South Sudanese community. I experienced the joy with them on the independence day celebrations and I congratulate our newest country, the Republic of South Sudan.

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

Order! 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 Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time this week. The Minister for Trade will continue to answer questions on his behalf.

on indulgence—Last Thursday night three of the ABC's finest staff members died in a helicopter crash. I think members of the House would have received that news on Friday morning with a great sense of despair. The three were Gary Ticehurst, John Bean and Paul Lockyer. It was for the ABC one of its darkest days. All three died doing what they did so well, going out and getting the story. Between them these three men shared a century of experience.

Gary Ticehurst was one of the nation's finest helicopter pilots with 38 years in his flying career, including 25 years as the ABC's chief helicopter pilot, and was famous for his coverage of 27 Sydney to Hobart yacht races. He displayed remarkable courage helping to rescue 20 crew members in that disastrous Sydney to Hobart yacht race in 1998, and many of us would remember that well.

John Bean was an exceptional, multi-award-winning cameraman. Reporters always wanted to work with him. Queensland based, he knew every corner of that state and I had the opportunity with Premier Bligh on Friday to reflect on some of the things she had seen him doing in Queensland. He worked on some of the ABC's most popular programs including the 7.30 Report, Catalyst, The New Inventors and Gardening Australia. Camera work is at the very heart of television, and images that tell the story often better than the words were his passion.

Paul Lockyer was one of the ABC's longest serving reporters—42 years. He spent years as a foreign correspondent in the killing fields of Cambodia, in the US under Reagan and in Manila under Marcos. He was responsible for Logie award-winning coverage of the Sydney Olympics but was best known in recent years for his sympathetic portrait of inland Australia, especially the Murray-Darling Basin and Lake Eyre, and coverage of the floods in Queensland this year. He was the first into Grantham the morning after the floods, bringing those reports which enabled the nation to understand what had happened there.

Last week I spoke of journalism and media as an honourable profession. The lives of these three gifted men prove that proposition beyond a shadow of doubt. Men and women of the media so often risk their lives to bring the story home in war and conflict, travelling to inhospitable places and making personal sacrifices which include danger, discomfort and austerity. Gary, John and Paul took these risks and told their stories. They were true professionals and true gentleman of the Australian media. Leigh Sales said that you could not name three people in the ABC news more loved and admired. ABC managing director, Mark Scott, said that they were news gatherers at the peak of their craft. Our deepest condolences go to their families, to the wider ABC family and to all of their colleagues and friends. These three remarkable men will be greatly missed and our media landscape will not be the same without them.

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

I rise to support the fine words of the Prime Minister in commemoration of this remarkable trio. It is noteworthy that the three of them died in a remote corner of South Australia because what they had been trying to do was to bring the spirit of the bush into the hearts of our cities, a very worthy project. They will live forever in the hearts of their friends and families. On behalf of the coalition I offer our deepest condolences to all who knew them.

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

I also join in paying tribute to this team of three of the ABC's finest people who have made a remarkable contribution to news over the years in different ways. Gary Ticehurst was a pioneer in helicopter news coverage and he was also widely respected within the aviation community. John Bean was an outstanding cameraman and was able to convey to people some of the real depth of the issues through the pictures he took. He spent some time with me on what is known as the wombat trail during the last federal election campaign with the Leader of the Third Party and I can attest to the fact that he is also good company to be with.

I would particularly like to recognise Paul Lockyer. I thought Paul had done all of the great things that journalists do, the big stories: big events such as the Olympic games, Foreign Correspondent and the big programs but, particularly in his latter years, he spent a lot of time telling the regional stories and spending time in regional communities. He was able to bridge the gap between country and city with warmth and conviction in the way he was able to tell the stories. For instance, during the flooding in Queensland there were hundreds of journalists and hundreds of stories, but I think the ones that touched us most were Paul Lockyer's coverage of what happened in Grantham. It was not just the gravity of the event. The way in which that story grabbed all of our hearts and minds was due to the way in which he was able to bring some of the humanity of that catastrophic event into the living rooms of Australians. He certainly was a great journalist, but I want to particularly acknowledge today the contribution that he made to regional Australia as someone who was prepared to get out into the country areas and tell the stories in a way that we all understood. His coverage of the drought also, I think, helped people very much to understand the personal tragedies associated with events like this. This team died doing something they loved in the remotest part of Australia, and perhaps the place where they would most have wanted to be. We certainly acknowledge their contribution to journalism, but today, especially, I also want to acknowledge their contribution to regional Australia.

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

To enable members at this stage to associate themselves with the remarks of the three leaders, and as a mark of respect, I invite members to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the House.

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

by leave—I move:

That further statements on indulgence on the tragic ABC helicopter crash which resulted in the deaths of Gary Ticehirst, John Bean and Paul Lockyer be referred to Main Committee.

Question agreed to.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind her of the job losses of iconic Australian businesses, OneSteel, Qantas and now BlueScope. Why is she making a bad situation worse by introducing a carbon tax at the worst possible time? Isn't the best rescue package for the whole economy just to dump this toxic tax?

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

On the Leader of the Opposition's question, like so many questions before, first and foremost, I think we should be very, very clear that the announcement by BlueScope today, which would be received as very, very difficult news for the workforce of BlueScope, with 1,000 jobs to go, 800 in the Illawarra and 200 in Hastings, that that very tough news for those families is not related to the government's policy of putting a price on carbon. I refer the House to the statement that BlueScope Steel made to the Australian Stock Exchange where it said:

The economic conditions for export steel-making from Australia appear unlikely to become favourable in the foreseeable future, and our continued exposure to this marker is clearly unsustainable. Our decision is a direct response to the economic factors affecting our business and is not related to the Federal Government's proposed carbon tax.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I asked why she is making a bad situation worse, and she should be directly—

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his place. I am now forced to invite the Leader of the Opposition to rise on his point of order and put it again. I could not hear because of the pre-emptive interruptions.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On direct relevance, I was simply pointing out that I asked the Prime Minister why she is making a bad situation worse.

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

Mr Speaker, on the point of order, respectfully and in accordance with the standing orders, I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition has now had his supplementary question.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! There is no point of order. Again, not wishing to mark people's homework, in the repeated fashion the Leader of the Opposition actually put to me a point of order in proper order, even though I cannot agree with him because he did not give his preamble which widens the scope for the answer. I think that if everybody just listened to one another, it would assist. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I go to some trouble to make that point about BlueScope Steel because, as I understand it, some of these things are already being misrepresented and I believe that it is quite wrong to misrepresent to around 1,000 working people and their families the reason that their jobs are under threat. I want to be absolutely clear before this parliament, and I think that every member of this parliament has got an obligation to be absolutely clear with individuals in the community, that this is not a decision related to the government's plans to put a price on carbon.

On the government's plan to put a price on carbon, I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that both the government and the opposition are committed to a minus-five per cent reduction in carbon pollution by 2020. The question therefore presents that if you are going to reduce carbon pollution by five per cent by 2020, do you start soon and do it in the easiest possible way or do you start late with dramatic dislocation to the economy? Well, I am for starting soon. The Leader of the Opposition is for starting late, with dramatic dislocation. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition's plan would be good for Australian industries and businesses because of that dramatic dislocation.

Number 2, the question that presents is: do you do it in the most efficient and cheapest possible way, or do you do it in the most costly and cumbersome way? I am for doing it in the cheapest possible way. The Leader of the Opposition is for doing it in the most costly and cumbersome way. And of course in assessing that putting a price on carbon is the cheapest possible way to do it, we have relied on the advice of economists. I know that that is discounted by members opposite, but I would refer them, for example, if they are looking for sources of economic advice, to the words of the IMF where they have said:

We support the proposed introduction of a carbon price as part of a transition to a permits trading system to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

They went on to say in a facts sheet:

Broad based taxes on greenhouse gas emissions are the most natural policy instrument as they exploit all possible behavioural responses for reducing emissions throughout the economy …

The shared minus five per cent target: we want to do it in the most efficient way. We want to do it in the way that is therefore best for Australian industries, businesses and employment. It is the Leader of the Opposition that is committed to a scheme of dislocation and job losses.

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

Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister agree with the BlueScope chairman's February statement that carbon tax compensation is like 'putting a bandaid on a bullet wound'?

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

I think perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should use contemporaneous statements, particularly the ones made by BlueScope and its CEO at the time that the carbon pricing package was announced.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

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

Order! The Prime Minister has the call, the member for Sturt doesn't!

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

I am talking about his words at the time the carbon pricing package was announced. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should look at that those words and that might cause him to reflect on the course that he is committed to of tying Australian industry and businesses up in red tape, of dramatic industrial dislocation, of job losses and, of course, of a $1,300 extra tax on families.

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

Mr Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister update the House regarding recent events in Libya?

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

I thank the member for Werriwa for his question. Today we are seeing more extraordinary events in Libya. We have lived through a great number in the Arab spring but there are more extraordinary events on our TV screens as the story of the Arab spring continues to unfold.

Today we have seen rebel forces reach Tripoli. They have reached Green Square. They are in the heart of the capital. There appears to be little resistance in the square itself. We have seen scenes of celebration. But we do not know the full story of what has unfolded in Tripoli. We do not know with certainty where Gaddafi is. We do not know what resistance remains. There may be more fighting ahead. But it does appear that another undemocratic regime is falling.

Colonel Gaddafi, with his family, has ruled Libya with an iron grip since 1969. As has been the subject of discussion in this parliament, he brutally took up arms against his own people earlier this year. He plunged his country into what has been a bloody civil war. Some of the things that we have seen in that civil war have rightly caused horror and outrage around the world.

Under a UN Security Council mandate, the international community acted to protect civilians from Gaddafi. His regime appears to be ending. Today is a day of relief and celebration in Libya. What that means though is tomorrow a lot of hard work begins. Australia wants for Libya a peaceful, democratic and prosperous future. We know it is in reach but it is not certain. Australia has recognised the National Transitional Council as the legitimate governing authority in Libya. We were one of the first countries to call for the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone. We have been at the forefront of international humanitarian assistance and in the forefront of diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis.

Along with other members of the international community, we stand ready to support the work that will now be necessary in Libya: the work that will be necessary to end all violence; the work that will be necessary to bring Libya to a state of order; the work that will be necessary to develop a tolerant, inclusive, democratic society; and the work that will be necessary to breathe life back into Libya's battered economy. The work will be difficult and the path ahead is uncertain, but I am sure each of us has been very joyful to see the scenes of celebration today.

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

Mr Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer of Westpac's announcement that it will have to lay off staff, OneSteel's announcement that 400 jobs are going to go, Qantas's announcement that 1,000 jobs are going to go, BlueScope Steel's announcement that 1,000 jobs are going to go and that 400 contractors will lose their work too. I ask the Treasurer: on top of volatility in the United States and Europe, is now really the time to be introducing an economy wide job-destroying carbon tax that will undermine confidence and make our exports even more expensive?

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

I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. Jobs have been the No. 1 priority of this government from day one. When it comes to carbon pricing, we are concerned about the jobs of the future in a first-class economy driven by renewable energy.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Treasurer has the call.

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

There are a lot of things that offend me about the opposition but one of the things that really offends me is how excited they get at job losses because they think there is some political credit in them for them. We on this side of the House understand the challenges, short-term and long-term, of creating a strong economy. We understand the need to maximise the opportunities that come from the mining boom. We understand the need for jobs of the future, particularly in renewable energy. Those opposite have no credit when it comes to jobs.

We on this side of the House moved to protect our economy at the height of the global financial crisis and the global recession. What did those opposite do? They voted against jobs in this House. When it comes to a record on jobs, we on this side of the House support jobs and we support Australian families—the 750,000 jobs that have been created while this government has been in power, the nearly 200,000 jobs that have been created. Today is a really tough day down in the Illawarra and a really tough day down in Western Port. We on this side of the House understand the gravity and the importance of this situation. We understand why it is important to put in place a range of economic policies which support our economy and future job growth. That lay at the very centre of the budget we brought down in May. We said then that we had a patchwork economy which would be impacted on by a variety of factors, and one of those is the Australian dollar. That has made life very difficult indeed for Australia's trade exposed industries. We understand that and that is why we have moved to put in place a range of policies to broaden and strengthen our economy to ensure everybody in our country, not just those in the fast lane, gets the benefit of a strong economy. That is why we on this side of the House have put in place a resource rent tax so we can give tax cuts to small business and corporate Australia more generally. That measure is opposed by those on the opposite side of the House.

We understand the importance of jobs. We understand the importance of spreading the benefits of the mining boom, we understand the importance of investing in skills and infrastructure and we understand the importance of bringing our budgets back to surplus in a responsible way, not $70 billion worth of mindless cuts from those opposite to make up for all of the thought bubbles of the Leader of the Opposition because he cannot run a fiscal policy. We on this side of the House understand the importance of fiscal policy. We understand the importance of investing in infrastructure. We understand the advantage of investing in skills. We understand productivity through investment in the NBN. But those on that side of the House just want to play cheap politics with the lives of people. We understand that we have to respond and assist those workers. We understand we need to be with those workers who are not in the fast lane of the mining boom. To do that, you have to have responsible economic policies. You cannot have a reckless Leader of the Opposition going around with thought bubbles. (Time expired)

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

I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Dr Uzi Landau, the Minister of National Infrastructures of Israel. On behalf of members, I extend to him a warm welcome.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

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

My question is to be Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's response to BlueScope Steel's announcement concerning its facilities in Port Kembla and the Mornington peninsular? What is the future for steel in Australia?

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

I thank the member for Throsby for his question. I know that he and the member for Cunningham will be working with their local community as it deals with the blow that they have had today. This is very difficult news for the people of the Illawarra. It is also very difficult news for people in Hastings. We understand the patchwork of pressures that are on our economy and we have been discussing with the Australian community for a considerable period of time now the fact that our nation is in the grips of an economic transition.

We are seeing a global transition of economic weight from west to east. That is good for Australia, because it means that we are here in the part of the world that is growing and will continue to grow strongly and where the history of this century will be written. We understand too that our economy is going through a transition which comes from record terms of trade and strong demand for our resources. That means that our Australian dollar has been and will continue to be high. That puts pressure on export oriented industries like manufacturing, like tourism and like international education. We also understand that we need to see our economy transition to a clean energy future, and the most efficient way of doing that is to put a price on carbon.

Understanding those patchwork pressures on our economy, we have seen today's announcement from BlueScope. We understand that this requires the government to respond in a series of ways. We are responding directly and nationally with BlueScope through our Steel Transformation Plan. We intend to respond to the needs of the regions involved with a plan to directly invest in economic diversification and jobs—$30 million will be available, $20 million from the federal government, $5 million from the government of New South Wales and $5 million from BlueScope itself. We are also making available $10 million in direct services and support for working people. We will also be investing in jobs in Hastings. We want to make sure that the working people who are caught up in this decision get their full entitlements, and we welcome the fact that BlueScope has said they will be paid their full entitlements. They will get the assistance that they need in skilling, training and support to get a new job. The regions affected will also get support for economic diversification.

I believe that Australia will continue to be a nation that manufactures products that the world will want to buy. As a government, we have been strongly engaged in manufacturing. Whether through the new car plan, through our powering ideas agenda or through the work we have done on procurement and supplier advocates, we have been strongly engaged in manufacturing. I believe that we will continue to be a nation that makes things and has the benefit of high value added jobs and high wage jobs. Of course, that will mean that we will need to work with the manufacturing industry and those parts of the country that are particularly reliant on manufacturing. We will be working directly with the members for Throsby and Cunningham as we work our way through these job losses at BlueScope and the consequences for the individuals and for the community.

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

I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon youth participants of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians forum. In issuing them a warm welcome from members, I remind them that question time is only one aspect of parliamentary life.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind her that in the last three years 105,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost, we face the worst manufacturing employment figures since records were first kept in the 1960s and manufacturing activity has contracted for more than two years under this government. Given plummeting confidence in manufacturing in Australia, is now really the time to be introducing an economy-wide, job-destroying, confidence-crushing carbon tax?

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

I certainly believe now is the time to be working with manufacturing to secure its future. I certainly believe that means that the government does need to continue to roll out its programs and plans like the new car plan and I certainly believe that that requires us to work with manufacturing as we transition to a clean energy economy. In the carbon pricing package that we have announced there are allocations of around a billion dollars to work with manufacturing because we want to see them make that transition to a clean energy future.

Now is not the time to be cutting back the programs that support manufacturing, as the Leader of the Opposition has committed to do. Now is certainly not the time to be doing that. Now is not the time to go about cutting carbon pollution in the most costly, least efficient way possible. The Leader of the Opposition's plans for a $1,300 per family slug and no industry assistance as industries transition would be dreadful for manufacturing. Of course, if he were ever elected as Prime Minister, before he got there he would be taking a direct slug of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars out of the support that we provide to manufacturing. That is the plan in writing and circulated in the community of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister. It is a dreadful thing to do to manufacturing, given the pressures on it at the present time.

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

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. As the minister responsible on behalf of the Commonwealth and following ongoing negotiations with the state of New South Wales, can you confirm that election promises from both levels of government and both political persuasions will be upheld—that is, the joint promise of completion of dual carriageway of the Pacific Highway by 2016, just five years away?

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

I thank the member for Lyne for his question and for his commitment to representing constituents on the Pacific Highway up the New South Wales coast. He would be aware that we have committed some $4.1 billion to the Pacific Highway, more than any government has ever committed to any road in Australia's history over such a period of time.

The fact is that work is proceeding apace. The Ballina bypass will be open early. It will be open by Christmas, six months ahead of schedule and on budget. Work has also commenced on the longest bridge ever constructed in Australia, which is a part of the Kempsey bypass. The builders for the Devils Pulpit upgrade have been selected and work will commence by the end of the year. The building contract for Tintenbar to Ewingsdale in the electorate of Page was also awarded in the last fortnight. Work is forging ahead on the Bulahdelah bypass, the Banora Point upgrade and the Sapphire to Woolgoolga duplication. All up, today there are more than a thousand Australians at work upgrading the Pacific Highway. Our last budget saw an additional billion dollars injected into the Pacific Highway so we could meet that objective. I was there with the member for Lyne and the member for Page with the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, following our commitment announcement in May, and I was encouraged by the very direct commitment that the Deputy Premier gave on behalf of the New South Wales government to meet our shared objective on the full duplication of the highway. Just last month he said the date 'remained plausible as long as both governments commit to it'.

There is no doubt this is a big challenge. All of the planning work had not been completed, which is why we needed to put that extra funding into the budget. I look forward to the New South Wales government on 6 September stumping up its share of the money in the $750 million that it has committed. New South Wales Minister for Roads Duncan Gay has 'staked his reputation on securing a major funding boost for the Pacific Highway in this year's state budget'. He said:

My first target and task is to fulfil that commitment in this year's budget … unless we can keep with them—

the federal government—

we are falling out of the game.

This is a vital upgrade. That is why we have contributed $4.1 billion, which stands in stark contrast to the $1.3 billion committed over 12 long years by the former government. We have committed more than triple the money in half the time because we are absolutely committed to delivering on this project. I look forward to working with the New South Wales government to meet our shared objective.

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

I am reliably informed that we have in the galleries today delegates to the Australian Union of Jewish Students' political training seminar. Again, I advise them that this is question time and is only part of the gig. I welcome you on behalf of the members.

Honourable members: Hear, Hear!

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

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the important measures that have been announced to support steel manufacturing in Australia?

Honourable members interjecting —

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

Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The question has been asked. The Treasurer has the call. He will be heard in silence.

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

I thank the member for Cunningham for that very important question, and I know she will be working very hard with locals who have been affected by this decision which has been announced today, because this House does understand, I believe, just how significant an announcement this is and what a blow it is to affected workers, their families and their communities. There is no question that this government is committed to a very strong manufacturing sector for our country, and a critical part of a strong manufacturing sector is, of course, a strong steel industry. The steel industry faces a number of challenges: rising input prices, excess global supply, weak domestic demand and, of course, a higher dollar. A higher dollar certainly delivers cheaper prices to many consumers, but it also means that more of our manufacturers are under pressure. Sadly, we are seeing the consequences of that today.

So the thoughts of everybody, at least on this side of the House, are with all of those workers that are affected today. That is why we will contribute $20 million to a new investment fund to support growth and new jobs in the region. BlueScope and the New South Wales government are also providing $5 million each, totalling $30 million, and we are providing a further $10 million to provide redundant workers with immediate access to intensive support, training and relocation services.

The government will also allow BlueScope to draw down up to $100 million in advance payments from the $300 million Steel Transformation Plan. This just underscores how important this plan is, and for the life of me I simply cannot understand why those opposite are opposing the Steel Transformation Plan. It is just as irresponsible as their plan to rip out $500 million in support for the automobile industry. They simply have no sense of the challenges facing manufacturing industry in this country.

BlueScope has provided a number of important assurances. The Port Kembla blast furnace and the metal-coating line at Western Port will be able to be reactivated if conditions improve—that is the commitment that has been given—and redundant workers will be paid their full legal entitlements. BlueScope will continue as a significant employer in the region over the life of the Steel Transformation Plan and, importantly, remains committed to steel production in Australia.

So on this side of the House we understand that, if we want to continue to have a strong manufacturing industry into the future, we do need a long-term reform plan. That is why the government is cutting company tax to 29 per cent, with a head start for small business, and using the revenue from the MRRT—once again, that very significant reform is opposed by those on the other side of the House. It is why we are putting in place major tax concessions for small business—the $6,500 instant asset write-off. Nothing could be more important to the cash flow of a small business than a $6,500 instant asset write-off, which is opposed by those of the other side of the House, for 2.7 million small businesses in our country, many of which are not in the fast lane of the mining boom. It is also why we are committed to a $3 billion skills and training package. What we are on about is putting in place the long-term reforms to strengthen and broaden our economy and to make sure the opportunities of the mining boom are spread right around our economy. We have a plan for the future; sadly, those opposite do not. They have only a plan for picking fault, scoring points and talking down our economy. That is the only plan they have. (Time expired)

Mr Buchholz interjecting—

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

The member for Wright! Order! It is a long way up there—nearly in the Senate—but I still heard that. It is disturbing, because the member for Sturt is seeking the call.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the new allegations about the misuse of union funds contained in the press on Friday and today, will she require the member for Dobell to make a personal explanation to the House to substantiate his claims that all these matters have been misrepresented? Does the Prime Minister still have full confidence in the member for Dobell? While I am on the subject, will any of the retrenched workers at BlueScope Steel receive a $90,000 gift from the New South Wales ALP?

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

Order! Even by my generosity, the last part of the question is out of order and is ruled out of order, but up until then the Prime Minister has the call.

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

Questions of personal explanations are for the individual parliamentarians involved. No. 2: yes, I do have full confidence in the member for Dobell. No. 3: the situation continues to be as it has been for some time. Fair Work Australia has an investigation in train, and we should await the outcomes of that investigation. I also think the standards that are asked to be applied to one side of the parliament should be applied to both sides of the parliament. Whilst I am on my feet, I say to the opposition that I cannot believe that they would seek to draw into their grubby politics the question of 1,000 workers losing their jobs.

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

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister inform the House of the reforms that the government is undertaking in the nation's transport system? What are the risks to reform, and how is the government addressing them?

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

What I have here is the red tape that existed in the heavy vehicle industry for truckies under the previous government.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The minister will resume his seat until the House comes to order. A question has been asked. The minister has the call to respond to the question.

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

Last Friday COAG met here in Canberra, and the Prime Minister got agreement from each of the premiers and territory leaders for national transport regulators. National transport regulators are absolutely vital in cutting this red tape that holds back the Australian economy and that causes safety issues because of the varying regulations that are there in the economy. What I have here are real books—these are real books that exist in the cabs of D&S Haulage Pty Ltd. This is a company based in Tumby Bay in South Australia. The President, Mr David Smith, who I have met with a number of times, is the immediate past president of the Australian Livestock Transporters Association. These four folders are the actual paperwork, with the different state and territory regulations and approvals, that is in the cab of every one of the 16 trucks that he owns.

We will, as a result of last Friday's efforts—with a $30 billion benefit to the national economy over 20 years—get rid of all of it, as a result of the reform. This is real, practical change as a result of this government's commitment to microeconomic reform and improving productivity. No more will they have to deal with different weight regulations. No more will they have to deal with the current situation whereby a B-double in Queensland can have 66 cattle on it, when they get to the New South Wales border they are only allowed 60 cattle. So what do they do? Offload the six cattle at the border; just like they have different weight provisions; just like they have different fatigue laws. These are the real issues that this government is dealing with, which is why the Australian trucking industry, the Livestock Transporters Association and the Australian Logistics Council have all been working with this government to achieve this real change.

Meanwhile, those opposite have been working with a different organisation, of Mick Pattel, who organised, of course, the convoy of no consequence outside—

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

Order! The galleries will come to order!

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

where a couple of hundred people gathered, with no support from the mainstream organisations—

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

The galleries will come to order!

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

the people who believe in one world government, the people who believe in a conspiracy, along with the Leader of the Opposition.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

The minister will resume his place. Order! The House will come to order! I hope that members in the chamber and those in the galleries have got it out of their system. They will now all sit here quietly. The minister has 28 seconds.

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

The Trots have bigger demos outside my electorate office once a week. The fact of the matter is this: we are getting on with working with the mainstream organisations, including the Australian Trucking Association, for real reform, real change, making a real difference to people's lives and making a real difference to the economy.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the draft Clean Energy Bill, which will require landfill managers to estimate the emissions that the rubbish they receive will emit for 30 years and then estimate the cost of those emissions for 30 years so that they can determine the price they should charge householders when next they take a load of rubbish to the tip. Can the Prime Minister explain how this is possible?

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

To the Leader of the National Party, I would refer him to a number of state based schemes which apply methodologies already. So this is not something newly invented; this is something that has happened under various other schemes. Indeed, when I have been to talk to people in the landfill industry, one of the questions they raise with me is the question of transition from some of the state based schemes that they are involved in.

Can I say to the Leader of the National Party, who asked the question too, this is really taking us back, so it is kind of groundhog day again, to the Leader of the Opposition's contention that apparently you cannot calculate—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. If these schemes are as simple as the Prime Minister suggests, then she should answer the question and explain them to us.

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

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

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

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition abuse is not a substitute for reason and he may want to go to some of the landfill sites where, for example, today they are collecting these emissions and today they are using those emissions to generate electricity for nearby households. In answer to the Leader of the National Party's question, I say that this is taking us back again to the Leader of the Opposition's proposition that apparently you cannot measure or track carbon pollution. If he really believes that, how can he support a minus five per cent target? How can he? This is him doing or saying anything. In front of people he believes are supporters of climate change denial he will get the kind of questions we have just had asked today. In front of audiences like those when he is blogging on Mamamia he will say he is in support of a minus five per cent target. But if the Leader of the Opposition genuinely believes that it is impossible to track carbon pollution he should get to the dispatch box and say he does not support a minus five per cent target. If he does support a minus five per cent target he should stop these stupid questions being asked.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! Those on my left!

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister advise the House of the need for consistent trade and economic policies for Australia's international trade reputation. What are the issues with these and what is the government's response?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Capricornia for her question and for her continued strong advocacy for a region of Australia which is a great trading region whose prosperity depends very much on our capacity to maintain our export markets. Australia is a founding member of the global trading system, which has well established rules for the conduct of trade between member nations. Members are bound to comply with those rules. If they do not, other member countries can take retaliatory action against them. There are now 153 members of the World Trade Organization and more are trying to join up each year—that is, people want to be inside the World Trade Organization: inside those rules not outside. Yet the opposition leader would recklessly breach world trading rules and tear up trade agreements with our regional trading partners.

The shadow agriculture minister has introduced into parliament a bill on New Zealand apples that would violate the world trading rules and expose innocent farmers, including those in Capricornia, to retaliation. The coalition, in addition, is supporting a private member's bill on palm oil labelling, which risks provoking a trade war with Malaysia and Indonesia. Indeed, the opposition leader's antitrade agenda extends to his opposition to international trading in carbon permits.

The opposition leader has indicated his total opposition to trading in carbon permits. In doing so he shares the view of the one-world government conspiracy theorists that one tonne of carbon dioxide weighs—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

The members for Mayo and Wakefield will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a) to continue whatever conversation they were having when the minister had the call.

The members for Mayo and Wakefield then left the chamber.

Opposition members interjecting—

The interjectors should cease or talk to themselves sotto voce.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was making the point that the opposition leader's opposition to international trade extends to trading internationally in carbon permits, because in fact he believes, almost uniquely within this parliament—the member for Ryan probably agrees with him—that one tonne of carbon weighs, wait for it, nothing. This is the alternative Prime Minister of Australia. He says:

See, one of the things that people haven't quite twigged to is that carbon dioxide is invisible, it's weightless and it's odourless. How are we going to police these emissions…

It is weightless, yet he has promised to cut emissions of a gas, that he describes as weightless, by 140 million tonnes. A 140 million tonnes of weightless gas! He is going to be going pretty hard to do that, isn't he? He is going to cut emissions by 140 million tonnes of weightless gas! I do not always agree with the member for Wentworth but I agree with this statement of his. He said:

Carbon dioxide does obviously have a weight, and if you drop a large lump of dry ice on your foot, you'll find that out very quickly.

He is right. I think he would like to drop a large tonne of dry ice somewhere else—perhaps on the opposition leader's head.

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

Order! The minister will return to the question.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition leader's antitrade policy has been topped off with the opposition associating itself with the failed 'convoy of no confidence'—or was it the 'convoy of no consequence'?

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

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

The gallery will come to order!

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is anyone in whom we should lack confidence it is the opposition leader, a recklessly, relentlessly negative opposition leader who has dug for himself a $70 billion budget black hole, whose antitrade policies are putting at risk the livelihoods of ordinary working Australians. Undeterred by that relentlessness we will press ahead in implementing the necessary economic reforms to create more jobs and more security in this country.

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

I refer the Prime Minister to her claims that a carbon tax will act as a price signal by increasing the price of goods with a high proportion of carbon relative to goods with a lower proportion of carbon. Given the Prime Minister's threat that businesses face fines from the ACCC if they increase prices in response to higher cost inputs due to the carbon tax, and an increase of more than 0.7 per cent is gouging, can she explain how the price signal is going to work to achieve its supposed objective?

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

I thank the member for his question. I think the member had missed something absolutely pivotal and central to the scheme, which is that the entities paying the carbon price are the biggest polluters. So where the price signal is working, it is working as a price signal to the biggest polluters to innovate and to change the way that they conduct business.

This is exactly the same mechanism that the John Howard emissions trading scheme had at its heart, which was supported by the Leader of the Opposition and all of the members of the front bench who were ministers at the time. So at the moment these businesses that generate carbon pollution can put any amount of carbon pollution into the atmosphere for no cost. It does not matter if next year you put more up into the atmosphere than this year because it is at no cost. Why would you bother innovating to reduce the amount of carbon pollution? You do not face any costs. So the way in which carbon pricing will work—

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 of direct relevance: the Prime Minister was simply asked how a price signal is allowed to work if in fact a business is fined for increasing its prices.

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

The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I am responding directly to the question. I was asked about price signals and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and we are now seeing something that perhaps explains the grand confusion about these questions amongst some members of the opposition. The price is paid by the biggest polluters. Of course, as rational business people, they will seek to reduce that price and as they seek to reduce that price they will innovate and change the way that they do business and cut the amount of carbon pollution they generate. If you move amongst the Australian business community, and I know the member who asked the question does that, you will meet and be able to have discussions with business people who can talk to you about their innovation plans to reduce carbon pollution because they know that carbon pricing is coming and will start on 1 July next year.

What the member is also referring to is that there is some flowthrough from carbon pricing into the prices of things that people buy and that impact—the Leader of the Opposition in his scare campaign has said that impact is 'astronomical'—is 0.7 per cent of CPI and households are being assisted so that around four million households will come out better off and around six million households will be fully compensated.

As prices change in shops, yes, you will see an effect where goods that have less carbon pollution imbedded in them will be relatively cheaper, but we want those price signals to be true price signals not the results of price gouging, which is why, yes, we will have very strong fines and penalties for anybody who goes through and price gouges—that is, they adjust a price in a way that is disproportionate and not as a result of carbon pricing and then claim to the consumer that the price has only been changed because of carbon pricing.

To come back to the reasons behind this question, if the member has fundamentally misunderstood the scheme I would suggest to him that he look at it again. I know he is on the public record as saying:

When it comes to economic issues, my instinct is for open markets, free competition …

If that is right, he should be endorsing an emissions trading scheme and not the red tape regulation and burdens that the Leader of the Opposition would use to smash Australian businesses and to smash Australian jobs. The other thing I would suggest is that he endorse the government's plan to make sure there that there is no price gouging.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: I move that the Prime Minister's time be extended by no more than two minutes to give her the opportunity to answer the question on how a business can increase its prices at the same time as it is being fined for increasing its prices and therefore operate a price signal that she has tried to describe in the last four minutes but has failed to do so. I would give her the opportunity in the next two minutes to answer the question.

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

Order! The Prime Minister has five seconds, then an extension. At that stage it would be out of order because it is not allowed under standing order 1, which deals with times of speeches not questions.

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

I am happy to keep explaining. What I would like to see is some point where the Leader of the Opposition explains his plan, given no economist in the nation endorses it. (Time expired)

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

Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What are the benefits that are flowing to Australians because of the government's health reforms? How have these benefits been received 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 Corangamite for his question. I appreciate that members on this side of the House are interested in how our health reforms are delivering. Unfortunately, it is two years since I have had a question from the shadow minister on health reform and this is despite the historic delivery that our government has been able to achieve through health reform. Seventy thousand extra elective surgeries and not a question from those opposite. An increase of 50 per cent in funding for hospitals and not a question from those opposite. The MyHospitals website and not a question from those opposite. Local hospital networks up and running in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT and now a long-term reform package to increase funding transparency, efficiency and beds.

Take the member for Corangamite's electorate as an example. Our health reform means that there are going to be five palliative care beds at Colac hospital and eight new subacute beds at Geelong Hospital. Our GP superclinic on the Bellarine Peninsula has been running for nearly one year, providing services and training staff in partnership with Deakin University. Medicare Locals are up and running in 19 communities, including the electorates of Corangamite and Corio. There is a new breast-care nurse working in the region and we have put nurse practitioners and midwife consultations onto the MBS for the first time as well as specialist telehealth consultations which can be accessed by all of rural and regional Australia if their specialist is in the city and not accessible to them. Throughout all of these reforms that are being delivered, not just in the electorate of Corangamite but across the country, we have not had one question on health reform from the opposition. For two years, the shadow minister has not thought it worthwhile to ask us one question. You have to ask: why is this? Is it because the Leader of the Opposition is so embarrassed about his history in this area that they just do not want to ask a question? Is it because the member for Dickson actually has not thought of a question that can be asked? Or perhaps he has no policies at all that he can raise with us to ask whether we would pursue them as part of our health reforms.

Let me also update the House on how some of our other health reforms are delivering benefits to the community. Our preventative health initiatives have seen drops in consumption of both alcopops and cigarettes. One of our most recent investments is making a real difference—that is, our GP after-hours phone line. I can now announce to the House that, just since 1 July this year, 20,000 services have been provided by that GP after-hours service. We have increased the number of GPs that can be trained across the country. The Leader of the Opposition had a cap of 600 GPs to be trained every year; since his time as health minister, we have another 475 extra GPs in training and we are going to increase that to 1,200. Again, in the member for Corangamite's electorate, there are six new trainees as GPs. This story is told across the country, whether you go to the electorates of our regional Independents, the electorates of the backbench on the other side or the electorates that we represent. Health reform is delivering to the community, and those opposite have not asked a question about it.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why, after six weeks, the government has still failed to update the modelling of its carbon tax to reflect the actual starting price of $23 per tonne, a price 15 per cent higher than the $20 per tonne the model uses as its starting price?

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

Member for Dunkley, the modelling that has been produced is reliable and we stand by the Treasury modelling—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I know that there have been debates about modelling in recent days, and the—

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I know that there have been some issues about modelling raised in the Victorian newspapers which may have brought this question to the member's mind. What I can say to the member is that the modelling projects that the economy of Victoria will grow by 30 per cent to 2020 alone and by 162 per cent by 2050. These are not some of the results that people have recently seen in their newspapers.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As interesting as that is, the question was about the Prime Minister's modelling and why it is out by 15 per cent and when that is going to be updated.

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

The member for Dunkley will resume his seat. Prime Minister.

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

The Treasury modelling is accurate in showing the macroeconomic effects of carbon pricing, and I am referring him to those macroeconomic effects. I understand that there have been debates started about modelling, including modelling at a subregional level. Modelling at a subregional level is not reliable, and Treasury makes that point very strongly indeed. So I say to the member for Dunkley, who may, like other members of the Victorian community, have seen some misleading results in their newspapers, that we stand by, and people should rely on, the Treasury modelling.

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

My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts. Will the minister inform the House of government actions to ensure communities in regional Australia have access to the jobs and skills needed to secure their economic future? What are the obstacles to effective employment opportunities for regional communities; and how is the government responding?

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

I thank the member for Braddon for his question. He, like so many on this side of the House, understands the importance of encouraging the regions to be their best and the key role that governments play in enabling them to do that. It is essential that we secure the future of the regions because, if we get that done properly, that also secures the future of the nation. That is why we have taken the conscious step of reinvigorating the commitment we make to the regions in terms of not just the structures that we have encouraged but also the resources that enable them to undertake their activities.

The patchwork nature of this economy has again already been indicated in this chamber today. The regions are the patches, and the reality is that those regions know best how to make their particular patch work better. The interesting message that has come from all of the regions that I and others have had the opportunity to visit is that they get the fact that it is important to diversify their economic base, because it is the regions that have diversified their economic base that are doing best in terms of the 750,000 additional jobs that this government has created. What we are saying is that the lesson that other regions have to learn is to diversify their base. Why? Because we are projecting another 1.6 million jobs by the year 2020, and it is up to the regions to determine how much of that action they get—their slice of that increase in jobs. That is why it is important that government programs are there to assist. That is why there are a package of measures in the budget to help the economy in transition, to invest in skills, to invest in infrastructure and to invest in innovation. That is why, in the cleaner energy package, there are a range of measures that help economies make the transition to a cleaner energy future. I was also asked by the honourable member what obstacles may stand in the way of this. I will tell you what the obstacle would be: electing a government that is built around negativity and fear. The Leader of the Opposition, in talking about the Latrobe Valley, has been saying that they are going to be finished. We know that when the Kennett government were in and privatised the electricity industry, they did it without any industry support. Now, when we put forward our industry support measures, the Baillieu government wants to ignore that in its modelling. The Leader of the Opposition went to Whyalla and said that they would be wiped off the face of the earth because of the clean energy future, when we said that 1,300 more jobs would be created.

I have been to the Illawarra region—the area that is being talked of today—on a number of occasions with the members concerned. I know that the people of that region are committed to diversifying their economic base. As important as the steel sector is to them, they know that they cannot have an industry so narrowly based that their economy is focused around it alone, and they have welcomed the initiatives that this government has put in place to assist them make their economy in transition.

We will continue to support these regions in their work. They know where their future lies. They know their strengths. They have identified the hurdles and they want to work with a government that is going to help them overcome those barriers. We know that if the opposition were to get into government they would cut those programs with their $70 billion black hole. (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the case of my constituent, Mr Andrew Fulton, who is a small business owner—a builder of accessible homes for the disabled—who wrote to the Prime Minister about the higher input costs his small construction business faces under a carbon tax. Can the Prime Minister inform Mr Fulton and the thousands of Australians in the not-for-profit disability sector, and those who provide homes and arrangements for the disabled, how they will be compensated for the increased costs of construction as a result of her government's carbon tax?

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

I thank the member for his question. First and foremost, on construction costs: construction predominantly relies on things that have the maximum assistance rate—things like cement, for example. So I would refer the member to that. There have been some very exaggerated figures in the public domain about impacts on construction costs. Should the member have read any of those figures and be inclined to believe them, I would point the member to the fact that the inputs for construction tend to be things that have the maximum rates of assistance.

Secondly, people with disabilities will see an increase in their disability support pension. They are amongst the pensioner households who will, on average, come out $210 in front when you take into account all of the effects of carbon pricing. Thirdly, in terms of the way in which the government works, for example, with state governments on disability services, payments under those intergovernmental agreements are indexed. Normally an element of that indexation is what has happened in CPI movements. It is weighed in the index and—

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

And its three times the indexation they paid.

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

I am being reminded that the current indexation for the national disability agreement is three times the indexation paid under the former government. But my point in relation to carbon pricing is that, as the 0.7 per cent comes into the CPI, the CPI tends to be an input for indexation of government payments. So there is an increase there that flows as a result of the CPI arrangements.

What I would also say to the member is that, if he has a particular interest in disabilities, the big debate in disability services today is on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I was very pleased to see national agreement to that by all leaders on Friday last week, and we look forward to continuing to develop that scheme—a national disability insurance scheme—because we do not want to see Australians with disabilities left behind.

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

My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. The recent OECD report into school education recognises the significant contribution the government has made to school education. What is the progress of the government's reforms and how have they been received?

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 Bass for his question. Last week the OECD released a very important report on education, OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education:Australia, and unambiguously gave this government a big tick on education reform. I want to quote briefly from what the OECD review team said. They said, 'The overall evaluation and assessment framework appears as highly sophisticated and well conceptualised.' They went on to say that 'particularly positive' features include a focus on student outcomes, a coherent system of assessments for learning, a structure to integrate accountability and improvement, and the commitment to transparency. We could not have put it any better if we had tried. My School, national testing and the Australian curriculum got a huge vote of confidence by the OECD looking at national progress on education and the Gillard government's reforms in that area.

The review also pointed towards further improvement, and there it identified the very policies that we took to the last election and are now delivering—a national performance management system for teachers, rewarding our best teachers, identifying our best schools, providing rewards for school improvements, and empowering local schools by allowing them to make decisions about what works best in their community.

The fact is that this government is committed to making every school a great school. The architecture is in place and the next tranche of reforms will take the reform even further. Let us remember the context: significant improvement of the facilities of schools in the country through the Building the Education Revolution, providing some $2.5 billion to our nation's schools to lift the performance of students who are falling behind and to improve teacher quality. This government is spending over $65 billion on education—nearly twice what was spent previously by the coalition. Unfortunately, every time the shadow cabinet sits down to look at funding cuts education is on the chopping block. The fact is that Mr Abbott and the coalition are already on the record as committing to some $2.8 billion out of education. While the shadow minister for education trails his coat on foreign policy and, it seems, writes very literate essays about China, at the same time when they meet in the shadow cabinet all they are doing is contemplating cuts in education. He admitted on Meet the Press recently that education would not be spared from the $70 billion that the opposition is contemplating cutting from our budget.

Whether it is $5 billion or $10 billion or $15 billion—and $15 billion, incidentally, is a quarter of our education budget—the fact is that these reforms are absolutely essential to the nation's prosperity and progress. But the sorts of cuts that the opposition has in place mean that NAPLAN is gone, My School is gone, the Australian curriculum is gone, teaching standards are gone and remaining trades training centres are gone. And the policies identified by the OECD that this government wants to put in place—performance management systems for teachers, local school empowerment and digital technology opportunities; all of those things—are gone under an opposition that does not know how important education is for the future of this country.

We will continue to deliver those education reforms and to make every school a great school.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the outcome of the reality TV show The Block last night, in which three out of the four homes failed to reach the reserve during the auction and were passed in. I further refer her to the fact that a building company in Griffith, which sold 62 house and land packages in the year leading up to October last year, has not sold a single one since. Given plummeting confidence in the housing market and building industry, is now really the time to be introducing a carbon tax which will add at least $5,000 to the cost of a new house?

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

I thank the member for his question. I am not sure whether anybody has been holding up their number 10 sign, but I think that should have got a 10 for the most creative question of the day.

I am afraid that I could not watch the television show that he refers to last night. I am sure I would have enjoyed it, but I did not have an opportunity to watch it. What I can say to him about construction costs is what I said to the earlier member: actually, there are some very inflated estimates floating around about impacts on construction costs because the things that are predominantly used in construction are the things with the maximum assistance rate.

What I would say to him about confidence questions is that, yes, there are a series of things that are impacting on consumer confidence. We have had the opportunity today to talk in question time about the patchwork pressures on our economy. I think that that is showing on consumer confidence. I think the overhang from the global financial crisis is showing. People are alive to risks around the world, and their TV screens over the last few weeks have presented to them images of risk from the US, with the political gridlock around fiscal consolidation, and then, of course, from Europe with some of its sovereign debt problems.

I believe, too, that there has been an impact on consumer confidence as people have seen an outworking of the global financial crisis with reductions in their superannuation earnings. Some people have become concerned about their house prices; not necessarily that they have gone backwards but that the rate of growth that they would have liked to have seen in their house price is not going to be as strong as they would initially have envisaged.

There are a lot of pressures on people, but I would say to the member that I hope he is out in his local community explaining to people that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. I hope he takes the opportunity, too, when he is in party room meetings with the Leader of the Opposition, to explain that it is not in the interests of his constituents for the Leader of the Opposition to misrepresent the impacts of carbon pricing day after day and to talk the Australian economy down.

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

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. Minister, what is the government doing to plan for Australia's future and to enhance our workforce's prospects to secure adequate retirement savings? What are the risks to these plans, and how is the government addressing these?

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

I would like to thank the member for La Trobe for her question because we on this side of the House know that people being able to retire, and not to retire poor, is very important.

On this side of the House we believe in the value of increasing superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. Twelve per cent is good for individuals; it means that they do not have to retire poor. Twelve per cent is good for taxpayers because it will relieve pressure on the age pension in the next 20 and 30 years. In fact, 12 per cent is good for the whole nation. We are the fourth largest capital funds under management market in the world. There is not a lot that Australia is fourth in the world at, but having a large savings pool is one of those accomplishments.

The value of having those sorts of savings under management in Australia is that it helps to decrease our cost of capital and it means that we have resources here which are the envy of the rest of the world in terms of our savings. But in fact, when we talk about those who benefit, something like eight million Australians will directly benefit from the increase from nine to 12 per cent. That is the number of Australians who do not currently receive 12 per cent superannuation: eight million people.

The member for La Trobe may be interested to know that in her seat, based on 2007-08 tax returns, something like 53,600 people would be better off with this policy. The opposition leader may be interested in a number: in the seat of Warringah something like 55,000 of his voters currently get less than 12 per cent. The member for Wide Bay, too, may be interested that 37,000 voters in his electorate currently do not get 12 per cent superannuation. We all know that life expectancy is increasing and we all know that the garden variety nine per cent super is not going to be enough for most people to retire on. Thirty in every 100 Australians are getting better than nine per cent but there are 70 in every 100 who are not. It is also important that we increase the life savings for women workers who do not get the same chances on average to accrue the same amount of money that they would at nine per cent.

On this side of the House we want to take the pressure off future generations. We do not want to be here in 20 years time saying, 'Remember when we had the opportunity to finish the job and lift superannuation from nine to 12 per cent?' After all, when we talk about missed opportunities it was 20 years ago that the Keating government passed legislation to increase super from three to nine per cent. But, of course, there was one group of people who opposed super going from three to nine per cent and we all know who that was. It was the opposition. It has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity on superannuation. It opposed it then and I believe that it opposes increasing compulsory superannuation from nine to 12 per cent now.

In conclusion it begs one question: how can those opposite, knowing that so many tens of thousands of their voters stand to improve from nine to 12 per cent, receive their defined benefits super or 15.4 per cent superannuation? Got to love the hypocrisy—you take it for yourself but you will not give it to other people. It is not fair and we intend to change that for all Australians rather than the opposition who yet again will be on the wrong side of history.

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

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

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are reports today that many vehicles which had travelled from around Australia today as part of the 'convoy of no confidence' were denied their democratic right to access the parliamentary circle to lawfully protest against the government and their policies. Could you undertake to investigate whether these reports are correct and, if so, upon whose direction the 'convoy of no confidence' was denied their democratic right to access the parliamentary circle today?

An incident having occurred in the gallery

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

Order! Those in the gallery should actually understand that they are here to listen quietly. I have been very tolerant. The only thing that I can say with great certainty was that these were operational matters—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

The member for Mackellar has a habit of always making remarks that challenge anything I say and I really have had enough of it. I will get back to the member for Hughes, but there were solid reasons for the decisions and, as he would be aware, there was a lot of discussion and consultation with the organisers of today's events.

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

I wish to make a personal explanation.

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

Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?

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

I do—

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

Please proceed.

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

by Senator Lee Rhiannon at the Politics in the Pub meeting held at the Gaelic Club in Sydney on 22 July 2011. I have received a copy of a transcript of that event where Senator Rhiannon outlined in great detail a misleading critique of my position with regard to my opposition to the BDS campaign of Marrickville Council supporting a boycott of Israel. Nowhere in her comments, where she was critical of my engagement in the issue, did she state the fact that the resolution carried by Marrickville Council was that Marrickville Council write to the local, state and federal ministers informing them of the council's position and seeking their support at the state and federal levels for the global BDS movement; nor did she outline that on 12 January the general manager had a letter which was held back that stated: 'In accordance with the provisions of part 3 of the resolution I wish to formally advise you of the council's decision in this matter and seek your personal support for council's initiative by raising the issue in the state parliament, the federal parliament and urging your parliamentary colleagues to contemplate support for similar action.'

Senator Rhiannon went on to state to the meeting: 'Then what happens is that on 14 January 2011 in the Australian there is an opinion piece by Anthony Albanese. This is an opinion piece that really lays out the form in which the whole BDS debate will go in the coming months.' What she did not state was that on the day before, 13 January, the mayor, Fiona Byrne, put a position on abc.net.au, on The Drum website. Through the position she went on to say that I opposed broader involvement by local government in broad issues. I did not and my article in the Australian made it clear that I did not. I opposed the specific campaign by the Greens on Marrickville Council.

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

I wish to make a personal explanation.

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

Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?

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

Yes, by the Minister for Health and Ageing in question time today. In question time today the health minister suggested that no questions had been asked by me or the opposition of the government in relation to their so-called health reform. I have asked a number of questions of both this Prime Minister and, in case they have forgotten about him, the former Prime Minister—do you remember him?

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

Order! The member for Dickson will resume his place.

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

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

That the House take note of the following document:

Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997—Live-stock mortalities for exports by sea—Report for the period 1 January to 30 June 2011—Replacement.

Debate adjourned.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I was interrupted, I was outlining some of the concerns that we on this side of the House still have with the proposed national curriculum. In the first instance I was referring to our concern about the lack of an overall framework, which governs the national curriculum, and the lack of clear direction, which underpins it. I was then moving on to talk about the fact that the curriculum has a very heavy emphasis on Asian and Indigenous culture but does not give a similar weight to our British heritage or our Judeo-Christian traditions. I advise the House that they should read the IPA's monograph on the national curriculum. It is called The national curriculuma critique. It noted that Western culture and civilisation are:

… virtually absent from the national curriculum as it is currently conceived.

I think that is an area which needs to be re-examined, relooked at and incorporated into the national curriculum in terms of our overall British and Western heritage and our Judeo-Christian heritage, which we inherited, as well as Asian and Indigenous culture.

Some of the other concerns that we have raised are over the lack of appropriate resources which will be attached to the implementation of the national curriculum. There many other issues which Christopher Pyne, the shadow minister for education, has raised.

We are moving two amendments to enhance the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill. The first is to ensure that schools are provided with appropriate support to implement the national curriculum. One of our criticisms has been that there has not been that support in the form of professional development training for teachers to implement the curriculum.

The second is to ensure that there is a clear representation of the non-government school sector with respect to decision-making processes for future time lines of the national curriculum. Again, one of the problems I was referring to beforehand was that the non-government school sector was out of sync with the government school sector. I think part of that has come about due to the fact that the non-government school sector has not been at the decision-making table. These amendments would ensure that they are always at the decision-making table on issues which affect their schools. Given that they make up a third of all school students in the country, it seems to be a very sensible thing to do.

Let me conclude by saying that, like many things the government has touched, the national curriculum has involved delays, bungles and underdelivery against the government's rhetoric. This national curriculum was supposed to be finished and implemented by January 2011. Of course it has not been and now probably will not be implemented until 2013 or 2014. It was supposed to be a smooth process but it has not been anything of the sort. In fact, every single stakeholder group has in some respect complained about the drafts that have been presented and asked for significant changes.

Finally, it was supposed to have been delivered already according to the Prime Minister's own words of July 2010 when she said:

This nation's talked about national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.

She has not delivered it. It is nowhere near being delivered. It will be several years late from when she claimed she delivered it, but I suggest she takes that time and gets the national curriculum right because it will have a significant impact across all schools in our community. It needs to be properly thought through and properly considered and the government needs to get the content right. As I have mentioned before in this House, we ideally should have bipartisan support, at least in relation to the broad framework of the national curriculum, so that schools in the future can have confidence that it will not be chopped and changed but, rather, there will be a consistent framework governing the curriculum going forward.

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

Today I take the opportunity to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill, which deals with the national curriculum in Australian schools. I think it is extremely important that we have a consistent and uniform curriculum across all schools in this nation.

Australian education has changed enormously over the decades. I particularly want to draw to the House's attention the fact that families are more transient than ever before. Long gone are the days when kids would remain in the same school to receive their education. The reality is that families these days have to move from town to town or state to state, and it is important that those children are not disadvantaged as a consequence of the work pattern that their parents have to undertake. That is why it is important that we have a standard uniform curriculum that provides young people with the opportunity to move from school to school, state to state and to be able to pick up almost where they left off at their previous school.

It is also important that that curriculum remains modern and contemporary for the needs of our nation and the needs of those families and students. Long gone are the days when we studied history, particularly in the context of colonialisation and British history. We have a much more diverse history than that, and our curriculum needs to recognise that. It needs to build on that and reflect the great tradition and diversity we have in Australia. It also needs to instil in students creative thinking and an understanding of ethical behaviour. Personal and social consequences and intercultural understanding are an important part and are important Australian values, and our curriculum needs to very clearly recognise that and instil in our young people the necessary skills to be able to respond to what is now a very multicultural society. The details of these bills are important and I would like to take some time to go through them. The regulation will prescribe as the national curriculum any new version of the Australian Curriculum authorised by the Council of Australian Governments Standing Council for School Education and Early Childhood. The amendment will provide a more certain legal framework for the non-government sector in which to implement the national curriculum and provide greater administrative efficiency for prescribing the phased introduction of the curriculum.

Australia has a world-class curriculum that recognises the 21st century. We have a world-class curriculum in the development of skills and knowledge in all of the important areas—English, mathematics, science and history, with development in geography, languages and arts well underway to be implemented at a later time. For the first time, students all over Australia will be studying the same curriculum in the four key areas. As I mentioned earlier, families move around much more than they have historically. State boundaries have become a problem for students and families, particularly when it comes to slotting kids into new schools in different areas. They find that subjects that they have already learnt are now being taught and that they miss out on other subjects through the course of their studies. It is important that we provide uniformity in our curriculum so that young students are not disadvantaged in that regard.

It is also important that we recognise that we have two forms of school education in Australia: one provided by the states and territories and the other provided by independent providers. As students move between government schools, students also move between private and independent schools and government schools and vice versa. Again, it is important that we recognise that fact and have uniformity of education wherever possible, particularly in the key fundamental areas of education such as English, languages, science, mathematics, the arts and the like. That is extremely important.

I would like to report that I have 70-odd schools that service my electorate. It is a diverse bunch of schools teaching a very diverse bunch of students. My electorate covers some 7,000 square kilometres and many of my students have to travel some distance to access education. All of those families require quality education for their children. I would also like to point out that not only have we in the government been busy with respect to establishing decent curriculum standards across this nation but also we have invested substantially in the infrastructure that is required to help support modern education, whether through the provision of language labs in secondary schools or libraries and multipurpose classrooms and the like in primary schools—again, providing flexible learning spaces that give students every opportunity to access that curriculum in a modern way.

I would like to take this opportunity to point to a number of primary schools particularly in my electorate that, whilst they have received special funds under the Building the Education Revolution program, are in desperate need of a boost to help support a modern curriculum. (Quorum formed)

Obviously the tactics committee and the Liberal Party has been flat out this afternoon. Before the quorum was called, I was talking about a number of primary schools in my electorate that require a substantial amount of funding to help them rebuild themselves. I draw the attention of the House to Portarlington Primary School and Birregurra Primary School, both of which have a substantial number of buildings which have been there a very long time and should be bulldozed and replaced with new, modern facilities to provide modern infrastructure so that the curriculum can be—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: understanding standing order 76, I put it to you that what the member is speaking about is not relevant to the matter before us—that is, the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011, not a listing of BER grants in his electorate, which is what we are hearing.

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

I counsel the honourable member for Corangamite to observe the standing orders; however I do draw to the attention of the honourable member for Bradfield the long title of the bill, which is 'a bill for an act to amend the law relating to education and for related purposes'. The addition of the words 'and for related purposes' does tend to widen somewhat the ambit of the discussion. The member for Corangamite has the call.

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

Those are very wise words, Mr Deputy Speaker. To deliver curriculum in schools in a modern way, you need modern facilities, and the BER program provided modern facilities for schools. Having said that, there are some schools that still require further assistance with the building of infrastructure so that they can deliver a modern, flexible curriculum that responds to national need, and Portarlington Primary School and Birregurra Primary School are two examples of schools that are old and need investment. Whilst those school communities have very much appreciated the BER investment in those schools, it is incumbent upon the state government to come to the table and help support those school communities in their time of need.

Within my electorate I have many communities that are rapidly growing. The people in those communities come from diverse backgrounds, and they appreciate and recognise the importance of having strong education for their kids. This government has done more to reform education in all sectors than any other government has done since Federation. Our side, the Labor Party, is very proud of that. We recognise that the best way to give a student a decent life is to give them a decent education, and the cornerstone of that is having a strong curriculum that is flexible and creative and enables our students to grow in a way that we all can be extremely proud of.

I am very pleased that a number of schools have come together and made a very strong application for a trades training centre. Indeed, they have picked up a grant to build a new trades training facility that will look after the Coolac, Apollo Bay and Lavers Hill communities. If we want to have a curriculum that delivers strongly for students in our electorates we need to make sure that we provide the facilities that are appropriate to the curriculum, and trades training will provide opportunities to young people. We also need to make sure that we have in our schools appropriate access to computers, because for anyone— (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak to the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011. The Schools Assistance Act 2008 currently provides for the funding arrangements for non-government schools to be continued upon implementation of the national curriculum by 31 January 2012. With the legislation as it now stands, if the curriculum is not implemented by the stated date the Australian government could require reimbursement of these funds. The amendment proposed in the bill repeals the implementation date of 31 January 2012 and replaces it with a standing regulation that takes into account the staged development and implementation of the national curriculum. Also, the proposed amendment provides that the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood and Youth Affairs will determine new timelines.

When the initial legislation on the national curriculum was drafted in 2008, it was anticipated that the national curriculum would be finalised and ready to be rolled out by the beginning of 2011. However, the government underestimated the complexities of the task at hand, and the national curriculum is far from finalised. Like most programs developed by this Labor government, the development of the national curriculum has been poorly managed. The coalition is supportive of the principle of an Australian curriculum; however, the final version has not been approved and most jurisdictions will not begin its implementation until 2013. The legislation before us therefore needs amendment. It should be noted that the coalition attempted to make the necessary amendments in March this year; but at that point the minister seemed unaware that there would be a problem.

In 2008, education ministers adopted the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. The declaration affirmed:

As a nation Australia values the central role of education in building a democratic, equitable and just society—a society that is prosperous, cohesive and culturally diverse, and that values Australia's Indigenous cultures as a key part of the nation's history, present and future.

It further affirmed:

Schools play a vital role in promoting the intellectual, physical, social, emotional, moral, spiritual and aesthetic development and wellbeing of young Australians, and in ensuring the nation's ongoing economic prosperity and social cohesion.

These are the guiding principles that have informed the development of the national curriculum, and, as guiding principles, they are admirable in their intent. However the requirement to amend this legislation highlights delays in the rollout of the curriculum and concerns associated with its development that have not been addressed. The fact that this parliament needs to consider this bill is evidence that the Labor government has not delivered on its commitment. In April 2008, the Labor Prime Minister promised 'A national curriculum publicly available and which can start to be delivered in all jurisdictions from January 2011'. One year ago during the election campaign the Labor Prime Minister said: 'This nation's talked about national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.' The documents are still far from ready and there continue to be significant concerns with the process.

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority is continuing to develop the national curriculum. The initial consultation on the K to year 10 documents for English, maths, science and history occurred between March and May of last year. Comments were incorporated and further consultation with expert educators was undertaken. The Labor government is planning to present a final draft to education ministers in October of this year for approval at the ministerial council. A similar process is being followed for the senior curriculum and its development is continuing.

However, as mentioned, there have been a number of issues associated with the development of the national curriculum. The first of these is that there was inadequate representation of the non-government sector on the relevant subcommittee reporting to the ministerial council. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2010, 71 per cent of schools in Australia were public schools, with the remaining 29 per cent Catholic or independent schools. In the same year, the total number of students in Australian schools increased by 26,071 with 63 per cent of that figure comprising private school students. Since 2000, the number of students in private schools has increased by 21 per cent, whereas the number of students in public schools has increased only by one per cent. Given these figures, is it not unreasonable to expect that a sector that is currently servicing a third of our children and is growing should have a voice on the subcommittee?

Parents are voting with their feet and exercising their right to choose where and how their children are educated. In the coalition we support the right of parents to choose which school their children attend. We believe the independent sector should be maintained as a viable choice for as many parents as possible. We also recognise that every child that is in the private system is a child that is not placing a burden on taxpayer funded public education. Freedom of choice is a key Liberal value and is one that many members of my community have exercised when choosing schools for their children. In this context, we believe that the independent school sector should also have a strong voice on the subcommittee reporting to the ministerial council and the sector should also have a say in the decisions regarding implementation time frames.

The nature of the curriculum documents themselves has also been questioned. The Labor government's curriculum documents lack clarity of direction and an overarching framework. We are concerned that there is too much ideology driving the content of the curriculum. For example, there is a predominant focus in Indigenous and Asian culture without similar weight being given to British heritage or our Judeo-Christian traditions. This raises serious concerns about the balance and the content that is going to be taught in our schools.

In addition, there are concerns that the national curriculum is overcrowded, meaning that many schools will be left without the flexibility to deliver programs that correspond with their particular philosophy—for example, in the area of the arts. There is also an excessive focus on content rather than the development of essential critical and creative thinking skills in students. Furthermore, the documents appear not to have enough flexibility to cater for children who require additional support or those who are particularly talented. Issues have been raised regarding, for example, the science curriculum documents which are purported to be so difficult that students may actually be discouraged from studying the sciences. This would be a terrible outcome.

The other concern with the national curriculum, separate from the documents themselves, lies in how it is to be implemented. Teachers have expressed serious concerns with regard to the support they receive as the curriculum is rolled out. The Federal President of the Australian Education Union said recently 'We're seriously worried by the absence of any funding to support the implementation'. The unions should be concerned. This government's track record at delivering programs is absolutely abysmal—think pink batts, think school halls. The national curriculum is far too important to go the same way as these failed programs. A rollout without the necessary training and support for our teachers who will have to deliver the content is a recipe for the disasters that have become the hallmark of this Labor government.

In order to go some way towards dealing with a couple of these issues, we urge members opposite to support the amendments the coalition is moving. The first of these will underscore the importance of ensuring that schools and teachers receive the support and professional training they require in order to effectively implement the curriculum. The second amendment will ensure that the independent school sector receives representation and is consulted on the time lines associated with the implementation of the curriculum. The coalition supports the legislative amendment proposed by this bill in recognition that implementation of the national curriculum is going to take much longer than originally anticipated and is yet another failed Labor promise. A three-year implementation for phase 1 of the Australian curriculum commencing this year with implementation by 2013 is likely. However, a time frame for phase 1 of the senior secondary curriculum is yet to be agreed. Furthermore, updates to the curriculum will be required from time to time. The amendment is designed to provide a mechanism whereby the staged introduction and any amendments can be accommodated. However, there are worrying deficiencies in the process. There is no non-government sector representation on the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee, which reports to the ministerial council, and there is no plan to support teachers and schools in the implementation of the curriculum. They are areas of significant concern. The coalition's amendments address these issues.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In December 2010, the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs endorsed the foundation to year 10 Australian curriculum in the initial four learning areas of English, mathematics, science and history. Ministers agreed that from 2011 states and territories will commence staged implementation of the agreed Australian curriculum, with substantial implementation to be completed by the end of 2013.

It is time for change and to re-evaluate how education is provided and how it can best be delivered. Over time the need for a national curriculum has become clear. In the past people did not move as much and often one completed one's education in the same town or region. Now people are much more footloose and have to move more from state to state to find work. Having a national curriculum allows children to be able to be assessed against their peers, because they will not have the disadvantage of trying to get used to different systems.

I would like to use this opportunity to talk about education generally and how we should look further at change. We need more flexibility in where one undertakes schooling. Recently we had a situation in Tasmania where many of our country schools had come under threat of closure because of budget cuts. Suddenly there was a list of 20 schools that were earmarked for closure without any consultation with their communities or their families. (Quorum formed) It may have passed without comment in the past, but the way it was thrust onto these communities had them up in arms. Twenty school communities went out and manned barricades. They used modern tools such as Facebook for communications, and they had families from the schools together raising funds and awareness. In 18 days they achieved a ministerial backdown. The decision makers were surprised and shocked at the reaction. But the state government, although chastened, put out a message that it was not over yet. A teacher friend of mine, Ivan Webb, offered this analysis of the situation:

… 20 Tasmanian school communities are already better prepared for what is to come. These communities still have Facebook and a whole new set of knowledge, skills, experiences, networks and relationships and a clearer sense of their own identities. They have transformed their initial sense of being at the edge of chaos into something that could be very useful to all concerned—

and which needs to be sustained and developed. He went on:

Managed well, there is a close potential link between innovation and being at the edge of chaos, but it does require a change of mindset.

I cannot think of anything that the policy decision makers—government and government departments—have to enable them to match what the school communities have done in 18 days.

Admittedly the nature of the schemes has changed, particularly since the arrival of the internet and systems that are now networks, often to larger anonymous agents. Systems, including school systems, can no longer be treated as production lines with an overlay of organisational trees that describe the relative status, power and authority of those involved. Closing a school is not something that can be done on the basis of numbers; it is a complex and uncertain task with broad ramifications. Parents and communities place a very high value on the current wellbeing and long-term success of their children. When it comes to success and wellbeing, parents and communities are confident about their local schools. Their confidence in the minister, government and the department has been severely undermined.

School closures failed this time for two reasons: they were based on a very narrow discourse and they were set up as win-lose and would have resulted in a net loss. The losses to the students, their families and community would have been far greater than the modest financial gains to the government. The next step is for the lessons to be learned. This means taking advantage of the current situation to learn as much as possible and develop a new sustainable dialogue around all schools—what they are for and how to manage their futures. The important conversation we need to have is not just between some schools and the government. The fundamental fight is about how we as a state understand, talk about, utilise and value our schools and their futures: what they are, what they do and how they make things possible. And this involves all schools, communities, governments and departments. The conversation really counts, and it needs to be ongoing, not just happening when there is an urgent need for the government to reduce spending. The conversation should include the full range of direct and indirect costs, benefits, values, relationships and possibilities associated with schools. These are best captured as stories of real people in real contexts, as schools have demonstrated. This is what schools have all been gathering to share in recent weeks, and it has worked well for them.

Schools should look after their stories well. There will come a time when they will be needed again—not only for the sake of the school but also to help the decision makers make better decisions next time. Hopefully the proposed reference group will be wise enough to tap into this goldmine before it dissipates. Governments worldwide are reducing spending, and this will continue.

To be successful, the conversation needs to be open, rich and interactive—not constrained by a narrow set of terms of reference with a particular outcome in mind. It needs to lead to innovation and overall win-win outcomes, which may or may not result in some actual closures. The schools have demonstrated that this can be done. Facebook has played a key role. There are tools for enabling even more focused and productive outcomes. It is now time for ministers, governments and departments to catch up. I think we should be aware of this in the federal sphere too. There was some criticism of this government providing funds under the Building the Education Revolution—yet schools in my electorate were able to renew their education spaces for the first time in some 50 or more years.

The renewals included new technology as well as buildings. This means students are able to use interactive whiteboards as a learning tool, which not only puts a bit of fun into their learning but also means they can be in touch with other children around the state, the country and even the world to undertake learning programs as well as maths games and games with numbers.

By unwittingly providing the tools to galvanise their communities against school closures, they have also prepared their schools to go out into the community and help be part of the local economy, the driving force behind future directions. Isn't that what education is all about—preparing our children to help Tasmania thrive and develop new jobs and new directions and to build a viable future for themselves?

With the latest in digital technology, computers, laptops and videophones, children can communicate with the rest of world very easily. They do not have to move further than their classroom to catch up with the latest trends at the next big school or an equivalent school in, say, Ireland or any other country in the world. It is all there at their fingertips. Smaller schools allow greater participation in this style of reality learning. And students do not have to miss out on sporting or other extracurricular activities either— (Time expired)

(Quorum formed)

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

I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011. The bill will amend the act to repeal the current implementation date of 31 January 2012 and substitute a new provision enabling a standing regulation to prescribe a national curriculum and associated implementation time frames. This means that, subject to the passage of this bill, there will no longer be a deadline or due date in legislation from when the national curriculum is required to commence. Instead, to allow for future additions and revisions to the nation curriculum, the government is proposing that any version will need approval by the Council of Australian Governments' Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, formerly known as the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs. The implementation time frames will be prescribed as those agreed by the standing council.

This bill before us today is clear evidence that the Labor Party have failed to deliver on their commitment to a nation curriculum. If they had delivered on the national curriculum I would not need to stand here today before the parliament to talk to this bill. The explanatory memorandum of the bill states:

At the time of the Act's drafting in 2008, an implementation deadline of 31 January 2012 was anticipated for the development and rollout of the national curriculum across the school sector. Given the phased approach to developing the national curriculum, the extent of consultations undertaken in its development, and the need for flexibility in implementation, a legislative amendment is necessary to better accommodate this phased curriculum development and implementation process.

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, originally said in 2008, when she was the Minister for Education, that the curriculum would take three years to develop and be ready to implement by January 2011. The Prime Minister also claimed, before the last federal election, that one of her biggest achievements was delivering a national curriculum. She made statements prior to the federal election such as: 'This nation's talked about national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.' The truth is that after nearly four years of Labor the curriculum documents for the first stage of a national curriculum, years K to 10, in the areas of English, maths, science and history still remain in draft and have not been given final approval by each of the states and territories.

Due to the well-documented bungling of a national curriculum the final version has not been approved by the ministerial council to date and most states will not even begin implementation until 2013 or 2014, so the original legislation needed changing. I also helpfully pointed out to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth earlier this year, when a one-year extension for the current funding arrangements for non-government schools was being considered by this parliament, that he would need to remove the requirement for non-government schools across Australia to implement the curriculum by January 2012. Much to my surprise he appeared to have missed that the 31 January deadline might have been a problem, or perhaps he was, as usual, asleep at the wheel. In an attempt to assist the minister for school education, the coalition sought to fix this for him and remove the 2012 start date, but he did not, inexplicably, support the coalition's amendment.

Obviously the coalition recognises that this needs changing. Schools cannot implement a curriculum that is simply not ready or is still in draft. For this reason we will not oppose the bill. Instead, the government has had to introduce a entire new bill to fix the curriculum oversight rather than simply addressing it earlier in the year by eating humble pie and supporting the coalition's amendment. We find ourselves debating this bill because the Labor government, one of the worst in our nation's history, is incapable of delivering anything on time or on budget.

Schools need funding certainty, and for this reason we will not oppose the bill. Nevertheless, this bill has provided a further opportunity for considering how the government might be able to improve on existing arrangements related to the curriculum process.

The coalition supports a national curriculum in principle. Our concerns are not with the concept but, rather, the direction the curriculum is heading under Labor. I can assure you, Deputy Speaker Slipper, that these concerns are shared across the entire education sector. The Australian Curriculum Coalition recently wrote to me, the minister for school education and all state and territory education ministers outlining a number of concerns about the government's progress, or lack of progress. The government cannot possibly stand here today and suggest that the curriculum is going well. Please do not make us laugh with the claim that it is on schedule.

The Australian Curriculum Coalition comprises 10 peak bodies from both the government and non-government sectors. It includes the Australian Association for Research in Education, the Australian College of Educators, the Australian Council for Educational Leaders, the Australian Curriculum Studies Association, the Australian Education Union, Lutheran Education Australia, the Australian Special Education Principals Association, the Australian Professional Teachers Association, the Australian Secondary Principals Association and the Independent Education Union of Australia—not a group that you would normally see gathering together to oppose a government measure. The statement opened by saying:

The Australian Curriculum Coalition (ACC) believes that it is imperative at this midpoint in the development of the Australian Curriculum that thoughtful and considered deliberation be given to implementation of critical elements of the proposed curriculum.

It has become evident to members of the ACC that underpinning principles of the national curriculum have not been given adequate regard or sufficient resources committed to their development and that federal, state and territory governments are on the verge of endorsing a curriculum that does not meet the objective of the Australian government of: delivering a world class education system to ensure Australians are armed with the knowledge and skills to meet the demands of the 21st Century.

The letter then goes on in detail to describe each of the activities that the ministerial council promised to address last year, when the draft curriculum was being considered.

Final approval was not given to the national curriculum, as was originally planned by the government last year, due to a number of deficiencies with it. But do not just take my word for it. I will read an extract of the council's communique from December last year to make my point here, because I have noticed that the minister for school education in recent interviews on this subject has been very misleading. The council wrote:

So far from the curriculum being historically endorsed, as the minister for education would try to lead you to believe, what actually happened last year was that all ministers agreed that a whole lot more work needs to be done before the curriculum can even think of being approved.

Have any of these issues been addressed nearly nine months later? Apparently not, according to the Australian Curriculum Coalition, and it will come as a shock to members of the House to discover that nine months later virtually nothing has been achieved. The Australian Curriculum Coalition made the observation:

Disappointingly neither time, resources nor political will has seen these matters seriously addressed.

They called on the federal, state and territory education ministers to immediately commit to the priority work needed to develop a genuinely 21st century curriculum by addressing the matters of concern raised by the sector and fulfil the intent on the resolution of that important MCEECDYA meeting last year. They noted:

Without this resolve, Australia is in danger of producing and adopting a national curriculum that is little more than a 'content revamp' of mid-twentieth century curricula.

There is, however, an example of at least one minister who has acted since the Australian Curriculum Coalition's scathing letter and does have the resolve to see these issues addressed. Just last week the Hon. Adrian Piccoli, the Minister for Education in New South Wales, announced the New South Wales state government's decision to delay the introduction of the new Australian curriculum by at least a year until 2014. He acted upon the expert advice provided by the New South Wales Board of Studies that the curriculum is not yet of a high enough standard to be introduced into New South Wales. He has also suggested that federal resources for teacher professional development are needed before the curriculum can be adequately rolled out in New South Wales.

His decision has been met with widespread support from education stakeholders in New South Wales, including the NSW Teachers Federation—not know to be a friend of the coalition—and non-government school sector bodies in that state. Even the NSW Teachers Federation President, Bob Lipscombe, who has had much to say about the perceived inadequacies of the coalition over the years, has said:

The Australian curriculum's not ready to be implemented in NSW. We must be careful to ensure that when we do implement it we don't do it in a way that undermines the already high curriculum standards in this state. There are issues around the overarching framework it fits in and importantly there are also issues around the resourcing that will be put in place to support its implementation. Until these questions are addressed by the Federal Government, then a delay is quite appropriate.

The Federal President of the Australian Education Union, Angelo Gavrielatos, while charming, is not known to be a supporter of the coalition's policies in education. Even he said:

We still have a series of concerns with respect to the development of the national curriculum … we're also seriously worried by the absence of any funding to support the implementation.

So the coalition and the Australian Education Union are on a unity ticket opposing the implementation of a national curriculum that is neither ready for nor married with the required resources to ensure that it can be introduced successfully. The Independent Education Union President, Chris Watt, said:

We've been saying for a long time that getting the content right is important and it looks like we might be getting towards an end point, although teachers still have not seen the final documents …

It appears the only person who does not have any concern about the national curriculum process is the hapless Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth.

If a national curriculum is to serve the learning needs of our children, the implementation process must not be hurried in the manner of the minister for school education's Home Insulation Program, or the Prime Minister's bungled schools hall program. This is just too important to get wrong. I would have thought the member for Kingston would have thought that it was time for the minister for school education to get a policy right rather than to get it in. The minister for school education was so determined to implement his pink batts program that he was prepared to do so without the necessary protections being in place for householders to ensure that they did not face burning ceilings or even the tragic deaths that eventuated out of the implementation of the minister for school's disastrous pink batts program. That program will live in infamy as one of the most unsuccessful programs in the history of this place since Federation, and yet again the minister for school education is doing the same thing with the national curriculum.

Experts agree that the content will overwhelm teachers with no funding or support for the necessary training for the rollout to succeed. And doesn't that sound familiar? They are the criticisms that the national electrical organisations made back when the minister for school education was the minister responsible for the pink batts program. They warned the minister that there was not sufficient implementation funding and that there was not sufficient training and of course we saw the tragic results that the minister for schools presided over. While he did not lose his scalp over his disastrous performance as a minister, it certainly contributed to the axing of the former Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, on that infamous day last year.

For these reasons, and because we want to try to help the government in spite of its hopeless approach, the coalition will move two amendments. The first relates to the importance of ensuring that schools are provided with appropriate support and assistance to implement the Australian curriculum. That amendment states:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 8 to 11), omit all the words from and including "require" to the end of subsection 22(1), substitute:

(a) require the relevant authority for the school or system to ensure that the school, or each school in the system, implements the national curriculum prescribed by the regulations in accordance with the regulations; and

(b) provide such funding as is necessary to ensure that each teacher in the school or system has received professional development in the implementation of the national curriculum in accordance with a nationally consistent professional development program.

Currently there is no nationally agreed or consistent approach across jurisdictions to ensure that all schools are receiving the support in the area of teacher professional learning to be able to implement the Australian Curriculum. This point was made by the Independent Schools Council of Australia's submission to the inquiry into this bill. They said:

ISCA would like to highlight the importance of ensuring that schools are provided with appropriate support and assistance to implement the Australian Curriculum. Currently there is no agreed or consistent approach across or within jurisdictions to ensure that all schools are receiving the support required to implement the Australian Curriculum, particularly in the area of teacher professional learning.

Again, Deputy Speaker D'Ath, you do not need to take my word for it that this issue is only relevant to non-government schools. Unions representing teachers in government schools in Queensland and South Australia, from where the member for Kingston comes—and, in fact, from where the member for Brisbane comes—have now added their voices to the concerns of New South Wales that the necessary training and support required to implement the curriculum are not in place. Perhaps the member for Kingston, having observed the redistributed boundaries for South Australia, now believes that she is so untouchable in her seat of Kingston that she no longer has to listen to government school teachers or government school principals or the parents of children in government schools.

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

Maybe she, like the Prime Minister, has adopted the Marie Antoinette approach to politics—which is to say, 'Let them eat cake!'—when they cannot ensure that their teachers have the adequate training and professional development. Perhaps she has adopted the approach of wondering why these people are unable to—

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker D'Ath, I draw your attention to the noise across the chamber and I ask that you bring the member for Kingston to order.

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

Thank you, Member for Brisbane. There has been some interjection from both sides. I ask that both sides of the chamber remind themselves that the member for Sturt has the right to be heard in silence.

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

I very much appreciate the support and protection of the member for Brisbane. The member for Kingston is becoming ever more brutish as her margin increases and she believes that she does not need to pay any attention to the voters in her electorate of Kingston.

Last week it was reported that Education Union members in South Australia have asked the state government for a 12-month delay until 2014. I have been advocating for a long time that there needs to be a clear national plan for teacher professional development and specific resources allocated by the government for this. The government's National Partnership for Teacher Quality, which provides funding for teacher support, is not explicit that funding is set aside for the purpose of supporting teachers with respect to the national curriculum.

The coalition's second amendment seeks to include clear representation of the non-government school sector with respect to decision-making processes for future time lines for the national curriculum. That would read:

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 11), after subsection 22(1), insert:

(1A) The national curriculum must not be prescribed unless the non-government school sector has had input into its development through membership and/or observer status on the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee.

[national curriculum—non-government school sector Input]

I have written to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth previously asking that he give consideration to representation on the standing council or on its advisory officials committee, the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee. I believe that having representation at this level would be beneficial to add an extra layer of consultation on a range of issues affecting the sector and this representation would be a valuable source of strategic advice for any government in the future. This would provide a formal mechanism by which the non-government schools sector could be adequately and appropriately consulted in the lead-up to decisions regarding implementation time frames for the national curriculum.

You will note that in its submission to the House standing committee inquiry into this bill, the National Catholic Education Commission's submission notes:

…that a significant number—one in three—students in Australia attend non-government schools, and that neither national non-government school peak body has any representation on the Ministerial Council of Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, the body that governs the work of ACARA and thus the work on the Australian Curriculum.

Having improved representation on the standing council's senior officials committee would add a safeguard that non-government schools would be adequately and appropriately consulted in the lead-up to decisions regarding implementation time frames.

It seems unthinkable to me that with the number of parents who have chosen to send their children to non-government schools—namely, one in three—they are not represented on the appropriate bodies that make the decisions in relation to education in Australia. The member for Bass comes from the state where there has recently been a crisis of confidence in the education minister. The Greens leader tried to close dozens of schools until I made a trip through Tasmania highlighting the issue and drawing attention to the failures of the state education minister. He then, within days of my leaving Tasmania, reversed his position. I am glad to see that it is still possible to put political pressure on any kind of government to ensure that they reverse a bad decision. I am glad that the minister there, Nick McKim, listened to the concerns I highlighted during my trip through Tasmania by holding public rallies and backed down from a very bad decision. I went to the member for Bass's electorate in Launceston and spoke to non-government schools there. You would think it was an important enough issue for him to lobby the minister for school education in relation to the representation of non-government schools on a national body such as this.

I do realise that 'improved representation' could also mean something as straightforward as receiving agenda papers and draft minutes from either the standing council or the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee. Nevertheless, my amendment, if adopted, would enable improved representation of non-government sector authorities on this body. If I were minister for school education, I would certainly take up the opportunity and be grateful to have representation by the non-government sector at this level. These two modest amendments would go a long way in alleviating some of the reoccurring concerns about the curriculum process and have been endorsed by non-government sector authorities, both the NCEC and the ISCA. The government need to act to address the concerns being raised over the curriculum processes. They need to act now and take action to prevent further delays to the curriculum.

Defence families across Australia are frustrated that there is still no national consistency of curriculum between the states after four years of Labor. And I know the member for Fadden has a particular interest in the defence families in his electorate and, as a former of the defence services, he knows full well the pressures that defence families are already under because of the strenuous lifestyle that they lead and the pressures and stresses under which they are placed. As the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth has pointed out there are 80,000 students that cross state borders through the period of a year. These students are depending on the minister for schools to start addressing some of the practical issues that are leading to the delay of a national curriculum in schools.

I also read the House standing committee's report on the inquiry into this bill. I noted the committee's comment that this bill is uncontroversial. While I agree with this statement in part, in that non-government schools cannot possibly be expected to implement a curriculum in a mere six months time, the events that have led to this are most certainly not uncontroversial. Unless the minister for school education starts taking some serious remedial action to save the national curriculum, many people in the sector are beginning to doubt whether it is ever going to eventuate.

I hope the crossbenchers take some time to deliberate on the coalition's suggestions for improvement and consult with the non-government sectors, who have indicated to me that they support these simple and modest improvements. I have written to the crossbenchers on two occasions outlining my amendments and seeking their support. I would remind the crossbenchers that my previous amendment on the earlier bill, which did not receive majority support, would have removed the deadline from the legislation, alleviating the need for this new change.

My amendments today are necessary as well and I hope they will receive support. I would remind the crossbenchers that, if I had been listened to previously by the government and by the crossbenchers, we would not be here listening to my speech today. Some members of the chamber might regard that as a silver lining. However, unfortunately, because of the ineptness of the minister for school education, we are here and I am needing to once again point out the inadequacies of a very weak minister, a minister who is like a pane of glass at cabinet meetings—you could look straight through him and nobody would even know he was there. Education is far too important to be in the hands of a minister who is a pane of glass and who has no influence at all on the decision-making process.

I would also point out that even though in July he was putting out press releases attacking me as the shadow minister and claiming that the Computers in Schools program was on track for delivery this year—even though we had pointed out that the government would deliver 45 per cent of the program in six months, having delivered 55 per cent in three years—the decision had already been made by the government in June that they would not be able to meet the deadline. But nobody told the minister for school education. In June the government had already decided—as shown in leaked documents that were in the Australian Financial Review last Thursday—that they would not meet the deadline for Computers in Schools this year and yet a month later the poor, old minister for school education was putting out a press release saying that it was on track and on schedule.

The problem is that nobody tells him what is going on. That was his defence when he was the minister for pink batts program. He always used to have excuses—the tram got a flat tyre or 'The dog ate my homework'. The reality is that he is not up to being the minister for school education, and it is far too important. There are 3.6 million students in schools across Australia. They are relying on the minister for school education to get it right. God help them!

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 on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011 and to associate myself with the comments made by the member for Sturt. I am pleased to support the amendments to the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill. They are a very important step in rectifying the failings that we have seen in the proposed implementation time line of the national curriculum over the last three years, and I wholeheartedly support these amendments.

I believe in a system of education that is outcomes focused and a system that enables students to achieve their full potential as functioning members of our society. In the electorate of Brisbane we have over 40 schools and we are fortunate to have a plethora of choice in government, Catholic and independent education options for our children. For many years the non-government education providers, from All Hallows—my old school—to Gregory Terrace, St Margaret's, St James, St Rita's, Clayfield College and Brisbane boys and girls grammar schools, have provided a quality education and quality service to the children of the Brisbane electorate. I am very grateful for their contribution to this great state of Queensland through their combined years of dedicated service to the community. It was good to spend some time with the school community at St Finbarrs at the Marist hall yesterday for their annual fundraiser, which saw some 500 parents, supporters and sponsors attend. It was a great event.

I have been watching the national curriculum with great interest, because every time I visit a school usually a teacher will pull me aside and wring their hands with horror and ask me what is going on. It can be as simple a question as to what is happening with the citizenship program that a number of schools participate in—and many of us see schools come to Canberra to visit us. They are quite horrified by what they are seeing in the curriculum. They ask me if the citizenship program will stay in the primary school sector, as they hear rumours going around that it will be moved to the high school level. They really do not know what is going on and they are very confused and frustrated. They have been watching this process with great frustration. That is why we are all looking with very keen interest at the national curriculum debate and why these particular amendments are very, very important, particularly for non-government schools in the Brisbane electorate and other parts of Australia. These non-government schools serve as an important avenue to provide choice and flexibility for parents on how their children are educated. If we are to accept a nationally prescribed curriculum, it is centrally important that the sector is allowed clear representation, particularly in decision-making processes for the future of the national curriculum. The curriculum is for everyone; the curriculum is for government and non-government schools. In the seat of Brisbane alone, the non-government sector and the other sectors have many hundreds of years of combined experience in teaching, learning and adjusting the way in which they instruct Australian children.

It is wrong of the government to think that they can design a national curriculum for the millions of Australian schoolchildren in a mere three years without the representation of non-government schools. This sector really deserves an opportunity to make a direct contribution to the national debate. I was a member of the previous Howard government, which had many proud educational reforms which led to the development of the national curriculum. It has been clear, however, that since 2007 the Rudd and Gillard governments have failed to listen to the key stakeholders, the stakeholders who are involved every single day in the important education of our children. A Labor government would happily take any opportunity to undermine the viability of non-government and independent school sectors in Australia, and it is just not acceptable.

However, with regard to the national curriculum, they must not ignore this important voice in the sector. The current curriculum itself stands as an ideologically-driven document that ignores the inescapable contribution of Australia's British heritage and Judeo-Christian traditions. It is important to recognise the contribution of Aboriginal history and our engagement with Asia as integral to the multicultural success of Australia's development. However, with reference to the religious institutions that I have mentioned today and their important history in religious instruction, we must also place a greater importance than we currently see regarding the influence of Judeo-Christian values in Australia, both directly and indirectly. As I mentioned earlier, choice and flexibility is absolutely important; however, they are lacking in the current curriculum.

During my time as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence—and I notice we have the shadow minister sitting at the table today—a number of defence families, particularly of the Defence Families Association, constantly highlighted to me the inadequacy of the system that saw schoolchildren unable to continue a uniform education across state boundaries and, as the member for Sturt mentioned earlier, there are some 80,000 students that cross state boundaries every year, whether they are children of defence families or doing so through interstate relocations of their families. Labor has managed to create an overly prescriptive and overloaded mess, rather than providing a clear national program that serves as a framework for the success of Australia's next generations. It burdens our schools with mandatory hours in the areas of English, mathematics, science and history. I understand the importance of these four areas, as they are absolutely fundamental in life, but the curriculum does not strike a proper balance and does not recognise the diversity of students or the diversity of interest. This lack of balance reduces the amount of time allowed to teach other areas of interest, thereby reducing the ability of schools to differentiate themselves and to provide that really important choice and flexibility in the eyes of the parents.

The current government has failed to listen to key stakeholders, including the NSW Teachers Federation President, Bob Lipscombe, who has made it quite clear that there are significant concerns in the community with regard to support that will be provided to teachers when the curriculum is finally implemented. The coalition has been listening and has listened to three stakeholders, the Independent Schools Council of Australia, the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Education Union, which have endorsed the coalition's amendments. Schools across different state jurisdictions will not be able to adapt to the new curriculum overnight, and while I understand members on the opposite side of the House have had difficulty in recent years—particularly in rolling out any programs, including national programs—it is nevertheless difficult to understand how the government has not been able to recognise the support required to implement the national curriculum in our schools.

In order to have an efficient but timely implementation that is of benefit to all students in Australia, the government must dedicate resources to provide professional development for teachers in both government and non-government schools. We need a high-quality core curriculum for all schools which is relevant, realistic, achievable and measurable, and where competency in numeracy and literacy are basic requirements. That is why I support the amendments proposed by the member for Sturt.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011. As we know, education is the greatest opportunity for people of all ages. However, fundamentally, it provides the basic groundwork for a productive, challenging but happy future for our young people. One of the major changes to school education is the move towards a national curriculum. We on our side reflect the concerns of stakeholders at the direction that the curriculum is heading in under the Labor government, a government that is noted for its serial incompetence in delivering policies and projects in a well managed, cost-effective and efficient process.

In education alone, we have seen repeated mismanagement, be it Computers in Schools or the wasted millions of taxpayers' funds in the BER program. Then there was the discrimination we saw with youth allowance and the uncertainty around school chaplaincy. This legislation gives us even more reason to be concerned. For instance, the Prime Minister originally said back in 2008 that the curriculum would take three years to develop and would therefore be ready to implement by January 2011. Well, that has come and gone. In 2010, the Prime Minister claimed:

… the nation has been talking about having a National Curriculum for … 30 years …

and claimed she had delivered it. But the national curriculum has not been delivered. For example, the bill before the House states that non-government schools are required to implement the national curriculum by 31 January 2012—certainly a long way from the Prime Minister's claim that she delivered a national curriculum in 2010. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has made an art form of saying one thing and doing another.

One of the most serious issues with this legislation is the failure of the government to consult and respond to key stakeholders, though you would have thought that would have been integral to managing a national curriculum—for example, the Australian Curriculum Coalition, an organisation that represents teachers, principals, school leaders, academics and education researchers. This group believes that Australian schools, their teachers and their students deserve the highest quality national curriculum, and that is what they are asking for from this government. That is a very noble and worthy intent, and I support them in that. Matters raised by the ACC mostly remain unresolved, and the ACC believes there is a lot of work that still needs to be done in relation to a national, common approach to achievement standards. There is the additional material that is needed by states and territories to support effective implementation of the curriculum to accommodate different curriculum development approval and implementation requirements; the need for a clear overarching framework; the development of curriculum content and achievement standards as required to meet the needs of special-needs students; and engagement with teachers in the implementation process.

These are basic, core requirements that the ACC has asked of the government in rolling out a national curriculum. It is this group that knows how it needs to work on the ground—how it has to work with administrators, teachers and students in the actual schools. This is just another demonstration of how the Labor government is bungling yet another program. This final version of the national curriculum has not engaged key stakeholders—and, according to its current form, most states are not estimated to begin implementation until 2013-14.

The coalition are moving two further sensible amendments, noting that Labor ignored our amendments to the previous bill back in March. I should also highlight the endorsement of these amendments by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Education Union—important bodies in any discussion about education in this nation. The first amendment moved by the coalition will ensure that schools are equipped with the support and assistance they required to implement the national curriculum. This is a sensible amendment and something that is badly needed by the schools. This amendment arose from the coalition's concerns about the current lack of a nationally agreed or consistent approach across jurisdictions to ensure that all schools are receiving support in the area of teacher professional learning to enable them to implement the Australian curriculum. The second amendment we will be moving seeks to include a clear representation of the non-government school sector with regard to the decision-making process for future time lines of the national curriculum.

The coalition have a number of specific concerns with this legislation, including the insufficient representation of the non-government school sector on the relevant subcommittee reporting to the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs. We also have concerns that the curriculum is overcrowded and does not provide enough scope to recognise the diversity of students, including gifted and talented students. There are a wide range of students out there, with varying levels of need, and we need a curriculum that encompasses those needs. Our concerns extend to the manner in which the national curriculum documents are being produced and the content of these documents, not to mention the lack of stakeholder consultation and the lack of clarity around whether the material is meant to be mandatory or is designed to be a code around which jurisdictions and schools may add a local flavour. I would question whether those who will be producing this material, those in the printing and content sector, have even been consulted.

The coalition support a national curriculum in principle, but we do have major concerns about the direction in which the current curriculum is heading under the Labor government. The bill is evidence of the Labor government's routine of rushing policy through before thinking about the details and the practicalities—how it will be delivered, how it will work on the ground. None of those issues have been addressed in this legislation. As I said, there is a pattern of not being able to deliver these policies on the ground, where they matter.

As I said earlier, I believe that school education is of the utmost importance as it provides the grounds for a great future for our young people, but it does not appear that the Labor government is focused on delivering that through this legislation. I have previously raised in this House a number of the inequities the government created with youth allowance. We have seen a whole raft of different proposals by this government in relation to a range of education legislation, and it certainly has not delivered. I am hoping the inquiry by Professor Kwong Lee Dow will deliver some equity for students who were defined as living in inner regional areas. There are 10 sitting days left in which to table the report in each house of parliament. Given that sittings have resumed, I urge the minister to table the report immediately, to give students in inner regional areas who have been left in limbo some indication of what their future may hold.

This is all part of the education package that this government is failing to deliver in a way that is practical and sensible and that delivers on the ground, where it needs to, particularly in rural and regional Australia. We are determined to ensure that students in these areas are given the financial support they need and deserve, in the same way that we are determined to ensure that, through a national curriculum, students, teachers and all those who are engaged in the delivery of the curriculum have the resources they need. That is why we are making these particular amendments to this bill. They need and deserve the level of support that we are recommending through our amendments. In conclusion, I believe that people in Australia should have access to lifetime learning regardless of where they live. I support the amendments by the member for Sturt, but there are a number of concerns. I look around my electorate and see that any number of schools are affected by the national curriculum. Every school will be affected by it. I walk into their classrooms, I walk into their environments and each one of them has special needs in a different sense because they cater for a different cross-section of students. Some of them might have anything from 10 to 15 different languages spoken in their school and they have particular needs to deliver a national curriculum for students in that environment. But the teachers also have needs, and there is the need for resources. That is the basis for the amendments that we are proposing for this bill. I support the amendments by the member for Sturt and the coalition as very sensible. I encourage the government to take up these amendments. It is important that, in rolling out a national curriculum, all of the supports that are necessary to enable this to work in the schools where it is intended actually have the effect that is intended.

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

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011, a bill which amends the Schools Assistance Act. The substance of this bill is quite straightforward: it amends the requirement, which presently exists under law, that non-government schools must implement the national curriculum by 2012.

Why is such an amendment necessary? Sadly, it is because we have once again seen from this government a demonstration that there is a vast gulf between its lofty ideals and frequently stated ambitions and what it actually manages to implement by stated deadlines. Let's be clear: this bill is not about whether the national curriculum is a good idea in principle. The coalition supports a national curriculum in principle. We do not have concerns with the broad concept but we have significant concerns with the direction in which the national curriculum is heading under the Gillard Labor government, and amongst our concerns are the consequences of the national curriculum—and the way it is being amended—for the independent schools sector.

In the brief time available to me, I want to make three key points. Firstly, the national curriculum process is a mess. The date, which is supposed to be met, keeps failing to be met, and overall the government is having great difficulty in achieving its targets. The second point I want to make is that the process which is being carried on and, indeed, the legislative framework are incidentally quite revealing of the underlying hostility of the Labor Party to the independent school sector. The third point is that the amendments which we have proposed seek to redress the balance and give independent schools a fair go and fair representation in the national curriculum process.

Let me turn to the first proposition which I wish to advance, which is that the national curriculum process is in a mess. It is, you may think, a surprising proposition that a process being managed by a national government should be disorganised and failing to meet the stated time lines. Sadly, as with so many other aspects of the Rudd-Gillard government's poor track record of administration and implementation, when it comes to the national curriculum, we are seeing the very same level of poor performance, poor implementation and a yawning gulf between what is promised, what is claimed and what is actually delivered.

Let me join my coalition colleagues in once again reminding the chamber of the commitment of the claim made on 15 April 2008 by the then minister for education—before she achieved her glittering and sudden ascent—when she said:

A national curriculum publicly available and which can start to be delivered in all jurisdictions from January 2011—

which, if you are following the calendar closely, you would note is in fact some seven months in the past as we speak.

As Prime Minister, the member for Lalor had this to say:

This nation's talked about national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.

Let me again join with my coalition colleagues in making the point: it has not yet been delivered. It is a statement of aspiration. The performance does not match the rhetoric, and we see this so often from this government. Who could forget the tearful farewell from the former Prime Minister listing a series of accomplishments, which so many times fell short of the claims that he made? Or I could note the recent claim by the Prime Minister in another field, telecommunications, where she is now claiming to have delivered the structural separation of Telstra. Let me assure the Prime Minister: Telstra is not structurally separated; it remains a dominant and vertically integrated company. In field after field of which, tragically, the national curriculum is one, we see this yawning gulf between the stated aspirations of this government and the sad track record of underachievement.

The current legislation, the act as it presently stands, the Schools Assistance Act, provides that non-government schools were to implement the national curriculum by January 31 2012. Against this target, it is timely to ask: what progress has been achieved to date? Phase 1, the draft kindergarten to year 10 curriculum for English, maths, science and history has been drafted by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority and a final draft will be presented to education ministers in October this year. Phase 2, covering the learning areas of languages, geography and the arts, is still under development; and a phase 3 will be required to cover the remaining learning areas identified in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. The curriculum for senior secondary years is one where work is only just beginning. It is quite likely that the development of a national curriculum for these years will require a very significant period.

The clear reality is that the national curriculum is nowhere near ready for implementation by 31 January 2012. What did the New South Wales Teachers Federation President, Bob Lipscombe, have to say about this? He said:

The Australian curriculum's not ready to be implemented in New South Wales. We must be careful to ensure that when we do implement it we don't do it in a way that undermines the already high curriculum standards in this state.

I might add that that is a sentiment which I have had put to me by teachers in both non-government and government schools in my electorate of Bradfield, including, for example, senior maths teachers at Normanhurst Boys High School, amongst many others.

As the House was advised earlier today, in an attempt to assist the government in dealing with this looming administrative problem, the shadow minister for education, apprenticeships and training proposed an amendment in March this year, but at that time the government minister seemed unaware of the problem and failed to support the coalition's amendment.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

It has been put to me that this is a minister who does not have a tremendous track record of implementation himself, as the owners of a number of houses which now lie in smouldering ruins could ruefully testify. So it is perhaps no great surprise that the notion of preparing and being ready to implement a program by the stated date of 31 January 2012 was not something that the minister and member for Kingsford Smith, for the moment, was able to do. I am shocked at the implication that a familiarity with project management and even Gantt charts were possibly not within his previous experience as a leading Australian pop music star, but that is another matter.

Let me turn to the next proposition I want to put to the House, which is that this process and this legislation reveal the underlying hostility of the Labor Party to the independent school sector. The financial impact of this bill, stated in the explanatory memorandum, makes this point very clear. It highlights that the amount of funding provided to non-government schools under the Schools Assistance Act is $8.1 billion for 2012-13, $8.8 billion for the next year and $9.5 billion for the third year. These are substantial figures and the Labor government is clearly proposing to apply a very blunt instrument whereby, if non-government schools are not able to meet the prescribed time frames, their funding is at risk.

Let me be absolutely clear: the coalition are very strong supporters of both independent schools and government schools. In my own electorate of Bradfield, we are privileged to have an outstanding group of independent schools, an outstanding group of Catholic schools and an outstanding group of government schools. I am enormously and repeatedly impressed by the work and commitment of the teachers, parents and other stakeholders in these fine institutions. I make this point: on this side of the House we recognise the synergy in education policy between having a strong independent school sector and having a strong government school sector, because we recognise, as some seem not to, that independent schools take pressure off the government school system.

We also, therefore, are very concerned that the Labor government has not made adequate provision for non-government schools to have their say regarding the national curriculum on matters such as implementation and timing, because non-government schools have not been provided with any representation on the appropriate government bodies. There is no specific non-government school representation on the standing council, nor is there any such representation on the committee of its advisory officials, the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee.

As the National Catholic Education Committee noted in its submission to the House Standing Committee on Education and Employment:

NCEC notes that a significant number—one in three—students in Australia attend nongovernment schools, and that neither national nongovernment school peak body has any representation on MCEECDYA—

the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs—

the body that governs the work of ACARA—

the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority—

and thus the work on the Australian Curriculum.

The Independent Schools Council of Australia represents a sector with 1,090 schools and around 550,000 students, accounting for almost 16 per cent of Australian school enrolments. Its executive director, Mr Bill Daniels, said in that body's submission to the House standing committee:

The non-government school sector, including at the state and territory level, should be extensively consulted on all aspects of the implementation of the Australian Curriculum including implementation timeframes.

The third point I want to make is that the amendments which the coalition have put before the House seek to give independent schools a fair voice in the national curriculum process. That is why we have moved our amendments. We note that the claims which have been made by the Labor government concerning the breadth and depth of the consultation process to date in fact tend to use that as an excuse for the fact that the national curriculum process is running late. The explanatory memorandum to the bill has this to say:

At the time of the Act's drafting in 2008, an implementation deadline of 31 January 2012 was anticipated for the development and rollout of the national curriculum across the school sector. Given the phased approach to developing the national curriculum, the extent of consultations undertaken in its development …

Et cetera, et cetera—you can see the excuses forming here. But we make the point that a consultation process must adequately take account of the views of all stakeholders, and the governance processes must adequately make representation for all stakeholders. We also note that non-government school sector representatives told the House Standing Committee on Education and Employment's inquiry into the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011 that they believe that the issue of appropriate representation on the Senior Officials Committee is becoming ever more significant given the expanding and developing role of the committee. Therefore, if adopted, the coalition's amendment would provide the government with an option to provide non-government school sector authorities with observer status on the Senior Officials Committee, either instead of or in addition to membership, and this could in practical terms allow non-government school sector authorities to receive agenda and briefing papers for both the ministerial standing council and the Senior Officials Committee in advance as well as draft minutes in retrospect.

Some may say that this is a modest amendment; we do not agree. We think it is an important improvement to the process which would give adequate representation to the interests of the independent school sector in what is a very important reform process which applies to every school across Australia—government schools, Catholic schools and independent schools. I have argued today that the process has not achieved administrative excellence; instead it would undoubtedly be said of the government, if it were being given a report card by one of the many excellent teachers in any one of the many excellent schools around Australia, 'must try harder—has good intentions but does not always finish his or her work', because that is the position that the government is in at the moment with the national curriculum.

It is a matter for regret that the poor administration of the national curriculum by this government makes the bill necessary. On this side of the House we have made it clear that we support the substance of the bill, but we certainly do not support not giving independent schools an appropriate voice in the curriculum process.

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

I rise to support the amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business, the Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training, the member for Sturt. In doing so I follow a very high-quality contribution from the member for Bradfield, who is keeping up the usual standard of his contributions in this place. He spoke thoughtfully about some very important concerns—the standard of education in our country and the direction that it is taking and the way the government is plans to implement the national curriculum through the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011—that are close to the hearts of many of us in this place. The member for Bradfield summed up our concerns very well in his contribution, so I do not intend to go through them in the same detail as he did. They were also placed on the record very well by the shadow minister earlier today. But I do want to touch on a couple of the issues raised and how they relate to my electorate of Mayo.

Many of us in this place understand the importance of a high-quality education. The Liberal Party has pursued policies which are about achieving standards in education for some time now. We take the view that government should try to encourage the education sector, whether it be the government sector, the Catholic sector or the independent sector, to produce students with the highest possible education standards so that they can meet the demands of industry for jobs and go off to university, if it suits them, and get a higher level of education so that they have an opportunity to create their own prosperity and improve their standard of living and the national well-being at the same time.

Obviously, standards in schools are very important in what a national curriculum sets out, and I am supporter of a standardised approach across the country so that there is some consistency. I think, though, that we have to be very careful that we do not take away from a competitive approach across the different streams and get to the point where people are being dictated to about what they can and cannot teach in their schools—there needs to be some flexibility in government's approach to the matter. The argument that the voices of non-government schools in this debate need to be heard more loudly is a very important part of the second amendment that the member for Sturt is pursuing, because there is a concern amongst parents' groups at non-government schools in my electorate that there is a pursuit by some of a political agenda through education.

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

There is.

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

The member for Bass over there seems to be having some entertainment at his own expense. There is a concern that, during the early stages of its drafting, the standard national curriculum has been turned into a way to indoctrinate kids in certain philosophies rather than used to give them an opportunity to get the broader education that we on this side of the House believe will ensure that they are best prepared for future opportunities within our society.

The amendment that the member for Sturt proposes will be an important step in ensuring not only that the process is kept on track—because, as the member for Bradfield observed, the minister in charge of this process has not been labelled particularly confident in his career thus far as a minister, and keeping him under watch in the implementation of the curriculum is quite an important thing to do—but also that what comes out of the drafting of the curriculum is of good quality. That is very important to those of us in this room who are going through the education journey with our own children. Parents take a great deal of interest in how their children are being taught and what they are being taught, so parents are actively engaged in and raise issues about the quality of education and the restrictions that some would like to place on it.

We know that there are members of the Labor-Green coalition government who are against the independent sector. They do not believe that the independent sector should be funded to the extent that it is, and by stealth they would like to have both the Catholic independent sectors defunded to a significant degree. There are also concerns about where the national curriculum is going, and we should be very conscious of that, because independent schools and Catholic schools provide choice for parents who want to have a values based education as well as an educational standard for their children. I know there are some in this chamber who have benefited greatly from that independent stream in their upbringing. They might have been misguided in some of the ways they went about their education and future careers from that opportunity, but they still benefited enormously from the opportunities the independent stream gave. In that respect I think people will recognise that the independent and Catholic sectors do provide those choices for parents that they should be able to provide. There are some concerns about using this national curriculum to constrain the direction that some schools would like to take in their teaching.

The amendments that the member for Sturt, the shadow minister for education, has proposed are good amendments, and I am sure they are amendments that the government will support because they bring a couple of issues to bear which have not been thought out by the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. I know there will be some concern on the government side that the minister in charge has probably missed a couple of these points on the way through.

The first amendment as drafted gives additional support to the rollout of the national curriculum. It is an issue which has been raised extensively by members of the opposition, and the shadow minister has articulated a need for that change quite well. I think this is an amendment that makes much sense. We have had all sorts of claim of credit for the national curriculum being rolled out successfully: so far we have had the Prime Minister say during the election campaign:

This nation's talked about national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.

Of course, so far we have not seen it delivered. As the member for Bradfield outlined it will not meet the 31 January 2012 deadline, so there need to be some changes made to the time lines that the government has set for itself. It is another failed delivery of a promise that it has built up. Ultimately, more than anything else, the detail of this national curriculum needs to be right; it needs to ensure it has heard all the voices and that it is not written in a prescriptive manner that is about pursuing a politically ideological agenda. It needs to be about ensuring that children come out with the best standard of education that they possibly can.

As I said earlier, the Liberal Party has for some time had a strong commitment to standards in education. Back in the 2004 election campaign we famously had the simple, plain English report card that Brendan Nelson, who was the minister for education at that point, pursued quite heavily. It was good policy and it was good politics because parents wanted information about how their children were performing and they wanted it in a simple fashion. They wanted to be told how their children were achieving and how their children were going at school in a way the parents understood so that they were part of the education journey with their children. It is ultimately a very important aspect of education that the parents are engaged and are part of the education journey along with the school.

Again, this gets back to a concern that some have that the curriculum being pursued is to be very specific and focused on a political perspective rather than on a broader education. In that respect, I note that the IPA, the Institute of Public Affairs, has raised some concerns about the direction of some of the early drafting of the curriculum regarding a very heavy focus on Indigenous and Asian culture, without similar weight being given to our British heritage, our Western values or our Judeo-Christian traditions, which are so important to the fabric of our society and the fundamentals of where we have come from and where we will continue to go. This is an important aspect which has been forgotten. In their contribution the IPA has raised some very important points, which should be considered as a reason for increasing the size of the committee to have that non-government voice as part of this consideration in the first place. So there is a broader consideration that the voices of the 30 or 40 per cent of parents who choose to go through the non-government Catholic education sector are heard in these deliberations.

Ultimately, we want a national standard across the education field. We want to ensure that the differences in the standards of education between states are reduced as much as possible. But I do not think we want to standardise completely the opportunities for schools to exercise their ability to teach, and to achieve the standards they wish to achieve, in their own special way and through their own special contribution. In that respect we support the objects of the bill, but we think there are a couple of points where we can improve it. We hope that the government will see the wisdom in following our two proposed amendments. They are good amendments which will improve this bill and ensure that this minister, who we know so far has not had a glittering career of delivering policy, does not do the same to our education system as he did to pink batts.

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

The coalition supports the national curriculum in principle. It is a good idea. It is necessary. Many people in my Riverina electorate have told me how confusing and frustrating it is when they move from or to another state and there is inconsistency with what is being taught and at what year level. This is particularly prevalent for children of transient workers such as those who work in some agricultural pursuits, who follow the picking seasons, and also those in military families who frequently move from base to base. As a tri-service defence city, Wagga Wagga has many people who fall into the latter category. For them, a national curriculum would be welcome.

The coalition's concerns regarding the national curriculum are not with the concept but rather its direction under Labor. When the Prime Minister was Minister for Education in 2008 she said a national curriculum would take three years to develop and be ready to implement by January 2011. Under the current legislation, non-government schools are required to put the national curriculum into place by 31 January 2012. As with anything Labor touches, the whole thing has been mucked up. Just like the rapscallion schoolboy who tells the teacher a dog ate his homework, the current Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth also gets an F for failing to deliver on Labor's commitment. The final version of the national curriculum is yet to be approved, and most states will not introduce it until 2013 or 2014. The original legislation therefore needed adjusting. The coalition sought to make the necessary amendments back in March, but the minister was apparently unaware that this presented a problem and did not support our amendment. Schools cannot put in place a curriculum which is not ready—not anywhere near ready. This bill is proof positive that Labor has not delivered on its commitment. During last year's election campaign the Prime Minister claimed, obviously falsely, that the national curriculum was finished. She made statements such as:

This nation's talked about national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.

When, Prime Minister?

The coalition's amendments have now been endorsed by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Education Union. The coalition noted advice from non-government school sector authorities to the House inquiry into the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011 that the issue of appropriate representation on the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee is becoming increasingly important given the emerging task of the committee. This is especially so relating to the national curriculum. If adopted, the coalition's amendment would provide the government with an opportunity to provide non-government sector authorities with 'observer status' on the AEEYSOC instead of or in addition to membership. This could permit, for instance, non-government sector authorities to receive agenda and briefing papers for both the standing council and AEEYSOC in advance, as well as draft minutes in retrospect. We hope the government will adopt this necessary and reasonable amendment to enable non-government sector authorities to make much more informed and better targeted contributions to the national debate. Further, it would ensure that they would be appropriately consulted regarding time lines for introduction of the national curriculum. This is wholly appropriate. This amendment is significant given that the number of parents who have chosen to send their children to non-government schools are not represented on the appropriate bodies which make the decisions in relation to education in this nation. This is unfair and needs to be altered. The coalition amendment also provides for a broad, appropriate teacher development strategy for the national curriculum. Although this bill relates only to non-government schools, we also advocate that professional development to teachers should be available across the whole schools sector.

The draft K-10 curriculum for the subject areas of English, mathematics, science and history has been prepared by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, and Labor intends to present a final draft to education ministers this October for approval at ministerial council. The coalition is deeply concerned about some of the ideological undertones which are pervading the curriculum. The coalition is deeply concerned about the overly prescriptive nature of the draft document. Experts in education agree the content will swamp teachers, with no funding or backup for the required training for the rollout to succeed. These fears are shared by key stakeholder groups, including teacher representatives and professional associations.

As a result, the coalition has moved two vital amendments. Firstly, schools will need to be provided with the appropriate level of assistance and support to introduce an Australian curriculum. Secondly, we seek to include clear representation of the non-government school sector in the decision-making processes for future time lines of a national curriculum. Presently there is no national or consistent approach to making sure all schools are getting the support they so desperately need in teacher professional learning to be able to implement an Australian curriculum. Having adequate representation adds a safeguard that non-government schools would be properly consulted in the lead-up to decisions regarding implementation time lines. These two modest amendments will certainly help smooth this challenging reform process and bring some level of fairness to the debate.

For the Prime Minister to say that she has already delivered a national curriculum is a case of her getting ahead of herself—way ahead of herself. New South Wales Teachers Federation President Bob Lipscombe said only recently, on 10 August:

"The Australian curriculum's not ready to be implemented in NSW. We must be careful to ensure that when we do implement it we don't do it in a way that undermines the already high curriculum standards in this state … There are issues around the overarching framework it fits in and importantly there are also issues around the resourcing that will be put in place to support its implementation.

"Until these questions are addressed by the Federal Government, then a delay is quite appropriate."

Now we know that the decision to delay the new curriculum has irked the education minister. He accused New South Wales of 'letting students down' and walking away from its commitment. 'There is no justifiable reason for this 11th-hour backdown,' the minister said.

At the heart of this issue is the cost of getting teachers ready for the new curriculum. The New South Wales Minister for Education, Adrian Piccoli, said it would cost about $80 million over four years to implement the curriculum and to provide professional development of teachers. If Mr Piccoli said New South Wales is unwilling to run with the national curriculum agenda because federal Labor has not done due diligence on funding and support then that would be correct. The New South Wales education minister is the member for Murrumbidgee, much of which is in the federal seat of Riverina. He was a competent shadow education, skills and youth affairs spokesman from 28 December 2008 right through the dying days—excuse me—

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

Who's dying? Sorry.

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

Who's dying?

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

The state Labor government—that's who was dying! He held that position right through the dying days of the inept state Labor government and held a poor party to account for its mismanagement. He is doing a fine job as minister, and I commend him for that and for his genuine care and concern for the education of today's children—surely our greatest resource.

The state government said on 9 August it would postpone implementation of the national curriculum for 12 months because of the federal Labor government's failure to provide teacher development funding and questions about its quality. That quality is gravely concerning. One hopes a national curriculum is not used as a vehicle for Labor to push its propaganda. Disturbingly, according to a 13 March report in the Daily Telegraph:

PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.

On the eve of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax package announcement, psychologists and scientists said the lessons were alarmist, created unneeded anxiety among school children and endangered their mental health.

Climate change as a "Doomsday scenario" is being taught in classrooms across Australia. Resource material produced by the Gillard government for primary school teachers and students states climate change will cause "devastating disasters".

…   …   …

Australian National University's Centre for the Public Awareness of Science director Dr Sue Stocklmayer said climate change had been portrayed as "Doomsday scenarios with no way out".

Dr Stocklmayer said she was not a climate-change sceptic but worried that "too much time was spent presenting scary scenarios, especially to young people".

"(Children) feel incredibly despondent and helpless in the face of all this negative information," she said. "To put all of this before our children … is one of the most appalling things we can do …

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

Like listening to the Liberal Party.

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

I will take the member's interjection, but what I say even includes Tasmania. The article continues:

Child psychologist Kimberley O'Brien also said the language of climate change should be "toned down".

Of course, the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth refuses to stop the teaching of Labor's climate science, despite moves in Britain for the subject to be withdrawn. But, then, this government also refused to stop the wasteful spending on school halls when it was plainly obvious to all and sundry it was a fiasco, a taxpayer rip-off in the order of a disgraceful $6 billion. At least the coalition's Investing in Our Schools program injected real and meaningful money into grateful schools—

Mr Lyons interjecting—

including in Tasmania. Funding is an important issue as far as education is concerned. Recently, the Director of Schools in the Catholic Education Office, Wagga Wagga, Mr Alan Bowyer, was moved to respond in a media statement to concerns that funding would be cut and media reports that funding would be cut by this Labor-Greens alliance. The statement reads:

In responding to enquiries from a number of media representatives, Mr Bowyer declared, "We believe that a fair, equitable and certain funding scheme for all schools is vital for the continued growth and expansion of quality learning and teaching for all Australian students and teachers".

That is something I am sure all people in this place would agree with. It continues:

"Our belief is that education is a basic entitlement and all students, whether they attend a Catholic, an independent or a state school, have the right to be funded by government at a level that provides a balanced, rigorous and properly resourced education", Mr Bowyer said. "No parent should be financially penalised as a result of choosing to send their children to Catholic schools in accordance with their religious beliefs and commitment to the Church".

I say: hear, hear!

Mr Bowyer stated that figures taken from the National Report on Schooling in Australia (2008) clearly indicate that Catholic schools and non-government schools in general, are under-funded when compared with state schools. "While a student in a state school, on average, in 2007-08 received $12,639 in funding from state and federal governments for the year, the figure for a Catholic school student was only $7,685. Productivity Commission figures in 2009 show that the amount for public school students was a little less – $11,874 per student while the amount per child in the independent sector remained steady", he said.

"School funding is a complex issue. State governments are the primary source of recurrent funding for schools and provide approximately 93% of public school costs but only about 17% of non-government schools costs. The Federal government provides top up assistance of approximately 7% to public schools and about 53% to non-government schools resulting in the need for non-government schools to charge school fees to address the gap. Catholic systemic schools endeavour to keep school fees as low as possible to ensure Catholic education is affordable for families, but school fees as such, only partly contribute to the funding gap between what is received from government sources and the true costs of schooling …

Mr Bowyer went on to reveal that 704,000 (20%) students attend Catholic schools across Australia, and stated that these schools employ 78,000 staff. He said that in 2010 in NSW, 66 per cent of students attended public schools, 22 per cent of students went to Catholic schools and 12 per cent attended independent schools.

"It should be remembered that many Catholic schools, which dominate the non-government school sector in terms of enrolments, serve disadvantaged communities made up of migrant and working-class families and those living in remote and rural Australia", Mr Bowyer said. "In some areas, the Catholic school is the only school serving the local community".

Mr Bowyer welcomed the opportunity that organisations had to make submissions to the Gonski Review and said he was reassured by the Prime Minister's promise that, "this is not about taking money away from schools" and that "no school will lose a dollar of funding, in the sense that their school budget per student will not reduce in dollar terms".

I certainly do hope that the Prime Minister lives up to those words; I certainly do hope that Labor does not listen to the Greens and cut or freeze Catholic school funding, because it is all about choice, and in Australia we should have that choice. If a parent wants to send their child to a Catholic school they should be able to do so, with the knowledge that that schoolchild will be funded properly and sufficiently so that they receive a good and fair education. There should be fair and equitable funding right across the school education system.

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

In rising to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill, I am reminded of the purpose behind our education system. Regardless of how we build the system and how we operate the system, the desired outcome remains the same—to help future generations to learn. Following the member for Riverina's comments, I want to endorse some of the remarks he made at the end of his contribution with regard to Catholic and private schools. I have always been of the belief that taxpayer funds are for the children, for the students, and it really should not matter which school they attend.

Every bill that comes before this parliament should, in some way, enhance education and learning outcomes for future generations—and I am talking about all students here. I believe the coalition's amendments to this bill will do that. But we cannot expect our children to learn if the system's builders and operators demonstrate a fundamental inability to learn, if they are unable to learn the easiest lessons of all—and that is learning from one's own mistakes. Such a flaw would undermine the system. It would undermine the outcomes. It would deliver for future generations a standard lower than they deserve.

What we have in the bill before us is a warning that the current government is simply not capable of learning from its own mistakes. It is not for the want of opportunity. They have created more than their fair share of learning opportunities—or mistakes. Amongst an extensive back catalogue of these learning opportunities, we find familiar themes. There are common threads. These threads suggest that, if only a small number of lessons could be learnt by the government, a large number of future stuff-ups could be avoided.

The troubling thing is this. We can see the problems coming. We can see that the national curriculum and how it is going to be implemented have not been properly thought through. We know what happens as a result, because we have seen it happen one too many times during this current government. It is troubling because we can see it coming but the government cannot. It is like being a passenger in a car doing 200 kilometres an hour who can see the approaching cliff when the driver is too busy looking in the vanity mirror.

It is troubling because we can see yet another knee-jerk reaction in the pipeline. We can see a government going off half-cocked because they are so desperate to make it look as if they have actually done something. They are so desperate, in fact, that they do not even wait until the job is half done before claiming that it is finished. With this Schools Assistance Amendment Bill in mind I might remind the House that the Prime Minister said on 2 July last year:

This nation's talked about national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.

That was more than a year ago. There has still been nothing delivered, and that is why we are here debating this bill almost 14 months later, and implementation is still a speck on the future horizon.

In addition to its concerns about delayed delivery the coalition also has serious concerns about exactly what is being delivered and how it is going to be delivered. That is why we have moved important amendments—amendments that we hope can stop this runaway car before it reaches the cliff.

We need the government not only to allow input from the appropriate sources but to listen to that input—to take in advice and admit to themselves that people and organisations outside the Labor Party and the Greens, people working in the education system and with the education system, might actually know what they are talking about. Because what this government thinks it is going to deliver as a national curriculum is nothing to skite about; it is something that should be cause for deep embarrassment.

The coalition believes that a delay in implementation is necessary. That is why we have sought previously to pass a similar bill. A delay in implementation of the national curriculum is necessary because it could be a very, very long time before this government could get the national curriculum right. The implementation of this national curriculum has all the loose threads—all the warning signs, all the hallmarks—of the multitude of miserable failures this government should have learned from. This government should have learned that what happens when you make promises you are not capable of delivering is something like the failed computers in schools program. There is a strong parallel between the Prime Minister claiming a year ago that she had delivered a national curriculum and the promise that computers would be delivered to every high school student by the end of 2011. In June this year, only 55 per cent of the computers had been rolled out, and that has taken three years to do.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

That leaves the government another six months to roll out the remaining 45 per cent which, the member for Riverina reminds me, is missing. But that was never going to happen. Even the education department knew that was not going to happen. The only problem is, they never told the minister for education that it was not going to happen, because a month later the minister was still telling us the program was on track and on schedule.

The government has a proven track record of inability to deliver. But here they are, bragging about having delivered a national curriculum that is still miles away from completion. The government should have learned that what happens when you do not fully think things through is that you end up with a debacle like the overpriced school halls that picked the pockets of Australian taxpayers and ripped off state government schools. Did anyone ever sit down and think about how these school halls would be delivered, who would build them, how they would build them, how they would price them and how fair value would be measured? The result was a disastrous waste of money—money that should have created much greater benefit for our education system.

But here they are, skiting about having delivered a national curriculum when there is still no real plan as to how it is going to be delivered. The government should have learned that what happens when you do not consider the implications of a shoddy implementation plan is a pink batts scheme. If you create an environment where people are not properly trained for what they are supposed to do, not given clear guidelines on how to perform their task and not given the support they need to do their job, you have to expect a degree of failure. That should be a lesson learned from the pink batts program. But here we are, putting together a national curriculum content that will leave teachers ill-equipped for implementation. They will be overwhelmed with the size and scope of the task. There is inadequate provision for training and support and there is a distinct lack of clear guidelines to follow.

The government should have learned that what happens when you are led down the garden path by a minority interest is that you lose sight of the big picture. You end up pandering to a single entity with a minority view point. You end up pushing pokies legislation that is hated by millions of people just to garner the support of a single person. But here we are, creating content that is so ideologically skewed that it pushes every cultural context except reality.

The national curriculum in its current format goes to great lengths to add weight to minority views, Indigenous culture and Asian culture without equal weight for the dominant British heritage and Judaeo-Christian traditions on which this country was founded. I am not opposed to including such content in the curriculum. Indigenous culture is a very important component of modern Australian culture. Our country's geographical ties to Asia also need to be recognised, but these influences must be viewed, as they are in the real world, through the framework of our overwhelmingly British heritage and dominant Judaeo-Christian traditions. These are the foundations of Australian society. They are the foundations of the world our children live in. They are the foundations that have built our language—the language that our teachers will be using to educate our children. To ignore these foundations would be no less a failure than to completely ignore Indigenous and Asian culture.

These concerns about the content of the national curriculum are concerns held not just by the coalition; they are views shared by key stakeholders. Dr Kevin Donnelly, the director of the Melbourne based Education Standards Institute, said that he too could see this coming. He said:

I can see that my fears about the new curriculum were well founded.

He described the content as:

… a heady mixture of politically correct perspectives: sustainable, indigenous, feminist, class, postmodern and cultural relativist.

He shares the view that it is only through the context of our Western heritage that we can understand our legal system, our political system, our language, our literature and our education. We have to question why someone would sit down and develop a national curriculum that goes to great lengths to ignore the terms BC and AD to indicate years simply because BC stands for 'Before Christ'. We must not mention the C-word. No, they thought it would be better to use the term BCE: 'Before common era'. That is rewriting history at its best.

Not content with rewriting history, this government is supporting a national curriculum that gives a fantastic outline of the Labor Party but conveniently neglects to balance the outlines of the Liberal and National parties. That is serious. That is in the national curriculum. Perhaps if the people on the ground were given the opportunity for input and the government took the time to put its ego in a box long enough to listen to what the people were saying it would avoid such embarrassment.

The government should have learnt. They still are not listening to what people are saying about the carbon tax and it just makes people angrier—and we saw it today. It makes people more determined to force an election by any means possible. They need to avoid that personality flaw here and allow for more voices into the national curriculum formulation. In the time afforded by the extension of this deadline, the government should accept their own shortcomings and actively seek advice from those who really do know better. Including a representative from the non-government schools on the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee would be a very good start, because so much of the future depends on our education system.

The lives of generations to come will be hugely shaped by the education that we provide now for our young people. It is of great concern to me that such an important part of our society is now in the hands of this government, Labor and the Greens, who clearly demonstrate that they are most incapable of learning themselves. I really do hope that this curriculum is delayed so that we can have some balance and we can get it right, because if we do not get this right it will not be the government that suffers but the children—that is, until we reach the ballot box.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair and I hope you are well today.

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

Thank you.

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

In speaking on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011 this evening, I will start by reading a quote out because sadly it sums up where we are at with this legislation. It comes from the President of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, Bob Lipscombe:

The Australian curriculum's not ready to be implemented in New South Wales. We must be careful to ensure that when we do implement it we don't do it in a way that undermines the already high curriculum standards in this state …

There are issues around the overarching framework it fits in and importantly there are also issues around the resourcing that will be put in place to support its implementation.

Until these questions are addressed by the Federal Government, then a delay is quite appropriate.

Mr Lipscombe said that on the ABC news on 10 August 2011. He spoke not only for New South Wales but also for the states and territories of the Commonwealth because sadly, as we stand here this evening debating the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011, we see that the national curriculum is not ready to be implemented.

The coalition supports a national curriculum in principle. We are not concerned with the idea. We are sadly concerned, though, once again with how it is being implemented by the Gillard government. This dates back to 2008 when Julia Gillard, our current Prime Minister, said it would take three years to develop and implement. That was in 2008—three years ago—and it would be ready to go by January 2011. If I am not mistaken, it is now August 2011 and here we are debating this bill.

It is ironic that the coalition sought to amend the legislation when it was initially put so that we could look at a start date of 2013 or 2014 and the government would not allow our amendment, yet here we are having to look at either a 2013 or a 2014 start date. It shows that, once again, this government is lacking when it comes to implementation. Although it has been quoted by pretty much every speaker that has been before me on our side, it is worth reminding the House what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign: 'This nation's talked about a national curriculum for 30 years. I've delivered it.' Sadly, she has not and it is going to take some time yet.

If it is to be delivered in a way that is meaningful and does the right thing by schools in this country, it is going to need some change. That is why, in a very positive and bipartisan way, the coalition is putting forward two amendments to help improve the government's legislation, to show the government the way. It is often said—I must say wrongly—that we are negative in the approach that we take. Here we are being extremely positive. We are offering two sensible amendments to show the government the error of its ways and asking it to take them on board to improve the legislation that it is putting forward. It will be very interesting to see what the government does with this positive approach that we are putting forward. The two amendments we are putting forward make a lot of sense. The first relates to the importance of ensuring that schools are provided with appropriate support and assistance to implement the Australian Curriculum. You would have thought that you would take that sort of assistance for granted—that schools would be granted support to implement. I would have thought that that is as logical as day following night. Sadly, it does not seem to be the case with this government. We are putting forward an amendment which would see that happen. We would see teachers getting the support that they need to implement the curriculum. Teachers would have the confidence to say: 'We are going to be teaching a national curriculum in maths, in English or in science. We know exactly what that curriculum is about. We know exactly how students need to be taught. Therefore, we have confidence going into the classroom and making sure all students across Australia get the teaching that they need to develop and go on and be wonderful individuals.' That is a very positive contribution to this debate and to this legislation, and I hope that it will be one that the government will take on board.

Our second amendment seeks to include clear representation of the non-government school sector with respect to decision-making processes for future time lines of the national curriculum. I would just like to point out to the government and to the education minister in particular—and the one that went before him—that there are actually two types of education that we have in this country. There is a very good government sector and there is a very good non-government sector. We do not just have one sector. Therefore, if we are to get balance in the way the national curriculum time lines are to be set, about what the character of those guidelines should be, about what should be in the curricula, it would only be wise and fair that both the non-government and government sectors can play a part in doing that. If a national curriculum is to serve the learning needs of our children then we should ensure that it does it for those children who are learning in the non-government sector as much as we do it for those students learning in the government sector.

These are two what you would call positive, modest amendments—ones which will go a long way to alleviating the recurring concerns about the curriculum process. When you look at the detail that has been in the curriculum, or the overarching framework which has been set out, there have been concerns. Our two amendments will address them. The government should do the right thing and take them on board.

I would like to point out two particular flaws that the curriculum has in it. I think most of the speakers on our side who have been before me have touched on these, because I think they are fairly important. Sadly, Labor's curriculum is driven on ideological grounds. For example, in the history component, the Labor Party and union movement is included but there is no mention of the Liberal or National parties or the parties on the conservative side of politics that went before them. Imagine if we were developing the national curriculum and we put forward that it would only address the history of the United Australia Party, the National Party, and the Country Party that came before it, and the Liberal Party. Could you imagine the outrage if we left the union movement and the Labor Party out? The other side would be just ballistic in their rage if we did that. Yet they have the gall to do it here. It just beggars belief that they could do such a thing.

The worst thing about it is it highlights what they are about here. It is not about a national curriculum which is about teaching our students across the country maths, science and English in a uniform way; sadly, there is a deeper desire here, and that is to drive the ideology through our students. I would hope that Labor would be able to look at this and say: 'This is not the right way to teach the young people of this country. We need to provide balance.' They should put themselves in our shoes from a moment and say: 'Yes, look, if the reverse was done, we would have problems with that. We need to address this.' And I hope that they will.

The second point that I would like to make about this national curriculum as it has been developed so far by this government is that it is overcrowded. There is an excessive amount of content to be covered in courses, which means less flexibility for schools. I would have thought in the 21st century we should have been looking to put more flexibility into our schools, not less, by giving our teachers the freedoms to be able to operate within their classrooms by giving them an outline of what needs to be addressed but not detailing every last sentence. If you are trying to drive an ideological agenda maybe, because you would say: 'You have to talk about the Labor Party and the union movement. You have to talk about those things. Of course, don't worry about the other side.' It is overly prescriptive. We need to pull back from that. We have to allow teachers and our principals to be able to go about doing the things that they do best. They need the flexibility to be able to do it. I hope we will get a pullback from that overly prescriptive approach, because our students across the country will benefit from it, our teachers will benefit from it, our principals will benefit from it, and our whole education system will benefit from it. If we continue to be too prescriptive the national curriculum will not do the job it is meant to do.

I would like to draw my speech tonight to a conclusion. So it is nicely rounded, I would like to go back to where I started, which is the quote from Bob Lipscombe, because I think that quote, although it is on behalf of the New South Wales education sector, reflects what the concerns are across the country as a whole:

The Australian curriculum's not ready to be implemented … We must be careful to ensure that when we do implement it we don't do it in a way that undermines the already high curriculum standards …

There are issues around the overarching framework it fits in and importantly there are also issues around the resourcing that will be put in place to support its implementation.

Until these questions are addressed by the Federal Government, then a delay is quite appropriate.

The Prime Minister is on the record as saying: 'This nation's talked about a national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.' She has not delivered it.

We have to make sure that her embarrassment of not having done that does not mean that we rush our implementation now. Our kids' futures are at hand. A lot of us here have students who are going through the schooling process at the moment. We want this to be done correctly. The coalition, in a very positive manner, have put forward two amendments—two positive approaches—to try to fix the mess that the implementation of this bill is likely to create. I hope the education minister will take those two amendments on board. I hope the Prime Minister will see the positive approach on which they have been put forward and see that this is being done to improve the educational outcomes of our children and to make sure that our schools, our teachers and our principals have the right guidelines going ahead. The coalition support the idea of a national curriculum. What we do not support is the way this government is going about it.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011; a bill that seeks to address a rather unfortunate oversight by the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, and one twice raised in this place by the shadow minister for education, but only now sought to be fixed by the minister. The oversight referred to is the implementation date of the national curriculum—currently set for commencement in just five months time for non-government schools. This sounds like a noble goal, but it is terribly hard to implement a curriculum that is yet to be finalised.

The shadow minister first raised the concern about the implementation deadline for non-government schools in November last year, and earlier this year repeated calls for a simple amendment to be legislated to remove this unreachable deadline. The reforms for a national curriculum—initially promised to be implemented by January 2012—have drifted and been left incomplete by a government well known for its inability to implement programs on time or on budget have start dates now pushing out to 2013 or 2014 and a legislative deadline rapidly approaching. This bill should have been unnecessary. But for the pigheadedness of those opposite in not understanding the problems in their own legislation, the problems this bill seeks to address would have previously been addressed.

Nonetheless, the fact that the national curriculum is yet to be finalised did not, of course, prevent the current Prime Minister from proclaiming on 2 July last year: 'This nation's talked about a national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.' One might have assumed that if a national curriculum had indeed been 'delivered' then an eraser would not have been needed to rub out the error riddled legislation the Prime Minister put forward back in 2008 when she was the education minister standing behind the former Prime Minister.

Ironically, the Prime Minister claimed to have 'delivered' the national curriculum, despite falling far short of doing so by the January 2012 deadline—as we see by the need for this amendment. The Prime Minister claimed to have 'delivered' the curriculum she has not delivered, just as she promised to the Australian people she would not deliver a carbon tax and is now doing so. No wonder, today, we find a 'convoy of no confidence' on our doorstep that has travelled to Canberra from across the nation to send a clear message to this incompetent government: the Australian people want an election now.

Let us be clear: this government is rushing through a national curriculum not for any good educational reasons but simply for a political reason to enable the Prime Minister to live up to her claim that she has delivered it. Simply, the Prime Minister is prepared to compromise children's education for a simple political purpose. What a disgrace!

Although the coalition broadly supports the intent of having a national curriculum, naturally, particularly under this government, we are deeply concerned about the looming implementation stage. This is especially of concern with a new minister who, as minister for the environment, rushed through an incompetent and poorly thought out program which will go down in our nation's folklore—a program that managed to burn down some 190 homes. We certainly do not want that performance repeated on our nation's schools or on a national curriculum simply because it has to be rushed through.

I would like to air a few broad points relating to the implementation of a national curriculum—or, if you would like, the important narrative and required elements behind the move to a national curriculum. Firstly, we must not allow a race to the bottom. In my home state of New South Wales, we already have a robust curriculum, developed over decades. The last thing we want to do in New South Wales is go backwards with our children's education. I have spoken to a great many teachers in my local area that are keeping a keen eye on the development of the national curriculum, yet they remain cautious about the dangers the implementation of the national curriculum may have and how it may have the potential to water down the high standards already in place in New South Wales. For the national curriculum to produce the results that the country has asked of it, it must look to the future and not backwards into the past. There must be an assessment of the needs of our country, and we must look to where it will be in years to come and present our children with a system that will meet their needs in the future and not lock them into the ways of the past. We will gain nothing and lose much if the national curriculum fails to provide for the future. This is why it cannot and must not be rushed. It is also worth noting that across New South Wales and the rest of Australia many schools who are doubtful of the quality of the national curriculum are considering alternatives for their students, such as the benchmarking International Baccalaureate program. In the past, the New South Wales Higher School Certificate has been recognised across the globe as being a first-class finishing qualification, and the move to a standardised curriculum could see this standing ruined in the eyes of the world.

The second crucial point to recognise is the important role that all sectors in the education system play in developing our children as well-rounded young adults. The national curriculum, if not established in the correct manner, with all the relevant checks and balances satisfied, could endanger the tireless work of the many great teachers of New South Wales. These teachers, who are responsible for teaching the future of our great nation, should not be sold short and forced to teach to exams. Instead, they should be allowed and encouraged to uphold the high standards that are currently evident in New South Wales. Time and time again, we have seen the failure of Labor ideology, the ideology of a deluded belief in centralised control of decisions by a small group of elite, when our history has shown, time and time again, that the best decisions are always made by people working at the coalface. We therefore should not implement a system that would tie the hands of our world-class educators and possibly cause a drop in our educational standards.

Non-government schools are a crucial pillar of our education system in Australia. Without these educational institutions, some of which are over a century old, our education system would not be able to meet the demands of our population. In fact, if government funding to these schools were to be cut, the resulting burden on the state system would mean the collapse of our world-class education system. Over the past decade, class sizes in secondary schools have increased, and in some cases there are now 45 students to one teacher. Without non-government schools, this number could very easily increase still further, reducing the quality of education for all. Within my electorate of Hughes, there are many schools, government and non-government, all which are great schools filled with dedicated teachers who are teaching the next generation of Australians. I have been out and about, visiting local schools, and these visits have reinforced the importance of our work in this key area. We simply cannot get these reforms wrong through rushing them through. We must not let any of these teachers or students down by pushing them into a framework that is not ready and is not able to deliver them the results that they deserve for their hard work.

While the coalition will not oppose this bill, due to the obvious need for the parliament to act on what the coalition has been saying since November last year, it is not possible to implement a curriculum that is yet to be finalised. The coalition will seek to make two important amendments to enhance the progress of the reform, to deliver reform that works and that does not let our kids and their dedicated teachers down. I call on all members opposite to look deep inside themselves and to consider these amendments carefully. Do any of you really want to carry the burden of knowing that you had a choice to improve this bill and this program and chose not to for political expediency? There is a deep black hole in the current national curriculum proposal, and that is a complete lack of assistance in implementing the reforms. Currently, there is no nationally agreed or consistent approach across all jurisdictions to ensure that schools are receiving support in the area of professional development to enable teachers to implement a new national curriculum. Our amendment will rectify this to ensure a smooth transition into practice. We must offer our education professionals the training and support that they will need to implement this big change in Australia's educational system. We must not lock out teachers who work for non-government schools and, as a result, cause their students to suffer, hurting Australia's future in the process.

Our second amendment seeks to include representation from the non-government school sector in the decision-making process for future time lines of the national curriculum, providing the non-government sector with a seat at the table which they have not had to this point. This is likely a key reason why the government has thus far appeared unaware of the implementation time frame problem sought to be rectified by this bill. The government's failure to provide the non-government school sector with a seat at the table in the implementation of a national curriculum is a stark reminder of the bad old days of Mark Latham's infamous hit list, heartily supported by many members opposite during those dark days. By locking the non-government sector out of the decision-making process, we will lose the expertise and wisdom of some of the country's best and greatest educators, who want nothing more than the best education for our students. Instead of knocking down our system to the lowest common denominator, we should be seeking to raise our schools up, and to do this we should be asking for input from all educational institutions, not just those run by government.

The coalition's proposed amendments are crucial to ensuring a smooth and successful implementation of the national curriculum, and while the performance of the government in this area has been weak at best, particularly in failing to recognise and act with the coalition to address the government's failures in the implementation of the national curriculum and subsequent legislative issues such as those we are having to address with this bill, I feel it is important to review what stakeholders are saying about these important coalition amendments. The President of the NSW Teachers Federation has spoken of concern about the lack of support for the implementation of the curriculum, which the coalition amendments would address. On 10 August this year he said:

There are issues around the overarching framework it fits in and importantly there are also issues around the resourcing that will be put in place to support its implementation.

Certainly, the coalition agree the government is failing to support our teachers to implement the national curriculum. We encourage those opposite to support our amendment on this key issue.

The President of the Australian Education Union also shares this position, having said previously:

… we're also seriously worried by the absence of any funding to support the implementation.

And, as previous speakers have canvassed, the Independent Education Union has described our amendment to provide a seat at the table for the non-government school sector as 'an important step forward' and an amendment 'that should be supported by all parliamentarians'. The amendments to be moved by the coalition are good and sensible. I encourage those opposite to support these reasonable moves to improve the implementation of the national curriculum.

In conclusion, there has been a lot of discussion regarding the overly prescriptive, biased and ideological content of the national curriculum, but I will not go into that in detail. However, as a previous speaker stated, I do understand the Labor Party and the union movement are included in this new national curriculum, whereas the Liberal Party have been left out. As a previous speaker noted, could we imagine if the reverse applied? We would not hear the end of the screams. I do not have any particular problem if the Labor Party and the union movement are included in the national curriculum—that is the way this current government is going. I simply suggest that these subjects belong in the ancient history curriculum.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011. This bill seeks to repeal the 31 January date for the implementation of the national curriculum in non-government schools as outlined in the Schools Assistance Act. I congratulate the member for Hughes and the member for Wannon, who spoke before me, for their very good contributions to this debate. However, I want to take up a couple of points made by the member for Hughes. He did go on a little too much about the strength of education in New South Wales. Everyone knows that Queensland has the best education system and the best curriculum! It is arguments like those that are divisive and are half the reason we have the problems we have. When it comes to the education of our children we must step aside and, from an educator's perspective, try to get a great result.

I represent schools in Townsville, Australia's garrison city. Children come from every corner of Australia. We see kids graduate from schools in Townsville with a great collection of school uniforms and unfinished subjects across the board. We see confusion between the states and between curricula, and about what grade they will stay in or go to, especially when they transfer between states and sometimes even intrastate. Clearly a unified approach would be great. The only way we can get this done is with a united approach.

It is clear that this time frame is far too rushed. Changing the deadline is vital in ensuring that independent schools are adequately prepared for the introduction of this curriculum, the first version of which has not even been approved yet, despite protestations and assertions to the contrary even last year and despite it being less than six months until the date of its expected implementation. I reiterate the statement by Prime Minister Julia Gillard in July last year:

This nation's talked about national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.

That is pretty much like health reform. They talk about delivery before anything has even been parcelled up. That is probably the greatest statement since Prime Minister Chamberlain said, 'Peace in our time,' after having talks with Adolf Hitler. It is a bit too much to believe when it comes to these things. They just do not deliver. Has the Prime Minister of the country ever delivered anything so prematurely? We will wait and see because we have health reform and all sorts of reform that we are going to deliver that she has already said has been signed off.

It is over a year later and we still do not have a final copy of the curriculum that is ready to be used anywhere any time soon. This bill is the government's way of conceding that they have failed to deliver. They have failed to deliver the national curriculum they have been boasting about in the time line they have committed to. It is an abject failure. It should weigh heavily on the minister's mind.

The coalition has had the foresight to amend the act. Even in March this year the government failed to see the problem coming and are now scrambling to make the changes that we should have agreed to five months ago. As the member for Hughes said, this bill is completely and utterly unnecessary, but we support this bill as a necessary measure to ensure that non-government schools are given adequate time for the curriculum rollout. I acknowledge though that the government's blunders at every turn with the Australian curriculum have made this necessary.

The issues I have with the national curriculum are not related to the concept. Like many members of the coalition, I think it is important that the curriculum taught in schools is the same in Queensland as it is in every other state. My problem is the way in which this government are so lockstep, with square peg and square hole, that so many of their policies are continually mishandled. As the member for Wannon and the member for Hughes, who spoke before me, said, there should be a framework around which school principals and individual schools can work. What a school can do in Mt Isa, Nhulunbuy in the Northern Territory or Townsville is different to what a school can do in the heart of Melbourne or the heart of Sydney. There are differences and there should be a framework around which they can work to achieve the same results and get the same outcomes but give the local environment, the local identity and the local teachers and educators a chance to show why they spent four years or more at university to become teachers.

This national curriculum is heavy on details but the support for it is light. Even experts across the country have acknowledged that the content will be overwhelming for many teachers. Funding to support its implementation has been completely absent. This money is essential to provide teachers with the training and professional development needs to give children a good education from a new curriculum. Too often we see that the teachers' time has been taken off. We have more and more student-free days and more and more time out for teachers for resource time when they are not in the classroom. Teachers are like nurses: they want to be in the classroom. They want to be with their class. Too often we are pulling these people away from what they want to do—what they are trained to do—to make them fill out paperwork.

The coalition has put forward two amendments, both of which I fully support, to address some of the national curriculum's shortcomings. The first of these aims to address the lack of support for schools in implementing the new curriculum. As I have said, the government has taken no measures to ensure that schools across the country are given the assistance they need to make the national curriculum a success. This amendment seeks to address this problem. The second of the coalition's amendments relates to the standing council responsible for the national curriculum time line. Neither this council nor its advisory officials committee, the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee, have representatives specifically to represent the views of the non-government schools sector. That surely must set alarm bells ringing for everyone in this country. That this part of the education system does not have a dedicated voice in the decision-making process for the Australian curriculum is a serious limitation, and addressing this absence will ensure that adequate consultation of non-government schools can and should take place.

Non-government schools are an integral part of Townsville's community and education sector. They are every bit as important as state schools and Catholic schools. Playing a vital part in offering parents choice and alternatives and with more than one-third of Townsville's schools being non-government, it is crucial that a group that accounts for such a big proportion of our education system be listened to when decisions regarding the implementation of the new curriculum are being and will be made.

I would also like to take this opportunity to raise my concerns regarding the government's NAPLAN tests. I have had concerns in relation to NAPLAN and the way it has been rolled out since day one. I have discussed in the past in this parliament the issues I have with NAPLAN. The program has been running for four years, and it seems as though the NAPLAN agenda has completely consumed the teaching agenda. In some schools children are being taught in preschool to prepare for the year 3 NAPLAN test. In between, music, art and sport have been dropped by the wayside as people prepare for nothing else because there is so much pressure applied to the results of the NAPLAN. I was speaking to a principal at a local state school just a couple of weeks ago. He told me that he knew right now that his grade 3s next year will not do well. They know, but there is nothing they can do. They will not get the resources, so they will fail the year and their funding will be cut. Their access to these things will be cut.

Students are taught to be proficient in the areas that NAPLAN will cover as teachers in schools do whatever they can to cater to the My School website, not to deliver a rounded education to students. I also add that there should be more aide time to go with the teacher. If you can get more aide time in primary schools and early childhood especially you will have a better result in years 9, 10, 11 and 12, because the problems of children not being taught the basics will be addressed by having a teacher there all the time.

The victims in all this are the areas that are so vital to a curriculum but not covered by the NAPLAN. Sport, music and art, as I have said, have all fallen by the wayside as schools have been forced to focus instead on improving their NAPLAN scores and concentrate on nothing else. Without a wide-ranging curriculum covering all areas, not only are the opportunities of these missing fields being taken away from kids; they will be less engaged in the teaching. A national curriculum is an important chance for Australia, and the government has already created far too many problems in trying to develop this change. We must get it right and we must take the time to get it right, and to get it right we need the right people sitting at the table to give their points of view—and they must be listened to.

In supporting this bill I would like to add one final point. From pink batts to Building the Education Revolution, this government has created countless problems by trying to rush through problems in legislation. We just cannot afford that sort of behaviour. We cannot afford to add the Australian curriculum to that list. It cannot be done and it should not be done. Thank you.

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

The Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011 before us today amends the original bill in order to repeal the date by which a non-systemic or approved school system must implement the Australian national curriculum. Whilst the coalition will not oppose this bill, I must say that I am frustrated—frustrated that once again in this House we are debating yet another amendment because once again the government could not get it right. Those opposite regularly stand before us, berating the coalition for what they say is opposition for opposition's sake, accusing us of only ever saying no. But how hypocritical are these claims when, back in March, when the government amended the legislation to change the implementation date for other schools, they simply said no to the coalition's amendment to address this discrepancy. They dismissed our positive and practical proposal out of hand. Why did they oppose our amendment? Only they know. However, if the government had listened at the time, we would not be here now, debating an amendment to this legislation yet again. This all could have been concluded back in March. But we should not be surprised; listening seems to be something this Gillard government regularly fails to do.

The coalition supports the principle of a national curriculum. However, I take offence that Prime Minister Gillard has claimed that she has already delivered it. In July last year the Prime Minister stated:

This nation's talked about national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.

If the Prime Minister had indeed delivered a national curriculum back in 2008, when she claimed to, we would not be standing here, having this debate today, three years later. The national curriculum was due to be implemented from January of this year. It was not. It is still not ready, and stakeholders have serious concerns with both the content and the fact that no funding has been proposed to support schools and teachers through this massive change to our education system. Yet from what the Prime Minister said last year, as far as she is concerned a national curriculum was delivered last year.

In principle I support a national curriculum. Like the International Baccalaureate does at an international level a national curriculum would provide an equal education standard around Australia, avoiding much angst when families need to move interstate. In our transient society, it is important that students are comfortable within their learning environment, and a national curriculum helps to give them confidence. A national curriculum provides students with broader opportunities, both domestically and internationally, as their achievements are more quantifiable.

But when will this Gillard government admit that making an announcement does not equal reform? Making an announcement does not equal delivery. Real reform comes with competent delivery, smooth implementation, and open and transparent consultation with stakeholders. When you look at this government's track record of schemes such as Fuelwatch, home insulation, and Building the Education Revolution, I have grave concerns as to how the national curriculum will be rolled out.

This concern is compounded as there does not seem to be any funding or support for the necessary training required for a national curriculum to succeed. It is imperative that teachers, in both the government and the non-government sector, receive adequate support throughout this process. That is why the coalition is moving an amendment to ensure that schools are provided with appropriate support and assistance to implement the national curriculum. I do not think anyone on either side of this House would deny the importance of our teachers. Teachers are an integral part of our society, shaping the youngest in our society into lifelong learners. I also do not think that anyone in this House would deny that teachers are already undertaking a massive job with enormous responsibility often without the support they deserve and need. With the introduction of a national curriculum, their workload will increase—there is no doubt about that. An entire overhaul of the teaching curriculum will take time to learn how to teach and deliver, and would greatly benefit from teacher training and development. This is common sense, and has been endorsed by the Independent Education Union yet the government has not taken moves to ensure this occurs for non-government schools.

Perhaps the government does not understand the concerns of these stakeholders. Again, we face an issue about a lack of consultation. I have spoken on a number of bills before parliament this year which have had a major impact on the direction of industry, the economy and the Australian people. Yet with many of these bills, there has been a very limited consultation period in which stakeholders could voice their concern, raise issues and make suggestions. It seems that this may be happening again, as the concerns expressed by experts in education, teacher representative groups, and professional associations share the coalition's concern about the lack of funding. However it does not seem that their voices are being heard. Non-government schools do not have specific representation on the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee. This means that non-government schools have little opportunity to share their experience and thoughts on the implementation of a national curriculum, despite being greatly affected.

The coalition is today moving an amendment to rectify that. The government is introducing a national curriculum across the board to both government and non-government schools. This means that students and teachers in both forms of schooling will be affected, so it is very important that representatives from both are heard. Around half of all students will attend a non-government school at some point during their education, and non-government schools bring further ideas and considerations to the table. Non-government school representation is an important step forward, and I hope it is one that the government will take on board and action.

I have 19 non-government schools in my electorate which educate a significant number of students. These students will experience the national curriculum just like those at the 26 government schools in my electorate—as will their teachers and school staff. They also need support and representation as the coalition provides for in our two amendments to this bill. Even more importantly these students, teachers, administrators and parents should not be overlooked again by this government just as they were overlooked in March with the original amendments to the implementation timeline.

I trust that this government will take a good look at its failures to date and go forward with the national curriculum in a much more positive way, not bungling its implementation as it has with so many other programs. The coalition amendments to be moved would be a good start. I trust that this Gillard government does not ignore them out of spite as seemingly happened back in March when the government missed an opportunity to rectify the blown out implementation time line for all schools. Let us not see such an important change to Australian education mismanaged again.

Debate adjourned.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) 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.

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

I rise to speak tonight on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011 and the Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011. The Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011 amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to clarify and confirm the area encompassed by the 'rank and trend', as it is known, condensate production area located within the North West Shelf project area. The Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011 amends the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987 to clarify that failure to provide petroleum producers with written notification setting out the terms of a volume-weighted average of realised prices determination does not affect the making of that determination, the measure of firms, or the current application of the crude oil excise regime as it applies to condensate production. And I make it clear, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, at the outset, that the coalition will be supporting these bills. However in doing so, the coalition will move an amendment to the motion of the second reading that condemns this Labor government for its assault on the Australian energy and resources sector and for its comprehensive mismanagement of the investment framework for oil and gas exploration and the resources sector in general.

When it comes to identifying which areas of policy this government has so fundamentally mismanaged, there is some very serious competition amongst its incompetence. Along with the well-publicised failures in border protection, there is the Prime Minister's carbon tax backflip which has, in itself, made its own assault on the resources industry by making it, and it alone, pay a carbon price on the fuel it uses. There is even further competition though on the bungling of the school halls program, the pink batts program and, most recently, the mishandling of the issues involved with live exports which has decimated Northern Australia. It is not just the cattlemen and women involved who are affected, but also the truck drivers, the Aboriginal stockmen, and the economy of Northern Australia which has been built around this incredibly important export trade. So incompetent is this government that they could not even get that right. The Gillard government has inflicted some extraordinarily counterproductive and destructive policies on a sector that has contributed so significantly to our economy and should be given the opportunity to continue to do so.

The oil and gas industry over time has made an enormous contribution to Australia's economy. But just as importantly, it has provided the energy security that other countries would literally kill for. We are one of the few countries in the OECD—the only country that springs to mind—that is in fact an energy exporter in its own right. That is, we have a surplus of energy which we export. Part of that export is condensate from the North West Shelf, originally exempted as part of the incentives that were provided to this very important industry to get the project off the ground. And whilst we see those incentives ripped away by this government, we also see a very significant change in attitude within the oil and gas sector, and potentially the investors in that industry in particular.

As a result of the government's deliberate actions, Australia has been forced to suffer an erosion of our previously gilt-edged sovereign risk profile when it comes to investment in the energy and resources sector in this country. There can be no excuses for this government-led assault based on changing international circumstances or economic difficulties given that one of the very first acts of the Labor government after it was elected in November 2007 was to slug a massive tax increase on the oil and gas sector, in particular the North West Shelf, by removing the exemption that had applied to condensate. It is fair to say that without that exemption and without some very significant courage by the players at the time the exemption was introduced, including of course Sir Charles Court, the Premier of Western Australia, this condensate would be still lying under the seabed thousands of metres down.

Coalition governments, Liberal governments in particular, go out of their way to provide incentives to get these resources developed. The moment that happens we have a government currently in power, the Labor government, that then does everything it can not only to rip away the money that these companies have put at risk and have then earned quite justly but also to destroy our international sovereign risk profile. We on this side of the House, and of course the wider community, have also been aware of the Labor Party's complete and absolute inability to manage money. We have seen the field evidence from successive Labor governments that apply the big-spending, big-taxing philosophy, and this legislation is just more proof of that.

But even though I am conditioned to this big-taxing, big-spending government, I was shocked when the former Rudd government so brazenly slapped a $2.5 billion excise on condensate. This signalled a very clear intention that this was to be a government that would view the resource sector as nothing more than a cash cow. I am sorry to say that the government has lived up to, or should I say lived down to, that expectation it has created. While the oil and gas industry, in particular the offshore sector, has spent much of history well out of the public spotlight, it is nonetheless one of the most substantial sectors in our economy. During my time as minister responsible for this sector, the coalition government took great care to encourage investment and to facilitate an environment that would be conducive to exploration and production where appropriate. I travelled the world, literally, selling Australia's wares, telling of the opportunities that lay in Australia, telling of the stability of the government regimes, and providing exploration incentives to try to get companies to invest here. And what happens? We get a government now desperate for money. The government's $2.5 billion tax slug has sent a shiver down the spines of major investors in the oil and gas sector because it has shown that this is a government that is prepared to be cavalier with investment, with issues of sovereign risk and with Australia's very dearly held reputation as a safe investment destination.

This bill before the House today is one of the consequences of the government's multibillion-dollar cash grab and an attempt to clean up some of the confusion it has created from that tax grab in the zone covered by that taxation. Unfortunately, but ever responsibly, the coalition wants to end that confusion and that is why we are supporting these amendments. As I mentioned, we will not oppose these bills because we take the responsible attitude that investors in the oil and gas sector deserve some certainty in this very uncertain climate, even in a situation where the government seems to go out of its way to create uncertainty. As I say, it is our responsibility to bring what stability we can as a coalition and as an opposition to this very uncertain playing field.

No matter how the government may try to spin it, the subsequent projects in this field are in spite of what the government is doing, in spite of the hurdles it is putting in place and certainly not because the government has put in place anything like appropriate policy settings. It seems to wake up daily wondering how it can tax this whole resources sector yet again and, even more, how it can tear down any incentive that we put in place previously to compete against those investment destinations around the world that are out there every day trying to tear the investment dollar away from Australia.

I fear a sense of complacency from this government, which assumes that because Australia has had past successes in oil and gas exploration it will continue to be a productive sector regardless of how badly the government handles the regulatory settings or how badly it handles the taxation of that industry. As I mentioned, it was one of the very first actions of the Labor government to reach further into the pockets of the successful enterprises, to ramp up the taxes after all the risks had been taken, after the resource companies and investors—many of them Australian mums and dads—had put their capital at risk in a project which, I can assure you, was exceptionally borderline in its instigation in the mid-to-late eighties.

We have seen the government ramp up the taxes to this sector to provide a convenient cover for the profligate spending, which has come from those who sit opposite. This huge tax burden was slapped on the industry with no warning and no consultation. Even the Minister for Resources and Energy found out after the event. What sort of government would do this to such an important sector? It is a government that knows no bounds when it comes to applying taxes and shattering the investment security that companies and investors from overseas look for.

It is little comfort that we now recognise in retrospect that this action is the standard operation procedure for this Labor government, particularly when it comes to decisions that affect the energy and resources sector. As we know from the resources super profits tax debacle, which not only affected onshore exploration and mining but also offshore exploration and development, and from the ongoing mess that surrounds the new version of the minerals resource rent tax and the toxic carbon tax, the Rudd and Gillard government simply do not understand or do not care about the dynamics in the resources sector.

Modelling done on the impact of the carbon price on industry estimates that a carbon price of $25 a tonne would close 16 coal mines and cost 23,000 jobs in that industry alone, many of them in the electorate or adjoining the electorate of my colleague here, the member for Paterson. I can assure this House that the member for Paterson—and I had the pleasure of being up there with him the other day—is tireless in his efforts to protect jobs in the Hunter Valley. And those who sit opposite—one them is here; I will be interested if she stands up and speaks on this bill and explains why she is happy to tax the industries in her electorate—sit silent while jobs in their electorates get wasted.

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

They would be out of order if they were to interject.

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

Deputy Speaker, I do expect them to sit silent in the House but I do not expect them to sit silent in their electorates. They should be out there fighting for local jobs; they should be out there, like the member for Paterson, defending local industries. Access Economics estimated that a carbon price of $26 a tonne will cost 126,000 jobs in Australia by 2020. We are seeing jobs disappear every day. And while those jobs, it could be argued, are not directly associated with the imminent introduction of the carbon tax, I cannot believe that people are not considering the impact of that carbon tax in their decisions because you do not make an investment decision today, whether it is to open or close something, without thinking about what your prospects are over the next 20 years. Not many on that side have been in business—I understand that. It is a given: you have to be in a union if you want to sit on that side. But those of us who sit on this side have been in business and know that when you make an investment decision you make it for 20 years. In imposing tax after tax after tax—like this condensate tax, the carbon tax, the mining and resource rent tax, any new tax they can think up at any time—all you are doing is chasing that investment away. I cannot believe that we have a government that, despite all of this and the economic insecurity in international markets, is still charging blindly into putting in place more taxes, in particular the carbon tax.

Along with the carbon tax are the financial and the investment insecurity produced by the MRRT. The government's mismanagement of this issue and the RSPT, the resource super profits tax, that came before it and was such a disaster means that the energy sector has little or no faith in the direction this government is taking. The signature policy that underpins this budget, the minerals resource rent tax, continues to fall apart. It continues to build in a deficit that could occur at any time. It could not make the budget more uncertain if it tried. Treasury figures show that with the MRRT the current Prime Minister's backdown will translate into a $60 billion hit to the budget bottom line. This certainly will build in a structural deficit by having this government relying not only on the prices of the resource but also the currency fluctuations. How the Treasurer can sit in this House and say he can budget with those sorts of questions hanging over his head is beyond me. This perhaps again highlights the incompetence of this government.

If the government persists with the flawed MRRT not only it is going to put the budget stability at risk but also it is going to show this government is rolling the dice on questions of energy security and future mining investment. Sudden changes such as the condensate tax which we are talking about continue to reinforce that instability and that impact on investment security. The government constantly changing the rules of the game for investments is jeopardising Australia's once gilt-edged sovereign risk profile and making Australia a less attractive place for investment, particularly in the energy generation sector. The coalition believes that decisions about taxation paid by the mining industry should be done under the existing regime of state based royalties because the resource belongs to the people of that state. It does not belong to the Commonwealth. It should be a decision made by the state. It has worked well in the past and will continue to work well once the coalition is re-elected and we rescind the MRRT.

All this taxation—tax and spend, tax and spend; putting new taxes on the oil and gas industry, putting new taxes on the mining industry, changing those taxes—sends a simple message: other countries that are our main competitors are better investment options. The real impact of the Gillard government's carbon tax, the mineral resource tax, the change to the condensate tax, the change to excise regimes in relation to fuel is on the mining industry, which has been singled out by this government to pay the carbon tax on fuel straight up. No industry or group will pay the carbon price on fuel except the mining industry. Why doesn't the Prime Minister just stand up at that box each day and say to the oil and gas industry and the mining industry, 'We hate you and we're going to tax you out of existence'? That is what she is trying to do. She is trying to get as much money as she can from the sector that is holding our economy together.

We have seen recent examples of even Australian based resource companies deciding that they no longer want to invest here. David Flanagan of Atlas Iron, a self-made man, put his and his wife's money at risk; he took the big dive to build up a company and get it rolling. He is going to be taxed on that at a level never seen before and at a rate far higher than his bigger competitors BHP, Rio and Xstrata. David's company's response to that is to make an investment in Brazil of $18.7 million that will not be invested in the resource sector here and will not give Australians the opportunity to have jobs. It simply has got far too hard.

The Prime Minister can expect to read plenty more about companies choosing to invest in projects in other countries, given the damage this government has inflicted on the sovereign risk profile of Australia's energy and resources sector. As it stands at the moment, the series of taxes including this condensate tax undermines Australia's energy security and risks international investment in the vital energy and resources sector. Coming at a time when the economy is also being slugged with a carbon tax, these policies show how poorly this government understands the contribution of the energy and resources sector and how ill equipped the government is to handle the economy.

In conclusion, this government has been digging deeper and deeper into the pockets of Australian workers and businesses. Every day it discovers a new way to tax people, like the quarter of a million Australian families who are now going to be taxed on the LPG they use in their family motor cars. Introduced by the Howard government, an incentive has been paid to these families to convert their cars to LPG. But like a honey trap, this government gets them into that position where they rely on LPG and then it taxes it. They cannot get away—unbelievable. But that is just part of how this government operates. It operates in a policy vacuum—no energy white paper, no direction to industry on how it is going to be done, no backdrop of how energy and resources investments should be made. The only messages that come out are: 'Here's a new condensate tax; here's a new carbon tax; here's a new LPG tax; here's a new tax on resources.' The energy and resources sector is constantly being used as a cash cow for this big-taxing, big-spending government that cannot control its own finances.

The energy and resources sector, including the oil and gas and the mining industries, is one of the driving forces behind the Australian economy. At the moment, it is sustaining the economy at a time of global difficulty, and when the manufacturing sector faces difficulties in competing with the very high dollar and the imports that are coming in. But we have a government, as I have said repeatedly and will continue to say both in this House and outside, that has no qualms about taxing this industry whenever it can.

The coalition will not object to these bills, but the Gillard government should stand condemned for its continued and comprehensive mismanagement of policies that apply to this sector and its high-taxing, high-spending regime that is hitting all sectors of the economy.

I move:

  That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) objects to the Government's repeated attacks on the resources sector, in particular its decision to impose a $2.5 billion tax on condensate on the North West Shelf in 2008, a decision which has made it necessary for this legislation attempting to clarify confusion created about taxable areas;

(2) notes the Government's comprehensive failure to provide leadership for the energy and resources sector, most grievously by its failure to deliver an Energy White Paper;

(3) expresses concern about the Government's decisions to put more pressure on all sectors of the economy by inflicting taxes such as the condensate tax, carbon tax and minerals resource rent tax;

(4) calls on the Government to scrap its destructive high taxing regime which is inflicting damage on the energy and resources sector, which is one of the most profitable sectors of the Australian economy."

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

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor 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 Groom has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

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

I rise to speak in support of these cognate bills, the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011 and the Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011. I also stand to oppose the amendment moved by the member for Groom. Contrary to the member for Groom and the accusations he has made, I support these bills because they evidence this government's strong fiscal discipline and represent many of the values that we as a government hold at our core. All Australians should benefit collectively from the natural resources that we have inherited. They are not resources that will continue forever. They are finite resources, and these bills foster the fairer distribution of their benefit throughout the Australian community, with government correctly acting as the conduit between the people and corporate institutions.

The stronger, fairer and simpler tax reforms that this government is pursuing, including those embodied in these bills, go some way towards achieving this. When we make economic policy, we ask: will this make our economy stronger? In the case of these bills, it will. Will it make it fairer? In the case of these bills, it will. I find it quite surprising that the opposition would put a very different case when they have a $70 billion black hole in their budget forecast to explain.

We are a generous nation, and the dignity of work, the social benefits of gainful employment and the equitable distribution of prosperity are all principles that this Labor government seeks to foster. We will not shirk our responsibility to keep our economy strong and produce a more prosperous society, and we will continue to make the reforms to the taxation system that are necessary to modernise the economy and foster the growth of our society. We have not and will not put sovereign wealth at risk, as the member for Groom recklessly suggests. But, yes, we will remove a tax break that is absolutely past its use-by date.

Since 1977, the federal government has exempted condensate production from the crude oil excise regime, recognising the need to support the exploration and development of petroleum resources within the North West Shelf. As a result of the exemption, petroleum fields in the region matured, the energy demand of the people of Western Australia was satisfied and business benefited from the excise exemption in the order of more than $1 billion. However, since then, the Australian economy has radically changed and the business environment has shifted. The exemption has become outdated and no longer reflects the current needs of the resource sector. Yesterday, the Sunday Times reported that BHP Billiton is expected to unveil full-year earnings for 2011 of US$22.1 billion, while Rio Tinto's half-year net profit was approximately US$7.6 billion. With oil prices for non-renewable energy resources remaining high, the subsidisation of resource divestment in the North West Shelf is no longer necessary.

Greenpeace highlighted this in their submissions to the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy when they asked the government to consider redirecting excise exemptions for non-renewable energy production to the development of renewable energy technologies. That is exactly what we have been doing for three years—trying to invest again and to encourage investment in renewable energy technologies after 12 years of neglect by the Howard government. That sentiment was not only expressed by Greenpeace; it was reiterated by the Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Don Henry. Shane Wright, the economics editor for the West Australian, hardly a socialist rag for the chattering classes, summarised this line of thinking succinctly when he asked:

Why keep a tax break that was aimed to get a project up when the project is now highly profitable and expanded beyond its initial parameters?

I agree and would suggest that the member for Groom should take note of that comment by an established economics commentator from Western Australia no less.

In order to modernise the excise regime, we removed the crude oil excise exemption on condensate in the 2008-09 budget through the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008 and the Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill of 2008 with effect from 13 May of that year. In the absence of government subsidy, condensate and crude oil are now taxed in a similar manner. As resource management expert, Dr Richard Griffiths commented, 'There is no strong argument for exemption other than the usual one—that no-one likes to be taxed,' but this legislation simply closes a loophole. It does impose a new tax.

These bills clarify the application of the current excise regime to condensate production on the North West Shelf and amend the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987 Specifically, they address the existing uncertainty regarding the prescription of the Rankin Trend condensate production area in order to effectively implement the condensate measure and clarify that a failure to provide written notification of a price determination to a producer does not invalidate that determination. This is because BHP Billiton and its six partners in the North West Shelf LNG resource project have commenced proceedings in the Federal Court alleging that the Rankin Trend is of uncertain size and therefore invalid; and that the condensate production areas located on the North West Shelf operated by North West Shelf LNG consist of several gas fields rather than one field, thereby allowing for a larger production threshold before the excise cuts in. The consortia further allege that the VOLWARE prices were not valid as written notification of the price determinations had not been provided to producers as required.

The original measures introduced in 2008 are estimated to raise approximately $2.8 billion by 1 July 2012 and will increase the return to the Australian community from the non-renewable resources that are extracted from our soil. It is because of the financial implications of the consortia's challenge to the abolition of the excise exemption that we have decided to act proactively and legislate to define the Rankin Trend—$2.8 billion; I do not think anyone would agree that that has to be ripped out of our economy.

However, I do note that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has criticised this legislation as a retrospective 'trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the Committee's terms of reference'. This is because the measures contained in this bill take effect from midnight 13 May 2008, consistent with the original 2008-09 budget measure. Yet, with all due respect, it seems clear that these bills do not effect a retrospective impost on corporations operating on the North West Shelf but clarify the existing state of the law. Accordingly, it is not retrospective in the sense that the committee has suggested and not contrary to modern notions of the rule of law or individual rights and liberties.

These bills are a testament to our ongoing work to ensure the fair distribution of opportunity in this country and our belief that all Australians should benefit collectively from the resources that are extracted from our soil and which rightly belong to all the people of this country. In this respect, these bills are similar to the mining resource rent tax, which will be legislated later this year, because they ensure that the Australian people receive greater benefit from the development of our mineral resources. It surprises me that the member for Groom so roundly criticises that measure when I know how much he has been involved in some of the calculations around that. By removing the condensate excise exemption, the federal government can reallocate the subsidies and invest in the infrastructure we need for the future. It can reduce company tax rates and ensure that every sector of our patchwork economy prospers.

The opposition, in moving their amendment, would suggest that we destroy our international sovereign risk portfolio. Not only is that rubbish; it is reckless. We are blessed as a nation with absolute security for investors. Investors know that they get a regulatory framework that is strong and fair. They know that they get skilled labour. They know that they get the support of government. They know that they operate in a safe and secure environment. They know that these sorts of changes and reforms will occur. They are not radical; they are a natural progression for a country that has achieved great wealth from its mineral resources. They are about sustaining wealth and making sure the benefits of that wealth flow to as many people as possible and to the generations of the future.

Many commentators at the moment talk about the Dutch disease and we talk about a patchwork economy. We have to do everything we can to be fair in this country. We cannot move everybody to Western Australia. We cannot move everybody to the mining and energy resources rich areas. We have to do all we can to maintain wealth and sustain jobs throughout the whole country.

The coalition condemns these bills as an assault on the energy and resources sector. That has never happened under this government. Our ministers in those areas—Martin Ferguson, in particular—have worked hand in glove with the energy and resources industry sector and have, I think, their respect and trust. They know we will be tough and pursue our agenda, but they know we will consult, discuss and, when it comes down to it, if we differ, the government will pursue its agenda as it should in the best interests of the public of this country.

When you think about the framework of change of legislation, I am sure the member for Groom did not mean the very much more robust safety regimes we have put in around oil and gas exploration and production. I hope he did not mean that, because we have created so much legislation to protect the sector from the damaging fallout of incidents that we have seen around the country. I think we all remember the spill on the north-west coast and how fortunate we were that that did not have a greater impact, and we have responded to all the findings from those studies. The member for Groom thinks that somehow this is legislation about the carbon tax. No, it is not about pricing carbon and it is quite scurrilous to suggest it is. He quotes studies about job losses and says that there will be job losses in my area. In fact, overall there will be job growth. There will be transition; there will be transformation. Newcastle is our best example of dealing with transition and transformation of our economy. We also know that you cannot just oppose; you cannot just condemn; you do have to be held to account. It is time the opposition were held to account. They pose no solutions at this stage for their $70 billion hole and their economic mismanagement.

Before I finish, I want to congratulate the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and the federal Labor government since 2007, not just on this bill but on taking on, simplifying, harmonising, amalgamating, modernising and correcting anomalies in so many areas of taxation legislation. This is just one of so many pieces of legislation that has found its way before the House by a responsible government that certainly is making our economy stronger. Finally, I commend the bills to the House and I oppose the amendment moved by the member for Groom.

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

I rise this evening to make some comment in this debate in relation to the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011 and the cognate bill. Of course, this measure is almost shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. I do accept that the major purpose of this amendment is to dispel any doubt as to the impact of the original measure, which was the removal of an exemption from paying excise on condensate that was won as almost a by-product of the development of the North West Shelf gas fields, specifically the Rankin field.

I am sure you recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the North West Shelf gas field was viable only after very long negotiations and strong commitment by the Western Australian government and specifically Sir Charles Court, who negotiated considerations for the Woodside North West Shelf group that allowed such a project to proceed. In the days prior to the commencement of that project, Australia was awash with sceptics—awash with individuals who could come up with every reason for not proceedings with investment in the North West Shelf gas project. The late Sir Charles, to his great credit, had a vision for the development of that petroleum field and could see quite clearly that, so long as the administrative process was put in place that gave some consideration to that project and its investors, it could be a successful project. All went well. I was most fortunate to be a resident of Karratha in those heady years of the commencement of that Woodside project. I saw the changes, so many of them for the greater good of, firstly, the Pilbara community of Dampier and Karratha but, secondly, of Western Australia and the nation as a whole.

Of course, that was a very long time ago. With the emergence of Woodside as a mature, sophisticated, technically competent company and its very large workforce, one Mr Gary Gray emerged as an employee of Woodside. To the great credit of Woodside, they encouraged his challenge to the electorate of Brand, and it is history that his challenge was successful and he was elected as the member for Brand. Everyone in Western Australia was very happy to have as a member of the federal parliament a member who had good sense, excellent knowledge and experience in the oil and gas industry, because we did not have somebody with such qualifications previously. Woodside was very happy; Gary Gray was very happy; the Labor Party of Western Australia was very happy—and then along came the May 2008 budget. Boy, oh, boy, didn't we see some radical change from that point! We saw the new member for Brand absolutely backstabbed and insulted because a pack of greenies headed by Greenpeace decided that the exemption that was being offered to Woodside—which, do not forget, was the very reason that this project was finally financially viable—should not be allowed. This whole strategy was knifed by Treasury.

I have just heard the member for Newcastle waxing lyrical about the fine skills of the Treasurer and Treasury in getting it right. My goodness! I thought that, amongst all of the other failings of the member for Newcastle, blindness would not be one of them. She commended Treasury and the Treasurer simply on the basis of turning green. We know the reason, of course: it keeps Bob Brown and his henchmen close and cooperating with the stated intention of this government, which is simply to stay in power at any cost for as long as possible, because, if we go to an election, there will be an absolute abject failure by this government to win the votes necessary to get back in power. So there was an act of treachery that quite clearly paved the way for the final treatment of Kevin Rudd—and we know what happened to him. There seems to be little doubt that the Australian public's attitude towards and definition of this government right now—that this is a toxic government wanting to impose a further toxic tax—is pretty much spot on. The training ground in treachery was the knifing of the member for Brand, Gary Gray—who, I might add, is a very honourable fellow—as well as the about-face in the treatment of Woodside condensate and the resultant disillusionment of Woodside. That company had no knowledge that they were going to have the rug pulled from under them and a $2 billion-dollar tax—a trifling amount, I am sure, to this Treasurer, but an amount that was very important to Woodside, to West Australians and to shareholders in Woodside—imposed on them. But I am sure that, if it was justified by the leader of Greenpeace, it was all right, because it would have been in keeping with the attitudes espoused by Bob Brown of the Greens and by the Treasurer in cooperating with Greenpeace and the Greens in order to maintain power.

This bill is very specific and highly technical. It defines the Rankin Trend—some condensate is from geological areas within the Rankin Trend, while other condensate is not. Previously, condensate from the Rankin Trend was exempted; under this bill, it is intended that it will no longer be exempted. It is very boring legislation, but, typically, it makes its intentions very clear. It is also retrospective—it dates back to 13 May 2008 in its impact.

In discussions surrounding this bill tonight, we have heard much criticism by the member for Newcastle of the comments of the member for Groom. The member for Groom wanted simply to point out that we do not act sensibly if we aspire to reducing carbon emissions but do not recognise the gas industry for what it is worth. It is an industry that will reduce pollution relative to the pollution that may have been caused had we used coal as an energy, and we fail to recognise that at our own expense. Therefore, I think it is quite reasonable to state that this bill almost represents yet another own goal. It strikes me as extremely lopsided to attack an industry that will produce fewer emissions by imposing additional taxes on it, which this legislation does—and here I am merely clarifying where the legislation will hit—whilst trying to reduce emissions.

The other statement of the member for Groom that was questioned by the member for Newcastle was that this bill represents further evidence that Australia's good reputation as a secure location for international investment was being further trashed by the actions of this government. But if anyone doubts that, they need simply to lift their gaze to the horizon by communicating with a few of our overseas finance houses and looking at some of the internal mail every time there is an action such as this which further destroys the reputation of, firstly, the Rudd government and, secondly, the Gillard government.

We have a great deal going for us in this nation. We are incredibly rich in mineral wealth and petroleum resources, we are in very close proximity to Asia and therefore some of our strongest trading partners, we have had in the past very secure and predictable administration and a safe working environment as well as, in recent times, very efficient ports—many of them privately controlled and run—and infrastructure which works in an incredibly efficient manner by comparison with other port and rail infrastructure in the world. Yet all of those assets are going to amount to nothing if we cannot say to our overseas investors, whose capital is mobile and able to land in any part of the globe, 'Your investment is safe because our taxation regime is consistent.' Those investors will be inclined to overlook our proximity to markets, the efficiency of our materials handling infrastructure and our good record in the area of industrial relations. We trash our reputation as a secure location for investment every time we change the rules after the commencement of the game. We have seen too much evidence in the life of the Rudd and then the Gillard governments of a highly valued reputation trashed time and again overseas to the point where many commentators have raised issues like: 'What are you doing down there, shooting yourself in the foot? Why are you coming up with these taxation changes that will send investors away in droves?' For anybody to suggest that the security of investment in Australia today is equal to that prior to the 2007 election is in dreamland. Ask any international investor whether our reputation today stacks up with that of pre-2007 and they will say emphatically, 'No'. They sincerely hope that it is not trashed any further with any other crazy ideas emerging as policy from cooperation with the Greens or aspirations to take minute portions of reviews of taxation and impose all of the stick and none of the benefits, as has been done too often. I support the push for amendment of this bill and I thank the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011 and the Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011. In the 2008-09 budget the Labor government announced the removal of the crude oil excise exemption that had applied to condensate production since 1977. Condensate production is subject to an excise regime that is the equivalent to that applying to stabilised crude oil discovered on or after 18 September 1975. Under the regime the excise is applied to condensate production from individual prescribed condensate production areas in a manner that is similar to income tax: higher rates apply to production exceeding certain thresholds up to a maximum of 30 per cent. To implement the condensate measure the Commissioner of Taxation issued a bylaw prescribing both Rankin Trend, which contains a number of condensate producing reservoirs, and Angel as being condensate production areas located on the North West Shelf production area.

This legislation amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and it does so for a simple reason. The aim of the legislation is to address uncertainty regarding the scope of the Rankin Trend. The legislation will statutorily define the Rankin Trend production area principally by reference to those reservoirs within the intended Rankin Trend area that are currently producing condensate. The amendments also provide for the resources minister to add known but currently non-producing reservoirs to Rankin Trend by specifying them in regulations. Where he is satisfied that they form part of the Rankin Trend field and after considering the effect that specification may have on the efficient exploitation of the resource. As a result of this bill the price of condensate on which excise duty is calculated is known as the volume weighted average realised price, or the VOLWARE price. It is determined in accordance with the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987. That act provides that oil producers have to be provided with written notice of VOLWARE price determinations. The Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011 amends the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987 to clarify the failure to provide petroleum producers with written notification does not invalidate the determination and consequently eliminate crude oil excise liability. I do not think any of us in this House would like to see that outcome. The amendments together will ensure that crude oil excise applies to condensate which is consistent with the original policy intent and the revenue collected to date is protected.

The North West Shelf partners commenced a legal challenge to their condensate excise liability on technical grounds. They argued that the condensate production area known as Rankin Trend is not valid as it is of uncertain size and that the VOLWARE prices were not valid because the written notification of the price determinations had not been provided to producers as required. These amendments will provide clarity and they will clearly define the scope of the Rankin Trend area and clarify the failure to provide a written notice of a price determination does not invalidate the determination. They will apply from midnight on 13 May 2008 and that is consistent with the original decision.

The opposition, while not necessarily opposing the legislation, have moved an amendment to this and their amendment goes to a much broader set of issues. As is their wont, the opposition—they are after all the 'no' party—have used this opportunity again to put three noes on the table. They want to say 'no' to the condensate tax—it will be interesting to see how they vote on this one—'no' to carbon pricing, and 'no' to a minerals resource rent tax.

It is important to provide the economic context in which Australia is sitting at the moment. When the global economic downturn happened, Australia acted as quickly as any other country in the world. We had in place household stimulus payments as early as October 2008. That was extraordinarily fast and reflects the fact that many of those senior public servants dealing with this downturn had cut their teeth on the recession of the early 1990s, a recession in which it is generally acknowledged fiscal and monetary policy acted too slowly. That was not the case in the latest downturn. We put in place timely, temporary and targeted fiscal stimulus. We did it in two different tranches. Economics clearly tells us that household payments have a lower bang for the buck—a smaller multiplier effect—but they act quickly. So a portion of the stimulus came in household payments. Economic theory also tells us that infrastructure expenditure has a higher bang for the buck—a higher multiplier—but takes longer to take effect. So the package sensibly, as the OECD and the IMF suggested, contained elements of both of those.

We have strong evidence that both sides of that package worked. For example, my own work when I was an economics professor at the ANU, which surveyed recipients of stimulus payments, estimated that a substantial portion of those stimulus payments was spent and went directly back into the economy. You can see that simply by looking at the timing of the stimulus payments and putting them on top of retail trade figures: there were big spikes in retail trade in December and again when the second tranche of payments came out around February, March and April. This was absolutely critical. We know that in a downturn it is the construction sector that is hit hardest—the construction sector is a particularly cyclical part of the economy—and so the infrastructure that we put in place was enormously important in ensuring that construction jobs were maintained, that young apprentices who had just started out in their careers were able to continue working and that you did not get the demoralising, debilitating and deskilling effect that a downturn can cause.

I left high school in 1990, just as the early nineties recession was starting to hit, and I can tell you that a recession is not a pretty time to leave high school. Many of my friends spent a long time looking for work. That did not happen this time around. Youngsters who left Australian high schools in 2008-09 were able to walk into an economy where the unemployment rate was the envy of much of the developed world. The unemployment rate now is only five per cent in Australia, substantially below the nine per cent in the United States and the eight per cent in the United Kingdom. It is so often mentioned by economic policymakers in this country—not just the Treasurer but also the Reserve Bank governor—that when they go to international meetings and sit amidst their counterparts from developed nations there is no-one in that room who would not happily trade places with them and take on the economic fundamentals of Australia. Those economic fundamentals are extraordinarily strong.

The debt that we took on arose from two sources. One is the revenue downgrades. In a recession revenues fall, particularly corporate profits, so two-thirds of the rise in debt is actually just a result of the effect that the lower company profits had on government revenues. The other third is the stimulus payments. So, every time you hear a member of the coalition saying Australia should have no debt, you need to recognise exactly what they are saying. They say that, when the global financial crisis hit, Australia should have taken the Herbert Hoover approach and slashed government spending. Not only are those people anti stimulus; they are actually saying we should have contracted government spending when the global downturn hit. That is what an anti-debt position amounts to.

But our debt is modest. When many countries in the OECD have debt levels that are nearly their entire annual GDP and sometimes higher, Australia's is $7,000 of debt for every $100,000 of income. That is about the level of debt that many households would take on to buy a small car. I do not recommend it, but there are many Australian households that carry $7,000 worth of credit card debt. So Australia's debt must be put into perspective and we must always remember what we bought for that debt: 200,000 jobs saved. That is 200,000 lives that were not blighted by unemployment.

But the opposition's amendment also goes to attacking the minerals resource rent tax, a tax which will put in place a fairer regime for the taxation of minerals in this country—a regime that will ensure that Australians get a fair share of the minerals that are their birthright—and a more economically efficient way of taxing minerals resource rents based on profits, not on royalties. We are also putting in place carbon pricing. We are doing that because every credible economist tells you that if you want to deal with a negative externality—and that is what carbon pollution is in economic jargon—then you go straight to the source of the problem. You put a price on carbon pollution, and that is exactly what we are doing. By contrast, the opposition, when they do not like the fact that they cannot find a single economist to back their so-called direct action plan, attack economists. So the Leader of the Opposition will go out and say that the fact that he cannot find an economist to back his plan is a reflection on the quality of the Australian economics profession. As my good friend Joshua Gans said, 'No, I think that's a reflection on the quality of Australian opposition leaders.'

We also need to look at the fiscal situation in which the opposition now find themselves. They are currently in a $70 billion black hole. I do not think we have spoken in Australian politics of a black hole of these proportions. We have in the past spoken of black holes; one side of politics or another has spoken of black holes of a few billion dollars or maybe $10 billion. But $70 billion? This really is unprecedented.

Let us go and break it down a little. Thirty-seven billion dollars of that black hole is spending commitments that the opposition announced during the election. Eleven billion dollars of that black hole would come from unwinding the minerals resource rent tax, saying to mining companies, 'You'd be paying too much tax under the minerals resource rent tax; here, have a little bit back,' and, of course, unwinding the superannuation for low-income earners, the company tax cuts for small businesses and the many good economic reforms that flow from that package. Another $27 billion of the coalition's $70 billion black hole comes from unwinding the carbon price—$24 billion in gross revenues from carbon pricing and another $3 billion from the coalition's direct action plan. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is under the lower estimates for the coalition's expenditure. As you would recall, the coalition have now moved to a 'we don't deal with foreigners' approach when it comes to carbon pricing, which makes their approach to climate change all the more expensive. Another $7 billion to $8 billion is to fund their income tax cuts.

In practical terms, what does that $70 billion in savings mean? It means stopping Medicare payments for four years, stopping the age pension for two years, stopping assistance to people with disabilities for three years or stopping family tax benefit payments for three years. It requires savings equivalent to doubling the GST for a single year. This is the situation in which the coalition find themselves. It is extraordinary that they are now willing to trash their economic credentials on virtually every issue. The coalition spokesperson for agriculture is now saying that Australia should start a trade war with New Zealand. What could be more economically irresponsible?

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

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

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

The Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill before the House is an embarrassing leftover from the Leader of the Opposition's attempt to have a vote that even he said he would not abide by. Having told this parliament that a plebiscite was going to be brought before it, the Leader of the Opposition has had to follow through. But it is difficult to know what the Leader of the Opposition expects to make of this. As with his 'say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience' approach, on this issue the Leader of the Opposition has said on some days that he would abide by the results of a plebiscite and on other days that he would not abide by the results of a plebiscite.

I think ordinary Australians see this for the stunt that it is. They recognise that what faces Australia now are two very different plans. The major political parties in Australia are committed to the same targets. Both sides of the House are committed to a target of a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020. That percentage sounds fairly small, but it is important to remember that is against a business-as-usual case in which emissions rise substantially and in a context in which the Australian economy grows substantially. If you think of total carbon emissions per dollar of GDP, the five per cent emissions reduction target actually represents a halving of the carbon intensity in the Australian economy. So it is a target worth fighting for. It is going to make a real difference to the environment.

I am pleased that, at least for now, the opposition are in the tent on that policy. The trouble is that they are in the tent in the most inefficient way. While the government are looking at the high-speed rail solution, the coalition are standing by the side of the road seeing if they can thumb a ride from anyone going by because their battered jalopy has broken down.

The government's strategy goes directly to the problem. It goes directly to the fact that dangerous carbon pollution is causing world temperatures to rise. We have seen steady warming—there is a clear consensus among scientists that the world is warming and that humans are causing that warming. We know, for example, that in Australia each decade since World War II has been warmer than the one that preceded it. We know that sea level rises have occurred. We know that temperature rises have occurred. And we know that the pattern of temperature change is consistent with human induced warming. If you look at the different levels of the atmosphere in which the warming has taken place, what you see will be entirely consistent with what anthropogenic climate change models would predict. That means we need to go directly to the heart of the problem, and the government is doing that by pricing carbon pollution. By putting a price on carbon pollution we induce innovation in the market, we encourage entrepreneurs to make the decisions that will ensure that we as a community reduce dangerous carbon pollution to the greatest extent possible.

By contrast, the coalition has a 'subsidies for polluters' plan. While Labor will put in place a price on pollution and provide generous assistance to households and businesses and investment in renewables, the coalition will slug Australian households. We thought that slug would be $720 a year until the coalition said that they would not internationally link those schemes. Whereas the trend throughout the world has been international linkage of carbon pricing schemes, the coalition now has a 'go it alone' approach. That, of course, would push up the cost to households. Our estimate now is that the cost of the coalition's 'subsidies for polluters' scheme would be $1,300 for each Australian household. That would be a substantial slug, and what you would get for it would be a much less effective scheme.

At the same time, the coalition are committed to axing the very public servants who would be needed to administer their scheme. We will encourage polluters to put in place abatement technologies and to use their fuel more effectively. We will encourage households to choose the lower carbon product on the shelf. But the coalition's direct action program, far from allowing them to scrap the department of climate change—as they have claimed—would most likely require more public servants to administer. It would most likely require an increase in personnel because, if you put in place a scheme which is straight out of central planning, you need more people to do that central planning.

We have seen throughout this process the Prime Minister being willing to face the hard questions. The Prime Minister has constantly been willing to go out and speak to people in shopping centres and engage with people at community meetings. She has engaged with a wide cross-section of Australians. But the Leader of the Opposition has constantly been running away. He is only willing to speak to hand-picked audiences. He is only willing to speak to the party faithful.

A couple of weekends ago, after walking out of a Western Australian Liberal Party conference, which voted for a royal commission into climate science, a great embarrassment on the Liberal Party if ever there was one—one assumes the next Western Australian Liberal Party motion will be for a royal commission into the notion that Elvis is alive and well and living in Subiaco, or into whether or not the moon landing was faked—the Leader of the Opposition literally ran away from journalists. They asked him hard questions, and his car was not there to pick him up, so he had to run around the corner.

When he arrives here in Canberra, we see much the same. The Leader of the Opposition made his way up to Dickson—my local shopping centre, where I held a mobile office last Saturday—and sought to hold a media stunt, at a local butcher. The only slight snag he ran into was that the butcher would not have a cut of it. The butcher would not let the Leader of the Opposition through the door. So the Leader of the Opposition had to drive down to the other end of Canberra—to Fyshwick—to find another butcher, who would let him in. The matter, not surprisingly, arose at the subsequent media conference—this was on 17 August—that the Leader of the Opposition put in place. Questions were put to the Leader of the Opposition such as:

Did your office try to persuade the owners to let you still come in this morning?

Mr Abbott's answer:

Again, I'm not going to go into the ins and the outs …

The next question was:

So they didn't refuse to let you in?

Mr Abbott's response:

But the point I try to make at all times is …

The journalist asked:

But on the subject, though, were you refused entry to that shop? Were you refused entry to the shop by the staff there?

The Leader of the Opposition said:

I can understand why the Australian people feel deeply ripped off …

Finally, at that point, one of the journalists said:

But you're not answering the question, Mr Abbott.

And that is symptomatic of the Leader of the Opposition's approach. It was noted in Twitter:

So much for steak-holders.

And 'Will Mr Abbott again appear on Meat the Press?' Another wag noted, 'Perhaps some of his schedulers might be in for the chop.'

But while there is much amusement to be had from the Leader of the Opposition's flips and backflips, we are dealing here with very serious issues. Those serious issues concern those of us who are serious about long-term economic reform when we see the sort of scare campaign that the Leader of the Opposition is running. On A Current Affair on 1 December 2009, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'This will be a truth campaign, not a scare campaign.' But, alas, we have seen anything but. At a doorstop on 12 July the Leader of the Opposition said:

… the whole purpose of the carbon tax is to phase out the coal industry.

That is not true at all. We know that trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries will have generous assistance available to them. We know that the permits that will be provided will be provided for good reason: Labor has always been the party that has stood up for Australian jobs. And Labor recognises that because climate change is a global problem we will not solve anything by exporting pollution overseas. If an emitter simply moves to another country then that will not do any good for climate change. So we want to ensure that emissions do not move overseas, but we do not want to blunt the effect of the carbon price. Providing free permits prevents that: the price effect is still there but by providing the free permits we will ensure that the jobs are maintained.

The Leader of the Opposition has said, at the Peabody Metropolitan mine on 9 June 2011:

… the problem is that this mine will be one of many mines under threat if Julia Gillard's carbon tax goes ahead.

Later on that occasion the Leader of the Opposition said:

A carbon tax ultimately means death to the coal industry and that's very, very bad news for the Illawarra, bad news for this mine and everyone who works here.

This constant scare campaign would be one thing if it was just directed to people in this place, but Australians are busy people, they often only have a chance to get small snippets of the news—maybe a few grabs here and there—so it is not surprising that, having run a vigorous scare campaign over the past couple of years, Mr Abbott has succeeded in scaring some Australians. We have seen the effect of that in the trucks that have arrived, snarling up the traffic in my electorate this morning.

But just because you run a scare campaign does not mean you have your facts right. Mr Abbott has said that as a result of the carbon price Whyalla will be 'wiped off the map'. He said that at a doorstop on 22 April 2011. But that is not the view of the steel companies. OneSteel is completing a $65 million upgrade of its Whyalla blast furnace to extend its working life beyond 2020. BlueScope has described the carbon price as 'a pragmatic solution to a complex problem'.

We have had many respected voices in the industry who have recognised the importance of putting a price on carbon pollution. The value of using a market based mechanism is that if you start early then you are able to achieve least-cost abatement. As with many things in life, as the Prime Minister has noted, this will not get cheaper by putting it off.

The Leader of the Opposition has had a multiplicity of positions on carbon pricing. In 19 July 2011 he said:

I've never been in favour of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.

But that stands in stark contrast with his interview on Sky News when he said, on 29 July 2009:

I also think that if you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?

Then he supported the emissions trading scheme. On 22 November 2009 on 2UE he said, 'You cannot have a climate change policy without supporting this ETS at this time.' On 2 October 2009, on Lateline, he said:

We don't want to play games with the planet. So we are taking this issue seriously and we would like to see an ETS …

As the member for Wentworth has noted on his blog on 7 December 2009:

His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weathervane on this, but …

Australians are increasingly realising that the Leader of the Opposition will say anything to any audience.

That stands in stark contrasts to the leaders that have come before him. There are many things on which I would disagree with former prime minister John Howard but he did take seriously the challenge of carbon pollution. He commissioned work to be done on climate change and the use of market based mechanisms in the late 1990s. Former prime minister John Howard went to the 2007 election promising to implement an emissions trading scheme. The member for Wentworth, as Leader of the Opposition, continued that tradition. Why? Because sensible conservatives around the world recognise that market based solutions to environmental problems are in the great tradition of small 'l' liberalism. As a result, we on this side of the House are now the heirs to the Deakin legacy. We are the heirs to the legacy of ongoing reform. We stand for economic reform, for the long game, for focusing on solutions that will build a better Australia.

The modern Liberal Party has simply turned into the party of no. They hate us on every issue. You can see that hate is palpable when they hold their community meetings. But ultimately they need us. The modern Liberal and National parties are no longer parties of ideologies, of belief, as they once were. They are now anti-Labor parties. They are now antireform parties. They need us because without us they stand for nothing. The definition of the modern Liberal-National Party platform these days is 'Whatever the Labor Party is for, we are against it.' They are the party of opposition, the party of denial, the party of negativity and the party of no.

There is another party like that in world politics and that is the Tea Party. We have seen Senator Bernardi calling for an Australian Tea Party. Senator Bernardi would like to see the Tea Party imported into Australia, but we do not need a modern Tea Party because we have the Liberal and National parties willing to say anything to any audience, willing to oppose anything that this government puts forward. They have been willing to oppose so many sensible reforms over the course of this year, including reforms which they introduced. We saw the extraordinary situation earlier this year in which reforms on fuel taxation introduced by then Treasurer Peter Costello were opposed by the Liberal and National parties for the sake of a cheap headline. They decided that it was better to back economic populism rather than support economic reform that was in the long-run interests of Australia.

The Leader of the Opposition is pursuing a strategy which has its antecedence in the doomsday cult leader. Doomsday cult leaders are greatly successful for a number of different reasons. The first thing a doomsday cult leader can do is offer absolutely everything to their followers: 'You want free food? I've got it. You want free wine? I've got it. You want free love? I've got it.' You can see that in the $70 billion black hole in the opposition's costings. The opposition have such a deep hole in their costings because they are willing to offer something to everybody but are never able to say where the money will come from. If you want to stand before the Australian people as an alternative government you need to identify where the savings are coming from. But, no, the opposition would rather stand up as a doomsday cult and say you can have anything you want: 'You won't have to pay for it; we'll give it all to you.'

The second similarity with a doomsday cult is that the opposition are predicting the end of the world. They have—like all good doomsday cult leaders—a particular date in mind. Their date is 1 July 2012. On 1 July 2012 prices will skyrocket, towns will be wiped off the map and whole industries will be destroyed. We know that none of these claims are true. We know the price effect will be 0.7 per cent of the CPI, less than one-third of the price impact of the GST. We know that generous assistance to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries will ensure that jobs are supported. We know that the generous household assistance will ensure that Australians are able to buy the basket of goods that they currently buy. But for those running the doomsday cult it is useful to have a date on which the world will end. That is how you rally the supporters around you. You need to have a concrete moment at which the world will end and that date for the opposition is 1 July 2012.

There is just one small problem—one which is common to all doomsday cults—and that is the date eventually comes around. There is a day on which you have to look your followers in the eye and say, 'Well, it didn't quite pan out the way we said it would.' And so on 2 July 2012 the opposition will be looking their followers in the eye and trying to explain why the prices on the shelves and jobs look pretty much the way they used to. I do not think we should predict that the cult will completely fall apart. I am indebted to some work by Leon Festinger and other sociological researchers and their book When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. They note that after the failure of events to come true groups sometimes regroup realising that as a form of coping mechanism—called dissonance reduction, a form of rationalisation—members often dedicate themselves with renewed vigour to the group's cause after a failed prophecy. They rationalise with expectation, such as the belief that their actions forestalled the disaster. I suspect we will see some of Festinger's rationalisations after 1 July 2012. But that doomsday cult leader strategy will not wash with the Australian people. They will see straight through the Leader of the Opposition.

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

My goodness! The member for Fraser is clearly a man of enormous integrity—of great integrity, I would say, by the way in which he carries himself—but he has let himself down with this contribution. He had an opportunity today to show some remorse for misleading those 95,000 members of the seat of Fraser in the ACT. He had said to those people that under no circumstances would a Labor government in which he became a member introduce a carbon tax. Three weeks later the story had changed. A man of his integrity, a man of such upright standing in the ACT—a former lecturer, of all things—would surely seek to take any opportunity to clear his name, to demonstrate his integrity, to show that he was not seeking to deliberately mislead the people of Fraser. We are giving him a chance with this bill—a bill that he did not in fact address for more than 10 seconds of his 20-minute diatribe. I do not know what it was, to be honest. We have been in a parallel universe for the last 20 minutes. He did his best, yet at no stage did he grasp the opportunity that we are presenting this government to go to the people with a vote without the risk of losing government. That is what the plebiscite is all about. That is what the member for Fraser should have concerned himself with. We want to understand why this government is refusing to support this bill? What is their fear of going to the people, especially when there are no consequences from an electoral point of view? We were giving you that opportunity. If you were a man of integrity you would have taken it. You would have referred to it, you would have talked about it, you would have given us reasons other than some nonsense from centuries ago that you were referring to.

It is a very clear proposition. The Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 in practical terms gives the government—a weak government; a characterless government; a government of no authority, no presence, no vision—a chance at least to seek to regain some modicum of trust and respectability within the community. Why is the community not listening to the leader of the government? Why have the people turned off? Why is there a crisis of confidence, which is more important? Here is your opportunity to start to restore some confidence back into the community. We have a crisis of confidence in this government. This government has created a circumstance in which only three weeks into a new term of office they betrayed the people who voted for them. They broke the trust of the people who voted for them. People thought they went to the election committed to not introducing a carbon tax. Do you think this government would have won if they had said they were going to introduce a carbon tax? Not on your nelly—there was not a prospect they would be on the government benches. They misled people to vote for them to get into government and within a matter of three weeks they had broken their word. This is an act of betrayal to the people who voted for them at the last election.

This government has been given a chance by us to correct that great sin of betrayal that they perpetrated and this Prime Minister perpetrated—and I suspect led many people of integrity on the other side to mouth her words, to mouth her promises, to go along with the charade that this Prime Minister presented to the people before the last election—then to break it within a matter of three weeks in order to stay in government in a grubby deal done with the Greens. We have seen nothing for the last 12 months but an agenda which has been dominated by the Greens and the crossbenchers. There is not one issue that you can refer to, really, that has not been dictated by the crossbenchers and the Greens. This is a pathetic situation.

There are people out there who are deeply concerned. You cannot walk in the street in Melbourne where I live—or go to the airport or go anywhere in Australia—without people stopping you on the street, people you have never known, never spoken to. Even my Labor mates are saying to me: 'What can you do to get rid of that mob? What can you do to bring on an election?' At least what you can do is make sure this carbon tax—this thing which is a demonstration of the lack of empathy and identification with the problems people are facing—is nipped in the bud, that this thing is stopped in its tracks.

At a time when the exchange rate is at a level it has never been at, at a time when half the economy is in recession and the other half booming, at a time when people are facing enormous cost of living pressures that they cannot deal with, people cannot understand for one minute that this government would persist with this idiotic carbon tax, which is dripping with intervention, dripping with socialism.

If you wanted to introduce a price on carbon in a way which is going to maximise the amount of intervention in hundreds of our biggest employers, you would bring in a carbon tax. I know this. I had the shadow ministry for climate change for a year when the previous Prime Minister was working up his model. This carbon tax will morph into exactly the same model that we were presented and rejected on two occasions. In fact its absence was supported at the last election by the vote that those opposite got in their lies to the Australian people, when the Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' That was a cast-iron commitment. It was deliberately said. It was said again and again in the last fortnight to make sure that people understood this. If the Prime Minister had not made that commitment, this government, which hangs on by the slimmest of margins—we won 750,000 more votes, we won one more seat—would have lost. They have the crossbenchers with, again, a series of grubby commitments.

Member for Fremantle, you tell me how you support this boatpeople business. You cannot sit there and tell me you are a person of integrity. So many people on the other side are people of integrity but they have been forced to succumb to the grubby betrayal of the Australian people by this Prime Minister and this government. I do not know how you hold your heads high at any stage. On so many fronts you have betrayed the Australian people. That is why we have a crisis of confidence.

Sovereign risk is associated with poor decisions. We have so many areas where there have been problems with this government: the BER, the pink batts, the health scheme. They promised to take over with a majority funding of health. All we have is mountains more bureaucrats. There was the PBS. The ink wasn't even dry on an 18-month deal and they broke it. Now we have, potentially, major new pharmaceutical companies, who spend $1 billion a year on R&D, quietly taking some of that out of the country. We have people who are deeply concerned about so many other areas. The live cattle job was pathetic. The insult that has been meted out to the Indonesian people is just profound: 40 per cent of their meat supply cut off with just a letter to the Indonesian government. They have had 100 years of humiliation from colonisation and other things and what do we do? We cut off the supply of 40 per cent of their meat to all of their people with only a letter provided to them. Who do we think we are as a country? They are our biggest neighbour—with 300 million people. They are a part of our future, no matter what you think. No matter what you think, they are good people and they are going to be a very big part of our future. And what do we do? This government offends them. It is a disgrace!

We are giving this government an opportunity to restore at least a very small modicum of trust and respectability by giving them a chance to have a vote which does not put their position as government in jeopardy—the position that they seem to be prepared to risk at any point. The support being given to the member for Dobell is sickening. Look at the evidence that comes out daily. Look at what we saw today from Fairfax—that he has lied; that he is a thief. Yet the Prime Minister stands up here daily and supports it. This government is causing a crisis of confidence in the Australian economy and is doing untold and long-term damage. This bill must be supported. (Time expired)

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

I rise tonight to oppose this bill, the Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011. It is the first bill in this place that I have had reason to speak against. Before I go into my discussion on my opposition to the bill, I just want to take issue with some of the comments that the member for Goldstein made, particularly his comment that we have no agenda. That is complete and utter nonsense. We have an agenda to improve education in this country. We have an agenda to improve health in this country. We have provided 50 per cent more funding for health in this country. We have an agenda to deal with ageing population and aged care for this country. We have an agenda for dealing with people with disabilities for this country. We have an agenda to link this country through the NBN and through improving infrastructure. We have made the most significant investment in infrastructure that has ever been made in this country. We had an agenda from 2007 onwards that saved this country from recession. You need just look at what is happening in the rest of the world, where most of the world is in very deep trouble. But here we are in Australia with low debt against GDP, five per cent unemployment and an economy that is going well.

The member for Goldstein's comments that we are 'agendaless' are complete and utter nonsense. We have an agenda to embrace the future, to position this nation for a prosperous future, through a range of mechanisms. And what do we get from the other side? Nothing; we just get no, no, no and opposition to everything that we want to do. It is the opposition that is the agenda vacuum; it is certainly not the government. We have had a very strong agenda since we have been in government. Since 2007 we have had a strong agenda that we have fulfilled, and we will have a strong agenda for the future of this country.

I am speaking against this bill because I believe it must absolutely be defeated not just because it is yet another example of the Leader of the Opposition's denial of climate change but because it also represents a very significant challenge to the nature of government in this country. I say that because this bill is not about consulting the Australian people. This bill is not about reflecting a national view on government policy. This bill is about allowing the Leader of the Opposition to conduct a push poll with a price tag of $80 million, with the tab to be picked up by the Australian taxpayer. It is also a poll that, should it not go his way, he has no intention of honouring. How do we know this? We know this because he said so himself.

This bill before us tonight is just another stunt. It is another way for the Leader of the Opposition to get his name in the headlines, to continue his fear campaign, to continue to divide this nation, to continue to scare this nation and to continue to oppose everything because he has nothing positive to offer this nation. This is not leadership; this is not the bill of someone who cares about the issues or has a policy program or an agenda for the country. It is in fact the antithesis of these things. This bill actually says to the Australian people that coming up with positive policy solutions to the challenges facing Australia is just a little too difficult for the Leader of the Opposition.

In contrast to the agenda and statements being put forward by those opposite—some of which I suspect would be welcome in a Flat Earth Society meeting—this government has a positive and serious approach to tackling dangerous climate change. It is an approach for which this government convened a multi-party committee to get consensus on the best way to tackle this problem—a committee that those opposite refused to take part in, continuing their proud tradition in this place since the last election of opposition for the sake of opposition. It is a package which is true to Labor's core values of protecting jobs and looking after those who need protection most—low- and middle-income Australians. It is a package that will cut carbon pollution. It will drive investment in clean energy technologies and infrastructure to ensure that generations of Australians to come enjoy the environment that so many of us have taken for granted.

This package will see Australia's annual emissions reduced by at least 159 million tonnes in 2020. That is, as we have heard before, the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road. It will do this by placing a price on carbon for around 500 of this country's biggest polluters. It is a price on carbon for the 500 biggest polluters; it is not a tax on ordinary Australians. Under this package, according to Treasury modelling—and, unlike those opposite, I value the expertise of the Public Service and Treasury modelling—by 2050, $100 billion will have been invested in renewable energy; the renewable sector will have grown 17 times its current size; and 40 per cent of electricity generation will come from renewable sources. It will achieve this reduction and this investment in clean technologies while at the same time, as I said, protecting jobs and looking after low- and middle-income earners. Under our proposals, nine out of 10 households will receive assistance. People earning up to $80,000 will receive a tax cut, with the average tax cut being, I believe, at least $300. There will also be an increase to family tax benefit parts A and B and an increase in the pension.

Our package will support jobs, and modelling shows that jobs will continue to grow, with 1.6 million more jobs by 2020. We know that some areas will need more assistance. That is why we are providing $9.2 billion over three years as part of the Jobs and Competitiveness Program, which will support local jobs and encourage investment in local technology. Then there is the $1.2 billion Clean Technology Program to support industries to become more competitive in a cleaner future, including $200 million for jobs in food processing and metal forging industries. There is also the $1.3 billion Coal Sector Jobs Package and the $300 million Steel Transformation Plan to support those industries.

Our package is also one that takes into account the impacts on small business. As a former small business owner, this is something that is very dear to my heart. I know firsthand the issues that small business owners face, so I was pleased that the government took into account how it will impact on them. The government will extend the business instant tax write-off threshold to $6,500 to boost cash flow and help small businesses grow, invest and become more energy efficient. We will also establish a $40 million program to provide information to small business and community organisations on practical measures they can take to reduce energy costs. That is very, very important. People want to know what they can do themselves to reduce their energy costs and to reduce their carbon footprint.

Perhaps most importantly, small business will not be required to count their carbon output, nor will they have to fill in a single form as part of this reform package, something I know time-poor small business owners will greatly appreciate. This is just a small canvassing of the entire package; it is incredibly in-depth and it is incredibly comprehensive. It has been well thought out, considered, costed and modelled. By contrast, what do we see on the other side? We see a glib plan, the so-called Direct Action Plan, that will not achieve the bipartisan targets, that is uncosted and that will cost billions of dollars to implement, further exacerbating their already dismal attempts at good financial management of this country.

It is a policy which the member for Wentworth, a former leader of those opposite, himself acknowledged was one that could be easily dropped. It is the policy of a group of people who do not really believe that climate change is real. It is the policy of people who have no desire to make hard decisions, to tackle serious problems or to lead the Australian people. How do I know this? The Leader of the Opposition said it himself. He cannot avoid the fact that he declared climate change 'absolute crap'. Anyone could be forgiven for forgetting that he said this, since his opinion changes depending on the day's headlines and the community to which he is speaking. He wants a plebiscite on a carbon price, but he will not abide by it. He believes climate change is real and humanity has made a contribution to it, but he also thinks it is crap.

I do wonder what the Leader of the Opposition actually believes in, other than playing opportunistic politics. It is very easy to play to populist rhetoric and to make the easy choices—to outline a policy that lacks substance and hope no-one notices by the time the election comes around. However, I cannot as a member of this place and in good conscience abrogate my responsibilities to tackle climate change. I will not do that; I will not abrogate my responsibilities as the Leader of the Opposition has done as a leader of his community. I will not declare before my community that I am not capable of confronting the problems— (Time expired)

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

I rise here tonight to support the motion that has been moved which calls on the government to give the people a say. We have seen through the government's actions today that they do not want to give the Australian people a say. We have had a group of people come to Canberra from across Australia to voice their opinion, and what was the reaction they got from this government? From the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, we had, 'This has been nothing but a convoy of no consequence.' From the Leader of the Greens, we had, 'They are moaners and whingers.' What arrogance from this Labor-Greens government. It is interesting that it is the minister for transport and the Leader of the Greens who have done a double act in condemning people who came to Canberra to have a say, because this is a Labor-Greens government, and that is why we have a carbon tax.

Those opposite are saying that this motion is all about negativity. It is not about negativity; it is actually about saving the Prime Minister's credibility. It is giving her the option to say, 'I'm sorry; I got it wrong. I should not have deceived the Australian people before the last election. I shouldn't have misled them,' and to say to the Australian people, 'I shouldn't have spoken untruths, and I should have the courage to come before you and say, "I'm sorry that I deliberately deceived you and I want to make amends. I want to give you the chance to say whether or not you want this carbon tax."' The Prime Minister could restore some of her badly broken credibility by agreeing to this motion and allowing us to go to a referendum. The referendum would not be a political trick. It would simply ask, 'Do you support the government's plan to introduce a price on carbon to deal with climate change?' That is a fairly reasonable, sensible question. I do not think anyone could say that it is any way politically loaded. The Prime Minister could restore her credibility by putting that question to the Australian people and by saying: 'I know you're angry. I know that you will drive thousands and thousands of miles across the country to come here to Canberra to say "give us a say". We won't treat you with contempt. We won't call you a convoy of no consequence, a bunch of moaners and whingers. We'll give you more respect than that. We'll give you the respect that you deserve. We will give you a say. We'll admit that we misled you, that we deceived you, that we deliberately told you something before an election and then did the exact opposite after the election.'

It is a real shame that, once again, the government will not take up this very positive contribution to political debate in this country. This is a positive contribution because it is giving the Prime Minister a chance to say: 'I'm sorry; I shouldn't have deceived you. I am now going to do the right thing.' The people in my electorate of Wannon want her to do that, because everything they learn about this carbon tax worries them to the bone. The operators of our regional airline are saying that this is going to have real consequences for their business because they cannot pass the costs on to the people who fly on their airline. They are going to have to absorb the costs, and they are struggling as it is.

I can give you the example of two regional manufacturers in the town of Ararat who are actually doing things to reduce their carbon emissions, manufacturing equipment that leads to a reduction in emissions. Gason are producing seeders which seed directly into the earth so they require only minimum tillage. What is this government's response to manufacturers of technology that reduces emissions? They are going to be hit with more costs and they will not be able to compete with imports from Canada or China. AME Systems are doing the same for Kenworth trucks, providing technology that reduces emissions. What is the government's response to them? It is to hit them with more costs, which, once again, make it harder for them to compete with the manufacturing of this equipment that is occurring in China. What sort of government responds to manufacturing industries who are producing and providing low-emission technology by saying, 'We're going to put your costs up'?

Look at our farmers, who are competing with the high Australian dollar, who have to export. What is going to happen to them? A dairy farmer in my electorate will face a minimum cost of between $5,000 and $7,000. It is more likely to be in the $10,000 to $15,000 range, but at a minimum between $5,000 and $7,000 will be the annual costs put on their business—and they have to compete internationally. For grain growers on the average farm, there will be $36,000 of additional costs. What about our meat processors? It will be an extra 24c to 30c per carcass. These are the additional costs being put on our rural industries. They have nowhere to go; they have to absorb them.

These people want a voice. They want a say. When they voted in the last election, they did not think they were voting for a government that would put additional costs on them. They did not know that they were choosing a government that was going to put extra costs on their business, because the Prime Minister had said quite plainly, and it has never, ever been disputed:

There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead …

There have been all sorts of Houdini-like twists to try and get out of that, but that is the language that was used and those are the words that were spoken. There has been talk along the lines of 'It was a different parliament from the one beforehand' and 'We had to form government, so of course what I said before the election doesn't count; it's what I said after.' What a load of hogwash. It was very clear what the Prime Minister said before the last election, and it is very clear what she is doing now.

People want a say. They want to be able to say, 'We made the decision to introduce or not introduce this carbon tax.' That is what we are here discussing tonight—why they should be given that choice; why they should be able to vote in a plebiscite on a very simple question: 'Do you support the government's plan to introduce a price on carbon to deal with climate change?' It is not a trick question; it is a very simple one. I know the people of my electorate want the chance to vote—

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

And mine.

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

and other honourable members in this place are putting their hands up because they want that chance for their electorates.

I call on the Prime Minister to restore her credibility, to make a decision that will say to the Australian people: 'Once again, you can believe in your political leaders. Once again, you can look them in the eye and know that, when they say something, what they are saying is the honest truth.' Sadly, at the moment, the office of Prime Minister is being undermined on a daily basis by the fact that the Prime Minister said one thing before the election and did another thing after. This is her chance to redeem the office of Prime Minister in this country. I hope those opposite will take that chance and vote for this motion.

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

On a day when 1,000 workers in New South Wales and Victoria received the horrible news that they are potentially about to lose their jobs at BlueScope, and at a time when the region and the globe are grappling with enormous political difficulties, terrible instability and some really big challenges, it is very unfortunate that here in the national parliament, the place where all of our electors expect both sides to come and engage in serious debates about serious issues, we are bogged down in a ridiculous debate about a political stunt. It comes from a bloke who over the last 12 months of this parliament has engaged in more stunts than Evil Knievel in his entire life as a daredevil and a stuntman. He runs around the country in search of glowing vests and funny hats. There is not a small business in the country whose premise he will not terrorise in the hope of a media opportunity. Today we saw him attempting to bolster the numbers in something called a cavalcade or a convoy or some such thing in some attempt to blockade Parliament House and terrorise the residents of Canberra.

What we have here is an $80 million stunt, and I can tell you the people in my electorate, the electorate of Throsby in New South Wales, could come up with a lot better use for $80 million. I know those on the other side do not like school buildings, but $80 million would build around 80 libraries and school halls, science labs and language labs—that is about one for every high school in my electorate. That $80 million would go a long way to building much needed infrastructure to provide more hospital beds, and more doctors and nurses in my electorate, but those on the other side of the chamber suggest that that $80 million would be better spent on a political stunt.

We know it is a political stunt and it is all about the politics of no. It comes from the champion of no who launched himself on the political stage championing Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, whose first act as a political player in this country was to ensure that we live for another decade or so as a constitutional monarchy and not have the opportunity to reach full independence as a republic. The next mission—and I find this one really interesting—of the champion of no, deputised by his political godfather, the former Prime Minister, was to destroy Pauline Hanson, the former member for Oxley. He set himself off on that task and did a pretty good job of it, which I am sure is something that irks her enormously. It has always struck us as rather strange on this side of the House that, after he spent a year or so engaged in the task of destroying Pauline Hanson, he has spent the last 12 months in this parliament attempting to emulate her. When you pull out all of the policies, all of the populism and all of the ideas that he has brought before this parliament, you are reading from the One Nation playbook.

This is a bloke whose answer to everything is no, so it comes as no surprise to those of us on this side of the House that, the day after he proposes this stunt to the Australian people—this plebiscite that he wants to spend $80 million on—and before the vote has been held, he has already pronounced his verdict on the outcome of that plebiscite. He has told the people of Australia it does not matter what they say. He will reject it—this is the champion of no. So whatever the Australian people say in this proposed plebiscite, the Leader of the Opposition's answer is no.

We all know that in politics the issue is all about the question you ask. Further evidence of the stunt is in the question itself, because they had an option. They could quite easily have put up a bill that said that, given that we both have the same bipartisan target on reducing our carbon emissions—that is, five per cent over 2000 levels by 2020—and a bipartisan position on the contribution of renewable energy to that reduction in carbon emissions, and I know there are many on that side of the House who do not agree with that bipartisan proposition, it would have been very easy for the Leader of the Opposition to propose a question that said something like this: should we reduce our emissions in the most cost-effective way? That would have been a bona fide question to put in your plebiscite bill, wouldn't it?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The 'member for Tutu' over there is rolling around in riotous laughter in search of a pair of ballet slippers. It would have been possible if he were fair dinkum. If he had any bona fides, the champion of no could have put a question to this parliament and to the Australian people in his draft bill: should we reduce our bipartisan target; should we reduce our emissions in the most cost-effective way?

We know that the Leader of the Opposition and those that follow in his cavalcade of no do not have the guts to put that proposition, because then we would have to engage in a debate about the costings. A debate about the costings would enable all Australians to see that the coalition's plan, the subsidies for big polluters plan, is in fact a tax on every Australian household to the tune of $1300 per annum. You will not see that in any of their propaganda. You will not see that in any of their speeches, but the fact of the matter is that, if we engaged in a debate about the most cost-effective way of reducing our bipartisan position on carbon emissions, we would be putting up our proposition, which puts a charge on the biggest polluters in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions. We will reduce those emissions by five per cent by 2020. We will see that theirs is a tax on every Australian household of $1,300 per annum, contributing to the $70 billion black hole in their budget costings.

If they were fair dinkum, they would put that question to the Australian people, but they are not fair dinkum. They know that all they are engaged in is a political stunt with a predetermined outcome. They will say no because that is all they know how to do on that side of the House. We are engaged in a serious debate about how we can reduce our carbon pollution in this country and play our part in an international effort to reduce carbon pollution to stave off dangerous climate change.

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

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

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

I move:

That this House directs the Prime Minister to immediately establish a full and independent inquiry with:

(1) powers equivalent to a Royal Commission to investigate the bank note bribery scandal concerning the Reserve Bank of Australia, Securency and Note Printing Australia; and

(2) terms of reference that require it to investigate and report on at least the following matters:

(a) allegations of corruption in securing note printing contracts and payments to overseas agents into offshore tax havens;

(b) what the Reserve Bank of Australia, Austrade and the Australian Government each knew about the alleged behaviour, and when they knew it;

(c) what due diligence was applied and what investigations were conducted into the allegations;

(d) whether there has been appropriate governance by public institutions and companies;

(e) what action has been taken to prevent improper dealings occurring again and whether that action is sufficient;

(f) recommendations regarding future actions that should be taken by government and agencies to prevent similar problems in the future; and

(g) any related matters.

There is a dark cloud hanging over the Reserve Bank of Australia that only the government can remove. Saying hardly a word, the Treasurer has allowed this dark cloud to grow and cover ever more of the landscape. As a result, Australia's central bank sits with its governance under question. It is now time for the Prime Minister to step in and restore public confidence in the Reserve Bank with a full and independent inquiry.

It is absolutely essential in a democracy for the public to have confidence in the integrity and appropriate governance of our public institutions. In a market economy, it is particularly crucial that there is the same confidence in the key institutions that are tasked with managing the economy. That is what makes the recent allegations of involvement in bribery against two Reserve Bank subsidiaries, Securency and Note Printing Australia, all the more concerning. The more that is revealed about the bank note scandal, the more it appears that serious questions about corporate governance at the Reserve Bank need to be answered. It is also clear that questions need to be answered by the government, particularly with regard to Austrade and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

I want to review briefly some of what has been disclosed about this whole affair. According to reports by the Age, the leadership of the RBA failed to notify the police of evidence that it had as far back as 2007 that its subsidiary Note Printing Australia was involved with the bribery of foreign officials. The NPA board, which included former and current RBA board members or officials, was provided information in 2007 that company agents were bribing officials in Malaysia and Nepal, according to the Age. After being alerted to bribery concerns by the NPA board, the Reserve Bank leadership decided to handle the matter internally rather than notify the police. The Australian Federal Police were not told about these allegations regarding the NPA until May 2009, about two years later, and only after the Age exposed corruption concerns at the other RBA company, Securency. This is despite the RBA's chief auditor finding serious problems with NPA's use of agents and his findings being examined by the bank's audit committee, according to the Age.

To get to the nub of it, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars of public money. Both of the RBA's companies have now been charged with conspiracy to bribe foreign officials and a number of executives have also been charged. Yet the RBA is still to explain what and when it knew and how its oversight of these two companies could be so flawed as to allow this to happen. Most importantly—and this is crucial—we must get to the bottom of why it appears that the RBA failed for so long to notify police of the serious evidence of wrongdoing.

It is incredible to me that, in spite of these serious allegations of corruption and bribery and the breakdown in accountability and governance, the government and, in particular, the Treasurer have remained almost mute about the problem. It is the Australian Greens' view that the government can no longer be silent on this matter and it is time for action. The Prime Minister should establish a full and independent inquiry that has the powers it needs to get to the bottom of what has occurred, and it needs to look at everyone involved, including the Reserve Bank.

So I am moving this motion to make clear parliament's view that the government cannot ignore this problem and must establish such an inquiry. I want to make clear that in moving this motion there is no suggestion on our part that the AFP is not doing its job in investigating and bringing charges. This inquiry will not cut across the AFP's work because the inquiry's focus will be on the failure of governance within the RBA, something the AFP investigation does not necessarily have as its focus. This is not about undermining the Reserve Bank; it is the opposite—because now, more than ever, given the global financial instability, it is vital that public confidence in the Reserve Bank is restored. (Time expired)

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

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

I am certainly pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak on the matter of the Reserve Bank of Australia board and, in particular, its subsidiaries, Securency and Note Printing Australia. I note that this motion has been put forward by the Australian Greens. When you go to the heart of this matter, it is a call by the Australian Greens for there to be a full-blown inquiry into what the Reserve Bank knew, when they knew and what they did about it. However, the matters at the core of this issue, dealing with Reserve Bank board governance with respect to Securency and Note Printing Australia, are matters that I, as a member and Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, have already asked the Reserve Bank Governor himself about at two inquiries that the economics committee has conducted with the Reserve Bank.

There can be no doubt that the issues and the allegations at the core of this matter are substantial. There can be no doubt that, when it comes to corrupt practices such as paying bribes to foreign officials, this is the kind of matter that ought to be dealt with very firmly. When these allegations were first raised with me, off the back of some very fine investigative work by a number of journalists, that was part of the reason I took it upon myself to ask some hard questions of the Reserve Bank Governor. It is beholden upon all of us in this place to make sure that we walk the fine line between allowing transparency and asking difficult questions on hard topics while not allowing matters to become partisan politics purely and simply because it suits certain agendas at certain times. So in good faith I put to the Reserve Bank governor a number of questions in 2010 and subsequently at hearings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. We know that the time line is not as apparent as the mover of the motion put it. Certainly, it would suit these conveniences of the Greens to argue that there is a large conspiracy and a cover-up—and, in fact, we know there were corrupt officials being paid inappropriately by Australian agencies—but the truth is that it is simply not that clear-cut. Where the evidence tends to indicate that there may be a prima facie basis to support the assertion of a conspiracy and a cover-up, charges have been laid. The AFP is investigating the conduct at the core of this. They are investigating it in a way that is not beholden to party political process or prone to grandstanding but rather in a way that is focused upon discerning the truth—something that I fear is not at the core of the Greens motion on Securency.

There is one area on which I do agree with the Greens on this matter—that is, that a full and frank account is owed to the Australian people by the Treasurer. The reason I say it is owed by the Treasurer is that under evidence from the Reserve Bank Governor we know that the first time that information was transmitted from the Reserve Bank to the executive arm of government occurred under his watch as Treasurer of the country. That was the first time that this Labor Treasurer—or, indeed, any executive member of the parliament that we know of—was informed about some of the practices that had taken place and whether or not these practices were appropriate.

In defence of aspects of the activities of the Reserve Bank, it is clear to me, based upon the evidence that I have been given in answers from the Reserve Bank Governor and my own reading of, for example, the audit by KPMG and the evidence from Rick Battellino and others, that shortly after the AWB scandal the Reserve Bank board instructed that there be a thorough review of the practices and policies of NPA—that is, Note Printing Australia—and Securency in their use of offshore agents. Although the headline figures that the Greens used sound controversial, they were not inconsistent with a business of this size. The findings of that review made a number of recommendations. In some instances the use of agents was ceased, and in others it was continued. But there was a breakdown of management controls, and that is part of what AFP investigation has gone too.

In the fullness of time, a thorough political investigation may be the prudent thing to do; but right now is not the prudent thing to do. There is an AFP investigation. Charges have been laid. It is not the time for political grandstanding; it is time for the AFP to do their work. It may, however, be the appropriate time once the Treasurer has given account.

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

In speaking to this motion, I say from the outset that I totally understand and accept the concern put up by the member for Melbourne to explain why he is raising this issue. I do not, however, accept and support his motion. The motion and the issue relate to the activity of the banknote marketing company Securency. Securency is half owned by the Reserve Bank of Australia and half owned by UK plastic film manufacturer Innovia. Securency was formed in 1996 to commercialise polymer banknote printing technology that had been jointly developed by the Reserve Bank of Australia and Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO. I think it is great to think that the CSIRO was involved in the development of the banknotes that are now being used by countries in other parts of the world. In order to win banknote supply contracts between 1999 and 2005 the marketing of the new design of these polymer banknotes began. If a contract is won, I understand that Note Printing Australia, a company 100 per cent owned by the RBA, manufactures the bank notes.

The prosecutions currently underway are the first under Australia's foreign bribery legislation introduced in 1999, and that in itself is quite significant—prosecutions are currently underway based on an act of parliament that was introduced 12 years ago, and this is the first time that it has been used. I understand that six former Securency officials have been charged with offences relating to bribing public officials in Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Nigeria. I understand further that Malaysian authorities have laid bribery charges against two individuals.

These matters are currently before the courts, and I would expect that the matters are also currently under continuing Australian Federal Policy inquiry. It is my view, and I believe it would be the government's view, that these matters are being properly investigated across international jurisdictions—and, in fact, charges have been laid. To widen the investigation, as the motion proposes, with powers equivalent to a royal commission whilst court proceedings are underway would in my view be inappropriate, regardless of whether it was to be an investigation conducted by a member or former member of the judiciary, by another suitable person or even by a committee of this parliament

As the member for Moncrieff has said, it may be appropriate to widen the investigation subsequent to the court outcomes, but it is not appropriate in the midst of court proceedings. In response to the member for Moncrieff's criticism of the Treasurer, I point out to the House that the alleged offences took place between 1999 and 2005—that is, prior to this government's coming to office and under the watch of the previous coalition government.

I also note, as other members who have spoken have noted, that in 2007 the Reserve Bank of Australia engaged corporate law firm Freehills to carry out a confidential probe of the activities in question. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, Freehills found no breach of Australian law involving Note Printing Australia. Of course, we have not seen that advice and we rely on the Reserve Bank's response in respect to it. I further note that since 2008—that is, subsequent to the matters before the courts—Securency and Note Printing Australia have both had a change of chairmanship; the Reserve Bank of Australia's Assistant Governor, Dr Rob Rankin, is now the chairperson.

The member for Melbourne referred to today's Age newspaper, where a story by Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie in which allegations of bribery associated with 2002 and 2004 note printing contracts for the Nepalese government by Note Printing Australia appear. I understand that the Australian Federal Police is also investigating that matter.

This is a serious matter—any allegation of corruption or bribery is serious—and it is reflected by the penalties associated with the matter. However, I say to the member for Melbourne, 'Let us wait to see what the court outcome is before we take this matter further.' (Time expired)

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion regarding bank note bribery allegations. I would like to congratulate my colleague, Steven Ciobo, who asked a series of questions about this very issue during a recent House of Representatives committee hearing with the Reserve Bank.

We know that the role of the Reserve Bank is a critical one. The Reserve Bank of Australia is Australia's central bank. It conducts monetary policy, it works to maintain a strong financial system and it issues the nation's currency. It is a policy making body, and that policy making body has serious responsibilities. It provides selected banking and registry services to a range of Australian government agencies and to a number of overseas central banks and official institutions. It also manages Australia's gold and foreign exchange reserves. Any question as to the propriety of the Reserve Bank is a very serious one.

The question at the fore today relates to two subsidiaries of the Reserve Bank: Securency, 50 per cent owned by the Reserve Bank; and Note Printing Australia, 100 per cent owned by the Reserve Bank. There have been a number of allegations that have been ventilated in the media over a period of time. At the core of the issues that have been raised is the use of agents and those agents making payments, or bribes, to secure contracts overseas. This is currently under police investigation. However, there are still questions around who knew what, when they knew it and what they then did about it. It would be a serious issue indeed if the RBA did not have appropriate governance standards to identify any potential breaches of the law. It would be a critical issue indeed for the RBA if in fact it was made aware of issues and did not immediately refer those issues to the police for investigation. It would be a serious issue if the RBA tried to deal with this matter internally. It would be a serious issue if the RBA did not notify the government when it became aware of the concerns regarding allegations of bribery of foreign officials.

Thinking back on some of the recent matters that have involved allegations of foreign bribes, I recall Kevin Rudd making quite a lot of noise about these issues in 2005. In fact, he had quite a lot to say about it. He said it was most critical that in circumstances where these sorts of allegations are made they should be properly and thoroughly investigated. In fact, he indicated that, foreign bribes were associated with the 'worst corruption scandal in Australia's history'. The government needs to look very seriously at the position it is taking on this issue today compared with the position that it has taken it the past.

As I said before, before the Greens' member for Melbourne there was Steven Ciobo. He has done quite a lot of forensic work on this issue in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics in his pursuit of questioning of the Reserve Bank Governor. He asked a series of questions during the last meeting. Specifically, he asked when the Reserve Bank was made aware of these issues. The Reserve Bank Governor said in his response that he was first made aware of the issues in relation to Securency in May 2009, which is when the reports were first publicly ventilated. However, according to recent media reports, it seems that the board was aware of issues relating to the sister company, Note Printing Australia, in May 2007. So there are some serious issues to be properly investigated and looked at. I note that there is going to be a committee hearing of the Reserve Bank on Friday and I am sure that these questions will be addressed during that hearing. It is imperative that the police are able to get on with their investigation. This is critical. The government should not stand in the way of any police investigation. The police should be able to go about their business and to secure the information that they need in order to do their job properly and thoroughly.

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

I rise to speak on the motion of the member for Melbourne, which calls for this House to establish an independent inquiry into the 'bank note bribery scandal concerning the Reserve Bank of Australia, Securency and Note Printing Australia'. The motion suggests that such an inquiry should have powers equivalent to a royal commission. This is a serious call indeed, and one that this House should think about carefully before endorsing. It is a matter of record that serious allegations have been made, but it is also worth noting, as previous speakers in this debate have done, that the Reserve Bank has conducted internal reviews which found no wrongdoing on the part of any RBA staff or RBA appointed board members of Securency. The matter is also under investigation by the Australian Federal Police, and it might therefore be thought appropriate for this House not to step into a space which is already occupied by a police investigation.

It is a great irony that one of the great Australian inventions that we often point to, the polymer bank note—which, alongside the black box, is often regarded as one of Australia's great innovations—should be caught up in an apparent scandal like this. It is important to recognise the statements the Reserve Bank of Australia have made concerning the scandal which, as previous members have noted, arose in 1999 to 2005. By coincidence, that is around the same period the AWB scandal was occurring that the member for Higgins referred to. The Reserve Bank of Australia noted in a statement on 1 July this year:

None of the individuals charged now has any connection with the companies or with the Reserve Bank.

No one in the Reserve Bank has been accused of wrongdoing, nor have any members of the company boards who were drawn from the Reserve Bank.

The Reserve Bank's statement also noted:

Over the past several years much has been done to tighten controls and strengthen governance so as to avoid any re-occurrence of the alleged behaviour:

The Reserve Bank statement ended by noting that it would not make further comments about the charges as they were now to be tested in the courts. Similarly, this House should wait and see the results of those police investigations before putting in place an investigation of our own.

It is absolutely critical that we recognise the context in which we are having this conversation. Amidst some global turmoil on US and European markets, Australia has extraordinarily strong economic fundamentals, one of the lowest unemployment rates in the developed world, one of the lowest levels of government debt in the developed world, and strict fiscal rules and strong banks. In the Asian century we are located in the fastest-growing region of the world, deeply enmeshed in the economies of Asia.

It is true, of course, that a high dollar puts pressure on certain sectors, Dutch disease puts pressure on manufacturing, domestic tourism and our higher education sector, which is reliant on overseas students. But it is important when we are discussing matters such as the Reserve Bank and the conduct of monetary policy in Australia not to forget the fundamental economic environment in which we find ourselves. Ours is a position that almost any developed country in the world would be glad to trade places with. Both the Treasurer and the Reserve Bank governor note that when they attend international meetings virtually any colleague around the world would be happy to trade places with them. So it is in that strong economic context that this conversation is occurring.

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

I am pleased to rise to speak on this motion proposed by the member for Melbourne that there ought to be a royal commission into the question of the allegations which have been made concerning the Reserve Bank of Australia and its subsidiaries.

The issue before the House this evening is not whether serious allegations have been raised about the conduct of individuals involved with the Reserve Bank or its subsidiaries. It is true that serious allegations have been raised. The issue is not whether the Reserve Bank of Australia or its subsidiaries should comply with the law. Of course they ought to comply with the law, be that in Australia or in any other jurisdiction around the world in which that organisation, its subsidiaries or its officials or executives are operating. The issue is not whether there is a need for this matter to be investigated. If allegations of this degree of seriousness have been made and have been reported then clearly there is a need for them to be investigated. The issue is not whether on this side of the House we take this matter very seriously. Clearly, we do take this matter very seriously and, as the House has already been informed, the member for Moncrieff has been assiduous in pursuing this matter in the House Standing Committee on Economics, asking a number of questions about it because it does raise a very serious question of public interest. The issue is not whether the Reserve Bank of Australia is a major economic institution in this country. Of course the Reserve Bank of Australia is an institution of the very first importance to economic management and to the economic security that Australians rightly expect the government to provide.

The issue before the House, which is encapsulated in the notion that we are considering, is a far more narrow and precise issue. It is this: what is the right process to investigate and to pursue the allegations which have been made? As the House is well aware, this matter is being investigated by the Australian Federal Police. I emphasise that on this side of the House we make no comment about the merits of that process and of course all individuals involved are entitled to the presumption of innocence. I simply make the point that there is a process being carried on as we speak by a federal government agency, the Australian Federal Police, in relation to the allegations which have been made and so therefore, against that backdrop, the question before this House tonight is a very simple, clear one: is there a case to overlay that process which is presently underway with an entirely new and separate process, the process embodying and involving a royal commission?

A royal commission ought not to be set up lightly. There is a high bar that must be met before any government should commence to establish a royal commission. There must be a demonstrated view that the existing mechanisms for investigating the matter are inadequate. There must be a justification. There must be a basis for granting the coercive powers which royal commissions typically have. Royal commissions typically have the capacity to deal with witnesses in a way which denies them many rights of procedural fairness that are available to a witness in an ordinary traditional judicial proceeding. If you are to set that higher standard, if you are to establish a body with these out of the ordinary powers, you need to demonstrate that there is a case to do that and that the established processes are not sufficient, are not adequate, to deal with the allegations which have been made. You have to do more than say that there are serious questions which need to be investigated. You have to demonstrate that the existing processes of investigation which, as the House is aware, involve the Australian Federal Police are not adequate. The simple point I make is that that has not been demonstrated.

Debate adjourned.

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

Order! it being 9:30 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

It gives me great pleasure to enlighten the House about my recent activities with organisations and individuals who are making a big difference to the City of Brisbane. I was delighted to have Senator Mitch Fifield, the shadow minister for disability services, come to host a disability forum in Brisbane recently. I thank the senator. I was very pleased with the turnout and the feedback that we received in this very important area. We heard many stories of dedication and commitment. We unfortunately heard many stories of the current system of disability support that is broken. The coalition recognises that people with disabilities, their carers and their families deserve a better deal. We support the NDIS. Along with the heart-warming stories we heard, we were also told about the woeful state of disability services in Queensland.

Queensland's disability service is probably one of the worst in the country. It is an embarrassment and we must do more. We heard stories of a completely dysfunctional system that places a great deal of reliance on service standards compliance that proves to be a waste of time and money. This money could be used to improve the lives of Queenslanders with disabilities. It is estimated that some $500 million is spent each year by the not-for-profit sector just on regulatory compliance. Additionally the government has stopped listening to those who know what needs to be done. We hear examples of consultation processes with key stakeholders that occur after the policy has been decided, and those people really feel that they are not being listened to. I would like to thank two of my constituents, Mrs Ursula Agnew and Michelle Lawson, who was instrumental in arranging this forum. They have firsthand knowledge of the effort and commitment required to care for kids with disabilities.

The day following the forum, the senator and I had the privilege of attending the Red Hill Special School for a disability tea. The event was to raise awareness of a national disability insurance scheme and the campaign to make every Australian count. I would like to highlight the great work being done at the Red Hill Special School and in particular Ms Cath McCulloch, the occupational therapist at the Red Hill Special School. I would also like to thank the principal, Pam Stack, and her entire staff for their hospitality and the terrific work being undertaken at the school. The school was established in 1986 to provide specifically for the educational needs of school aged people with multiple disabilities. An early special education class was established in 1995 and it was extended to cater for local children with a broad range of special educational needs in 1999. The programs cater for children and students from birth to 17 or 18 years of age, and approximately 50 children from birth to five years access the early childhood development program. There are roughly 40 kids of six to 17 years of age enrolled in the same school. Those early intervention programs are vital to the development of children with disabilities.

Finally, I was very pleased to visit a great organisation making a really positive impact on the lives of Queenslanders. Community in Bardon were instrumental in helping the people of Brisbane in the aftermath of the floods earlier this year. However, they do much more than that. Some of their services include aged and disability services, child care, community development, community education, emergency relief and settlement services. They have been working so hard in the community for over 30 years to develop and deliver locally based services and activities in response to the issues and opportunities that life can present. Their mission is to strengthen the communities' capacity by responding to the diverse needs and interests of their members. Community utilise an integrated recovery focused approach to assist people experiencing long-term mental health issues. This was why I was very pleased to meet with the manager, Ms Karen Dare. I was told by the managers that there are large numbers of families who are coming to them for financial assistance, particularly to pay bills and for food and clothing. I thank Senator Fifield for his time in Brisbane and his commitment to disability services. I also applaud the fantastic work that is being done at the Red Hill Special School and, particularly, the fantastic work that is being done in community.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to continue the speech in which I was so rudely interrupted in quorum calls today by the silly opposition in this parliament. I think it is really a bad thing for the opposition to play political games when backbenchers are trying to make their contribution to the House. It is very disrespectful to the House and to the people of Australia. I want to continue on the schools assistance legislation and why it is so important to Tasmania.

I particularly want to talk about the importance of small schools in country areas. I was talking about how technology has improved the opportunities for small country schools and how they have so many opportunities for both classwork and the extras such as sport, music and other activities. In Tasmania, where a cluster system has worked quite well in the past, many of these schools interact on sports days—football matches, hockey and netball, all with the strong involvement of parents, teachers and the local community. There is a growing body of evidence that small schools can and do deliver comprehensive education.

The assumption used in Tasmania to justify small schools' closures—the economies of scale argument often advanced—is that reduction of expenditure per pupil would translate into greater public pupil achievement because the money saved could be invested in school improvement. However, where there have been closures in other countries, there is no evidence to support this finding. There is, in fact, a growing body of research that, far from seeking to defend the retention of small schools, actually seeks to examine the success of small schools. In general this research points to the human scale of small schools, the satisfied and willing cohort of pupils, socially independent school leavers transferring to post-primary schools, committed teachers, the opportunity for parents to exercise choice of school that numbers of small schools typically afford, relative autonomy and distance from bureaucracy, excellent responses to the local community and a good school-pupil and school-family match.

Financial concerns taken in isolation might present a potential argument for some in favour of the amalgamation or closure of small schools, but it is important that such argument be counterbalanced by other considerations such as the adverse effect of children being bussed to different environments; the sociological importance of rural schools in the community; its role in the preservation of memories of local families and local history, culture, folklore; its significance in the pride of the town; and the attachment of the people to the school. There is also the small business effect: who is going to deliver the newspapers and who is going to run errands around the local shop? Who is around to pack groceries in the store on school holidays? In Tasmania these tend to be done by secondary school students. Many who come from country towns will return at weekend to that town if their childhood links are there. As mentioned previously, small schools can assist in change—not only changes in education but also changes in their communities—that can be just as good as economic drivers.

To get back to the bill before the parliament, the national curriculum provides an advantage to these small schools because once again they can be part of the national scheme by providing education, as they are now linked to almost anywhere in the world. Rounding up a pile of small schools into one is not going to improve their educational outcomes. It will merely remove the driving force of the community and lose its direction and pride. With the huge investment that Labor has put into schools it has become possible to change the face of education. In the new funding rounds government will oversee the rollout of the first phase of the $69.1 million Empowering Local Schools initiative to a thousand schools in 2012 and 2013, giving school communities more say in decision making. I hope we might be able to obtain and use some of that money to allow Lyons' small schools to develop their future sustainability and ensure their continuation. (Time expired)

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

In September 1921 a World War I veteran by the name of Charles Halliday Engisch, established an independent community newspaper. As a resident of the Bennelong suburb of Gladesville, Charles became a strong, passionate and vocal fighter for his local community and was enduringly proud of his paper, the Weekly Times. He was a foundation member of the Gladesville RSL sub-branch and served as its president and volunteered his time on numerous community organisations, including as first patron of the Gladesville and District Junior Cricket Association for an astonishing 47 years.

Charles worked tirelessly on his paper and every Thursday morning he would take the first tram to his brother Leslie's printing press in Bankstown and carry all 4,000 copies of the week's edition back to the Gladesville community for distribution. In 1971, just a few months short of the 50th anniversary of his paper, which remained fiercely independent and renowned for its impartiality, Charles Engisch passed away at the age of 77. Ownership remained with the family as his son-in-law Earl Ware took over the Weekly Times.

In 1979 a local champion, with a ceaseless grin and ink in his veins, by the name of John Francis Booth became the new owner and standard bearer of the Weekly Times. JB as he is known to all had served on the local council and launched an ombudsman campaign in 1964 with the strong support of Charles Engisch. JB said, 'Like the Remington man, I liked the product so much that I not only bought one issue of the paper but the whole company!'

Thirty years since this decision I am proud to call JB a friend and am delighted to next week join him in celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Weekly Times. Charles Engisch may have been TWT's founder and its reason for being, but after 32 years John Booth has cemented himself as the lifeblood and the heart and soul of this community paper. JB holds high the paper's traditions and values of independence and maintains a patriotic local focus, including a fearlessly one-eyed dedication to the mighty Wests Tigers. His achievement in keeping the TWT so successful is even more impressive when one considers the strength of his competition: the Murdoch and Fairfax empires. In this environment of big business, big money and the constant struggle for print advertising dollars in an increasing online world, the Weekly Times remains free with a circulation of 54,000 across the Bennelong region.

JB is ably helped by a team of dedicated workers and volunteers with Ulrike Eichmeyer, Greg Turner, Chris Karas and Ruth Lesslie to name a few. Their efforts and passion for their community and paper have led to the TWT being conferred a string of awards over the past decade. Every week, the editorial 'JB's World' lists the seemingly endless array of family members, friends and colleagues celebrating milestones on that particular week as well as paying tribute to community volunteers and heroes who have passed on.

JB is dedicated to his Scouts, the region's heritage and broader community issues, regularly hosting public forums in his offices. JB richly deserves the Order of Australia honour he received in 1976 in recognition of his service to the community and the Centenary Medal in 2001, which paid tribute to his contributions to Scouting and the media. Yet despite all the awards and the service and the great local paper that I look forward to receiving each Wednesday, the most enduring and enamouring aspect to JB is the enthusiasm with which he stays true to his editorial by-line, the simple philosophy: keep smiling. There is no doubt that next Friday night, as the local community gathers at TWT headquarters, JB will have a smile from ear to ear and from beer to beer. As the representative of the people of Bennelong, I thank and congratulate JB, Ulrike and all of the team for a wonderful achievement.

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

Over the winter recess in the same way as my colleagues I have regularly attended ceremonies to mark the opening of the capital and improvement works funded under the government's Building the Education Revolution program. At every opening the teachers, support staff, parents and students could not have been more supportive or appreciative of the federal government's investment in education. The government's record investment in Australian skills has delivered modern facilities to schools across the nation. The formula used has been used in every single one of the 150 electorates across the nation, irrespective of whether they are Labor, Liberal, Independent or National. In the Banks electorate a total of $85,236,722 has been expended through the three key programs: Primary Schools for the 21st Century, National School Pride Program, and Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools. Padstow TAFE received $406,446 under the Better TAFE Facilities program.

Locally I have seen and experienced the difference that the new and upgraded classrooms have made to our schools, in addition to the COLAs—covered outdoor learning areas—the multipurpose halls, the walkways, the new toilets and sewerage systems, the new libraries, the playground upgrades and all the other facilities in our schools. I know the opposition continues to bleat in sound bites over expenditure on these projects. I say this to those on the other side: you could never have had the vision to complete such a scheme. A nation-building enterprise such as this had some problems, but to put this into perspective, of the 23,670 construction projects, there were 332 complaints, of which 326 have now been resolved. I know that the various facilities will be used by the school and by the broader community. The government's objectives in this were to provide schools with the largest capital input ever experienced as well is to provide support for local businesses. This program ensured that jobs were maintained and created in a very difficult financial situation.

I have heard from not only tradesman but architects, surveyors, landscapers and so many others who were able to gain employment or remain employed because of this initiative. When you multiply that by the over 23,000 school based projects across the nation you can see why we fared so well during the global financial crisis and why we are the envy of economies around the world.

I would like to recognise the commitment of all school communities in my electorate who helped make these developments possible. Without the cooperation of principals, teachers, support staff, families and local workers these schools would not have had the 21st century facilities they so richly deserve and now enjoy.

I do not apologise for the fact that I am a Keynesian. Indeed, because this money that was injected into the community, when you look at the multiplier effect—which if you read the economic textbooks is about four times what you spend—we have a situation where in the life of this government we have had 750,000 jobs created since the government was elected and about 350,000 of those jobs were created during the global financial crisis. Instead of tax cuts what we have had through the schools programs and indeed through the social housing programs is infrastructure that will, in effect, re-infuse the local communities where that work was done. That is what I have experienced as I have gone around my electorate. There are schools like East Hills Girls High School, now in the member for Hughes's electorate and formerly in my electorate before the last election. That school will get over $10 million to, in effect, reinvigorate the school. Just last week under another program, which was funded by the former state government, we opened a large gymnasium. The member for Hughes was there and he saw how that school had been reinvigorated. It was a school built in the fifties and sixties and was, like so many in my electorate, badly in need of funds. It took a global financial crisis for the government to spend the sort of money that it spent. Under the Building the Education Revolution it spent $16.2 billion. In my opinion it was money well spent. Of course some builders ripped us off. Of course some builders did well out of it. Who has not had a bad experience with a builder? But the positives far outweigh the negatives. As I said when we were opening one presentation, 97 per cent is not a bad result. I would not mind getting that at school. (Time expired)

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to inform the House of my office's idea to raise extra funds for the victims of the flood in Brisbane. As I have stated before, after the flood that so devastated the great city of Brisbane, my office and I wanted to do something special to raise money for the victims of the flood and to support the city of Brisbane. Like many fellow Brisbane residents, I was so impressed with how the Brisbane City Council under Campbell Newman rose to the challenge, mobilising thousands of volunteers to put Brisbane back together. As such the Lord Mayor's Community Disaster Relief Appeal Fund was the obvious benefactor for this great initiative.

Knowing that so many people across Brisbane, particularly on the bayside, have an appreciation for and an affinity with fishing, my electorate of Bonner is also the proud home of Wilson Fishing Rods, Australia's premier fishing rod manufacturer. As such, I decided to contact Wilson to see if they would like to donate five very special fishing rods, rods that are unique, specially made for this special purpose, and which would also fetch a premium price to aid in the flood relief.

The Alvey fishing reel company is a historic, Brisbane based reel manufacturer that has been in business for more than 90 years. It was a victim of the 1974 Brisbane flood. I felt very confident that they would also do all they could to help, so I contacted Mr Bruce Alvey to see whether he would join with me and Wilson rods in a special partnership to manufacture five distinctive fishing reels and create a limited edition fishing rod and reel combination, the proceeds of which would be donated to the flood recovery fund.

I was delighted that both these Brisbane based companies were enthusiastic in producing a unique fishing rod and reel combination, one that we all knew would appeal to a collector, regardless of whether or not they liked fishing. The final specification of the Alvey fishing reel is made of Huon pine that is over 1,000 years old. It is turned by a master craftsman and features a unique laser-cut design on the stainless steel face of the reel. The reels are then adorned with original 1950s Alvey badges that were salvaged from the 1974 floods from where the original Alvey fishing factory was situated in St Lucia, Brisbane. These fishing rods are proudly Brisbane made and are engraved by Brisbane's premier engravers, John Hammond and his 2IC Duncan Vickers, who have very generously donated their master engraving on these exclusive numbered fishing reels.

I sold three of these unique pieces but, given that the flood had been and gone and so many people had given so generously to other appeals, I wondered if the last two reels would fetch such a premium price. Any doubts were truly unfounded. While I spoke at one of my local Rotary meetings, I informed the audience of this great opportunity to give back and receive simultaneously. To my surprise, after the speech a local businessman came to me and said that he would immediately write out a $2,500 cheque to secure one. I was in a quandary about what to do with the last rod and reel and decided to leave it with Toni, the lovely businesswoman who runs the Water Tower Bait and Tackle Shop in Manly. Toni happened to mention the rod and reel to her electrician, who immediately wanted to buy the last combination, sight unseen, for another $2,500. The only thing I regret is that we did not have more to sell. Campbell Newman said that the flood recovery would be a marathon, not a sprint; I am happy to have completed our leg of this marathon and at the end donate just over $10,000 towards the Brisbane flood recovery.

The Bonner office could not have done this alone. I would like to thank Toni, Doug Barton, a man who gives so much to the bayside community, Greg Willems, Paul Vincent, Steve Taylor and Mark Chapman—a man with a big heart for his community—for their outstanding generosity and support in doing their bit to help rebuild our wonderful city and get our fellow Brisbanites back on their feet. The great news is that you are all now the proud owners of a unique heirloom.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is customary for new members and senators to use part of their first speech to give some account of their careers before their election. I will be very interested to see how much new Greens senator Rhiannon chooses to tell us about her political past, because so far she and her supporters have been very reticent. As evidence of this, let me tell the House about a battle which has been going on on the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, where ever since April a number of people have been trying to write a full, honest and properly referenced account of Senator Rhiannon's early career. All of those efforts have been thwarted by a person called Chris Maltby, who has repeatedly deleted any honest account on the grounds that such attention is disproportionate. Maltby lives in Bondi and is the husband of Waverly Greens Councillor Prue Cancian. He is identified on his Facebook page as a member of the New South Wales Greens. I suspect, although I cannot prove, that he is acting on behalf of the New South Wales Greens or perhaps just the Rhiannon faction. He suppresses any version of Wikipedia which might embarrass the senator.

So what are the facts about Senator Rhiannon's past that Mr Maltby is so keen to stop you reading? You cannot find these censored facts on Wikipedia, but at least you will be able to find them in Hansard. At least in Hansard Australians can read a version of the text which Mr Maltby has been repeatedly excising from Wikipedia. In 1971 the Communist Party split over attitudes to the Soviet Union, particularly the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. Senator Rhiannon's parents, Bill and Freda Brown, left the CPA and joined the Socialist Party of Australia, which was loyal to the Soviet Union and supported the invasion. The Browns joined the CPA at a time when it was totally loyal to the Soviet Union and Stalin's leadership. They could not have remained in the CPA if they did not share this belief. Brown was the editor of the CPA paper Tribune, which strongly supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary.

Mark Aarons writes: 'Lee Rhiannon became a senior office bearer of the youth wing of the SPA, the Socialist Party of Australia, serving on the central committee's youth subcommittee, attending the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society and developing close relations with the Soviet, Czechoslovak and East German communist youth groups.' In '77, Rhiannon led an SPA delegation to Moscow at the invitation of Leonid Brezhnev. In 1980-93, Lee O'Gorman, as she was then, was New South Wales Secretary of the Union of Australian Women, founded in 1950 as a CPA front and controlled by the SPA after the 1971 split. In the late 1970s, Bill Brown was the editor of the SPA journal Survey and O'Gorman was a regular contributor to it. Her articles frequently praised the Soviet Union.

Mark Aarons wrote of Rhiannon's past in May 2011:

This would be simply history if Rhiannon had admitted her youthful errors and moved on. But, in a lengthy blog posted last August, she defended her parents' and her own political records …

…   …   …

But nowhere does she acknowledge how dreadfully wrong she was about the Soviet Union, nor express regrets for her gullible admiration of this abominable system. In failing to deal with her history honestly, Rhiannon places a question mark over her suitability for any leadership role, especially in a party supposedly built on integrity.

So there it is: the text which the friends of Senator Rhiannon do not wish the people of Australia to read. Sources were provided at Wikipedia for most of the statements for the text I have just read. Maybe some of these statements are wrong. If so, Senator Rhiannon should get up and explain in the Senate where the text I have read out is wrong and tell us the truth about her political past.

Senator Rhiannon's case is that she did not grow up as a wild student radical but was a dedicated member of the pro-Soviet Communist Party. When the CPA tried to free itself from Stalinism, she joined the breakaway pro-Soviet SPA. She loyally supported all the crimes of the Soviet Union during that time. And this was not a passing phase for her; she remained a senior and active member of the SPA until well into her 30s. She only abandoned Communism when it had visibly failed as a useful vehicle for far-left politics. She then joined the Greens, which is now the main vehicle for those kinds of politics in Australia.

It may be said that people should not be punished for the follies of the past and we should forgive and forget; but, as Mark Aarons pointed out in the text I quoted, forgiveness must be preceded by repentance. Senator Rhiannon has expressed no such regrets. She says she is no longer a communist, and I accept that. But she has not said that communism is and always was a false and pernicious doctrine that caused the deaths of tens of millions of people and is still causing oppression and misery in China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba. I would like to know what Senator Rhiannon now thinks of those events of the seventies and eighties which took place while she was an enthusiastic supporter of the Soviet Union. What does she think of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? What does she think of the suppression of Solidarity and the imposition of martial law in Poland? What does she think of the Berlin Wall, the shooting of people trying to escape to freedom? What does she think of the persecution of Andrei Sakharov and the Soviet dissidents? What does she think of the anti-Semitism of the Brezhnev regime? My challenge to Senator Rhiannon as she makes her first speech is to tell us honestly and clearly about her political past, tell us clearly that she has repudiated Communism not just as a tactical convenience but as a matter of conviction. (Time expired)

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

What can we expect from retail pricing on the National Broadband Network? According to the Prime Minister, we can expect lower prices. She told the House of Representatives last year:

Do you want families in your electorate to have the benefit of more competition, better broadband products and lower prices? Then tick the National Broadband Network.

She also told the House of Representatives:

… look at the fact that Australians pay high prices for broadband and to look at the fact that the industry is telling us—and the Tasmanian example bears it out—that by creating a model with retail price competition you get cheaper prices, because that is what competition is all about.

She also told us last year that Australians pay very high prices for broadband by world standards. In other words, a very clear message from the Prime Minister: the National Broadband Network will bring cheaper prices. It will bring lower prices once you start to get retail prices being announced.

During the winter recess, we did see retail prices being announced. Internode, one of the larger internet service providers in Australia, announced that it would be charging $59.95 a month for its entry-level product, which is a 12-megabit-per-second product with a 30-gigabyte-per-month download limit. Interestingly that is the same price as it charges for its current naked DSL offering also with a 30-gigabyte download limit. As you would be aware, Mr Speaker, DSL products offer speeds of 20 megabits per second down, depending upon how far from the exchange you are. What one can say is that the closest equivalent to the 12-megabit entry-level offering is today's ADSL offering—$59.95 in today's world from Internode, $59.95 on the NBN—a very long way away from prices being reduced for retail broadband services as the Prime Minister claimed, in the House of Representatives last year, we could all expect.

Interestingly what we also saw from Internode was that the top-end price went up. Their top-end price today for a naked DSL product with a 1,000-gigabyte or one-terabyte download limit per month is $149.95. The top-end product in the NBN world which will have 100 megabits of speed and also a one-terabyte download limit is now $189.95 a month. Any suggestion that broadband prices are going down seems to be at odds with the prices that have been announced.

This left Senator Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in a bit of a pickle. How was he to reconcile the actual pricing that had been announced and the claims of the Prime Minister last year? His solution was to leap upon some announcements by Exetel and Dodo, two other internet service providers. Exetel put out pricing and Dodo, to use the words in Senator Conroy's media release of 23 July, has 'mooted a sub-$40 price' although we have seen no more than that.

The key point I want to make is that it is quite wrong to argue, as Senator Conroy has done, that, because internet service providers who are acknowledged to be discount operators at the discount end of the market are offering lower prices than Internode, that proves that National Broadband Network retail prices will be lower than today's broadband prices. It is a non sequitur. The reality is that Internode has a market share of nearly three per cent whereas Exetel has only about 0.9 per cent in market share. It is true that Dodo have a similar market share to Internode, but we have not seen any actual pricing from them yet. It has simply been 'mooted'. I make the point that while there is nothing wrong with being discount operators, as Dodo and Exetel are, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman reports that over the period October 2010 to March 2011, 4.5 per cent of its complaints concerned Dodo although it had a market share of 2.9 per cent. I simply make the point that the reality based upon the prices which have now been disclosed by several operators is that there is no evidence at all for the belief, that the Prime Minister articulated, that the National Broadband Network is going to mean reduced prices for broadband services. In fact, on the contrary: what the pricing that has been released demonstrates is that consumers can expect, at the very best, prices to flatline and in reality they are going to increase.

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

Earlier today BlueScope Steel announced to the Australian Stock Exchange that its board had approved a major restructure of its steel-producing operations at Port Kembla and Western Port. Eight hundred jobs will be lost at Port Kembla and a further 200 will be lost at Western Port. Steel production at the Port Kembla works, which is located within my electorate of Cunningham, will be halved to 2.6 million tonnes. A number of other divisions will be closed down. The No. 6 blast furnace will be mothballed.

The decision by BlueScope Steel's board this morning is from a commercial decision-making process. The company's statement to the ASX indicates quite clearly that the company is experiencing 'structural change in the global steel industry' and an 'unprecedented combination of economic challenges' including 'a record high Australian dollar, high raw material costs, low prices for steel' and 'low domestic steel demand' in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Despite the intent of the federal opposition to link this commercial decision to the introduction of a carbon price in July 2012, BlueScope Steel again makes it clear that today's decision:

… is a direct response to the economic factors affecting our business and is not related to the Federal Government's proposed carbon tax.

My thoughts, along with those of my colleague the member for Throsby, are dedicated to ensuring that BlueScope Steel workers who will ultimately be affected by the decision to restructure the steel industry have all the necessary services available to them to deal with this loss of jobs.

The second priority for us as a Labor government is to do what it has done in the past: set out a plan to secure the steel industry during this painful restructuring process. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, and the Minister for Human Services announced a $140 million package of initiatives aimed at ensuring that steelworkers and their families in the Illawarra community know that the Commonwealth Labor government stands shoulder to shoulder with them.

This $140 million package to the support the Illawarra community has three elements: firstly, assistance of up to $10 million over two years to ensure immediate access to intensive employment services by Job Services Australia providers; secondly, bringing forward $100 million of the $300 million of the Steel Transformation Plan to assist with the continuation of BlueScope Steel as the major steel producer, a major employer in the Illawarra and the prospect for reactivating the No. 6 blast furnace when the steel market enables profitable sales to resume; and, thirdly, the establishment of a $30 million investment and innovation fund, focusing on supporting new business ventures, high-value jobs predominantly but not only in manufacturing, and manufacturing services.

The member for Throsby and I look forward to working with Dr Don Russell, the Secretary of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. He has been tasked with leading a whole-of-government response to BlueScope Steel's announcement and to develop a longer term coordinated structural adjustment strategy for the Illawarra. During the next few days all care and concern should be focused on the workers of BlueScope Steel and their families. Today has been a difficult day for each of them. But over the next few weeks attention must also move to the region, to make use of the $30 million innovation and investment fund. We will work with local organisations and unions in the Illawarra to see what projects can be implemented to maintain and create high quality skilled and ongoing jobs in manufacturing and manufacturing services. Regional structural adjustment packages do work; we know this in our region. The long-term focus in the Illawarra will remain on continuing to diversify our regional economy. Since the 1982-83 downturn and the long recession in the coal industry at the time, over the last 30 years the Illawarra region has transformed. We are in a much better position to adjust to the restructuring of our manufacturing sector than indeed we were even 30 years ago. Although manufacturing still plays a major role in the economy, we now see that BlueScope Steel is rivalled by places like the University of Wollongong and the region's health and community sectors as major employers. Despite today's announcement on steel and the pessimism surrounding talk of manufacturing in Australia, I am more than optimistic that the future of manufacturing is strong in our region and lies in the transition to high value-added production— (Time expired)

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For three months, Australia's world-class health system refused to treat Della Johnson, a resident of my electorate, who suffers from the one-in-a-million vascular disease of the brain called moyamoya—not because the operation was unavailable in Queensland, not because treating surgeons did not know what to do, but simply because Della comes from a state that cannot treat moyamoya and there was no agreement between hospital regions as to who would foot the bill. It exposes in our wonderful health system the fact that we have eight jurisdictions and many more area health services, and are about to have a lot more under the fourth level of bureaucracy to be introduced by the Gillard government.

My concern is that none of these reforms address the issue of Della. Were she a resident of New South Wales she would now be cured and recovering, but instead she has just had her first operation, last week—her second one is scheduled for 24 August—for the simple reason that she lives in the wrong state and in the wrong postcode. It is time for COAG to consider these issues so that streamlined care for very rare surgery can be in the best hands in this nation. With a population of 20 million people we cannot always expect to have every single operation available in every jurisdiction. But patients should not be held, delayed and pawned between states and hospital services looking for the cheapest way to do an operation.

In Princess Alexandra Hospital last week it became obvious that an edict has been released by Queensland Health to cap the number of times that a patient can visit outpatients. It is of great concern to anyone working in the public system that it is not the most efficient thing to do to be sending sick patients back to get another referral from a GP before they can return to the public outpatients system.

The issue here is that people who have complex conditions such as diabetes and epilepsy, or who are struggling with heart disease, or who are road trauma victims with broken bones, can only visit an outpatients department twice before they have to go back and get more paperwork. This was an absolutely ridiculous proposition—that you would have to go back and sit and wait in a GP's office, hope for an appointment, pick up more paperwork and charge the Medicare system, only to go back and have your third appointment at outpatients.

Mr Speaker, you can understand as a diabetic that, if you need your diabetic appointment and then a podiatry appointment and then to see your dietician, to have to return to a GP is absolutely ridiculous and inefficient, and a dreadful waste and social cost. I am glad that that edict has been turned around, and I want a guarantee from the Queensland Minister for Health that that will occur and that doctors will decide how often they see patients and to whom they refer. If you want to get outpatients seeing more patients more effectively, then engage in a meaningful discussion about integrated and primary healthcare provision; do not just cap doctors and tell patients, 'Go back and pick up more paperwork before we will offer you any more treatment,' because that is an abuse of the Australian health care agreement which says that you cannot refuse to treat a public patient.

It is also of great concern to me that in Queensland, in my electorate of Bowman, the Eastern Busway, due for completion at the almost mind-twisting date of 2026, has now been further downgraded by the Bligh government from a project to a 'concept'. Anyone who lives in my commuter community of Redlands, where 3,600 people jump in vehicles and travel down one highway every morning of the working week, will be absolutely distraught that this is now not even going to happen by 2026. We are a nation looking for smart public health solutions, and the last thing we need is delays to really important infrastructure for no reason other than that the state government cannot manage money. They committed out to 2026. There was plenty of opportunity to reschedule this. There is plenty of opportunity to look at alternative busway proposals that do not involve kilometres of tunnel and which would be far more efficient and could be built in a shorter time frame. I just think it is ridiculous that the children of the current Treasurer will have graduated from school before they ever get to travel on a busway. I think it is ridiculous that a major part of south-eastern Brisbane does not have the benefit of a decent busway for little other reason, it appears, than the fact that Redlands is not a part of Brisbane and was not the beneficiary of some of the visionary work of Campbell Newman in building tunnels and major road infrastructure for our city at a time when state Labor was not.

My great concern for my 6,000 residents who live on North Stradbroke Island and on the southern bay islands is that all ferry and water-taxi travel will not be exempted from a carbon tax. Removing that 6.8c a litre excise on diesel will be a direct hit for people who have no other option than to use a water-taxi or a barge for their vehicle. You will understand, Mr Speaker, that you cannot drive off an island, so this is absolutely essential travel. It is public transport and commuting that should be supported in this country, and I urge the Prime Minister to consider an exemption for public transport.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I want to speak about the sad passing of baby Dominic, who passed away on the 13th of this month. Dominic was the youngest child of Alannah McKenna. Tonight I want to pay tribute to the strength and courage she has shown in this very difficult circumstance of losing her child. The loss of a child is a grief that no mother should have to bear, more so a young mother. That is why I want to acknowledge Alannah McKenna and pay tribute to the life of baby Dominic, who was born with a very rare genetic disorder known as infantile GM1 gangliosidosis. Essentially, where most people can break down ganglioside in the body, Dominic's rare condition caused his body to store the fatty substance in his nerve cells as well as his spleen, liver and brain. Children born with this rare condition usually do not survive beyond their third birthday. In this case, Alannah and her family had just one birthday with baby Dominic in what was no doubt an extraordinary effort of having to go through the emotional and physical challenges of tending and nurturing a child through palliative care. Despite everything, baby Dominic, through his fighting spirit and resilient personality, brought enough smiles and happiness to outshine his terminal condition and to last his grieving family a lifetime.

Alannah's extraordinary commitment to Dominic throughout his short and precious life, as well as her care for her other two children, her son and daughter, is a testament to motherhood and to the young women in my electorate. I also want to pay a special tribute to Alannah's family, who supported her through thick and thin and who remained steadfast in their commitment to raising awareness of Dominic's condition. In paying tribute to them I would like to place on the parliamentary record the issues they want raised and believe warrant our attention.

When dealing with the treatment of rare genetic disorders we need to take a closer look at strengthening procedures that would ensure that laws which govern medical practice, as they apply to the application of medical know-how, are given more room for manoeuvre when it comes to a question between a fait accompli approach to palliative care and last resort measures to apply what could potentially be life-saving treatment. The issues that were raised with me and which I put forward to the House are that even in the event that qualified care, funding and medical knowledge are available, their application can often be prevented by law because of issues to do with the phasing stages between what is deemed an experimental trial and the clinical phase of treatment. Such legal restrictions place additional emotional hardships on those families and friends who have to care for critically ill loved ones, as was the case with baby Dominic and his family. Once again, I commend Alannah and her family's resolve and, on behalf of the community, offer our condolences for the loss of Dominic.

On another matter, I wish to table a petition which has been presented and is deemed to be within standing orders by the Petitions Committee. The petition is signed by 2,758 Australian citizens and seeks to draw to the attention of the House the increasing international recognition of Palestine as a state, including the resolution to be put to the United Nations Security Council in its forthcoming meeting in September recommending Palestine's admission to the General Assembly as a state.

The petition read as follows—

To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives

This petition of concerned citizens of Australia

Draws to the attention of the House the increasing international recognition of Palestine as a State, including the resolution to be lout to the United Nations Security Council to recommend Palestine's admission to the General Assembly as a state, currently set to take place in September 2011.

We therefore ask the House to recognise a Palestinian State in accordance with all relevant UN resolutions, and international and humanitarian law which Australia has consistently upheld.

Current Australian policy supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state would exist side-by-side with Israel, each within internationally recognised and secure borders.

Failure to capitalise on this historic opportunity may jeopardise existing international frameworks for a just and peaceful resolution to the conflict.

from 2,758 citizens

Petition received.

The petition calls on the House to recognise a Palestinian state in accordance with all relevant UN resolutions and international and humanitarian law which Australia has consistently upheld. Beyond the importance of applying international law to this very important issue, there are practical necessities for establishing a Palestinian state. The issue of Palestinian statehood is of major concern to many Australians; indeed, there is support for the recognition of a Palestinian state in the broader international and Australian community. This is especially so with a large section of my constituency in Calwell. The petition I tabled this evening carries the hopes of many Australians who are very keen to see our country and, indeed, our government play a role in this ongoing issue.

This House has on many occasions affirmed its support for a two-state solution to the issue of Palestine and Israel, a two-state solution that will guarantee security and peace for both states. This evening in presenting this petition I also want to place on record my support for Australia to join the vast majority of nations in recognising Palestine as it seeks statehood in the UN General Assembly in September this year.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak about infrastructure in my electorate of Boothby. One of the issues I have spoken about several times before is the issue of having a non-stop South Road from Darlington to Wingfield—22 kilometres of non-stop expressway. It is a priority of the RAAA of South Australia; it is a priority of a number of economic development councils; and it is a priority of two local councils which cover my electorate—the City of Marion and the City of Onkaparinga.

There is a bit of history here. In 2006 the South Australian government promised that they would fix the intersection at Sturt Road and South Road. That has not happened. In 2007 the federal Labor Party in opposition then through Kevin Rudd and also the then shadow minister for transport promised that they would fix Sturt Road and South Road. Again, it has not happened. They have commissioned a traffic study which looked at fixing this intersection and at present it involves approximately $1 billion of infrastructure work and is currently unfunded.

But today we had the extraordinary announcement that the South Australian government have decided to switch an interchange worth $75 million, which they promised 18 months ago, with a traffic light. After all of the waste which has occurred—the billions of dollars at state and federal level—we have now have no sense of priorities. Something that was promised to voters only 18 months ago has now been ditched—a $75 million interchange for a traffic light. Worse, it was left to the department to announce this to parliament. The secretary of the department confirmed it before a committee hearing and the departmental executive responsible for this, Andy Milazzo, said before the hearing that he did not know if the minister had been informed.

My question is: what is it about Labor governments and funding infrastructure in Darlington? We have a whole succession of promises going back 5½ years and nothing has happened. It is really not good enough. This is something that has been promised and still never delivered. Rod Hook, the chief executive of the department, said they were hoping for federal funding. Well, the federal funding that was promised for the intersection just down the road still has not been delivered after the federal government has been in for almost four years and 5½ years after state government promised it. It is not good enough. This is another breach of faith. It is another broken promise for residents in the southern suburbs. It is just an extraordinarily chaotic process, and incredibly cynical, whereby something is promised before the election and then never delivered and the promise is just quietly shelved and not acted on. It is not good enough. It cannot happen again.

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

I rise tonight to speak of a clear and present danger facing the people of the central coast of New South Wales. That danger is the imminent action of the Liberal Premier of this state of New South Wales and his plan to create unemployment. Apart from talking down the New South Wales economy at every turn, the Premier's mythmaking about a 'black hole' has been completely discounted by New South Wales Treasury and by the New South Wales Parliamentary Budget Office. A report from Tony Harris found Mr O'Farrell's media releases about a black hole were:

… unsupported by evidence or conflicted with available information on the state's fiscal position and budgetary processes.

The economist John Quiggin told the Herald that in relation to the impact of the carbon price New South Wales:

The New South Wales government has cherry-picked all the scariest possible numbers in a way that is totally misleading and absolutely dishonest.

Let us be very clear: New South Wales is not in a black hole, nor is the New South Wales economy in crisis. Yet Mr O'Farrell continues to repeat these alarmist claims as he prepares to rip the heart out of the public sector of New South Wales when he brings his budget down on 6 September.

Unemployment is an ugly thing. It never looks good to the people who lose jobs; it never looks good to the people who wave them goodbye as they leave their workplace; it never looks good to families that have to live with the loss of freedom, the loss of security, the loss of hope for the future; and the loss of possibilities that their employment offered. The ravage of unemployment is something that the people of the Central Coast have largely been spared in recent years. This is due to the efforts of successive Labor governments at federal and state levels.

Unfortunately, in the hands of the Liberals in New South Wales, that is about to change. As those who follow events in New South Wales would know, Mr O'Farrell has, without any warning, not least to the people who baited him in at the state election, embarked on a vicious series of cuts to the New South Wales public sector. Mr O'Farrell's axe now hangs over as many as one in four public sector jobs in New South Wales.

Those members in this place from the New South Wales National Party should note that the first job losses have been in the Department of Primary Industries—like lambs to the slaughter. That is how the National Party has led it rural constituencies to those terrible job cuts. Right across New South Wales Mr O'Farrell has made it clear he is looking forward to slashing jobs—to slashing the conditions of teachers and nurses and other essential public sector workers—in the coming state budget.

For us on the Central Coast, that means that up to one in four of our local public sector families will not have the disposable income that they currently have. They will not have the income that keeps our economy ticking over. They will not have the disposable income to spend on products in our local shops, and they will not have the disposable income to spend on services from our local businesses, many of which are already struggling.

These cuts are an act of betrayal of the people in our great state. They are unjustified and potentially catastrophic under the current economic conditions on the coast. With federal economic stimulus projects in our area, like the Building the Education Revolution, nearing completion, our regional economy is slowing. Federal Labor's stimulus programs really kept people working on the Central Coast for a very long time. Mr O'Farrell's axe will undo that good work—undo the good work that saw us get through the global financial crisis, when federal Labor acted to make sure that Australians did not have to suffer the destructive impact of unemployment.

I believe the Central Coast economy could take a terrible blow, a disabling blow, from the O'Farrell cuts. As well as the economic costs there will be social costs. I ask the House to contemplate the potential effects of funding and job cuts to child protection workers. They are unimaginable. Tragedies already occur through the strain on support services. Less funding and fewer workers will simply mean more neglect. There is nothing good about that scenario.

I have to ask: will Mr O'Farrell standby and play Pontius Pilate when some tragedy occurs because police, community service and mental health workers are under resourced? More likely, he will insist that the federal government step in and fix the mess he is going to create. The O'Farrell cuts are dangerous and dishonest. They are based on fiscal falsehoods and they are immoral. I condemn and deplore the New South Wales Liberal government's job cutting. With no reason they are committed to inflicting pain and suffering on the state, and determined to inflict pain and loss of jobs on the families of the Central Coast. I heartily encourage all local public sector workers to join the rally against the O'Farrell government in Sydney on 8 September.

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

Football clubs are often the social and sporting pulse of country communities. The Northern Riverina Football and Netball League held its grand finals at West Wyalong on Saturday. It was a fantastic finish to a memorable season, Barellan winning the senior footy with the last kick of the game and its netball girls coming from behind to pip Ungarie in the A grade decider. Peter McFadyen, in his first year as president, deserves praise for his leadership, as does Chris Daniher, whose marvellous encouragement of his young charges resulted in Ungarie winning the under-14 title. There is no country footballing name better known than 'Daniher' and Chris's commitment to his beloved Ungarie helps keep the game alive in that district.

On preliminary final day the first grade footballers were forced to change in what can only be described as makeshift tents at Hillston. I commit myself to doing what I can to find some source of funding so Hillston can have decent facilities. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

Order! It being 10.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.

House adjourned at 22:30

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

to move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that the Football Queensland licensing scheme is anti-competitive because it:

(a) excludes smaller and new apparel manufacturers who cannot afford to pay the annual fee from the market;

(b) increases costs for clubs and players as licensed suppliers pass on the cost of the licence fee and the 'Q Logo' to consumers;

(c) forces clubs to purchase what some regard as inferior and expensive products as Football Queensland strictly enforces penalties against clubs that wear apparel from non-licensed suppliers in competitive matches;

(d) increases cost for regional clubs as manufacturers large enough to pay the licensing fee are based in the large population centres, not in the regions; and

(e) protects licensed suppliers from true competition as there is only a limited number of licensed suppliers and most are aware of each others prices;

(2) recognises that the current immunity from prosecution granted to Football Queensland by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has been instrumental in allowing Football Queensland to conduct this anti-competitive behaviour and sets a precedent for other sporting administration bodies within Australia to instigate similar schemes;

(3) calls on the ACCC to consider the anti-competitive nature of the Football Queensland licensing scheme when deciding on the continuation of the immunity from prosecution granted to Football Queensland; and

(4) acknowledges that Football Queensland and other similar organisations have special exemptions and conditions in relation to their status in their community and as a consequence also carry special responsibility and duty of care in the exercise of its charter for clubs and players, as well as its commercial relationships.

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

The Prime Minister seems to believe that the installation of energy saving light bulbs is compensation enough for not-for-profits and charities that are going to get stung by a carbon tax. In particular, enormous costs will be borne by aviation rescue services, such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Rockhampton's Capricorn Helicopter Rescue Service and the Mackay based CQ Rescue Helicopter Service. CQ Rescue has estimated that through the increase in aviation fuel and electricity prices alone their carbon tax bill will be around $20,000 per year, which will grow as the carbon tax grows. Back in July the Prime Minister, when confronted by carbon tax concerns from the Royal Flying Doctor Service, referred to a so-called special fund and said that she would cover any impacts they feel from pricing carbon, including direct assistance. However, in the carbon tax documentation entitled Securing a clean energy future not once are the words 'not-for-profit, non-profit, charity or charitable' even mentioned. The Prime Minister has claimed this special fund, set aside for compensating not-for-profits, is contained within the Low Carbon Communities program. The entire Low Carbon Communities program is only $330 million over six years, with at least $30 million and quite possibly $130 million already earmarked for supposed assistance to low-income households. That leaves $300 million at best to be spread across some 600,000 registered not-for-profits in Australia, roughly equating to $83 per not-for-profit a year.

Answering a question of mine in question time last week, the Prime Minister said, 'That's not how it works.' How does it work? The rest of the $300 million will presumably go towards items listed in the program's description in the Clean Energy Future documents. The description does not refer to compensation for not-for-profits. The closest this program comes to helping organisations like CQ Rescue, the Capricorn Helicopter Rescue Service and, indeed, the Royal Flying Doctor Service is in undertaking energy efficiency upgrades to community facilities, but installing an energy saving light bulb in the main office is not going to compensate for the increase in aviation fuel costs, which is the main problem, particularly for CQ Rescue, with its estimated $20,000 carbon tax increase. The Prime Minister has been well and truly caught out in this falsehood that she is going to compensate not-for-profits. The problem is that it will be the not-for-profit charitable groups that are trying to help people and save lives that suffer and not her—not that is until we get to the ballot box.

Bass Electorate: Bridport Innovations Track

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

(Bass) (10:33): Recently, I was pleased to represent the Minister for Employment Participation, Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide, at the launch of the Bridport Innovations Track, a Jobs Fund project in my electorate of Bass. The project involved the construction of a 10-kilometre walking track in a circular route around Bridport and included the employment of 27 trainee participants of various ages. This development project has brought much-needed jobs to the people of Bridport and enabled track workers to gain Certificate II in Conservation and Land Management. It is an important project, which is why the Australian government has committed more than $750,000 towards its development. There are limited training opportunities in the Bridport region. Yes, it is an enviable lifestyle, but small and remote communities, by their very nature, have limited education and training pathways for young people, and that is why I am so pleased that we put our money into the walking track, which has huge flow-on benefits for our community by helping local residents gain qualifications and jobs.

The idea of a walking track has been around in Bridport for about 20 years. It commenced in 2007. The track is a great example of quality workmanship, including an impressive metal bridge, drywall, smooth and even walking surfaces, which were levelled by hand. The Jobs Fund was set up to create jobs, to develop skills through projects that build community social infrastructure—projects like the Bridport Innovations Walking Track. We established the Jobs Fund to support families and communities most affected by the global recession. In the government's view, it was money extremely well spent. Some 21 jobs and 30 traineeships were created during the development, with a number of them now in work. Under the Jobs Fund about $171 million was announced for 225 projects across Australia. In Tasmania, there are 10 of these projects worth more than $6 million.

The Tasmanian state cricket team coach, Tim Coyle, presented trainees with certificates and likened the trainees' team effort to Tasmania's recent success in cricket. Bridport Innovations have also set up a website and Facebook page for the Bridport Walking Track, in order to give visitors more information about the track. I have already had interest for the Launceston Walking Group who have used the track and, I might say, also used the coffee shops in Bridport. I congratulate the local Bridport community, the Dorset Council and all people involved in the construction of the walking track. It is a very impressive project that will bring great benefit to the local and surrounding communities for years to come.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been holding many community information booths across Brisbane over the past few weeks, and universally I have been hearing the same story. Small and medium businesses within the electorate of Brisbane are not happy with this government's carbon tax. There will be resulting problems for businesses. I am told it will cause complete chaos, and that is because electricity providers are going to pass on the tax. The higher the electricity providers' costs the higher the price that business will have to pay for electricity. A small deli and cafe owner in Clayfield recently told me that his options are to pass on the cost to consumers or to absorb the cost himself. On top of the increasing costs and the downturn in his trade that is not possible, so that means that he will have to let staff go. Traders at the Brisbane Markets also told me that their options are to pass on the cost of produce to consumers or shed staff.

This will be the real impact on this carbon tax to businesses in my electorate. The one thing that we know is that, if electricity is hit, it is not 300, 400 or 500 companies that will be affected, it will be thousands of businesses in Brisbane. This is the worst possible time to hit Australia with a new economy-wide tax that will not achieve its purpose. All it will do is clean out wallets.

We have heard that in the United States the cap and trade scheme, which is their equivalent of a carbon tax, is dead. In Japan it is off the table. In Canada it is gone. In Korea it has been deferred. In Europe the scheme has raised revenue of $1 per person per year over the last five years. The Australian system will raise $400 per person. The cost is 400 times heavier per person than the European scheme.

This weekend I will continue to hold community corners and information booths in the suburbs of Ascot, Hamilton and Clayfield, and I suspect that the story will be the same, that people are not happy with this carbon tax. They are not happy with being misled just days before the election. All that this tax will do is have a devastating impact on many businesses, workers and their families in the electorate of Brisbane.

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

Earlier this month I had the pleasure of attending the Colyton Public School in my electorate for their celebration of the school's 150th birthday. Colyton Public School was first established as a humble timber shack on Simpson Hill Road in Mount Druitt during 1861. Because of the location close to South Creek the school was relocated up the hill in the form of a brick home to house the principal and classrooms. This building, the old schoolmaster's college, was set up between 1883 and 1898 at the present site in Nelson Street, Mount Druitt. The two further classrooms, in one large building, were erected in 1898 and today still stand proudly with the brick construction and long veranda as the colonial room. On Tuesday, 2 August, during New South Wales Education Week, Colyton Public School celebrated the 150th anniversary with a formal assembly and an open day attended by past students and community members. Staff members hired costumes covering a whole range of years from colonial right through to the sixties, and ex-students arrived from as far away as Darwin, coming from a diverse range of current professions covering doctors, dentists and prominent business owners. All ex-students showed a pride in growing up in the local Mount Druitt area and continued their support of public education by making personal donations to the library. I just want to congratulate them on such a great sense of civic and community spirit. The following evening, Wednesday, 3 August, past and present students and staff members gathered to celebrate with a bush dance and the evening was a great success with smiling faces, including some of the newest arrivals, two students who reached there from Christmas Island that day.

Colyton Public School continues its proud tradition of giving quality public education to the students of Mount Druitt and surrounding areas. Congratulations to Geoff Yates, the Principal, to teachers, staff, students, parents and everyone involved in celebrating Colyton Public School reaching this important milestone.

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

Today we see hundreds of trucks here in Canberra with the Convey of No Confidence in the Labor Government. I am from a transport background in heavy haulage, earthmoving, freight and logistics. Those in the transport sector who have come to Canberra today, at their own considerable expense, know that they are going to pay for Labor's carbon tax. I thank them for being here, particularly those from Western Australia. I know what the trip is costing them and I thank them for being prepared to stand up for their industry and families.

The Labor government will hit the transport sector, their customers and consumers with their carbon tax on diesel from July of 2014. The Australian Trucking Association has estimated that the carbon tax will cost the industry $510 million in the 2014-15 year alone, with higher costs for smaller owner operators competing in aggressive markets. This sector is working hard. They have been buying lower emission engines, paying up to $50,000 per prime mover for low emissions engines. They recycle their oils. They reduce and manage waste. They have lowered their fuel consumption, and yet they are part of the Australian families, businesses and industry that have voluntarily, at major individual cost, effectively assisted in reducing Australia's emissions intensity by almost 50 per cent in the last 15 years.

I have spoken to some of these businesses. I can only imagine the accounting nightmare for those with a business that uses a combination of forklifts, bobcats, backhoes, four and a half-tonne vehicles and prime movers. Whether you have scrapers, dozers or whatever you have this is going to be a nightmare. Those in the transport sector have commonsense and experience. They know that Labor's carbon tax is going to have a disproportionate effect on rural and regional Australia because of the tax on diesel. They know that this is a compounding cascading tax and they know that this is a major issue in their own businesses as well as in their communities. They know it is a major cost for their customers and they know, as Ross Garnaut has said, that ultimately households in Australia will pay the carbon tax.

Regional people will pay more for everything—food, everyday goods, the houses they build or renovate, repairs and maintenance—everything that is delivered on the back of a prime mover. They also know that effective transport is the lifeblood of regional and remote Australia and they know there is no escape or mitigation, because this tax is going to hit domestic aviation fuel, domestic shipping fuel, rail fuel, stationary energy fuel—all of that will be hit by Labor's carbon tax. Overall, the transport sector will pay at least $800 million more every year under Labor's carbon tax and there is no guarantee that this tax will not apply to petrol in the future. In conclusion, I thank those who have come to Canberra today to voice their very serious concerns about the tax.

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

Today I rise to pay tribute to community sector workers in my electorate who are working with individuals who have a disability. I attended two community events recently that really brought home to me the valuable work that this sector is doing. On 2 August I attended a DisabiliTEA event in Holt hosted by the Sharing Places organisation. I acknowledge the participants in the program: Carl Blakers, Veronica Sadkowski, Mirella Sadkowski, Rebecca Johns, Stephen Perry, Sean Henderson, Tracey Greene, Caroline Frey, Kerry Scott and Tiffany Stevenson. The Sharing Places staff: Susan Healy, Kylie Stokes, Kaz Kaczmarek, Alicia Gaudie, Spozmai Nozhat, Donggook Kang, Lynnette Thompson, Fiona Lukacs and Abbie Costa. And other attendees supporting the work of Sharing Places: Ken Baker, Emily Weeks, Justyn McDonald, Dee McGrath, Felicity Cotterill, Helen Walker and Julie Grehan. All of these attendees were there to support the proposal for a National Disability Insurance Scheme. They recognise the valuable contribution that a National Disability Insurance Scheme will do for people with disability in Australia.

The next day, on 3 August—by coincidence my birthday—I attended the opening ceremony of Ross Walker Lodge in the St Margaret's Church Hall. The Ross Walker Lodge will support six people in the ACT with intellectual disabilities, and I would like to pay tribute to Harvey Smith, John Goss, Gordon Ramsay, Audrey Walker, the widow of Ross Walker, and the many ACT MLAs who were in attendance, particularly Joy Burch, the Minister for Community Services.

Ross Walker, after whom the lodge is named, was born at about the same time as my paternal grandfather, Keith Leigh. They both entered the Methodist ministry in the post-war era and both were committed to a service in the community that involved focusing on the most disadvantaged, bringing the gospel but also bringing social change to the community. The Ross Walker Lodge fits proudly in that tradition, which is of great pride to many of us on this side of the House. The Ross Walker Lodge will be an important part of the work in the community that the Uniting Church does, and I am sure that many volunteers will continue to assist with that. I pay tribute to all of those involved in these two important disability events.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Sunday, 17 July I had the honour of attending the St Paul's Anglican Church 125th anniversary service in Seville for the Seville St Paul's Anglican Church. As you would expect, Mr Deputy Speaker, it was a day to celebrate and reflect on a wonderful history of that parish in Seville. We met with a wide range of family, friends, church members and community leaders. Rosemary Varty spoke of the history of the church, which began with seven men, including her great grandfather, William Smith Aitken, who met back in February 1886 to plan the church, which opened in the July of that year.

The story of the church, its history, is the story of the Seville community and, as you would expect, the wonderful historical reflection touched on the role of the church in tough national economic times, in the depressions of 1890 and of course in the 1930s, its role during wars and conflicts, its role during natural disasters—floods, droughts and bushfires—and of course its roles in ministering to families and individuals in the Seville community over 125 years.

It was a proud time for the church community. It was a time to reflect on the growth of the Seville community from back in those pre-Federation days. There were many descendants of families who played such a critical role in the foundation years of the church who were present. There was great reflection, as you would expect, on the contribution those families had made to ensure that the church survived and that it played the role that it has played at critical times in the history of the Seville community. I pay tribute to all of the members of the church who were there on that Sunday one month ago. I also pay tribute to those who came before them who helped build the church and sustain it through those years to the great benefit of the Seville community.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to acknowledge the work of local residents from the Lindsay electorate involved in the Every Australian Counts campaign. I recently had the pleasure of attending five DisabiliTeas that were held in my local community to highlight support for a national disability insurance scheme. I wish to acknowledge the organisers of each of these events. Firstly, I wish to acknowledge local residents, Kevin Finlayson and Emma Husar—two dedicated community activists in my electorate—who facilitated the gathering of over 60 people in support of this campaign, including members and supporters of the Nepean disability social group. I acknowledge area manager Deb Emelhain and the staff at Lifestart Nepean who allowed me to meet some of the families who will benefit from an NDIS in the years to come.

I also recognise the team at Northcott Disability Services in Penrith led by Acting Regional Manager Hilary Smith. I thank them for providing me with the opportunity to hear the moving words of local mother Diana Jelovic, as she shared her experiences of having a child with autism. I also acknowledge the Jamieson branch of the Australian Foundation for Disability (AFFORD), coordinated by Sarah Delaney and CEO Tim Walton. Meeting the clients and carers of this outstanding organisation gave perspective to the number of lives that will be touched by an NDIS. I also acknowledge the strong leadership and support of the Every Australian Counts campaign by AFFORD. Finally, I acknowledge Anne Bouboulas of the community care team at Anglicare Penrith who gathered around 30 of their hardworking staff members to raise awareness of this campaign.

These wonderful community events brought together people with disabilities, their parents, their carers and service providers, united in their desire to see a better future for people with disabilities in Australia. I am proud to be a part of a government that has put this important issue on the agenda. In recent weeks I have been even more proud to be a part of a government that is taking immediate action to lay the foundations for this massive reform following the release of the Productivity Commission's report.

The system we have today is not delivering the kind of care and support Australians expect for people with disabilities. An NDIS will provide individually tailored care and support to around 410,000 people in Australia with significant disabilities. This represents a significant reform that Australia needs to undertake to provide some of our most vulnerable community members with the opportunities they deserve to be able to reach their full potential and contribute to Australian society in the way we know they can. It will provide greater support and assistance to the unsung heroes of our community—the carers and families of people with disabilities.

I commend all the hard work of the Lindsay residents involved in the Every Australian Counts campaign. Your hard work to highlight this important issue has been truly outstanding and I am proud to say the Gillard government supports your vision for a better future for people with disabilities, their families and their carers. (Time expired)

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A couple of weeks ago there was a traffic accident on one of the two bridges crossing the Shoalhaven River. It happened in the late afternoon and coincided with the end of a working day with a lot of traffic converging on the bridge heading north. People had finished work and were going home. The Shoalhaven bridge is a traffic pinch point. On either side of the river there is a large urban development. All traffic along the New South Wales South Coast from Kiama to the Victorian border must converge on this bridge. All freight going to the far South Coast from Sydney must converge on this bridge. If these bridges were to fall in the river tomorrow, traffic would have to be diverted through Goulburn, such is the strategic importance of this river crossing to the economy and future of the communities of the New South Wales South Coast.

The day this accident occurred traffic was banked up for two hours within the side streets of Nowra, going back to the southern outskirts of the town. This is not the first time this has happened. The southbound bridge is an old railway bridge converted to a road bridge. Incidentally, the railway line stops on the north bank. It is over 100 years old and reaching the end of its useful life. It, too, will soon need to be replaced. A few years ago a truck struck one of the overhead girders and seriously compromised the integrity of the bridge for many months. Traffic had to be diverted onto the northbound bridge at some considerable inconvenience to the community.

You only have to think what would happen if accidents occurred simultaneously on both bridges. For quite some considerable time I have been advocating the need for a third river crossing, as indeed has council and most of the community. It is the key to unlock the economic potential for those of the region south of the river who, frankly, are languishing. We had hoped that the construction of main road 92 would act as a stimulus for further infrastructure growth but until the last leg is constructed it remains a fast road with three kilometres of dirt left to do. Over the last two decades the population of the Shoalhaven has grown by about 2,000 people each year, yet the same road network that serviced the community half this size remains. While council has certainly earmarked a third river crossing as a necessity, the urgency has been brought forward and only increases each year.

When the minister for regional development visited the Shoalhaven a few months ago the need to advance the project was firmly reinforced. It is not something that can be paid for out of council rates; it needs serious investment support by the federal government. The Princes Highway—or Highway 1, as it has been categorised—is a vital arterial route through the south coast. The road infrastructure of this area has long been neglected and I hope that the change of government in New South Wales brings serious reform. It remains to be seen, but it does not divest responsibility on the part of this government to plan effectively and in a timely manner to allow for future growth of a significant region of New South Wales.

I do hope that the minister has taken on board the emphasis that was made in his briefing by council officers. Planning for the third river crossing over the Shoalhaven cannot be further delayed. It must happen now in time for real and effective change to occur. Further procrastination is not an option that our regional economy can afford, nor should have to bear. Not only will the traffic be faster if this happens, with a third river crossing the more free road conditions can only encourage greater traffic movement and more cars, more people and more visitors to the region translate into more congestion.

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

On Wednesday, 3 August, in Dandenong I attended the annual general meeting of the South East Melbourne Manufacturers Alliance—SEMMA—to discuss the federal government's plan to move to a clean energy future by putting a price on carbon. SEMMA was established in 2003 and today represents over 180 manufacturers in the south-east of Melbourne. The membership is growing and includes Bombardier Transport, Jayco and Hilton Manufacturing. The south-east of Melbourne is a proud manufacturing and employment hub and this sector is growing, aided by residential growth and infrastructure improvements over recent years.

Many of SEMMA's members are located within my electorate. The businesses they represent are an important part of our local economy. Manufacturers are confronting challenging times at present with a high Australian dollar and record terms of trade. It puts the carbon price into perspective to recognise that the rise in the Australian dollar is 20 times the cost impact a carbon price will represent, according to Treasury modelling.

The cost of a carbon price to manufacturers will be modest. The introduction of the goods and services tax by the Howard government in July 2000 caused a consumer price index increase of 2.5 per cent. The carbon price to be introduced on 1 July 2012 is expected to see an increase to the CPI of only 0.7 per cent. These facts have been conveniently absent from the campaign of fear that has been conducted by Liberal MPs in south-east Melbourne in recent times, including in particular the hysterical misrepresentations from the Member for Indi. People are sick of hearing opposition members talking down manufacturing in our community, creating uncertainty for industry in challenging economic times. This approach completely overlooks our manufacturing sector's resilience over the long term and ignores the fact that our economy is expected to generate 1.6 million additional jobs by 2020.

Manufacturers in my electorate have asked me how much the carbon price will cost them, what support is offered to emissions-intensive industries and what initiatives will be established in moving to more energy efficient practices in industry. The AGM was an opportunity for me to answer their questions. Many businesses in the south-east of Melbourne and across Australia are working towards reducing their energy costs. Organisations that have started to innovate and reduce input costs will be in an advantageous position when the carbon price is introduced.

I would like to thank outgoing SEMMA president, Russell LaCombre, for his work over the past 12 months and welcome newly elected president Lyndon Joss, who held this role in the early days of SEMMA. I would also like to thank Paul Dowling, the chief executive officer of SEMMA, for enabling me to address SEMMA's AGM. Mr Dowling is an excellent representative of manufacturers in the south-east of Melbourne and I look forward to working with him to promote the interests of manufacturing in south-east Melbourne. (Time expired.)

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

In accordance with standing order 193 the time for member constituency statements has concluded.

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

Only last month the Independent Republic of South Sudan came into existence as the culmination of a comprehensive peace agreement creating two Sudanese nations. It is a momentous threshold to be crossed in a part of Africa that has been ripped through with conflict and suffering for nearly half a century. It offers the prospect of greater peace and stability and of less violence, displacement and suffering for the Sudanese, but in all reality this prospect is still distant and uncertain.

In human history, whenever conflict is sought to be resolved by separation, by the creation of separate geographical and sovereign regions and through the distillation of separate political, ethnic or religious populations, the fracture is never achieved without difficulty and pain and inevitably the point of separation represents a period of heightened danger, dislocation and violence. That is true in the Sudan.

The comprehensive peace agreement between north and south may have brought a formal end to a civil conflict that has been more or less continuous for 50 years, but the violence has not ended. It is estimated that 1.4 million Sudanese are currently affected by conflict in South Kordofan, one of three key protocol areas, and at least 200,000 are internally displaced. Some of the preconditions for independence set out in the comprehensive peace agreement have not yet been met, including notably the determination processes that were required to be held in critical border zones. The promised referendum on the status of Abyei has not been held and nor have the popular consultations in southern Kordofan and Blue Nile state. In recent weeks there have been reports of the targeted intensive slaughter of the marginalised Nuba ethnic group in South Kordofan and there is a desperate need for an enforceable ceasefire in that region.

The border region of Abyei encapsulates much of what is difficult in bringing peace to Sudan. Abyei is an oil producing region in a country where oil production and oil wealth are the most valuable prize. Eighty per cent of Sudan's oil reserves are located in South Sudan, but the only pipelines run to the north where the refineries are also located. Under the CPA Abyei is supposed to have been subject to its own referendum in order to determine whether it will belong to the north or the south. Like Kashmir, it is a fragment that has bound within it a number of the root causes that define the Sudanese dilemma.

To people in Australia this will be a blur of regional names and acronyms that in the end are likely to be reduced to the general sense that the Sudan and its people are trapped in a state of unfathomable, intractable, internecine conflict, but we have to move beyond that barrier of incomprehension if we are, in Australia and in the international community as a whole, committed to supporting the achievement of peace and security for our fellow human beings and greater global stability and prosperity.

In addition to reflecting on what is a pressing international and humanitarian crisis—and I want to thank the member for Chifley for seconding this motion and to thank all members who have chosen to contribute to this discussion today—I hope the motion will have a further constructive value in identifying the steps Australia can take to continue our role as a contributor to the future peace and stability of South and North Sudan.

As part of its expansion and reorientation of Australian development assistance, this government has recognised the need to direct aid not only to our region but also to those parts of the world that need it most, and of course this includes Africa. The Sudan is already the second-largest recipient in Africa of Australia's humanitarian assistance, including the provision of $136 million since 2004, but there is more that we can consider doing at this critical juncture. Perhaps the highest priority is the protection of Sudanese civilians, whose safety depends on the observance of the current Status of Forces Agreement and it would be significantly aided if the peacekeeping capacity in areas like South Kordofan were strengthened, which could occur through the expansion of the UN interim security force for Abyei, or UNISFA mandate. Australia should continue to engage with the troika countries, the US, UK and Norway, to support the urgent creation of effective constitutions for North and South Sudan and to make representations to the government of Sudan to improve humanitarian access.

As an example of how difficult and frustrating the peacekeeping task in Sudan is for peace keepers, four UNISFA staff were killed when their vehicle hit a land mine two weeks ago, with the tragedy made worse by the fact that three of the four survived the initial blast, but died before medical help could arrive when the Sudanese government refused to allow the airlift, saying any unauthorised helicopter in the vicinity would be shot down. As I have done in this place a number of times, I pay tribute to all those who make the sacrifices necessary to give the best of themselves as peacekeepers and, in doing so, demonstrate the best of human nature.

There is no doubt that the commitment of predictable and long-term assistance funding is of great value in the circumstances that apply in Sudan. Australia is recognised for its substantial contributions to UN operations in Sudan, including generous contributions to the central emergency fund and the UN Sudan common humanitarian fund. A number of NGOs have identified the importance of Australia's long-term commitment to this kind of funding, especially where it is directed at the safe return of North and South Sudanese, the humanitarian effort in Darfur, where the terrible conflict is now in its eighth year, and ongoing, predictable funding to the UN and other non-government agencies.

I would like to share the experience of an extraordinary young Sudanese Australian women, Nyadol Nyuon, who has been in the parliament yesterday and today as part of a Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians Forum for 10 young Australian women to consider ways to increase the number of women in parliament. Nyadol, who is 23 years old, is the Commonwealth nominee for this event. Her family originates from South Sudan, but she was born and raised in refugee camps in Ethiopia and Kenya, until her family was accepted for resettlement through the Australian humanitarian program in 2005. Nyadol became an Australian citizen on 11 November 2010. Since her arrival Nyadol has worked within the social services sector to raise awareness of the impact of settlement on young people and how emerging communities might be better assisted in their settlement process. She has completed a bachelor of arts and is currently studying a law degree at the University of Melbourne. This incredible young woman sits on the board of the Ethnic Community Council of Victoria, the Federal Ethnic Community Council of Australia and the Australian Youth Forum among other things. She has published articles for the Australasian Review of African Studies. Nyadol was in South Sudan for the independence celebrations on 9 July. She shared with me these thoughts about her new nation:

Six years ago I sat in a classroom of over 90 students. I was a stateless refugee. Now I am attending a forum at Parliament House and a citizen not only of Australia, but now also South Sudan. Australia has given me so much that I cannot give back. My greatest hope is that others, such as those I left behind in refugee camps, can go back to an independent South Sudan and be able to achieve and live meaningful and dignified lives, but I know from my own experience and visits to that country last year to vote in the historic referendum and a month ago to witness the declaration of independence, that such an achievement will be hard to attain.

Nyadol identified three main areas where Australia can assist South Sudan: governance, agriculture and women's empowerment. She said:

Good governance, the greatest challenge of all, and the enforcement of the rule of law are essential to South Sudan's stability. The complex mixture of tribal and ethnic tension, poverty and a history of war pose great risks to development instability.

South Sudan is blessed with fertile soil in the River Nile. Some have called it the bread basket of the East African region. South Sudan has the possibility of not only feeding its own people, but the whole region. Development of the agricultural sector would reduce dependency on oil, reducing tensions between the south and the north, but also lead to food security. The potential of South Sudan land has been realised and exploited so far by the gulf countries, India, China and even South Korea. These countries are buying or negotiating to buy huge areas of land to feed their own population needs, while South Sudan continues to be one of the countries heavily dependent on aid with over a million citizens currently receiving food aid. She goes on to say:

Poverty is a catalyst for war. For example, tribal conflict arising from raiding cattle of neighbouring tribes is currently one of the challenges facing the South Sudan administration. As of yesterday, 300 people died in conflict resulting from cattle raiding. Australia can contribute great knowledge and skill in the agricultural sector.

She continued:

In Sudan a girl is more likely to die in child birth than complete primary school. Education in Sudan is desperately needed to break the cycle of poverty. Eighty-six per cent of girls have no formal education, 96.5 per cent cannot read or write more than their name, 99 per cent have no electricity, 98.5 per cent have no access to running water, 93 per cent have lost at least one family member, 68 per cent of married women live in a polygamist marriage.

She says:

These statistics mean that women cannot sufficiently contribute to the political and economic life of the country and this can only disadvantage a country like Sudan, which really needs all hands on board.

Nyadol concludes by noting that 'investing in women, particularly in developing countries, is one of the most effective ways of aiding the development process'.

I pay tribute to this remarkable young woman, Nyadol Nyuon, who has already endured and achieved so much on behalf of both of her beloved countries, Australia and South Sudan. I also note the enthusiasm of the Sudanese Australian community in general to contribute not only to Australia but also to the harmonious development of the new state of South Sudan. I am confident that Australia will do all it can to assist the 193rd member state of the United Nations to achieve its full potential.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would not want the motion to lapse for want of a seconder, knowing that one was present. It is an important motion and I want to commend the member for Fremantle for raising this matter. I was fascinated with her comments. The only part she missed out was the fact that I, in an earlier life, had the opportunity to institute the program for resettlement of Sudanese refugees, but I am not sensitive about those matters. I only wish to observe that I was delighted to hear of the success of one of those people who came to Australia for resettlement through the front door. It is a particularly important program.

It was very interesting that in one of the recent debates on Q&A there was a lady who put herself in the shoes of a refugee and went to Kakuma in particular where so many Southern Sudanese have been housed for so long. She saw a lot of the suffering that they endured and appreciated very much the fact that these were some of the people who do not have the funds to engage a people smuggler, are not free enough to travel and would remain there were it not for the fact that we did have a generous refugee resettlement program. I was delighted to hear of those comments and the acknowledgement in the motion. However, if I may, I want to focus on the broader points in this debate, because I think it is appropriate to acknowledge the fact that a new nation has emerged as a result of a referendum for the independence of Southern Sudan. There is now a unique opportunity for us to play a part in building the future of a new nation.

Like the member for Fremantle, I am concerned that there have been continuing pressures and hostilities in some of the areas that have often been the subject of contest because of resources. One hopes that situation will not in any way deteriorate. I think it is important that Australia uses its aid to assist Southern Sudan in particular. There is a unique opportunity for us to be doing just that. Having recently visited Africa, I have made some comments about aid programs, and it germane to perhaps consider them in the context of this resolution.

I think Australia has some areas of expertise in which it can help in a unique way that others cannot. I have identified some of those programs in other parts of Africa. Australia's expertise in dry-land farming means that Australia can bring organisations like CSIRO to do research and assist in the development of those sorts of skills for feeding Africa's very large populations. It is a unique capacity and it is not something that others can do. I think there is insufficient emphasis on identifying those areas in which we can leverage our support. I had the opportunity of visiting a very marvellous Australian, Ms Hamlin, in Ethiopia. The leverage that you can have with an outstanding Australia who has made a commitment to Africa in the way in which she has is another matter on which you can build.

Some time ago I suggested to the government that there was another area in which Australia was uniquely positioned to help. I raised it with the former member for Fraser Bob McMullen, who was then dealing with aid issues. I have heard nothing further from the Australian government in relation to it. However, I had the opportunity of meeting a very unique Southern Sudanese gentleman by the name of Henry Dang Dang. I met him at a conference organised by an organisation that was once known as Moral Re-Armament, which was of great interest to members for Fremantle. It is now called Initiatives of Change. That organisation brings people together who are going to be involved particularly in the process of reconciliation and nation building. Henry Dang Dang was one such person.

In the context of the elements of isolation that some people in Sudan feel because of the prosecution of the President for war crimes, there are issues which engage the United Nations about which both Sudan and Southern Sudan are unwilling to engage with the international community through the United Nations. Australia has had an enormous experience in dealing with demining, and dealing with issues in relation to rehabilitating populations who have been injured as a result of hostilities. It has done that in places such as Afghanistan and Cambodia. Henry Dang Dang, who was in charge of the issue of dealing with the rehabilitation of those wounded through hostilities and who was dealing with the issue of restoring capacity, reusing arable lands through demining, recognised that Australia could play a very unique role by bringing its expertise to bear where the international community was not able to be involved.

I raised this with the government almost two years ago. We have been increasing very significantly our aid in relation to Africa. But there is an opportunity here with a new nation that we can develop a unique relationship with in the future that to date has not been picked up by the government. It disappoints me greatly. Henry Dang Dang was even willing to come to Australia to talk to our aid officials about the way in which they could engage in developing this initiative.

Perhaps the minister and those who have responsibility for the aid program have been working behind the scenes on these issues and have not come back to me to tell me. It may be that that is the case. I would hope it is, but I suspect silence probably suggests that nothing has been done and that the opportunity is being fast lost. Here is a person who is of some influence in a new government saying to us, 'You are uniquely placed to be able to bring that tremendous experience that you have had in helping rebuild a nation that has been ravaged by war.' The reality is they cannot restore the capacity to be able to feed their own people unless they are able to demine those areas which have been so impacted by hostilities in the past.

There is going to be a significant disarmament of people who have been engaged in hostilities occurring. There is an opportunity to be able to help in that process. Of course, there are those who have been tragically afflicted by fighting who need to be assisted and aided.

I want to use this opportunity to congratulate the member for Fremantle on raising this issue. This is a unique opportunity for Australia and I hope all of us can say to the government now, as this nation builds its future, that Australia can link with them in a very special way. It is not just through the people that we have resettled who may be able to go back and play useful roles in rebuilding the nation; but by building up our linkages on those matters in which they have asked us to be engaged.

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

Today I rise in support of the motion circulated by the member for Fremantle regarding the conflict in Sudan. I do thank her for bringing this important matter to our attention. On 9 July this year, following an overwhelming vote for independence by the people of Southern Sudan, two new nations emerged in what was an historic moment for Sudan and the African continent. Before, during and after the birth of the world's newest nation, Sudan had been gripped by civil war, famine and other humanitarian crises. Immediately after Sudan's referendum I made a commitment in this place to work with our local Sudanese support services in my electorate of Greenway to enhance the lives of Sudanese Australians. Today I would like to reaffirm this commitment and discuss the conflict that is plaguing the Sudanese region. I would also like to acknowledge the presence of the member for Chifley, whose electorate also shares a large number of Sudanese settlers in western Sydney. I am sure he shares that affirmation.

According to the United Nations, since 2003 the conflict in Sudan has resulted in up to 300,000 people losing their lives as a result of violence, hunger and disease and almost three million people displaced. As indicated by the BBC, accurate figures are difficult to research and have made no distinction between those dying as a result of violence and those dying as a result of starvation or disease in the camps.

Resulting from disputes over land rights in the Darfur region of Sudan in 2003, the conflict has plagued the region for almost eight years. But as the US State Department outlines, Sudan has been at war with itself for more than three-quarters of its existence. Since independence in 1953, protracted conflict rooted in deep cultural and religious differences have slowed Sudan's economic and political development and caused massive internal displacement of people.

On 9 September 2004, the then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told a foreign relations committee that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility and that genocide may still be occurring. Most recently, conflict has flared in the border region of Abyei causing mass displacement and loss of life. According to the United Nations, 100,000 people have fled the disputed region, causing a major humanitarian disaster. In April of this year Sudan's President said he would not recognise the South's independence unless it gave up the claim on Abyei made in the South's draft constitution.

As stated in the member's motion, insecurity and inaccessibility remain amongst the biggest challenges facing the delivery of assistance by humanitarian agencies to vulnerable populations. Earlier this year I said in this place that to ensure that South Sudan can prosper and remain a safe and productive nation; the Australian government must have an active role in the development of this young nation. I would like to turn to the Sudanese community in my local area, because this motion is of the utmost importance to the large and very active Sudanese community I represent.

I have previously mentioned the huge displacement that has been caused by the continuous conflict in Sudan. This displacement is very tangibly evident in Blacktown. I am reminded of this when I attend Blacktown City Council citizenship ceremonies in particular, which regularly comprise a large number of proud Sudanese born people who have chosen to call Australia home. This large Sudanese community makes a tremendous contribution to the multicultural fabric of our electorate. However, any new Australian citizens who have come from scenes of extreme violence in their homeland will of course unfortunately always find it difficult to feel truly included in their new homeland.

In the Blacktown community there are a number of leaders in multicultural services who are committed to addressing these very serious issues surrounding our newest Sudanese Australians. I would like to mention a few of them. St Patrick's Blacktown parish priest, Father Peter Confeggi, operates a service that deals with Sudanese Australian youth. Fr Confeggi works with members of the Sudanese community to ensure that young Sudanese Australians do not fall into traps of antisocial behaviour but are instead included and accepted in wider society.

Blacktown Police Superintendent Mark Wright works with Sudanese community leaders to ensure that young Sudanese Australians do not become involved in antisocial or illegal activity. Superintendent Wright has told me that we can do all we can in terms of sporting and other community initiatives to contribute to inclusive behaviour. Indeed, this has been successful in contributing to the betterment of the Sudanese community in Blacktown. However, his view is that there is a real risk of the next generation, the generation being affected by the most recent fighting in Sudan, falling into patterns of unacceptable behaviour.

Earlier this month I was joined by the Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs at Sydwest Multicultural Services in Blacktown to launch a new federally funded program designed to encourage good social behaviour in public spaces with a particular focus on our new settlement communities. The reality is individual members of the public often make judgments about specific nationalities unfortunately in an often generalised way based on behaviours they observe in public spaces, be it Blacktown Mall, WestPoint Blacktown Shopping Centre or around Blacktown station, and the behaviours of some often determine how members of the wider community judge the whole. Sydwest does a fantastic job in helping new Australians, including many Sudanese Australians, to become established in their new homeland. I am confident that this new program will lead to positive outcomes in our local area.

I have previously mentioned in this place Blacktown resident and President of the Equatorial Community Welfare Association of New South Wales, Mr Faustino Aboka, who lost seven family members during the civil war in Sudan. He now calls Blacktown his home and works as a role model for new Sudanese Australians in our local area.

All of these people work to ensure that the Sudanese Australian community are embraced in the local community of western Sydney in particular and are able to live and work in their new homeland. All of these community leaders have expressed concerns to me regarding the most recent fighting in the contested region of Abyei in particular, and I made a commitment to them that I would continue to raise this issue with Foreign Minister Rudd.

I take this opportunity also to mention the devastating humanitarian crisis unfolding currently in the Horn of Africa. East Africa is currently experiencing the worst drought in 60 years. According to UNICEF, in Southern Somalia a famine has been declared and some 600,000 children are on the brink of death suffering from severe acute malnutrition. The world is currently witnessing one of the worst natural disasters ever and of course we cannot stand by idly and do nothing. I thank the Foreign Minister for his rapid response to this crisis and note that Australia is currently the world's fourth largest country donor to the Horn of Africa, providing more than $88 million. However, we can never afford to be trapped by the perils of indifference and I encourage everyone in this place to do whatever they can to help the people of East Africa in their time of need.

In conclusion, I again thank the member for Fremantle for bringing these important issues to the attention of the house. As set out in item 7 of the member's motion, I believe we here are all of the same mind, that this government needs to provide ongoing and predictable, diplomatic and funding resources to address humanitarian and development needs in North and South Sudan. I also reaffirm my commitment to the Sudanese population living in my electorate and thank the various community leaders in Greenway for all their hard work in ensuring that these new Australians are included constructively in our society.

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

It gives me great pleasure to support this motion in relation to South Sudan. It is a community with which I have had a great deal of involvement over a number of years now. In particular, it goes back to 2007 when, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I was charged with the case of George Forbes. George Forbes was an Australian contractor in South Sudan. There was a tragic suicide of another contractor from Eastern Europe. Mr Forbes was set up—and I say this as somebody who is very cautious about overseas legal proceedings; but there was no question that this was a case of suicide—and the local authorities found that, and then there was a random decision to prosecute. Mr Forbes was held in a local prison in desperate circumstances and was facing not just the death penalty but potentially death through illness in horrific prison circumstances prior to that.

We mobilised the Australian ambassador from Cairo at the time, Bob Bowker, who did a tremendous job. He lived in a tent and a mud brick hut in two different parts of South Sudan. He worked with the South Sudanese authorities. We also brought to bear an Australian legal team led by Julian McMahon from Melbourne, a friend of mine from university years who has become an outstanding human rights barrister, among other things, in Melbourne. As well, we brought together a team from Door of Hope. Door of Hope is a Melbourne-based church charity group. They have a particular focus in southern Sudan because at that time southern Sudan was not independent and Door of Hope, led by Bryan Grasby and introduced to me through my great friend Andrew Heard, has long been doing on-the-ground practical work through things such as assisting in providing brick-making facilities and local support. They have built great links, trust and confidence with the southern Sudanese authorities as that country moved towards independence.

What was critical was that at a time when the government, through the Australian ambassador, was doing all it could to get Mr Forbes a release, things became quite dramatic. Mr Forbes's health deteriorated and, had it not been for the intervention through Brian Grasby direct to the general secretary of the southern Sudanese authorities, it would have been almost impossible to have had justice done and Mr Forbes may well have perished in the southern Sudanese jail before he had a chance to face the courts and to be appropriately cleared.

What then occurred was that Brian Grasby rang the general secretary of the southern Sudanese authorities and explained the situation that there was not a question of doubt, but a manifest, clear, absolute injustice and that the life of an Australian was in imminent threat through illness. Mr Forbes was guaranteed release and given time in hospital where he was able to recover. In the meantime the legal proceedings were conducted at a higher court of authority. The submission by Julian McMahon, through local lawyers, on behalf of Mr Forbes was adopted in large part as the reasoning and rationale of the court, which gave a complete clearance—a complete quashing—of the lower court's verdict. Mr Forbes was released with a perfectly clear record and with the finding that there was a manifest injustice, that this was a clear case of suicide and that there was absolutely no relationship to Mr Forbes. So the life of an Australian contractor who had been helping to develop a country which was going through a course of development, attempting to move from the extreme and grinding poverty which had characterised southern Sudan, was saved. For that, I thank both the Australian ambassador at the time, Bob Bowker, and also in particular Brian Grasby; his assistant Michelle; Andrew Heard for the connection, and for all of those involved.

This was a precursor to the path through which southern Sudan has subsequently travelled. It provided a basis for the Australian government, through successive Prime Ministers, to engage with the southern Sudanese authorities. As part of the confidence building program, it was subsequently agreed that the Australian government would assist in judicial training and judicial information, in particular to help the lower courts develop standards, structures and training sufficient that no such case of manifest justice would occur again.

The result, however, has been far more positive than any of us would have hoped at the time. Southern Sudan has been through a process of a plebiscite on national independence. That was overwhelmingly passed by the population. The country has come into being as of 9 July. I appreciate the work of the foreign minister's chief of staff, Philip Green, in facilitating the project put forward by Door of Hope for a brick-making facility to be part of Australia's independence gift. It is real. It is practical. It will help create local jobs as well as create local construction and development. These are the simple and practical things that are good examples of the Australian aid program in action. They certainly beat financial support direct to governments where there is not necessarily control over the funds.

Looking forward, South Sudan has a difficult road to hope. Let us be absolutely clear about that. It is a road which will have to overcome drought and famine within the region. It will have to overcome the problems of potential military conflict with its northern neighbour in terms of the rump of Sudan, which still remains under an authoritarian leader and an authoritarian government with a bent towards sharia law which in the Darfur province to the west of the country has presided over a catastrophic and tragic famine with huge human input in the form of the treatment of the local people. Fortunately, southern Sudan is now independent. It is responsible for its own future. It has that opportunity, but it will not be easy.

On the plus side, however, it has significant oil resources and it appears that there is yet to be a full post-succession arrangement for oil between Juba, the capital of southern Sudan and Khartoum in the remaining rump of what was previously Sudan and comprises the northern Sudanese area now. I understand there are also many mineral resources of great potential. I hope that there is a transparent process of freeing up those resources in a way which guarantees local community development, which does not lead to unbridled environmental impact, which is done through processes that provide long-term stable revenues to the development of the country, and that it avoids any corruption. There needs to be transparency in southern Sudan and I think one important investment from Australia would be to ensure that the processes for future tendering, for future mineral leases, are conducted through as open, transparent and non-corrupt bureaucratic and tendering mechanisms as possible. That would be a fair and reasonable place which would get opposition support if Australia were to dedicate some post-independence resources out of its aid program, as well as in the direct aid. If we can marshal the resources of that country in a way which helps the people then we can truly give southern Sudan a way forward.

I thank Bryan Grasby, Bob Bowker, Andrew Heard and all involved for their long history of supporting this country. (Time expired)

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

The member for Fremantle has certainly endeavoured in this resolution to cover the full gamut of Sudan's issues, from the incursions by the infamous Lords' Resistance Army from Uganda to the situation in Darfur and the Janjaweed, a militia which is supposedly independent but is essentially armed and financed by the government of Sudan, to the question of South Sudan's recent independent announcement and the long-term problems of this nation. They are all included in this resolution.

Sudan, of course, has multiple issues confronting it. Its under-five mortality is 112 per 1,000 people. Ninety per cent of the nation lives on less than $1 per day and its maternal mortality is infamous, indeed, with 2,000-plus women out of every 100,000 dying in child birth.

Turning to Darfur, there has been a wide variety of estimates of how many have perished in this conflict. The World Health Organisation at one stage quoted 50,000. A British parliamentary inquiry has estimated 300,000, but the Lancet magazine, the famous British medical magazine, in January 2010 said that there was a 95 per cent confidence that the numbers were between 178,000 and 461,000. By any person's estimates, a significant number of people that have perished and, as I said, historically it is the so-called militias. There are issues, of course, between herders and between agriculturalists. There is, of course, an Arab negroid divide within the country, but it is essentially a regime that is excoriated throughout the world. The Bashir regime is, indeed, perpetrating most of these problems. The number of times in which military vehicles have been traceable to the regime and the number of times that armaments have been traced to them is on the public record.

We should also be historically concerned about Russia's continued violation of arms embargoes instituted by the United Nations. That has not helped the situation. There have been the disguised Russian purchased planes—disguised in actual fact as UN planes—that have participated in this conflict.

Historically, the government in the north has instigated an Arab apartheid style process, discriminating very intensely against those people who are essentially of negroid extraction, whether they be animist or Christian or indeed, in some cases, fellow Muslims.

The motion recognises the recent independence of South Sudan, which I think we are all pleased was the outcome of the 2005 Peace Settlement. Throughout the whole period there have been grave doubts that the regime in Khartoum would honour its agreement and, of course, in this last year there have been border conflicts around areas where there are issues as to the population balance, but also issues towards access to resources. It has been positive that a country with Juba as a capital with 8¼ million people has been established. It has been recognised internationally and, as the previous speaker indicated, there has been aid assistance.

This, of course, is a very complex country. Probably one of my continuing memories is to attend with my colleague the member for Parramatta a riverside theatre event about five years ago with 500 people attending where there were 30-plus dance troops from different Sudanese ethnic groups. I had a little boy sitting next to me, about five years of age, and his mouth was agape. He could not believe the diversity of people from his own land. He could not understand how he could be a Sudanese from a particular tribal group and yet these people are there so different from him. It was far beyond an Albanian looking at an Estonian folkloric group in Europe.

Obviously the country is dealing with issues of illiteracy and poverty. It is a country that has been put together around colonial boundaries and past European conflicts. It has very significant problems, but these are not assisted by the continuing attitudes of the regime in the north, a regime which, as I indicated, is under a number of international bans and which continues to interfere in other parts of the nation.

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

(Riverina) (11:43): Riverina has a large Sudanese community and its members have contributed much to our culture. There were plenty of smiles for independence when the local celebrations of the declaration of South Sudan as the world's newest nation were held in Wagga Wagga on Saturday, 16 July, just a week after independence was officially recognised. In fact, of the many events that I have attended in my first year of parliament, this was one of the most joyous. There was sheer delight, spontaneity and a feeling of togetherness at the function. People from all walks of life joined for an afternoon of music, dance and delicious food at a get together like no other.

The Sudanese certainly know how to enjoy themselves. There was plenty of colour and movement as the choir comprising Acol Abuk, Apuol Tong, Susan Tong and Grace Wani performed traditional songs and then joined in the dancing. Soon everyone was on their feet, young and old, clapping hands, raising arms, swirling around and getting into the mood and the exuberant spirit. There was much to be happy about. Before the real action began a discourse on Sudan's troubled history was given. To listen made you really appreciate why the people of South Sudan are so gratified, proud and relieved they have achieved independence.

The Riverina has played an enormous role in multiculturalism in Australia. In fact, Griffith in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area is the cradle of multiculturalism. People from all over the world, from countries where daily conflict and age old civil war is a way of life ended up at Griffith not long after irrigation opened up the area 99 years ago. Today Griffith is the showpiece for Australian multiculturalism. On 26 January this year, 90 flags representing the nations from which Griffiths's people originate flew proudly at the city's Australia Day ceremony. Next year the new ensign for South Sudan will flap proudly in the breeze.

Members of the Riverina's Sudanese community are proud people. They are caring, good people. At the Wagga Wagga independence day commemoration some powerful messages were given about tolerance, community contribution and acceptance. The aspect that I liked most about the day was the involvement of the youngsters. They were included and they showed that the day meant much to them. They are the ones who will bridge the divide between cultures. It is already being done on many levels, not least of which is sport. The Sudanese have already shown their proficiency in football, both soccer and the great game we invented, Australian Rules. Sudanese are a tall people and their speed and height will be assets to Aussie Rules. You certainly cannot deny they have other attributes which contribute to play the code, and I speak of toughness. South Sudan's independence underlines just how tough, how determined and how fiercely committed its people are to change to a better way of life to the future—their future, our future, a shared future, a shared vision.

In the 2007 census there were just 46 Sudanese people included in the Wagga Wagga statistics. That number has grown. One of Wagga Wagga's Sudanese refugees is Constance Okot, who took an active part in the local 16 July festivities. She came to my home town, a place she now, too, calls home after fleeing war-ravaged Sudan. She came to Wagga Wagga to escape a life in which each day was filled with uncertainty, fear and an overwhelming sense of dread. She did not know whether she or those nearest and dearest to her would see through each day or whether they would still be alive tomorrow or the next day. What a dreadful way to live your life!

I will not exaggerate. It has not been an easy transition for Constance and other Sudanese people. It has had its challenges, its upheavals, but Constance is a person of faith, of hope. She wants to try to ensure that refugees assimilate into Australian society. She wants to dispel the public perception that it cannot work. Constance is working hard to improve the image of her fellow refugees locally. She made an appearance on SBS TV's Cutting Edge, which examined the life of refugees when they reach Australia, and she also spoke with Chris Coleman on ABC Riverina Mornings. How does she like Wagga? 'Things are really nice', she said. 'Things are good. Very different to Sudan. First, when I came here it was like a dream. In Wagga, when I wake up every day I'm very happy. I have a lot of friends; a lot of people who are supporting me. Very happy to be in Wagga.'

On how hard it is to fit into Australian society she said, 'Everybody has a different view or understanding of where to put themselves on where they belong. Everywhere in the world, everywhere you go we can see animals. They're different because they are animals, but you may find when there are new animals, when a sheep is brought in, they will not like that sheep immediately. It is similar for humans. It's normal for human beings. It's up to us to find how to fit in. This is my home. I've decided to be here, to be part of this town or city or whatever.'

On when she found her family, 'Just like a dream', she said. 'You thought you were the only person remaining in the family, then you find somebody still alive.'

Many people forget their name, their age and the names of their children. Ask a Sudanese and most of them are born on 1 January or 25 December. (Time expired)

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

I want to start by thanking the member for Fremantle for facilitating this discussion by moving what is a very important motion. Although it can sometimes be difficult to keep precisely abreast of the conflict in North and South Sudan and the region, given communication problems in the area, it is clear that escalating violence in the region is continuing to cause an unacceptable growth in mass displacement and appalling rates of death. As we have heard, the situation in southern Kordofan, on the border of North and South Sudan is particularly dire at the moment and has not improved since conflict broke out on 6 June in advance of the scheduled independence of South Sudan on 9 July. Other members have expanded on this matter and I add my support to calls for a ceasefire, which is after all the only path towards sustainable peace and political stability in that state.

I believe that Australia has the unambiguous responsibility to support South Sudan, the world's newest nation, as it establishes itself in the region. We also have a responsibility to do our part in ensuring that the facilitation of peace in the areas abutting South Sudan, including most urgently the southern Kordofan, Dafur and Blue Nile regions of Sudan, is resourced and to that end I cannot emphasise how important it is that the government takes heed of the final calls of the member for Fremantle's motion and provides ongoing and predictable diplomatic and funding resources to address humanitarian development needs in the two countries.

Despite the distance between the region and Australia, our country can and must do two things. The first has been embraced. I am proud, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the extent to which Australians and local communities helped to facilitate the recent South Sudan independence referendum here in Australia. It is testament to the strength of the South Sudanese Australian communities and to the cooperation of the IOM, humanitarian crisis hub, AusAID, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that over the Christmas and New Year's break last year on the request from my office, an extra $15,000 was secured and logistics arranged with local communities to facilitate the transport of eligible voters from South Australia and Tasmania to Melbourne, given that there were no polling booths in those states. The Yes vote in Melbourne was one of the highest in Australia and we assisted the community in creating and then in helping celebrate those results. I have been proud to report to this house from time to time the ways in which the Sudanese community in my electorate and in Victoria have worked together and drawn energy from what has been an historic campaign for independence. But our attention also needs to turn back to the plight of those for whom violence and unrest is a daily reality and to now concentrate on the second means with which we, as a wealthy and stable democracy, can assist them.

The future stability of Sudan and South Sudan was never going to be guaranteed through the independence vote alone. What is happening in the north and the border areas adjoining it require our attention. We cannot take our eyes off the fact that on 9 July two nations were created. If we are intending to be consistent with our continued support for South Sudan and the referendum process, we must play our part within the international community to take action now while a political process is still possible.

We are also in a position, as part of the international community, to provide aid to the millions of people in Sudan who are facing increasingly high levels of food insecurity right now. I recognise the statements made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in recent times regarding Australia's share of the required aid to Sudan but, noting that Australia will be required to provide appropriate development assistance for years to come and noting that the provision of emergency humanitarian support is now paramount, I urge the government to do all it can to increase its humanitarian support for those displaced by this terrible conflict.

There is another form of support that we can provide that became apparent to me over the course of the last several years that I have been working in Melbourne with members of the South Sudanese community. Many people have come here from South Sudan seeking to create their life here. As the member for Riverina said, there are many, many people who now want to call Australia their home and lead a peaceful life making a productive contribution to their community. Many of them are getting on with that. It may not often be seen as such from the media reports but that represents the overwhelming majority of desires of South Sudanese living here.

But there also many who have come to Australia, attracted by its democratic values, who while in Australia have played a very important role in fostering democracy in their home country. I am very pleased that several members of the Melbourne electorate are in fact in South Sudan right now assisting with the creation and establishment of a stable democratic government. I think it is something that, as Australians, we can be extraordinarily proud of that not only can we provide a home and refuge to people but we can also provide a crucible from which democratic values can spread across the world. I put on record the Greens' support for this motion.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(

At a very good church that is based within Koondoola , the Flaming Evangelical Church, I have had the opportunity to meet those members of the church who are from the south of Sudan. As other speakers have said, they have welcomed the opportunity to come to Australia and take up the freedoms and the opportunities that this country has provided to them. They have made a good contribution. Whilst it has not always been a smooth path for all people who have come from Sudan, as has been said, the vast majority are very good, law-abiding people who have come here wishing to take up those opportunities.

It is only relatively recently that the times of autonomy within Sudan for the south and now, just in recent weeks, the independence of the south have provided greater hope for the people of Sudan. As we know, the north of Sudan has dominated the country for many years and their system of policies are discriminatory and negative in a lot of ways. But autonomy and now independence have provided the opportunity for the people of South Sudan to flourish.

We know that it is a fairly subsistence type of economy, very rural in its nature. But we also know that 80 per cent of the oil reserves of Sudan are based in the south and this, of course, provides a great opportunity for the wealth of the south to make a positive contribution to the future. It is a very positive future that we see for South Sudan. Even the plans to move the capital from Juba into the Lakes State, the more central part of South Sudan, really is the epitome of a country that sees the future as all very positive and so we welcome that.

Although there are some eight million people who live in South Sudan—and barring comments about whether the past censuses have been accurate, or whatever—it does mean that the opportunities to share in this wealth that will be redistributed from the arrangements of the past, where the north basically sucked up all the wealth from the south, so you can see that there will be greater opportunities now in the future. It has also been said in other places that the infant mortality rate of 112 deaths for every 1,000 is far too high. The maternal mortality rate of over 2,000 deaths for every 100,000 live births is just far too high.

But within Cowan, and for those that hail from South Sudan and Sudan in general, those people have decided that their future lies here in Australia. It has always been the case that we welcome them. We welcome the positive contributions that they make. We welcome them in places like Koondoola Primary School where the intensive language school operates very strongly for them. We welcome the positive contributions the Flaming Evangelical Church makes in Koondoola as well. I see a great and positive future for the South Sudanese in Cowan and I see an excellent future for South Sudan, and the government should continue to back them strongly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ) The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

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

(

That the motion be amended to read—That the House:

(1)    notes that:

(a) Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is an overarching term used to describe a range of physical, mental, behavioural, learning and development disorders that can result from foetal exposure to alcohol; and

(b) FASD is reported to be the greatest cause of non-inherited, irreversible and permanent brain damage to new-borns in Australia; and

(2)    calls upon the Australian:

(a) Parliament to continue to facilitate and support the development of a FASD national diagnostic tool for the use of medical professionals and other health service providers; and

(b) Government to:

  (i) give those with FASD access to disability support funding and services, where appropriate;

  (ii) institute a campaign to raise community awareness of the risks to the unborn child when alcohol is consumed in pregnancy and highlight the potential cognitive and developmental consequences for affected individuals as these pertain to service providers, law enforcement and justice, the community sector and education; and

(iii) give support to the development of models of care and helping strategies for families and individuals dealing with the impacts of FASD.

Alcohol consumption in Australia is a widely accepted and long-standing part of our culture. It features in special celebrations. It is what we do to celebrate winning, a birth, even deaths. It is an important adjunct to dining out and it is a true marker of hospitality and friendly interaction amongst many populations and most individuals in Australia. What you drink, when you drink and how much alcohol you consume is supposed to mark you as a sophisticate or a knockabout type. Getting drunk, for some, for the first time is a rite de passage.

Drinking a little alcohol is not a health problem. It is, however, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. If you drink when you are pregnant you are literally gambling with the welfare of your unborn child. Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is the term used to describe a range of physical, mental, behavioural and learning disabilities that are a direct result of consuming alcohol during pregnancy.

Alcohol can harm an unborn baby in different ways at different times during a pregnancy. Alcohol is a neurotoxin and teratogin, meaning it is an agent which can cause birth defects and permanent brain damage in the foetus. The alcohol deprives the developing brain of oxygen and destroys the brain cells which in turn affects the growth, the structure and the function of the brain in the newborn. Alcohol consumption will affect the developing cells and organs differently depending on the stages of the pregnancy. In the first three months when the baby's organs are being formed alcohol exposure can cause a smaller head, heart defects, limb damage, bone formation defects, kidney damage, eye problems, hearing problems and facial abnormalities. All or some of these outcomes may result.

This is why the 2009 National Health and Medical Research Council's recommendations are for zero alcohol consumption for women who are planning a pregnancy or who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Tragically, these recommendations are a best-kept secret when it comes to many women and some health service professionals who should know better than to assure pregnant women that 'a little bit will not hurt you'. Some Australian research undertaken in 2006 found 34 per cent of women consumed alcohol in Australia in their most recent pregnancy. Other researchers suggested this figure could be as high as 60 per cent. In a 2003 survey at Lyell McEwen Hospital in South Australia, 80 per cent, or 70 women in all, reported consuming alcohol during pregnancy. Recent surveys have shown us rates of risky drinking are increasing in non-Indigenous women in Western Australian women of child-bearing age.

FASD is not curable. However, with early diagnosis and special support, children and adults with this condition can be helped to a better life. Our motion is about supporting as much as communicating and making sure those who should be delivering services to those in need are better resourced and know the job they have to do. The carers can be supported to have a better life and to have better strategies as they try to manage the condition in their loved ones, a condition which is incurable and lifelong.

This motion, which is bipartisan supported, aims to lift the lid on the effects of alcohol on the unborn and put the problem squarely in the limelight. We need to move away from the nonsense about a little bit will not hurt and have women and their partners understand that for nine months at least it is important not to gamble with the future, the lifetime of your child. We have pretended that drinking while you are pregnant is not a problem for far too long. We have ignored what Canada, the United States and most other developed nations have recognised and have been substantially investing in for years, and that is programs to educate and inform, programs to diagnose and programs to support those who are affected by FASD. We have a population of damaged children who are being misdiagnosed and misunderstood. Many of them are incarcerated and they remain unsupported because the condition is not acknowledged for the purposes of disability support. Our motion calls on that support to be given.

Our police and courts, teachers, doctors, nurses and other health service professionals are not sufficiently educated to understand the condition and its effects on individuals. Some may be, but are embarrassed to tell a mother of a newborn in difficulty that it was her drinking that may have caused the problem. Therefore there is much misdiagnosis and children with FASD are often labelled instead as autistic. This does not help when it comes to support services. We must understand that in order to change the rights of a child to be born without a preventable disability we have to make sure there is no misinformation in the community and no lack of understanding about what has to be done.

This motion calls for the support for those with FASD and their carers. Effective support includes special education, vocational programs, special tutoring and structured environments to minimise distress and antisocial behaviour.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives

Sitting suspended from 12:05 to 12:36

As I was saying before the division, this motion calls for support for those with FASD and their carers. Effective support includes special education, vocational programs, special tutoring and structured environments to minimise the distress, particularly in relation to antisocial behaviour and lifelong care. This motion calls for a national communications effort that will ensure that every woman and girl is aware of the connection between alcohol consumption and the chance that their baby will be born with incurable and permanent brain and other damage.

One of the problems in our country is that young girls are increasingly likely to binge drink. Those young girls put themselves into a situation where they may become pregnant and often it is many months before they realise their pregnancy. This of course is a serious problem for the unborn, for the developing foetus if those girls continue to drink, in particular to binge drink, during that first trimester. That is why it is so important that we have our population understanding the impacts, the connections between alcohol and developing foetuses and the fact that no drinking is indeed the only way to be absolutely sure that your child will not be affected by alcohol as it grows and develops in the womb. As I said before, the problem at the moment is that we have a growing culture of younger girls drinking and at the same time behaving in higher risk situations, also taking drugs and certainly not using contraception.

We already have some wine and beer companies voluntarily adding health warnings to their alcohol containers, bottles and cans. We need all of the sellers of alcohol to do that. It is an irony that in Australia we have some companies who have been exporting their wine for years in particular to California and other places in the United States adding the label warning that alcohol is a danger when pregnant but not using such a label in Australia. We need young Australians approaching puberty to understand the connections and we need to offer support to women and girls with a drinking problem who may become pregnant. We need also to ensure that their partners and boys of the same age—in fact the whole of our population—understands the connections between alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the dangers.

I have not mentioned Indigenous drinking to this point and nor do I want ever to let it be understood or believed that FASD is a problem specifically of Indigenous communities or populations throughout the world, because it is not. But the realities are that a lot of our Indigenous communities are drinking to excess. Alcohol is a real problem for a lot of our women and girls in Indigenous communities. I commend the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research and also this federal government, because already there are some incidence surveys being undertaken in places like Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek in Western Australia where the women of those communities have understood the damage being done by alcohol to their generations and have asked for support, firstly, in identifying how many of their children are affected and then how those children can be better supported to live as good a life as possible.

The tragedy for Indigenous communities is that their culture is transmitted through oral tradition and learning. It is not book learning. It is not a written down culture. If a generation of young children or a big number of them cannot learn, cannot in fact remember, or become fluent in reading, cannot participate in a ceremony and the traditional knowledge that they are expected as Aboriginal people to understand and transmit, if that cannot happen then it is in fact another form of cultural genocide. I think it is extraordinarily important that we understand that for Indigenous communities, particularly traditional Indigenous communities still with their culture, that they are given special help to make sure that alcohol is not the problem it now is.Women, whether or not they are Indigenous, need to be given special support if in fact they have a drinking problem.

I strongly commend this motion. I also commend Ministers Macklin and Nicola Roxon, who have supported this motion in the discussion. I am very grateful for the bipartisan support that we have had both in the Senate and now I trust in the House of Representatives. This is a problem that belongs to all Australians. It is one that has probably been with us since 1788. It is a problem that has no cure once a child has in fact been born with the effects of alcohol consumption, but it is a problem that we can prevent in the future and we can make sure those with the condition of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder have a better life, because there is better support possible for them and better understanding of their condition.

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

(

Foetal alcohol spectrum disorders, or FASD, is an umbrella term for a range of disabilities resulting from prenatal alcohol exposure. The syndrome was first described in 1973 by two paediatric dysmorphologists in the USA, Kenneth Jones and David Smith. That study and further research of FAS has identified three additional less severe syndromes known as FASD, or foetal alcohol syndrome disorders. These are: foetal alcohol effects, foetal alcohol related birth disorders and alcohol related neurodevelopment disorders.

The true prevalence of FASD in Australia is unknown, as the member for Murray pointed out earlier, and is believed to be chronically underreported in part due to the lack of agreed clinical guidelines and also a lack of understanding among both medical professionals and the general population about the risks of consuming alcohol during pregnancy. Indeed, there is an ambiguity to it. We have heard evidence from people who have spoken to our support group that some medical practitioners, for example, believe it is still okay to have some alcohol whilst being pregnant. Most of the evidence is clearly indicating that no alcohol is the preferred desired behaviour, but it is a message that is only slowly being taken on board even by the medical profession itself. We know that a lot of work is being done with midwives, for example, in trying to fully understand and explore this insidious disorder.

Data suggests that prevalence rates of FAS in Australia are between 0.06 and 0.68 per 1,000 live births in the general population. I know my friend the member for Blair has far more detailed information on this, but among Indigenous Australians it is between 2.76 and 4.7 per 1,000 births. Most accept these rates are under ascertained due to poor and ad hoc information, and indeed the limited skills and capacities in detection and diagnosis and the multiple barriers faced by women seeking help.

If I may, I would like quote from NOFASARD, a publication dealing with FAS, from June 2011. It quotes a research papers under the heading, 'Australia's first screening and diagnostic service for children with alcohol related birth defects could be up and running by the end of the year.' It goes on to state:

Elizabeth Elliott, Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health of the Children's Hospital, said it was hard to know exactly how many children were affected by FASD because of lack of research and diagnostic clinics. However, she estimates that at least two per cent of all Australian babies are born with FASD each year.

She states:

That is likely a significant underestimate because doctors are not recognising it and are not asking women about alcohol use in pregnancy.

It is as simple as that; they are not even asking. The consequences of that are absolutely considerable on all levels. If it does not register in terms of health and the social consequences, it will and would on the economic level, because they are very considerable.

It is estimated that FASD affects one per cent of all live births in the USA, for example, and FAS specifically affects between 0.5 and two per 1,000 births in the USA. The prevalence of FAS is much higher in terms of rates in some other countries such as South Africa, where it is quite extraordinary and is estimated to affect between 68 to 89.2 per cent per 1,000 children in Cape Province, for example. The same publication I noted earlier states South Africa has the highest recorded rate of foetal alcohol syndrome in the world, affecting more than one million residents, and is being urged to take action against the preventable medical condition, the impact of which has been labelled as devastating as HIV. HIV is recognised and known now. What we are talking about is something as prevalent and yet unknown or greatly misdiagnosed. The country has the highest recorded rate of foetal alcohol syndrome in the world that we know of. The country's leading experts estimate more than one million South Africans have been damaged by their mother's drinking while they were pregnant.

That leads us to this undeniable fact, that FASD are preventable but are incurable and require a lifetime of care and support. So, FASD, as I mentioned, are preventable, it is incurable and it is a lifetime sentence. That is a significant statement about a behaviour that we can get rid of or we can stop. It really does beggar belief that we allow this to continue. Our support group demonstrated this in this chamber today, and many others are working towards eradicating this. This is just totally and utterly unacceptable. FASD are a leading cause of preventable non-genetic birth defects and intellectual disability in Australia—and I will repeat it—preventable non-genetic birth defects and intellectual disability, but it does not even officially rate as a disability. Our motion calls on our government—indeed all parties—to support this and recognise it as a disability.

While FASD is a leading cause of non-genetic intellectual disability, another major issue of concern is that the majority—that is, 75 per cent to 80 per cent of people—living with an FASD actually have a normal IQ but struggle with everyday living skills making accessing developmental disability services very difficult. Foetal alcohol syndrome is often considered to be the most serious of the disorders within the spectrum. A person living with FAS will have a brain injury, impaired growth, neurological deficits and facial dysmorphology. The difficulties experienced by people with FASD can include difficulty with mathematical concepts; time and handling money, thinking things through and learning from experiencing, understanding consequences of their actions or the concepts of cause and effect, difficulty with social skills, difficulty storing and retrieving information, including following instructions, and finally impulsivity and distractibility—all basic living skills and all behavioural issues that we can affect. By not drinking during pregnancy we can bring this to a halt.

I will conclude by just pointing out as I did earlier that foetal alcohol spectrum disorder does not have a disability status in Australia. The situation relegates this condition to the status of non-entity; minimises public perception and service provider perception of the real scope of the problem, perpetuates belief in the limited risks posed by lower doses of alcohol, and fails to acknowledge the rate of incidents that has been contrasted to other non-genetic causes. Having it registered as a disability in Australia brings credibility to at least four decades of contemporary knowledge and research on alcohol as both a teratogen and a substance toxic to healthy foetal development. (Time expired)

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion proposed by the member for Murray and supported by the member for Braddon and the member for Blair, and to acknowledge the advice and support provided by Anne Russell from the National Organisation for Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and Related Disorders, NOFASARD, as the previous member noted. In the absence of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, prevalence study in Australia it is difficult to convince government or the public on the significant risk this issue poses for Australia. Dr Elizabeth Elliott, in the Australian on 20 June this year has suggested Western nations might well have a prevalence rate of somewhere between two and five per cent. This is based on epidemiological research in 2009 by Dr Philip May and colleagues in the USA. What is more accepted is an increasing incidence of FASD linked to better detection, the momentum of FASD awareness in North America and better preparedness of service providers to respond to the needs of children and education and social support services.

There is a current prevalence research study called the Lililwan Project in Fitzroy Crossing in northern Western Australia investigating FASD in this Australian Aboriginal community. It was initiated as a consequence of community lobbying and the need for an evidence base to support local prevention strategies. Multidisciplinary teams have been engaged to conduct assessment and diagnosis, record data and provide case planning for optimum outcomes for children. Data from this project will provide invaluable information on the prevalence of FASD in Aboriginal communities.

It is critical to support any community where FASD is overrepresented, but it is also critical that we do not lose sight of the reality that FASD is not just an Indigenous issue. Alcohol consumption in Australia is not limited to Aboriginal communities. There is ample evidence to support high rates of alcohol consumption in the non-Indigenous community. International comparisons show that Australians consume 8.89 litres; Canadians 7.7 litres and the US 8.44 litres per capita each year, and to determine prevalence a much wider study needs to be undertaken. Some suggest that over 200,000 Australians may be affected by FASD, and that means one in 100 live births. This rate is higher than the incidences of autism, Aspergers, ADHD and Down's syndrome. It is likely that FASD could be the most common preventable type of intellectual disability.

The second critical factor is the reliance on IQ as a measurement of disability. Seventy-five to eighty per cent of patients with FASD have been found to have an IQ in the normal range. Average or higher IQ scores often preclude special needs funding and/or service opportunities. In addition, the inherent limitations of a traditional IQ test restricts their usefulness in directing effective strategies. A study on the relationship between FASD and IQ undertaken by the University of Alaska has found that fewer than 35 per cent of individuals with FASD would have qualified for special education, given the criterion of an IQ under 71. For people with FASD an IQ assessment will not identify the often uniquely individual presentation of disabilities nor the seriousness of the brain damage. Whilst a diagnosis of foetal alcohol syndrome may rely on facial dysmorphology, there remains the conundrum of distinguishing other conditions within the spectrum. Particular skills and training required to accurately assess executive or adaptive functioning and the involvement of neurophysiology and occupational therapy.

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

I will ask the member for Moore to take his seat. The member for Shortland on a point of order.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry that I have to do this to the member that is speaking, but the time for this debate has expired and I would like to move that the debate be adjourned to a later time at the next sitting day.

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

According to the standing orders the time has not expired in relation to this debate.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to the point of order, my understanding is that there was a set period of time allocated for this debate. The mover of the motion started to speak and once she starts to speak then the time is counted from then, as is the case with what happens in the House once a motion has been moved.

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

I have been advised that the correct calculation of the time is that it is suspended while the main committee has risen; the 50 minutes has not expired at this point.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to that point of order—and I am sorry for eating into the member's time—on other occasions that has not been the case, so I would ask that you check that for future.

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

I certainly will check that. I will give the call to the member for Moore.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will continue. Speech and language therapy is critical. The adverse effects of foetal alcohol exposure also mean that there needs to be investigating and planning for social support systems in the post-diagnosis period to account for cognitive and developmental disabilities. The National Organisation for Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and the Related Disorders, advocates for patients and carers, state that many who contact NOFASARD identify the barrier created by IQ as well as a determining factor in diagnosis, and seek support for those in their care where maternal alcohol use is presented as reliable evidence.

There are multiple implications across the lifespan for any individual living with FASD. Although brain damage has a profound effect on behaviour, it is a problem behaviour that often leads to stereotyping. Most working in health and human services, education, justice and other service provision areas have not yet developed an understanding of the learning and memory impairments, the poor judgement skills and the poor consequential thinking abilities, the limited skills in making friends and maintaining relationships, which are often the hallmarks of FASD. Service providers have not had appropriate training and have limited perception of the power of labels like 'belligerent, defiant, lazy and uncommitted to individual change'.

This month, August 2011, the FASD Australian collaboration will present a national diagnostic and screening protocol. Once applied, accurate diagnosis contributes to better detection, improved data collection and most importantly the opportunity for early intervention, not just to support the individual, but in the case of children, more appropriate support for parents. An older sibling's diagnosis with FASD is one of the more powerful indicators of future exposed pregnancies and a critical point for prevention.

Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder does not have current registered disability status. This situation relegates the condition as a non-entity, minimising public perception and service provider perception of the real scope of the problem, and perpetuates beliefs in the limited risks posed by lower doses of alcohol. It also fails to acknowledge the rate of incidence which has been contrasted to other non-genetic causes.

There is something powerful and at the same time threatening in listing FASD as a recognised disability. While it brings credibility to at least four decades of contemporary knowledge in alcohol as both teratogenic and toxic to healthy foetal development, it brings another dimension to the harms alcohol causes in society. There is no defence of choice where an unborn child is concerned. There is no evidence that this disability is a burden of some population groups and there is no avoidance or opportunity to mask the condition by proposing it as another malady with unknown cause.

There has been resistance to the call for listing FASD as a disability and Australia has the opportunity to lead the world in legitimising the claim. To do less will continue to fill our prisons, absorb child protection and out-of-home placement resources, overload special education, overwhelm parents and supporters who are doing it tough. A national awareness campaign is the primary prevention opportunity to deliver clear information to the Australian community to effect changes in behaviour and attitude. It is the first step which needs to be supported by labelling and signage in all liquor outlets and curriculum education and skills.

Edith Cowan University has completed research on best practice for disseminating public information messages on FASD. This message could be similar in style and format to the message 'One punch can kill' where a mother or actor can give an account of how it has affected her and her family.

The NOFASARD network of parents and carers is a source of evidence from lived experience. Disclosures reveal the continued experience and advice by medical practitioners of the relative safety of low level alcohol consumption, which is a national tragedy. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

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

The ABC religious program Compass recently gave the wider Australian electorate perhaps their first knowledge of the Mandeans. They are, of course, an ancient religious group from the Middle East, Mesopotamia, although they might have moved there from another place at an earlier time. They are regarded as the last Gnostics, people who essentially see knowledge as their main source of salvation. They put John the Baptist on a higher plane than Islam or Christianity in their pantheon of religious sources.

In 2003 there were estimated to be 60,000 to 70,000 of them essentially in Iraq and to some degree Iran. In the words of Nathaniel Deutsch in the 7 October 2007 New York Times article:

The United States did not set out to eradicate the Mandeans, one of the smallest, oldest and least understood of the many minorities in Iraq. This extinction in the making has simply been another unfortunate and entirely unintended consequence of the invasion of Iraq.

I am not for a moment saying that justification of Iraq intervention is either for or against it premised on that, but it is one of the outcomes. Although they were subject to persecution from time immemorial there is no doubt that the increased religious enmities within Iraq and the association perhaps of them as being more Western than other religious groups has led to particular problems for them, to the point where they face extinction.

It is worth noting that as of today, in contrast to that figure of 2003, there is regarded as being barely 7,000 of them still in Iraq and perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 in Iran. As with many minorities in Iran, you would not be certain of the figures because of the hostility of the religiously based theocratic regime to all minorities. Importantly, in the Western world, Australia is now regarded, after Sweden, as being their main homeland. It is estimated that 3,500 currently reside here.

It is worth stressing a point that I have perceived of them in dealing with them that came out of the Compass program. I will go back and say that my first dealings were going to exhibitions at Liverpool Museum of their silverwork, goldwork and also, as with the speaker after me, in being associated with them in regards to refugee cases. What came out of that Compass program is a really strong emphasis which we see with all diasporas in this country but I think is particularly strong with them, and that is the way in which they themselves put it in the Compass program. Whilst they very much wish to retain a very ancient religion and the particularities of it, they have a very strong sentiment of integration. Having been to their New Year events, it is quite amazing. Unless you listen to the music and the singing, you could very clearly be at a very Anglo-Australian festivity. Also, the way in which their children incorporate themselves in the government school system and very much the way in which large parts of the community strongly intimate the need for integration.

An unidentified refugee in an article in the Swedish publication Religion and Ethics News Weekly stated:

We would like to propagate our faith to the children, but we live here and would also like to integrate into society.

That is very much the slant of this group.

This resolution aims firstly, to emphasise the continuing particular crisis they face in Iraq. As I have said, it is fairly pronounced. One of the aspects that is very important is that they cannot relocate. Indisputably, every minority in Iraq faces grave difficulties, but in regards to the Mandeans their very small numbers make relocation internally extremely difficult, and at the same time their language, a form of Aramaic, and their beliefs are singular. If we are talking about diversity in the world, if we are talking about preserving historical aspects that matter to us, they have an enhanced case on those fronts.

They are subject to kidnapping, straight-out religious intolerance and murders. They are subject to kidnappings because of the perception of their income levels. They religiously are obliged not to carry weapons. They are pacifists, so there is no possibility of self-defence and so on.

Another point in regard to migration and refugee policy in this country is that if we have an intake that is totally driven by boats, planes and rather opinionated lawyers, it does not give the government of the day the possibility of making sure that this country does, indeed, protect very vulnerable minorities. You cannot basically have boats deciding what the intake will be. They will all come at one time from Afghanistan or at another time Sri Lanka and still have a policy which preserves the diversity of the intake and gives the government of the day, Labor or Liberal, the possibility of fashioning an intake around who is regarded by the United Nations as being particularly vulnerable. That is another reason that I am raising this resolution. Obviously there have been times when some Mandeans have entered by boat as well. There is no disputing that. But predominantly they have entered in the refugee humanitarian intake. I constantly have cases involving their community. Very few weeks go by without people coming to my office and to a lesser extent that of the member for Fowler, because their predominant location in Sydney is the Liverpool municipal area. Dr Mtashar and other groups are based there. They have had very strong historical support from the Liverpool Multicultural Centre, which has allowed them to develop an organisation, community building and so on.

I would like to quote an article by Murthard Ababistani in a University of Malaya paper. It states:

Mandeans have been living in Iraq and Iran for over two millennia. During these centuries they have been a small ethnic group surrounded by the non-Mandean people and under the threat of identity elimination. This situation inevitably made their group identity protection one of their main concerns.

It is further commented:

The concern for identity protection still persists among the Mandean diasporas. However, the new social environment opens up new opportunities that affect both the religious practice and identity politics of the Mandeans.

Furthermore:

In the homeland, 'the religious' and 'the social' were unified and inseparable. The constant threat of ethnocide and the priority of identity protection had confined the Mandeans within their petrified religious rituals as the main reference of their identity. Living in secular and multicultural society a secularisation trend in the sense of separation among the Mandean community of Australia is observable. The Mandeans follow their social interest such as group identity and integrity through their secular association and organisations.

What that writer said is clearly happening in this country at the moment. It came out in that Compass program and it has been evidenced in my dealings with the community. They are very much now about incorporating into this society, being involved in community organisations beyond their own community. Also Australia has in a sense affected to some degree religious practices. It was very interesting in that program to see the way in which the requirement that they baptise, which is central to their beliefs, is now being carried out for the first time in areas other than rivers. This is causing some angst in the community, but it is seen as a practical reaction of young people not being very attracted to what they regard as polluted rivers being the source.

I am pleased to have the opportunity here today to put forward the argument that this country should be vigilant about continued abuses to this minority in Iraq and other minorities as well, that our foreign affairs department should make sure it takes up these issues, that this should inform government policy in regards to the refugee humanitarian intake, that we should be mindful that here today—not yesterday, not last week, not six years ago—we see evidence of persecutions of minorities, and that when we do have consideration of what countries or groups do get priority that they remain important in the forefront of consideration by Australia.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(

I am not involved in this matter because I have constituents who are Sabean Mandeans. I have spoken in debates on matters involving religious minorities in Iraq raised by the member for Fowler, Mr Hayes. I did that on 30 May. In the context of that speech I also canvassed the situation relating to the Sabean Mandeans.

I think it is important to understand their very unique position in the world. It is a fact that they have been identified as the only surviving group representing the ancient Mediterranean movement known as Gnosticism, discovered by Western scholars in the 17th century, and the community survives in Iraq and Iran. The numbers in Iraq referred to and identified in the US State Department documentation dealing with religious minorities in Iraq estimates the size of the Sabean Mandean community varies, but 3,000 to 7,000 are now estimated to remain in-country, reduced from something of the order of 50,000 to 60,000 that were there in 2003. Of course, the UNHCR has also paid some regard, noting that in the refugee cases of Iraqis living outside of the country something of the order of three per cent were Sabean Mandeans. A similar report in relation to Iran reveals the numbers of people estimated to be Sabean Mandean is 5,000 to 10,000 persons residing in Kundistan, south-west of Iran.

Of course these people are descendants of those who are seen to have been the remaining followers of John the Baptist. But it has been noted that the origin is somewhat obscure. They appear to have originated in Palestine as a sect in the first century BC and they apparently absorbed material including the practice of baptism that had been begun by John the Baptist and early Christians.

It is a significant and unique community and one that I have been focused on from my earlier days as a minister for immigration and multicultural affairs. I was responsible in part for ensuring that within our programs for resettlement from the Middle East places were found for Sabean Mandeans. I have come to know a number of them, not as constituents, but the most interesting one is one that I find established a silver business in Liverpool, probably in the electorate of the member, nearby. He was quite an interesting man. You will now find him in the Gold Souk, Dubai as well. He has established premises there under the name Aussie Mike ' s and has been able to identify a unique niche linking his profession with the needs of the people who travel in that part of the world.

I did want in this debate to endorse the comments made by the member who spoke. In previous debates I have said that I am not desirous of seeing an evacuation of all of the Christians from the Middle East, even though many of them are under enormous pressure. That is of interest in relation to the Copts in Egypt that are now under significant pressure again. It is of interest particularly to the Syrian populations and the Chaldeans in Iraq, but it is also of interest to many of the orthodox followers in that region. I must say the Middle East Council of Christian Organisations has made the point that there needs to be a continuing presence of Christians in the Middle East. I do not know that the same can be said in relation to the Sabean Mandeans. I think it is part of the area in which they have obviously been brought up, but I think the size of the groups is such that they are enormously vulnerable.

There is a paper that is a little dated, November 2009, prepared by the Mandean Human Rights Group; it was their annual report. It is quite an interesting document because it outlines something of the demography and the history of the Mandeans. Honourable members who want to interest themselves in the matter might care to obtain a copy. I am happy to table this document when I have ceased referring to it, but it does go on to make the point that there is for the Sabean Mandeans the threat of extinction. When you take into account the very small number of Mandeans dispersed over a large number of countries as refugees, unless they have policies like we do that respect diversity and encourage people to maintain something of their history and their culture, in many other parts of the world they may find it difficult to survive. I am not saying that even where you have a tolerant society like we do that they may not be under a very significant threat even here in Australia.

What I found particularly challenging in reading the document was something of the plight that the community continues to suffer because they do outline in this particular report something of the experience that the Mandeans are facing in Iraq and Iran in particular. What you have in this document is the list of names of Mandeans murdered in 2003 and 2004. Looking at the documents, there were 18 in 2003, 34 in 2004 and 64 in 2005. When you continue through the documents you find that by the time we reach something of the order of 2009 there are named in total 163 people who have been murdered.

Similarly, the report includes lists of those people who have been kidnapped. Equally the numbers are of very considerable and real concern. There are the documented names of 271 Mandeans that had been subjected to kidnapping. Then you move to those who are threatened and assaulted and what you find is that there are recorded something of the order of 238 names of people who have been the subject of threats and assaults. With rape there are the names of 11 Mandeans. Of those who have been forced to conversion it is something of the order of 33. Those who have faced forceful displacement—and again the numbers are quite significant—and other forms of incidents have also been identified. What I think is significant is the relatively large numbers of people who have suffered in those ways in a population which is little more than several thousand people.

It gives you some idea of the enormity of the risks that they face and the threats that they are under. I think Australia does need to continue to keep the Mandeans very much in mind in the Refugee Resettlement Program. These are people who can be brought to Australia through the front door.

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

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

Burmese Community in Australia

Debate resumed on the motion by Ms Owens :

That this House:

(1) recognises:

(a) the important contribution of the Burmese community in Australia;

(b) the strength of the Burmese community and professional organisations and the part they have played in assisting others to settle successfully in Australia; and

(c) the extensive charity work of the Burmese community in Australia for the broader Australian community; and

(2) acknowledges the Burmese community ' s:

(a) strong advocacy over the plight of the Burmese refugees in the region; and

(b) determination to raise awareness of the difficult situation facing internally displaced people in Eastern Burma.

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

(

At the 2006 census 53.9 per cent of the Burma-born aged 15 years and over had some form of higher non-school qualifications compared to just lower than that, 52.5 per cent, of the Australian population. Also, among Burma-born people aged 15 years and over the participation rate in the labour force was nearly 60 per cent and the unemployment rate was 5.3 per cent, comparable to the rest of the Australian population. At the 2006 census the estimated rate of Australian citizenship was 91.6 per cent, compared to 75 per cent for all overseas-born immigrants. That is a truly remarkable figure which is a testament to the incredible level of integration this community has undergone in such a short period of time.

I have a very strong Burmese community in my electorate. Like the Burmese communities spread around Australia they are vibrant, energetic and add value to the social fabric of my electorate. I have attended numerous functions and events held by the community but I would like to make special note of the Burmese Medical Association who have worked tirelessly to further the Burmese cause in Australia, including a fundraising dinner to support those affected by the tragic cyclones which hit Burma in 2008 and 2010.

Burma is among the poorest countries in South East Asia with almost one-third of its 50 million people living in poverty. Burma ' s development remains severely constrained by a lack of progress towards real democracy, economic reform and improved service delivery. Ongoing conflict has resulted in refugee populations fleeing to neighbouring countries with estimates of between 500,000 and up to one million people internally displaced. As it stands now, millions of Burmese people are unable to access food, basic healthcare, clean water or education for their children. The situation is particularly bad in eastern Burma where child mortality rates under five are nearly double Burma ' s national average and women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy or childbirth.

The Australian Burmese community are strong advocates for aid and as Australians their contribution to their homeland is significant. Australia recognises the immense development task faced by current and future generations of Burmese. For this reason, Australia ' s aid to Burma has increased by 65 per cent since 2009-10, from $29.1 million to $47.6 million in 2011-12.

In 2010 Australia moved the Burma Aid Program from primarily a humanitarian focus to a longer term development plan. The Australian government ' s investment in the aid program in Burma is achieving results that are improving the lives of ordinary Burmese. For example, in partnership with other donors we have reduced the cost of education for poor families by providing education material such as books, stationery and backpacks to 918,000 children in 2,440 primary schools. We have helped 2,700 marginalised ethnic families each access one acre of land through the establishment of community forestry plots in remote areas of northern Rakhine state. Families have increased their income through harvesting their land. Our support to the multi-donor Three Diseases Fund has seen malaria treatment provided to more than 1.48 million people and antiretroviral therapy to nearly 16,000 people living with HIV.

On the Thai-Burma border Australian support to refugees living in camps has led to the number of women in key leadership roles increasing from 11 per cent in 2006 to 32 per cent in 2010. Programs we fund that directly deal with refugees include $1.6 million to provide basic relief for over 140,000 Burmese living in refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border, $1.5 million to provide free primary healthcare to refugees, migrant workers and other vulnerable people who cross the border from Burma to Thailand, and $1.5 million to support vocational training programs for refugees in three camps on the Thai-Burma border to broaden opportunities for future employment. Burma is one of the few countries where the current generation of schoolchildren is likely to be less educated than their parents and grandparents. Australia ' s support for the education sector has helped increase the proportion of primary school students who have stayed up to grade five in target schools. This has increased from 62 per cent in 2007 to 76 per cent in 2010.

During Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd ' s recent visit to Burma in July he urged the Burmese authorities to make concrete progress on human rights issues, including the release of political prisoners, of which there are over 2,000 still remaining, and other democratic and ethnic political figures and resolving longstanding ethnic conflicts peacefully.Australia and the international community stand ready to assist Burma. Australia has always considered the Burmese people our friends and our two countries are woven together by the people that we share. When Cyclone Nagas struck, Australia responded generously despite our political differences with the Burmese authorities. That was the right decision then and it is the right decision now to work together with the international community to do more for the long-term future of Burmese people.

The government will continue to monitor the human rights situation in Burma and to work with other international partners, the UN and other stakeholders on issues of justice and accountability. I commend my local community for the work they do in keeping the plight of Burmese people in the front of our minds and for advocating for a strong humanitarian response. They are a fine community and a welcome addition to our diverse nation.

Proceedings suspended from 13:30 to 16:04

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 Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting) Bill 2011, although I do so relatively briefly because it is one of the administrative bills that we often deal with in this House that has the support of both sides of the parliament. I do not think it requires me to give an enormously long speech. The coalition support this bill in principle, although we note that it is still before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. It is right that the parliament wait to see the results of its report before we finally pass this bill through both houses of parliament. The intention of the proposed amendment seems rational in that legislative instruments will sunset 10 years from the time of their legal commencement. The effect of the current wording of section 50 of the principal act is that instruments with a retrospective commencement date can sunset before that time or can, in some cases, sunset before they are made because they need to operate longer than 10 years into the past. Routine review of legislation will act as a way to ensure that it remains current, clear and relevant. It is important that the status of legislative instruments is easily ascertainable. However, the number of retrospective instruments is not stated in the proposed amendment and there may be a number of instruments which will have their lives significantly extended by this amendment.

As I said at the beginning, I only wish to speak very briefly on this bill. We are interested in what the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs finds when it inquires into this bill and we reserve our right to make any amendments in the Senate if it were to find something that we believe requires action but, considering that the inquiry is still ongoing, I do commend this bill to the House.

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

I agree that the Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting) Bill 2011 is a non-controversial piece of legislation. I can, at least, update members on the progress of the bill through the relevant committee, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, of which I am a member. Such is the non-controversial nature of this bill that, when it was referred to the committee for examination, no submissions were received on the bill and the committee determined it unnecessary to hold public hearings. The recommendation of the committee was that this bill be passed without amendment and the resolutions of the committee in that regard were unanimous.

Whilst this bill is non-controversial, it deals with a fundamental piece of statutory interpretation and rule-making law, the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. When one considers the nature and frequency by which legislative instruments are utilised in our modern system of parliamentary law making, the need to maintain a robust, unambiguous governing statute becomes clear. Indeed, the very definition of what constitutes a legislative instrument, as defined in section 5 of the act itself, is fundamental. Subject to the operation of a number of other subsections a legislative instrument is defined as an instrument in writing:

(a) that is of a legislative character; and

(b) that is or was made in the exercise of a power delegated by the Parliament.

And an instrument is taken to be of a legislative character if:

(a) it determines the law or alters the content of the law, rather than applying the law in a particular case; and

(b) it has the direct or indirect effect of affecting a privilege or interest, imposing an obligation, creating a right, or varying or removing an obligation or right.

The operation of this definition in practice, however, is not necessarily straightforward. Case law has explored the test of whether something is judicial or administrative in nature. One of the key consequences of this distinction is that the answer determines the relevant appealable avenues, primarily through either administrative appeal or the disallowance process.

In the context of the Legislative Instruments Act, 'sunsetting' is usefully defined in the Legislative Instruments Handbook as 'the automatic repeal of a legislative instrument and its amendments after a certain period of operation'.

I would like to turn to the object of the Legislative Instruments Act, as set out in section 3, namely:

… to provide a comprehensive regime for the management of Commonwealth legislative instruments by:

(a) establishing the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments as a repository of Commonwealth legislative instruments, explanatory statements and compilations; and

(b) encouraging rule-makers to undertake appropriate consultation before making legislative instruments; and

(c) encouraging high standards in the drafting of legislative instruments to promote their legal effectiveness, their clarity and their intelligibility to anticipated users; and

(d) improving public access to legislative instruments; and

(e) establishing improved mechanisms for Parliamentary scrutiny of legislative instruments; and

(f) establishing mechanisms to ensure that legislative instruments are periodically reviewed and, if they no longer have a continuing purpose, repealed.

As stated in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the policy intent of the primary act is that legislative instruments remain in force for 10 years after they are made, but they are subject to review before the end of this period. Hence subsection (f) of the section 3 objects, which I referred to earlier, is arguably the most relevant in this regard in terms of periodical review and repeal where appropriate.

I would like turn briefly to the existing sunsetting provisions in the legislation. The operation of the existing sunsetting provisions are usefully described also in the Legislative Instruments Handbook. Relevantly, the handbook notes the way in which an automatic cessation regime is set out in part 6 of the Legislative Instruments Act. Again consistent with the objects, the handbook notes that the aim of sunsetting is to ensure that legislative instruments are reviewed regularly and retained only if needed and kept up to date.

I would like to briefly mention some of the main provisions of this bill. As I have noted, the Legislative Instruments Act establishes a comprehensive regime for the registration, tabling, scrutiny and sunsetting of legislative instruments.

Proceedings suspended from 16:11 to 16 : 12

The sunsetting regime ensures that legislative instruments are reviewed regularly and kept up to date. The bill makes minor yet important changes to the sunsetting rules as they apply to instruments which commence with retrospective effect. This change will ensure that these instruments have 10 years of operation from the date they are registered on the federal register of legislative instruments before they sunset. Under the current provisions, these instruments can often sunset much earlier than anticipated by the Legislative Instruments Act. The practical effect of this change will be that the calculation of the sunsetting date for legislative instruments which commence retrospectively will begin from their date of registration on the federal register rather than on the day of commencement. Similarly, where some but not all provisions of a legislative instrument commence retrospectively, the sunsetting date for those retrospectively commencing provisions will be calculated from the day of registration rather than commencement.

The changes proposed by the bill do not affect the act's rules about the limited circumstances in which instruments with retrospective operations may be made. As can be seen, these amendments to the Legislative Instruments Act work to make the act much easier to use and increase consistency throughout its operation. So this bill does some very important things through its minor amendments to the Legislative Instruments Act to provide that instruments with retrospective commencement remain in force for 10 years following their registration. I thank the Attorney-General for his work in this area and encourage all members to support this bill. It will give certainty and consistency to the very important advisory role when establishing legislative instruments and their currency.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up, I would like to thank the members for their contributions to the debate. The Legislative Instruments Act (Sunsetting) Bill 2011 is an important bill. It provides for the accountability mechanisms that apply in the making of legislative instruments as well as ensuring that all subordinate legislation is able to be accessed through an online register, the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. The bill also provides for the eventual sunsetting—that is, automatic ceasing of the legislative instruments. Sunsetting ensures that there is a review of the continuing need for legislative instruments after 10 years of operation. This bill makes a minor and important change to the rules as they apply to instruments which commenced with retrospective effect. The effect of this change will be to allow such instruments to operate for a full 10 years before they sunset. This is consistent with the intended operation of the sunsetting provisions of the bill.

I note that the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs has prepared an advisory report on this bill. The report did not identify any issues in relation to the bill and recommends unanimously that it be passed by the House without amendment. I thank the committee for its consideration of the bill and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to contribute to statements on this matter moved by the Prime Minister last week on Vietnam Veterans Day. In doing so, I mention the wonderful service held in the electorate of Casey on Sunday prior to Vietnam Veterans Day, Sunday, 14 August. It was a service organised and hosted by the Yarra Valley Vietnam Veterans Day Combined Service Committee. It is an initiative of the Vietnam veterans community, the Outer Eastern Sub-Branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association, many of the local RSLs within the Yarra Valley in outer eastern Melbourne, including Healesville, Lilydale, Upper Yarra, Warburton and Yarra Glen, and the National Serviceman's Association. I know the Croydon RSL were also represented at the service, which was held in the Lilydale main street on Sunday morning.

I pay tribute to the members of those RSLs who were there. I want to pay tribute to those Vietnam veterans from each of those RSLs and from surrounding areas who came to that service. The service was larger than in previous years. I make mention of that because I think it is the hope of all of us in this House that the importance of this day continues to grow. Vietnam Veterans Day is a time to reflect on so many matters associated with that long conflict.

I have spoken on a number of occasions before in the House about some of those issues. I particularly reflect, as many members would, on the issues surrounding the Battle of Long Tan and the failure to award medals and appropriate citations after that battle. I do so having known one of the great heroes of the Battle of Long Tan, Cliff Dohle, now deceased, who was a helicopter pilot in that battle. I know the parliamentary secretary at the table is very familiar with the details of the battle and with the story of Cliff Dohle, who passed away a short while back. He performed a pivotal role on the day. Cliff and his wife retired to the Yarra Valley. Getting to know Cliff by meeting him in my electorate office and hearing those stories firsthand is something I have spoken about before. It is only natural that on each Vietnam Veterans Day I think of Cliff and reflect on the Battle of Long Tan.

It is also a time to candidly reflect on how we as a nation treated returning Vietnam servicemen. Former Prime Minister John Howard told the parliament back in 2006 that the entire Australian community failed the servicemen when they returned from Vietnam. All of us know that that is right; that some of those servicemen returning from Vietnam were treated disgracefully and appallingly.

As we celebrate Vietnam Veterans Day, it is a time to remember their contribution and those who lost their lives, and to think of those men who are now taking leadership roles in our RSLs. It is a time to reflect on the past, but equally a time to look to the future. I know that both sides of the House will agree that they are performing leadership roles at so many levels within local RSLs as, with the effluxion of time, we wave goodbye to so many of the World War II and Korean War generation.

Some progress has been made on the issue of the Long Tan medals; I would really like to acknowledge that to the House. It was a difficult issue to try to address many years after that conflict. On Vietnam Veterans Day, we remember all those who served in the Vietnam War and the more than 500 who lost their lives in that conflict. We say thanks as a nation for their contribution. We say 'well done' for the contribution that many continue to make in leadership roles within local RSL clubs.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to speak in this debate. I thank the member for Casey for his fine remarks and his recognition and acknowledgement of the importance of Long Tan Day, and more generally the importance of recognising the contribution of our Vietnam veterans to the Australian nation.

It is hard for us to understand that over a decade 60,000 Australian men served in Vietnam and of those, sadly, 521 were killed in action or died as a result of their wounds, and over 3,000 were wounded. It is very difficult for those of us who sit in a place like this and who have never worn an Australian uniform—whether it is Air Force, Army or Navy—to understand or appreciate what that actually means. Yes, the war in Vietnam was an unpopular war and, yes, almost half of the Australian men serving there were national servicemen, many of whom did not elect to go. But they went and they went to carry out government policy. This was a choice of government and government, as we know, is the voice of the people. Although we might not understand or even be able to imagine the horror of this conflict, our forebears in this place bear the responsibility for having sent these men to war, so we wear that responsibility. We have to understand and appreciate what actually happened and the depth of sorrow and anguish that results from decisions to send people to war and to see and to know what the long-term implications are of an effort such as this where we lose 521 brave men.

Last Thursday I attended the national Vietnam veterans commemorative service held here at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Anzac Parade at which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were both present. The Prime Minister gave what I thought was a very fine speech. It was a cold wintery morning, very unlike anything that would have been experienced in Vietnam, but many came to pay their respects to the fallen and remember and pay tribute to the service of so many of our fellow Australians.

As we know, it was 45 years ago to the day that soldiers of Delta Company 6RAR held fast against a large enemy force in the battle of Long Tan. This battle on 18 August was one of the most significant engagements by the Australian forces during the war. There were others. But the importance of this bloody engagement cannot be underestimated—108 Australian and New Zealand soldiers fought a pitched battle against an estimated 2,000 determined North Vietnamese and Vietcong enemy at a rubber plantation near Long Tan. On this terrible day 18 Australians were killed, the most killed in any one engagement of the war in Vietnam.

To recognise their extraordinary gallantry in action, veterans of Delta Company were presented with the unit citation of gallantry by the Governor-General, Her Excellency Mrs Quentin Bryce. The special parade was at Gallipoli Barracks Enoggera in Brisbane on Thursday afternoon. I was honoured and privileged to be in attendance. The veterans there were hosted by the current 6RAR who themselves have only just recently returned from Afghanistan as Mentoring Task Force 1, MTF1. MTF1 was also presented with meritorious unit citation for outstanding service in warlike operations on Operation Slipper in Oruzgan Province in Afghanistan between 20 January and 30 October 2010. It was indeed a proud and very special moment for all involved to see the younger veterans and our Vietnam veterans together on parade and receiving recognition together for their service.

Australian service in Vietnam spanned over 10 years and we pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of Australian service personnel during that entire period. These battles in Vietnam were difficult battles. They were close pitched and intense, fought in difficult conditions. Our service personnel fought in the Anzac spirit, with great courage, conviction and valour.

It is worthwhile pointing out that a number of years ago we still had four MIAs in Vietnam. We have discovered where those MIAs have been. We have recovered their remains and we have brought them home. So their final resting place is in the holy soil of Australia, their home. Sadly though, as we well know, in times past as a nation we have not recognised the service of our veterans from this war as we should have. Vietnam Veterans Day provides the nation with an opportunity to pause and reflect, to remember the service of our Vietnam veterans and pay tribute to those gone before, and to learn from our past so that we may better look after our ADF personnel of today and the future. This is not the time to talk about what we need to do for our current serving personnel but we need to do more.

I am a child of this generation when the war was deeply unpopular here at home. I knew people who were conscientious objectors. I knew people who were national servicemen who went to war. I knew people who were injured by that war, either mentally or physically. Sadly, as they get older, sometimes their difficulties increase. We have yet to come to terms and really understand the depth of hurt which many of these men carry with them today and appreciate what that means for us. As the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and I am sure as with previous ministers for veterans' affairs, I speak on behalf of the nation when I say to these veterans that, despite your experiences of the past, we are absolutely committed to providing the best we possibly can for your welfare and for your health and that of your families as you get older.

We know that in this country we are living longer and for the many people with challenges that remain, with demons which they cannot expunge, we will work with them to help them get on top of them—and we will. We will continue to do what others have done before. But the message here is very clear to us: as I said at the outset, we in this place bear a special responsibility. It is governments that send people to war. We wear a special responsibility towards our past veterans and today's veterans. We cannot do as was done in the past and ignore their pleas and ignore their needs. We need to accommodate them and work with them to satisfy them. I am committed to doing that.

This day last week was a special day for Australian veterans who served in that war, and for their families. For so many, the families are the ones who bore the burden of the hurt and many still do. We have a special obligation to defence force men and women and their families. Whatever their service, we need to continue to diligently apply ourselves to making sure that they get the very best we can offer.

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

With parliament sitting last week, regrettably many of us were unable to attend services in our own electorates. Nonetheless, it should be recorded in this place that, particularly in an electorate like Dickson, we have a vibrant veterans community and they are people who stand very proud for their service, for the loss and sacrifice that they and many of their friends have endured over the course of their service. We salute their service, not just here but right around the country at those ceremonies last week.

The 18th of August this year marked the 45th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. With all such anniversaries there has to be a lot of reflection but even more so on this 45th anniversary of the gallantry of those who fought in the historic Battle of Long Tan in the Vietnam War. It was a battle which was recognised by the presentation of the Australian Unit Citation for Gallantry by the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, to the survivors of D Company 6 RAR at Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, Brisbane, home of the 6th Battalion of the RAR. I understand that was a very moving ceremony. All of us have over the years heard different stories from veterans in our community about their recollections passed down to them, about the Battle of Long Tan. The youngest Australian to die in that battle was just 19 and the oldest was only 22 and, as I understand, from listening to somebody recently, over half of those killed were Queensland national servicemen. They are men whose bravery will never be forgotten.

On Anzac Avenue in my electorate, at the aptly named Nui Dat bus stop, there is Vietnam Veterans Place, a quiet oasis of reflection on a busy thoroughfare. This memorial was conceived and created by Vietnam veterans in conjunction with the Pine Rivers Shire Council, local businesses and local tradesmen. It includes a flag station, gardens and a brick walkway that includes bricks stamped with the titles of every Australian unit to serve in Vietnam and is a suitable place to contemplate and remember the sacrifices of those who served in Vietnam who are no longer with us.

There are 17 branches of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia in Queensland, and one of those, the Brisbane North division, has its headquarters at Black Duck Cottage, at Kallangur in my electorate. With the number of very active RSL sub-branches in Dickson—namely Bray Park-Strathpine,Samford,Dayboro and Pine Rivers district—it is not surprising to note that the Vietnam Veterans Association, which draws from all arms of Defence, has a membership growing from strength to strength, year to year, and has a current membership of 168, all there to uphold their motto, 'Honour the dead but fight like hell for the living'. This Brisbane North branch of the VVAA was formed in around 1982, one of the earliest sub-branches after the Vietnam Veterans Action Group was formed in NSW in 1978. The Brisbane North executive: Peter Thorn, president; Len Halford, senior vice-president; John Barrett, junior vice-president; and Peter Farrelly, treasurer and secretary are to be commended for their work in looking after the welfare of veterans and their families, with the assistance of committee members Gus Fraser, Jim Shaw, Gordon Johnson, Raymond Royston and Fred Ellingworth, among many others. Needless to say, there is also of course a social committee made up of those mentioned above. The dedication of those who are part of the association is enduring, as can be seen in the case of John Smith OAM, who joined the Brisbane North branch in August 1992 and has served as the sub-branch president and vice-president, state president and vice-president and who is now the national vice-president and state delegate to national council.

These are all people of considerable talent and they have all in their own ways made considerable sacrifices. Not only have they made a sacrifice; their families have of course made significant sacrifices as well. At the memorial service at Black Duck Cottage last Thursday morning, Mr Farrelly was the guest speaker. I was given a copy of his speech. I found it quite moving and I want to contribute a little of his speech as part of this debate today. I want to quote him to allow the House to gain an understanding of the quality of the speech that he presented and also the message that he wanted to deliver. The speech reads as follows:

Australian military troops served in the Vietnam War from 1962 through to 1975. It was the longest conflict that Australian servicemen and women fought and served in during our military's short history. It is without doubt also one of the most controversial of wars that any country served, and divided a nation that led to riots and divisions that remain today. It has left a lasting legacy that will take several generations to finally put this part of Australia's history to rest, and during this time it continues to provoke arguments that rekindle and revise the merits of this conflict.

During this period 521 Australian servicemen were killed in Vietnam. In excess of 3,000 servicemen were wounded, whilst some 60,000 military personnel served. Many of these doing two and sometimes three tours of duty. To be able to put troops into the country and to keep our numbers up to the required quota, National Service was made compulsory for young Australians. Any male aged between 17 to 21 and born during a certain month were balloted. National Service evoked controversy from all sides of politics and civilian life and ultimately led to some of the most violent clashes between rioters and police this country has ever seen.

Australia has since recovered all of its war KIA's in operations that defy the massive procedures undertaken to achieve this remarkable feat. Using old memories, maps, co-ordinates given during battle and the ever changing landscape a few dedicated Australian people have painstakingly traced and tracked our war dead and ceremonially returned their remains to their Australian families.

These people continue their work in Vietnam but now assist in the search for the remains of South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese servicemen who died and were buried in the field. At the war's height more than 500,000 American servicemen were in country, where their losses exceeded 60,000.

Peter's speech goes on:

As Australian troops began the main withdrawal in September 1971, those who had returned home earlier found themselves ostracised by friends, the RSL, and even the military which had sent them there in the first place. There was no support from the military; the RSL did not want to know us, and in some instances families did not welcome them home. Increasingly ex-serving soldiers became loners, and sought refuge with other like-minded veterans where they could relate to each other without fear or condemnation. From this the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia was formed which united the veterans and unified them into a cohesive and powerful veteran voice. They remain the choice of many service organisations today.

The speech went on for a little bit beyond that in most eloquent words and closed in this way:

Today is Vietnam Veterans Day and the 45th anniversary of the battle of Long Tan. A day when Australians remember all those servicemen and servicewomen who served, suffered and died. A day to reflect and commemorate not only fellow Australians but our American and New Zealand comrades in arms and a time to reflect on the misery of the South Vietnamese people that this war ultimately inflicted. To those servicemen and servicewomen who perished in South Vietnam and to those veterans who have since passed, rest in peace my friends. We do remember you all. Lest we forget.

They are powerful words; they are words that speak very strongly for a generation of families who were disproportionately affected by what was a terrible war. It is not a pretty picture of our history, and the way in which people were ultimately treated for their presence in Vietnam, both at the time of their engagement and on return from their engagement, shone an even poorer light on the behaviour of some in this country.

As I said in my opening remarks, we have a very strong local veterans community. Over the course of the last 10 years I have made it my business to befriend and support wherever I can many of the veterans in our local community. I know that in the area of Kallangur, which is on the border of the electorate of Longman, Wyatt Roy has embarked on a similar process. We want to continue to help and assist those veterans and those families who still suffer many of those wounds, particularly mentally, today. We want to make sure that we continue to provide support wherever possible to those families and to the generations that follow, 'where the pain is still felt most surely,' as Peter mentioned in his speech. I close with the mission statement of the Vietnam Veterans Association, which is: 'To assist all veterans, dependants and their descendants in all matters relating to their health, welfare and wellbeing'. We can all be proud of their ongoing service. To the veterans in the Dickson community, I say thank you.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Prime Minister's statement on Vietnam Veterans Day. Last Thursday, 18 August, our nation recognised and honoured the veterans of the Vietnam War. Really, Vietnam Veterans Day is a day for all Australians to pay tribute to those who served in the Vietnam War. The day is commemorated each year on the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, one of the most significant Australian actions of the Vietnam War. This year marked the 45th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. This battle occurred on 18 August 1966 and during this battle 18 Australians were killed—the most killed in any one engagement of the Vietnam War—and 24 were wounded. In the years since it was fought, many people have said the battle has achieved a symbolic significance for the Australian military in the Vietnam War which is similar to that of other battles Australians remember, such as the Gallipoli campaign, the Kokoda Track and the Battle of Kapyong. Indeed, Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War remains the longest in duration of any war in Australia's history. It lasted from August 1962 until May 1975. Although the Australian commitment was predominantly Army personnel, there were also significant numbers of civilians as well as Air Force and Navy personnel. According to the Nominal Roll of Vietnam Veterans, almost 60,000 Australians served in Vietnam and 521 Australians died as a result of the war, with over 3,000 wounded. Of the 521 Australian who died in the war, 496 were Australian Army personnel, 17 were RAAF personnel and eight were RAN personnel. The involvement of Australian forces in Vietnam was a gradual escalation, taking place over many years, and our forces battled against extremes of terrain and climate, through dense jungle and monsoonal conditions. They faced a very well-organised force.

We must never forget the service and sacrifice of those very brave Australians; they fought with such great courage and valour in the face of adversity. As many speakers have commented on today, when those Australian troops came home from Vietnam they returned to a nation that was really divided in its view of the war and, mostly, they were not welcomed home by a grateful nation in the same way as troops returning home from World War I or World War II were welcomed before them. For many of the surviving Vietnam veterans, time has not always healed the physical and psychological scars that resulted from their service, and often their families share this physical and emotional burden. It is important to acknowledge that the aftermath of war has been difficult to deal with, and we should recognise the contribution that veterans' families also have made. That is just as vitally important. In acknowledging the very difficult time that many of our veterans had when they came home, it is important to realise, too, that the veterans of the Vietnam War did not receive an official welcome home parade until 1987. That was a significant period of time later and was an issue, understandably, for many of those veterans. It is for this reason, and of course for so many other reasons, that on 18 August each year Australia as a nation recognises, remembers and honours the veterans of the Vietnam War.

My electorate of Richmond has one of the largest numbers of veterans throughout the nation. It has been my honour to meet and work with many of them over the years and to see their great commitment in so many ways. I note that many of them are veterans of the Vietnam War. As other speakers have mentioned, with parliament sitting last week, many of us were not able to attend local events. One of my staff members, Jodie Bellchambers, attended the event of a Vietnam veterans group in my electorate and she laid a wreath on behalf of the Commonwealth. Peter Crockett, a veteran, a lovely man whom we all refer to as 'Davy' Crockett, has organised this event for many years. It is held at South Tweed Sports club, which has supported the veterans group. The club has a lovely memorial garden, and the service is held there every year. I certainly would like to commend Davy for organising this very important event. I know there are many events locally and throughout the nation. It is important that we continue to have those events so that we can take the time to remember the service and sacrifice of all Vietnam veterans.

I would also like to note that the Governor-General marked the day last week on behalf of the nation with the presentation of a unit citation to Delta Company, 6th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, at Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera in Queensland. The unit citation recognises acts of extraordinary gallantry in action by Delta Company during the Battle of Long Tan.

In concluding today, I would like to quote from Paul Keating's speech at the funeral service of the Unknown Australian Soldier on 11 November, 1993. The Unknown Australian Soldier was a casualty of the First World War, but I believe the sentiments translate to all our veterans from all wars, who have made such sacrifices in the defence of our nation.

For out of the war came a lesson which transcended the horror and tragedy and the inexcusable folly. It was a lesson about ordinary people – and the lesson was that they were not ordinary. On all sides they were the heroes of that war; not the generals and the politicians but the soldiers and sailors and nurses – those who taught us to endure hardship, to show courage, to be bold as well as resilient, to believe in ourselves, to stick together.

The Unknown Australian Soldier whom we are interring today was one of those who, by his deeds, proved that real nobility and grandeur belongs, not to empires and nations, but to the people on whom they, in the last resort, always depend.

Lest we forget.

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