COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Votes and Proceedings

Hansard
WEDNESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2010

CORRECTIONS
This is a PROOF ISSUE. Suggested corrections for the Official Hansard and Bound Volumes
should be lodged in writing with the Director, Chambers, Department of Parliamentary Services as
soon as possible but not later than:

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

Facsimile: Senate (02) 6277 2977
House of Representatives (02) 6277 2944
Main Committee (02) 6277 2944

BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PROOF
 INTERNET
The Votes and Proceedings for the House of Representatives are available at
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/votes

Proof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives,

the Senate and committee hearings are available at
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

For searching purposes use

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au

SITTING DAYS—2010
Month Date
February 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24, 25
March 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18
May 11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31
June 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24
September 28, 29, 30
October 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28
November 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25

RADIO BROADCASTS
Broadcasts of proceedings of the Parliament can be heard on ABC NewsRadio in the capital cities on:

ADELAIDE 972AM
BRISBANE 936AM
CANBERRA 103.9FM
DARWIN 102.5FM
HOBART 747AM
MELBOURNE 1026AM
PERTH 585AM
SYDNEY 630AM

For information regarding frequencies in other locations please visit

http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/listen/frequencies.htm
 FORTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT
FIRST SESSION—FIRST PERIOD

Governor-General
Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce, Companion of the Order of Australia

House of Representatives Officeholders

Speaker—Mr Harry Alfred Jenkins MP
Deputy Speaker— Hon. Peter Neil Slipper MP
Second Deputy Speaker—Hon. Bruce Craig Scott MP
Members of the Speaker’s Panel—Hon. Dick Godfrey Harry Adams MP, Ms Sharon Leah
Bird MP, Mrs Yvette Maree D’Ath MP, Mr Steven Georganas MP, Kirsten Fiona Livermore
MP, Mr John Paul Murphy MP, Mr Peter Sid Sidebottom MP, Mr Kelvin John Thomson MP,
Ms Maria Vamvakinou MP

Leader of the House—Hon. Anthony Norman Albanese MP

Deputy Leader of the House—Hon. Stephen Francis Smith MP
Manager of Opposition Business—Hon. Christopher Maurice Pyne MP
Deputy Manager of Opposition Business—Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP

Party Leaders and Whips

Australian Labor Party
Leader—Hon. Julia Eileen Gillard MP
Deputy Leader—Hon. Wayne Maxwell Swan MP
Chief Government Whip—Hon. Joel Andrew Fitzgibbon MP
Government Whips—Ms Jill Griffiths Hall MP and Mr Christopher Patrick Hayes MP

Liberal Party of Australia

Leader—Hon. Anthony John Abbott MP
Deputy Leader—Hon. Julie Isabel Bishop MP
Chief Opposition Whip—Hon. Warren George Entsch MP
Opposition Whips—Mr Patrick Damien Secker MP and Ms Nola Bethwyn Marino MP

The Nationals
Leader—Hon. Warren Errol Truss MP
Chief Whip—Mr Mark Maclean Coulton MP
Whip—Mr Paul Christopher Neville MP

Printed by authority of the House of Representatives

i
 Members of the House of Representatives
Members Division Party
Abbott, Hon. Anthony John Warringah, NSW LP
Adams, Hon. Dick Godfrey Harry Lyons, TAS ALP
Albanese, Hon. Anthony Norman Grayndler, NSW ALP
Alexander, John Gilbert Bennelong, NSW LP
Andrews, Hon. Kevin James Menzies, VIC LP
Andrews, Karen Lesley McPherson, QLD LP
Baldwin, Hon. Robert Charles Paterson, NSW LP
Bandt, Adam Paul Melbourne, VIC AG
Billson, Hon. Bruce Fredrick Dunkley, VIC LP
Bird, Sharon Leah Cunningham, NSW ALP
Bishop, Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Mackellar, NSW LP
Bishop, Hon. Julie Isabel Curtin, WA LP
Bowen, Hon. Christopher Eyles McMahon, NSW ALP
Bradbury, Hon. David John Lindsay, NSW ALP
Briggs, Jamie Edward Mayo, SA LP
Broadbent, Russell Evan McMillan, VIC LP
Brodtmann, Gai Marie Canberra, ACT ALP
Buchholz, Scott Andrew Wright, QLD LP
Burke, Anna Elizabeth Chisholm, VIC ALP
Burke, Hon. Anthony Stephen Watson, NSW ALP
Butler, Hon. Mark Christopher Port Adelaide, SA ALP
Byrne, Hon. Anthony Michael Holt, VIC ALP
Champion, Nicholas David Wakefield, SA ALP
Cheeseman, Darren Leicester Corangamite, VIC ALP
Chester, Darren Gippsland, VIC Nats
Christensen, George Robert Dawson, QLD Nats
Ciobo, Steven Michele Moncrieff, QLD LP
Clare, Hon. Jason Dean Blaxland, NSW ALP
Cobb, Hon. John Kenneth Calare, NSW Nats
Collins, Hon. Julie Maree Franklin, TAS ALP
Combet, Hon. Greg Ivan, AM Charlton, NSW ALP
Coulton, Mark Maclean Parkes, NSW Nats
Crean, Hon. Simon Findlay Hotham, VIC ALP
Crook, Anthony John O’Connor, WA NWA
Danby, Michael David Melbourne Ports, VIC ALP
D’Ath, Yvette Maree Petrie, QLD ALP
Dreyfus, Hon. Mark Alfred, QC Isaacs, VIC ALP
Dutton, Hon. Peter Craig Dickson, QLD LP
Elliot, Hon. Maria Justine Richmond, NSW ALP
Ellis, Hon. Katherine Margaret Adelaide, SA ALP
Emerson, Hon. Craig Anthony Rankin, QLD ALP
Entsch, Warren George Leichhardt, QLD LP
Ferguson, Hon. Laurie Donald Thomas Werriwa, NSW ALP
Ferguson, Hon. Martin John, AM Batman, VIC ALP
Fitzgibbon, Hon. Joel Andrew Hunter, NSW ALP
Fletcher, Paul William Bradfield, NSW LP
Forrest, John Alexander Mallee, VIC Nats

ii
 Members of the House of Representatives
Members Division Party
Frydenberg, Joshua Anthony Kooyong, VIC LP
Gambaro, Hon. Teresa Brisbane, QLD LP
Garrett, Hon. Peter Robert, AM Kingsford Smith, NSW ALP
Gash, Joanna Gilmore, NSW LP
Georganas, Steve Hindmarsh, SA ALP
Gibbons, Stephen William Bendigo, VIC ALP
Gillard, Hon. Julia Eileen Lalor, VIC ALP
Gray, Hon. Gary, AO Brand, WA ALP
Grierson, Sharon Joy Newcastle, NSW ALP
Griffin, Hon. Alan Peter Bruce, VIC ALP
Griggs, Natasha Louise Solomon, NT CLP
Haase, Barry Wayne Durack, WA LP
Hall, Jill Shortland, NSW ALP
Hartsuyker, Luke Cowper, NSW Nats
Hawke, Alexander George Mitchell, NSW LP
Hayes, Christopher Patrick Fowler, NSW ALP
Hockey, Hon. Joseph Benedict North Sydney, NSW LP
Hunt, Hon. Gregory Andrew Flinders, VIC LP
Husic, Edham Nurredin Chifley, NSW ALP
Irons, Stephen James Swan, WA LP
Jenkins, Harry Alfred Scullin, VIC ALP
Jensen, Dennis Geoffrey Tangney, WA LP
Jones, Stephen Patrick Throsby, NSW ALP
Jones, Ewen Thomas Herbert, QLD LP
Katter, Hon. Robert Carl Kennedy, QLD Ind
Keenan, Michael Fayat Stirling, WA LP
Kelly, Hon. Michael Joseph, AM Eden-Monaro, NSW ALP
Kelly, Craig Hughes, NSW LP
King, Hon. Catherine Fiona Ballarat, VIC ALP
Laming, Andrew Charles Bowman, QLD LP
Leigh, Andrew Keith Fraser, ACT ALP
Ley, Hon. Sussan Penelope Farrer, NSW LP
Livermore, Kirsten Fiona Capricornia, QLD ALP
Lyons, Geoffrey Raymond Bass, TAS ALP
McClelland, Hon. Robert Bruce Barton, NSW ALP
Macfarlane, Hon. Ian Elgin Groom, QLD LP
Macklin, Hon. Jennifer Louise Jagajaga, VIC ALP
Marino, Nola Bethwyn Forrest, WA LP
Markus, Louise Elizabeth Macquarie, NSW LP
Marles, Hon. Richard Donald Corio, VIC ALP
Matheson, Russell Glenn Macarthur, NSW LP
McCormack, Michael Riverina, NSW Nats
Melham, Daryl Banks, NSW ALP
Mirabella, Sophie Indi, VIC LP
Mitchell, Robert George McEwen, VIC ALP
Morrison, Scott John Cook, NSW LP
Moylan, Hon. Judith Eleanor Pearce, WA LP
Murphy, Hon. John Paul Reid, NSW ALP

iii
 Members of the House of Representatives
Members Division Party
Neumann, Shayne Kenneth Blair, QLD ALP
Neville, Paul Christopher Hinkler, QLD Nats
Oakeshott, Robert James Murray Lyne, NSW Ind
O’Connor, Hon. Brendan Patrick Gorton, VIC ALP
O’Dowd, Kenneth Desmond Flynn, QLD Nats
O’Dwyer, Kelly Megan Higgins, VIC LP
O’Neill, Deborah Mary Robertson, NSW ALP
Owens, Julie Ann Parramatta, NSW ALP
Parke, Melissa Fremantle, WA ALP
Perrett, Graham Douglas Moreton, QLD ALP
Plibersek, Hon. Tanya Joan Sydney, NSW ALP
Prentice, Jane Ryan, QLD LP
Pyne, Hon. Christopher Maurice Sturt, SA LP
Ramsey, Rowan Eric Grey, SA LP
Randall, Don James Canning, WA LP
Ripoll, Bernard Fernand Oxley, QLD ALP
Rishworth, Amanda Louise Kingston, SA ALP
Robb, Hon. Andrew John, AO Goldstein, VIC LP
Robert, Stuart Rowland Fadden, QLD LP
Rowland, Michelle Greenway, NSW ALP
Roxon, Hon. Nicola Louise Gellibrand, VIC ALP
Roy, Wyatt Beau Longman, QLD LP
Rudd, Hon. Kevin Michael Griffith, QLD ALP
Ruddock, Hon. Philip Maxwell Berowra, NSW LP
Saffin, Janelle Anne Page, NSW ALP
Schultz, Albert John Hume, NSW LP
Scott, Hon. Bruce Craig Maranoa, QLD Nats
Secker, Patrick Damien Barker, SA LP
Shorten, Hon. William Richard Maribyrnong, VIC ALP
Sidebottom, Peter Sid Braddon, TAS ALP
Simpkins, Luke Xavier Linton Cowan, WA LP
Slipper, Hon. Peter Neil Fisher, QLD LP
Smith, Hon. Anthony David Hawthorn Casey, VIC LP
Smith, Hon. Stephen Francis Perth, WA ALP
Smyth, Laura Mary La Trobe, VIC ALP
Snowden, Hon. Warren Edward Lingiari, NT ALP
Somlyay, Hon. Alexander Michael Fairfax, QLD LP
Southcott, Andrew John Boothby, SA LP
Stone, Hon. Sharman Nancy Murray, VIC LP
Swan, Hon. Wayne Maxwell Lilley, QLD ALP
Symon, Michael Stuart Deakin, VIC ALP
Tehan, Daniel Thomas Wannon, VIC LP
Thomson, Craig Robert Dobell, NSW ALP
Thomson, Kelvin John Wills, VIC ALP
Truss, Hon. Warren Errol Wide Bay, QLD Nats
Tudge, Alan Edward Aston, VIC LP
Turnbull, Hon. Malcom Bligh Wentworth, NSW LP
Vamvakinou, Maria Calwell, VIC ALP

iv
 Members of the House of Representatives
Members Division Party
Van Manen, Albertus Johannes Forde, QLD LP
Vasta, Ross Xavier Bonner, QLD LP
Washer, Malcom James Moore, WA LP
Wilkie, Andrew Damien Denison, TAS Ind
Windsor, Anthony Harold Curties New England, NSW Ind
Wyatt, Kenneth George Hasluck, WA LP
Zappia, Tony Makin, SA ALP
PARTY ABBREVIATIONS
ALP—Australian Labor Party; LP—Liberal Party of Australia; LNP—Liberal National Party;
CLP—Country Liberal Party; Nats—The Nationals; NWA—The Nationals WA; Ind—Independent;
AG—Australian Greens

Heads of Parliamentary Departments

Clerk of the Senate—R Laing
Clerk of the House of Representatives—B Wright
Secretary, Department of Parliamentary Services—A Thompson

v
 GILLARD MINISTRY
Prime Minister Hon. Julia Gillard MP
Deputy Prime Minister, Treasurer Hon. Wayne Swan MP
Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Lo- Hon. Simon Crean MP
cal Government
Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Rela- Senator Hon. Chris Evans
tions and Leader of the Government in the Senate
Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth Hon. Peter Garrett AM, MP
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Econ- Senator Hon. Stephen Conroy
omy and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate
Minister for Foreign Affairs Hon. Kevin Rudd MP
Minister for Trade Hon. Dr Craig Emerson MP
Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House Hon. Stephen Smith MP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Hon. Chris Bowen MP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Leader of the Hon. Anthony Albanese MP
House
Minister for Health and Ageing Hon. Nicola Roxon MP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and In- Hon. Jenny Macklin MP
digenous Affairs
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Hon. Tony Burke MP
Communities
Minister for Finance and Deregulation Senator Hon. Penny Wong
Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Senator Hon. Kim Carr
Attorney-General and Vice President of the Executive Council Hon. Robert McClelland MP
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Manager of Senator Hon. Joe Ludwig
Government Business in the Senate
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism Hon. Martin Ferguson AM, MP
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Hon. Greg Combet AM, MP
[The above ministers constitute the cabinet]

vi
 GILLARD MINISTRY—continued
Minister for the Arts Hon. Simon Crean MP
Minister for Social Inclusion Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP
Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information Hon. Brendan O’Connor MP
Minister for Sport Senator Hon. Mark Arbib
Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity Hon. Gary Gray AO, MP
Assistant Minister to the Treasurer and Minister for Financial Hon. Bill Shorten MP
Services and Superannuation
Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare Hon. Kate Ellis MP
Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Develop- Senator Hon. Mark Arbib
ment
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Defence Science Hon. Warren Snowdon MP
and Personnel
Minister for Defence Materiel Hon. Jason Clare MP
Minister for Indigenous Health Hon. Warren Snowdon MP
Minister for Mental Health and Ageing Hon. Mark Butler MP
Minister for the Status of Women Hon. Kate Ellis MP
Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness Senator Hon. Mark Arbib
Special Minister of State Hon. Gary Gray AO, MP
Minister for Small Business Senator Hon. Nick Sherry
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice Hon. Brendan O’Connor MP
Minister for Human Services Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP
Cabinet Secretary Hon. Mark Dreyfus QC, MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Senator Hon. Kate Lundy
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer Hon. David Bradbury MP
Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Senator Hon. Jacinta Collins
Relations
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity Senator Hon. Stephen Conroy
Parliamentary Secretary for Trade Hon. Justine Elliot MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs Hon. Richard Marles MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Senator Hon. David Feeney
Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship Senator Hon. Kate Lundy
Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport and Hon. Catherine King MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers Senator Hon. Jan McLucas
Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services Hon. Julie Collins MP
Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water Senator Hon. Don Farrell
Minister Assisting on Deregulation Senator Hon. Nick Sherry
Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Hon. Dr Mike Kelly AM, MP
Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism Senator Hon. Nick Sherry
Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Effi- Hon. Mark Dreyfus QC, MP
ciency

vii
 SHADOW MINISTRY
Leader of the Opposition Hon. Tony Abbott MP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Minister for Hon. Julie Bishop MP
Foreign Affairs and Shadow Minister for Trade
Leader of the Nationals and Shadow Minister for Infrastruc- Hon. Warren Truss MP
ture and Transport
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Shadow Minister Senator Hon. Eric Abetz
for Employment and Workplace Relations
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Shadow Senator Hon. George Brandis SC
Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for the Arts
Shadow Treasurer Hon. Joe Hockey MP
Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training Hon. Christopher Pyne MP
and Manager of Opposition Business in the House
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Deputy Leader of Senator Hon. Nigel Scullion
the Nationals
Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Govern- Senator Barnaby Joyce
ment and Water and Leader of the Nationals in the Senate
Shadow Minister for Finance, Deregulation and Debt Reduc- Hon. Andrew Robb AO, MP
tion and Chairman, Coalition Policy Development Commit-
tee
Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources Hon. Ian Macfarlane MP
Shadow Minister for Defence Senator Hon. David Johnston
Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP
Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing Hon. Peter Dutton MP
Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services Hon. Kevin Andrews MP
Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heri- Hon. Greg Hunt MP
tage
Shadow Minister for Productivity and Population and Shadow Mr Scott Morrison MP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science Mrs Sophie Mirabella MP
Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security Hon. John Cobb MP
Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Hon. Bruce Billson MP
Consumer Affairs
[The above constitute the shadow cabinet]

viii
 SHADOW MINISTRY—continued
Shadow Minister for Employment Participation Hon. Sussan Ley MP
Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protec- Mr Michael Keenan MP
tion
Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Shadow Minister for Fi- Senator Mathias Cormann
nancial Services and Superannuation
Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learn- Hon. Sussan Ley MP
ing
Shadow Minister for Universities and Research Senator Hon. Brett Mason
Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport and Deputy Manager Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP
of Opposition Business in the House
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Development and Em- Senator Marise Payne
ployment
Shadow Minister for Regional Development Hon. Bob Baldwin MP
Shadow Special Minister of State Hon. Bronwyn Bishop MP
Shadow Minister for COAG Senator Marise Payne
Shadow Minister for Tourism Hon. Bob Baldwin MP
Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Mr Stuart Robert MP
Personnel
Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Senator Hon. Michael Ronaldson
Shadow Minister for Regional Communications Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP
Shadow Minister for Ageing and Shadow Minister for Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells
Mental Health
Shadow Minister for Seniors Hon. Bronwyn Bishop MP
Shadow Minister for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Senator Mitch Fifield
Sector and Manager of Opposition Business in the Sen-
ate
Shadow Minister for Housing Senator Marise Payne
Chairman, Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee Mr Jamie Briggs MP
Shadow Cabinet Secretary Hon. Philip Ruddock MP
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of Senator Cory Bernardi
the Opposition
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for International Devel- Hon. Teresa Gambaro MP
opment Assistance
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Mr Darren Chester MP
Transport
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney- Senator Gary Humphries
General
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tax Reform and Dep- Hon. Tony Smith MP
uty Chairman, Coalition Policy Development Committee
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education Senator Fiona Nash
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Senator Hon. Ian Macdonald
Australia
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government Mr Don Randall MP
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling Senator Simon Birmingham
Basin
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel Senator Gary Humphries
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Defence Force and Senator Hon. Ian Macdonald
Defence Support
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare Dr Andrew Southcott MP

ix
 SHADOW MINISTRY—continued
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Ser- Mr Andrew Laming MP
vices and Indigenous Health
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Supporting Families Senator Cory Bernardi
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Status of Women Senator Michaelia Cash
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment Senator Simon Birmingham
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Set- Hon. Teresa Gambaro MP
tlement
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration Senator Michaelia Cash
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation, Industry, Senator Hon. Richard Colbeck
and Science
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry Senator Hon. Richard Colbeck
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Senator Scott Ryan
Fair Competition

x
 CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 20 OCTOBER
Chamber
supplementary questions....................................................................................................................... 1
Divisions............................................................................................................................................... 1
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010—
First Reading ................................................................................................................................... 1
Second Reading............................................................................................................................... 1
Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010—
First Reading ................................................................................................................................... 2
Second Reading............................................................................................................................... 3
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation
Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010—
First Reading ................................................................................................................................... 3
Second Reading............................................................................................................................... 3
Higher Education Support Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010—
First Reading ................................................................................................................................... 5
Second Reading............................................................................................................................... 5
Higher Education Support Amendment (Fee-Help Loan Fee) Bill 2010—
First Reading ................................................................................................................................... 6
Second Reading............................................................................................................................... 6
Business—
Rearrangement ................................................................................................................................ 6
standing orders...................................................................................................................................... 6
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010—
First Reading ................................................................................................................................... 7
Second Reading............................................................................................................................... 7
Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010—
Report from Main Committee ......................................................................................................... 9
Third Reading.................................................................................................................................. 9
International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010—
Report from Main Committee ......................................................................................................... 9
Third Reading.................................................................................................................................. 9
National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010—
Report from Main Committee ......................................................................................................... 9
Third Reading.................................................................................................................................. 9
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010—
Report from Main Committee ......................................................................................................... 9
Third Reading.................................................................................................................................. 9
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Bill 2010—
Report from Main Committee ......................................................................................................... 9
Third Reading.................................................................................................................................. 9
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2010—
Report from Main Committee ......................................................................................................... 9
Third Reading.................................................................................................................................. 9
Ministerial Statements—
Afghanistan ................................................................................................................................... 10
Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010—
Referred to Main Committee......................................................................................................... 24
Ministerial Statements—
Afghanistan ................................................................................................................................... 24
Governor-General’s Speech—
Address-in-Reply .......................................................................................................................... 37
Statements by Members—
Adelaide Mushrooms .................................................................................................................... 44
Makin Electorate: King’s Kids Playgroup..................................................................................... 44
Forrest Electorate: Medical Workforce ......................................................................................... 44
Capricornia Electorate: Daniel Johnston and Danielle Dougan .................................................... 45
Fadden Electorate: Isaac Robb, Taylor Hayes and Max Muggeridge ........................................... 45
Sydney Australian-Filipino Seniors Inc. ....................................................................................... 45
Dunghutti Aboriginal Leadership Management Alliance: Closing the Gap.................................. 45
Plenty Valley Christian College: Make Poverty History Campaign.............................................. 46
Mrs Rose Richards ........................................................................................................................ 46
Active After-school Communities Program .................................................................................. 46
 CONTENTS—continued

Condolences—
Hon. Kenneth Shaw ‘Ken’ Wriedt................................................................................................. 47
Main Committee—
Hon. Kenneth Shaw ‘Ken’ Wriedt—Reference............................................................................. 48
Questions Without Notice—
Australian Labor Party: Kevin Bracken ........................................................................................ 48
Broadband ..................................................................................................................................... 49
Asylum Seekers............................................................................................................................. 49
Broadband ..................................................................................................................................... 49
Asylum Seekers............................................................................................................................. 50
Broadband ..................................................................................................................................... 50
Asylum Seekers............................................................................................................................. 51
E-Health ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Budget ........................................................................................................................................... 52
Economy ....................................................................................................................................... 52
Federal Election ............................................................................................................................ 53
Climate Change ............................................................................................................................. 54
Murray-Darling Basin ................................................................................................................... 54
Water ............................................................................................................................................. 55
Murray-Darling Basin ................................................................................................................... 56
Trade.............................................................................................................................................. 56
Home Insulation Program ............................................................................................................. 57
Indigenous Affairs ......................................................................................................................... 57
Home Insulation Program ............................................................................................................. 58
Defence Procurement .................................................................................................................... 58
Building the Education Revolution Program ................................................................................ 58
Crime............................................................................................................................................. 59
Personal Explanations......................................................................................................................... 59
Committees—
Selection Committee—Report ...................................................................................................... 60
Speaker’s Panel................................................................................................................................... 64
Committees—
Selection Committee—Membership ............................................................................................. 64
Documents .......................................................................................................................................... 64
Matters of Public Importance—
Murray-Darling Basin ................................................................................................................... 64
Commission of Inquiry into the Building the Education Revolution Program Bill 2010................... 77
Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010.................................................................... 77
Carer Recognition Bill 2010............................................................................................................... 77
Corporations Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2010 ...................................................................................... 77
Defence Legislation Amendment (Security of Defence Premises) Bill 2010..................................... 77
Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010—
Referred to Main Committee......................................................................................................... 77
Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010—
Report from Main Committee ....................................................................................................... 77
Third Reading................................................................................................................................ 77
Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2010—
Report from Main Committee ....................................................................................................... 77
Third Reading................................................................................................................................ 77
Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010—
Report from Main Committee ....................................................................................................... 77
Third Reading................................................................................................................................ 77
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010—
Report from Main Committee ....................................................................................................... 77
Third Reading................................................................................................................................ 77
Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010—
Report from Main Committee ....................................................................................................... 77
Third Reading................................................................................................................................ 77
Governor-General’s Speech—
Address-in-Reply .......................................................................................................................... 78
Airports Amendment Bill 2010—
Second Reading............................................................................................................................. 92
Adjournment—
Anti-Poverty Week ........................................................................................................................ 97
 CONTENTS—continued

Calwell Electorate: Mental Health ................................................................................................ 97

Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory.............................................. 98
Page Electorate.............................................................................................................................. 99
Swan Electorate: Langford Senior Citizens Club........................................................................ 100
Greenway Electorate: Health Services ........................................................................................ 101
Personal Services Income............................................................................................................ 102
Gene Patents................................................................................................................................ 102
Road Infrastructure...................................................................................................................... 103
Cunningham Electorate: Aspect South Coast School.................................................................. 104
Palm Island.................................................................................................................................. 105
Deakin Electorate: Maroondah Hospital ..................................................................................... 105
Notices.............................................................................................................................................. 106
Main Committee
Main Committee: Sittings................................................................................................................. 107
Constituency Statements—
Murray Electorate: Murray-Darling Basin Plan .......................................................................... 107
World Teachers Day .................................................................................................................... 107
Mayo Electorate: Immigration .................................................................................................... 108
Food Labelling ............................................................................................................................ 108
Paid Parental Leave..................................................................................................................... 109
Mr Gareth Clayton ...................................................................................................................... 110
Paterson Electorate: Great Lakes ................................................................................................ 110
Ms Jessica Sparks.........................................................................................................................111
Gippsland Electorate: Farms ........................................................................................................111
Makin Electorate: GM Holden.................................................................................................... 112
Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2010—
Second Reading........................................................................................................................... 112
Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010................................................................................................... 114
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010—
Second Reading........................................................................................................................... 116
Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 .... 120
Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010—
Second Reading........................................................................................................................... 124
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
—————
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair
at 9.00 am, made an acknowledgement of country and
read prayers.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS
The SPEAKER (9.01 am)—The Agreement for a
Better Parliament has focused attention on the matter
of supplementary questions. The agreement provides
for the Leader of the Opposition or his or her delegate
to be able to ask one supplementary question during
each question time. The standing order amendments
that have been adopted do not cover this matter; it has
been left to be handled as a matter of practice.
I want to take this opportunity to let the House know
of my position on supplementary questions. I will ap-
ply the following criteria: they need not be asked by
the member who has asked the original question and
may be asked either by the Leader of the Opposition or
a member who appears to have been delegated by the
Leader of the Opposition to ask the question, and I note
that a supplementary question may be asked by a
member other than the member who has asked the
original question in a number of other jurisdictions;
they should not contain any preamble; and they must
arise out of, and refer to, the answer that has been
given to the original question.
I note that the implementation of the provisions of
the agreement concerning the operation of the House is
to be subject to review by the Procedure Committee.
Naturally, I would welcome any comments the com-
mittee may make on this matter.
DIVISIONS
The SPEAKER (9.03 am)—I have discussed the
matter of chairing arrangements for divisions with the
Deputy Speaker and the Second Deputy Speaker. I un-
derstand that members of the Speaker’s panel may not
wish to be in the chair during divisions. Should a
member of the Speaker’s panel wish to vacate the chair
for a division he or she should send a message to this
effect to me, to the Deputy Speaker or to the Second
Deputy Speaker. If the bells have been started the dep-
uty speaker on duty should inform the House that it is
expected that the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or the
Second Deputy Speaker, as the case may be, is ex-
pected to take the chair while the bells are ringing.
Similarly, on certain questions the Deputy Speaker
or the Second Deputy Speaker may wish to be replaced
in the chair. In this case it would be for the Deputy
Speaker or the Second Deputy Speaker to send a mes-
sage to ask me to take the chair. They should also in-
form the House accordingly. For the information of
members I present a copy of the document Agreement
for a better parliament: parliamentary reform.
CHAMBER
1
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION
AMENDMENT (COMPETITION AND
CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS) BILL 2010
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr
Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Minister for Infra-
structure and Transport) (9.04 am)—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australian telecommunications is at a crossroads. The
government has an ambitious program that will drive
future growth, productivity and innovation across all
sectors of the economy.
The National Broadband Network will fundamen-
tally transform the competitive dynamics of the com-
munications sector in this country. NBN Co. is a
wholesale only telecommunications provider with open
access arrangements. The new network represents a
nationally significant and long overdue micro-
economic reform.
The government is committed to addressing the mis-
takes of the past and establishing a telecommunications
regulatory framework in the interests of all Australians.
The government is therefore reintroducing this bill
which will reshape regulation in the telecommunica-
tions sector to deliver outcomes which are in the inter-
ests of consumers, business and the economy more
broadly. The measures in the bill will position the in-
dustry to make a smooth transition to the National
Broadband Network, increase competition and improve
consumer safeguards.
Consistent with the reforms announced last year, the
purpose of the bill remains to:
• restructure the telecommunications market to pro-
mote greater competition and consumer benefits;
• strengthen the telecommunications-specific access
regime to provide more certain and quicker out-
comes for telecommunications companies;
• streamline the anti-competitive conduct regime by
removing procedural impediments that in the past
have restricted the effective operation of the re-
gime; and
• strengthen consumer safeguard measures.
Since this bill was introduced last year it has been
the subject of a Senate committee inquiry which in-
volved detailed submissions from stakeholders.
Addressing Telstra’s vertical and horizontal
integration.
Some of the issues addressed in the bill have been
discussed for two decades and are finally being deliv-
ered in this bill.
2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
In June 2010, Telstra entered into a financial heads
of agreement with NBN Co. to participate in the rollout
of the National Broadband Network.
The agreement is a key milestone to achieve Tel-
stra’s structural separation through the progressive mi-
gration of customer services from Telstra’s copper and
subscription television cable networks to the new
wholesale-only network.
Structural reform is clearly in the national interest.
The bill includes provisions to authorise—for the pur-
poses of section 51 of the Competition and Consumer
Act—conduct by Telstra and NBN Co. relating to Tel-
stra’s structural separation undertaking.
However, the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission will make the final decision on accep-
tance of Telstra’s undertaking to structurally separate.
The bill provides for Telstra’s structural separation
undertaking to include a migration plan.
There will be significant consultation on the migra-
tion plan which will deal with the processes and timing
of migrating Telstra’s customers from its copper net-
work to the NBN.
The bill now provides more legislative certainty for
Telstra in the transition to a retail company.
The bill sets out a clear process for Telstra to seek
approval from its shareholders on a proposal to migrate
its customer services to the NBN, with a high degree of
certainty about the regulatory outcome.
Telstra will be allowed to acquire specified bands of
spectrum, unless the minister determines in a legisla-
tive instrument otherwise.
The bill clarifies the relationship between Telstra’s
separation undertaking and the telecommunications
access regime.
Other changes to the original part 1 of the bill in-
clude:
• giving priority to a genuine structural separation
process over functional separation;
• clarifying that the ACCC cannot accept a structural
separation undertaking unless it contains specific
measures relating to the equivalent supply of regu-
lated services to Telstra’s wholesale customers dur-
ing the period Telstra is structurally separating;
and
• making Telstra’s compliance with an in-force
structural separation undertaking a condition of its
carrier licence.
Access and Anticompetitive Conduct
The provisions under part 2 of the bill, which relate
to the telecommunications access regime, have also
been reviewed in light of industry feedback.
The most notable change is that the transitional pro-
visions will allow access seekers to have recourse to
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
arbitral determinations which will prevail over access
agreements until an access determination is made by
the ACCC.
The bill clarifies that binding rules of conduct will
only be used in circumstances where, for reasons of
urgency, there is insufficient time to make or vary an
access determination.
To give effect to the agreement reached between
Telstra and NBN Co., part 2 of the bill now contains
changes to the facilities access regime.
The measures will ensure that Telstra can meet the
requirements set out in its structural separation under-
taking, migration plan, and other related agreements.
Consumer Safeguards
There have been changes to strengthen the consumer
safeguards in the original bill. These broaden the
ACMA’s record-keeping powers to allow it to obtain
regular reports about carriers’ and service providers’
compliance with their obligations.
Other changes will enable the minister to direct the
ACMA to determine an industry standard to enable a
more effective regulatory response where industry
codes do not adequately deal with consumer issues.
The strengthening of the consumer safeguards con-
tained in this bill will ensure that consumers are pro-
tected and service standards are maintained at a high
level during the transition to the NBN.
Conclusion
In closing, the government has listened closely to
the feedback it has received.
The government recognises the strong public inter-
est in the proposed reforms and has been mindful to
balance strong measures with appropriate safeguards
and incentives.
The measures in this bill are ambitious, but the gov-
ernment is determined to implement this long overdue
reform to drive growth and productivity, regional de-
velopment, social equity and innovation.
This bill is an important step on the road to an im-
proved telecommunications industry structure, with
better competitive outcomes and stronger safeguards
for consumers.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT
(PATHOLOGY REQUESTS) BILL 2010
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms
Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Second Reading
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Minister for Health and
Ageing) (9.12 am)—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Re-
quests) Bill 2010 will improve patient choice of pa-
thology services, and encourage providers to compete
on price and quality of service.
Currently the Health Insurance Act 1973 requires
that, in most cases, in order for a Medicare benefit to
be payable for a pathology service rendered by or on
behalf of an approved pathology practitioner, a request
for the service must be made to that particular pathol-
ogy practitioner or the approved pathology authority at
which they work. This means that a patient is effec-
tively required to take a completed request form to the
approved pathology practitioner or authority named on
the form. This restriction does not apply to other diag-
nostic services that attract Medicare benefits.
This bill removes this restriction so that, while there
will still be a legislative requirement for a request for a
pathology service to be made, there will no longer be a
requirement that the request be made to a particular
approved pathology practitioner or authority. This leg-
islative change will allow patients to take a pathology
request to an approved pathology practitioner or au-
thority of their choice and will encourage pathology
providers to compete on price and convenience for pa-
tients.
The government supports a patient’s right to choose
their pathology provider, just as they are entitled to
choose their own GP or any other medical practitioner.
Medical practitioners who request pathology ser-
vices will still be free to make recommendations to
patients about which pathology provider they feel is
best suited to their needs. Feedback from requesters
has shown that there are often valid clinical reasons for
recommending a particular pathology provider over
another. The government recognises the importance of
the doctor-patient relationship and will continue to en-
courage medical practitioners to discuss with patients
options for all aspects of their treatment, including pa-
thology services.
In the case of diagnostic imaging requests, patients
already have the option of taking their request form to
any provider, not just the one named on the request
form. These changes to the Health Insurance Act
merely bring the arrangements for pathology requests
in line with those for other diagnostic services.
The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Commit-
tee reviewed this bill with regard to any potential im-
pact on medical practice and in May 2010 recom-
mended to the Senate that it be passed in its current
form.
CHAMBER
3
The amendments will take effect from the day after
royal assent.
The government will also make changes to relevant
regulations prior to 12 months after the date of com-
mencement to require that requests for pathology ser-
vices include a clear and understandable statement,
which is obviously positioned, making patients aware
that their requests can be taken to any approved pa-
thology practitioner or authority.
Pathology providers will be able to continue to pro-
duce ‘branded’ request forms—that include the com-
pany logo and address—and to provide these to re-
questing medical practitioners. These may include a list
of the locations of that provider’s collection centres.
They will, however, be required from 12 months after
the date of commencement to include on their request
forms a clear and understandable statement, which is
obviously positioned, making patients aware that these
forms can be taken to any approved pathology practi-
tioner or approved pathology authority.
Options for the wording of this statement was one of
a range of implementation issues discussed with re-
questers, providers and consumers of pathology ser-
vices as part of the stakeholder consultation process
conducted by my department.
Informed patient choice is a key element of quality
health care. This amendment will ensure that patients
have a right to choose their pathology provider and are
made aware of that fact, leading to increased competi-
tion and better service among providers. I commend
the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND
OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2010
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms
Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs)
(9.17 am)—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill contains one 2010 budget measure and several
other measures.
The budget measure in the bill will enhance the ex-
isting arrangements for special disability trusts as part
of the government’s ongoing commitment to people
with disability, their families and carers.
Special disability trusts were established in 2006 to
help families and carers provide for the care and ac-
commodation needs of a family member with a severe
4 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
disability. Special disability trusts differ from other
forms of trust in that they have generous concessions
from social security means-testing arrangements for
the beneficiary and eligible contributors. This means
that a person with a disability who is a beneficiary of a
special disability trust will not lose any of their disabil-
ity support pension unless their assets exceed a gener-
ous assets test threshold.
In 2008, the Senate Standing Committee on Com-
munity Affairs found that take-up of these arrange-
ments has been lower than expected. The arrangements
developed under the former coalition government were
not working for people with disability, their families
and carers.
In response to the committee’s report, the govern-
ment committed to a number of changes to special dis-
ability trusts in the 2010-11 budget to provide more
flexibility for trust beneficiaries and to make special
disability trusts more attractive for families.
Under the current rules, if a person with a disability
works for as little as an hour for the ‘relevant minimum
wage’ or above, they are not eligible to be a beneficiary
of a special disability trust. This bill addresses this dis-
incentive for people with disabilities to participate in
work and the community. It will allow eligible people
with a disability to work up to seven hours a week at or
above the relevant minimum wage, or to work under
the supported wage system, and still qualify as a bene-
ficiary of a special disability trust.
Other amendments will significantly expand what
trust funds can be used for, such as all medical ex-
penses, including membership costs for private health
funds, and maintenance expenses of special disability
trust assets.
Amendments will also allow the trust to make up to
$10,000 per year of discretionary spending for the
beneficiary’s wellbeing, recreation and independence.
This change addresses the previous restrictive rules
that trust funds could only be used for specified care
and accommodation expenses, and will increase the
social participation of beneficiaries.
The changes contained in this bill will build on the
taxation concessions the government announced in the
2009-10 budget in response to the Senate committee’s
report.
The bill will also include amendments to close a
loophole in qualification for disability support pension.
This loophole has allowed continued payment of dis-
ability support pension to people who live permanently
overseas but return to Australia every 13 weeks in or-
der to retain their pension.
From 1 January 2011, only disability support pen-
sioners permanently residing in Australia will continue
to receive the pension, except under limited and spe-
cific circumstances. This change will bring disability
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
support pension into line with other workforce age
payments.
Closing this loophole will keep the disability sup-
port pension payment system fair and effective. Any
pensioners who have a need to travel overseas for short
periods will still have access to the 13-week temporary
absence rule.
In a further measure, the bill will continue the gov-
ernment’s program under land rights legislation for the
Northern Territory by adding further parcels of land to
schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern
Territory) Act 1976. This will allow the land in ques-
tion (that is, certain land near Borroloola, and the Port
Patterson Islands) to be granted to relevant Aboriginal
Land Trusts, helping to resolve two long-running and
complex land claims.
The bill also amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Act 2005 in relation to the Indigenous Land
Corporation established under that act. The Indigenous
Land Corporation was established shortly after the Na-
tive Title Act 1993 came into effect. In recognition that
native title may not be established by all Indigenous
Australians, the Indigenous Land Corporation’s func-
tions include helping Indigenous Australians to manage
land, and to buy land, to provide long-term economic
development and environmental, social and cultural
benefits.
The amendments will allow the minister to issue
guidelines that the Indigenous Land Corporation must
take into account if it exercises its functions in support-
ing native title settlements. Given the complex context
in which native title settlements are negotiated, the
guidelines should help clarify the Indigenous Land
Corporation’s role in supporting native title settlements
by providing guidance in the exercise of its functions.
The guidelines may also provide guidance to the In-
digenous Land Corporation that will enhance its report-
ing requirements on specific matters covered in the
guidelines.
In making these amendments, the government rec-
ognises that the Indigenous Land Corporation can as-
sist with the resolution of native title settlements, par-
ticularly where connection to the land in question is at
issue and native title may not be established.
Another measure in the bill will clarify the eligibil-
ity for family tax benefit part A of some families with
FTB children who are studying overseas full time. If
the courses these young people are undertaking do not
link to an Australian qualification, it is not clear under
the current legislation that they should attract family
tax benefit part A.
This bill puts that policy intention beyond doubt and
ensures that young people studying overseas full time
are treated for family tax benefit purposes in the same
way as full time students undertaking Australian study.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Lastly, the bill makes some minor amendments, in-
cluding to address two minor anomalies arising from
the pension reform legislation enacted in 2009. Both
amendments are to make sure people get the benefit of
the new provisions that they were intended to have.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT
(2010 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2010
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr
Garrett.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for
School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (9.25
am)—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (2010
Budget Measures) Bill 2010 amends the Higher Educa-
tion Support Act 2003 to revise the maximum funding
amounts to provide additional funding for the transition
to the student centred places, adjustments for indexa-
tion and changes to reflect 2010-11 budget decisions.
The bill provides additional funding for the imple-
mentation of the student centred funding system for
higher education. The government adopted the new
system in response to the recommendations of the
Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education.
Under the student centred funding system the gov-
ernment will fund a Commonwealth supported place
for every eligible undergraduate student accepted into
an eligible course at a public university. There is a
transitional period in 2010 and 2011 during which the
cap on overenrolment for Commonwealth supported
places will be lifted from five per cent to 10 per cent in
funding terms.
In the 2009-10 budget the government provided an
estimated additional $491 million over four years to
fund 80,000 Commonwealth supported places.
Universities have responded quickly to the new ar-
rangements and it is now estimated that there will be
an additional 115,000 Commonwealth supported places
over the period 2010 to 2013. In the 2010-11 budget,
the government provided $986 million over four years
for additional Commonwealth supported places and for
overenrolments in 2009.
This growth puts Australia in a good position to
meet the government’s higher education attainment
ambition that, by 2025, 40 per cent of all 25- to 34-
years-olds will hold a qualification at bachelor level or
above.
This bill increases the maximum amounts for the
Commonwealth Grant Scheme in section 30-5 of the
Higher Education Support Act for the calendar years
CHAMBER
5
2010 and 2011 to reflect the additional funding for
overenrolments in these two years.
The Higher Education Support Act no longer has
maximum amounts for the Commonwealth Grant
Scheme from 2012 onwards as there will be no overall
limit on the number of students that table A higher
education providers will be able to enrol. This means
the bill does not provide an update for the additional
funding for Commonwealth supported places in the
years 2012 and onwards.
The bill also increases the maximum amounts for
section 30-5, section 41-45 and section 46-40 of the
Higher Education Support Act for actual indexation.
The indexation of higher education grants in this up-
date is still based on the old index for higher education
grants which uses the safety net adjustment for 75 per
cent of the index.
This will soon change following the introduction of
the new index for higher education grants from 2012.
From 2012, the labour price index, discounted by 10
per cent, replaces the safety net adjustment component
of the higher education grant index. In 2011, student
contributions are indexed at the new rate and the gov-
ernment will provide facilitation funding of $94 mil-
lion, which is the same value as increased indexation in
2011. These changes to higher education indexation
will deliver an estimated $2.6 billion in extra revenue
to higher education providers over the period 2011 to
2015 from governments and students.
The bill changes the maximum amounts in section
41-45 of the Higher Education Support Act for reduc-
tions in funding of $18.4 million from the Australian
Learning and Teaching Council program and $2.4 mil-
lion from the Graduate Skills Assessment program
across the years of 2010-11 to 2013-14.
The reduction in funding for the Australian Teaching
and Learning Council is due to the high level of fund-
ing being devoted to the establishment of the Tertiary
Education Quality and Standards Agency and the fact
that some of this funding will be allocated to the Aus-
tralian Teaching and Learning Council for its academic
standards work.
The government has provided funding for the
Graduate Skills Assessment for 10 years. Participation
in the Graduate Skills Assessment is entirely voluntary
and students were required to make a co-payment.
There has been diminishing interest from the students
over time and the bill reduces maximum funding under
section 41-45 of the Higher Education Support Act to
reflect this.
The bill also provides the maximum amounts for the
2014 calendar year for section 41-45 and section 46-
40.
This bill reflects the government’s continued com-
mitment to an unprecedented investment in our univer-
6 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
sities through the full funding of the student centred
funding system. This commitment will deliver a grow-
ing and sustainable higher education system. I com-
mend this bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT
(FEE-HELP LOAN FEE) BILL 2010
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr
Garrett.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for
School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (9.32
am)—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (FEE-
HELP Loan Fee) Bill 2010 amends the Higher Educa-
tion Support Act 2003 (the act) to implement the gov-
ernment’s decision to increase the loan fee from 20 per
cent to 25 per cent for undergraduate courses.
The amendment will give effect to the recommenda-
tion of the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Edu-
cation to increase the loan fee for FEE-HELP for fee
paying undergraduate students to 25 per cent.
An increase in the loan fee will enable the govern-
ment to recover more of the taxpayer subsidised cost of
providing FEE-HELP loans.
Even with a five per cent increase in the loan fee,
the conditions of the government’s FEE-HELP scheme
continue to provide an extremely favourable income
contingent loan for students.
Students do not have to start repaying their HELP
loan until their income reaches the minimum repay-
ment threshold of $44,912 (in 2010-11). If students do
not repay their loan, the government meets the cost.
The majority of students will not be affected by this
change which will impact only on undergraduate stu-
dents who choose to use FEE-HELP for their tuition
fees in a fee paying place.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House)
(9.34 am)—I move:
That business intervening before Notice No. 10 govern-
ment business, Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No.
4) Bill 2010, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
STANDING ORDERS
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House)
(9.34 am)—I move:
That standing orders 207 and 209 be amended to read as
follows:
207 Presenting a petition
A petition may be presented in one of two ways:
(a) The Chair of the Standing Committee on Petitions shall
present petitions and/or reports of that committee, and
the Chair and one other Member of the Committee may
make statements concerning petitions and/or such re-
ports presented, in accordance with standing order 34
(order of business). The time provided may extend for
no more than 10 minutes.
(b) A Member may present a petition during:
(i) the period of Members’ statements in the House, in
accordance with standing order 43;
(ii) the period of Members’ constituency statements in
the Main Committee, in accordance with standing
order 193;
(iii) adjournment debate in the House in accordance
with standing order 31, and in the Main Committee
in accordance with standing order 191; and
(iv) grievance debate in accordance with standing order
192B.
209 Petition may be referred to a Minister for response
(a) After a petition is presented to the House, the Standing
Committee on Petitions may refer a copy of the petition
to the Minister responsible for the administration of the
matter raised in the petition.
(b) The Minister shall be expected to respond to a referred
petition within 90 days of presentation by lodging a
written response with the Committee.
(c) The Chair of the Petitions Committee shall announce
any ministerial responses to petitions. After the an-
nouncement, ministerial responses shall be printed in
Hansard and published on the House’s website.
Amendments to standing orders 207 and 209 as they
appear on the Notice Paper seek to permanently adopt
the orders that were introduced in the 42nd Parliament
as sessional orders for the term of the previous parlia-
ment. For the information of members, on 12 February
2008 the government introduced amendments to the
standing orders which saw the creation of the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions. The
committee was established to receive and process peti-
tions and to inquire into and report to the House on any
matter relating to petitions and the petition system.
The government sought to increase ministerial ac-
countability in responding to the issues and petitions of
concerned citizens. On 24 June 2008 standing orders
207 and 209 were first adopted to allow for the effec-
tive operation and performance of the Petitions Com-
mittee. Standing order 207 dealt with the manner and
options available to members to present a petition to
the House. Standing order 209 allowed for a presented
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
petition to be referred to a minister by the Petitions
Committee for ministerial consideration and response.
After an original six-month trial period the standing
orders were extended on 1 December 2008 for the re-
mainder of the 42nd Parliament. The amendments to-
day simply seek to permanently adopt the sessional
orders and incorporate them into the standing orders.
The establishment of the committee shows that the
government is committed to ensuring that the voices of
concerned citizens are heard and, more importantly,
that ministers are accountable in responding to such
concerns. During the 41st Parliament 761 petitions
were received on various subjects of concern and con-
tained a total of 598,877 signatures. Of these, only two
received a ministerial response from ministers of the
previous coalition government. With the parliamentary
reform introduced by the Labor government in 2008,
during the 42nd Parliament 327 petitions were re-
ceived, containing a total of 488,776 signatures. Of
these, 203—or 62 per cent—received a ministerial re-
sponse from ministers.
This is an amendment that has the support of the
House. Members have appreciated the fact that they are
able to inform those citizens in their electorates who
sign petitions that they do go somewhere and do get a
response. The Petitions Committee introduced in the
last parliament has therefore been, I think, a successful
reform which all members are keen to see continue. I
pay tribute to the former Chief Government Whip and
former member for Chifley, Roger Price, who was
really responsible for driving this reform. I am sure he
will be pleased to note that it is now being introduced
as a permanent reform into the parliament. These
amendments are necessary to allow the continued ef-
fective performance of the Petitions Committee, which
we will of course form when we set up the committee
processes in the current fortnight. That is why I am
bringing this forward this morning. I commend the
motion to the House and I thank the opposition for
their support for this reform.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (9.38 am)—This motion
on petitions to permanently adopt the orders introduced
in the 42nd Parliament as sessional orders does have
the support of the House. The changes that were made
to the way petitions are presented, and responded to by
ministers, have been beneficial. Each year tens, if not
hundreds, of thousands of Australians right throughout
this land sign petitions to both this House and the other
place. They do so in good faith, believing that some
note will be taken of their petition by people responsi-
ble for making decisions in this place.
The change which allows members to speak to the
petition they are presenting on behalf of their constitu-
ents or citizens of Australia places more force behind
the presentation of the petition. As we all know, previ-
ously we had a situation where once a week, I think,
CHAMBER
7
the Clerk would read the petitions to the parliament
and then they went into a black hole—somewhere into
the archives of this building, I presume, or wherever
else parliamentary records are archived. Now there is a
process allowing members to speak to the petition on
behalf of those citizens of Australia and then, equally
importantly, there is a process to ensure a response is
provided to those people who have taken the time to
petition the parliament about a matter which they be-
lieve is important—a response from the government.
So this has been a worthwhile and beneficial improve-
ment to the system that operated in the past and, as I
said, it is a matter which has the support of all mem-
bers of the House. It certainly has the support of mem-
bers of the coalition and we look forward to its contin-
ued operation in this parliament.
Question agreed to.
COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL
AMENDMENT (POLITICAL DONATIONS AND
OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2010
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr
Gray.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State and
Special Minister of State for the Public Service and
Integrity) (9.41 am)—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present the Commonwealth Electoral
Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures)
Bill 2010, implementing the government’s recent
commitment to the Australian Greens and Independent
members to seek immediate reform of donation, dis-
closure and funding laws for political parties and elec-
tion campaigns. The bill aims to improve our system of
political donations disclosure and election funding to
help ensure that campaigning is fair and transparent.
The bill introduces six measures in three key areas:
increasing the transparency of political donations dis-
closure; more frequent and timely reporting of political
donations and expenditure; and reforming the public
funding of elections.
The measures contained in the bill are not new. The
government has pursued reform to election funding and
political donations since its early days of office, with
the first bill on these issues introduced in May 2008.
The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
delivered an advisory report on that bill in October
2008. In December 2008, the government tabled
amendments to the bill in response to the Joint Stand-
ing Committee on Electoral Matters report. That bill
was rejected by the Senate. In March 2009, the gov-
ernment introduced another bill, encompassing the
government’s amendments. That second bill lapsed
8 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
with the end of the 42nd Parliament. The bill that I am
presenting today is in substantially the same form as
that introduced in March 2009.
The measures contained in this bill increase trans-
parency and add to administrative processes for politi-
cal parties and candidates. It is not the intention of the
government to burden parties and candidates, but to
increase the transparency and integrity of the electoral
system.
The six measures in this bill can be summarised as
follows.
The first measure would set the donation disclosure
threshold level to a flat rate of $1,000, lowering it from
the current threshold of $11,500. This rate applies
equally to all participants in the electoral process, in-
cluding donors, registered political parties and candi-
dates.
The second measure relates to anonymous dona-
tions. Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, regis-
tered political parties, branches of parties, candidates,
Senate groups and people acting on behalf of these
categories can receive anonymous donations below an
indexed threshold—currently $11,500. Anonymous
donations above this amount are prohibited.
The bill extends this ban on anonymous donations to
all anonymous donations except where the donation is
$50 or less and has been received at a ‘general public
activity’ (such as a fete where people may place money
in a bucket) or at a ‘private event’ (such as a dinner,
dance, or quiz night where people might donate small
sums of money). These activities and events are de-
fined in the bill and specified records must be kept in
order for the anonymous donations to be retained.
The use of anonymous donations by third parties for
political expenditure currently is not restricted under
the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The bill will change
this to prohibit the use of certain anonymous donations
by third parties for political expenditure. The new pro-
hibition applies to third parties which are required to
lodge annual returns of their political expenditure
above the current threshold of $11,500. The bill also
changes this threshold to $1,000.
Political expenditure, which is defined under section
314AEB of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, includes
expenditure on the public expression of views on a
political party, a candidate or a member of the House
of Representatives or a senator; the public expression
of views on an issue in an election; the publication of
material that requires authorisation under the Electoral
Act; the broadcast of political matter; and opinion polls
or other research on people’s voting intentions.
Only anonymous donations of $50 or less which
have been received by third parties at a general public
activity or at a private event will be able to be used for
political expenditure by entities required to lodge re-
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
turns under section 314AEB of the Commonwealth
Electoral Act.
The bill also provides for the Commonwealth to re-
cover unlawful anonymous donations and an amount
equal to the amount of unlawful political expenditure
as a debt due to the Commonwealth.
Together, these two measures which reduce the dis-
closure threshold and limit anonymous donations en-
hance the transparency of political donations and the
confidence that the public can have in the integrity of
our political process. The government believes that the
community has a right to know who is giving what to
whom. We wish to end the secrecy around donations.
The third measure would ban foreign donations.
This helps remove a perception that foreign donors
could exert influence over the Australian political
process.
The fourth measure would prevent donation split-
ting. Large donations may currently be hidden across
state or territory branches of the same party, potentially
circumventing the disclosure threshold. The bill would
see separate divisions of a political party no longer
treated as separate entities, for the purposes of disclos-
ing donations.
The fifth measure would aim to increase public scru-
tiny of political donations and expenditure by making
information available to the Australian public, more
quickly, and more frequently. The bill reduces current
timeframes for lodging returns from the existing 15-,
16- and 20-week periods, down to eight weeks. More
frequent disclosure of political donations and expendi-
ture will also occur. Where returns were previously
required every 12 months, they will now need to be
lodged once every six months.
The sixth measure would reform public funding of
elections by ensuring that election funding is tied to
genuine election expenditure. This measure will pre-
vent candidates, or any political party, from making
financial gain from the electoral public funding system.
Public funding will continue to be paid to registered
political parties, unendorsed candidates and unen-
dorsed Senate groups who receive at least four per cent
of the formal first preference votes at an election. Un-
der the bill, they will receive the lesser amount of ei-
ther the electoral expenditure that was actually incurred
in an election period between the issuing of the writs
and the end of polling day, or the amount awarded per
vote. In a technical update from the 2009 bill, the
amount awarded per vote has been indexed for infla-
tion.
As these six reforms are a priority for the govern-
ment, the commencement date for the bill would allow
them to operate from 1 July 2011.
The government is committed to building a dialogue
with the coalition, the Australian Greens and Inde-
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 9

pendent members, to ensure that real progress can be Bill agreed to.
made in reforming campaign financing. Third Reading
More than ever, we should move Australia’s elec- Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate
toral laws and processes towards the world’s best prac- Change and Energy Efficiency) (9.51 am)—by leave—
tice, so that we can continue to be proud of the inclu- I move:
sive and transparent nature of our political process. That this bill be now read a third time.
The measures in this bill provide an important, im- Question agreed to.
mediate step that can be taken to maintain the integrity
of our electoral system. I look forward to constructive Bill read a third time.
negotiations with the crossbenches and with the oppo- PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON
sition in delivering future reforms to the system. I urge LAW ENFORCEMENT BILL 2010
all members of parliament to show their support for Report from Main Committee
these reforms and enhance the transparency of political Bill returned from Main Committee without
funding and donations in Australia. amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
I commend the bill to the House. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned. Bill agreed to.
PROTECTION OF THE SEA LEGISLATION Third Reading
AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate
Report from Main Committee Change and Energy Efficiency) (9.52 am)—by leave—
Bill returned from Main Committee without I move:
amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. That this bill be now read a third time.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to. Bill read a third time.
Third Reading OZONE PROTECTION AND SYNTHETIC
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate GREENHOUSE GAS MANAGEMENT
Change and Energy Efficiency) (9.50 am)—by leave— AMENDMENT BILL 2010
I move: Report from Main Committee
That this bill be now read a third time. Bill returned from Main Committee without
Question agreed to. amendment, appropriation message having been re-
Bill read a third time. ported; certified copy of the bill presented.
INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 2010 Bill agreed to.
Report from Main Committee Third Reading
Bill returned from Main Committee without Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate
amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Change and Energy Efficiency) (9.53 am)—by leave—
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. I move:
Bill agreed to. That this bill be now read a third time.
Third Reading Question agreed to.
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Bill read a third time.
Change and Energy Efficiency) (9.50 am)—by leave— PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (EXCISE) LEVIES
I move: AMENDMENT BILL 2010
That this bill be now read a third time. Report from Main Committee
Question agreed to. Bill returned from Main Committee without
Bill read a third time. amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
NATIONAL SECURITY LEGISLATION Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
AMENDMENT BILL 2010 Bill agreed to.
Report from Main Committee Third Reading
Bill returned from Main Committee without Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate
amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Change and Energy Efficiency) (9.54 am)—by leave—
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. I move:

CHAMBER
10 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Afghanistan
Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Ms
Gillard:
That the House take note of the document:
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for De-
fence) (9.55 am)—I seek leave to speak on the motion
without closing the debate.
Leave granted.
Mr STEPHEN SMITH—I thank the House. There
can be no more serious endeavour for any country or
government than to send its military forces into con-
flict. Australia has done so in Afghanistan because of
the clear threat to our national security from terrorists
who have trained for and planned terrorist attacks from
within Afghanistan’s border. It is appropriate that Aus-
tralia’s commitment in Afghanistan is the subject of
close parliamentary and public scrutiny. As a conse-
quence, the government fully supports the holding of
this parliamentary debate and future reports by the
government to the parliament.
The government’s strong view is that it is in our na-
tional interest to be in Afghanistan. On 11 September
2001, al-Qaeda killed over 3,000 people from more
than 90 countries, including our own, in its terrible
attacks in the United States. The Taliban, which har-
boured al-Qaeda within Afghanistan, refused to con-
demn al-Qaeda or cooperate with the international
community to bring it to account. The international
community, including Australia, could not stand by and
allow such a threat to persist. So we and others, under a
United Nations mandate still in existence, and renewed
unanimously by the Security Council this month, re-
moved the Taliban from power.
The 11 September attacks were also an attack upon
our longstanding alliance partner the United States.
The ANZUS treaty was invoked after the September
attacks. That decision was supported by both sides of
this chamber. Australia’s contribution in Afghanistan is
also an expression of the common interest we share not
just with the United States but with the other 45 coun-
tries of NATO and the International Security Assis-
tance Force in countering international terrorism. Since
11 September, over 100 Australians have been mur-
dered, along with many more from other nations, in
terrorist attacks around the world, including in the
United Kingdom, Indonesia and India.
Terrorism in Afghanistan and in its neighbourhood
remains a real threat. Afghanistan needs the help of the
international community, including Australia, to build
its capacity so that terrorists are unable to re-establish
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
the type of presence that enabled such terrorist attacks.
Australia and the international community now have
clearly defined goals in Afghanistan. Our fundamental
goal is to prevent Afghanistan from again being used
by terrorists to plan and train for terrorist attacks on
innocent civilians. To achieve this we must prepare the
Afghan government to take lead responsibility for pro-
viding security for the Afghan people. We must stabi-
lise the security situation sufficiently and then train the
security forces to ensure that the Afghans themselves
are able to take on both the leadership and the respon-
sibility for managing security in Afghanistan.
In the recent past Australia has actively participated
in a series of key international meetings to get the
strategy and our support for Afghanistan on the right
track. The Hague conference in March 2009, followed
by the London conference in January this year and the
Kabul conference in July this year, laid out for the in-
ternational community three important principles: the
importance of regional support, including from India,
Iran, Pakistan and the Central Asian states, for a solu-
tion in Afghanistan; support for an enduring political
solution, including reconciliation, reintegration and
rapprochement within Afghanistan; and transition to
Afghan responsibility.
The international community is making progress.
Recently General Petraeus, commander of ISAF, and
Ambassador Mark Sedwill, NATO’s senior civilian
representative, briefed me in Afghanistan on the mili-
tary and civilian progress being made on the ground.
This briefing aligns with the advice the Chief of the
Defence Force has provided to the government. As
well, Afghan ministers tell me they are determined to
achieve the goals set out in the Kabul conference on
transition by the end of 2014 and they are confident
that Afghanistan is on track in terms of growing the
numbers and capability of the Afghan national security
forces, both army and police.
The international community has cause for cautious
optimism, but we face a resilient insurgency and the
situation in Afghanistan remains difficult, serious and
dangerous with the potential to revert. International
support for the ISAF campaign is ongoing and troop
contributions have recently increased. President
Obama’s decision announced in December last year to
increase US troop numbers by an additional 30,000 has
been followed by a commitment of an additional 7,000
by other ISAF contributing nations. Australia has also
in the past 18 months increased its force level by 40
per cent to an average of 1,550. The military analysis is
that increased operations are reversing the momentum
of the insurgency and extending the reach and capacity
of the Afghan government into areas long held by the
Taliban and their allies. Such ISAF disruption and dis-
mantling of the insurgency creates the time, space and
opportunity for the Afghan security forces to develop.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The international community is now clearly focused
on transitioning security responsibility for Afghanistan
to the Afghans themselves. At the Kabul conference in
July this year Australia and the international commu-
nity supported Afghanistan’s objective that the Afghan
national security forces would lead and conduct secu-
rity operations in all provinces by the end of 2014. This
objective will also be the key focus of the NATO-ISAF
summit to be held in Lisbon in November, where ISAF
countries will agree the process for transition coupled
with consideration of the long-term international com-
mitment to support Afghanistan. The aim of the secu-
rity handover by the end of 2014 is anchored by the
capacity of the Afghan national security forces to pro-
vide security in the main population centres, the neces-
sary precondition for both the exercise of Afghan sov-
ereignty and the core aim to prevent Afghanistan from
again being used by terrorist organisations to plan and
train for attacks. Transition to Afghan responsibility
will be a graduated and uneven process. It will be done
on a province by province and district by district basis
when conditions are right. A job done effectively by the
Afghans on their own is the objective and the desired
outcome.
Importantly, transition is not the signal to withdraw.
International partners, including Australia, will con-
tinue to provide support to Afghanistan. As has previ-
ously been made clear, security transition has not and
cannot be seen as the automatic end of either Austra-
lia’s or the international community’s commitment to
Afghanistan. Time and outcomes will determine the
length and nature of that commitment, whether it is, for
example, overwatch, embedded arrangements or other
support. What is clear, though, is that international
community support for development assistance and
civilian capacity building will be required for years to
come.
The strategy in Afghanistan cannot just be a military
strategy; it also requires a political strategy. The solu-
tion in Afghanistan cannot just be a military one; it also
requires an enduring political solution with reconcilia-
tion between the people of Afghanistan. The interna-
tional community, including Afghanistan’s neighbours,
has a key role to play in supporting such efforts. Aus-
tralia continues to support Afghan led reconciliation
with those individuals who are prepared to lay down
their weapons, renounce violence and support the Af-
ghan constitution. At the London conference in January
this year Australia publicly committed $25 million to
the peace and reintegration trust fund to assist the Af-
ghan government’s work towards reintegration and
reconciliation.
Training and mentoring the 4th Brigade of the Af-
ghan national army to take responsibility for security in
the main population centres in Oruzgan is the corner-
stone of the transition objective in Oruzgan province.
CHAMBER
11
The Chief of the Defence Force advises this will take a
further two to four years. In the meantime we are see-
ing improvement in the ability of the soldiers who
make up the 4th Brigade. The 4th Brigade recently
planned and delivered effective security for the parlia-
mentary elections in Oruzgan and did not require addi-
tional support from Australia or other ISAF forces.
This is a key sign of progress and a measure of grow-
ing confidence within the 4th Brigade.
Following the Dutch withdrawal in August this year,
Australia joined with the United States to form the new
multinational Combined Team Oruzgan responsible for
military and civil operations in Oruzgan province. The
transition from Dutch command has been smooth and
successful. In Oruzgan Australia is working closely
with partners from the United States, New Zealand,
Singapore and Slovakia. While the US Striker Battal-
ion and Australia’s mentoring task force, in close coop-
eration with Afghan security partners, provide the pil-
lars of security, a key element of Combined Team
Oruzgan is the civilian led provincial reconstruction
team, the PRT, the main conduit for Australia’s civilian
mission and Afghanistan. An Australian Defence Force
protection element is dedicated to protecting these ci-
vilians so that they can conduct their work safely.
The mentoring task force as part of combined team
Oruzgan now provides operational mentoring and liai-
son teams to train all five kandaks, or battalions, and
the headquarters of the 4th Brigade. This increased
training commitment is seeing mentoring task force
elements move into new areas such as Deh Rawood in
the west of the province and is fundamental to our mis-
sion. The 4th Brigade, under the ADF’s mentoring and
guidance, is proving to be an increasingly capable
force. The Australian Defence Force has a strong tradi-
tion of mentoring other defence forces, from East
Timor to Iraq, and does it very well. The 4th Brigade,
however, will require substantial support for the next
few years. We are building up the capacity of these
forces so they can operate alone. As each of the kan-
daks is at different stage in the mentoring process, pro-
gress will be uneven.
As well, our Special Operations Task Group contin-
ues to attack insurgent networks in Oruzgan, improving
security and force protection for Combined Team
Oruzgan. The special operations task force is also con-
tributing to ISAF’s effort in the province of Kandahar.
Other elements of Australia’s contribution, such as the
combat engineers, the Rotary Wing Group and the em-
bedded personnel throughout ISAF continue their
highly visible and highly valued efforts in Afghanistan.
Our troops and Australian personnel in Afghanistan
are performing extremely well in dangerous circum-
stances on a daily basis. As my friend David Miliband
said of others, in a different context, they are both
brave and impressive. Australians are proud of the fact
12 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
that our troops have a well-deserved reputation for
their effectiveness and their conduct. Afghan govern-
ment ministers and General Patraeus praise the work
and reputation of Australian deployed personnel, in-
cluding in their engagement with local Afghan com-
munities.
The support and protection of Australian personnel
in Afghanistan is rightly our highest priority. Some
recent criticism of the level of protection for our troops
has been both inaccurate and ill-informed. I am pleased
that there now appears to be a much greater under-
standing of these issues. ADF forces in Oruzgan are
structured to include a range of critical capabilities.
Not all capabilities, however, are provided by the ADF;
many capabilities are provided through ISAF. Capabili-
ties such as artillery, mortars and attack helicopters are
available through our partners, when necessary. Tanks,
for example, are not required for our current mission in
Oruzgan Province. Australian troops now have access
to more artillery and mortar support than they did a
year ago and they have access to ISAF attack helicop-
ters and close air support from fighter aircraft when
necessary. The force protection review, commissioned
by the government in July 2009, has led to a further
package of measures and seen over $1 billion in new
measures to further protect our troops. These protection
measures are kept under constant review and I have
made clear that the government continues to in particu-
lar examine further anti improvised explosive device
measures.
While this parliamentary debate is a good thing, it
will be a sad reminder to families of their tragic per-
sonal losses. Australia has lost 21 soldiers in Afghani-
stan, whom we will always honour. We face the pros-
pect of further fatalities. Oruzgan Province remains a
dangerous place and will be for some time. The recent
Australian deaths and casualties bring this into stark
relief. Between July 2009 and June this year there were
no Australians killed in Afghanistan. In the last few
months 10 Australian soldiers have died. Our thoughts
are with all the families and friends of the 21 as they
come to terms with their tragic loss. As well, since the
beginning of the year more than 50 personnel have
been wounded. Supporting their recovery and rehabili-
tation is an essential and high priority for government.
Suggestions for what Australia should do in Af-
ghanistan now range from doing much more to boost
our commitment to pulling out immediately. An argu-
ment deployed by those who oppose Australia’s com-
mitment is that Afghanistan is not unique as a breeding
ground for terrorism. They rightly point out that the
terrorism landscape is both not limited to Afghanistan
and is evolving. While real and tangible progress has
been made in closing down terrorist training centres in
Afghanistan, that country remains vulnerable. Terror-
ists operate from a range of places across the globe.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
They are able to recruit, train and plan out of poorly
and ungoverned spaces in Africa and the Middle East.
They are not confined to these places and indeed, as a
counterterrorism white paper made clear last year, Aus-
tralia needs to be alert to the threat of home-grown ter-
rorism. The international community’s efforts in Af-
ghanistan are of course not the only activities in the
global challenge of countering violent extremism and
terrorism. The international community recognises that
this is a major long-term problem on a global scale and
needs to be addressed in that context. It is a problem
that is being tackled differently in different locations as
circumstances dictate.
Another argument is that international efforts in Af-
ghanistan have pushed al-Qaeda and their affiliates
across the border into Pakistan and elsewhere. As a
result it is said that the core job in Afghanistan is done;
the terrorists are operating from elsewhere and so our
activity should be focused elsewhere. It is, however,
essential that Australia and the international commu-
nity both maintain efforts in Afghanistan and engage
with Pakistan. The Afghanistan-Pakistan border is
highly permeable to terrorist movement and remains a
threat to sustainable progress in stabilising Afghani-
stan. The Pakistan government does not deny this and
nor the threat posed by violent extremism within its
border. Pakistan faces an existential threat from violent
extremism within its own borders. Australia is working
closely with Pakistan to improve its capability to ad-
dress the threat posed by violent extremists. Australia
values our strategic dialogue with Pakistan and our
engagement with our international partners through the
Friends of Democratic Pakistan group, of which Aus-
tralia is a founding member.
In the future when we look back on this period it
will be even clearer that the international community
has made mistakes. The initial effort in Afghanistan,
including our own, was in 2001 and 2002 in the after-
math of September 11. There was then the Iraq distrac-
tion. There were insufficient international community
resources in Afghanistan over that period to carry out
the international stabilisation mission, and a with-
drawal of Australian forces. After 2006, when the in-
ternational community came back, it took too long to
get to the well-defined strategy that we have developed
over the past few years. This strategy is as a result of
the Riddell review, the McChrystal review and, ulti-
mately, President Obama’s response to General
McChrystal’s review of both the military and the po-
litical strategies. The end result is a strategy that says
that we cannot be there forever, and we do not want to
be there forever. But we need to be able to put the Af-
ghan security forces in a position where they can man-
age their own affairs and, despite the difficulties, a
strategy that clearly points to the risks to Australia and
the international community of leaving before the tran-
sition is effected. It is also a strategy that acknowledges
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
that Australia and the international community expect
to see substantial improvement in Afghanistan by its
government on corruption, on governance, on electoral
reform, on counter-narcotics and on human rights, in
particular the treatment of women and girls, especially
when it comes to education.
Progress is being made. It is incremental and hard
won, but it is apparent and will become increasingly
so. As General Petraeus, commander of ISAF, and Ma-
jor-General Cantwell, commander of Australian forces
in the Middle East, have both recently stated, the re-
quired strategy and resources are now in place, and a
sound foundation has been laid to mark the way for
further progress.
The mission we have set for Australian forces and
Australian personnel more broadly in Afghanistan is
the right one. The consistent advice to me is that Aus-
tralian forces have the resources and capabilities they
need to undertake their core mission. As circumstances
change—and in conflict circumstances continually
change—we will continue to examine, re-examine and
adjust our efforts as required. We have a responsibility
to Afghanistan and to our allies and partners to remain
committed. We have a responsibility to the fallen to
continue the task. Most importantly, we have a respon-
sibility to the Australian people to ensure that we pro-
tect Australia’s national interests, and that is what we
are doing in Afghanistan. Australia and Australians
should expect no less of us.
I seek leave of the House to table, for the benefit of
the House, a fact sheet which I publicly released on the
weekend for public consumption.
Leave granted.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (10.16 am)—After nine
years at war in Afghanistan, it is appropriate for the
parliament to reflect on our current commitment—its
past, its progress and its future. If the military theorist
Karl von Clausewitz is correct that ‘war is an extension
of politics, but by other means’, it is certainly incum-
bent on the government and indeed the parliament to
present a clear national security rationale for war. The
public should demand a detailed, strategic justification
for ongoing conflict. A case always has to be built to
continue to put men and women in harm’s way. It is the
very least we owe those who wear our uniform.
This war has extracted much of our nation’s blood.
Twenty-one Australian soldiers have been killed in
action and 152 wounded in action since 2001. There
have been 10 killed and 52 wounded this year alone.
The war has taken husbands from wives, fathers from
children, sons from fathers, brothers from siblings and
grandsons from grandparents. The cost has been high,
borne by a few. Only the most significant of national
objectives could be worth such a price.
CHAMBER
13
This morning I will present the case for Australia’s
ongoing engagement in Afghanistan based around five
points: the original premise in 2001 for war, the chang-
ing nature of the conflict, the ongoing strategic justifi-
cation for staying the course, past achievements and
future challenges, and what Australian success in Af-
ghanistan would look like.
A 21-year-old celebrating their coming of age today
was 12-years-old and in primary school when the first
US and UK missiles struck Afghanistan on 7 October
2001. This young adult probably cannot remember
where they were when the World Trade Center towers
came tumbling down on September 11, killing almost
3,000 people, including 10 Australians.
For all people of our nation to look forward, we
must first look back to see how this fight began, be-
cause the world changed on September 11. Australia
invoked the ANZUS alliance to stand shoulder to
shoulder with our friend and ally the US. President
Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom—the
US’s global fight against terrorism—and commenced
combat operations to destroy terrorist training camps
and infrastructure within Afghanistan, capture al-
Qaeda leaders and cease terrorist activities in that
country.
On 20 December 2001 the UN approved resolution
1386 that created the International Security Assistance
Force as a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan
to defeat the Taliban, al-Qaeda and factional warlords.
Indeed, the US assembled an International Coalition
against Terrorism that by 2002 involved 136 countries,
including 55 countries providing military forces, 89
countries granting overflight status for US aircraft, 76
countries granting landing rights and 23 countries
agreeing to host US and coalition forces involved in
military operations in Afghanistan. The world had
changed, and Australia was involved and continues to
be involved in a UN mandated conflict that has been
re-endorsed every year. Up to 1,300 defence personnel
were deployed by Australia in 2001. It was a just and
justifiable war in response to an unmitigated act of
barbarity.
Australia withdrew its combat force by the end of
2002, after the destruction of much of the terrorist
force. For the next 2½ years, up to 2005, there were
literally only two defence personnel in Afghanistan.
But by July 2005 the original premise that defeating al-
Qaeda, the Taliban and insurgent warlords would en-
sure peace from terrorism was shattered when the Lon-
don bombings showed the new face of Islamic extrem-
ism: home-grown terrorists with wives and children at
home. Terrorist cells also strongly emerged in Somalia,
Yemen and Pakistan. No longer was the war in Af-
ghanistan the silver bullet to ensuring a world free
from terrorism. Islamic extremism had spread its tenta-
14 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
cles further afield using violence to achieve its end: a
world subservient to extreme Islamic sentiment.
By the end of 2005, insurgent forces in Afghanistan
continued to operate, causing Australia to once again
deploy special forces. In 2006 the Howard government
deployed a Reconstruction Task Force to start rebuild-
ing in Oruzgan province, with numbers of troops build-
ing to 1,000 by the time of the 2007 election. The em-
phasis was on building and on fighting the insurgency
in the populated areas with the special forces group.
Post election, the mission on the ground changed
when the new Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon,
announced that the government would maintain its cur-
rent commitment in Afghanistan but would place a new
emphasis on training the Afghan National Army. The
strategy would change once again post President
Obama’s victory, when in 2009 an open-ended US
commitment of transforming Afghanistan was changed
to a mission of training Afghan forces and handing
security over to them when they were ready.
The book of Ecclesiastes says that there is a time for
everything and a season for every activity under
heaven. It says that there is a time for war and a time
for peace. There is a strategic justification, a time for
war, in Afghanistan, and it stems from the first princi-
ple of any government, which is national security. In
December 2008 the Prime Minister expressed this in
the government’s National Security Statement that es-
tablished the goals for the security of our nation, its
people and interests. The goals were expressed as:
Freedom from attack or the threat of attack; the maintenance
of our territorial integrity; the maintenance of our political
sovereignty; the preservation of our hard won freedoms; and
the maintenance of our fundamental capacity to advance
economic prosperity for all Australians.
These goals were supported by seven principles, which
included, amongst others, the Australian-US alliance
remaining fundamental to our national security inter-
ests, regional engagement, and support for the UN to
promote a rules based international order.
The first objective of Australia’s national security is
freedom from attack or the threat of attack. That in-
cludes the capacity to protect our citizens and interests
at home and abroad. Australia has lost over 100 of its
people to terrorist attacks abroad, with all of these at-
tacks linked in some way to the freedom of action that
terrorist forces enjoyed in Afghanistan or to wider ter-
rorism activity. It is in Australia’s national interest to
remove the safe havens for extreme Islamic terror
groups capable of extending their influence into Aus-
tralia’s region. If Islamic extremists cannot train, can-
not access finance, cannot access weapons and cannot
access radical mullahs, then they are less likely to turn
their radical rhetoric into radical action.
If there is any doubt as to the threat of radical Islam-
ism, the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System, a data-
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
base run by the United States National Counterterror-
ism Centre, as at 10 October this year, has logged
17,833 separate terrorist attacks across the world per-
petrated by Islamic extremists since September 11,
2001. Indeed, Islamic terrorism appears to be growing
more united, with sectarian groups, anti-Indian groups,
Afghan Taliban, Pakistan Taliban, al-Qaeda and sepa-
ratists sharing a joint narrative of extreme Islam and
anti-Western sentiment. Afghanistan remains one of the
frontlines in the fight to freely enjoy our very way of
life.
This is why one of the principles of Australia’s Na-
tional Security Statement is to support the United Na-
tions in its efforts to promote a rules based interna-
tional order. The start of any such rules based order has
to be freedom. Australia’s National Security Statement
is also clear that:
Our alliance with the United States will remain our key stra-
tegic partnership and the central pillar of Australian national
security policy.
We therefore have a responsibility to join with the
United States and its partners to maintain and
strengthen this alliance. In simple terms, friends do not
desert their friends; they stand by them and support
them, knowing that if the positions were reversed they
would stand with us. US hegemony within our Asia-
Pacific region is fundamental to regional and Austra-
lia’s security, particularly given an increasingly en-
gaged China that is focused on disputed territory sov-
ereignty and enhanced regional influence and is com-
mitted to a 20-year military build program. This will
require a strong and credible US as a counterbalance,
not a US damaged from defeat in Afghanistan. Our
regional security remains predicated on the US’s ca-
pacity to take decisive military action if required.
Finally, seeking and maintaining a degree of stabil-
ity within the Middle East more generally remains
paramount. Failure in Afghanistan would significantly
boost the stocks of the Taliban operating in nuclear
armed Pakistan. The challenges that an emboldened
and unrestrained Taliban would bring upon Pakistan
would be substantial and severe. A failing and weak
Pakistan would be a significant problem for India and
thus a significant regional issue.
The current Australian mission builds on the wider
ISAF mission in Afghanistan mandated by the UN Se-
curity Council. Our mission in Afghanistan is clearly
defined and constrained. Importantly, it is not to kill
every Taliban in Oruzgan, it is not to secure the whole
of Oruzgan; it is to train the Afghan National Army 4th
Brigade to take over security of the population areas of
Oruzgan, using our Mentoring Task Force to achieve
that; to carry out reconstruction activities as part of the
Provincial Reconstruction Team, the PRT; and, with
the Afghan National Security Forces, to fight the tough
battles that are needed to secure the population centres,
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
using our Special Forces. It is important that the nation
realise that we simply cannot kill our way to victory on
the battlefield. Only a coordinated military and politi-
cal strategy aimed at providing population-centric se-
curity, building and training the Afghan security forces,
creating a functioning government and active civilian
led societal reconstruction will achieve our objective in
Afghanistan.
Accepting the two- to four-year time frame for the
commitment of military forces means that over this
time our military must reduce and that the civilian Pro-
vincial Reconstruction Team must grow, the overall
intent being that the Afghan National Army must as-
sume responsibility for security and Australia’s mili-
tary forces will withdraw and/or provide a limited
overwatch capability. This is not dissimilar to the time
lines for Australian forces in Bougainville and East
Timor. It is worth noting that we entered East Timor in
1999 and have just deployed another rotation, 11 years
later. We entered the Bougainville crisis in December
1997 and left in August 2003 after six years, though
Australian forces were engaged as early as 1994. These
things simply take time.
We acknowledge that the progress in a counterinsur-
gency strategy will be very gradual and advances will
be achieved village by village and day by day. This
assessment was also made by General Petraeus on 14
September 2010, when he was reported as saying that
American and coalition troops are nevertheless making
headway with ‘hard fought gains’ against insurgents
but that it remained tough going.
The current surge strategy has resulted in a large
number of insurgents killed and a large number forced
to retreat from areas that were formally under strict
Taliban control. The net result is that more and more
Taliban are being forced into areas where they have not
previously been the dominant group.
Substantial progress has been made in not only the
security situation, where Australian aggressive patrol-
ling with Afghan forces is dominating much of the
population areas, but also in improving health, educa-
tion and other vital infrastructure within Tarin Kowt,
the capital of Oruzgan. Over 1,200 Afghan males have
been trained through our trades training school, with
one man walking 100 kilometres to ensure his son
could enrol. Six hundred boys now attend the rebuilt
Tarin Kowt boys school. With female literacy in the
province at about 0.1 per cent, the picture of hundreds
of little girls at school is nothing short of a delight.
Progress is measured in stories such as these.
Yet there is also no hiding from the challenges that
hinder us, and they are substantial. The Karzai gov-
ernment needs to significantly improve its levels of
legitimacy and governance beyond the major cities and
into the regional areas where the Taliban still wield
considerable influence. This will require political en-
CHAMBER
15
gagement with the Afghan Taliban, warlords and tribal
elders that may well lead in the future to political
power-sharing to seek consensus. There is much water
to go under this bridge. But the recent provision of safe
conduct for Taliban leaders to talk with President Kar-
zai is a case in point. Coupled with this is the need for
the Karzai administration to rid the country of the en-
demic levels of corruption at all levels of government.
Mentoring the Afghan 4th Brigade is slow. The 4th
Brigade soldiers are on three-year contracts and the
majority are northern Afghanis who have limited abil-
ity to get home on leave, making the re-signing of
these soldiers to further contracts challenging but nec-
essary. This will require banking systems to send
money home, transport corridors and roads so that
these soldiers can travel home on leave and a signifi-
cant increase in the literacy and numeracy of soldiers.
Frankly, you need to be able to read a map to call in
fire support.
With upwards of 80 per cent of the world’s heroin
coming from Afghanistan, and over 15 per cent of Af-
ghanis directly involved in the poppy industry, the
transition to more standard cash crops and the removal
of the poppies, which represent the major source of
funds for the Taliban and the warlords, is paramount.
NATO will need to agree on a strategy that is accept-
able, implementable and achievable.
Let us never forget that Australian soldiers, sailors
and airmen in the combat zone are doing an amazing
job in difficult and dangerous circumstances. The ter-
rain is inhospitable, the weather harsh, the dust in
summer overbearing and the Islamic extremist enemy
resilient. Yet, despite all of this, our forces are boxing
above their weight. Our Special Forces operations
strike fear into the Taliban to the point where the en-
emy will break contact or manoeuvre rather than face
our ‘ghosts at night’. Our troops are meeting the chal-
lenge of deploying to remote patrol bases as part of
operational mentoring and liaison teams, which include
Afghan forces, and they are engaging with the enemy
as part of the training and mentoring of these forces.
The level of trust we have built up with Afghan forces
is substantial.
It is important to note that the best time to withdraw
troops is after achieving the mission for which they
have been sent, and this is how success will be meas-
ured. Success will be measured by a 4th Brigade capa-
ble of independent operations in securing the provin-
cial population centres and only requiring a very small
ongoing Australian military overwatch, similar to what
Australia currently provides in East Timor and the
Solomons. Success will be measured by relatively se-
cure population centres where civilian reconstruction
teams have a degree of freedom of action. Success will
be measured by a well-trained and active provincial
response company of the Afghan National Police that
16 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
can deal with outbreaks of violence. Success will be
measured by an active provincial reconstruction team
delivering better governance, services and infrastruc-
ture.
The coalition accepts the government’s assessment
that it will take a further two to four years to see the
transition of security responsibility to the Afghan 4th
Brigade, to allow the provincial reconstruction to in-
crease and to allow Australian military forces to reduce
and pull back to overwatch. The coalition supports this
strategy and accepts the government’s view that the
military objectives are achievable in the time frame.
We accept the assessment of the capability required to
achieve the mission as enunciated by the Australian
commanders on the ground.
We also acknowledge that Australian forces in Af-
ghanistan are stretched and cannot do more than the
current mission without any extra resources. We reiter-
ate our call to the government that the coalition will
look to support any and all force protection elements
the military, and indeed the government, believes it
may need to prosecute the mission. A good example of
this bipartisan support is our call for the counter rocket,
artillery and mortar system that the government ac-
knowledged and funded in the May 2010 budget. We
remain strongly bipartisan in our support for the mis-
sion and our troops but we will continue to hold the
government to account as the situation dictates. The
artificial cap of 1,550 troops in Afghanistan is a case in
point and I strongly urge the government to shift any
cap to the wider 2,350 deployed troops in the Middle
East to allow our Australian commander the flexibility
to use his entire force as needed.
Australia’s engagement in Afghanistan is just and
justifiable. Our forces operate under a UN mandate in
partnership with 47 nations after the invocation of sec-
tion 5 of the ANZUS treaty. Our mission is defined and
constrained and, importantly, is achievable. The next
two to four years will see responsibility for security
transition to the 4th Afghan Brigade and a subsequent
growth in the civilian reconstruction team as the secu-
rity situation improves. The strategy is working. Our
professional military commanders have assured the
government and the opposition that our military and
civilian force requires no extra resources to achieve the
current mission. What is now required is the courage of
our convictions to hold the course, achieve the aim and
strengthen our national security, which is the absolute
basis upon which we have deployed forces to Afghani-
stan.
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR (Gorton—Minister
for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Minister for
Privacy and Freedom of Information) (10.35 am)—I
would like to begin by acknowledging the bravery of
the Australian troops, the police and the civilian offi-
cers who have served in Afghanistan since 2002. In
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
particular, I would like to acknowledge the 21 fallen
Australian soldiers and extend my condolences to their
families. These soldiers have served their nation with
great distinction and we honour their memory. I also
wish to acknowledge and pay tribute to those wounded
in this war.
As the Prime Minister yesterday and the Minister for
Defence today have stated clearly, Australia has two
vital national interests in Afghanistan: to make sure
that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for
terrorists and to firmly stand by our alliance commit-
ments to the United States. The primacy of Australia’s
long-term security interests are inherent in the decision
to participate in the war in Afghanistan. We are there
together with 46 other countries forming the Interna-
tional Security Assistance Force, known as ISAF, and
operating under a United Nations mandate. This is
therefore an international effort to stabilise Afghanistan
and to prevent it from again becoming a safe haven for
terrorists. To this end, a combined military and civilian
effort is necessary to help build the capability of Af-
ghan national security forces so that they can take re-
sponsibility for managing the security of Afghanistan.
We are also supporting governance and development
efforts that will strengthen the capacity of the Afghan
government to deliver critical services.
The purpose of the Australian military and civilian
mission is clear and it is resolute. It is to help build an
Afghan military and policing capacity able to manage
Afghanistan’s security, guard against violent extrem-
ism and avoid a return to the conditions that existed
before 2001. This will also help protect the Afghan
people, who yearn for peace and prosperity but for too
long have been held back by protracted war and insta-
bility. The fear of terrorists or insurgent violence has,
over the years, created both bloody and psychological
obstacles to the ability of many Afghans to live a de-
cent life. The Australian Federal Police are making an
important contribution to Afghanistan by mentoring,
training and developing the Afghan National Police.
This is a vital element of the international mission to
build stability, establish the rule of law and prepare the
government of Afghanistan to take lead responsibility
for its own security and policing.
As part of this historic parliamentary debate, I wish
to highlight the importance of the contribution of the
men and women of the Australian Federal Police to
Australia’s civilian effort in Afghanistan and, so it is
more widely understood, to outline both the challenges
and the progress that has been made since the AFP
presence commenced in 2007. My insight into this ef-
fort was greatly enhanced by the privilege of visiting
Afghanistan in May this year. I was able to personally
thank the AFP contingent for their good work and to
hear firsthand of local conditions and challenges that
confront the military and civilian mission. I was able to
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
learn from them of the Australian troop bravery and the
bravery of the Afghan people in their quest to over-
come the Taliban insurgency.
On my visit to Tarin Kowt an AFP officer recounted
an extraordinary story of a woman currently serving as
an officer of the Afghan National Police elsewhere in
the country. The woman had been preceded in her role
by two other female officers. The first woman to oc-
cupy the role had been killed. She was not killed as
part of her general policing duties but deliberately tar-
geted and killed by those who do not wish to see an
Afghan woman in the workforce, let alone as a serving
police officer. This woman was then replaced by an-
other female police officer who was also threatened
and subsequently killed. The third woman to take up
the role had also been threatened with death but, even
knowing of the dangers, she remained in the role. Her
courage, quite simply, is astonishing.
Without security in daily life there can be no endur-
ing quality of life. Without a capable local police force,
criminals and terrorists will prosper. In too many parts
of Afghanistan the effects of the insurgency have re-
stricted the ability of women and girls to participate
fully in public life, including to work or study. Without
advances in the fundamental rights of men and women
there can be no true civil society. In collaboration with
international and Australian partners, the AFP is work-
ing on the ground to support the development of police
and law enforcement institutions that will provide the
Afghan people with that basic security so necessary to
human wellbeing.
The AFP commitment to Afghanistan began small
with an initial deployment of just four personnel in
October 2007. Two of these members mentored Afghan
National Police as part of the US led Combined Secu-
rity Transition Command—Afghanistan, while the
other two members provided training and mentoring
support to the Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan.
The AFP commitment grew to eight members between
October and December 2008 with an emphasis on
counternarcotics. Operation Contago, as this mission
was called, saw AFP members deployed to criminal
intelligence and strategic advisory roles within Re-
gional Command South which included Oruzgan Prov-
ince.
In April 2009 the government announced a refocus
of the strategic objectives in Afghanistan and, in sup-
port of this, an additional 10 Australian Federal Police
personnel were deployed. This deployment marked the
birth of the AFP’s second mission to Afghanistan,
namely, Operation Synergy, under which members
acted as advisers to ANP training staff at the provincial
training centre at Camp Holland, Tarin Kowt. The in-
creased civilian commitment to Afghanistan was in
response to the renewed ISAF strategy which increased
priority for protecting key population centres and im-
CHAMBER
17
plementing a more effective civilian partnership with
the Afghan government. The AFP, together with their
colleagues from the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, AusAID and Defence, form part of the provin-
cial reconstruction team—under Combined Team
Oruzgan,—which coordinates all ISAF civilian activi-
ties in the province.
DFAT officials build relationships with key tribal
leaders and political actors and assist the coordination
of Australia’s whole-of-government efforts. AusAID
development advisers engage with the Afghan gov-
ernment to design and monitor a growing suite of stabi-
lisation and development activities focused on health,
education, agriculture, water and basic infrastructure.
The ADF contribution includes a force protection ele-
ment as well as personnel for the trade training school
and the ADF managed works team.
In July this year, in further keeping with Australia’s
commitment to increase its civilian contribution to Af-
ghanistan, operations Contago and Synergy were
amalgamated into a single and larger mission, Opera-
tion Illuminate. Operation Illuminate provides for the
deployment of 28 AFP capacity development and train-
ing specialists to various posts throughout the country
with a primary focus on Oruzgan province as part of
ISAF’s Combined Team Oruzgan. The ISAF that Aus-
tralia is part of has a clear strategy. It is to protect the
civilian population; train, mentor and equip the Afghan
National Security forces and the Afghan National Po-
lice to enable them to assume a lead role in providing
security; and facilitate improvements in governance
and socioeconomic development by working with the
Afghan authorities to strengthen institutions, deliver
basic services and generate income-earning opportuni-
ties for its people.
The AFP mission is a critical enabler to this strategy
and has clear goals in Afghanistan, namely to help
build a viable Afghan police force and to help build
Afghan civil society. The first goal is being met di-
rectly by the training and mentoring the AFP under-
takes with the Afghan National Police. The second goal
is being served through the less publicised AFP contri-
bution to the international counternarcotics effort in
Afghanistan and through the collaborative work it un-
dertakes with its Australian civilian counterparts.
Working to build police capability both in front line
community policing and in combating organised crime
is a key goal of the Australian government’s capacity-
building effort. Young girls will fear going to school,
women will not be able to participate in the workforce
and young men will not be able to avoid the lure of
violent fundamentalism without an effective Afghan
police service that can ensure safety, protect the popu-
lation, combat criminality and allow legitimate trade
and commerce to prosper.
18 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Afghan National Police face immense chal-
lenges. Policing in Afghanistan is limited by a range of
factors, including a low education base and very low
literacy levels, poor police training, inadequate equip-
ment, poor governance, tribal affiliations and infiltra-
tion by criminal or insurgent elements. This also results
in lack of public confidence. Our first challenge is to
address this lack of public confidence. Our second
challenge is that some ANP officers are beholden to
corruption and in some cases they are drug dependent.
The third significant challenge centres on access to
justice. Women in Oruzgan province, where the AFP is
mainly based, have almost no access to justice and suf-
fer from poor knowledge of their rights. There are only
three female ANP officers in Tarin Kowt province, but
this is three more than 12 months ago. In the last three
years the AFP have trained a total of 682 ANP officers.
These officers are being deployed across the country.
While efforts to build public confidence will be slow,
we are seeing real progress. In addition to the basic
police training, the AFP has also provided advanced
investigations training to 143 personnel at the Afghan
Major Crimes Task Force in Kabul and it is anticipated
that an additional 1,000 ANP will be provided with
basic or advanced investigations training next year.
Growth of the Afghan National Police is ahead of
schedule, with the ANP having reached its October
target of 109,000 personnel three months ahead of
schedule. The Afghan Minister of Interior’s goal for
the Afghan National Police is that within five years the
people of Afghanistan will consider their police to be a
valued institution which is honest, accountable, brave,
impartial and striving to create a secure and lawful so-
ciety. Whilst that may be hard to imagine now, growth
of the Afghan National Police is ahead of schedule,
with the ANP on target to hit its 2011 target of 134,000
officers. While the challenges the Afghan National Po-
lice force face are enormous, the reality is that the
gains we are making by training and building local
police capability will be lasting gains.
The AFP’s secondary but significant effort concerns
counternarcotics. The AFP also works to influence the
development of strategic policy through involvement
and placement in local and multilateral fora. Nationally
the AFP participates in the senior police advisory group
which provides guidance and advice to the Afghan
Ministry of Interior. Regionally the AFP participates in
Afghan national security forces development cell,
which provides Regional Command South in Kandahar
with direction and advice on governance and structural
reform of the ANP. Locally, through its contribution to
Combined-Team Oruzgan, the AFP shapes, influences
and directs police reform in Oruzgan by coordinating
training programs and ensuring that all localised train-
ing is in line with national programs.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Like its international partners, the AFP recognises
that Afghanistan’s narcotics industry poses a major
threat to stabilisation efforts by fuelling the Taliban-led
insurgency and undermining governance. The impact
of the narcotics industry, however, does not stop at the
Afghan border. Studies estimate that as much as 90 per
cent of global opium production occurs in Afghanistan.
The adverse socioeconomic impacts of the narcotics
industry extend far beyond Afghanistan’s borders, in-
cluding to Australia. While it is difficult to state pre-
cisely how much of the heroin entering Australia
comes from Afghanistan, the fact that such a signifi-
cant proportion of the world’s opium begins its journey
in Afghanistan has a clear consequence for Australia
and it is why we are dedicated to the eradication of
opium cultivation and associated crimes.
Through mentoring and training, AFP members and
coalition partners work to develop an Afghan national
investigations capability to target high-level corruption,
kidnapping and organised crime, including drug traf-
ficking. In addition to 21 Oruzgan based members, like
other Australian government agencies the AFP supports
its Oruzgan effort through the strategic placement of
members in Kabul, the hub of national police and deci-
sion making, and Kandahar, the headquarters of Re-
gional Command South. To this end, four AFP mem-
bers in Kabul and three in Kandahar are working to
effectively shape and influence national policing
strategies and policies in Oruzgan province.
One sign of the AFP’s effectiveness is that a number
of the Afghan National Police trainers who have been
trained by the AFP are now working at the provincial
training centre in Oruzgan, providing training to Af-
ghan police recruits. ANP officers who had received
training under the AFP program show increased adher-
ence to practices learned following completion of train-
ing. In addition, there have been clear quantitative im-
provements such as higher attendance rates, adherence
to uniform standards and retention of staff. Although
these achievements may sound small, we recognise
that building a local police force is a challenging en-
deavour, and they are in fact significant when consid-
ered within the social and occupational context to
which I referred earlier.
The AFP, Australian partners and international part-
ners will continue to promote the rule of law through
justice and security reform. Like AusAID, the AFP
continues to rely on the provision of security by the
ADF. The longevity of Australia’s civil commitment is
therefore intricately tied to the training and mentoring
of the Afghan National Army. This gets to the very
heart of the relationship between the rule of law and
the development of a civil society. Without security,
there is no development. Without an ongoing interna-
tional effort to support the challenge of local police
reforms, Afghanistan will continue to be inhospitable
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
to its citizens and pose a continuing threat to the global
community.
The strategic objective of ISAF is to deny extremists
and terrorist groups a safe haven in Afghanistan. The
effort in Afghanistan is about simultaneously helping
the government of Afghanistan take responsibility for
its own security and defending Australia’s security in-
terests. Our support, training and development are
critical enablers in achieving these objectives. This
government is committed to assisting the Afghan gov-
ernment to assume lead responsibility for governance
and the delivery of basic services, including policing,
within a reasonable time frame.
There does remain a significant challenge, and we
need to be realistic about the speed and consistency of
progress. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, ‘we
should be cautiously encouraged’ by progress to date.
Helping to build an effective and legitimate Afghan
national police force is now part of the core of our ef-
forts in Afghanistan. Without security there can be no
flourishing of a civil society. Without freedom of
movement there can be no economic development, no
access to services and no opportunity to be transformed
by education. Without stability, people are denied their
fundamental right to participate in social, economic
and political life. Put simply, the absence of security
and stability makes it impossible to build a safe and
functioning nation. These are not easy tasks, but they
are tasks that we can and should continue to support.
I never had an opportunity to ask that Afghan police
officer why, despite knowing that the two before her
had died, she was willing to risk her life. But I can
imagine her response. Until that police officer and
other women like her are no longer targeted because of
their gender and because they want a peaceful and just
society, we still have work to do. The Gillard govern-
ment’s primary responsibility is to defend and secure
Australia and its citizens. Helping to develop the rule
of law in Afghanistan is consistent with this objective,
and the Afghan people deserve no less.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (10.54 am)—I welcome
this opportunity to make some comments, following
those of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Op-
position yesterday, about Australia’s involvement in
Afghanistan. After nine years of war, it is quite re-
markable that this is the first time that this parliament
has had a comprehensive debate on our commitment in
Afghanistan. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the
Australian people do not have a good understanding of
why we are in this fight, what it means for Australia,
why it is vitally important for our national interests and
why this is a commitment that we must see through to
its conclusion.
Firstly, I acknowledge those Australian soldiers who
have made the ultimate sacrifice in our name. These
brave men died doing what the Australian military has
CHAMBER
19
always done—that is, standing up for the weak against
the strong and standing up for the very best of Austra-
lian values. All our men and women do us proud, and
our troops in Afghanistan join a long honour roll of
Anzacs, who have always done what has been asked of
them by the Australian people. Because the govern-
ment and the parliament are asking our soldiers and
policemen to take these risks and, of course, to pay
such a significant price, we as a parliament owe it to
them to display a clear understanding of why they have
been asked to undertake this mission and to fully ex-
plain it to the nation. I hope this debate today will go
some way towards accomplishing that.
I also want to acknowledge the more than 100 Aus-
tralians who have died in terrorist attacks in the past
decade: those who died in the attacks on the World
Trade Centre in New York, in the Bali bombings in
2002 and 2005 and in the Jakarta bombings in 2004
and 2009. These people had done nothing to warrant
being murdered in such a callous and evil way, and we
must remember that the perpetrators of these crimes
had been trained by and received funding from terrorist
elements in Afghanistan. I believe that most members
of this House support our commitment of troops and
policemen to Afghanistan, although I know that this is
not a unanimous view, and of course every member is
entitled to form their own conclusions. However, I
want to outline why I think it is vital that we define
what an end point in this conflict is, that we commit to
it wholeheartedly and that we see our commitment
through to a conclusion. Australia first committed to
fight the war in Afghanistan in 2001 after the attacks
on the World Trade Centre in New York. The former
Prime Minister, John Howard, happened to be in Wash-
ington at that time, and the Australian government was
quick to denounce and respond to the attacks with the
Prime Minister’s offer of condolences to the American
people on behalf of Australia. On 14 September 2001,
he stated:
The Australian people have been shocked and outraged at the
enormity of the terrorist attacks on the United States. These
heinous crimes have caused catastrophic loss of life, injury
and destruction. We anticipate that a significant number of
Australian nationals are included among those who lost their
lives.
… … …
The Government has decided, in consultation with the
United States, that Article IV of the ANZUS Treaty applies to
the terrorist attacks on the United States.
… … …
This action has been taken to underline the gravity of the
situation and to demonstrate our steadfast commitment to
work with the United States in combating international ter-
rorism.
The Australian parliament supported this decision on
17 September 2001. At that time, Afghanistan hosted
significant terrorist training infrastructure, including
20 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
camps and the leadership of the al-Qaeda terrorist net-
work. The majority of that country had been ruled for
the previous five years by the Muslim fundamentalist
Taliban regime. The terrorist camps and infrastructure
there had been targeted previously by the United
States, during the Clinton administration in the late
1990s, in response to proof that they had been used to
make terrorist attacks on United States interests. But,
sadly, the missile attacks never actually eradicated this
infrastructure. The existence of these camps made Af-
ghanistan terror central. It became a hub of terrorist
activity that spread its tentacles globally. Hambali, the
terrorist who is now in Guantanamo Bay but who mas-
terminded the murder of 202 civilians in Bali and
planned the attack on the Australian embassy in Ja-
karta, was trained in Afghanistan during this time.
The Taliban regime unleashed a wave of terror on
the Afghan people during their five-year rule. Accord-
ing to Human Rights Watch, the abuses include sum-
mary executions, the deliberate destruction of homes
and the confiscation of farmland. The Taliban massa-
cred noncombatants when they made military ad-
vances, often in the most brutal ways. They subjected
women to barbaric totalitarian laws that banned them
from education and work and even from appearing in
public alone. Ethnic minorities were subject to system-
atic abuse by the Taliban regime. The regime allied
itself with the al-Qaeda terrorist network, and this alli-
ance remains in force to this day.
Ensuring that the Taliban can never return to power
in Afghanistan and allow Afghanistan to once again
become a safe haven for terrorists is the primary goal
of Western involvement in Afghanistan. It was from
these camps that terrorists trained, planned, funded and
then launched attacks that killed thousands of innocent
civilians in the United States, in Indonesia, in the
United Kingdom, in Spain and in other parts of the
world. Many of these victims, the people who have
been killed, were Australian. The intervention of the
West in Afghanistan and the change of regime has
closed this terrorist infrastructure down and it has se-
verely limited the ability of al-Qaeda and its affiliates
to kill and maim more people. A premature withdrawal
would allow these organisations to re-establish their
infrastructure and to again threaten our interests, so we
need to be very clear that Australian troops who are
undertaking operations in Afghanistan are directly pro-
tecting Australian lives from terrorist attack. They are
doing this specifically by securing Oruzgan province,
by defeating and dismantling al-Qaeda and its allies
and by training the Afghan National Army and the Af-
ghan National Police to successfully do the same once
Western forces eventually withdraw.
The mission is a hard one. Afghanistan is a very
tough country with a very difficult history. As has been
widely acknowledged, the Afghan government is far
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
from perfect, but we must remember that in the context
of Afghanistan it is far superior to any alternative. We
have so far sustained significant casualties and the
truth is that we will certainly sustain more if we remain
committed to the task. But progress is slowly being
made. Terrorists can no longer operate with impunity
to threaten Western interests and lives. The capability
of the Afghan government and Afghan forces continues
to improve. Over time, they must and they will take
more responsibility for their own security. General Pet-
raeus, the distinguished commander of the Interna-
tional Security Assistance Force and the general who
oversaw the successful surge strategy in Iraq, has con-
firmed that progress in Afghanistan is slow but is hap-
pening. He has compared it to watching paint dry or
watching grass grow. Australian commanders on the
ground confirmed to the Leader of the Opposition and
also, I understand, to the Prime Minister on their recent
visits that the West and the Australian forces are mak-
ing gains. ISAF tactics are constantly evolving and we
are learning to be more effective both militarily and
politically as time goes by and the commitment contin-
ues.
For those who would say that we should end our
contribution to this conflict, I would ask them to con-
sider the consequences of leaving without completing
this difficult job. Defeat or a perceived defeat would
have significant consequences, not all of which could
possibly be identified today—firstly for the Afghan
people who would be abandoned by their allies to their
fate at the hands of the Taliban, who would no doubt
continue to brutalise them and no doubt take retribu-
tion on those Afghans who had allied themselves with
Western forces in the belief that we were committed to
helping them to stabilise their country. Terrorist ele-
ments would be able to re-establish themselves to
again menace our people and our interests. There are
wider strategic issues that would come into play. Aus-
tralia would be seen as an unreliable ally. Fundamen-
talist Muslim groups across the whole globe would be
boosted and the enemies of the West would be embold-
ened. It is impossible to say what would result from
this, but it is a reasonable assumption that the conse-
quences of just upping and leaving could be felt on
Australian soil and on the soil of other Western nations.
In the time I have left, I want to turn specifically to
the commitment that the Australian Federal Police are
making in Afghanistan, and I acknowledge the com-
prehensive account that was given by the Minister for
Defence prior to me of the great work that they are
doing there and the fact that he has visited and seen
firsthand the contribution that the Australian Federal
Police are making to the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
Whilst a lot of the attention given to our involvement
there has been on the ADF deployment, the AFP are
providing vital assistance to our Afghan allies in other
crucial areas. The Australian Federal Police’s Interna-
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
tional Deployment Group manages the deployment of
Australian and Pacific Islander police overseas on
peacekeeping and capacity-building operations for both
the AFP and the United Nations. Since it was estab-
lished in February 2004 the International Deployment
Group has played a vital role in meeting ongoing re-
gional security requirements and has deployed mem-
bers to Afghanistan, Cambodia, Cyprus, Nauru, Papua
New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Sudan, East Timor,
Tonga, Vanuatu and the United Nations.
The work the AFP does in Afghanistan is an impor-
tant element of the overall international effort to build
stability and to establish the rule of law in a country
that has been torn apart by decades of conflict. They
worked alongside a team of professional Australians,
including Australian Defence Force personnel, as part
of Australia’s contribution to the effort. The AFP have
been involved in training over 600 Afghan National
Police officers in the Oruzgan province. The additional
AFP officers who have recently been deployed will be
assisting in the development of the provincial training
centre in Tarin Kowt.
As well as police training and mentoring in
Oruzgan, the AFP in Afghanistan are involved in ac-
tivities designed to contribute to the development of
the Afghan National Police capacity and in reinforcing
the rule of law through placements in Kabul and Kan-
dahar. The Afghan police come in to these training
programs for approximately six weeks. They are taught
a range of policing skills and also issues around human
rights and the way that the rule of law should be en-
forced.
Since 2007, the AFP have also been involved in Af-
ghan counternarcotics efforts. More than 90 per cent of
the world’s opium is cultivated in Afghanistan and,
according to United Nations reports, poppy production
continues to increase. The large-scale production of
opium in Afghanistan continues to fuel the Taliban-led
insurgency, threatening regional and international secu-
rity, and is the cause of human suffering around the
world.
The AFP are a world-class police force and they
possess policing skills that are proving valuable to the
mission, including strong leadership, management,
planning and police operational experience. Their con-
tribution will help to provide the foundations of a de-
mocratic and civil society for the Afghan people. It
takes a well-trained and dedicated police force to pro-
tect basic human rights and deliver safety and security
to its citizens. The creation and maintenance of peace
will allow the Afghan people to establish their homes
and families without risk.
As a member of the international community we
have an obligation to promote and maintain peace
through promoting the rule of law in Afghanistan. The
AFP deployment demonstrates the strength of our
CHAMBER
21
commitment to Afghanistan and ensures their wealth of
knowledge will be passed on to a country that desper-
ately needs it. What the AFP are doing in Afghanistan
will have a significant impact on the ability of the Af-
ghan National Police to implement good governance
and policing practices now and into the future, once the
AFP and other Western elements come home.
The AFP have a wealth of experience and expertise
in this field. They have hundreds of members deployed
to peacekeeping and capacity-building missions around
the globe. The AFP’s previous experience tells us that
it is possible to bring peace and stability to Afghani-
stan. The AFP’s involvement in East Timor, for exam-
ple, has slowly but surely helped people get on with the
business of improving their lives after a period of terri-
ble and destructive violence. Similarly, in the Solomon
Islands the experience of the AFP is another example
of how a concerted whole-of-government effort can
have a positive impact on improving the rule of law
and improving peoples lives. Whilst there is still work
to do in both of these areas, as a result of the AFP’s
efforts, governance practices are improving, jobs are
being created and investors and economic activity are
starting to return to these locations.
The successes of the AFP in both Timor and the
Solomon Islands show that it is possible for them to
create tangible benefits for the people of countries that
have been affected by devastating conflict. I am confi-
dent that those abilities that have been shown on these
other international deployments can continue to make a
real difference to the lives and the individuals who they
meet during their deployment to Afghanistan. On be-
half of the opposition, I acknowledge the AFP for their
efforts and to wish all the officers who are deployed on
that mission a successful mission and a safe return
home.
Through the efforts of the Australian Defence Force
and the Australian Federal Police, Australia is demon-
strating its capacity to play an active role in enhancing
international security, both with our allies and with the
wider international community. This important and
overdue debate that we are having in the House today
should also honour the Australian casualties that have
occurred so far. We owe it to them to remain confident
that the cause for which they have sacrificed is a wor-
thy cause. We must also acknowledge the Australians
who died in the September 11 attacks, the 88 who were
killed in the first Bali bombing and the eight Austra-
lians who have been killed in other acts of terrorism
since then. Our soldiers and AFP officers are in Af-
ghanistan because terrorists train there and then from
there they target innocent people, including Austra-
lians. The premature withdrawal of the mission and the
return of the Taliban government would swiftly restore
Afghanistan to being a sanctuary for al-Qaeda and
other Islamic extremists.
22 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The opposition is committed to helping Afghanistan
transition to become a country that has the capability to
supply its own security. Our commitment cannot be
open-ended. If that were the case it would amount to a
Western takeover rather than to helping the Afghan
people to create the conditions for security for them-
selves. At the same time, I believe it would be a mis-
take to set a withdrawal date in stone as this would
allow the Taliban simply to wait it out and wait pa-
tiently for the day when Western forces withdraw to a
predetermined timetable, rather than withdrawing once
they had completed their mission. We must complete
the task of training the Afghan National Army and the
Afghan National Police, and we must help to ensure
that the central government in Afghanistan is capable
of containing and defeating the insurgency. In doing so,
we will be able to leave at some time in the future, but
we will be able to leave secure in the knowledge that
we have made Afghanistan a better place and also, very
importantly, that we have secured vital Australian na-
tional interests.
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Treasurer) (11.13 am)—Let me
begin by thanking the Prime Minister for extending to
the House the opportunity to debate the progress of our
forces deployed in Afghanistan and to reaffirm the
cause for which they are fighting. It is in our national
interest to be in Afghanistan. We are there as part of a
United-Nations mandated international stabilisation
effort. We are there to prevent Afghanistan from once
again becoming a safe haven for terrorists to recruit,
train and plot attacks against Australia, our friends and
our allies.
The mission in Afghanistan is to build the capacity
of the Afghan government and the Afghan national
security forces to lead and manage their own security.
It forms part of our enduring alliance with the United
States. It is built on the belief that we build a better
world not by clinging to our shores and looking in-
wards but by working together with those who would
fight for the same things that we do. We do not forget
the circumstances of our joining the Afghanistan mis-
sion: the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which Austra-
lians were killed by terrorists given shelter by the Tali-
ban regime. We do not forget that those attacks were
followed by the Bali bombing of 2002 in which 88
Australians were murdered and many more were in-
jured. We do not forget the four Australian lives that
were lost in the second Bali bombing in 2005 or that
our embassy was bombed in Indonesia. We owe those
who serve and their loved ones a special duty to put
them in harm’s way for only the most substantial and
worthy of reasons, armed with the best protective
equipment we can provide and using the safest, most
effective tactics that we can devise. It is a very big re-
sponsibility and one that I know everyone in this place
takes more seriously than anything else.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Most of us here, whether our families have been in
Australia for half a dozen generations or indeed just
one generation, have had our family histories touched
by war. Knowing what fate befell our relatives and
what pain it can inflict on those who survive, we can-
not and do not take the deployment of our soldiers
lightly. My grandfather, who fought with Monash and
died younger than necessary with his health broken by
mustard gas and shrapnel, and my father, who served
with the Americans in the Pacific, were such men. The
effects of war on those now in Afghanistan and those
who have already returned is just as far-reaching as it
was to previous generations of Anzacs and we must be
conscious of that at all times. Australian personnel de-
ployed in Afghanistan are putting their lives on the
line. As all honourable members know, our troops in
Afghanistan have paid a heavy price since we first sent
in special forces in the wake of the September 11 at-
tacks. Twenty-one Australians have lost their lives. For
each of these 21 families that is a profound, personal
and irreplaceable, loss. Many others have been
wounded or have had their lives changed forever. So it
is important that we keep asking ourselves why we are
there, what we hope to achieve and whether we actu-
ally are achieving our goals.
Our mission, as part of the International Security
Assistance Force, is a worthy and important one. Our
goal is clear: to deny terrorists a safe haven in Afghani-
stan. We did not choose this war and we do not fight it
alone. In accordance with international law, many
countries supported the Afghan people’s efforts to free
themselves from Taliban rule and the elements of the
terrorist effort they had permitted. Australia joined this
battle and we fight for the very best of reasons. Like
many others we are making our contribution as part of
the International Security Assistance Force. We recog-
nise the regional dimensions. We need to work with
Pakistan, Afghanistan and others to counter the terror-
ist threat.
Failure in Afghanistan would only embolden al-
Qaeda and its allies and give them more space to oper-
ate. Instability in Afghanistan would only risk feeding
instability in Pakistan, and that is why we are working
with the Afghan army and police to train them and to
help them take responsibility for Afghanistan’s secu-
rity. That is part of our job. Our work in training and
mentoring the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade and
the Afghan National Police is helping build the capaci-
ties of the Afghan national security forces to be able to
lead and manage Afghanistan’s security. We do this
alongside the United States, New Zealand, Singapore
and Slovakia. It is in Australia’s national interest to
support this goal because it has a direct bearing on our
national security and the safety of our people.
After nine years it is clear that the work our troops
and civilians are engaged in is making a difference for
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
the future of the country. With the increase in troop
levels, insurgents are being challenged and civilian
leadership is being trained. But military force will not
be enough. The international community recognises
that a political solution is also needed. We continue to
encourage Afghan-led processes of reconciliation that
can reintegrate into the community those individuals
who are prepared to lay down their weapons, renounce
violence and support the Afghan constitution. Since the
international community began to increase their forces
a much more systematic effort has been mounted to
reduce the capacities of the Taliban to hold territory
and to intimidate the population. These campaigns
have not yet achieved all their objectives but in recent
months General Petraeus has reported important pro-
gress. And the international community is working
closely with Pakistan. Stability in Pakistan and disman-
tling of terrorist networks in the heartlands of both
countries is critical to achieving stability in Afghani-
stan, so it is essential that we continue to engage with
Pakistan to address the violent extremism in the
broader region consistent with the international strat-
egy.
We know our troops are engaged in dangerous work.
That is why the government committed, through the
2009 defence white paper, to ensuring our men and
women in uniform have the capability, training and
protection they need. We want them to do their job as
safely, as effectively and as efficiently as possible. That
is why in the 2010-11 budget the government commit-
ted an extra $1.1 billion to enhanced force protection
measures for Australian troops deployed to Afghani-
stan. That is aimed purely at saving the lives of, and
reducing injuries to, our serving ADF personnel. The
government has also committed to real growth in the
defence budget of three per cent per year on average to
2017-18, followed by a 2.2 per cent real growth on
average through to 2030. This commitment gives de-
fence the long-term funding stability that it needs.
Our role in Afghanistan goes beyond the support we
give our military forces on the ground and our interna-
tional alliances. Military success is an aim but it is not
our only goal. Our purpose is to enable Afghanistan to
look after its own security and prevent it from becom-
ing a safe haven for terrorists. Part of the International
Security Assistance Force’s civilian and military strat-
egy is to support governance and development. We are
helping to give the Afghan people a chance to develop
institutions and opportunities that will ultimately free
them from fundamentalist oppression. We are helping
to give the Afghan people a chance to gain the educa-
tion, health and developmental opportunities that years
of war, political instability and fundamentalist preju-
dice have denied them.
I would like to talk a little about what that means.
Since 2002, Afghanistan has begun an enormous po-
CHAMBER
23
litical, economic and social transformation after more
than two decades of conflict. In 2001, about one mil-
lion Afghan boys were in school. Afghan girls did not
go to school. Today, around six million Afghan chil-
dren, including around two million girls, go to school.
Under the Taliban, less than 10 per cent of the popula-
tion had basic health services. Now 85 per cent do.
Economic growth has averaged 11 per cent a year since
2002, according to the World Bank.
Australia has only played a small part in these early
transformations, but our work is critically important.
Oruzgan province is one of the least developed prov-
inces in the country. The literacy rate among males is
only 10 per cent; among females, it is less than one per
cent. Even compared with the rest of Afghanistan, that
is extremely low. Our aid program, administered
through AusAID, has grown from $26 million in 2001-
02 to $106 million this financial year. In 2010-11, our
aid will increase to $20 million in the province alone.
Of course, while progress to date has been encour-
aging, tremendous challenges do remain. GDP per cap-
ita remains one of the lowest in the world. Life expec-
tancy is just 44 years. Only 27 per cent of Afghans
have safe drinking water and five per cent have ade-
quate sanitation, according to the World Bank. Infant
mortality remains high: 111 per 1,000 live births in
2008.
No-one pretends here that there will be a sudden
transformation in the lives of people in Afghanistan,
but change is occurring. If we were to pull out now and
leave our work unfinished, we would unwind nine
years of progress and leave Afghanistan once again
exposed to the return of Taliban control. The Afghan
people would face an even bleaker future. So we pro-
vide capacities to degrade the fighting capabilities of
their enemies, to train their security forces for the long
term and to build social, economic and political infra-
structure.
We are in Afghanistan in defence of our own inter-
ests, in support of our ally and to deny terrorists safe
haven. We are also helping to provide an opportunity
for the Afghan people to create a better life for them-
selves. The young men and women of the ADF who
lay their lives on the line need to know how seriously
we take this commitment and how seriously we take
their commitment. All Australian personnel deployed
in Afghanistan are operating in a dangerous environ-
ment. They honour our nation by their sacrifice. We
honour their sacrifice by pursuing significant purposes.
Our critics are wrong to argue that our objectives are
unachievable. The strategy in place is achievable, and
we are committed to it. At the centre is the understand-
ing that, in the final analysis, the fate of the Afghan
people is properly and exclusively in their own hands.
We want to prevent a return to the situation prior to
2001 in the terrorist threat emanating from Afghan soil.
24 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Beyond that, the objectives are directed towards em-
powering the Afghan people to provide for their own
security, to develop their own economic and social ca-
pacities and to create and sustain their own political
systems and processes. It is our earnest hope that, in
time, arms can give way to the tools of peace, combat
troops to civilian engineers, military aid to ever-
increasing amounts of civilian reconstruction aid, and
the clearing of roadside mines to the building of more
village schools, health centres and places of work. Ul-
timately, it is our aim that the service of our young men
and women overseas will be replaced by their return to
their families and their homes in the cities, the suburbs
and the country towns here in Australia. I thank the
House for the seriousness and the maturity with which
this debate is being conducted.
Debate (on motion by Mr Shorten) adjourned.
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS AND OTHER
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2010
Referred to Main Committee
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (11.27 am)—by
leave—I move:
That the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amend-
ment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 be referred to the
Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Afghanistan
Debate resumed.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of the Nationals)
(11.28 am)—Nine years ago this month, Australia’s
military involvement in Afghanistan began. Behind the
Vietnam War, it is the second-longest conflict in which
Australians have been involved. Thankfully, to date,
we have not suffered through the domestic social up-
heaval or the heavy loss of life of the Vietnam conflict,
which saw more than 500 killed in action or lost
through other causes. But the tragic deaths of 21 sol-
diers, the wounding in action of another 152 and the
nature of the warfare in Afghanistan and our ongoing
role mean that a debate such as this before the parlia-
ment is timely and appropriate. There are many views
about this war within the community, and it is only
reasonable that those views are freely and responsibly
aired.
This debate brings back to me memories of another
debate in 1991, when parliament was called back for a
special sitting to discuss our nation’s involvement in
war. As a first term parliamentarian I vividly recall the
opportunity provided in January 1991 to debate what
was to be the first Iraq war. It was an intense debate.
The galleries were full. There were protesters and sup-
porters outside the building. There was deeply felt
emotion on both sides, but especially for many Labor
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
members who had fresh memories of their own opposi-
tion to the Vietnam War just a few years earlier but
who were in a government making a decision to send
troops to war. As I said in that debate:
There is no greater exercise of government power than to
send the nation’s armed forces to war. There can, therefore,
be no more difficult decision for a government or a parlia-
ment to make than to participate in or to wage war. In peace-
loving civilised countries like Australia, such decisions are
only rarely made …
I recall that I was stopped dead in my speech by a
number of female protesters in the public gallery who
removed their clothes to display the word ‘Peace’ writ-
ten across their breasts. Perhaps it is the only time any
speech I have ever made has evoked such a passionate
response. But it was a serious matter then and it is a
serious matter now. As I said also in that speech:
There is nothing glamorous about war. It is not like the Hol-
lywood epics. The real war is a horrible thing full of suffer-
ing, anxiety and despair. There are no victors, just some who
are hurt less than others. War destroys not just enemies and
cities and countries, but also lives and families, hopes and
ambitions and the plans of a generation. No civilised country
would go to war if there were any other options.
Some may say it is easy for members of this House to
sit here in comfort and send our soldiers to war. Even
though the cause be just, this is not the case. Even
though the public may support the Australian commit-
ment, the decision is not easy. No member of parlia-
ment can put his fellow Australians in a position of
danger without feeling something of the enormity of
his action. When I became a member of parliament, I
hoped that I would never be asked to participate in a
decision on whether or not our country should wage
war. I regarded it as just about the ultimately difficult
decision that a member of parliament could ever face.
So I approach this debate also with a heavy heart but
also with a deep consciousness of my responsibility. At
present more than 1,500 Australians have answered the
call and are serving in Afghanistan, our largest com-
mitment to a theatre since Vietnam. They deserve our
respect and the admiration of all our people and we
hold the obligation to ensure that they are properly
equipped and supported. That care cannot lessen on
their return. Too many come back sick of body and
mind. We pray that their return will be sooner rather
than later.
But it is important that we remember the reasons
why we are at war. In 1996 Osama bin Laden moved
his terrorist operations to Afghanistan on the invitation
of the Taliban. When the Taliban took over power in
that country later that year, bin Laden’s own power was
cemented and an alliance was formed between the
Taliban and al-Qaeda. The path that led to the appalling
acts of al-Qaeda on 11 September 2001 has been well
covered by this House, at the time and in another de-
bate in parliament in March 2003 which was centred
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
on our second commitment to Iraq, so I do not propose
to go through those details again. But those actions and
the Taliban’s subsequent refusal to bring the terrorists
to justice gave the rest of the world no choice but to
act. In a sense our involvement in Afghanistan is an
extension of the original decision to go to Iraq to quell
terrorism and the threat to peace around the world.
We should not forget why Australia was there in the
first place—to help secure our country from the threat
of terrorism. Terrorists can strike anywhere and take
Australian lives, as we saw most tragically in New
York in 2001 and Bali in 2002 and 2005. The war
against terrorism is a new war. There is no real front-
line or trenches or marching armies. This is a war that
has cost more Australian civilian lives than military.
No-one is immune from the risk anywhere. The Taliban
allowed the country they controlled to be used as a
training ground for some of the world’s worst, most
ruthless and most heartless people. A country that was
part of the cradle of civilisation was being raped in
modern times by those who wished to destroy civilisa-
tion. Let us not therefore weep for the rapists, the Tali-
ban. Its extreme evocations of Sharia law and the dem-
onstrated disrespect of women give it no right to be
regarded as a legitimate government, let alone one that
deserved the respect or recognition of other countries.
The toppling of the Taliban regime was undeniably a
good thing, and it remains critically important that the
Taliban insurgency that has sprung up in various prov-
inces of Afghanistan and Pakistan is contained or
stopped.
This parliament is demonstrating a strong unity in its
view that we must stay the course in Afghanistan. I
recognise that there are individual concerns within
each member’s heart, and that is understandable given
that we are talking about people’s lives and the frustra-
tion of slow progress. Critically, we cannot show
weakness. Signalling a premature withdrawal, or that
we will be turned by the threat of terrorism, only en-
courages those who wish to do us harm. It also sends a
pathetic message of subservience, and no level of re-
spect to the brave soldiers who have lost their lives or
have served in this cause. We want the Afghan people
to rule themselves in peace. We do not want a never-
ending presence there, or to continue to tell them how
to live their lives; but we do want to engender a better
society than what has gone before. The appalling man-
ner in which the Taliban treated 50 per cent of its own
citizens, its women, is reason enough for Western in-
tervention. The Taliban would never have allowed a
political debate like this one where there is a potential
for dissent, and indeed such dissent is likely.
There is nothing black and white about this war and
our involvement. War always involves shades of grey.
Simple nostrums about peace at all costs would not
work here as they would never have worked in any
CHAMBER
25
other field of conflict. The Taliban has not gone away.
Al-Qaeda may not have the same numbers in Afghani-
stan but it remains only a phone call or an email away.
Greater global instability is always possible if we allow
it or at least do nothing to try to prevent it. Given that
Afghanistan will never have a parliament like this one,
has a different dominant religion, has a different ap-
proach to democratic ideals and has a long history of
vigorously rejecting the advances of other countries,
what should we do? Do we recall our troops and leave
with a job half done or do we stay the course, espe-
cially as our future security depends upon a more se-
cure Middle East? The Nationals, in coalition with the
Liberal Party and in cohesion with the Labor Party,
have always accepted that this mission in Afghanistan
is necessary. None of us here do that with any light-
heartedness and nor with any spite. We do not wish to
do any unnecessary harm to a country that has already
suffered enough. We are all men and women of good-
will and we all wish to leave Afghanistan in a far better
place than we found it.
We respect the Australian soldiers who have an-
swered the call of their country to go to Afghanistan.
They are serving in the same traditions as their forefa-
thers in our armed forces who went to Anzac Cove, to
World War II, to Vietnam and to other conflicts. They
have answered the call to help preserve our peace. We
respect and honour their role. Whatever differences
there may be about a cause, no-one in this parliament
should do anything other than respect their contribution
and recognise that they are doing their duty for their
country. They are responding to their government’s
call. The people of this nation want to live in a safe and
secure nation and our defence forces play a vital role in
that. Indeed it is conflicts like Afghanistan—like the
debate we are having now and those we had in 2003
and in 1991—that remind us that we must always be
prepared and ready to respond should someone
threaten to take our peace away from us. It is folly to
allow our defence forces to fall into any kind of de-
cline. It would be folly were we not to ensure that they
were adequately equipped to do whatever task they are
called upon to do. That is a responsibility for us as leg-
islators and for the government of the day.
I pray for peace in Afghanistan, and in particular for
the safe and secure return of our Australian contin-
gent—and soon. But I know that peace will not be
found at the wishing well. We have to work for it.
Sometimes we even have to fight for it. Once peace is
achieved we must then build on it. We must free the
world of terrorism and guarantee an enduring peace for
this generation and for the future of the world.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11.40 am)—Towards the
end of last year the Karzai government in Afghanistan
passed a law which applies to the country’s minority
Shiite population and, in particular, to its women. The
26 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
law allows police to enforce language that sets out a
wife’s sexual duties and restricts a woman’s right to
leave her own home. According to US reports, child
custody rights still go to fathers and grandfathers,
women have to ask, before they get married, for per-
mission to work and a husband is still able to deny his
wife food and shelter if she does not meet his sexual
needs. The government that passed this law last year is
a government we are told that our soldiers should kill
and die for.
It is now clear that the war in Afghanistan cannot be
won, however you measure victory. It is now clear that
the reasons successive governments have given to be in
Afghanistan no longer stand up to scrutiny. It is also
now clear that the main reason we are there is not to
defend democracy or human rights but simply because
the United States asked us to go and wants us to re-
main. And it is now clear that, although our alliance
with the United States is important, a simple request is
not a good enough reason for our troops to fight and
die in an unwinnable and unjustifiable war. This is a
decision we must make for ourselves as a country. It is
time to bring the troops home. It is time to bring the
troops home safely and for Australia to shoulder the
burden of Afghanistan’s problems in a new way. And it
is time to bring the troops home so they can be hon-
oured for their service and no longer be asked to carry
out this unjustified task.
The Greens do not oppose the deployment in Af-
ghanistan based on any absolute opposition to the use
of military force or from any lack of commitment to
our troops. We led the call for military intervention in
Timor Leste and are proud of the role our men and
women played in the struggle for freedom and inde-
pendence in that country. Unlike in many other coun-
tries, our defence forces thankfully follow the lead of
our political leaders and have little choice in the tasks
they are set, so they are doing the job they have been
asked to do in Afghanistan.
Already 21 young Australians soldiers have lost
their lives, 10 since June this year. That is all the more
reason why we should be having this debate and all the
more reason why the government should bring the
troops home. As the leader of the Nationals said a mo-
ment ago, the decision to go to war is probably the
most important decision we can make. It is a decision
fraught with danger and uncertainty and has great con-
sequence both for the country and the soldiers going to
war and for the people and the country with which a
war is being fought or is being invaded. And it is a de-
cision that can easily lead to unintended outcomes,
peril and blowback for the people of the country whose
leaders choose to go to war. It is for those reasons that
such a momentous decision should not be left in the
hands of the executive alone. This is why the Greens
asked for and secured this debate on Australia’s Af-
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
ghanistan commitment as part of our agreement to
support the Gillard government. And this is why my
colleague Senator Scott Ludlum has put before the
Senate a bill to require a decision of parliament, as well
as the government, to underpin any deployment of
troops overseas. I can announce today that I will soon
introduce the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Ap-
proval of Overseas Service) Bill into this House.
The United States understands the importance of a
check on democracy and ensures that congress needs to
back a president’s decision to go to war. Many other
countries do something similar, including Germany,
Spain, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Slovakia, South Ko-
rea, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. We should join
them.
The Greens’ bill will require a resolution agreed to
by both the Senate and the House of Representatives
before members of the Defence Force may serve be-
yond the territorial limits of Australia, except where
emergencies require immediate deployment. The
Greens hope that this debate can be a step towards the
passage of our bill, which will mean that, once and for
all, in the future the Australian people through their
representatives will have a say in whether we go to
war.
No-one knows exactly how many people have died
and been injured in the war in Afghanistan, because in
those infamous words of the US military ‘We don’t do
body counts’. But we do know that it is in the tens of
thousands. According to the United Nations Assistance
Mission in Afghanistan, in the first six months of this
year casualties increased by 31 per cent compared with
2009. Nearly every other week there is another story of
a massacre or ‘accidental’ killing of civilians—more
‘collateral damage’ in a war in which, like Vietnam,
our troops find it harder to tell the difference between
insurgents and noninsurgents.
The Afghan war has now been going on for over
nine years, almost longer than World Wars I and II
combined. We must remember that, in the eyes of
many of the people now fighting the coalition forces in
Afghanistan, this is a continuation of their fight to re-
move foreign forces from the country—a fight begun
with the Soviet invasion in 1979. The Russians learned,
to their great cost, that more than 100,000 troops,
backed by an Afghan government, could not win
against the Mujahideen. The Leader of the Opposition
was right yesterday in saying that, despite the history,
we must deal with the world as it is. But we cannot
close our eyes to the lessons of the past and be doomed
to repeat them. Wilful blindness is no better than wish-
ful thinking.
I know that many Australians ask the legitimate
question: what will happen to the population in Af-
ghanistan if we pull out? There is an alternative ques-
tion: is our being there making the problem worse?
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Major General Alan Stretton, who served as Australian
Chief of Staff in Vietnam and fought in World War II,
Korea and Malaya, thinks so. He says that the Afghan
population ‘now sees the war as a foreign invasion of
its country’. The major general says:
In fact, the occupation is providing a reason for terrorist at-
tacks, and instead of reducing the risk to Australians is actu-
ally increasing it.
The Prime Minister said this war may be the work of a
generation. If coalition troops are there for another
decade, a whole generation of boys and girls will have
grown up under occupation, and we must expect all the
consequences that may flow from that. On this, I think
we should listen to Malalai Joya. In 2005, she was the
youngest woman elected to the Afghani parliament.
She condemned the warlords of whom the assembly
was overwhelmingly comprised. Now, she says:
We are in between two evils: the warlords and the Taliban on
one side, and the occupation on the other. The first step is to
fight against the occupation—those who can liberate them-
selves will be free, even if it costs our lives.
Respected defence analysts have said that the process
of training the army and police in Afghanistan is far
less successful than the government has made out and
may never be achievable. The desertion of personnel,
infiltration by Taliban supporters and the quality of the
troops and police all mean that very few are able to
operate without coalition forces in support. According
to some recent reports, the attrition rate far exceeds the
number of new recruits. None of these problems were
explicitly acknowledged in the Prime Minister’s speech
yesterday, apart from a confident declaration noting the
‘Afghan government’s determination that the Afghan
National Security Forces should lead and conduct mili-
tary operations in all provinces by the end of 2014’.
It is important to note the careful language that is
being used here. Afghan troops will ‘lead’ but not take
over the full security task, and they hope to ‘operate’ in
all provinces but will not be able to take on a full role
in those provinces. In short, even by 2014 there will be
no self-sufficient Afghan military or police, suggesting
that we may be there for much, much longer. The
leader of the coalition forces in Afghanistan, General
David Petraeus, summed up his thinking on the length
of deployment in this way:
You have to recognise also that I don’t think you win this
war. I think you keep fighting … You have to stay after it.
This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and
probably our kids’ lives.
While we talk here of decades and generations, Presi-
dent Obama is reported to have responded to Pentagon
requests for more troops by saying:
I’m not doing ten years. I’m not doing long-term nation-
building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.
If the US is increasingly asking how much it will cost
in lives and money to be successful, and indicating that
CHAMBER
27
it will not make that kind of commitment, why are we
not doing the same? And what would count as success,
anyway? Many have said—and it was repeated yester-
day—that we need to be in Afghanistan because of al-
Qaeda. But most experts agree that al-Qaeda is now
operating from other countries and not Afghanistan.
General Peter Gration commanded the Australian De-
fence Force from 1987 to 1993. He has reportedly de-
scribed as ‘overblown’ the Prime Minister’s claims that
there are direct links between the security of Afghani-
stan and terrorist threats to Australia.
We now know that al-Qaeda is operating in Yemen,
Somalia and Pakistan, but we do not invade there. Very
few, if any, such terrorists are in Afghanistan. In Gen-
eral Gration’s words:
To say that what we are doing in Afghanistan is defending
Australians is drawing a very long bow.
Another key justification and strategy of the United
States and, in turn, the strategy of the Australian gov-
ernment has been to hold up the Karzai government
and make it democratic. Yet this same government
passes laws to subjugate women. It is accused of wide-
spread corruption and criminality. In fact, US General
David Petraeus reportedly describes the Karzai gov-
ernment as a ‘criminal syndicate’, and Vice-President
Joe Biden has asked:
If the Government’s a ‘criminal syndicate’ a year from now,
how will troops make a difference?
Successive elections in Afghanistan have been marked
by fraud. Recently came an announcement that the lat-
est election results have been delayed because of wide-
spread fraud, with estimates that up to 25 per cent of
ballots will be thrown out. When on Monday I asked a
question of the Minister for Defence about the alleged
criminality of the Karzai government, he dodged the
point. Again, yesterday and today, the government has
failed to respond directly to General Petraeus’s assess-
ment. It is a crucial point that the government must
squarely address.
The ostensible reason that is most often given for
why we are in Afghanistan is to fight the Taliban.
Some have said that we should stay the course to en-
sure the Taliban does not become the government. But
now we know there are extensive talks between the
Karzai government and Taliban leader Mullah Omar
and others, aimed at reconciliation and dealing them
squarely into government. While pursuing peace and
reconciliation is to be commended, and one hopes the
process may ease or end the conflict, it somewhat un-
dermines the claim that the Taliban is the enemy that
must be opposed at all costs, even the cost of taking
and sacrificing lives. And what now of the rights of the
Hazaras, many of whom have sought refuge in Austra-
lia and whose persecution under the Taliban has con-
tinued and may now become entrenched if the power-
sharing arrangements hold?
28 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
According to Australian defence analyst Hugh
White, the real reason the Australian government has
troops in Afghanistan is that the United States has
asked us. This is why the Greens believe we need a
relationship with the United States that is strong but
based on autonomy and independence. In the words of
Major General Alan Stretton:
Although it is important to remain an ally of the United
States, this does not mean that we have to be involved in all
American military excursions.
The experience of the British in standing up to Ameri-
can pressure to take part in the Vietnam War was that it
did not undermine the British-American relationship.
Australia could still retain the support of the United
States even if we pursued a more independent foreign
policy.
Like most people, I shudder when I hear that the
Taliban and now the Karzai government are prepared
to legislate for the sexual subjugation of women. But,
if we are looking for a tool to spread human rights and
democracy, it is folly to think that invading and occu-
pying a country is the answer. Withdrawing our troops
from Afghanistan does not mean we must disengage
from the country or stop trying to help the Afghan peo-
ple. We do not advocate leaving without helping those
we leave behind. In fact, there are good reasons to be
separating our aid efforts from our military activities.
The Australian Council for International Development
have called for military and development activities to
be decoupled. They say increased funds linked to po-
litical and military objectives make it less likely we
will see lasting and comprehensive community based
development outcomes that will meet real needs.
At the moment, the government has its priorities
wrong. The Greens believe a withdrawal of Australian
military forces from Afghanistan could enable addi-
tional aid to be directed to the country, targeted in par-
ticular to civil society institutions that foster democ-
racy, sustainable development and human rights. It is
time to look at countries like Oman instead of Vietnam
or Russia. Unlike its neighbouring conflict-racked ter-
rorist base of Yemen, it has transformed itself. It was a
society where only a few decades ago not one girl in
Oman was attending school. Now all children are ex-
pected to finish high school and the place of women
has been transformed, with three of the country’s cabi-
net ministers being women. The Prime Minister yester-
day noted the rise in Afghan girls getting an education.
In Oman, girls attend school, read books and surf the
internet, without the need for an expensive, unsustain-
able foreign occupying military force and without the
life-shattering effects war can have on children, their
education and upbringing. In the words of New York
Times journalist Nicholas D Kristof:
… one of the lessons of Oman is that one of the best and
most cost-effective ways to tame extremism is to promote
education for all.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Malalai Joya, the former Afghan MP I referred to be-
fore, knows this. She called for all of our assistance in
strengthening civil society in Afghanistan, not the oc-
cupation or the corrupt government, saying, ‘Education
gives us hope and courage,’ and ‘Open the eyes and
minds of the justice loving.’
While others in the world are discussing exit strate-
gies, Australia is writing blank cheques. More and
more countries are removing their troops, and we
should join them. Earlier in the year, the Netherlands
withdrew their troops from the province in which Aus-
tralia operates, and Canada will leave next year. No-
one has doubted their integrity or their commitment to
democracy. And even the US and NATO have talked
about a time for withdrawal, yet it seems that our
Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are un-
willing to set a date. Instead the Prime Minister has just
committed us for another decade or more of war.
The Greens have a different view. The Greens be-
lieve it is now time to bring our troops safely home.
The Greens believe the Australian people and our de-
fence forces should not be asked to continue this war
for another decade. And the Greens believe that many
people in Australia agree with us, with recent polls
showing that most Australians want our defence forces
personnel brought safely home. If we really want to
ensure Afghanistan never again becomes a haven for
terrorists, we must encourage education and help
strengthen the institutions of civil society. We must
foster democracy from below, not imagine we can im-
pose it from above down the barrel of a gun. No matter
how much the contemporary trend might be to dress it
up in the garb of human rights, an invasion is an inva-
sion, a war is a war. It is a mistake we have made be-
fore but not yet learned from. We owe it to our troops,
the Australian people and the people of Afghanistan to
adopt a different path.
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (11.58 pm)—This is an
important opportunity to outline for the parliament the
reasons for our engagement in Afghanistan. It is not a
debate I welcome; it is a debate in which properly one
should be involved. It is not a debate about whether or
not Australia supports the Karzai government. All of us
would agree that a government with the sorts of values
that have been mentioned—and I do not dispute
those—is questionable. But it does not mean that we
should not be involved in Afghanistan. I note that in an
outstanding speech by the Leader of the Opposition in
response to the Prime Minister’s statement he had this
to say:
Afghanistan may never be a Western-style, pluralist de-
mocracy. In any event, it is for Afghans, not for outsiders, to
reengineer their society from the feudal to the modern. Our
broader mission is merely to foster effective governance, at
least by Afghan standards, and to ensure that Afghanistan
never again hosts training camps for international terrorism.
Australia’s particular mission, in Oruzgan and the surround-
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ing provinces, is to strike at active Taliban units and to men-
tor the Afghan army’s fourth Brigade into an effective mili-
tary unit loyal to the central government.
It is in that context that this debate needs to be seen.
This is not about a war, as the member for Melbourne
suggests, that cannot be won. If the view was that wars
could never be won, one would stand aside and allow a
Nazi regime to dominate the world. I am sure that there
were times of great doubt. But people’s determination
in that situation never wavered.
The honourable member for Melbourne quoted
General Gration to give authority to the proposition
that this war that cannot be won is something that we
should walk away from. But I notice that in General
Gration’s comments, reported by Cameron Stewart in
the Australian on 19 October, the general said, ‘Having
come this far, we cannot unilaterally walk away.’ They
were observations that were not brought to our atten-
tion by the member for Melbourne.
I want to take this opportunity to observe that this
week I spoke on a condolence motion for the family of
Jason Brown. The family are constituents of mine. I
grieved at his death, as I grieve for all those young
Australians who have lost their lives. But they are not
the only funerals that I have attended. I have attended
the funeral of a young man whose sister is very closely
known by my daughter and who perished in Bali as a
result of a terrorist bombing that took the lives of 88
Australians.
Our Afghanistan involvement commenced in 2001
after a most horrendous event that is now ebbing in the
minds of many Australians. I do not know whether the
honourable member for Melbourne remembers where
he was on 9/11. But I know exactly where I was: in a
Melbourne hotel room. I came in late, expecting to get
Lateline but instead watching planes flying into the
World Trade Centre, tragically taking the lives of many
thousands of people, including Australians. It was
probably one of the most momentous events in my life
to see such horrific terrorist acts occurring; such wan-
ton acts that simply took people’s lives as if they meant
nothing.
The enormity of that loss was well understood by
the Australian community generally. I look back at the
comments of former Prime Minister John Howard,
when he determined, along with the government, that,
in consultation with the United States, article 4 of the
ANZUS treaty applies to terrorist attacks on the United
States. He spoke later about those events. He noted that
in relation to New York, 22 Australians, as well as peo-
ple from around 80 other nations, 14 of whom were
Muslim, died in that attack. He made the point that no-
one doubts that the al-Qaeda network, led by Osama
bin Laden, was responsible for the attacks and that the
Taliban had allowed Afghanistan to become a safe ha-
CHAMBER
29
ven for international terrorism. Later, in a speech that
he made about al-Qaeda, he had this to say:
Whilst the destruction of the Al Qaida network must be
our first priority, the long-term aim of this war is to demon-
strate that organised, international, state-sanctioned terrorism
will not be tolerated by the world community.
We know that our mission will not be easy. It will be pro-
longed and against an enemy hiding in the dark corners of
the world. An enemy who will falsely portray our objective
to destroy terrorism as an assault upon Islam.
The war will be a new kind of war. There will be few, if
any, set-piece battles to bring it to an end. Rather it will be a
sustained effort, requiring sturdy patience, and the careful
marshalling and coordination of resources.
He went on to say that there could be no valid com-
parison with Vietnam. He made this point:
In contrast, today all the major powers of the world are as
one in their opposition to international terrorism. In the pre-
sent situation, we are not at war with any other nation. We
are certainly not at war against any faith or against the peo-
ple of Afghanistan, who are the victims of the very terrorism
that we are opposing.
He made it clear that there was bipartisan support for
our engagement in those activities to constrain the po-
tential impact of terrorism upon Australia.
I served in the government of John Howard. I was a
member of the National Security Committee of Cabi-
net. I received briefings from our intelligence organisa-
tions and publicly was able to say that some 10,000
people from around the world went to Afghanistan for
the purpose of training with al-Qaeda. Numbers of
those were from Australia. It is clear from the prosecu-
tions that have occurred in Australia that people who
have been involved in planning terrorist activities in
our country trained offshore in that very situation. Of
course, that was not only our experience, it has been
the experience in Europe. Australians lost their lives in
the London bombings that were orchestrated by people
who were similarly aligned.
It is important that we do not allow ourselves to be
beguiled by arguments that war is difficult, that the
Karzai government has perhaps less credibility than we
would like and that we walk away from the effort of
ensuring that there is no opportunity for al-Qaeda to
operate on that scale again. It has always seemed to me
that, as hard as it is, it is more important to fight the
battle there and win than to simply walk away and
fight a battle here, on our own shores, with even
greater tragic consequences.
I have had the opportunity of looking at the strategy
in which we have been engaged. It seems to me that it
is a strategy designed to serve Australia’s interests and
to protect our community. I recognise that we are not
involved in this task alone. We are committing in the
order of 1,500 Australian troops compared with the
United States commitment of 78,430, the United King-
dom, 9,500; Germany, 4,590; France, 3,750; Italy,
30 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
3,400, Canada, 2,830; Poland, 2,630; Romania, 1,750;
Turkey, 1,740; and Spain, 1,555. This is not something
in which we are engaged alone. We are part of the
world community dealing with this issue.
I have had the opportunity of visiting Afghanistan to
see something of what our troops are doing to train the
Afghan troops through the Mentoring Task Force. I had
the opportunity of seeing something of our special
forces. I was very proud of the way in which young
Australians serving their country were undertaking
their efforts. When I know of the enormity of the task
and when I see them, I am very much persuaded by the
reports we receive from those who are involved in
planning our operations. General John Cantwell, who
briefed me and who also briefed the Prime Minister
and the Leader of the Opposition when they visited
Tarin Kowt, said, ‘It’s not the time to lose faith, it’s not
the time to forsake the loss and the sacrifice and ex-
pense and the heartache that’s gone into this.’ Twenty-
one Australian troops have died during the Afghanistan
deployment. ‘We can’t let Afghanistan become a seat
for transnational terrorism,’ he said.
What interested me were the reports I saw this week
of the views of Australian families who have lost their
loved ones in Afghanistan. In McPhedran’s article in
the Courier Mail we see this quote:
The father of a soldier killed in Afghanistan and the partner
of another who has just arrived in Oruzgan Province have
appealed for a deeper understanding of what our troops are
doing in the troubled country.
Gary Bewes and Taryn McGowan made a number of
observations. Mr Bewes, whose son Nathan died in
conflict, said that he hoped that politicians did not get
pressured into pulling out in the short term. ‘It would
be a terrible waste of the good work they have done,’
he said. Of course, Miss McGowan was similarly con-
cerned. What a tragic loss of young Australians, who
gallantly serve the interests of the nation to protect the
lives of other Australians, if we were simply to say
now, ‘It’s all too hard and we’re going to walk away.’
I was interested in some of the comments made by
Alexander Downer, who served with me on the Na-
tional Security Committee of cabinet. When writing on
these matters in the Spectator recently, he made this
observation:
Sudden withdrawal would have disastrous consequences.
For the people of Afghanistan it would almost certainly lead
to the return of a Taleban regime with all its attendant human
rights abuses. It would be perceived by the Jihadist move-
ment around the world as a historic victory and give that
movement fresh momentum and hope. And a Taleban-run
Afghanistan would have the potential to destroy the stabil-
ity—such stability as there is—of a fragile regime in Paki-
stan.
He goes on to say:
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. That, in turn,
would escalate tensions between India and Pakistan, and who
knows where that might lead.
These are issues of very great moment. They are not
issues that have been dealt with lightly. The decision to
commit was a decision taken seriously by the former
government and it has been supported by this govern-
ment. I think the reasons by the Prime Minister and the
Leader of the Opposition outlining our engagement
were compelling and I strongly support the statement
that has been made.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (12.14 pm)—Mr Deputy
Speaker Adams, I am a Duntroon graduate and a for-
mer Army lieutenant colonel. For a time, as you would
know, I served as a senior intelligence analyst. I be-
lieve in just war and I supported the 2001 invasion of
Afghanistan on the grounds that al-Qaeda was involved
in the 9-11 terror attacks and so significantly inter-
twined with the Taliban that any effective US response
warranted regime change in Kabul. Unsurprisingly
then I am a strong supporter of the Australian Defence
Force and have been as saddened as anyone that it is
my old battalion, the 6th, based in Brisbane, which has
lately borne the brunt of casualties in Afghanistan. I
was a platoon commander, the adjutant and then a
company commander in 6RAR and understand well the
difficulty of the job our soldiers are doing in our name.
On balance, I am also pro US. The United States and
Australia are natural allies on account of our common
histories, cultures, values and strategic security inter-
ests. The US-Australia bilateral relationship is under-
standably one of Australia’s most important, and I can
understand Prime Minister John Howard’s decision to
invoke the ANZUS treaty after 9-11. When the US is in
strife it is right that we should come to its aid, as in fact
we should try to help any country so long as doing so
is genuinely within our means and genuinely consistent
with our national interests.
But despite all of this I am a vocal critic of the war
in Afghanistan and I believe we must bring our combat
troops home as soon as possible. When I say ‘as soon
as possible’, I envisage a withdrawal timeline carefully
planned by military professionals, not by politicians, a
timeline which speedily hands military responsibility
over to Afghan security forces in a matter of months.
Yesterday the Prime Minister was talking about us
still waging war in Afghanistan in 10 years time. That
was an extraordinary admission of the difficulties we
have gone and got ourselves into, and entirely inconsis-
tent with our national interest. If it were up to me, I
would be very concerned with any military plan that
still had us fighting in Afghanistan in 10 months time,
let alone in 10 years time.
In 2001 Afghanistan was a launching pad for Islamic
extremism. But now the country is irrelevant in that
regard because Islamic extremism has morphed into a
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
global network not dependent on any one country. Yes,
countries like Pakistan are incubators for terrorists, but
so are countries like Australia, Indonesia, the United
Kingdom and the United States, which now grow their
own terrorists. This is a much more worrying situation
because it enlarges the threat and buries it deep within
us, where it is even harder for the security services to
detect.
In 2001 Osama bin Laden was thought to be in Af-
ghanistan. But now no-one knows where he is or even
if he is alive or dead—not that it matters anymore, be-
cause his ideas have taken hold and grown strong glob-
ally. In 2001 al-Qaeda was the world’s most dangerous
Islamic terrorist organisation, but now al-Qaeda, like
bin Laden, is much less important because it has
spawned offshoots directly and inspired other terror
groups to crystallise.
The misguided response to 9-11, not the least of
which was the failure to finish the job in Afghanistan
when we had the chance in 2002, followed by the out-
rageous invasion of Iraq in 2003, has resulted in a sig-
nificant baseline number of would-be Islamic terrorists
and a global network of small terrorist clusters. In
other words, Afghanistan is no longer relevant to Aus-
tralia’s security in the way it was way back in 2001,
and the continued government and coalition insistence
that we must stay in Afghanistan to protect Australia
from terrorists is deliberately misleading: a great lie
which, in recent Australian history, is second only to
the gross government dishonesty over Australia’s deci-
sion to join in the invasion of Iraq.
Mind you, yesterday and today there have been no
shortage of misleading statements in this place regard-
ing our military commitment in Afghanistan. Both the
Prime Minister and the opposition leader laid it on
thick with 9-11, the Bali bombings and the attacks on
our embassy in Jakarta. Yes, a token effort was made
by both of them to distance these shocking events from
our current role in Afghanistan, but the way they were
recounted achieved the speaker’s aim of forming asso-
ciations in people’s minds and steering listeners to-
wards the conclusion that the terrorist attacks of years
ago are as relevant today to our mission in Afghanistan
as they were then. If there is in fact any relevance of
Afghanistan to terrorism and Australian security nowa-
days then it is the way in which the ongoing war con-
tinues to enrage disaffected Muslims right around the
world.
Just last week the Victorian Supreme Court heard
that one of the men allegedly plotting to stage an attack
at Holsworthy army barracks in Sydney was angry at
Australia’s ongoing presence in Afghanistan. Accord-
ing to media reports, one Wissam Fattal discussed a
trip by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to Germany
to hold discussions about the war and was overheard to
CHAMBER
31
say, ‘It was shameful that Australian troops killed in-
nocent people.’
If the government and the coalition are going to con-
tinue to argue for years more fighting in Afghanistan
and deaths then you need to start being honest with the
Australian community. Ditch the dishonest terrorism
rhetoric and try to sell the real reasons for our seem-
ingly open-ended involvement in a war that has gone
from bad to worse over nine years, making it one of the
longest wars in Australian history. Only the 13 years of
the Malayan Emergency and the 10-year service of the
Australian Army Training Team in Vietnam surpass it.
The reality is that the main reason we are in Af-
ghanistan is to support the United States and, by that
support, to enhance the likelihood of the US coming to
our aid in the event Australia’s security is one day
threatened. Such a reason for staying in Afghanistan
has appeal to a not insignificant number of Australians.
The problem is it is a misplaced appeal because the
reality of foreign policy remains that alliances last only
so long as interests overlap. So US support for Austra-
lia at some point in the future will depend on our use-
fulness to Washington at that exact point in time. Viet-
nam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other supposed downpay-
ments on our American insurance policy will not in
themselves necessarily amount to anything. Turning
this point around is the reality that Australia is and will
remain as important to United States strategic interests
as the US is to ours. Our location, political and social
stability and inherent security, in part because of our
air-sea gap and inhospitable frontiers, combine to en-
sure Australia is one piece of real estate the US will
continue to be prepared to shed blood over.
Some commentators see in the case of New Zealand
a demonstration of the perils of saying no to America.
But the reality is that Prime Minister David Lange’s
decision in 1984 to deny US nuclear ships the right to
visit New Zealand did not unplug Wellington from US
security arrangements for the simple reason that Amer-
ica had a continuing need to access the material col-
lected by the Waihopai signals intelligence ground sta-
tion on the North Island. In other words, the bilateral
New Zealand-United States security arrangement did
continue, albeit in another form, because the security
needs of the two countries continued to overlap. All the
theatre about New Zealand having been completely cut
adrift by the US was just that—political theatre for
public consumption, mainly in America. Australia
could also continue to rely on United States security
guarantees if we pulled out of Afghanistan because we
are simply too important to the US’s own security for it
to be otherwise. In fact, we would almost certainly be
at less risk of being taken for granted in Washington if
sometimes we simply said no.
All of this leaves ordinary Afghans as pawns in the
strategic game we continue to play out with the United
32 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
States. Yes, the Afghans in our area of operations have
often benefited from the good work of our soldiers, and
the Prime Minister’s speech on the war yesterday was a
fitting reminder of the local achievements of our sol-
diers. But let us not kid ourselves: after nine years of
war and billions of dollars in foreign aid, a third of a
million Afghans are still displaced within that country’s
borders while 10 times that number—three million—
eke out an existence as refugees, mainly in Iran and
Pakistan. Moreover, the central government still fails
to exert much control outside Kabul, and the Taliban’s
strength is put in the tens of thousands and growing,
even though foreign force numbers have now maxed
out at well over 100,000 troops. I remember well my
visit some years ago to north-east Iran, where I met
with some of the Afghan refugees accommodated at
one of the camps on the border there. There were thou-
sands in the camp and, even though the conditions
were relatively tolerable thanks to Iranian government
efforts, the looks on the faces of many of the refugees,
including the children, was the stuff of nightmares.
Such experiences help explain my compassion for asy-
lum seekers to this day.
Australia’s achievements in Afghanistan are eerily
similar to the way in which Australia achieved tremen-
dous results in Phuoc Tuy province in South Vietnam
between 1965 and 1972 only to see those achievements
eventually steamrolled by the broader Vietnam War
debacle. In other words, it does not matter how well we
do in Oruzgan Province, because ultimately Afghani-
stan’s fate is being decided elsewhere.
Another alarming similarity between Afghanistan
and Vietnam is how these wars were or are propping up
deeply corrupt regimes—and this matters. There have
now been two elections in Afghanistan in the space of
14 months, and both have been widely ridiculed for
intimidation and fraud on a scale completely discredit-
ing the outcomes. At the end of the day, this is the gov-
ernment our soldiers are propping up and dying for. I
find that totally unacceptable and something the gov-
ernment still needs to properly explain. No wonder
Australian public support for the war and our involve-
ment in it are at such low levels, as evidenced by a poll
in June by Essential Media Communications which
showed that nearly two-thirds of people wanted the
government to withdraw troops from Afghanistan
while only seven per cent thought that the number of
troops should be increased. Also this year, research by
the esteemed Lowy Institute put at 54 per cent the
number of people polled who felt that Australia should
not continue to be involved militarily in Afghanistan.
Very few members may be unambiguously speaking
out against the war, but standing behind those of us
who do are the millions of Australians who are con-
cerned about the ongoing war in Afghanistan and feel
strongly that it is time to bring the troops home. Every
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
member here needs to understand that, while the num-
ber of members speaking against the war in this place
is small, the number of people out there concerned
about the war is huge. In other words, numerous mem-
bers are prepared to sit there behind their party’s policy
at the expense of genuinely representing the views of
their constituents, and that is a shocking breakdown of
democracy. Some things should be above party disci-
pline, and this is one of them. Whatever happened to
some of you that you are now so ready to sacrifice your
soul for your party’s political self-interest?
I also acknowledge those of you who have travelled
to Afghanistan to visit our soldiers. But please under-
stand that you have had an intoxicating experience
more likely to entertain than to deeply inform the sort
of strategic-level analysis and decision making now
needed more than ever. The views of our enthusiastic
diggers and operational-level commanders are obvi-
ously important, but they are only one perspective
when it comes to understanding Australia’s strategic
interests and the most sensible way to achieve them.
That most of our soldiers are keen to stay in Afghani-
stan does not necessarily make staying there the right
thing to do.
One argument for staying in Afghanistan is the need
to stabilise Pakistan. But this notion is baseless, be-
cause one of the main reasons Pakistan has become
increasingly unstable since 2001 is Islamabad’s support
for the war. Moreover, one of the reasons the north-
west frontier has become so much more problematic is
the flow of militants across the border. On balance,
pulling out of Afghanistan will help rather than hinder
Pakistan. This is something I saw firsthand in 2002,
when I visited the Protestant church in the diplomatic
enclave in Islamabad which had been attacked by ter-
rorists only days before. The grenade attack, which
killed five including the wife of an American diplomat,
is a sobering reminder of the dangers faced by our own
diplomats overseas, especially in the many countries
with heightened levels of Islamic extremism.
The difficulties we face in Afghanistan, especially
since they come so soon after the Iraq debacle, throw
into question how the decision to wage war is made in
Australia. That currently such decisions can be and are
made by the Prime Minister acting virtually alone is
patently inadequate and potentially disastrous. Deci-
sions are hostage to the competence of an individual
with all his or her strengths and weaknesses, ideology
and prejudices. There is no mandatory gross error
check either at the outset or later on.
This parliamentary debate is a case in point. It is
good that we are having it, but we are only having it
because of the extraordinary 2010 federal election re-
sult and the pressure brought to bear on the new gov-
ernment by a small number of agitators experiencing
extra-ordinary political influence. There is a real need
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
for a public and political discussion about this matter
because the current war powers arrangement is inde-
fensible. Perhaps, for example, section 51 of the Con-
stitution, which outlines the legislative powers of the
parliament, could be amended to include the line ‘to
declare war on or make treaties of peace with foreign
powers.’ One option I favour is that the decision to go
to war should be made by a conscience vote in a joint
sitting of the parliament.
The international community, including Australia,
confronts a dreadful dilemma in Afghanistan. On the
one hand, it could walk away from the seemingly in-
evitable disaster that would unfold or, on the other
hand, it could stay and fight as it plans to in the hope of
somehow avoiding a different but equally inevitable
disaster. Success will not be measured by capturing the
capital—we did that nine years ago and, in any case,
civil wars are rarely won that way. No, success will be
measured by some sort of consensus among the Afghan
community, and that will not be possible until there is a
political solution underpinned by an agreement be-
tween all the major political groups. In other words,
there can be no enduring relative peace in Afghanistan
without first negotiating with the Taliban.
The Prime Minister said yesterday she believes Aus-
tralia has the right strategy in Afghanistan. She is
wrong—dangerously wrong. The reality is that the best
plan the Australian government can come up with is
simply to continue to support whatever the US gov-
ernment comes up with. And that alone is no plan—it
is just reinforcing failure. The only way to turn Af-
ghanistan around now is to hastily rebuild the govern-
ance, infrastructure, services and jobs which give peo-
ple hope and which underpin long-term peace. But this
appears increasingly unachievable because the foreign
troops which anchor such a solution are now seen by
many Afghans as the problem. They are prompting a
nationalist backlash which is sometimes coalescing
around Taliban elements.
That is our dilemma: on one hand, there is an argu-
ment for keeping our combat troops in Afghanistan but,
on the other hand, we must pull them out. There is no
good solution. Whatever we do from here there will be
violence and people will die. There is no avoiding that.
The only certainty is that Afghanistan will never face
the possibility of enduring peace unless it is allowed to
find its natural political level. That cannot happen
while the Afghans regard themselves as being occupied
by foreign powers that are propping up an illegitimate
central government.
In closing, I reiterate my support for our soldiers on
active service, especially in Afghanistan. Vale Andrew
Russell, David Pearce, Matthew Locke, Luke Worsley,
Jason Marks, Sean McCarthy, Michael Fussell, Greg-
ory Michael Sher, Mathew Hopkins, Brett Till, Benja-
min Ranaudo, Jacob Moerland, Darren Smith, Scott
CHAMBER
33
Palmer, Timothy Aplin, Benjamin Chuck, Nathan
Bewes, Jason Brown, Grant Kirby, Tomas Dale and
Jared MacKinney. You died serving your country and I
salute you. May you rest in peace, and may my new
colleagues in this place see the sense in ending this
conflict now before too many more young Australians
are sent to their deaths.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa) (12.34 pm)—I
welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate
about our involvement in Afghanistan. The debate is
timely as not only has the operation changed since our
original involvement commenced in 2001, following
the terrorist attacks in New York that year, but the poli-
tics have changed as well. Our current commitment to
the operation in Afghanistan is our largest current troop
commitment. It is our job to question the government
to ensure not only that our troops are supported in the
operation but also that there is sufficient budgetary
appropriation to provide whatever is required by our
commanders and advisers in the Department of De-
fence so that our troops are not let down by a lack of
resources for the mission.
We have a right to question. I am not here to criti-
cise; I am here to question the government so that the
Australian public can have confidence that our troops
are getting the support they need from their govern-
ment. The people of Australia want to know that. That
is why I welcome the statement by the Prime Minister
and the opportunity to talk openly in the parliament
about our commitment to the operation in Afghanistan.
I acknowledge and admire the professionalism of
our troops because they operate in the time-honoured
way of our history. They are like the Anzacs of long
ago; they are our Anzacs of today. They rank amongst
the best soldiers in the world. They are professional,
they are good at their job and they are dedicated. It is
not sufficient to just support the troops; we must sup-
port the objectives of the operation. The coalition has
always supported the troops and the operation.
I had the opportunity as chairman of the Defence
Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to go to Afghani-
stan in 2002, under Operation Enduring Freedom. We
went to the Bagram air base in Afghanistan. The night
before, we went to Kyrgyzstan and saw the pilots and
those involved in the air operation. It was with great
pride that I was able to be there and see the men and
women who formed part of that operation. Under the
same chairmanship role, I was able to go to Iraq in
2005 and go on patrol with our troops out of Al
Muthana province and then on into Baghdad. It is
worth recording that whilst we were in Iraq the refer-
endum that had been conducted saw the people of Iraq
determine their own constitution which requires that
the parliament in Baghdad must include 25 per cent
women members. That is a far cry from the situation
34 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
that existed under Saddam Hussein. I put that on the
record because I have been to see where our troops
have operated. Not only have I seen the environment; I
spent a night in the desert with them and I went on pa-
trol with them, and I have seen the terrain where they
operate.
Mr Fitzgibbon—And they survived!
Mr BRUCE SCOTT—I know the former defence
minister would have done that too. It is important as
members of this parliament who commit our troops to
operations such as this in Afghanistan that we see
where they operate. I know how much the troops ap-
preciate a parliamentary delegation seeing them and
their operations. They operate so professionally and
with great pride, and they do the job that the govern-
ment have asked of them.
Let us remind ourselves of that horrific day for the
world on September 11 2001 when terrorists attacked
the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in
Washington, and of those fearless passengers on flight
93 who prevented the fourth plane from crashing into
the US congress in Washington. Almost 3,000 innocent
people died on that one day. A year later, in 2002, our
country lost 88 Australians in the terrorist attacks in
Kuta, Bali—202 people in total were killed from three
bombs on that day. Five years ago, 52 people from all
walks of life were killed and around 700 people were
injured when four suicide bombers linked to al-Qaeda
detonated bombs on London’s underground and on a
double-decker bus in London.
All three attacks have been linked to extremist Is-
lamic groups, particularly al-Qaeda and Jamaat-i-
Islami. My memories of that horrible day in September
2001 are very vivid because the defence minister at the
time, Peter Reith, was overseas and, as defence per-
sonnel minister and veterans’ affairs minister, I was
acting defence minister that day—it was that evening
that the news came through. It was an event that
shocked the world and which would unite like-minded
countries in ensuring that something like this would
never happen again, and that those responsible would
be brought to justice.
The operation in Afghanistan was established under
the United Nations Security Council resolution 1386 in
December 2001. It is a NATO-led security mission and
it is reaffirmed by the United Nations each year. Let us
also remember that the United Nations was established
after World War II to ensure that atrocities carried out
by Hitler would never occur again. I underline that to
remind us all of the important role the United Nations
plays in bringing like-minded countries together in a
resolution to deal with atrocities and to make sure that
the world can live more peacefully. Australia is part of
a global coalition participating in an operation that is
approved by the United Nations and NATO. Our in-
volvement in Afghanistan is directly linked to our na-
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
tional security interests because we are a member of a
global society. The Australians who died in Bali, the
Australian who died in London and the Australians
who died in New York on September 11 2001 prove to
us that we are truly living in one global community.
Since Australia’s first involvement in an interna-
tional conflict in 1885, Australia has lost 102,808 Aus-
tralians. Their names are forever inscribed on the roll
of honour at the Australian War Memorial. Sadly, 21
names of young men who fought in Afghanistan have
been added to that roll. They made the ultimate sacri-
fice. Our parliament and the Australian people should
never forget what has been lost to make our country the
strong democracy that it is today and we should never
forget the people we have lost in our quest to help
other nations achieve what we in Australia take for
granted. Our thoughts on this day in this parliament are
with the families particularly of those 21 brave Austra-
lian soldiers, as we discuss the war in Afghanistan. It is
important that we remember them. Let us also remem-
ber the 152 men who have been seriously wounded. It
is our responsibility to ensure that the government pro-
vides the necessary support that they need for their
complete recovery from their wounds.
These men did not die in vain and we should take
the opportunity to remind the Australian people about
the success and the progress that has been made. So
often the media concentrate on the tragedies—and it is
important to report the mistakes and the failures of
war—and recently we have learnt that three Australian
troops have been charged with manslaughter, danger-
ous conduct, failure to comply with a lawful general
order and prejudicial conduct after a night-time inci-
dent in which six Afghani civilians were unfortunately
killed. I have received a number of calls from my con-
stituents concerned about this incident and I have ex-
plained to them that the troops were in a very intense
battle with the Taliban. The Afghanistan conflict is be-
ing fought in a very harsh environment where it is not
readily apparent who the enemy is and where the in-
surgents do not fight under our very detailed rules of
engagement. They place very little value on human life
and often use innocent civilians as human shields. The
opposition respects the decision of the independent
Director of Military Prosecutions to charge the three
soldiers and to let them have their day in court. But
there have been concerns raised with me by my con-
stituents that this is unprecedented and perhaps could
have serious ramifications for our troops in the battles
ahead.
We must also remember the good that is being done
in Afghanistan. Progress is being made. Our troops
have been involved in a number of infrastructure pro-
jects which have helped to improve the health and edu-
cation of those in Tarin Kowt. We have helped build a
waste management facility for the community. We
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
have also helped to redevelop the Tarin Kowt boys
primary school, which now has a new 35-classroom
building. The boys high school has received an up-
grade with new classrooms, and we have been involved
in the construction of a girls school. A health centre has
been developed which includes separate male and fe-
male clinics. Thirty shops have been constructed in the
Sorkh Morghab bazaar development. We have helped
build the Kowtwal Crossing, which is an all-weather
crossing over the Tiri Rud River. And we have trained
1,200 Afghani males through our trades training
school. That is significant progress in making sure
there are employment opportunities and that young
girls, in particular, are now able to go to school and,
over time, participate in their communities as we see
women participate in our own communities and in so
many other Western democracies.
We should not withdraw our troops from Afghani-
stan until the job is done. That is the Australian way. I
am reminded also of our latest rotation into East Timor.
We will not withdraw from East Timor until the job is
done, we did not withdraw from Bougainville until the
job was done, and we should not withdraw from Af-
ghanistan until this job is done. We are operating under
a UN mandate in partnership with 47 other nations.
The ANZUS treaty, which we signed in 1951, after
World War II, has been called into play.
The mission is achievable and we will achieve the
objectives. The next two to four years will see military
transition to the Afghan 4th Brigade and a growth in
the civilian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team. The
operation in Afghanistan is working and certainly
worthwhile. We must stay the course. That is why I
welcome the debate and welcome the statement made
by the Prime Minister. In her address she said that she
will make a statement in this parliament each year that
our involvement in Afghanistan continues, and that
will certainly allow members of parliament and the
people in the constituencies we represent to have their
say and to continue to monitor the progress and success
that we all hope and pray for in Afghanistan. Impor-
tantly, it will demonstrate to the Australian people that
the parliament supports not only the operation in Af-
ghanistan but also the troops and their families who
wait back here at home for their safe return.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (12.48 pm)—I wel-
come the opportunity to debate Australia’s part in the
international community’s efforts to stabilise Afghani-
stan. It is an initiative which, when I was Minister for
Defence, seemed unnecessary. Back then, regular min-
isterial statements and shadow ministerial responses
seemed to suffice. But two things have changed since
then. First, 19 months on and 11 more deaths on, the
Australian community is more and more sceptical
about our prospects of success and increasingly doubt-
ful about the merit in us being there at all.
CHAMBER
35
Second, cracks have been appearing in the bipartisan
support for the campaign. This latter development
would be disappointing in any circumstance, but it is
particularly disappointing given it appears, to me, to
have been more about domestic politics than about the
national interest or indeed about the interests of our
troops in theatre—and this from a political party
which, when in government, took its eye off the ball to
pursue a non-UN-sanctioned foray into Iraq and was
sending our troops into harm’s way in Afghanistan
without insisting on being part of the strategic planning
processes. I remember very well preparing to travel to
Vilnius, Lithuania, to be the first Australian defence
minister to speak at a NATO conference on Afghani-
stan. ‘Please make sure I have the NATO planning
documents among my travel papers,’ I said to a senior
official. The astonishing response was: ‘Sorry, Minis-
ter. As a non-NATO partner we don’t have access to
them.’ I am delighted to report that that quickly
changed.
I welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition
has taken the opportunity of this debate to clarify the
opposition’s position and to reaffirm their support for
the mission in Afghanistan. My own contribution to the
debate will be one which reaffirms my own belief in
the mission and the manner in which we are pursuing
our objectives. Let me provide three important reasons.
First, when the twin towers came down on September
11 2001, the terms of ANZUS, our most important alli-
ance, were invoked. It is easy for people to dismiss our
participation in Afghanistan as a ‘suck to the US’. Let
me send a very important message to all and sundry:
our relationship with the US matters; it matters a great
deal. American expectations that we might come to
their aid should be no less than our own expectations if
we were to find ourselves in trouble. And any assis-
tance they might provide to us in the future could be in
response to an existential threat. The assistance we
provide them in Afghanistan helps them to establish
moral authority. The assistance they may provide us in
the future may be far more important. In any case, the
United States is unequivocally a force for good in the
community of nations, and despite Uncle Sam’s great
wealth, power and dominance he should not be ex-
pected to carry the weight of global peace on his
shoulders alone.
Second, Afghanistan matters to Australia’s security.
Just ask the family and friends of those who lost their
lives at the hands of terrorists in Bali and Jakarta or
indeed those who survived but live with physical dis-
ability or emotional scarring. We cannot and should not
sit back and allow Afghanistan to once again descend
into a breeding ground and safe haven for extremists
with such a dedication to their cause that they are will-
ing to murder innocent men, women and children.
36 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Third, even if you are of the view that the interven-
tion in Afghanistan was unjustified, you must accept
that any precipitous withdrawal would lead to a hu-
manitarian disaster on a massive scale as the Taliban
reimposes its murderous system of justice and sets
upon a course to punish all those who sided with those
trying to establish new democratic, economic and so-
cial models and, of course, a lasting peace. Our com-
mitment to this cause has been expensive in economic
terms but more importantly, in human terms. Every life
lost is one too many and to have lost 21 is devastating,
but the brutal reality is that people die in armed con-
flict.
The second brutal reality is that in relative terms our
losses in Afghanistan have been modest, thankfully—
modest when compared to comparable countries such
as Canada and modest in historical terms, when com-
pared with other conflicts. I am often asked whether I
really believe we ‘can win’ in Afghanistan. I believe
we can. But it is really important to understand what
‘winning’ means. ISAF will have won in Afghanistan
when the majority of Afghans come to the conclusion
that the political, economic and social model we are
offering is better than any being offered by the insur-
gents. We do not expect to offer a model democracy
but we do expect to offer something much better than
what is being offered by the Taliban.
Arriving at that point requires not just an effective
military campaign but an effective nation-building
campaign and a resolution to the complex political is-
sues within both Afghanistan and the region, particu-
larly in Pakistan and along the Durand Line where the
Pashtun people have been divided by an international
boundary imposed upon them long ago. In this civil-
military-political campaign, each piece of the matrix is
as important as the next. We will not kill and capture
our way to success in Afghanistan. We will not win
without an economy, a legal system and something to
enforce it, and a public service and a government
largely free of corruption. And we will not win if too
many people in Pakistan are willing us to lose.
That Australia has but a relatively minor role to play
in the outcome in Afghanistan is yet another reality.
Oruzgan province is not that important in the big stra-
tegic picture. The fate of ISAF’s military campaign
will be determined in Helmand province, Kandahar
province and in the Federally Administered Tribal Ar-
eas of Pakistan.
The civil and political campaigns will be won or lost
in Kabul, Islamabad and Washington. Beijing and
Moscow also have roles to play on the political front
but, as yet, seem unwilling to play with any great en-
thusiasm. None of these points are intended to under-
value the excellent work being done by the ADF and
its partners in Oruzgan. Every contribution is important
and our people are doing wonderful work there at great
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
risk to themselves, but we must be open and transpar-
ent with the Australian people.
Oruzgan is important because it is often a northern
safe haven for insurgents seeking respite from the main
game in Helmand and Kandahar provinces. It is also an
important transit route from the east for the insurgents.
But it is a relatively small piece of a very complex and
large strategic jigsaw puzzle. Our role there now is to
train the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army to a
point where it can take care of security in the province.
I was minister when the National Security Committee
redefined our mission. In doing so we effectively put in
place an exit strategy. It was a difficult decision for me
as minister because I knew it would increase the risk to
ADF personnel, particularly our infantry and engi-
neers. And sadly it has come at a cost, but it was the
right decision and one I firmly believe was welcomed
by and remains welcomed by the ADF members it af-
fected.
We are undoubtedly a long way from achieving the
aim of bringing the 4th Brigade to the standard re-
quired of them. That standard will not be determined
by us; it we will be determined by NATO. The chal-
lenge is to build a force from soldiers with only the
most rudimentary infantry and artillery skills. At the
moment they enjoy the support of Australia’s special
forces, our infantry fighting alongside them, our UAVs
and our intel, and ISAF’s artillery guns, attack helicop-
ters and fast jets. When Australia and its partners in
Oruzgan leave, the ANA will be expected to provide
security without our special forces clearing and dis-
rupting, without our infantry mentors, without ISAF’s
artillery and without close air support. That is a very
big task. Indeed, they will never be in a position to do
so in the absence of ISAF’s success in the broader mili-
tary, nation-building and political strategy.
Anyone who thinks they will be able to handle alone
an aggressive, determined and well-armed insurgency
at some point in the future is not thinking at all. How-
ever, will they be capable of handling rogue elements
and tribal leaders acting alone in a more stable Af-
ghanistan? The answer is yes, but they will never be in
a position to win a protracted campaign against an en-
emy fighting in an environment lacking a political set-
tlement. So political reconciliation is critical. Therefore
political negotiation is necessary. There is of course a
difference between negotiating with moderates and
doing deals with hardliners—that is an important point.
Of course negotiation is most likely to meet with suc-
cess if we are negotiating from a position of strength,
and that in turn takes us back to the importance of the
military campaign, the nation-building campaign, and
the roles of Kabul, Islamabad and Pakistan’s ISI.
In the meantime it is incumbent upon Australia to do
its bit. It is morally right to play a role rather than to
simply allow the US to carry the burden alone. Just as
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
important, our participation helps to provide moral le-
gitimacy to the ISAF campaign. Along with the par-
ticipation of other nation states, it sends a message that
the Afghanistan project is one being undertaken by the
community of nations, not just one or two nation states
which may be perceived to have other agendas.
I would like to say something about our troops and
the Afghan people. Our troops are the finest in the
world and all Australians should be proud of them and
grateful for what they do. They are volunteers, all of
them, and they put their lives on the line for us without
complaint or question. The majority of Afghan people
want peace. They are sick and tired of war. I vividly
remember their defence minister telling me so, and on
all the evidence I have seen I am sure that is true. Our
people in Afghanistan are helping them win the peace.
We have also built them schools, hospitals, dams, roads
and bridges. We have also made it possible for girls to
obtain a school education. Education, of course, is the
ultimate tool of empowerment.
Finally, one of the things that makes the debate
about Afghanistan difficult is that members of the Na-
tional Security Committee cannot share with the Aus-
tralian people every detail of the campaign. Sometimes
secrecy is critical both to our success and to the safety
of our troops in theatre, our police, our aid workers,
our advisers and, of course, our diplomats.
I appeal to the Australian electorate to have faith in
the decisions of their government on these issues—a
government which would never, ever send or leave our
troops in harm’s way without good reason and a gov-
ernment which would never let them down by failing
to give them everything they need in theatre, every-
thing they need to make their task as safe as it is possi-
ble.
Having said that, both the government and the ADF
need to be as open, honest and transparent as is possi-
ble to secure the trust of the electorate. Defence, in
particular, has a tendency to be unjustifiably secretive.
That is why as minister I insisted on having journalists
be allowed to embed with our troops, something that
the ADF leadership resisted with some determination.
Indeed, the same people ran interference on my own
determination to venture—to use the defence vernacu-
lar—‘outside the wire’, to visit our troops in the field,
to see the schools and hospitals we had built, to witness
these projects with my own eyes and to walk the streets
of Tarin Kowt for a friendly chat with the locals. There
I saw the gratitude in their eyes. I saw people apprecia-
tive of what we Australians are doing in Afghanistan. I
saw people with the hope of peace in their eyes and
people who believe, as we should believe, that peace is
worth fighting for.
In this debate I have heard a number of contributors
use the perceived, or alleged, corruption within the
Karzai government as an excuse to do nothing. As I
CHAMBER
37
said earlier, we would be foolish to expect within 10
years or even 20 years to have a model democracy in
Afghanistan. No government, even in the Western
world, can possibly hope to be absolutely free of some
form of corruption and we certainly should not expect
that outcome in Kabul. Certainly, the model we are
seeking to put in place and, in turn, the model we want
the Afghan government and its security forces to pro-
tect in the future is far better than anything on offer
from the Taliban or any other group. These are the rea-
sons why it is so important that we should stay the
course. As members of parliament, we should remain
determined to ensure that those people who have given
their lives in Afghanistan have not given their lives in
vain.
Debate (on motion by Ms Ley) adjourned.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed from 19 October, on the proposed
address-in-reply to the speech of Her Excellency the
Governor-General—
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of
Australia, in Parliament assembled, express our loyalty to the
Sovereign, and thank Your Excellency for the speech which
you have been pleased to address to the Parliament—
on motion by Ms O’Neill:
That the Address be agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—
Order! Before I call the honourable member for Forde I
remind the House that this is the honourable member’s
first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be
extended to him.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (1.04 pm)—It is with
great honour that I stand before this House today as the
member for Forde. Forde is an electorate that has
changed significantly since the 2007 election result, as
a result of the redistribution in Queensland in 2009.
Forde is an electorate that is located halfway between
Brisbane and the Gold Coast and covers an area of ap-
proximately 419 square kilometres—from Shailor Park
to the north, to the south in Upper Coomera and Won-
gawallen, Carbrook in the east to Boronia Heights in
the west. The seat also covers two local council areas:
Logan City Council—the heart of the great south-
east—and the Gold Coast City Council.
It is a seat that was named after Michael Francis
Forde, who served as Prime Minister for a total of eight
days in July 1945. The seat was created in 1984 and
has traditionally been held by a member of the gov-
ernment of the day. It is testament to the hard work of a
great campaign team and many volunteers that I am the
first member to hold this seat who is not sitting on the
government benches.
38 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am the proud son of immigrants from the Nether-
lands. My parents, Bob and Cornelia, came to Australia
in the mid-sixties and I was born in Brisbane in 1965.
At an early age my family moved to Waterford and,
together with my brothers Peter, Robert and Douglas
and my sister Cathryn, we enjoyed a fun-filled child-
hood swimming and fishing in the Logan River and the
Tygum Lagoon. We even created our own sports field
at the back of our property, which was used by local
kids to play soccer, cricket or any other sport we de-
cided was relevant at the time.
I went to school at Waterford and Waterford West
primary schools and at Kingston State High where I
graduated in 1982. My wife, Judi, too grew up in the
electorate, in Beenleigh and Carbrook. We bought our
first home in Loganlea. Judi and I were married in
Beenleigh in October 1987. We recently celebrated our
23rd wedding anniversary. We are blessed with two
wonderful sons, Zac and Josh, who are here with us in
the gallery today.
I have strong Christian ethics and values, and these
guide my life. I am an active member of my local
church, and I am on the board of our bible college, Du-
namis International College of Ministries. I am regu-
larly involved in our men’s mentoring and leadership
programs. My wife Judi is also on the board of Daugh-
ters of Promise, a mentoring and leadership program
for young women.
I am an avid sportsman, and I enjoy soccer, cricket
and golf—none of which I have enough time to play at
the moment. In both soccer and cricket, I have been
involved with teams that have won premierships and I
have received a number of individual awards along the
way. I also represented Queensland at state schoolboy
level in soccer. I now enjoy helping with the coaching
of my sons’ soccer teams and watching them play. It is
through playing team sports that I have learnt the value
of playing in a team. It is possible within a team envi-
ronment to display your talents and abilities, but im-
portant to direct those energies towards the success of
the team; however, you can still achieve individual
success through the success of the team.
My first job was pumping petrol, checking the oil
and cleaning the windscreens of cars at the local Caltex
service station, which is still there today. I also worked
with my father during school holidays. He was a ce-
ramic tiler and I discovered that it was not the job for
me. Professionally, I have spent 27 years in the finan-
cial services sector. I worked for 15 years for one of
our major banks and for the past 12 years Judi and I
have been building our own financial services busi-
ness. Having experience as a small business owner,
husband and father during one of the greatest financial
crises of recent times, I have a particular interest in
encouraging small business to grow and profit, thereby
creating local employment and family security.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
In that vein, I wish for Forde to be a place where
people can live locally, work locally, retire locally and
have fun in their local community. Forde will be a safe,
family focused community where children learn, play
and grow in a secure environment. Forde is a rapidly
growing area that is suffering from many of the issues
that other members in this House have touched on. Is-
sues such as infrastructure failing to keep pace with
growth, loss of housing affordability, increasing costs
of living and lack of services are just some of the major
problems for my electorate.
There are infrastructure projects such as the M1
from Loganholme to Eight Mile Plains. The Howard
government committed approximately $500 million per
annum for 10 years to have this important infrastruc-
ture project completed. The current government has
withdrawn this commitment and the previous Labor
member stated shortly before polling day that the gov-
ernment had no intention of funding the project. He
said they considered the Ml to be a freight route be-
tween Brisbane and the Gold Coast and of no eco-
nomic benefit to Logan City or the electorate. This atti-
tude underscores the government’s lack of understand-
ing of the economic loss incurred by many in the elec-
torate who have to sit in the daily traffic crawl to get to
work or conduct business.
The next stage of the Mt Lindesay Highway, in the
western part of the electorate, and duplication and up-
grade of the interstate rail line to a passenger line to
cater for the planned new cities of Flagstone and Yar-
rabilba to the south and the growth of the Park Ridge
area are vital. Further upgrade to the Gold Coast to
Brisbane rail line to cater for more trains for the ever-
growing corridor between Beenleigh and the Gold
Coast is also a key infrastructure upgrade.
But probably the biggest issue in the electorate is the
cost of living. The current government’s spending, both
in its first term and on an ongoing basis, continues to
contribute to this issue. The constant borrowing by the
current government is increasing inflationary pressures
and putting upward pressure on interest rates, which is
in turn hurting family budgets. Now we have a gov-
ernment that is willing to further increase people’s cost
of living by introducing a carbon tax and may well de-
stroy our food production capacity through its poor
management of the Murray-Darling Basin.
This problem further exacerbates the unspoken issue
of underemployment. This is a far greater issue than
many acknowledge, as it does not show up in official
statistics and yet is a direct result of the issues facing
small to medium sized businesses, issues which were
created by the government’s poor fiscal management.
It is estimated by the ABS that 300,000 jobs have been
lost from the small business sector in the first 2½ years
of the Gillard-Rudd government. I know from talking
to small businesses in my electorate that that is a huge
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
issue. It is always interesting to note that the very peo-
ple that Labor purports to assist—the poor, the disad-
vantaged and the workers—are actually the people it
hurts most through its economic policies.
Small business is the core employer in my electorate
and is finding it costly and difficult to access new capi-
tal to grow and expand, or just get through the present
difficult trading conditions. This is in part reflected in
the underemployment issue I noted earlier, as employ-
ers seek to retain staff but reduce working hours. This
also results in a fall in national productivity—an issue
which the government apparently wishes to improve.
This is where the initial and subsequent stimulus pack-
ages were misdirected and show a lack of understand-
ing by the government about the causes of recession in
Australia.
Phil Ruthven from Access Economics noted in a
presentation earlier this year that the primary driver of
recessions in Australia is not a fall in consumer spend-
ing but a loss by business of access to capital for con-
tinued growth and development. The issue arises due to
the fact that the government continues to borrow at a
rate of $100 million per day, which means there is
$100 million per day less in the capital markets avail-
able for business. This capital would be far better allo-
cated and utilised by businesses, as they will seek to
utilise that capital productively to employ staff, manu-
facture goods and generate profits.
The community of Forde is also rightly concerned
about environmental issues and recognises that we
need to better look after our environment, with many
people now actively talking about practical measures.
But they recognise the folly of an emissions trading
scheme or a carbon tax. They recognise that these are
really just big new taxes that will not make one bit of
difference to dealing with on-the-ground environ-
mental issues such as the restoration of water quality in
the Logan and Albert rivers, which both ultimately
flow into RAMSAR listed Moreton Bay.
In 2009, the Department of Environment and Re-
source Management in Queensland issued a report
which rated the lower reaches of both rivers with a
grade of poor or fail for a number of areas including
water quality. The current government during the elec-
tion campaign made a commitment to provide funding
for the commencement of restoring water quality, and I
call on the government to honour that commitment. I
will continue to hold the government to account for
this promise to the people of Forde.
There are also issues with the protection of high
quality remnant rainforest flora and fauna from pro-
posed residential developments in Bahrs Scrub to a
proposed quarry in Ormeau. Community organisations
such as the Bahrs Scrub Alliance, Stop the Quarry Ac-
tion Group and VETO are putting in significant re-
sources to fight these and other projects that will ad-
CHAMBER
39
versely affect our community. The electorate also con-
tains a number of significant, federally and internation-
ally recognised wetland areas in Carbrook, Eagleby
and Cornubia that connect to the Logan and Albert riv-
ers. As part of our election campaign we announced a
couple of Green Army projects for a few of those wet-
land areas.
In Forde we are blessed with a wide range of strong
and active community and sporting groups such as Ro-
tary, Lions, Soroptimist International and Quota, Lo-
ganholme Soccer Club, Park Ridge Pirates AFL Club,
Beenleigh Logan Cutters Cricket Club and Coomera
Hockey Club. We have strong and active chambers of
commerce in Logan at Beenleigh Yatala, Coomera,
Ormeau, Park Ridge and Browns Plains. These organi-
sations and their members work tirelessly to promote
local business and represent the interests of local busi-
ness to all levels of government.
There are many people in Forde who choose to be
involved in voluntary work and activities to give back
to their community. This electorate is blessed with
groups such as MAD, Mothers Against Drugs, estab-
lished in 1981 and run by June Hintze, who recently
received a Pride of Australia Medal for community
spirit. MAD aims to help children and young people
who are at risk because they are in an environment of
drug and/or alcohol abuse. Nightlight Outreach was
founded by John and Michaela Porter after their eyes
were opened to the number of homeless and disadvan-
taged people in Brisbane and the surrounding areas.
Ron and Debbie Hill from Lighthouse Calvary Care
provide food parcels and low-cost but quality food for
the community. Their work was recently the subject of
a feature story ‘The $20 trolley’ on Today Tonight and
they are now receiving requests to extend the range of
their work. These are but a small sample of the won-
derful community focused people we have in Forde.
There are many people who deserve thanks and rec-
ognition for assisting me to become the member for
Forde. I would like to thank the constituents of Forde,
who have placed their faith and confidence in me to
represent them. I acknowledge that I have been elected
to represent all of the constituents of Forde and my
team and I will do so to the best of our ability. I am
absolutely committed to the people, communities and
businesses in my electorate.
Winning this seat was achieved by having a tremen-
dous team behind me during the campaign. I would
first like to acknowledge and thank my wife, Judi, for
her tireless efforts during the campaign. Her assistance
and encouragement are the main reasons for me being
able to pursue my goal and for me being here today.
Judi, you and I make an awesome team and I love you
for that and for all the other blessings you bring to me
in my life. I also acknowledge and thank our two sons,
Zac and Josh, who have both shown tremendous ma-
40 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
turity and forbearance with both Judi’s and my ab-
sences during the campaign. Thank you, boys, you are
a blessing and you are my champion sons.
To my campaign team: I wish to thank John Broad-
hurst, my campaign manager, for the outstanding work
he did. He was a great source of advice, and as a friend
he encouraged me and kept me going for the nine
months of the campaign. Also thank you to Helen, his
wife, for allowing John to be part of the team. I want to
express my thanks to Jeff and Cathy Charlesworth for
their tireless hard work organising signs, volunteers,
polling booth rosters and many other things. Jeff, just
remember that this all started with a discussion that we
had about four years ago in Perth at 11 o’clock on a
Friday night—and, no, there wasn’t any alcohol in-
volved. Jeff and Cathy, your wise words, counsel and
friendship mean so much to Judi and me. Thank you to
all the wonderful members of the Dunamis Christian
Centre for their outstanding support with booth work,
letterbox drops and many other things. I would like to
especially thank my good friend Senior Pastor Shaun
Hansen and his ministry team and leadership team for
their encouragement, support and prayers throughout.
To my mother, Cornelia, I am so indebted to you.
You believed in me and knew I could achieve my goal
of being a member of parliament. Thank you to my
brothers, Peter and Robert, who encouraged and sup-
ported me throughout the nine-month long campaign.
May we continue to have many more of our family
political discussions in the future. To my mother-in-
law, Ailsa, who took five weeks out of her life to come
and live with us during the campaign. Not only did she
care for our sons and cook meals but she also came and
worked in the campaign office. Thank you to everyone.
To my friends and mentors Shane Weaver, John
Murray, Colin Street, John Jolly, Phil Colburn and An-
drew Hamman, thank you for support and friendship.
Thank you to Fraser Stephens, Sue Lipp and Deb Kirk
for their invaluable advice, support and tireless efforts
during the last months of the campaign.
Lastly, I also wish to thank my patron senator, Sena-
tor George Brandis, and Senator Russell Trood and
Tony Abbott and the members of the team that visited
the electorate during the campaign and gave us valu-
able advice and assistance. I thank also the members of
the Forde FDC, LNP headquarters and the campaign
team, in particular James McGrath, for their support
throughout.
I feel passionately about Australia and our position
in the world. I believe that we live in the best country
in the world. As a nation we are blessed with many
things: abundant natural wealth; sporting talent and
opportunity; an attitude which looks for a solution to a
problem rather than to simply whinge about the prob-
lem; and a spiritual heritage that we should not dismiss
and in these uncertain times should look to for wisdom
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
and guidance. It is the foundation upon which our na-
tion was built, and no amount of progressive thinking
can or should change that.
I believe that it is this foundation of Judeo-Christian
principles upon which our nation was built that will
also allow it to continue to grow and prosper, and I also
believe we ignore those at our peril. I feel not only
humble but also seriously committed to my obligations
as a member of the House of Representatives. My en-
ergies will be directed into making Forde a better place
to live, work, raise a family and retire. I will also work
for the betterment of the country, for our children and
for future generations of Australians to come.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (1.24 pm)—Mr Speaker, I
join my colleagues in congratulating you on your re-
turn to that important position in what will be an inter-
esting and I hope productive time in this place. I return
to parliament with the renewed privilege of represent-
ing the people of the Fremantle electorate. It is an
enormous honour and also a heavy responsibility that
comes with representative politics, for each of us
elected to this place is charged with the task of making
a difference for our own communities and for Australia
as a whole. I said in my first speech that politics is
about service, and that this service is both to the com-
munities that we represent and to the set of ideals and
values that draw us to this vocation. I have certainly
reflected on that over the last three years and, as a fed-
eral member, I have done my best to come to grips
with the difficulties involved in trying to give that ser-
vice effectively and across as many areas as one would
like. Not surprisingly the doing is inevitably harder and
more complicated than the saying, and one of the most
straightforward difficulties is choosing how to give
priority to the literally hundreds of issues that arise in
this work.
I reflected on the twin notions of service I have spo-
ken about in the aftermath of the recent campaign,
when some chose to make use of Edmund Burke’s
formulation of the duty representatives owe to their
electorates in order to argue for one kind of minority
government over another. The statement relied upon
spoke about the bond of trust that exists between con-
stituents and their representative. Burke said:
Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their
opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It
is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfac-
tions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer
their interest to his own.
But Edmund Burke knew there were limits to what
might be called the purely delegate view of representa-
tive politics. He went on to say:
But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlight-
ened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any
man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive
from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitu-
tion. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes
you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays,
instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
The exclusive use of male pronouns aside, this is a
well-expressed argument for the application of values
and the primacy of disinterested judgment in prefer-
ence to the potentially fickle influence of popular opin-
ion or ad hoc representations. It is a statement in sup-
port of guiding principles as an essential part of the
decision-making framework and against the purely
delegate view. There is a fine balance, then, in politics
and in life between the need to hear and sometimes
accept views that are different from one’s own and the
value of conviction that remains steadfast in the face of
opposition or unpopularity. Listening to others and be-
ing prepared to put aside your view has a value, but so
does the act of persuading others to take a new ap-
proach to an intractable problem or to changing cir-
cumstances. For all those reasons I will continue to
take guidance from the idea of service to both the
community I represent and to the set of values that un-
derpin my capacity to make judgments on the issues I
confront.
As someone who has been re-elected for the first
time I have now experienced the benefit of the cycle in
which representatives are judged and tested, and I can
see the value of a cycle that allows one to reflect on the
things that have been achieved and the things that re-
main to be done. Today I intend to talk about the mat-
ters large and small and local and national that I regard
as areas of particular interest or focus, the matters and
issues on which I will seek to make some meaningful
contribution in this term.
The Fremantle electorate has as its natural focus the
beautiful and vibrant port city of Fremantle. The sig-
nificance of the city as a regional centre and its loca-
tion in the north-west corner of the electorate can tend
to obscure the fact that the eastern and south-eastern
parts of the Fremantle electorate are experiencing the
fastest growth and development. I have always been
very much aware of this and I have spoken in this place
on a number of occasions about the strengths, chal-
lenges and needs of this area of my electorate. It is a
part of the Perth south metro region that is flourishing
through its access to the coast at Coogee and Jervoise
Bay and as a result of the extension of the rail line
from Perth to Mandurah by the Gallop-Carpenter La-
bor government. That is, of course, in addition to the
proactive work of the City of Cockburn, the South
West Group and, most importantly of all, the energy,
entrepreneurship and strong community spirit of indi-
viduals, families and businesses in the area.
The Perth metro area south of the river is served by
the train line from Perth to Fremantle and by the newer
inland Perth-Mandurah train line, which in my elector-
ate runs through the suburbs of North Lake, South
Lake, Jandakot, Atwell, Success and Aubin Grove. But,
CHAMBER
41
as I have mentioned, there is enormous scope for de-
velopment in the central and coastal south metro corri-
dors, and it is logical that this area be encouraged and
supported by the provision of appropriate infrastruc-
ture. It is for that reason that I have worked particularly
hard to argue for community facilities, such as the new
fire and emergency services headquarters in Jandakot,
near Cockburn central, to which the government has
now committed $1.5 million.
I also hope the Western Australian government can
soon adopt a transport plan for the south metro region
that includes a strategic and forward-looking commit-
ment to a second tier public transport network like light
rail. Such a plan is necessary and it should be devel-
oped as a priority in order to complement the current
and planned residential expansion along the Cockburn
coast in particular. Unfortunately, the current state gov-
ernment’s principal transport planning initiative is to
pursue the outdated and hugely damaging Roe High-
way stage 8. This road will have an unnecessary and
unacceptable impact on another of the critical north-
south features of the Fremantle electorate—namely, the
string of lakes and wetlands that form the spine of the
Beeliar Regional Park. This is an internationally sig-
nificant ecosystem. It is enormously significant to local
Aboriginal people, represented by elder Patrick Hume,
for its archaeological and mythological heritage sites.
It is one of the great environmental and community
assets in the metropolitan area south of the Swan River.
I will continue to support an approach to transport
planning in metropolitan Western Australia that looks
beyond the tired and reflexive decision to keep build-
ing further huge expensive roads in a network that al-
ready provides more kilometres per capita than almost
anywhere else in the world. There are better solutions
for reducing road congestion and the impact of road
freight, not least in properly supporting rail freight—an
initiative which the current WA government has fla-
grantly abandoned.
I have noted before in this place that the Fremantle
electorate is a leader in urban sustainability and there
have been a number of achievements in the last year
that bear this out. Western Australia is well placed to be
a major participant in renewable energy development
and I am keen to ensure that WA is seen not just in
terms of its mining strength but also in terms of its po-
tential for innovation and expansion when it comes to
renewables like solar, solar thermal, wave, geothermal
and wind power. It is hard sometimes not to feel that
WA’s capacity in this area is overlooked, perhaps be-
cause of its obvious strength in traditional energy re-
sources. I am resolved to advocate on behalf of renew-
able energy and other emission reduction or carbon
abatement initiatives in my electorate and in my state.
In addition to my work in the Fremantle electorate
and my work in this place as a representative of Fre-
42 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
mantle and of Western Australia, there are several mat-
ters of national importance that I intend to pursue. In
the area of health, I have already signalled my interest
in seeing a small but important change to the Patents
Act 1990 that will prevent the patenting of genetic ma-
terial or sequences and therefore stop the private and
commercial exploitation of what is our most funda-
mental common property and common wealth. I draw
members’ attention to my notice of motion relating to
gene patents that was debated on Monday night, 18
October, and I encourage interested parliamentarians
and members of the public to consider the discussion
and inform themselves on the issue.
It is also clear that Australia needs to quicken the
pace and expand the scope of national health reform as
a whole, in particular in the area of preventative health.
That is a project that this government is well placed to
advance, partly because the sound underlying structure
of the national health system was built by Labor gov-
ernments of the past and partly because this govern-
ment has already made progress in the area of health
reform. I commend the incredible work done by the
Minister for Health and Ageing in this area to date, and
I look forward to being part of a Labor government
that continues to shape a sustainable and effective na-
tional health system. This includes being prepared to
take hard decisions to ensure that health funding is ap-
plied as effectively as it can be—as in the case of our
preparedness to direct government support on the basis
of need to those who take out private health insurance.
The issue of care, both for the elderly and for people
with disability, is of enormous significance. I look for-
ward to the Productivity Commission’s examination of
a national disability insurance scheme, for there can be
few areas of policy that present such enormous poten-
tial to improve the quality of Australian life for the mil-
lions of people who live with disability or care for
those who do. On that front, I welcome the creation of
the special disability trust, which allows parents of
children with disability to make provision for their
care. This reform is one of those small but important
improvements that occur through government without
ever intruding into the wider public awareness. I am
aware that further improvements to the operation of
those trusts have been introduced in a bill today, and I
look forward to their becoming law. I want to make
special mention of Ray Walter and his wife and their
son Glenn—an indefatigable Western Australian family
who have campaigned on this issue for years. I am one
of several WA parliamentarians to have had the benefit
of Ray’s tireless advocacy on this issue, and I want to
particularly acknowledge the passionate concern of the
member for Pearce, who had a notice of motion on this
subject on Monday.
When it comes to aged care, I am strongly in favour
of considering new and further approaches to support
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
elderly Australians and their families in circumstances
where an elderly couple or an individual wants to con-
tinue to live independently but needs assistance to do
so. There is scope to explore both existing and innova-
tive means of providing care in the home, which I be-
lieve will have benefits for elderly Australians and
their families, in addition to cost savings. There is also
no doubt that we need to focus efforts and resources on
residential aged-care capacity, service and consistency
right now if we are to avoid a crisis in the near future. I
support calls for further funding and attention to be
given to this sector and I look forward to welcoming
the new Minister for Mental Health and Ageing to
Fremantle to meet with aged-care providers and work-
ers. Of course, the quality of aged and disability care
depends more than anything on the people who directly
provide that care and on the proper staff-patient ratios
that allow care workers to do what they do best—in
appropriate working conditions. Due to the strength of
the resources sector, WA has particular difficulties
when it comes to retaining workers in the aged-care
sector. I support a proportion of increased funding be-
ing ring-fenced for the improvement of wages to care
workers.
Finally, on the health topic, can I say how welcome
it was that the recent election drew public and media
attention to the issue of mental health. This is a matter
of great concern in my electorate, and while Fremantle
has been fortunate to benefit from one of the new
headspace centres I also look forward to the implemen-
tation of the government’s further initiatives in the area
of suicide prevention.
In the area of governance and ethics, I intend to fur-
ther pursue a number of issues. I believe that our sys-
tem of government should operate to ensure that the
decision to commit Australian troops overseas to war is
subject to full parliamentary consideration, debate, and
approval—rather than being a matter for the executive
alone. This week we are debating our commitment in
Afghanistan, and so it is timely that we extrapolate
from those circumstances to consider the process by
which we come to make these commitments in the first
place. It is inevitable that we will have to make similar
decisions in the future and I believe there are compel-
ling reasons—most vividly illustrated by the Howard
government’s decision to go to war in Iraq—to provide
greater scrutiny of the decision to commit troops to war
through a process which requires parliamentary con-
sideration and consent.
I remain committed to the good sense and necessity
of a human rights act and I reject wholeheartedly the
idea that this question has been resolved or that a hu-
man rights act is some kind of high-flown, marginal
reform. In fact, such an act not only would incorporate
domestically Australia’s international commitments
under human rights treaties but would enshrine the
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
very Australian notion of a fair go within our legal sys-
tem because it would empower ordinary Australians
against the excesses of the executive. You have only to
reflect on the tragic WA case of Mr Ward, who died in
the back of a prison van in January 2008, whose ago-
nising death was described by the coroner as wholly
unnecessary and avoidable. No person or body—not
the drivers of the prison van; not the company, G4S,
running the prisoner transport services on behalf of the
government; not the police or the justice of the peace;
not the Department of Corrective Services or the De-
partment of the Attorney General—has been held ac-
countable, and nor are they likely to be. The treatment
of Aboriginal people in WA’s justice system was unac-
ceptable in 1901, when the Labor member for Cool-
gardie, Hugh Mahon, moved a motion calling for a
royal commission into the matter, and it is unaccept-
able in modern Australia. The deplorable police taser-
ing incidents that have recently come to light only add
weight to this.
In the area of international engagement, I will renew
my efforts to be part of the worldwide push to end the
use of the death penalty. The death penalty is anathema
to civilised human society. As I have said before in this
place on more than one occasion, it is wrong, danger-
ous and immoral for the state to put a citizen to death.
It demeans us all and it should be stopped.
I join with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in believ-
ing that Australia has a role to play in helping to keep
the Millennium Development Goals on track. Progress
has been made in some areas, but the 2015 targets are
likely to be missed, particularly those relating to ma-
ternal and child health, unless the international com-
munity increases its efforts in this regard. In my view,
we must never stop striving to end the obscenity of two
billion of our fellow human beings living and dying in
extreme poverty. I can confidently say that the elector-
ate I represent wants Australia to play a meaningful
role when it comes to global efforts to reduce poverty,
disadvantage and suffering.
When we look to characterise the nature of Austra-
lia’s outlook on the world, it is hard not to be struck by
our record of deep generosity and compassion in rela-
tion to events like the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the
floods in Bangladesh and the earthquake in Haiti. That
outward-looking concern for our fellow human beings,
and especially for those who live in less secure or well-
off circumstances than we do, is an extension of our
openness and sense of fairness. It is fitting, therefore,
that I finish this speech by making mention of a fund-
raising concert I attended in Fremantle on Saturday.
This event, titled simply ‘Concert for Pakistan’, was
organised by a group of Fremantle people, from the
local Oxfam group and including other community
members, who recognised that the flood disaster in
Pakistan had not registered as strongly on the public
CHAMBER
43
consciousness as the scale of the catastrophe demands.
I suspect that one of the contributing reasons for its
lack of profile was the federal election and its after-
math, which dominated the media and public focus at
the time.
In any case, the Concert for Pakistan involved a
large number of people from across the greater Fre-
mantle community who gave their time and resources
to raise money for the ongoing effort to deal with the
terrible impact of the floods in that country. I was very
happy to be there to introduce a couple of the bands
who donated their performances on Saturday, and it
always lifts the heart to be in a group of people—men,
women, and children—who come together to contrib-
ute their time, money and good wishes for men,
women and children who are just like them but who,
by fate and circumstance, are suffering terrible priva-
tion.
I would particularly like to recognise the work of
Jon Strachan, who until recently was a councillor in the
City of Fremantle. He continues his longstanding ef-
forts as an environmental and social campaigner and he
certainly lives by the motto ‘Think global, act local’, or
to borrow a mantra from Mahatma Gandhi ‘Be the
change that you wish to see in the world’.
That is the principle on which I am happy to con-
clude my speech at the commencement of the 43rd
Parliament. It is a principle that applies to some of the
greatest challenges we face in Australia, and as a
global community. It applies to climate change, it ap-
plies to the finite and dwindling supply of hydrocar-
bons that dominate our current energy-use profile, it
applies to the issue of global poverty and the insecurity
and conflict that flows from desperation; and it flows
from the disparity between those who have and those
who have not.
Dr STONE (Murray) (1.41 pm)—In my address-in-
reply to the Governor-General’s delivery of the agenda
for this parliament I want to highlight one of the key
issues. It is an extraordinary admission that this gov-
ernment occupies the benches and Julia Gillard, the
Prime Minister, occupies the Lodge on the basis of
their being able to convince a number of people that
they would offer regional Australia the very best
chances of a more sustainable future. So today I hold
up some recent headlines that relate to an extraordinar-
ily important plan that has just been delivered for the
Murray-Darling Basin. This is a plan that has been
three years in gestation and which cost hundreds of
millions of dollars. It is a plan that we have to presume
the Prime Minister knew about, because she put it
off—she did not want anyone to see it immediately
before the election. Just a few short days ago this plan
was dropped onto the basin communities. The headings
include: ‘The scary plan’, ‘Plan will leave communities
fighting for survival’, ‘Basin plan will devastate
44 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
towns’, ‘War over water inevitable’ and ‘Plan anger
grows’. Protesters in a photo on the front page of the
Weekly Times held signs reading ‘8000 jobs down the
drain’, ‘Irrigation feeds a nation’, ‘Frogs don’t feed us’
and ‘City 4 sale BYO H2O’, and so it goes on.
As we speak, a town meeting is taking place in Nar-
rabri, a very important part of the Murray-Darling Ba-
sin. We know that at the next meetings, to make up the
23 that are being offered in the basin, the anger, frus-
tration and disappointment will be palpable. When the
coalition was in government we understood very much
that there had been governance failure over the basin
for decades. Four or five jurisdictions are all carving
up and taking responsibility for water law and manag-
ing different water law entitlements in what is the big-
gest and driest basin in the world. The coalition set
about putting things to rights by introducing the Na-
tional Water Initiative, which was agreed by COAG in
2004. In 2007, we introduced legislation which had
embedded in it the need to produce a plan that would
make sure there was both a sustainable environmental
future for the basin and a sustainable future for the
food and fibre producers, who have also played a part
and continue to play a part in ensuring that the ecosys-
tems that they, of course, depend on are sustainable
into the future.
What we have got instead is a travesty and a sham. I
am ashamed to think that the plan that Australian gov-
ernment officials produced is so poor and has produced
such anxiety in our communities. The first public meet-
ing was held in the city of Shepparton—in fact, there
were two meetings: one was held in the morning and
one was held in the afternoon—just one working day
after this plan was released, and the people who went
to those meetings, over 1,000 of them, went in a digni-
fied and carefully respecting way. They wanted to hear
every word that was going to be explained to them
about the content of this plan because it was about their
future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with
standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a
later hour. The member for Murray will have leave to
continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Adelaide Mushrooms
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (1.45 pm)—I rise today to
celebrate the success of a great South Australian com-
pany, Adelaide Mushrooms, which last week opened its
brand-new world-leading facility at Monarto, which is
just on the other side of my electoral border in the elec-
torate of Barker but which employs many constituents
of mine in the electorate of Mayo. It is operated and
run by the Schirripa family—Doug, Roy, Frank and
Brian in particular—who have been in this business
since 1984. They have built a $50 million world-
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
leading facility at Monarto—it is Australia’s biggest
supplier of mushrooms—leading to significant em-
ployment in the district. It also leads the way in envi-
ronmentally friendly practices, as well as in water
friendly practices, which of course is such a great chal-
lenge in our part of the world.
They are a proudly South Australian company and it
is right that they be recognised inside this place and
out. They have been named in the top 100 companies
in South Australia and also awarded distinguished
achievement awards in the category of ‘spirit of South
Australia’. They are the largest supplier of mushrooms
throughout the country and we salute businesses like
Adelaide Mushrooms and their operators, the Schirripa
family, for their entrepreneurial spirit and the effort
that they go to. (Time expired)
Makin Electorate: King’s Kids Playgroup
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (1.46 pm)—Last Saturday I
attended the 10th anniversary fete and celebrations of
the King’s Kids Playgroup held at the Golden Grove
Baptist Church. The playgroup was established by
young parents of King’s Baptist Grammar School
community at Golden Grove as a means of providing
support to one another during the very demanding
stage of life, in the early years of marriage, when the
pressures of life for parents of young children can be
overwhelming. Over the past 10 years, hundreds of
families have been part of the playgroup, and I have no
doubt that many lasting friendships have been formed
between the children and between families.
Reflecting on the difficulties faced by young fami-
lies in Australia, members of the playgroup empathise
with how much more difficult life for young mothers
and young children might be in developing countries
and have today become advocates for Millennium De-
velopment Goals 4 and 5, which focus on infant and
maternal mortality. Simultaneously, the King’s Kids
Playgroup has also been fundraising to assist mothers
and children in developing countries. At present their
fundraising is being directed through the SIMaid pro-
ject ‘Caring for Kids’. That project is aimed at improv-
ing the survival rate of orphans and other vulnerable
children under the age of five in Burkina Faso. A peti-
tion in the form of a birthday card was signed by all
those present on the day, requesting the Australian
government lift its international aid funding. I was
asked to pass the card on to Foreign Minister Kevin
Rudd and I will do that. I congratulate the King’s Kids
Playgroup on their 10th birthday and I commend the
members of the playgroup for their care and compas-
sion not only for one another but for young families
across the world.
Forrest Electorate: Medical Workforce
Ms MARINO (Forrest) (1.48 pm)—I have to ask
the Labor government why it has recently taken meas-
ures that will seriously impact on the quality of health
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
provided for my constituents in the electorate of
Forrest. People in the medical sector and all of my con-
stituents who are seeking medical assistance are ex-
tremely angry and concerned at Labor’s decision to
withdraw the Greater Bunbury region from the District
of Workforce Shortage register. We have serious and
severe shortages of GPs in the south-west. Currently 28
GPs are being sought for the Greater Bunbury region.
The ratio of 1,684 patients per GP is well above the
national average of 1:1,100 patients per GP. The re-
moval of the District of Workforce Shortage classifica-
tion, and the fact that the average age of general practi-
tioners serving in the area is the mid- to late-50s,
means that the health services in the south-west of WA
are under very serious pressure.
Doctor shortages and a lack of local health services
are always of significance, and they are in my elector-
ate. A local newspaper, the Bunbury Mail, recently car-
ried the headline, ‘Doctor dilemma: local GPs threaten
to quit under shortage strain.’ Given this, I am urging
the Minister for Health and Ageing to answer some
questions. I will be talking to her this afternoon on be-
half of my constituents and I will be seriously request-
ing a return to the District of Workforce Shortage regis-
ter for the Greater Bunbury region.
Capricornia Electorate: Daniel Johnston and
Danielle Dougan
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (1.50 pm)—I wish
today to offer my very hearty congratulations to two
young people in Rockhampton, Daniel Johnston and
Danielle Dougan, who have been awarded the Austra-
lian Vocational Student Prize. This is a prize which is
awarded to up to 500 outstanding students each year
and it recognises exceptional achievements in voca-
tional education and training. Danielle has been em-
ployed at the Airport Hangar Cafe at the Rockhampton
Airport for three years now, and during that time has
completed a Certificate III in hospitality. Danielle will
continue her employment at the Airport Hangar Cafe
because her employers have been extremely impressed
with her loyalty, hard work and reliability. Congratula-
tions to Danielle. She is a very high-achieving young
woman across a range of different areas. She is a real
leader in our local Indigenous community, as well as
being an exceptional softball player.
The other young person is Daniel Johnston, who has
completed a Certificate III in automotive mechanical
technology during the course of his school studies. He
is now working full-time as an apprentice at Highway
Auto Electrics in Rockhampton. He actually completed
18 competencies of his apprenticeship before even
starting year 12, so his employer has been very keen to
snap him up and continue him in his work at that busi-
ness—(Time expired)
CHAMBER
45
Fadden Electorate: Isaac Robb, Taylor Hayes and
Max Muggeridge
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (1.51 pm)—I rise to ac-
knowledge three great junior sportspeople in the elec-
torate of Fadden who, I am announcing today, will be
receiving a $500 grant as part of the local sporting
championship grants for round 3 for the 2009-10 fi-
nancial year. First there is Isaac Robb, who participated
in the Telstra swimming championship and has shown
himself to be a very able and very competent swimmer,
working hard and participating at a significant level.
Second is Taylor Hayes, an under-18 women’s national
champion, and third, Max Muggeridge, who is also an
age champion in his particular sport. These three young
Australians on the Gold Coast have been working ex-
tremely hard in competition and in actively pursuing
their sporting interests, and they are worthy recipients
of the $500 grant from the local sporting championship
grants process.
Sydney Australian-Filipino Seniors Inc.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (1.52 pm)—Last Sun-
day I was fortunate to attend the 23rd anniversary cele-
brations for Sydney Australian-Filipino Seniors Inc.,
better known as SAFSI. For 23 years SAFSI has served
our community, becoming the largest Filipino-
Australian seniors group in New South Wales and one
of the largest in Australia. Over this period, SAFSI has
been unwavering in its commitment to promoting the
wellbeing of its members and their families by provid-
ing educational, recreational, social and cultural ser-
vices.
As a resident of the Blacktown local government
area, which has the largest per capita population of
Filipino residents in all of Australia, I have seen first-
hand the great work that SAFSI does in our commu-
nity. The continued and growing success of the organi-
sation is a testament to the commitment displayed by
all SAFSI members during this 23-year period. I wish
to place on record my sincere congratulations to SAFSI
and its leadership, particularly its hardworking presi-
dent, Mr Jules Sanchez. Well done, SAFSI.
Dunghutti Aboriginal Leadership Management
Alliance: Closing the Gap
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (1.53 pm)—I rise to
commend the work being done in the Kempsey area in
my electorate by the Dunghutti Aboriginal Leadership
Management Alliance. The area has a relatively large
Indigenous population and, like most of the North
Coast, has an unemployment rate above the national
average. The alliance has been formed by community
leaders, members of youth groups, chief executive of-
ficers and chairpersons of Aboriginal organisations
throughout the Macleay Valley. This is the first time
that the major Aboriginal organisations in Kempsey
have come together to present a coordinated front to
deal with the longstanding issues affecting their com-
46 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
munity. Its aim is to reduce the economic and social
disadvantage experienced by many in the Indigenous
community—in other words, to play its role in Closing
the Gap.
A comprehensive report has been prepared identify-
ing the current best practice in Indigenous programs
and areas of greatest need. On the basis of this report,
DALMA will act as a conduit between the Indigenous
community and all levels of government on Closing
the Gap issues and ensure that programs and services
are comprehensive, accessible, flexible and community
centred. I particularly welcome the group’s belief that
Closing the Gap will only succeed if Aboriginal peo-
ples develop and drive the solutions, the group’s desire
for unity in the whole Kempsey community and its
recognition of the importance of the natural environ-
ment and the need for accountability with regard to
taxpayers’ money. I wish DALMA all the best in its
very important work.
Plenty Valley Christian College: Make Poverty
History Campaign
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen) (1.54 pm)—I rise to
thank and congratulate the students and staff of Plenty
Valley Christian College for their outstanding work on
the Make Poverty History campaign. After the students
learned how much better placed we are in the world
compared to others and about the hardship and the
challenges that people face in other countries, they de-
cided to stand up and take action to raise awareness
and help others less fortunate than us.
A group of year 10 students, led by Jessica Exton
and Asherlina Edwards, organised for the college to be
involved in the worldwide stand up for poverty day.
The group obtained 582 signatures on fifth birthday
cards from students and staff at the college to raise
awareness in our community and to bring to the Aus-
tralian parliament’s attention our commitment to the
Millennium Development Goals, particularly goals 3
and 4, to improve child and maternal health. This great
group of students acknowledge how lucky we are in
comparison to other countries and were troubled by the
fact that young people around the world would die
needlessly. The students wanted to help make a differ-
ence. Primary students made a donation to come out of
uniform for the day to also help raise funds, and other
groups in year 10 are running fundraising activities to
help raise $5,000 to supply an Indian community with
an urban community kit to supply fresh water and other
community development strategies to improve the lives
of some of the world’s poor.
I was delighted to take the bag of fifth birthday
cards to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd,
on their behalf, and I know that federal Labor are
committed to our Millennium Development Goals and
assisting nations that are not as lucky as we are. Once
again, I thank the students and the staff of the college
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
for their Christian values and their dedication and
commitment to those who are less fortunate than us. I
am very proud of their work and their ability to look
out and respond to the needs of others. Thank you,
Plenty Valley Christian College.
Mrs Rose Richards
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (1.56 pm)—I rise today
to recognise in this place the very special efforts of a
very special woman in my electorate of Leichhardt,
Mrs Rose Richards, affectionately known as Auntie
Rosie. Auntie Rosie has dedicated her life to helping
Indigenous pregnant women from remote communities
and their children get the best care and the support that
they need. Recently I attended the opening of a new
facility which has eventuated as a direct result of the
hard work of this great woman. Mookai Rosie Bi-
Bayan, named in her honour, would not have happened
without Auntie Rosie and her tireless efforts.
During the late seventies, working as an Aboriginal
welfare officer in the Cairns Base Hospital, she was
concerned about the welfare of children born in Cairns
to Aboriginal women from remote communities who
were being discharged and returned to their communi-
ties prematurely, only to return with serious health
complications because of the lack of appropriate ser-
vices in their communities. They needed somewhere to
stay in Cairns that was safe and culturally appropriate
until they were healthy and to ensure that health mat-
ters were addressed before going home.
So what did Auntie Rosie do about the problem?
She did not sit on her hands and do nothing. She
opened up her home and welcomed these women and
children in, caring for them in her own time, unpaid,
with a small band of volunteers. Her home became
known as Auntie Rosie’s Place. It went from a site in
McLeod Street in Cairns to Trinity Park, where it be-
came known as Rosie’s Farm, on to Balaclava Road in
Earlville, where 12 mums and children were housed,
to a purpose built facility at Edmonton housing 36
mums and bubs. This woman single-handedly changed
the face of maternal care for Indigenous women in our
community. Auntie Rosie cared enough to make a dif-
ference and the community will be forever thankful to
her. (Time expired)
Active After-school Communities Program
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (1.57 pm)—I want to share
with the House an email I have received from one of
my small schools, Hernani Public School. It is about
the Active After-school Communities program. It
reads:
Dear Ms Saffin,
I have just been advised that the Federal Government has
announced that the AASC has been extended for another 12
months. This is wonderful news for our small rural commu-
nity which has been participating in this worthwhile program
since its inception.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Not only does this program provide our school community
with opportunities to interact positively with students of all
ages, it encourages healthy living practices and provides
opportunities for cooperative play, peer leadership and skill
building in all areas of physical education.
This program also encourages and provides funding for
community coaches to travel to rural and remote schools like
ours to impart their knowledge and skills and interact with
students in a small school environment.
On behalf of the whole Hernani school community, I would
like to sincerely thank the Gillard Government for the $43.5
million to extend the AASC program for another year and we
look forward to it continuing into the future.
With kind regards,
Liz
Liz Arnold
Principal
Hernani Public School
This wonderful program of after-school activities in
communities is of benefit particularly in rural and re-
gional areas. It certainly benefits some of the schools
in my area. There are 96 schools, and—(Time expired)
The SPEAKER—In accordance with standing or-
der 43, the time for members’ statements has con-
cluded.
CONDOLENCES
Hon. Kenneth Shaw ‘Ken’ Wriedt
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (2.00
pm)—I move:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 17
October 2010, of The Honourable Kenneth Shaw Wriedt,
former Senator for Tasmania and Minister for Primary Indus-
try, Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Minerals and
Energy, and place on record its appreciation of his long and
meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy
to his family in their bereavement.
Ken Wriedt was a member of the greatest generation,
the generation that was born into hardship, served the
cause of freedom in war and came home to build a bet-
ter peace. Ken Wriedt was born in Melbourne’s Fitzroy
on 11 July 1927, sharing a birthday with a gangly 11-
year-old then growing up in Canberra named Gough
Whitlam, who came to figure so greatly in Ken’s life in
the decades to come. Ken grew up in the tough years of
the Depression and saw wartime service as a sailor in
the merchant marine, sparking a lifelong love of the
ocean.
The searing experiences of the Depression and the
poverty seen on his foreign travels guided Ken towards
the Labor cause. He joined the party in 1959, the same
year he married Helga, who shared his life’s journey
for five decades. After three attempts at preselection he
was elected to the Senate as part of the new Whitlam
team in 1967 and five years later became Minister for
Primary Industry. Ken was an outstanding minister
regarded by John Button as ‘a most distinguished
CHAMBER
47
member of the Whitlam government’. He was a re-
formist who understood the competitive realities that
Australia’s agriculture sector and industry more gener-
ally had to face. In fact, there is a great Alan Moir car-
toon from 1974 showing Ken cresting a huge wave
with his sailor’s hat all askew desperately fighting
against the tide, trying to drag Australia from reliance
on the sheep’s back towards a stronger future based on
mining. I am sure that the current minerals boom must
have given Ken the satisfaction of knowing that his
thinking had been far in front of its time.
Ken’s Commonwealth ministerial tenure ended on
11 November 1975, as did so many other great careers.
But Ken felt he had more to offer and reinvented him-
self in state politics, winning a Tasmania House of As-
sembly seat in 1982 and going on to become Leader of
the Opposition and a minister in the Field Labor gov-
ernment, where he came to have a high regard for the
Greens and their emerging leader, Bob Brown, of
whom he predicted great things.
Through 83 years Ken had many loves: the ocean
and the magnificent Tasmanian landscape, classical
music and poetry, and a fierce appreciation of the
ABC’s role as a force for culture and learning. He was
an internationalist who decried the enormity of injus-
tice and sought fairness for the people of East Timor.
He cultivated the virtues of calmness and tranquillity
based on a lifelong interest in Buddhism and the prac-
tice of meditation.
Foremost in his affections, of course, were his wife,
Helga, his daughters, Paula and Sonia, and his four
grandchildren, who this week mourned the end of
Ken’s long and purposeful life just a month after their
beloved Helga also passed away.
Ken will be long remembered in this place and be-
yond as one of the true gentlemen of Australian poli-
tics, an excellent minister and a fine human being
praised on all sides of politics for his decency and his
integrity. With his family we say goodbye to a great
servant of his party, the parliament and our nation. Our
country is a better place because Ken devoted his life
to public service.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposi-
tion) (2.05 pm)—I rise briefly to support the remarks
of the Prime Minister in support of the condolence mo-
tion for the late Ken Wriedt, a former minister in the
Whitlam government and a former Leader of the Gov-
ernment in the Senate. He was obviously a highly tal-
ented man and a highly talented politician who became
a minister after just four years in the parliament and
became the leader of his party in the Senate after just
seven years in the parliament. He was by all accounts
an extremely effective Minister for Agriculture who
was widely well regarded by the agricultural sector,
notwithstanding his government’s removal of the su-
perphosphate bounty and of the reserve price for wool,
48 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
two initiatives which caused great consternation at the
time, and notwithstanding his rueful comment on ap-
pointment that in fact he did not know a merino from a
Corriedale.
It is my understanding that, along with John Wheel-
don, he would have preferred the Whitlam government
to have gone to a double-dissolution election when
supply was blocked, as members would recollect, in
this parliament back in 1975. I understand that it was in
fact Ken Wriedt as government leader in the Senate
who ultimately secured supply for the then Fraser care-
taker government because he had not been warned by
the recently dismissed Prime Minister of the events at
Yarralumla. So I suppose we on this side can rejoice in
his role securing supply for the Fraser caretaker gov-
ernment.
He was, as I understand it, a man of great principle
and high integrity. I am indebted to press gallery jour-
nalist Don Walford, who is in the gallery today, for the
reminder that he was deeply disillusioned with his
party, in part because of the then party leader’s desire
to obtain campaign funding from the Iraqi Baathist
Party in the aftermath of the 1975 election. Neverthe-
less, any unhappiness with his party could not have
lasted, because when he left this parliament he served
with distinction for many years as a Labor MP in the
Tasmanian parliament and was in fact the leader of the
Labor Party in the Tasmanian parliament for some
years.
He was a fine man. He served his country, his state
and his party with distinction. We honour his memory,
we respect his work and we send our condolences to
his family and friends.
The SPEAKER (2.07 pm)—For reasons of family
association I would like to endorse and associate my-
self with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the
Leader of the Opposition. I ask all members to rise in
their places as a mark of respect to the late Ken Wriedt.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.
MAIN COMMITTEE
Hon. Kenneth Shaw ‘Ken’ Wriedt
Reference
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House)
(2.08 pm)—I move:
That the order of the day relating to the resumption of de-
bate on the Prime Minister’s motion of condolence in con-
nection with the death of the Honourable Kenneth Shaw
Wriedt be referred to the Main Committee.
I understand that a number of members would like to
contribute further to this debate.
Question agreed to.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Australian Labor Party: Kevin Bracken
Mr FRYDENBERG (2.09 pm)—My question is to
the Prime Minister. I refer to the comment of Kevin
Bracken, President of the Victorian Trades Hall Coun-
cil and member of the Port Melbourne branch of the
Labor Party that, in relation to the terrorist attack on
the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001:
I believe the official story is a conspiracy theory that does
not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
If the Prime Minister finds these comments as offen-
sive as most right-thinking Australians, what action
will the Prime Minister take to discipline Mr Bracken
and send a message to others that such remarks are
unacceptable?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dickson!
Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for what I un-
derstand to be his first question, and I congratulate him
on his election to this place. He follows in distin-
guished shoes, after Petro Georgiou’s contribution to
this House, about which we were talking just yester-
day.
On his question, obviously, I do not agree with the
remarks. Obviously, they are stupid and wrong. I think
the member was in the House yesterday when I gave
my Prime Minister’s statement on Afghanistan. I would
refer him to that. That is my view, obviously. It is the
view of the Labor Party. If the member wants to re-
search our policy that goes through our national con-
ferences and other places he will find it outlines our
view about the conflict in Afghanistan and why Austra-
lia is there. As the member would probably be aware,
the Labor Party is a large organisation. People join it as
individuals. We do not dictate what people think, and
neither does the Liberal Party, in my understanding—
Mr Pyne—I rise on a point of order. The Prime
Minister was asked what action she would take to send
a message. I ask you to bring her to that part of the
question.
The SPEAKER—As has often been the case, what
I am about to say will set me aside from the rest of the
House. I simply say to the Manager of Opposition
Business that, having learnt my lesson in the last par-
liament, I did not rule the question out of order because
it would appear that in the last parliament there was a
very broad interpretation of what interests the Prime
Minister had in party political matters. Having said
that, I think that what I have heard of the response is
directly relevant to the question. Again, I refer to my
remarks about the difference between a direct answer
and direct relevance.
Ms GILLARD—I was making the simple point that
the Labor Party is a large organisation and one would
expect that there would be individuals in a large or-
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ganisation who have views that I view as wrong, and I
view this view as wrong. However, on the matter of
what the member is asking for, I would ask him to con-
template the standard he is setting here. If it is the in-
tention of the Leader of the Opposition to expel every
individual from the Liberal Party who makes a stupid
statement I will start sending him a weekly list, and
presumably Mal Washer is right on the top of it now.
Broadband
Ms ROWLAND (2.14 pm)—My question is to the
Prime Minister. How is the structural separation of Tel-
stra a key step in delivering the National Broadband
Network, and why is it important that Australian
households and businesses get the benefits of this es-
sential infrastructure?
Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for Greenway
for her question, which is about an important issue for
the future of the country, for the prosperity of every
Australian, for the future of health services and for the
future of education services. I would suggest that noth-
ing better marks the contrast between the political par-
ties in this parliament than the contrast between her
question and the one asked before it. Yes, we are de-
termined to build a prosperous future for this country
with world-class infrastructure. Today we are reintro-
ducing into this parliament the legislation that enables
the structural separation of Telstra so that we can build
the National Broadband Network and give Australia
the infrastructure of the future.
On the merits of this legislation, the House does not
have to take reassurances from me. It can actually turn
to the words of the member for Bradfield, Paul
Fletcher, who wrote a book called Wired Brown Land?
Telstra’s Battle for Broadband. He, of course, is now
acting as the shadow shadow communications minister,
as I understand it. It is a new convention in the opposi-
tion that they have shadow shadow everything. The
member for Goldstein is the shadow shadow Treasurer.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister will
return to the question.
Ms GILLARD—And of course the list goes on.
The shadow shadow communications minister, the
member for Bradfield, said in his book:
My fundamental argument is that we need to get the mar-
ket structure right first; if we do that, the right technology
will follow.
Then the member for Bradfield went on to say:
… a market structure in which there are multiple provid-
ers of retail telephony and broadband services—and they all
operate over the same network on equal terms. For that to
happen, none of them must own or control the network. In-
stead, they must buy services from the owner of the network
and in turn the network owner must be restricted to selling
services in the wholesale market rather than the retail mar-
ket.
CHAMBER
49
Those are very wise words indeed from the member for
Bradfield. Today I would be saying to the Leader of the
Opposition—
Mr Fletcher—Where’s the bit about the $43 bil-
lion?
Ms GILLARD—The member for Bradfield is try-
ing to insert some more wise words into the debate,
and I thank him for his help and contribution. My
point, of course, is that we seek expeditious passage of
this legislation, because every day that it is delayed is a
day of higher prices and fewer services for Australians,
particularly Australians in regional areas. I note that
representatives of regional areas like the member for
Lyne, like the member for New England and like the
member for Kennedy have recognised the merits of
broadband for regional areas. So to the Leader of the
Opposition I simply say: get out a copy of the member
for Bradfield’s book, have a look at that statement and,
in line with that statement, ensure that you do not seek
to wreck this reform—and get on with the job of pass-
ing this important piece of legislation.
Asylum Seekers
Mr ABBOTT (2.18 pm)—My question is to the
Prime Minister. Does the former Prime Minister’s spe-
cial deal over the Oceanic Viking require Australia to
take any of the 17 passengers currently in Romania,
some of whom have been rejected by the United States
and Canada on security grounds?
Ms GILLARD—I thank the Leader of the Opposi-
tion for his question. I refer the Leader of the Opposi-
tion to a statement about this matter by the Minister for
Immigration and Citizenship which was released on
Friday last week and which indicates that there are 17
asylum seekers who have been in a transit centre in
Romania. As I understand the situation, processing of
their refugee claims has been done. Of course, before
they would be able to come to Australia there would
have to be appropriate security clearances in the nor-
mal way.
Broadband
Mr PERRETT (2.19 pm)—My question is to the
Treasurer. Why is the National Broadband Network
important for our future economy?
Mr SWAN—I thank the member for Moreton for a
very important question. The National Broadband
Network is absolutely critical to building a stronger,
more modern and more competitive economy. When
we came to office broadband speed in this country
lagged behind that of 26 other OECD countries. Our
internet services at that stage were the fifth most ex-
pensive in the OECD. As the Prime Minister was say-
ing before, whenever you go in regional Australia—
whether you go to Mackay, to Launceston, to Towns-
ville or to the vast electorate of Kennedy—regional
Australians absolutely understand the importance of
50 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
superfast broadband. They understand the importance
of being connected to the national economy and in par-
ticular they understand the importance of being con-
nected to the international economy. We are something
like 17th out of 31 OECD countries when it comes to
penetration, and that is felt particularly acutely in re-
gional Australia.
So we do need to strengthen our technological infra-
structure through a first-class broadband network as a
way to strengthen and broaden our economy. We have
extensive research that shows what a boost this will be
to GDP. The Centre for International Economics found
that it will increase GDP by 1.4 per cent after just five
to six years. For business, this means dramatically
lower telephone bills and enhanced services, such as
high-definition videoconferencing. In all of these areas
it certainly means lower business costs, and it means
higher employment.
Building the National Broadband Network will cre-
ate something like 25,000 jobs per year. We know that
superfast broadband really drives productivity—
something like 78 per cent of productivity gains in ser-
vice businesses and 85 per cent in manufacturing busi-
nesses. These sorts of productivity gains can come
from this type of information communication technol-
ogy. And of course it can dramatically enhance work-
force participation. We do need to keep up with our
major trading partners. Japan and Korea, for example,
are way ahead of Australia, and many others are catch-
ing up.
But of course, all of this is opposed by those oppo-
site. They want to stay with horse-and-buggy commu-
nications. They do not want to join the modern era
which is going to drive productivity in this economy.
We want to build a modern economy, and those oppo-
site simply want to tear it down. Of course, the mem-
ber for Wentworth was given that job—to tear down
this vital productivity-enhancing initiative which is so
important to future prosperity in this country. So what
we are going to see now is delaying tactics in this
House for an initiative which will build our economy
for the future, drive our productivity, drive our com-
petitiveness and give us the prosperity that we all seek.
Asylum Seekers
Ms JULIE BISHOP (2.22 pm)—My question is to
the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her
proposal for a regional processing centre in East Timor.
Will the Prime Minister define which countries consti-
tute ‘the region’ under her proposal?
Ms GILLARD—I know the Deputy Leader of the
Opposition, like the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has
flown over a lot of countries in the last few days, but
Australia is in the same place it was when she left—so,
on the basis that Australia is in the same place that it
was when she left, we live in the same region. How
would you like to define it? ‘Asia-Pacific’ might be the
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
kind of way that you would define it, I think. Australia
has not moved since she left. We will pursue dialogue.
But there are formal processes for pursuing this dia-
logue, including through the Bali process that the Min-
ister for Immigration and Citizenship has referred to in
his various statements. The minister for immigration
has also been involved in dialogue in the region. Prior
to the parliament commencing its sittings, he was in
Dili, he was in Kuala Lumpur and he was in Jakarta
pursuing these discussions. So we will work on this
dialogue. We are obviously predominantly interested in
the countries through which people transit, the most
common routes for irregular people movement. You
would expect that to be our prime area of interest. But,
in terms of working across the region, we obviously
want to work broadly with regional partners and
neighbours.
Broadband
Mr CHEESEMAN (2.24 pm)—My question is to
the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional
Development and Local Government representing the
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the
Digital Economy. Why is the National Broadband
Network so important for Australian households and
businesses, and why does the government not support
plans to delay its rollout?
Mr ALBANESE—I thank the member for Coran-
gamite for his question. The National Broadband Net-
work will be the backbone of our future economy. It
will transform our regions, it will drive competition, it
will drive productivity and it will drive job creation—
the jobs of the new century, the jobs of the future. The
bill that I introduced today, the Telecommunications
Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer
Safeguards) Bill 2010, will introduce the structural
separation of Telstra, something that should have been
done when Telstra was privatised—but there was delay
after delay after delay—as is recognised by many op-
posite now, including the current member for Brad-
field. Now this legislation enables it to happen, with
significant benefit to consumers. It is a part of the gov-
ernment’s comprehensive plan for a truly national
broadband network. Over the decade, we saw 19 failed
plans from the opposition, none of them complete. We
are determined to move on with the job.
I am asked why we should not delay. There have
been a range of proposals for us to delay this project.
Firstly, we were told we had to wait for the ACCC ad-
vice. Then we were told we had to wait for the imple-
mentation study to be completed. Then we were told
we had to wait for the response to the implementation
study. We were also told that those opposite were wait-
ing for one of the five separate Senate inquiries that
have occurred into the NBN that have produced five
separate reports. Now we have more proposals to de-
lay. We are told that we should wait for a seven-month
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
long Productivity Commission inquiry, even though the
proponent of this inquiry says that he will not take any
notice of whether it gives the rollout the tick or not; he
will still continue to oppose it because that is the job
that he has been given.
We are also being told we need a joint select com-
mittee to oversee the rollout of the NBN. So we should
not have experts, such as we have got in charge of
NBN Co., overseeing the rollout of the NBN; the new
development of those opposite is that infrastructure
rollouts should be overseen by joint committees. It is a
bit like the ‘phone a boat’ proposal of the Leader of the
Opposition when it comes to asylum seekers. The fact
is that we have released an implementation study that
provides a comprehensive financial analysis. It says
that there is a strong and viable business case. It says
that there is a sufficient rate of return to cover the cost
of funds. It says that there will be positive earnings by
year 6. And it says that the cost estimates are conserva-
tive. That is why we must get on with the job of build-
ing this vital infrastructure, not retreat from it. The
only retreat that needs to happen on this issue is a re-
treat from the wrecking strategy that those opposite
have when it comes to the National Broadband Net-
work.
Asylum Seekers
Mr HAASE (2.28 pm)—My question is to the
Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her com-
ments in the House that the government’s intention to
accommodate 1,200 detainees at the Curtin detention
centre was funded in the budget. Will the Prime Minis-
ter refer the House to the page in the budget papers or
any media statement by the Prime Minister or minister
that makes reference to a capacity of 1,200 places at
Curtin detention centre funded by an appropriation in
the budget?
Ms GILLARD—We are having a very strange day
in question time indeed. I regret to inform the member
that I do not have committed to memory every page of
the budget and every line item in the budget. In the
time that I have been in this parliament, possibly the
former member for Bradfield might have been able to
achieve that feat, but I am not aware of anybody else
with that capacity. Obviously, when budget appropria-
tions were done they were done appropriately. As I
have said in this parliament before, the Department of
Immigration and Citizenship works through—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Speaker, I rise on a
point of order on relevance. The direct question was:
‘Where is the reference in the budget to that material?’
Perhaps the Prime Minister could be honest and take it
on notice and come back to the House.
The SPEAKER—The member for Mackellar will
resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
CHAMBER
51
Ms GILLARD—I repeat for the member for
Mackellar that I do not have committed to memory
every page of the budget and every word on every page
of the budget. Obviously, the budget deals with appro-
priations for the department of immigration, and those
appropriations are used for detention purposes, includ-
ing being used for the announcements that have been
made most recently. In the announcement made on
Monday, there was a net additional spend of $54 mil-
lion.
Mr Haase—I seek leave to table page 326 of the
budget measures 2010-11. It is an appropriation for
capital works—
Leave not granted.
E-Health
Mrs D’ATH (2.32 pm)—My question is to the Min-
ister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister advise
the House—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for Petrie will start
again for the member for Cook’s benefit.
Mrs D’ATH—Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question
is to the—
The SPEAKER—The member for Petrie will re-
sume her seat, because the Manager of Opposition
Business is now asking me a question or has a point of
order.
Mr Pyne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The reason that the member for Cook is a bit unruly is
that the member for Durack did not got the opportunity
to finish explaining what he wanted to table.
The SPEAKER—The member for Sturt will re-
sume his seat. He cannot justify people’s unruly behav-
iour in any manner. I suggest to the member for Sturt
that an occupant of the chair gets wary of devices be-
ing used to place on the record comments that are out
of order. In the case of the member for Durack—and it
is a blessing for me—he exactly identified the docu-
ment that he wished to have tabled. He then decided
that he would go on to describe it or put a case. That
was unfortunate for him, because I can say that, when I
asked whether House gave leave for the tabling, the
document had been clearly identified. Leave was not
granted. I will not allow people to use devices to place
on the record argument. The member for Petrie has the
call.
Mrs D’ATH—My question is to the Minister for
Health and Ageing. Will the minister advise the House
of the rollout of e-health and telehealth advancements
and how these have been received?
Ms ROXON—I thank the member for Petrie for her
question. She, I know, is one of the members in North
Brisbane who is very pleased with the lead implemen-
tation sites that are currently contracted to provide e-
52 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
health services in three geographic areas across the
country: northern Brisbane, the Hunter Valley and in
eastern Melbourne. GP Partners in Brisbane have been
leading advocates for the benefits of e-health and for
the enormous potential, not just when we combine e-
health and telehealth in terms of changing Medicare
and providing different support for after hours GP ser-
vices but when we use the power of broadband to en-
sure that more and more people have access in their
own homes. This will also enable teleconferencing and
make it possible for GPs and nurses to sit with patients
and talk with specialists in the middle of town or per-
haps many thousands of kilometres away. Those things
will become reality.
We have already allocated $20 million worth of in-
vestments in those three lead sites. But there is another
$55 million that will shortly be available. Expressions
of interest will be called for. This will provide benefits
for many communities, but particularly for regional
communities where there is a great thirst for using new
technology and changes and reforms to our health sys-
tem to deliver better services. These investments and
our commitment to introducing an electronic health
record, to advances in telehealth and to the National
Broadband Network have been widely endorsed. From
the health professions, we have the support of the
AMA, the Nurses Federation, the College of GPs, the
divisions of GPs, pathologists and the Consumer
Health Forum. I know that in the audience today there
are paramedics, radiologists and others who see this as
the opportunity to at last unleash the potential to pro-
vide services to our diverse population, many of whom
are often enormous distances from places where par-
ticular specialised services can be made available. We
are determined to make sure that our health system is
modernised to make the most of these services and we
are determined to make sure that with the implementa-
tion and rollout of the National Broadband Network we
allow more technology—perhaps technology that we
have not even yet imagined—to be developed to pro-
vide solutions that meet the needs of the community.
Unfortunately, despite the widespread community
support for these investments, there is one notable dif-
ference. I have been asked about the responses to these
investments and, unfortunately, we know that the Lib-
eral Party not only opposed our millions of dollars of
investment in e-health but opposed our investments in
telehealth and the National Broadband Network. The
great potential for what will be available in communi-
ties across the country is going to be held back if the
Liberal Party is able to get its way and stop these in-
vestments.
Budget
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (2.38 pm)—My question
is to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister, or any
of her ministers, say to BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto or
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Xstrata representatives during negotiations on the min-
erals resource rent tax that all state and territory royal-
ties will be creditable against the resource tax liability?
Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for his ques-
tion and obviously his question arises from some pub-
licity in today’s newspapers about the minerals re-
source rent tax. On the direct matter that he raises, I
can advise that the Policy Transition Group, which the
relevant minister is attending and which is being led by
Don Argus, is working its way through a number of
issues. That is exactly what it is there for. We have said
all along we will credit existing royalties and sched-
uled increases and the Policy Transition Group will
advise on the best way to do that to provide certainty to
the industry. Obviously, in implementing the minerals
resource rent tax it just makes commonsense that we
not give a green light to state and territory governments
to increase royalties, with us effectively footing the
bill. I would take this opportunity to remind the mem-
ber—and it is something that ultimately the opposition
in this place is going to have to exercise its votes on—
that the proceeds of the minerals resource rent tax are
going to expand the productive capacity—
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Groom
will resume his seat. The Prime Minister must directly
relate her remarks to the question.
Ms GILLARD—On the question the member has
asked me, I have indicated what the answer is and I am
simply asking the member and the opposition to also
look at the other side of the equation: the reductions in
company tax, the growth in national savings and the
infrastructure.
Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary
question. Given that in light of the Prime Minister’s
answer there is a clear difference of understanding be-
tween the government and the mining companies over
this matter, I ask: why did she dud the mining industry
over this matter?
The SPEAKER—Order! That is argument and, as I
said yesterday, I will be ruling those types of question
out of order and will not be offering the ability to re-
word.
Economy
Mr MITCHELL (2.41 pm)—My question is to the
Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the
importance of transparent and credible fiscal policy?
Mr SWAN—I thank the member for McEwen for
his question. As members know, Australia came
through the global financial crisis and the global reces-
sion in better shape than any other major developed
economy. Our net debt position is a tiny fraction of
what it is in major developed economies and we are
getting back into surplus well before all of those. While
we were putting in place the policies to avoid reces-
sion, we were also putting in place the policies to pro-
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
mote the recovery—both at the same time. Absolutely
critical were the strict fiscal rules that we outlined in
this House early in 2009—that is, putting in place our
two per cent expenditure cap. For example, it is very
important in bringing the budget back to surplus, and
banking any revenue improvements is also important,
but it takes hard work. What that means is that the
budget is coming back to surplus in three years, three
years early. It means our net debt position is substan-
tially lower than in any other major developed econ-
omy at six per cent compared to something like 90 per
cent for the other major developed economies. This
task and this achievement has been recognised exten-
sively by international agencies. This is what the Inter-
national Monetary Fund had to say just a couple of
weeks ago:
… returning quickly to budget surpluses as the authorities
intend will put Australia on firmer footing to deal with future
shocks.
Then they go on to say of our fiscal consolidation:
… is faster than past consolidations in Australia and plans in
most other advanced economies.
We had Standard and Poor’s make this comment on 24
September:
Australia has one of the strongest fiscal positions globally
with a net general government debt burden less than half the
level of AAA rated countries.
It has taken a lot of hard work to do this and it takes
more than the effort that we have seen from those on
the other side with their $10.6 billion costing con job.
You cannot just walk in five minutes before midnight,
as the shadow Treasurer did and the shadow finance
spokesperson did, and expect that you can be credible.
What we have seen is that they ignored the advice of
the accounting firm. There was no audit of their cost-
ings and they got nine dollars out of 10 of their net
saves wrong—nine dollars out of 10 absolutely wrong.
The SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer will return
directly to the question.
Mr SWAN—It shows there is no fiscal strategy on
that side of the House.
The SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer is now ab-
solutely arguing a case. He needs to be directly rele-
vant to the question.
Mr SWAN—Mr Speaker, I was outlining the impor-
tance of a strict fiscal strategy, which the government
has implemented with great discipline. At the time that
we were dealing with the global recession we put in
place strict fiscal rules, but those on the other side of
the House do not understand the importance of such a
strategy.
The SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer is arguing
the case. He is now debating the matter. The Treasurer
will relate his remarks directly to the question.
CHAMBER
53
Mr SWAN—I was outlining how important it is to
our prosperity that strict fiscal rules are put in place,
particularly when it comes to spending, particularly
when it comes to banking upward revisions of revenue,
and explaining how important it is that those policies
need to be seen to be credible, and that a $10.6 billion
costing con job, such as those that were put forward
during the last election campaign, is completely inap-
propriate.
The SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer will resume
his place.
Mr Hockey—Mr Speaker, I would like to ask a
supplementary question to the Treasurer.
The SPEAKER—The member for North Sydney
will resume his seat, and the member for Denison will
resume his seat. Again I find myself delaying the
House, which I am trying to avoid but manage to do all
the time. For two reasons the member for North Syd-
ney has been invited to resume his seat. Firstly, there
was an attempt for a supplementary, which I will ac-
knowledge, but I will take it that the attempt allowed
the Leader of the Opposition to get on the record a
point which goes to the matters that I was raising about
other devices being used to put an argument. I think
that would mean that in a strict interpretation of an op-
portunity and an attempt, even though it failed, a mes-
sage was placed on the record which I cannot expunge
by ruling it out of order.
On the second matter, which I am glad that we have
addressed, I congratulate the member for North Sydney
for highlighting a point, where he was attempting to
raise a supplementary question on a question that had
been asked by the other side, and I do thank him for
that. But I have to disappoint him that, in my rulings on
supplementary questions at this point in time—I repeat
‘at this point in time’—that is a bridge too far for me,
even though the other jurisdictions that I referred to
would have allowed it. In fairness to the member for
North Sydney I have given a full explanation. As I
said, I have decided that it is a bridge too far to allow
it, but it is something that a mature house in other ju-
risdictions is able to accommodate and maybe some-
time down the track, when others besides the Leader of
the Opposition and his delegate can ask supplementar-
ies, it is something that we should consider, because it
would lead to a much more lively question time.
Mr Abbott—We’re up for it.
The SPEAKER—Order! Again, I refer to my pleas
of last parliament. I really would leave that in the
hands of the Procedure Committee. I apologise to the
member for Denison: he now has the call.
Federal Election
Mr WILKIE (2.48 pm)—My question is to the
Prime Minister. At the 2010 federal election, ALP can-
didates right around Australia made numerous specific
54 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
promises about what the government would do in their
electorates if Labor were returned nationally. The
promises hinged on who would win government, not
who would win the seat. Regardless of the results in
each of those seats, do you commit to honouring the
electorate-specific promises made by the Labor candi-
date in my seat of Denison and, for that matter, in all
150 communities represented in this place?
Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for Denison
for his question and believe I have good news for him,
which is yes, I do commit to keeping the promises at a
local level that Labor and Labor candidates made at the
last election, including the promises we made in the
electorate of Denison. The reason I am able to say that
with confidence is that during the election campaign
we had a proper process of costing, which means we
understood the costs of the promises that we were mak-
ing. We made proper provision for them and we made
proper provision for them in a context where the
budget is coming back to surplus in 2012-13 and where
across the election campaign our promises were
matched by offsetting savings. Consequently I can say
yes to the member for Denison with a degree of confi-
dence. Of course, that is in sharp contrast to the cir-
cumstance that the opposition found itself in, with an
$11 billion black hole—
The SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister will
tread carefully.
Ms GILLARD—and a shadow Treasurer that could
not even be bothered looking at the costings. I thank
the member for Denison for his question.
Climate Change
Ms BURKE (2.50 pm)—My question is to the Min-
ister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Why
is a price on carbon essential for our future economy
and how is such reform viewed by the broader com-
munity?
Mr COMBET—I thank the member for Chisholm
for her question. The long-term economic future of this
country is interdependent with a sustainable environ-
ment. You only have to think of the risks to key sectors
of our economy, like agriculture, that climate change
represents. That is a why the establishment of a carbon
price in our economy is needed. It will reduce pollution
and help address the challenge of climate change, it
will establish certainty for business investments to be
made so that investors can understand and properly
analyse the returns on an investment over time, it will
help drive investment in clean energy, it will create
new jobs and it will ensure our future economic com-
petitiveness.
A range of leaders in the business community rec-
ognise the importance of establishing a carbon price.
Mr Graham Bradley, the President of the Business
Council of Australia, has indicated that there will:
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
… inevitably be the need for a market based mechanism that
will give us the lowest cost approach to reducing the carbon
intensity of our industries.
Mr Richard McIndoe, the Managing Director of
TRUenergy, has said this:
We all would like a price on carbon.
Dr Nikki Williams, the Chief Executive of the New
South Wales Minerals Council, has said this:
The principle of a carbon price is one that the industry sup-
ports.
None other than the shadow Treasurer, the member for
North Sydney, said this on 20 May this year, only a
number of months ago:
Inevitably we’ll have a price on carbon … we’ll have to.
Admittedly, of course, there has been considerable
debate about what form a carbon price should take, but
some of the other comments community leaders have
made are instructive. One of them said:
If you want to put a price on carbon, why not do it with a
simple tax? Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask
electricity consumers to pay more?
That contribution was made by none other than the
Leader of the Opposition last year. So he has previ-
ously advocated in the media a carbon tax. He also
made some comments in relation to emissions trading
when he said last year:
I think that the science is far from settled but on the insur-
ance principle you are prepared to take reasonable precau-
tions against significant potential risks, and that’s I think
why it makes sense to have an ETS.
Those were the Leader of the Opposition’s positions on
two different occasions, but neither is the position that
we hear now. What we hear now it is rank opportunism
and economic irresponsibility. We hear bald slogans
and we see empty gestures. He is completely repudiat-
ing the national interest of this country with the posi-
tion he is taking. Mainstream business understands that
we need a price on carbon in our economy. That is
mainstream business thinking. What we hear from the
opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, is
all over the place.
The SPEAKER—Order! The minister is now going
wider than talking about views of the broader commu-
nity.
Mr COMBET—They will not act in the national
interest, and we call on them to do so.
Murray-Darling Basin
Mr HOCKEY (2.54 pm)—My question is to the
Prime Minister. Has the government undertaken mod-
elling on the impact on prices of proposed cuts to the
water allocations in the Murray-Darling Basin?
Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for North
Sydney very much for the question—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER—Order! The question has been
asked and the Prime Minister is responding.
Ms GILLARD—What I can say to the member for
North Sydney about the process that is being gone
through at the moment is that it is a guide. And because
it is a guide for further consultation leading to a draft
plan and then leading ultimately to a plan that the min-
ister signs off and brings to the parliament—
Mr Dutton—Yes or no?
The SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister will
resume her seat. The member for Dickson will leave
the chamber for one hour under standing order 94a.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—I take it that he burped.
Opposition members—He bowed.
The SPEAKER—Well, he bowed with a noise.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Sorry. I call the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will respond to the question.
Ms GILLARD—As I was saying to the member for
North Sydney, there is a process—a process on the wa-
ter act, a process being undergone by the Murray-
Darling Basin Authority—
Mr Symon interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Deakin
will withdraw that remark.
Mr Symon—I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
Mr Pyne—On a point of order on direct relevance,
Mr Speaker: the Prime Minister could not have been
asked a more direct question. Has modelling been un-
dertaken or not?
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Sturt will
resume his seat. I think it was a short, well-constructed
question, but I cannot dictate the manner in which it is
being responded to. I think that if the House waited a
little bit with bated breath they would see that an an-
swer could be considered directly relevant. That may
be a vain hope of the chair, but I believe that that was
what the answer was building to. I call the Prime Min-
ister.
Ms GILLARD—I am outlining for good reason the
process which is in the hands of an independent author-
ity, because it goes to the member for North Sydney’s
question. What we are intending to do is to have the
Murray-Darling Basin Authority go through this proper
process. At the same time, the parliament will go
through a proper process through the committee led by
the member for New England. I understand that the
member for North Sydney, inspired by the Leader of
the Opposition, may be in the fearmongering business
and that he may be wanting to spark a campaign here,
but on this side of the House we are determined to
work through this complex reform—
CHAMBER
55
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister will
resume her seat. I simply suggest to those on my left
that, if I was not having to deal with them and they
were allowing me clearly to listen to the answer, we
might proceed in the way that they wish to proceed.
But all the ruction in the way that it is put to me pre-
vents me from actually hearing what is going on. The
Prime Minister will be directly relevant to the question.
She will not enter into debate across the table.
Ms GILLARD—We will pursue these reforms. We
will pursue them under the relevant legislation guided
by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the par-
liamentary committee. There is only one question here:
is the opposition seeking to wreck this reform? (Time
expired)
Water
Mr GIBBONS (2.59 pm)—My question is to the
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Popu-
lation and Communities. Will the minister explain the
government’s approach to water reform and how these
reforms have been received?
Mr BURKE—I thank the member for Bendigo for
the question. What needs to be recognised is that what
we are trying to achieve, and what we have been trying
to achieve since the Water Act was first introduced, is
three outcomes: to deliver a healthy river system, to
deliver it acknowledging the importance of food pro-
duction and to deliver strong regional communities.
That is the objective. That was the objective when the
Water Act was first introduced and this government’s
determination to reach that objective is there as well.
Anyone who saw the National Press Club address to-
day would have seen the comments from the National
Irrigators Council, from the National Farmers Federa-
tion and from the Australian Conservation Founda-
tion—all agreeing with the importance of those three
objectives.
Particularly yesterday, following some comments
that were made in Senate estimates but also following
some comments that were made by the Murray-Darling
Basin Authority during its consultation, there was a
level of concern and angst both within the parliament
and throughout the community generally as to whether
or not the act in its current form delivers on those three
outcomes. I know the Leader of the Nationals has
made comments on it. I know the member for Wen-
tworth verballed me in making comments on it on PM
yesterday and in the Herald today—and he knows he
has too. But there is a reasonable call for the issue to be
clarified. There are two ways to deal with it. You can
deal with it in the divisive way of those who have been
unfairly, and I think in quite a mean way, describing
the member for Wentworth as a roadblock, which I
think is the cruelty of the National Party. But what we
need to do is to have this issue clarified, because there
56 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
is actually common ground on the three objectives.
There is common ground on those three objectives in
communities, through the peak bodies and, I believe,
on both sides of this parliament.
Last Thursday I sought legal advice on this issue
from my department. It has not yet come through.
When it does come through, I think it will help inform
the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, members of this
parliament and the communities that are affected
within the basin as to what the requirements of the act
are and how the act plays a role in helping us deliver
what is referred to as the triple bottom line approach—
an approach that acknowledges that everybody needs
the environmental outcome. The environmental out-
come is important in itself but it is essential for the
communities and essential for the irrigators, as is food
production, as is having strong regional communities.
It is my intention, once that advice is available, to
make it available both to the authority and generally.
There is an argument going back and forth about what
was intended. There are arguments and stories in to-
day’s Sydney Morning Herald about divisions within
parties and across parties on whether or not the act
needs to be changed. My view is: let’s have a look at
the legal advice. Let’s see whether the different views
that have been coming from the authority are backed
up by the advice itself. Let’s acknowledge that the
government’s triple bottom line approach of all three
outcomes is what those in opposition once claimed
they sought too when they were in government. It is
certainly what the member for Wentworth sought and I
hope it is what the Leader of the Opposition is willing
to help deliver.
Murray-Darling Basin
Ms LEY (3.03 pm)—My question is to the Minister
for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities. Minister, Taskers New Holland, a family
machinery dealership in Deniliquin in my electorate of
Farrer will not be taking on two new apprentices next
year as a result of their concerns for future business
prospects given the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s
guide. Why didn’t the minister give any consideration
to the impact on businesses and families of drastic cuts
prior to the release of the Murray-Darling Basin guide?
Mr BURKE—If the question from the member for
Farrer is ‘Why didn’t I intervene on the authority?’—
that is effectively what she is asking, because none of
the things that were just referred to could occur without
me intervening on the independent authority—the
question is about why I was not willing to act contrary
to the Water Act. There is a pretty simple answer as to
why a minister in the government is not going to act
against the law. The authority is independent under the
Water Act, which was brought in under the coalition
government and which was supported by the member
for Farrer.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Ms Ley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: now the
minister has intervened and asked for a socioeconomic
study. My question was—
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Farrer
will resume her seat. On the point of order of rele-
vance, the minister is responding directly to the ques-
tion.
Mr BURKE—I find it extraordinary if the argument
is that the seeking of legal advice amounts to interven-
tion. If that is the argument, that is absolutely extraor-
dinary. For the benefit of the business that is referred
to, and for the decisions that that business is undertak-
ing, can I say this: if the decision is taken in the
framework that they do not believe they should be tak-
ing any decisions at the moment because there will be
water reform, that is a business decision in the context
of water reform. If they are making a decision based on
a belief that the numbers in the guide are government
policy then that is a mistaken belief. The numbers in
the guide are not government policy. There is only one
side of this chamber that ever promised to implement a
draft document, and it was the Leader of the Opposi-
tion, during the campaign, who was going to release
the draft within two weeks and proceed to implement it
immediately. That was never our policy. Our principle
has always been that we will implement the final plan.
The final plan will be brought down after there has
been an opportunity for direct ministerial involvement,
and that is the way the act is constructed. That is the
way we will operate. Anybody presuming that the
guide somehow represents a final landing point misun-
derstands the intention of the Murray-Darling Basin
Authority and also certainly misrepresents where the
government is at.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for Sturt has had a
fair degree of charity today. He will not use unparlia-
mentary remarks; he will not talk over everybody.
Trade
Mr STEPHEN JONES (3.07 pm)—My question is
to the Minister for Trade. Minister, what role does
trade play in Australia’s economic growth and how will
the Doha Round assist in strengthening the Australian
economy?
Dr EMERSON—I thank the member for Throsby
on asking his first question. I congratulate him on his
first question and on his first speech, which was a very
fine speech. I am asked about the role of trade in gen-
erating economic growth and jobs in this country and
also about the place of the Doha Round in all of that.
The best estimates are that one in seven Australians is
engaged in an industry that is involved in exports from
this country. My own view is that the total benefit of
exports from this country is far greater because, obvi-
ously, there are industries that supply our export indus-
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
tries. Even so, one in seven is a very important contri-
bution. Our future continues to be as a trading nation, a
nation that therefore through exports is able to generate
high-skill, high-wage, high-quality jobs. That is why
trade is so important to this country.
I would like to acknowledge the wonderful contribu-
tion of my predecessor as Minister for Trade, the
member for Hotham, for his untiring efforts in seeking
to improve market access for Australian exporters. I
will not attribute this result entirely to the previous
Minister for Trade, but I will point out that we have
now had five successive monthly trade surpluses, the
most recent one being the third biggest surplus on re-
cord. That came as a big turnaround on 76 successive
monthly trade deficits under the previous coalition
government. I will not blame the coalition for every
one of those 76 trade deficits, but of course I would
suggest that a majority of them would be the coalition’s
fault.
What has happened since the beginning of that very
long run of trade deficits is that the mining industry has
now produced a lot more minerals, following invest-
ment. But our whole story is not a mining story. Do
you know that 54 per cent of our exports are non-
mining exports and that during the teeth of the deepest
global recession since the Great Depression there has
been a growth in service economy exports of an aver-
age of 4.6 per cent per annum? I think that is a pretty
good effort for our service economy exporters. They
still account for only 22 per cent of our exports, but
again the former Minister for Trade has been very in-
fluential in lifting the profile of our service economy
exports and also of our manufactured exports.
As to the future, we believe that there is reason for
some optimism about the restarting of the Doha Round
of multilateral trade negotiations that stalled in mid-
2008. I have been to the United States—for the benefit
of the member for Curtin, that is a big country to the
far north-east of Australia—and the Doha Round opens
up the possibility of much improved market access not
only for our manufacturers but importantly for those
service economy exports. It seems, as a result of dis-
cussions I had with the administration in the United
States, that the US is keen to restart these stalled nego-
tiations by augmenting the existing offers from 2008
with a very substantial services package. That would
be good for Australia. This government will continue
to work tirelessly on those multilateral trade negotia-
tions, on our regional negotiations and on our bilateral
negotiations. (Time expired)
Home Insulation Program
Mr COULTON (3.12 pm)—My question is to the
Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what financial re-
course is there for households who paid for their own
roof inspections, in light of the failure of the govern-
ment’s Home Insulation Program, because they feared
CHAMBER
57
for their family’s safety and were frustrated by ex-
tended delays with government expansions? Prime
Minister, why are these people not being compensated
for any reasonable cost of inspections?
Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for his ques-
tion. I would say to the member that if there is a spe-
cific constituent matter that he wants to raise either
directly with me or with the relevant minister then I am
happy to respond to it. On the Home Insulation Pro-
gram in general, the member would probably be aware
that there is an inspection regime. There is a telephone
number that people can ring to get an inspection. Ob-
viously, inspections are proceeding on a risk basis, so
there is a way of working through. I am keen, if the
member has a specific matter or constituent issue on
his mind, to see the full details of it and then I will give
him a detailed response.
Indigenous Affairs
Ms LIVERMORE (3.13 pm)—My question is to
the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Ser-
vices and Indigenous Affairs. What progress has been
made on delivering improved housing in the Northern
Territory?
Ms MACKLIN—I thank the member for Capricor-
nia for her question. I am pleased to be able to report
that there have been improvements in housing for In-
digenous people in remote communities in the North-
ern Territory. This is important for many reasons, not
the least of which is the reason highlighted by the most
recent inquiry into child protection in the Northern Ter-
ritory that was released last Monday. That report high-
lighted the role that overcrowded housing plays in the
impact on family wellbeing. I think all of us would be
aware that decent housing is vital if we are to see a safe
environment in which children can grow up.
Our housing program in the Northern Territory is
now on track to deliver 750 new homes, 230 rebuilds
of homes and 2½ thousand refurbishments of homes by
2013, and all of that in remote communities in the
Northern Territory. We did in fact exceed our target for
the most recent financial year and, as at 11 October
2010, 82 new houses had been completed, and we have
101 houses under construction, in remote communities
in the Northern Territory. Six hundred and forty-five
refurbishments and rebuilds of houses have been com-
pleted and another 105 refurbishments and rebuilds are
under way.
One of the other important parts of this program is
our effort to build a strong Indigenous workforce. We
have around 300 Indigenous people currently em-
ployed in this housing program—around 30 per cent of
the housing workforce in these remote communities is
Indigenous, well above our 20 per cent commitment.
We have now got the program management costs down
to eight per cent, which is a significant improvement.
There are now independent assessments that show that
58 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
this program is well on track. We do of course under-
stand that we have got an enormous amount more to do
in remote Indigenous housing, both in the Northern
Territory and in other parts of remote Australia. We
have made a very, very significant financial commit-
ment to address that need and we intend to get on with
the job.
Home Insulation Program
Mrs PRENTICE (3.16 pm)—My question is to the
Prime Minister. Why is the government suppressing the
results of 96,000 foil and non-foil insulation safety
inspections that show the extent of the risk of fire and
electrocution under the government’s Home Insulation
Program? Does the Prime Minister support the sup-
pression of this safety information from the more than
1.1 million homeowners whose roofs are still to be in-
spected?
Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for her ques-
tion, which I believe may be her first. What I can say to
her is that I presume she is referring to the sample that
was referred to in the Auditor-General’s report. What I
would say to her about that sample is that it was a
sample that was risk based, so it is not an accurate
sample of the program overall. The figure is not neces-
sary representative of all installations, so consequently
the government have determined that we will not be
providing a running commentary on the results of the
inspections today because that data would not be help-
ful because of the risk profile. An expert—
Mr Abbott interjecting—
Ms GILLARD—The Leader of the Opposition was
clearly not listening. It is not a representative sample of
the program overall. What we will do of course is con-
tinue to work through, providing inspections to house-
holds. They are being provided on a risk basis. There is
a number that people can call and obviously all foil is
being inspected. At the end of those processes we will
obviously be in a different position in relation to in-
formation than we are now where the data that the
member refers to is not a representative sample overall.
Defence Procurement
Mr NEUMANN (3.18 pm)—My question is to the
Minister for Defence Materiel. Will the minister update
the House on the progress of the Super Hornet acquisi-
tion project and the benefits of this project to Austra-
lia’s defence capability.
Mr CLARE—Can I thank the member for Blair for
his question. This is a very important project. I recently
visited RAAF Base Amberley with the member and we
were briefed by Wing Commander Murray ‘Dog’ Jones
about this project. Earlier this year, the RAAF took
delivery of the first 11 Super Hornets, and I can advise
the House that three more are scheduled to arrive later
this year. Ten more are due over the course of next
year. All will be based at Amberley. These are state-of-
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
the-art fighter planes and a step from on the current
classic Hornets.
All three of the aircraft on their way will be wired
with the potential to be converted in the future into
Growlers. Growlers would give us the ability to jam
the electronics systems of enemy aircraft and land
based radars and communications systems. Twelve
Super Hornets will be wired in this way and this will
provide future governments with the option to add this
capability in the future.
I can also advise the House that testing is now com-
plete on a new glide missile the Super Hornets will
carry called the Joint Standoff Weapon C. It can glide
for up to 100 kilometres and destroy targets like con-
crete walls and bunkers with pinpoint accuracy. Testing
over the last two months at the Woomera test range has
been successful. This means that the Super Hornets are
on track to become operational later this year.
A lot of credit for this must go to the former Minis-
ter for Defence, Brendan Nelson. The Super Hornets
would not be in Australia if not for the decision that he
made. Credit should also go to the member for Hunter,
the Chief Government Whip, who was the driving
force behind the decision to wire 12 of the Super Hor-
nets with the potential to be converted to Growlers in
the future, and to the former Minister for Defence,
Senator Faulkner, and former Minister for Defence
Materiel, now the Minister for Climate Change, who
have overseen the delivery of the Super Hornets on
time and under budget. This project is an important
part of delivering the defence capability we need and
there are a lot of defence personnel working with in-
dustry and the US Navy to make sure it is a success.
The arrival of the Super Hornets marks an important
transition for the RAAF. The final F111 squadron will
be decommissioned later this year after four decades of
service. On 2 December, the RAAF will be holding a
decommissioning parade at Amberley, and the next day
the F111s will do their final fly-past and the last of
their signature dump-and-burns. There will be many
more people to recognise that week, as we mark the
end of one chapter of Australia’s military aviation his-
tory and start another with the arrival of the Super
Hornets.
Building the Education Revolution Program
Mr RUDDOCK (3.22 pm)—I have a question for
the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary
Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. Is the
minister aware of the case of the Cowan Public School,
in the Berowra electorate, who requested a new school
hall under the Building the Education Revolution pro-
gram but were instead given two classrooms? Now a
demountable classroom they have been using as a
school hall is being removed, leaving them with no
school hall at all. In the light of this example of quite
inadequate management in the school hall program,
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
will the government commit to supporting a judicial
inquiry into Building the Education Revolution?
Mr CREAN—I thank the honourable member for
his question. The answer to the last part of his question
is no, we will not be committing to a judicial inquiry.
The reason is that we have been totally transparent in
the way in which the funding for this program has been
used.
I was asked the other day a similar question by the
member for Fairfax as to whether I was aware of a
similar complaint to this. Can I just make this point so
that there is no misunderstanding from the other side.
There is a process in place in which, if there are com-
plaints, those complaints can be referred, and it is
called the Orgill committee. It has open terms of refer-
ence that enable all of these issues to be dealt with so
that we can not only determine whether there is value
for money but address the problems. My point to both
of those members and anyone seeking to ask is that I
would urge them in future to ask themselves the ques-
tion: has this complaint been referred to the Orgill
committee, and have they pursued it through a process
that we have set up to address these issues? Have they
referred it? Because, as it turns out, the complaint of
the member for Fairfax has not been referred to the
Orgill committee.
So do not come in here and moralise about commit-
tees of inquiry if you are not even prepared to use the
process that exists now. Use the process; that is what it
is there for. We have been addressing the problems in
the past. If all you want to do is come in here and raise
points of order or issues that have been raised in the
newspaper, you are not servicing your electorates
properly.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order! No minister should see
that as a precedent for argument.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order! That was why it was not a
precedent.
Crime
Mr HAYES (3.26 pm)—My question is to the Min-
ister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice. Minis-
ter, what action is the government taking to combat
serious and organised crime, including the scourge of
drug trafficking?
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR—I thank the member
for Fowler for his question and his ongoing interest in
these very important matters. In December 2008, a
federal government for the very first time decided to
ensure that we properly and appropriately recognised
serious and organised crime as a matter of national
security. In November last year, the government—that
is, the Attorney and I—launched and created the Or-
ganised Crime Strategic Framework, and in February
CHAMBER
59
this year we enacted legislation that went to serious
and organised crime, empowering our law enforcement
agencies to combat serious organised syndicates.
It is estimated that serious and organised crime costs
this country anywhere between $10 billion and $15
billion each and every year. It is a great challenge for
all governments of this country and indeed all local
enforcement and intelligence domestic agencies around
the nation. With this in mind, I congratulate the Austra-
lian Federal Police and Customs and Border Protection
on last week seizing almost half a tonne of cocaine, the
third-largest cocaine haul in Australia’s history—464
kilograms of cocaine, with an estimated street value of
$160 million. This complex operation required careful
planning and coordination between not only the AFP
and Customs and Border Protection but also the New
South Wales and Queensland police. I would like to
take this opportunity to pay special tribute to the agen-
cies in my portfolio for the outstanding role they
played in this very significant drug bust. Three men
were charged and 12 search warrants were executed
across New South Wales and Queensland, uncover-
ing—I am advised—a clandestine drug laboratory at
Eden, in New South Wales. This is coupled with the
seizure of 240 kilograms of cocaine in June this year.
Our law enforcement agencies are working very hard
to combat serious and organised crime.
The other important element of this operation is that
this matter might not have been triggered if it were not
for the good cooperation, the very close cooperation,
we have with law enforcement agencies in other coun-
tries. Indeed, the US Drug Enforcement Administration
referred this matter to the Australian Federal Police,
which from that point allowed the operation to ensue
and which has led to the success to date.
Organised criminals and drug traffickers in this
country are on notice that our agencies are working
very hard to combat serious and organised crime. As I
have said before, we know that money is the lifeblood
of organised crime. We know that illicit drug traffick-
ing is the primary source of that income, so we need to
follow the money. We need to stem the money flow to
those organisations. If we do that more effectively, we
will manage to land serious blows against organised
crime in this country and indeed in countries that we
work very closely with. This is a high priority of this
government. We will continue to work very closely
with other governments of this nation and other gov-
ernments in the region and around the world to combat
this very serious issue.
Ms Gillard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further ques-
tions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (3.30 pm)—Mr
Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
60 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER—Does the member claim to have
been misrepresented?
Mr FLETCHER—Yes.
The SPEAKER—Please proceed.
Mr FLETCHER—The Prime Minister sought to
engage in selective quotation from my book to imply
that I support Labor’s policy. I am firmly opposed to
Labor’s policy to waste $43 billion—
The SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat.
The member has explained where he has been misrep-
resented and he cannot further debate.
Mr Hockey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.
Before I heard you say that the member just then had
made his point, the microphone was switched off on
the member for Bradfield when the Leader of the
House stood at the dispatch box.
The SPEAKER—I will worry about other things as
well, but I say to the member for North Sydney that if I
had intervened it would be switched off. It is not the
policy. The Leader of the House jumps a lot of times
but I do not think has got any control over the micro-
phones.
Mr Pyne—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, during
the member for North Sydney’s point of order the Min-
ister for Resources and Energy made an extremely un-
parliamentary remark and I ask you to ask him to with-
draw it.
The SPEAKER—In the hubbub I did not hear it. I
will ask the Minister for Resources and Energy to
withdraw to assist the House.
Mr Martin Ferguson—I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (3.32 pm)—I present the report of
the Selection Committee relating to the consideration
of committee and delegation reports and private mem-
bers’ business on Monday, 25 October 2010. The report
will be printed in today’s Hansard and the items ac-
corded priority for debate will be published in the No-
tice Paper for the next sitting. Copies of the report
have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Pursuant to standing order 222, the Selection Committee has
determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted
for consideration of committee and delegation business and
private Members’ business on Monday, 25 October 2010.
The order of precedence and the allotments of time deter-
mined by the Committee are as follows:
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10 am to
12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
TO IRELAND AND ITALY
Australian Parliamentary delegation to Ireland and Italy,
June-July 2010
The Committee determined that statements on the report
may be made —statement may continue for 5 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Grierson 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5
mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR TURNBULL: To present a Bill for an Act to require
the preparation and publication of a business case and a cost
benefit analysis of the proposed National Broadband Net-
work, and for related purposes. (National Broadband Net-
work Financial Transparency Bill 2010). (Notice given 19
October 2010.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes
—pursuant to standing order 41.
2 MR TURNBULL: To move:
That:
(1) a Joint Select Committee on Broadband be appointed to
inquire into and report on all aspects of the business of
the NBN Co. including its construction, operations, fi-
nancing and any other matters related thereto;
(2) the committee consist of 10 members, 2 Members of the
House of Representatives to be nominated by the Gov-
ernment Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of
Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition
Whip or Whips and 1 by any non-aligned Member, 2
Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Govern-
ment in the Senate, and 2 Senators to be nominated by
the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator
to be nominated by any minority group or groups or in-
dependent Senator or independent Senators;
(3) every nomination of a member of the committee be noti-
fied in writing to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives:
(4) the members of the committee hold office as a joint
select committee until the House of Representatives is
dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(5) the committee will elect a chair;
(6) the committee elect a member as its deputy chair who
shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the
chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at
any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present
at a meeting of the committee the members present shall
elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.
(7) the Chair and Deputy chair shall not both be from either
the Government, Opposition or Crossbench members;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the
deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
(9) 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the
committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the
quorum shall include 1 Government member of either
House and 1 non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee have power to appoint subcommittees
consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to
any subcommittee any matter which the committee is
empowered to examine;
(11) the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee
who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when
the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting
of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee
present shall elect another member of that subcommittee
to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) 2 members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of
that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meet-
ing the quorum shall include 1 Government member of
either House and 1 non-Government member of either
House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a
subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that
subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be
counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to call
for witnesses to attend and for documents to be pro-
duced;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee may conduct pro-
ceedings at any place it sees fit;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to ad-
journ from time to time and to sit during any adjourn-
ment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(17) the committee may report from time to time;
(18) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are in-
consistent with the standing orders, have effect notwith-
standing anything contained in the standing orders; and
(19) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this
resolution and requesting that it concur and take action
accordingly. (Notice given 19 October 2010.)
Time allotted —60 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Turnbull —10 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 10
mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should
continue on a future day.
3 Ms HALL: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Pink Ribbon day is 25 October;
(b) breast cancer is the most common cancer in Austra-
lian women, accounting for 28 per cent of cancer
diagnoses in 2006;
(c) this year alone, 12 000 women will be diagnosed
with breast cancer, which is expected to increase by
22 per cent by 2015;
CHAMBER
61
(d) one in nine women will be diagnosed with breast
cancer by age 85;
(e) breast cancer is the most common cancer in Abo-
riginal and Torres Strait Islander women;
(f) the risk of developing breast cancer increases with
age, with the average age of diagnosis recorded as
60 in 2006;
(g) mammograms are vital to early detection, with 75
per cent of deaths occurring in women who have
never been screened; and
(h) there has been a 27 per cent decrease in mortality
rates due to breast cancer since 1994; and
(2) acknowledges the:
(a) work of the National Breast Cancer Foundation;
(b) effectiveness of Pink Ribbon Day in raising aware-
ness;
(c) work of the Jane McGrath Foundation;
(d) contribution of volunteers, staff and researchers;
and
(e) importance of early detection. (Notice given 18 Oc-
tober 2010.)
Time allotted —remaining private Members’ business time
prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits —
Ms Hall —10 minutes.
Next three Members speaking —10 minutes
each.
Other Member —5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10
mins+ 1 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should
continue on a future day.
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (8 to
9.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
4 Mr ADAMS: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that pensions must keep pace with the cost of liv-
ing;
(2) recognises the significance and importance of the Labor
Government’s $1.4 billion reform of the pension system
after over 11 years of Coalition inaction;
(3) understands that when there is a Commonwealth pen-
sion rise, some of it is likely to be absorbed into pen-
sioners’ rising living costs, often as a result of States and
Territories lifting housing rents and power costs;
(4) notes the danger that pensioners are at risk of becoming
impoverished if State and Territory governments do not
allow the benefits of pension increases to flow through
to pensioners; and
(5) demands that all State and Territory Governments com-
mit to permanently quarantining last September’s pen-
sion rise, in the calculation of pensioners’ public hous-
ing rent levels and other State and Territory government
controlled costs. (Notice given 18 October 2010.)
62 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Time allotted —60 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Adams —10 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 10
mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should
continue on a future day.
2 Ms PARKE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that 24 October is United Nations Day which
celebrates the entry into force of the United Nations
Charter on 24 October 1945;
(2) celebrates Australia’s key role in the formation of the
United Nations and the drafting of the United Nations
Charter;
(3) recognises that Australia has been a consistent and long
term contributor to United Nations efforts to safeguard
international peace and security and to promote human
rights, for example, by:
(a) being the thirteenth largest contributor to the United
Nations budget;
(b) contributing to many United Nations peacekeeping
operations;
(c) firmly committing to increasing Australia’s devel-
opment assistance; and
(d) by continuing to push for real progress towards the
Millennium Development Goals;
(4) notes further the Australian Government’s commitment
to the multilateral system as one of the three fundamen-
tal pillars of Australia’s foreign policy, namely that Aus-
tralia is determined to work through the United Nations
to enhance security and economic well being world-
wide, and to uphold the purposes and principles of the
United Nations Charter;
(5) notes that as the only genuinely global Organisation, the
United Nations plays a critical role in addressing the
global challenges that no single country can resolve on
its own, and that Australia is determined to play its part
within the United Nations to help address serious global
challenges, including conflict prevention and resolution,
international development, climate change, terrorism
and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction;
(6) expresses its condolences for the loss of 100 United
Nations staff lives in January 2010 as a result of the
earthquake in Haiti, and expresses its appreciation for
the ongoing work in difficult conditions of United Na-
tions staff around the world; and
(7) reaffirms the faith of the Australian people in the pur-
poses, principles, and actions of the United Nations act-
ing under guidance of the United Nations Charter. (No-
tice given 18 October 2010.)
Time allotted —remaining private Members’ business time
prior to 9.30 pm.
Speech time limits —
Ms Parke —10 minutes.
Next Member speaking —10 minutes.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10
mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should
continue on a future day.
Items for Main Committee (approx 11 am to approx
1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Orders of the day
1 COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE BUILDING
THE EDUCATION REVOLUTION PROGRAM BILL
2010 (Mr Pyne): Second reading (from 18 October 2010).
Time allotted —60 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Pyne —30 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 30
mins + 3 x 10 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should
continue on a future day.
2 EVIDENCE AMENDMENT (JOURNALISTS’
PRIVILEGE) BILL 2010 (Mr Wilkie): Second reading
(from 18 October 2010).
Time allotted —60 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Wilkie —30 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 30
mins + 3 x 10 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should
continue on a future day.
Notices
1 Mr LYONS: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges and congratulates the over 153 000 vol-
unteer members and staff of Surf Life Saving Australia;
(2) notes that:
(a) Surf Life Saving Australia faces many challenges in
looking after the nation’s largest and most popular
playground, our beaches, with over 100 million
beach visitations each year; and
(b) in its 103 years of service, Surf Life Saving Austra-
lia is defying trends by increasing volunteer num-
bers, which is a great reflection of an organisation
strongly connected to unique Aussie lifestyle, cul-
ture and adaptability;
(3) supports Surf Life Saving Australia’s efforts in advocat-
ing for nationally consistent standards for coastal safety
services, systems and signage;
(4) acknowledges Surf Life Saving Australia’s international
aid and development programs in 25 countries, mainly
in the Asia Pacific region, playing its part in showcasing
the nation’s global goodwill; and
(5) supports the establishment of bi-partisan ‘Friends of
Surf Life Saving’ amongst Members of Parliament and
Senators, providing the opportunity for Surf Life Saving
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Australia to keep the country’s leaders informed about
the humanitarian, social and economic value of Surf
Life Saving Australia to the Australian community. (No-
tice given 18 October 2010.)
Time allotted —30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Lyons —10 minutes.
Next Member speaking —10 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10
mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should
continue on a future day.
Items for Main Committee (approx 6.30 to 9 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
1 Ms OWENS: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises:
(a) that the week of 17 to 23 October was National
Carers Week;
(b) that there are more than 2.6 million carers in Aus-
tralia;
(c) the caring role is one of immense social and eco-
nomic value, with carers being the foundation of
our health, aged, palliative and community care
systems;
(d) as health care increasingly moves away from ‘insti-
tutional’ settings into the home and community,
family carers shoulder greater responsibility for
managing complex conditions and providing the
emotional and physical support for the person for
whom they are caring;
(e) without carers, no future health or community care
system will be able to respond to changing demo-
graphics and health needs, clinical practices and so-
cietal influences, in the long term;
(f) the Government’s practical measures to improve
the lives of carers through significant reforms
across the disability, health, mental health and aged
care service systems, including:
(i) delivering a $60 a fortnight increase to the base
pension plus an increase of $5 a fortnight in the
new Pension Supplement for carers receiving the
maximum single rate of Carer Payment (a total in-
crease of around $100 per fortnight, after indexa-
tion increases from 20 March);
(ii) guaranteeing the certainty of an annual
ongoing Carers Supplement of $600 for each per-
son cared for, benefiting around 500 000 carers;
(iii) overhauling the complex and restrictive
eligibility requirements for Carer Payment (Child);
(iv) significantly boosting funding to the State
and Territory governments for specialist disability
services including supported accommodation, in-
home care and respite; and
CHAMBER
63
(v) commissioning the Productivity Commis-
sion to examine the feasibility, costs and benefits of
a National Long Term Disability Care and Support
Scheme; and
(2) calls on the Government to renew its commitment to
carers in this Parliament and to exercise all instruments
of policy to support carers in their vital work. (Notice
given 18 October 2010.)
Time allotted —30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Owens —10 minutes.
Next Member speaking —10 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10
mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should
continue on a future day.
2 Mr DUTTON: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) mental illness afflicts more Australians than almost
all other health disorders, only ranking behind can-
cer and heart disease in prevalence;
(b) forty-five per cent of the nation’s population will
experience a mental health disorder at some point
in life;
(c) younger Australians—those between 16 and 24—
bear the brunt of mental illness, with prevalence of
problems declining with age;
(d) with early and targeted treatment, many people can
overcome mental illness or lower the incidence of
progression or relapse;
(e) expansion of the headspace and Early Psychosis
Prevention Intervention Centres (EPPIC) models
could help an estimated 200 000 young Australians,
and in doing so, free-up existing services for others
with mental illnesses whilst alleviating pressures on
public hospitals and emergency departments; and
(f) the Government has moved to cut services in men-
tal healthcare;
(2) requires the Government to:
(a) expand the number of headspace centres to a mini-
mum of 90 nationally;
(b) establish a national network of 20 EPPIC centres;
(c) provide an additional 800 beds for mental health,
associated with the EPPIC centres;
(d) appropriate funds necessary to provide these critical
steps to expanding mental health treatment facili-
ties; and
(e) immediately provide additional funds for existing
headspace centres; and
(3) sends a message to the Senate acquainting it of this reso-
lution and requesting that it concur. (Notice given 19
October 2010.)
Time allotted —60 minutes.
Speech time limits —
64 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr Dutton —10 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 10
mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should
continue on a future day.
3 Mrs D’ATH: To move:
That this House recognises:
(1) that many lives have been saved through the research
and the use of organ and blood donations throughout
Australia;
(2) that one form of donation is cord blood from the umbili-
cal cord and placenta, and that:
(a) research has shown that his blood is a rich source of
blood forming stem cells known as haemopoietic
stem cells;
(b) the use of these cells for transplantation to a suf-
ferer of leukaemia, lymphoma, and some tumours,
provides the best chance for a cure; and
(c) recent research has established that umbilical cord
blood stem cells can demonstrate plasticity, sug-
gesting a role for them in the treatment of diseases
such as diabetes, cerebral vascular disease, and
Parkinson’s disease;
(3) that the collection of umbilical cord blood cells for re-
search and for processing is a safe and non-invasive
procedure, and that this procedure does not involve the
destruction of an embryo given that the umbilical cord
and placenta are usually discarded as waste;
(4) that the collection of umbilical cord blood is not avail-
able in all States and Territories or hospitals throughout
Australia, and that:
(a) the collection, processing and storage of umbilical
cord blood requires specialised techniques by ap-
propriately trained and accredited professionals;
and
(b) based on limitations on the collection centres that
currently exist, not all permissions for donations
given by women at existing collection centres re-
sults in the actual collection of the cord blood;
(5) that the Federal Government already funds the Austra-
lian National Cord Blood Collection Network; and
(6) the great work being done by the Australian National
Cord Blood Collection Network, AusCord, the Austra-
lian national network of umbilical cord blood banks and
cord blood collection centres. (Notice given 18 October
2010.)
Time allotted —remaining private Members’ business time
prior to 9 pm.
Speech time limits —
Mrs D’Ath —10 minutes.
Other Members —10 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 10
mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should
continue on a future day.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
SPEAKER’S PANEL
The SPEAKER—Pursuant to standing order 17, I
lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable
members for Petrie, Reid, Capricornia, Wills and Cal-
well to be members of the Speaker’s panel to assist the
chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or Dep-
uty Speaker.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER—I have received advice from Mr
Bandt nominating himself to be a member of the Selec-
tion Committee.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House)
(3.33 pm)—by leave—I move:
That Mr Bandt be appointed a member of the Selection
Committee.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House)
(3.33 pm)—Documents are presented as listed in the
schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of
the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Pro-
ceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Bundanon Trust—Report for 2009-10.
Medicare Australia—Report for 2009-10—Correction.
Migration Act 1958—Section 486O—Assessment of deten-
tion arrangements—2010 Personal identifiers 595/10 to
599/10—
Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman’s reports.
Government response to Ombudsman’s reports.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Murray-Darling Basin
The SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the
honourable member for Murray proposing that a defi-
nite matter of public importance be submitted to the
House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to undertake a balanced
and properly informed process for the implementation of the
Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
I call upon those members who approve of the pro-
posed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the
standing orders having risen in their places—
Dr STONE (Murray) (3.34 pm)—The Murray-
Darling Basin communities, which is are of course just
out of drought or flood or locust damage, have been
holding their breath waiting for the delivery of the
Murray-Darling Basin guide to the plan that will either
give them a future or seal their fate. They have been
apprehensive because they saw the then Prime Minis-
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ter, Julia Gillard, before the last election put the plan
away to make sure it did not see the light of day before
the election. They also were aware that on commercial
radio in South Australia the then Prime Minister in Au-
gust said that she had not seen the plan but she cer-
tainly intended to have it comprehensively delivered.
She would sign up to it after the election and she had
already budgeted for the four years of water buyback
that she implied would be part of that scheme.
So the basin communities were holding their breath
because, after all, they depend on the environment, the
quality of the water system that gives them the poten-
tial to grow product, some of the best product in the
world. They also depend on healthy communities and
of course they have to depend on government policy
that does not stymie their capacity to grow food and to
raise their children in the expectation that they too will
have a decent life. After all, they believe in the win-
win scenario. They also believe in the triple-bottom
line, which it seems the minister, Tony Burke, has just
discovered. The triple-bottom line is of course what
coalition policy was all about, as the minister acknowl-
edged, and it is what we need in the basin community:
a win-win-win outcome acknowledging the triple-
bottom line.
They knew too that the coalition left $5 billion for
the on-farm water use efficiency and infrastructure
measures. We anticipated that this government would
use, or indeed the last government would use, that $5
billion effectively, and we had said that 50 per cent of
the savings that came out of that water use efficiency
program would be put back to the environment. But the
basin communities saw that program trashed by proba-
bly the worst minister for water there has ever been
since Federation, Minister Penny Wong. She also pre-
sided over the non-strategic water buyback. That was
her policy in relation to how to get more water for the
environment. That non-strategic water buy-back, in the
teeth of the worst drought on record, meant that farm-
ers were pressured by their lenders to sell water, which
of course reduces their production capacity in the fu-
ture.
We saw stranded assets in the irrigation systems,
where, in my part of the world, 20 to 30 per cent of the
farms were forced to sell their water. We saw that the
water market price was distorted, because the govern-
ment has very deep pockets. We saw stranded assets in
the irrigation systems, we saw the higher costs for
those who have not yet sold their water or are resisting
their banks and we saw the degraded environment as
dried out farms blew in the wind—and the weeds, the
feral animals, the uncontrolled diseases, the problems
with dying remnant vegetation because they could no
longer afford to fence out their trees. That is what hap-
pens when you take water out of an area that has a 15-
inch rainfall and a highly variable climate.
CHAMBER
65
We experienced the water buy-back scheme for
three years. We had the basin communities suffering
three years of water policy ineffectiveness. The former
minister for water, Penny Wong, has to have been the
worst minister on record. Her programs were ineffi-
ciently and badly managed. I suppose we should not be
surprised. After all, this is a government that cannot
even manage a free pink batts installation program
without killing people and having houses burn down.
But, given the importance of a Murray-Darling Ba-
sin plan, the basin community was still hopeful of one
that would finally bring better governance across the
jurisdictions. The basin communities hoped that Labor
might get it right. After all, they had had three years to
produce the plan and they had spent many scores of
millions of dollars in the process.
The basin is important because, although it covers
only some seven per cent of the continent, it produces
40 per cent of the food off 40 per cent of the farms.
And it is the biggest and driest catchment on earth. The
community does a magnificent job. But what other
government in the world in this century would deliber-
ately set out to destroy their food security by making it
impossible for their food-growing communities to sur-
vive? The basin communities rationalised that they
could not possibly get a plan that would destroy their
livelihoods by sacrificing their capacity to produce
food and fodder, which could not necessarily even
guarantee the improvement of the ecosystems or the
natural resource base that they depended on. So they
held their breath and then, on Friday, 8 October at 4 pm
the Australia public was handed a 220-page report—I
have it here—which they read with disbelief. If it were
implemented, as Prime Minister Gillard has promised
she would, word for word, it would spell out the end of
viable irrigated agriculture across the basin. It would
do immeasurable damage to the expectations and the
faith in the future of the 2.1 million people across the
basin. We heard today in question time the examples of
basin businesses that will no longer be employing peo-
ple in the coming days. The plan would increase per-
sonal poverty and impoverish communities.
What did this guide do? There was no cost-benefit
analysis and in particular no modelling of the food cost
impact from less food being available on the Australian
market. It had totally inadequate socioeconomic impact
analysis. In fact, it was admitted upfront and quite
loudly stated, ‘Oh, well, the legislation would not let us
do it,’ and ‘the data was wrong.’ The chairman of the
authority, Mr Mike Taylor, who should have known
better, said, ‘I personally know there are extraordinary
socioeconomic impacts involved in our proposals here,
which involve up to 45 per cent of irrigation water be-
ing taken from the food producers. I know there is a
serious problem here and, yes, we think the assessment
of 800 job losses is grossly underestimated.’ Yet here it
66 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
is in our basin guide. This guide has gone out to the
communities across the basin, the people who have just
survived the drought, survived Penny Wong’s buy-back
scheme, survived the floods and now have to survive
the pestilence. They read in the document that there
will be 800 job losses and then they heard Michael
Taylor saying, ‘Oh, yes, but we got that wrong.’ And
why did they get that wrong? ‘Well, we think the sec-
tion of the act did not really say we should look at so-
cioeconomic impacts.’ Yes it does. The coalition’s Wa-
ter Act 2007 quite categorically expresses the need and
it insists that the socioeconomic impacts on the basin
must be taken into account. Indeed, the content of the
plan mandates that social, economic, cultural and In-
digenous factors be taken into account.
I thought it was amazing that today the minister had
the cheek to come to the dispatch box and say, ‘Oh, he
is now going to go back and look at the legislation.’
Sorry, Minister, that is just an excuse. Get on with the
job and pull the authority into line and tell them they
have got to do much better before more of the basin
community’s despair about any future employment
activity and before our older farmers say, ‘It is just too
hard. We will sell our water, not to Penny Wong this
time but to Minister Burke, and we will walk away.’
The trouble is that the rest of the nation depends on the
provision of the food they grow and a lot of our export
earnings are derived from the production of fruit, fibre,
meats, dairy products and nuts. Our access to fresh
food and produce will be extraordinarily different if
this plan goes ahead as it is proposed.
In the plan it states that up to 45 per cent of the wa-
ter will be clawed back from the irrigators by simply
tapping people on the shoulder in the communities and
looking for willing sellers. I have already described to
you the experiences of this policy over the last three
years under Minister Penny Wong. Under the willing-
sellers policy, if communities contract and associated
businesses go broke, who compensates those who used
to sell things such as the silage? Who compensates the
small town whose school is reduced from three to one
teacher when the families have left because they have
had to become willing sellers when the banks leaned
on them? And who compensates the veterinarians, the
people who sell shoes and the hairdressers in those
small towns? Who is going to deal with those fallouts
and impacts? No, this scheme is just going to look at
buying the water at market prices from so-called will-
ing sellers. Do you know what the market prices are
right now, given that it has rained and the basin is
awash with water? The market prices are some 30 to 50
per cent less than they were two years ago.
So we have a serious problem of further poverty for
the farmers who are forced to sell their water; yet they
are some of the world’s most innovative and produc-
tive primary producers. They also are the people who
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
manage the environmental services: for example, soil
nutrition, water quality and biodiversity protection—
the people who actually produce the sort of effort that
makes sure the Mallee does not blow away and choke
the cities. Those farmers can do that only when they
are viable—when they have a few dollars to rub to-
gether so that they can not only feed themselves but go
out and buy sprays for Paterson’s curse, buy bullets for
the foxes and fence the remnant vegetation. You are
talking about beggaring those individuals and those
communities so that they will not be able to produce
those environmental services which are the public good
that we all depend on.
Who is going to do this work? Maybe the Depart-
ment of Sustainability and the Environment in Victoria
will. Do you really think so? Or maybe, in New South
Wales, those rangers and all those other beaut people
the government employs to do some of that work will
do it. Look at the roadsides. Look at the invasion of
weed on public lands. Look at who is being told to fix
the locusts right now. It is not the public sector; it is the
farmers. The farmers do all the heavy lifting to keep
our ecosystems in a healthy state. They do it willingly
because they happen to want to pass on their land in a
better condition than it was when they received it from
their fathers and grandfathers. That is what farmers
tend to do. But, even when the farmers are corpora-
tions, they still have the production of environmental
services as a by-product from what they do for the rest
of Australia, because it makes sense economically for
them. They know that if their property is in good shape
it has a greater value.
What you are talking about is taking water off irriga-
tors to the extent of a magical number. The Living
Murray came up with 1,500 gigalitres as an estimated
need for the environment. The report has it both ways.
It goes from 3,000 to over 7,600 gigalitres—maybe.
What a range. It is not sure quite what might help the
environment, but it has a stab at a number, then divided
by your grandmother’s birthday and that will do. What
are we going to do with that number of gigalitres? Who
would know, because there is no description in here of
any water plans. The states will do those. When will
the states do those? In the case of Victoria, in 2019.
So what we have is incredible insecurity, no faith in
this government being capable of improving its per-
formance in the area of environmental management or
regional economy management and no evidence at all
in this document that the 20 volumes that are some-
where out there will have any better information, justi-
fication or evaluation. I know the Minister for Sustain-
ability, Environment, Water, Population and Communi-
ties at the table has already panicked and said, ‘Oops!
We’d better get the Murray-Darling Basin Authority
out there now doing a socioeconomic impact assess-
ment analysis, and they’d better report by March next
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
year.’ Yes, that is what they are going to do—the minis-
ter is shaking his head..
Mr Burke—It’s not what I told them.
Dr STONE—The minister says he did not tell them
to do that. The minister has asked, in parallel to the
authority doing this report, that a new parliamentary
committee to be headed up by Mr Windsor to do the
socioeconomic impact assessment which the Murray-
Darling Basin Authority failed to do. But the lucky
committee has until April to produce that report. If the
minister knew anything about regional Australia, he
would know that from now until March or April is the
peak period for people in the basin for harvesting,
managing their crops, employing people, picking,
packing and pruning—not to mention that there is also
Christmas. How are these communities going to re-
spond to another go at the economic impact assessment
of the government taking away up to 45 per cent of
their production capacity by the removal of their wa-
ter? This is such a cynical exercise. We had hoped that
this government had learned from the numbers of rural
and regional communities that rejected them at the last
election. They have not. (Time expired)
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities)
(3.49 pm)—I thank the member for Murray for bring-
ing this issue of the Murray-Darling Basin plan to the
attention of the parliament so that we can debate it in
the format of a matter of public importance. A lot has
been said in the presentation we just heard from the
member for Murray that is factually untrue. It gives me
an option for a particular style of delivery, but I do not
think we do the communities affected any service at
all, given the current angst, by continuing the debate in
that form. So I would like to go through, very calmly,
where we are at and the facts as affected by the issues
raised in this MPI.
The words of the MPI itself refer to the failure of the
government to undertake a balanced and properly in-
formed process for the implementation of the Murray-
Darling Basin plan. The process that is going on at the
moment is being driven entirely by legislation. Those
elements of the process that are being conducted by the
authority are being entirely driven by the legislation.
While there are parts of the article by the member for
Wentworth in today’s Sydney Morning Herald that I
take issue with, I certainly do not take issue with this
statement:
An elaborate program of consultation was mandated by the
act, and that is the exercise the authority is now undertaking.
In the terms of the MPI that is in front of us, let us ac-
knowledge that an authority is acting independently. In
fact, what it is doing at the moment is actually an extra
layer of consultation beyond that which it is specifi-
cally required to do by the act. I have been speaking
privately to a number of members on each side of the
CHAMBER
67
House. Many individuals and families in the communi-
ties that we are talking about here have had very deep
issues of anxiety for some time. By all means, where
anxiety or an action from the government gives rise to
legitimate debate in those terms, have the argument
and have the debate. But, please, when it is simply a
scare campaign—and in some of the language that was
used in that speech—
Dr Stone—It’s not a scare campaign.
Mr BURKE—I will go through what was factually
incorrect in that speech. People are quite right to want
to defend their communities and quite right to want to
argue for the best possible deal, but, when information
is added that is factually untrue, for the particular cir-
cumstances that many of these communities are in, I do
think it is unhelpful.
First of all, there was a claim that the report had
been completed and the government sat on it in ad-
vance of the election. That is just factually untrue. I
was handed a copy of the report for the first time two
days before it was released. Briefings began in the final
week before it was released. The authority, up until
when briefings began, were holding regular meetings
to determine what would be in the document. Given
that that was when it was completed, which was well
after the election, well after the 17 days following the
election while we worked out who was going to be in
government, it is simply untrue to claim that there was
some disingenuous game going on to hide this report
from people. It was not completed beforehand. The
first time it was handed to a government minister, it
was handed to me, and that was a couple of days be-
fore the release of the report.
Second, there was a claim that the Prime Minister
had committed, before the election, to implement this
report, to implement the guide. That is completely fac-
tually untrue.
Dr Stone interjecting—
Mr Secker interjecting—
Mr BURKE—I acknowledge the interjection that I
should read the transcript. What the Prime Minister
said was that we would as a government implement the
Murray-Darling Basin Authority plan. That document
is the final document that comes out at the end of next
year after there has been an opportunity for ministerial
intervention, to either ask them to reconsider aspects of
it or specifically to demand that they change aspects of
it. That is the document the Prime Minister quite
rightly committed to implementing. There was an elec-
tion commitment that was made about implementing
the draft. That was made in the name of Senator Bir-
mingham, Senator Joyce and the Leader of the Opposi-
tion. The Leader of the Opposition, from his indica-
tions in the House—
68 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr Secker—Rubbish! They never said anything
about implementing the draft.
Mr BURKE—The words of the media release that I
refer to are on a bit of paper that I can get, but I re-
member them by heart—they are that good. In re-
sponse to the member for Barker, the words were that
within two weeks they would release the draft and pro-
ceed with its implementation immediately. That was
the commitment that the opposition made. Notwith-
standing that, nobody on either side of the House, as I
understand it, now has any interest in implementing the
guide. I think that is common ground. We have a long
process to go through now as we move towards the
document which the government is committed to im-
plementing, which is the final plan. As I say, the au-
thority does not have sole control over what goes into
that document. It only becomes the plan after the draft
has been presented to ministerial council and I, as min-
ister, have directed the authority either to reconsider
certain matters or specifically to change elements of
the report. At that point, it becomes the plan. That is
the document that the Prime Minister guaranteed we
would be committed to implementing. That is the
commitment that the Prime Minister made during the
election. That is what the government intends to do. I
think it is important that we are able to provide that
reassurance for communities so that they know exactly
the extent to which the processes that must occur inde-
pendently by the authority are part of a long period of
statutory consultation but are not definitive in the dif-
ferent documents that get released on the way through.
Mr Chester—You need to rule some things out
pretty soon, Tony.
Mr BURKE—I do appreciate the comments that are
being made about the levels of anxiety within commu-
nities.
I will now go to the claim that was made that the
seeking of legal advice is just an excuse. I absolutely,
in the strongest terms, assure you that that is not the
case. Just work the issue back from first principles. I
think there is a view that the Murray-Darling Basin
Authority has not adopted all three principles—of a
healthy river, of acknowledging the importance of food
production and of acknowledging the importance of
strong regional communities—in a way that they are
valued equally. If there is a view that they have not
done that, but their argument for what they have done
is based on their interpretation of the act, then it would
be senseless for me to do what the member for Murray
said and say, ‘I know you think that is what the statute
says, but just get on with it and do something differ-
ent.’ They quite rightly would say to me, ‘Minister,
you’re asking us to act contrary to our interpretation of
the act; we can’t do that.’
But, given that there is a legitimate argument that is
going on at the moment in communities—and, from all
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
reports, among members of both sides of parliament in
this chamber—as to whether the interpretation that is
being given to the act by the authority is right, then I
believe the responsible way for me to deal with that is
to get legal advice and to give the commitment, before
I have even seen it, that I intend to make that advice
available to the authority and to make it available gen-
erally. I think that is an important commitment in
transparency, because a lot of people are now looking
around and saying: ‘Do we need now to open up the
Water Act? Do we need to go through a whole lot of
processes which we all know full well would lead to
further delay and further uncertainty?’ But people are
coming to the debate with the best of intentions, be-
cause they are worried that issues that should be taken
into account might not be taken into account.
We need to find out whether or not there is a basis
for that entire discussion to happen. Whether we use
the phrase ‘healthy river, food, strong communities’ or
the phrase ‘triple-bottom line’, we need to determine
whether that is reflected in the act, as I think most
members of parliament believed it was when the Water
Act was implemented. I think most members of par-
liament believed that. I have gone through the speeches
of members of both sides of the House. I look forward
to different opportunities of quoting various speeches
that have been made by members, and in particular—
let us face it—many members from the other side of
the House. There are some quotes there about what
people believed and why people supported the Water
Act and about issues of structural adjustment that peo-
ple were willing to take on.
I do not think any of us should walk away from this.
If we go through this entire process and then we end up
with no reform, from my meetings with irrigators and
farmers groups and from conversations that I have
been having for years and having with a particular in-
tensity in recent days I tell you that no-one will thank
us. No-one will thank us if we end up delaying an al-
most identical decision by a few years because we
could not get the politics of it right.
Dr Stone interjecting—
Mr BURKE—Member for Murray, I am approach-
ing this debate with a level of a goodwill that is not
always reflected in a MPI. I am in particular very
mindful of the mental health challenges in many of
these communities. I have always had a passion to
make sure that we do not act in a way that adds to
those. That is why I say that where there is a genuine
policy difference by all means have the debate and
have it vigorously. But where the only difference is
which side of the parliament we happen to fall on, and
we decide that we want to rev an issue up, we need to
be careful. These sorts of issues can cause a high level
of anxiety. Have the argument when the fear is based in
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
the facts, but please do not present a guide to a draft as
something that is more than it is.
I want to go to some points that were made by the
member for Murray about the extent to which water
buyback will be done in a strategic way. There was
always set aside by the coalition an amount of
money—it was in the order of $3 billion—dedicated to
water buyback. Regarding the principle of how you do
it, there are cases where it can be done in a smart way
and strategically and cases where you have to go
through your value-for-money propositions by using
the water market. We have challenges with the water
market. Most people recognise that it is a very imma-
ture market in many ways and there are issues about
probity and the use of brokers. Irrigators have asked
me to have a very close look at whether there might be
extra levels of protection that we can bring into that
market, and I am looking closely at that.
Additional to that, if you are buying from the mar-
ket, and you decide that you want to buy from all the
irrigators and a particular part of an irrigation region so
that we have no risk of stranded assets and you do that
at an inflated price through the water market, some of
those people will take the government money at the
inflated price and then—as is perfectly their right—buy
the water back at a lower price. The water market al-
lows you to do that. There are cases, though, where a
full strategic approach can be used.
I have referred previously to the discussions that I
had in a Trangie last Friday. The member representing
Parkes would agree that it is a really good example of
how a strategic buy can work. It can only be done with
the full cooperation of the Irrigation Management Au-
thority, because if the changes are going to be strategic,
with some channels closed off, then it needs to be
driven locally. That is the only way that that can be
done sensibly. It cannot be done in every case. In these
situations, you end up with smaller levels of gigalitres
being made available than what you might get through
a straight buy back. But you do get a high level of stra-
tegic value and you get very little change in terms of
productivity. That is a project that I have looked
closely at.
Subsequent to that meeting on Friday, I had the op-
portunity—because quite a few of them have been
around here—to talk to a number of the other man-
agement authorities of irrigation schemes throughout
the basin to talk about whether or not those sorts of
approaches might work for them. They will not work in
every area. But there is an extent to which you can do
some strategic alignment in parts of the basin. But
there is also an extent to which it is right and proper to
take advantage of the water market and to approach it
that way.
If anyone wants to say that it should be all infra-
structure and no buy-out or all buy-out and no infra-
CHAMBER
69
structure, I will have arguments with them. It is always
going to be a mix. We need to make sure that anything
we spend is a sensible spend of money. We need to
make sure that, simply because a project is put forward
by a government or by an authority, we do not just grab
it straight away without doing due diligence. So long
as we are prudent and are mindful of those three objec-
tives, we can get this right and have a healthy river
system, strong food production and strong regional
communities.
Mr COULTON (Parkes) (4.04 pm)—I rise today to
support the member for Murray in this very important
issue. In my short period of time in this place, this is
clearly the most pressing and urgent issue and the issue
of greatest concern to my electorate that I have ever
covered. I want to go through the minister’s response. I
will start with the last part first. On the visit to Trangie
last week, I agreed that it was a good proposal. It is
part of the $5.8 billion that was set aside for infrastruc-
ture. I only wish that we had more of those to look at,
because it is a good one. It is a shame that it took so
long to get there. I also might say that it is a shame that
I was not aware of your visit, because I would have
been more than happy to have taken part in that visit
and might have been able to enlighten you on other
things about my constituency that you might not be
aware of.
This MPI is about the management of this process.
The minister spoke about this being the first stage of a
long process—well, possibly not the first stage, but a
stage in a long process. There are large alarm bells
ringing at the moment. Where the fear and anger in the
basin stems from is people not knowing whether this is
a process that is going to lead to a different result to
that envisaged in the first place. The reason I say that is
that last night in Senate estimates the CEO of the basin
authority, when asked about the socioeconomic study
and what effect that might have on the end result and
the water needed for the environment—the 3,000 gi-
galitres minimum—the answer was, to paraphrase:
‘No. Basically we need that 3,000 gigalitres.’ That was
in Senate estimates last night.
That indicates that, regardless of the consultation
and the work that will be done in the future by a re-
gional Australia committee, if the basin authority have
decided they need to remove that level of water, what
is the point? That is the concern of my communities. I
acknowledge, Minister Burke, your answer in question
time about getting legal advice on whether the author-
ity are looking at this within the correct parameters,
whether they have interpreted the act correctly. In
hindsight, Minister, I think it would have been good to
get that advice some time ago, because the level of
anger and unrest currently in the basin is unpalatable.
My feeling about it, with my limited legal background,
is that the authority have misinterpreted the act, and if
70 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
that is the case then we have seen a lot of unnecessary
anger and upset.
The other part of the mismanagement I would like to
talk about is what has happened previously. Just for the
interest of the minister and others, the electorate of
Parkes probably has the largest geographic area of any
electorate within the Murray-Darling Basin. Within my
electorate I have the McIntyre, the Border Rivers, the
Barwon-Darling system, the Gwydir, the Namoi, the
Castlereagh, the Macquarie and, since the redistribu-
tion, the Lachlan. Many people do not realise that there
is an idea that the Murray-Darling Basin is a large,
connected capillary system of water whereby if you do
something here, something pops up over there. The
case is that it is a lot different. Several of the rivers in
my electorate do not actually make their way into the
Darling and subsequently into the Murray. The Gwydir
goes into the wetland and the Macquarie goes into the
marsh area. Indeed, as we speak today, Minister, there
are environmental flows going down the Gwydir. I
know one farmer who has 5,000 acres of wheat under
water from an environmental flow from a wetland. The
premise and the visual images of people seeing empty
river beds was from 10 years of drought rather than
from mismanagement and overallocation to farmers.
What concerns me is the way this matter has been han-
dled.
Why did Mr Taylor in his initial press conference, if
he were speaking about an ordered, factual process,
mention so many times opening the mouth of the river?
Why did he say, ‘We need to keep the mouth of the
Murray River open?’ I surmise that is because he was
giving a visual image to the larger metropolitan audi-
ence of ‘This is happening,’ whereas I suspect in your
time in this portfolio, Minister, your understanding is
that it is a far more complex issue than that and that
actions that are taken in one part of the basin will nec-
essarily affect others. Indeed, I believe we have seen
actions, certainly in my part of the basin, that have had
a political result rather than a physical result. For ex-
ample, take the purchase of Toorale station at Bourke.
Toorale Station employed 100 people. It accounted for
10 per cent of the revenue of the Bourke Shire Council
and it was certainly a large part of the social and eco-
nomic fabric of the Bourke community. The purchase
of that water was not a large amount for a large amount
of country. I spoke to one of the people previously as-
sociated with that property. Recently, I flew over it. It
is a wasteland. Weeds are abounding, feral animals are
all over it. Off the top of my head, I think it cost the
federal and state governments $26 million to purchase
that property. The purchase of Toorale Station was
supposedly going to be of some benefit to the people of
the Murray downstream. It had no benefit to them. At
best, the water would have got to the Menindee Lakes
and evaporated there. We had a huge flood in south-
west Queensland at Christmas time that we are all
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
aware of. Senator Joyce spoke about how many
megalitres of water were going past his front doorstep
every day. But only a percentage of that water got to
the other end because, once that water leaves the river,
it does not come back. So the idea that large amounts
of environmental water are going to solve all the prob-
lems is not right. It will not happen. You physically
cannot get that water down the river because the nature
of the river is such that, once the water leaves, it will
not come back.
Another large purchase made by Minister Wong was
the purchase of Twynam. Part of that purchase was
Collymongle Station at Collarenebri, clearly the largest
employer for that town. In excess of 100 people
worked at Collymongle Station in its heyday. It has
magnificent infrastructure. It is a showplace. It has its
own cotton gin. It is a magnificent place. The town of
Collarenebri will never recover. I would like Minister
Burke, and even Minister Macklin, to come with me to
Collarenebri and see the devastating effects of a water
purchase, which has already happened, on a town that
will not recover. We have already had a lot of this pain
through drought and if it is environmental flows that
we are after, without any further activity, the rivers are
awash in my electorate. The member for New England
will go crook because the dam is actually in his elec-
torate, but I use the water. Pindari Dam is at 100 per
cent. I think Copeton is currently in excess of 30 per
cent. It is a huge storage. Keepit is, I think, at 60 per
cent capacity. Burrendong is at 100 per cent. That is the
water that feeds the Macquarie and the Macquarie
Marshes. Without any further pain, we are already get-
ting environmental flows down the river. The Mac-
quarie Marshes are currently brimming. Indeed, I had a
phone call from a farmer this week who was concerned
about erosion because of the amount of water that is
now coming out of a dam, going across his property,
because the marshes are full of water. This result af-
fects people. I am terribly concerned that the debate we
are having is about garnering Greens preferences from
city voters who, with the best of intentions—I am not
directing this at you, Minister; I am talking about the
process in general—want to save an environment with-
out having any understanding of the effects on the
communities. (Time expired)
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Par-
liamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy
Efficiency) (4.15 pm)—I also would thank the member
for Murray for bringing forward this matter of public
importance today. Like the minister, I wish to use it as
an occasion to invite the opposition to reflect on how
this debate about a matter which is undoubtedly of na-
tional importance is to be conducted. By that I am re-
ferring to the need for the bipartisan spirit that was re-
flected in the legislation that was passed by the How-
ard government, by the Liberal Party and the National
Party when last in government, in 2007. I invite the
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
opposition to reflect on how that bipartisanship brought
to bear on an issue of national importance can now be
recreated. It has been sorely lacking in the last few
days since the release by the Murray-Darling Basin
Authority of the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan—
which is what it is.
We have had all sorts of what appear to be wilful
misreadings of the legislation that was passed by the
Howard government and, I regret to say, a great deal of
fearmongering, a great deal of misreading or misrepre-
sentation of what this guide to the proposed plan actu-
ally is, and indeed the spreading of misinformation
about the process. This MPI helpfully raises the proc-
ess for implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin
plan and it is worth bearing in mind just how we came
to be in the present situation where, on 8 October, this
guide to the proposed plan was released by the author-
ity.
I take it that very many factual matters about the en-
vironmental state of the Murray-Darling Basin, about
the preciousness of the basin as one of our most impor-
tant environmental assets and about the status of the
basin as the food bowl for the nation are simply be-
yond question. They are not in dispute between the
major parties in this country. I take it as a given that
there has been poor management and the lack of a na-
tional plan—certainly up to the passage of the legisla-
tion in 2007—and I take it as a given that the health of
the basin reached a critical point over the past decade,
that there has been devastation of precious wetlands,
that many of our irrigators went out of business, that
we have had algal blooms and acid sulphate soils that
make much of the water unusable to farmers and de-
structive to the environment and that the way in which
we have been sharing water in the Murray-Darling Ba-
sin is not working to support the long-term viability of
rivers or of rural communities.
Dr Stone—And we’ve had the worst drought on re-
cord for the last 10 years.
Mr DREYFUS—The member for Murray mentions
the fact—and everybody in all of the basin communi-
ties is aware of it—that we have had the worst drought
in recorded Australian history over the last 10 years,
and that dreadful drought has of course massively re-
duced the availability of water to irrigators throughout
the basin. Indeed, it has reduced the availability of wa-
ter to irrigators throughout the basin to a far greater
degree than any of the proposed reductions that are
mentioned in the guide to the proposed plan that is
presently under consideration in communities.
Of course there is concern in the basin communities.
Of course there is concern about any proposal which
might see, through governmental action, a reduction in
water allocations, just as in those same communities—
and this was referred to by the member for Parkes, rep-
resenting his communities—there has been concern
CHAMBER
71
about the lack of water that has been caused through
the recent years of drought. I take all of these environ-
mental concerns and indeed all of the concerns about
continued viability of basin communities to be a given
and, indeed, as having led to the passage of the legisla-
tion which established the process which is now being
carried out.
We have a proposed plan that is being prepared by
an independent authority. It is not a proposal from the
government; it is a proposal from an independent au-
thority. The way in which the authority is going about
this process—a process envisaged by the legislation
passed by the Liberal and National parties when in
government—will provide an additional opportunity
for consultation and engagement. It is actually in addi-
tion to the statutory process and is going to inform the
drafting of the proposed plan.
Public community consultations for the guide will
run until mid-November. There are over 12 months to
run in this consultation before the minister is presented
with the plan at the end of 2011. We have had an an-
nouncement from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority
that it will commission work on the socioeconomic
impacts of possible sustainable diversion limits, and
that work is scheduled to be completed in March 2011.
We have had the commissioning of the parliamentary
inquiry, which is going to be chaired by the member
for New England, and that of course is an inquiry that
will be able to seek input from regional and small
towns throughout the basin. It will have a strong focus
on understanding the legitimate concerns that every-
body in these communities have about proposed
changes to water allocations. It is appropriate that the
member for New England, whose community is in the
basin, is chairing this particular parliamentary inquiry.
To go back to the process which is the one that is
now in train, the authority will release its proposed
basin plan next year. I repeat: the legislation that was
supported by Labor in opposition and passed by the
Liberal and National parties in government provides
for 16 weeks of consultation following the release of
the proposed basin plan next year, and the process con-
tinues. Every single one of these steps is an opportu-
nity for everybody affected—for everybody in this
place, for everybody throughout the Australian com-
munity and particularly for everybody in basin com-
munities—to comment on and to participate in what
will come to be the final plan.
The next step is for the authority to present a final
plan to the ministerial council, which includes repre-
sentatives from each of the basin states, and that minis-
terial council will then consider the proposed plan. At
that point, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities can ask the au-
thority to reconsider issues or make some changes. The
minister then is required to sign off on the final plan.
72 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
But that is not the end of the process. As the minister
made clear in question time earlier this week, after
signing off on the plan the minister tables it in the par-
liament, where of course it is a disallowable instru-
ment—it may be disallowed by either house. In order
to become the final plan for the Murray-Darling Basin,
it needs to be signed off—and it will certainly be after
debate—by both houses of this parliament.
It is hard to imagine a process more carefully de-
signed—and this is why Labor supported it in opposi-
tion—to give every possible opportunity to basin
communities and everybody throughout Australia who
is concerned, as we must be, about the environmental
sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin and the con-
tinued economic viability of basin communities. It
would be hard to imagine a process that gives more
opportunity for consultation, more opportunity for par-
ticipation and more opportunity to ensure an end to
what the member for Murray, speaking not on the mat-
ter of public importance but just before question time
on the address-in-reply when I happened to be here at
the table, referred to as ‘governance failure for dec-
ades’. I take that to be an accusation she levels not only
at Labor governments of the past but also at Liberal-
National party governments of the past.
Mr Burke—Mainly.
Mr DREYFUS—Mainly perhaps, but that is only
because there have regrettably been more Liberal-
National Party governments over the last century than
Labor governments. This is what we are dealing with.
In less than a century, water extraction from the rivers
in the basin has increased by 500 per cent and the gov-
ernance failures are sought to be overcome by the leg-
islation that establishes the framework. I repeat the call
that I started with. I call on members of the opposition
not to engage in a wilful misunderstanding of this
process, not to engage in hysteria and not to engage in
misinformation, because these are complex policy
questions which are best resolved in a measured way.
Mr SECKER (Barker) (4.24 pm)—I note at the
outset that the Minister for Sustainability, Environ-
ment, Water, Population and Communities and the Par-
liamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy
Efficiency are asking for bipartisanship from our side
of politics on the basis that the Labor Party have al-
ways been bipartisan on this issue. I recollect other-
wise. In fact, I asked the Parliamentary Library to find
out how the vote went on the original legislation. On
14 August 2007, when the Labor Party were in opposi-
tion, when it came to the vote on the question ‘That the
words proposed to be omitted stand part of the ques-
tion’—in other words, that the wording of the motion
goes back to its original form—the Labor Party voted
in the negative. There were 73 ayes and 52 noes. Inter-
estingly enough, the current environment minister was
absent from that vote, so he may have been a bit lucky
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
on that occasion. But I think it is a bit disingenuous of
the government to now ask for total bipartisanship and
understanding from us when they did not do the same
for us in the first place. So let us first get out of the
way the fallacy that Labor have been bipartisan on this
issue.
I come from South Australia, and I have always
known that there is a need for a sustainable river sys-
tem. In fact, probably before the minister was born we
in South Australia started doing the work to make the
river system more efficient. When man landed on the
moon, we in South Australia were putting pipes in so
that we would not rely on channels. We started this
over 40 years ago. In South Australia we have become
world leaders in water use efficiency—our efficiency is
up to 98 or 99 per cent, which is world-class stan-
dard—and we have achieved that because we have
worked on it for over 40 years. We realised long before
anyone else in Australia that we needed to replumb the
system, so that is what we did. One of my New South
Wales colleagues was actually quite shocked that under
the plan we in South Australia have been treated ex-
actly the same as the other states—that is, we face a 26
to 37 per cent cut depending on whether we are re-
quired to return 3,000 or 4,000 gigalitres to the system,
according to the basin plan report. I will come back to
that figure later.
In South Australia, we certainly recognise that re-
quirement, but in being treated the same as the other
states we think we have been treated unfairly. It is not
just me who thinks we are being treated unfairly; the
Labor member for Makin in a speech to parliament
yesterday said exactly the same thing. I refer members
to that speech, because I think it was quite measured
and sensible. The Labor Premier of South Australia
also believes we have been treated unfairly, as does
Senator Nick Xenophon. I think that is a legitimate
argument, because we in South Australia will have no
more capacity to replumb to get those cuts. We have
already done it, Minister, so we have not got that ca-
pacity, and we have not been rewarded for the more
than 40 years of good work we have done in our state. I
accept that we do need a sustainable river system, but
under the Howard plan we purposely allocated twice as
much for infrastructure as we did for buybacks, and it
seems to me that the lazy politician’s answer of ‘Just
buy back; spend the money’ is what the previous gov-
ernment did during their term. I hope they change their
mind on this, because that is not the only answer. You
will not have a balance if you do not spend twice as
much money on infrastructure as you do on buybacks
so that we can use our water better to get more crop per
drop. We need a greater focus on replumbing the sys-
tem.
We in South Australia do not care if that money is
spent in Victoria, New South Wales or indeed Queen-
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
sland or the ACT, because we know we will be better
off with a system which does not recognise state
boundaries. We in South Australia will be better off for
it, so we think that is the way we need to go. We were
very disappointed because we set aside $400 million or
so for the Menindee Lakes reconstruction. I believe
Labor promised that before the 2007 election and it has
not happened. Unfortunately, we are now in the situa-
tion where it is pretty hard to do those works under
nine meters of water. It is going to be a lot more costly,
so we missed an opportunity. We need to make sure
that we spend the money on infrastructure.
I also want to come back to this figure of 3,000 or
4,000 gigalitres. There is a concern out there because
people have not been convinced by the science or seen
the scientific background to say that the need is for
3,000, 4,000 or 7,600 gigalitres. That may well be the
case—I do not know. I have not seen the scientific
knowledge that has been put down as the basis of the
reason why we have to go for those figures. I very well
remember six or seven years ago when the Murray-
Darling Basin Commission was promoting 1,500 gi-
galitres—not 3,000, not 4,000, not 7,600 but 1,500. In
fact, the then executive officer of the Murray-Darling
commission said we ‘probably could not handle any
more than that right now’. We have to make sure we
get the science right. I also remember six or seven
years ago when the Wentworth Group were talking
about 1,500 gigalitres. It is very important that we get
this figure right, because there are a lot of communities
out there scared that they are going to be decimated—
and I accept what the minister is saying, that it is only a
guide to a plan, but people are concerned about their
futures and they are rightly emotional at the moment.
That is the thing that we have to deal with, because
every member in the Murray-Darling Basin—well,
there are no Labor members in the Murray-Darling
Basin. I was very disappointed when the new minister
got up. You gave a contribution which, as usual, was
reasonably sane and sensible but you only had eight
members from the government behind you.
Mr Burke—Really? I’ll talk to the whip about that.
Mr SECKER—I think you should talk to the whip
about that one because it is unfortunate, but it shows
that it is not really an issue for Labor. It might be for
the minister, but it does not seem to be in the ethos of
the Labor Party, unless you are from South Australia,
to believe that we have to actually do something about
the Murray-Darling Basin.
Dr Stone interjecting—
Mr SECKER—I went to the meetings. Of course,
like anyone, you get attacked: ‘What are you doing
about it?’ But I will try to stay sane and rational about
the whole basin plan. I know it is a tough decision. I
know these are tough reforms, but we cannot stop. But
CHAMBER
73
we do have to take into account the social and eco-
nomic results of any possible changes.
I have to say I was very disappointed to learn in
Senate estimates yesterday that apparently considera-
tion was not given to those issues until the day that the
report was released. I think that is appalling, because
section 20 of the act clearly says they have to take ac-
count of the socioeconomic problems that may result
from this. So I am really concerned that we have got
this far and we do not have all the information. I am
not going to blame Rob Freeman or Mike Taylor. I
think they are very good public servants and I know
they are doing their best under pretty tough conditions,
and I know they are going out there and talking to peo-
ple. There is a lot of anger and they are dealing with it
as best they can. But we need to have all that informa-
tion so we can make rational decisions about whether
we need 1,500, 3,000 or 4,000 gigs returned to the
river and whether we can spend a lot more on infra-
structure, which was the original plan of the Howard
government—the $10 billion plan. That was on the
basis that there would be the same amount of food pro-
duced because you could produce it with less water.
That was the basis: that the gigalitres you lose in buy-
backs is returned to the growers. That was a very sen-
sible plan. I still believe it is the best plan and I hope
the government is still committed to it. (Time expired)
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (4.35 pm)—It
was interesting to hear the member for Barker talking
about the history of this issue and the idea of the 1,500
gigalitres as recommended by the science. I can re-
member when I was shadow environment minister and
Simon Crean was Leader of the Opposition and Labor
in fact adopted a policy that we should see—over the
course of a decade, let me say—1,500 gigalitres re-
turned to the Murray-Darling Basin based on the scien-
tific evidence of that time. It is regrettable, I think, that
we did not see action taken at that time to return those
1,500 gigalitres to the Murray-Darling Basin. Indeed,
the previous government talked about 500 gigalitres as
the first step, but that largely did not eventuate either. It
seems to me that as a result of that inaction the position
has deteriorated in the meantime.
Let me also observe at the outset that one thing that
will strike anyone listening to the Murray-Darling de-
bate is the idea that the silver bullet to solve the popu-
lation problems of Australia’s big cities—Sydney,
Melbourne and Brisbane—is to move people to rural
and regional Australia. It is an idea that does not really
stand up to scrutiny. On the one hand, we have the
Murray-Darling Basin Authority saying that the envi-
ronment has not had sufficient environmental water for
decades, leading to environmental decline which now
threatens the economy of the basin—the economic and
social viability of many industries—and on the other
hand we have members opposite saying that action to
74 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
put water back into the Murray-Darling will lead to the
depopulation of rural communities. If you think about
these issues at all, it becomes clear that the Murray-
Darling region is already stressed and in no position to
absorb population from the capital cities.
Nearly 40 years ago, Peter Howson, the then envi-
ronment minister in the Liberal-Country Party gov-
ernment of William McMahon, presented a report to
cabinet about the declining health of the Murray-
Darling and the need for action to protect it. Forty
years on and we still have those opposite crying, ‘It’s
too soon; we need more time.’ They always cry out for
more consultation. Indeed there will be much more
consultation concerning these matters—as the minister
and the parliamentary secretary have pointed out—but
the truth is that this problem has been well known and
well documented for the past 40 years and those oppo-
site had an abundance of consultation during their 11½
years in government. What we never got from those
opposite was any action to protect the river system or
anything to address the problem.
If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, con-
sultation is the last refuge of the policy bereft. Those
opposite have been calling for more consultation be-
cause, frankly, they have nothing. They are clueless on
this matter. State conservative governments created the
problem years ago, handing out licences to extract wa-
ter from the Murray-Darling which were simply unsus-
tainable. And, having created this problem, they are
now bereft of any way to solve it. Having no answers
of their own, they run interference on the government’s
attempts to solve a problem which they have created. It
has been said that:
Our greatest waterway, the Murray-Darling Basin, is under
immense strain …
… … … tional Dryland Salinity Program that, within 50 years,
It is heartbreaking to read weekly stories about the Murray’s
plight: water levels falling below the end of irrigation pump-
ing pipes, the risk posed by rising salinity and acidity …
… … … per cent—and more than 100 per cent in many smaller
The clock is ticking on the opportunity to ensure the envi-
ronmental fruits and economic benefits of the Murray-
Darling Basin are not lost or endangered forever.
and that:
Australia was one of the first signatories to the Ramsar Con-
vention on Wetlands of International Significance, but any-
one could be forgiven for thinking our governments have not
done absolutely everything in their power to protect our own
ecosystems. What is preventing the government buying back
more water licences?
I have to confess that none of the comments I have just
made are original to me, though I would cheerfully
associate myself with them. They are in fact statements
made by the South Australian Liberal Senator Bir-
mingham. Senator Birmingham is an intelligent man
and a South Australian. I have never come across a
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
South Australian who was not acutely aware of the
risks facing the Murray River. Indeed, Senator Bir-
mingham’s comments must have found favour with the
Leader of the Opposition for he is now the opposition
spokesman on the Murray-Darling. Some of his other
observations, which I also commend to the House’s
attention, are that:
The upstream states are extracting more water than can
rightly be defended …
and that:
Increased water extractions over decades left the Murray-
Darling system critically stressed …
… … …
The Murray-Darling needs a national plan for water use,
delivered by an independent national authority, with the teeth
to act.
The House should also remember, when we are debat-
ing an opposition motion attacking the government for
endeavouring to return water to the Murray-Darling,
that the Leader of the Opposition himself, in one of his
first acts as opposition leader, described the Murray-
Darling as the nation’s biggest environmental problem
and proposed a referendum to put responsibility for the
Murray-Darling in the hands of the national govern-
ment. To my way of thinking that is a reasonable
proposition, but it is very hard to square with what op-
position members are saying here this afternoon. They
now choose to ignore the abundant evidence of the
seriousness of the Murray-Darling’s environmental
problems.
Just last summer, yet another outbreak of toxic algae
crippled the health of the Murray-Darling. In towns
like Yarrawonga in Victoria, people were advised to
avoid contact with the river or risk gastroenteritis and
eye and ear complaints. We know from Australia’s Na-
the water of the Murrumbidgee, Darling and Murray
rivers may be too saline to irrigate most crops and that
salinity in the lower Murray is projected to rise by 50
rivers—in the coming 50 years.
In 2001 we learned that, if things go on the way they
are, Adelaide’s water will not meet World Health Or-
ganisation guidelines on two days out of five by 2020.
I know some people think that Adelaide’s water is al-
ready pretty much undrinkable. We know that 16 of the
basin’s 35 native fish species are now listed as threat-
ened. Whether it is salinity, algal blooms, dying river
red gums, endangered fish species like the trout cod or
the Coorong, the Macquarie Marshes turning into bas-
ket cases, or the mouth of the Murray kept open by
dredging, symptomatic of a system on life support,
everything points to an unsustainable state of affairs,
where inaction is not an option.
This is not just a question of the environment. A
healthy river system is essential to support agriculture
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
and drinking water. As the Murray-Darling Basin Au-
thority has said:
The real possibility of environmental failure now threatens
the long-term economic and social viability of many indus-
tries and the economic, social and cultural strength of many
communities … the nation risks irretrievably damaging the
attributes of the Basin that enable it to be so productive.
In short, we risk killing the goose that lays the golden
egg. This is not a choice between irrigators and the
environment. Either we protect the river or we kill the
goose that lays the golden egg. There are no jobs from
a dead river. It has been said that we are reaching a
tipping point. If we keep flogging the horse, the horse
will die and we will be left in the lurch.
The Murray-Darling river system is like a bridge
which used to carry cars but in recent years has started
carrying B-double trucks, and is starting to crack and
subside. In 1920, the amount of surface water diverted
for consumptive use was about 2,000 gigalitres per
year. By the 1990s the number had risen to 11,000 gi-
galitres per year—a more than fivefold increase. If a
bridge is starting to crack and subside, you do not say
to the B-double trucks, ‘Because we’ve let you cross
this bridge until now, we’re going to keep on letting
you do this and take the gamble that the bridge won’t
collapse completely, becoming useless to all traffic.’
The responsible thing is to say, ‘We might have made a
mistake.’ You fix the bridge and you work out what
weight of traffic it can withstand. It is the same with
the Murray-Darling. You need to reduce the amount of
water being extracted from the river, reduce the load it
is expected to bear and work out what load it can sus-
tain without collapsing.
Finally, I want to say that I have listened with con-
siderable interest to the remarks made by the member
for New England, both about the issue of the Murray-
Darling and about the idea of tackling climate change
by storing carbon in the soil. I think it might be possi-
ble to link those ideas. There are clearly significant
sums of money involved in both restoring the Murray-
Darling to health and in tackling climate change and I
have no in-principle objection to industry paying farm-
ers, or taxpayers paying farmers, for their help in tack-
ling these problems on the proviso that the benefits are
real and accrue to the environment—paying landown-
ers to look after the land by planting mallee which
stores a lot of carbon, or other native vegetation which
tackles salinity, can make sense. We need to look after
our rivers, our soils, our native vegetation and our
wildlife much better than we did in the last century. I
hope we are now going down that path. (Time expired)
Mr FORREST (Mallee) (4.45 pm)—There can be
no more important issue of public importance, when
one represents Murray-Darling Basin communities,
than the subject we are discussing now. Whilst I was
assured by the earlier contributions from the Minister
CHAMBER
75
for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities and the member for Isaacs, I do have to
make two specific rebuttals in response to other contri-
butions. First, though, I have to rebut the contribution
the member for Wills has just made. His message may
be electorally favourable in a constituency like Wills,
but it is contrary to popular opinion in my electorate. I
invite Kelvin to come up, like many Melbourne visitors
do, to my place. They arrive and they say: ‘Oh, we
were told the river was dead. We were told it was full
of salt.’
I want to back up what the member for Barker said
in his contribution, and it is what I said in this place on
Monday. I commend the minister to read the contribu-
tion I made. The irrigators that we represent resent the
lack of credit given to them for the progress that has
been made. The truth is contrary to the assertion of the
member for Wills about the last 30 years. In fact, I
launched my consulting engineering practice on the
back of what has probably been one of the most sig-
nificant solutions to the problems: investment in infra-
structure. The principle of irrigation that we learnt
from the Israelis was ‘less water, more often’, but to
deliver an outcome like that you need modern infra-
structure. You need a system that can supply irrigation
comparable with that of the urban supply we get to our
homes and suburbs, where you switch it on. You do not
have to ring up and order it. If the member for Wills is
simply saying, ‘We are frustrated the process has taken
too long,’ I will accept that, but if he is accusing former
governments, no matter what their colour, of not doing
something about this huge challenge then that is un-
true. As I said on Monday, I was born and raised in the
soldier settlement district of Red Cliffs and I remember
the fact that as a young fellow my relatives could not
spray their citrus crop in the daytime because the high
salinity destroyed the leaves in the crop. They had to
spray in the evening. Well, from there we have moved
on to under vine, under tree and even trickle irrigation.
This is the kind of thing I am currently hearing from
my irrigators.
The member for Isaacs made the accusation that
those of us who represent these communities are
scaremongering. Frankly, I have been spending more
time than I have in the last eight or nine years—and I
mentioned this to the minister before this debate
started—trying to keep them calm. I am encouraged by
the remarks the minister has made about the emotional
stress that every one of us representing these communi-
ties is currently confronted with. To be frank about it, I
am dreading the Mildura meeting on Wednesday be-
cause what the communities want to express is their
frustration. They are not hearing the assurance that we
have heard in the last few days at the table—that this is
a concept, a guide. We are being slapped around a little
bit about the ‘this is where we want to pitch to’. But I
go back to my speech on Monday, Minister, where I
76 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
asked the House to consider our ancient history. What
the Romans did the first time they built a fortified city
was secure their water supply. Now I know I am mak-
ing a principle related to my engineering background
here, but it is true. From that water supply they were
able to maintain their sanitary disposal processes. So
they secured their water supply but not in the way that
we do it in the Murray-Darling Basin. They used sealed
channels. They used engineering principles—
aqueducts and tunnels through hills—and they stored
water in enclosed systems.
When I first arrived in this place I was speaking on,
and moving private members’ resolutions about, the
risk that climate change was having on our community.
I was the first person to speak about it back in 1993-94,
and I was ridiculed. So for me to be referred to, as has
happened, as a climate change sceptic is completely
unfair. I am interested in this subject—in outcomes that
secure the future environmental viability of our rivers.
I live on the river, and so do my communities, and we
have seen huge progress. Irrigators not do not have to
make a decision on when they irrigate based on salin-
ity. They have sacrificed a lot of their allocations to
achieve that, and all they are asking for is some credit
for that.
Two examples of the frustration I have experienced
in the last two or three years relate to two proposals.
One of them is the Wakool irrigators who in bulk have
decided they want to go back to broadacre agriculture
and hand in their licences for compensation. There is
40 gigalitres in the Wakool region, but have they been
able to bring the former minister and the department
along with the concept? Do you think they are worried
about what happens to the person who does not want to
sell their water station? They have agreed, and it has
taken a lot of emotional community consultation to
agree, as a whole, to sell their water entirely. Wakool is
in the region of the member for Farrer. It is very close
to where I live and many of those irrigators out there
are old clients of mine, so I have stayed close to that
suggestion. But it still has not happened.
In my speech on Monday I also mentioned the
Wimmera irrigators. Their problem is with the piping
of the Wimmera-Mallee and the constraints of the last
eight years in not having water. They have made their
own decision—all of them—to sell their water. There
is only one purchaser, and that is the Australian gov-
ernment. There is no other purchaser. So they offered a
first quote, asking for $1,600 a megalitre—and there is
30,000 megalitres there. They were told by the depart-
mental representative that it was not value for money.
So they reduced their bid to $1,100 and were told that
was not value for money. They have had meetings
where they are asking, ‘Do we have to go lower?’
That is not fair, Minister, and I would like to find a
way for your intervention into that, separate to the is-
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
sue that this report has created, because, when we built
the Wimmera Mallee pipeline as a community, with the
local community funding a third of it, the Common-
wealth government funding a third of it and the state
government funding a third of it—a good model—we
all decided that it was worthwhile investing, in some
stages, between $7,000 and $9,000 a megalitre. That is
how much value we as a community put on water. It is
different to the Murray system; it is not high security.
The benefits of that are currently being realised. With
an extremely stressed river in the Wimmera, we now
have water going to Lake Hindmarsh, and the Glenelg
is a beneficiary as well—wonderful environmental
outcomes. Government members accuse us on this side
of scaremongering and not wanting to be part of it, but
we have history behind us indicating that we are sup-
porting the intention.
The member for Barker has made suggestions ask-
ing how realistic the target is. We can massage that, but
I want the government—particularly you, Minister—to
understand the traumatic state of mind for my irriga-
tors, particularly in horticulture and particularly associ-
ated with Sunraysia at Mildura. I cannot get leave to
attend the meeting. I hope my growers will be assured
that the best place for me to be is here on my feet con-
vincing you, because I need you, Minister, to develop a
favourable outcome to this. Visit Sunraysia—and I in-
vite the member for Wills to come up to Sunraysia. It
breaks my heart, as someone who as a young fellow
grew up in the region and went away for a university
education, to drive around that district now and see
dead vines and dead citrus trees. I do not want to see
any more of that. I want to see them delivered an effi-
cient supply scheme at a price that they can afford and
for them not to be asked to contribute too much to the
value of that infrastructure.
We have achieved that at Robinvale so far. I am
pretty proud about that. It is a Second World War sol-
dier settlement district. We have achieved it at
Woorinen, which is closer to Swan Hill—a First World
War soldier settlement. And I continue to put the argu-
ment that it was governments of those days that created
these irrigation districts, for the right reasons, to give
people returning from war a future, and I think it is
right now for governments, after over 100 years, to
rehabilitate the system and give them a modern supply
system, which our competitors overseas have. In my
days as a consulting engineer I used to host visits from
the Israelis, who said, ‘In our country we cannot waste
water like this,’ and we used their irrigation technol-
ogy. That is all we are asking for: some recognition as
irrigators in that region of the pain we have already
endured. And we are looking for assurances that the
government—particularly you, Minister—is going to
get this one right.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 77

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The Third Reading

discussion has concluded. Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs)
COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE (4.58 pm)—by leave—I move:
BUILDING THE EDUCATION REVOLUTION That this bill be now read a third time.
PROGRAM BILL 2010 Question agreed to.
EVIDENCE AMENDMENT (JOURNALISTS’ Bill read a third time.
PRIVILEGE) BILL 2010
CIVIL DISPUTE RESOLUTION BILL 2010
CARER RECOGNITION BILL 2010
Report from Main Committee
CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT (No. 1)
BILL 2010 Bill returned from Main Committee without
amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
DEFENCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(SECURITY OF DEFENCE PREMISES) Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
BILL 2010 Bill agreed to.
FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading
(No. 2) 2010 Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs)
Referred to Main Committee (4.59 pm)—by leave—I move:
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (4.55 pm)—by That this bill be now read a third time.
leave—I move: Question agreed to.
That the following bills be referred to the Main Commit- Bill read a third time.
tee for further consideration:
FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW
Commission of Inquiry into the Building the Education ZEALAND AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Revolution Program Bill 2010;
Report from Main Committee
Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010;
Carer Recognition Bill 2010; Bill returned from Main Committee without
amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Corporations Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2010;
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Defence Legislation Amendment (Security of Defence Prem-
ises) Bill 2010; and Bill agreed to.
Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010. Third Reading
Question agreed to. Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs)
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS AND OTHER (5.00 pm)—by leave—I move:
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT That this bill be now read a third time.
(MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2010 Question agreed to.
Report from Main Committee Bill read a third time.
Bill returned from Main Committee without TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION
amendment, appropriation message having been re- AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
ported; certified copy of the bill presented. LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Report from Main Committee
Bill agreed to. Bill returned from Main Committee without
Third Reading amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs) Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
(4.57 pm)—by leave—I move: Bill agreed to.
That this bill be now read a third time. Third Reading
Question agreed to. Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs)
Bill read a third time. (5.01 pm)—by leave—I move:
TRADEX SCHEME AMENDMENT BILL 2010 That this bill be now read a third time.
Report from Main Committee Question agreed to.
Bill returned from Main Committee without Bill read a third time.
amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.

CHAMBER
78 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed on the proposed address-in-reply to
the speech of Her Excellency the Governor-General—
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of
Australia, in Parliament assembled, express our loyalty to the
Sovereign, and thank Your Excellency for the speech which
you have been pleased to address to the Parliament—
on motion by Ms O’Neill:
That the Address be agreed to.
Dr STONE (Murray) (5.02 pm)—To continue, it is
extraordinary that this new minority Labor government
began making special abeyances to regional Australia
and yet has just facilitated the announcement of the
guide to the Murray-Darling Basin plan, which is to
precede the draft, which is in turn to precede the final
water plan, but the guide is hopelessly inadequate. It
has caused absolute despair and profound disappoint-
ment among all those looking for a sound ecological
and economic and social outcome. We need a win-win
outcome to improve the environment and sustain the
food producing communities, who are also in fact the
managers of the environment in the basin.
In order to understand the seriousness of Labor’s
failure to show leadership right now to build or sustain
the confidence of the basin during this plan develop-
ment, it is important to look at the scale and impor-
tance of the Murray-Darling Basin for all Australians.
The basin covers one-seventh of our continent and is
one of the largest and driest catchments in the world. It
is home for over 2.1 million people but another 1.3
million also depend on its water outside the basin.
Most of those are in Adelaide. The basin includes 16
internationally recognised Ramsar listed wetlands and
these wetlands cover 6,300 square kilometres.
The basin accounts for 20 per cent of Australia’s to-
tal agricultural land and has 40 per cent of its farms.
These farms produce 40 per cent of the gross value of
all of our agricultural production. The basin is in fact,
not just by reputation, the food bowl of Australia,
growing most of our cotton and rice but 58 per cent of
all orchard trees, 68 per cent of all the tomatoes, 38 per
cent of all the onions, 48 per cent of all of the melons,
90 per cent of all the almonds, 95 per cent of all the
oranges, 54 per cent of all the apples and 90 per cent of
all the pears—and remember this is from only 14 per
cent of Australia’s land mass, and in one of the driest
catchments in the world. Our dairy production is also
extraordinary.
One-third of all people working in manufacturing in
the basin are employed in food processing, and this
adds up to over 30,000 people, and guess what: the
unions representing those people and taking their fees
have so far been totally silent on the job losses that will
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
proceed if this plan goes ahead. In 2006, 920,000 peo-
ple were employed in the basin, with an increase in that
employment of 8.3 per cent last year, and 98,000 peo-
ple were employed in agriculture in the basin, produc-
ing $15 billion worth of produce for the nation’s econ-
omy. That included $9 billion worth of exports.
As I said in my earlier remarks, since colonisation
the basin has been divided between different jurisdic-
tions with different water laws and property rights to
water. Since Federation there have been competing
interests in access to water in the basin. We understood
that, and that is why the coalition when in government
addressed the governance failure across the basin and
determined that we should have a sustainable future.
We must indeed have a sustainable future which takes
on board a triple-bottom-line approach. So a new basin
water authority was to be formed that would work in
the interests of sustaining both the ecosystems and the
human communities making a home in the basin, pro-
ducing most of the country’s food and fibre.
In 2004 COAG signed the National Water Initiative,
which was to achieve water reform through an agreed,
cohesive national approach. No-one said this would be
easy. But no-one imagined that the task, left to a Labor
government, would degenerate into a farce, destroying
the expectations of people in and out of the basin that
at last we would have an expert plan, based on best
science, that would deliver a win-win outcome. No-one
wanted to see Labor’s massive failure, least of all the
3½ million people dependent on the basin. But after
three years and millions of dollars spent, last week we
saw the Murray-Darling Basin Authority deliver such a
deeply flawed guide, mostly ignoring socioeconomic
impacts, that the basin community has been left angry
and despairing. We know investment decisions are now
being delayed, we know that banks are reconsidering
the value of their lending portfolio, we know that em-
ployment is being already reconsidered and we know
that more students about to graduate across the basin
are saying there is just no point them considering em-
ployment in the future in natural resource management
or agriculture because the basin, on the basis of this
guide, just has no future.
There seems to be no recognition in the MDB guide
that environmental water can be used many times over.
There is just a bald figure of between 3,000 and 7,600
gigalitres to be clawed back from so-called willing
sellers amongst the irrigators. But it is more complex
than that, and there can be and must be a win-win sce-
nario. For example, you can improve the quality of
water in a river by an environmental flow. This same
flow can then be put into a red gum forest as a flood
and, finally, it can inundate a wetland. What we have
seen in the basin plan that has been offered is environ-
mental water calculation at the crudest—and it is the
least scientific.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Apparently only some of the environmental water
already quarantined for the basin is to be counted in the
final analysis. The authority seems to have ignored
technology or management processes that can and are
being used now to manage environmental water into
wetlands, billabongs, tributaries and rivers. We have
just heard a contribution from the member for Wills,
who accused the coalition of not wanting an environ-
mental outcome from this plan. He seemed to think
that all we want is the status quo. He forgot that there
has been a drought and, like so many, he seems to be
trying to pitch irrigators against greenies in the city.
This is a crude and naive approach and one that deliv-
ers absolutely no benefit to anybody except perhaps
those with the political lusts who want green prefer-
ences in the next state election.
We must have technology managing environmental
flows and this involves pumps, regulators, channels
and pipes. This is already the case in places like the
Barmah Forest and Kerang Lakes. It is not just a matter
of naming a number of gigalitres and clawing that wa-
ter back from so-called willing sellers, who are in fact
those leant on the most by lenders, and then saying the
job is done. We have to ensure that every gigalitre is
delivered efficiently at the right time of the year to the
environment for the health of the ecosystem to survive.
It has to be released at the right volume and at the right
temperature. The water has to be of the right quality
and the environmental water must be held for the right
duration to ensure successful fish and bird reproduction
and vegetation renewal. Failure to do the right thing
means biodiversity loss and weed inundation and a
serious revisiting of the worst of the drought impacts in
the last 10 years. The ecosystem needs to be managed
like a well-run estate. It is not just a case of throwing a
few gigalitres of water down a river or into a lake when
the cameras are rolling or a minister deigns to visit.
Unfortunately there have been some disastrous envi-
ronmental waterings in the basin, which point to the
fact that this cannot be about volumes alone. We need
to have a skilled and committed state public service to
march alongside our expert farm and food producers so
that the outcome at the end of the day is as good as it
has to be. We might be making some metropolitan
based greenies happy if we talk simply about gigalitre
volumes, but it does not guarantee a sustainable eco-
system at the end of the day. Environmental water must
be carefully managed with funds committed to struc-
tures and measures to ensure the environmental flow
actually improves the conditions of the ecosystems. We
have to make sure that the farmers and other primary
producers who live alongside and around the tributar-
ies, the wetlands and the billabongs are also suffi-
ciently viable through their own hard work so that they
can assist, as they always have done, in monitoring,
managing and ensuring the ecosystems stay in good
health. This is not a them-and-us situation, as we have
CHAMBER
79
already seen the member for Wills try to push in his
contribution a minute ago.
Let me give you an example of how locals care and
often have to try to bring about some better environ-
mental outcome when the public servants turn their
backs. At the height of summer last year locals living
adjacent to the great Barmah Forest, the world’s big-
gest red gum forest, with Ramsar listed wetlands and
endangered species, were appalled to see that some
people had smashed four river regulators, releasing
some 850 megalitres of water into the forest. This was
over a few days of 40 degree heat. The spill spread 30
kilometres through the forest and into wetlands, par-
ticularly into a five-kilometre wide stream triggering a
breeding cycle for hundreds of thousands of water
birds. Given the extreme temperatures and the shal-
lowness of the water we soon had a black water event,
all the fledglings died and the vegetation was killed.
These farmers reported the disaster to me. I could not
understand why it had not reached the media, nor why
the state agencies were not doing something to try to
find the culprits and to make sure it never happened
again. This tragic event was only made public when I
took it to the media and insisted that it be officially
investigated. But no-one was ever charged, and I am
not sure if any official investigation ever did take
place. Yet, just months before, farmers who had spilled
water into a recreational lake near Kerang were pur-
sued relentlessly through Goulburn-Murray Water, the
police and the state’s Department of Sustainability and
Environment. They were named and shamed as water
thieves and vandals, having put some water into the
lake so that they could do some water skiing. There
had been no environmental damage, but it seems there
are different outcomes for different suspects. The local
farmers were outraged by the official failures and by
the waste of life, biodiversity and water in the Barmah
Forest because they cared deeply about the state of that
ecosystem. They have been its custodians for genera-
tions and they knew that a deliberate wetting of the
forest at that time of the year would have catastrophic
consequences, and of course it did.
The authority’s guide that is on the table now might
please the metro based greenies in that it simply names
some very big numbers. But those who really care
know that it fails to take a valley-by-valley approach; it
fails to ensure that the ecosystem, in all of its diversity,
is sustained while they continue to live as food produc-
ers contributing to the nation and, internationally, to
the food security of the world.
So timid or uncertain was the Murray-Darling Basin
Authority about the guide to the plan they released,
that they had a huge range of water reductions for po-
tential use—from 3,000 gigalitres to 7,600 gigalitres,
which is a huge 250 per cent difference from the high-
est to the lowest option. Then there was the ABARE-
80 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BRS client report commissioned by the Murray-
Darling Basin Authority, which was released just a few
weeks ago, which had a stab at modelling the socio-
economic impacts of a 3,500-gigalitre reduction. They
conceded that there was some problem with the models
they used, which only suggested a reduction of 1.3 per
cent in gross regional product. They were worried
about their efficacy and suggested you look a little
harder.
We were not surprised at all when the chairman of
the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Mr Michael Tay-
lor, at the first meeting at Shepparton—only one work-
ing day after the release of the 220-page report—
immediately, without question, agreed with the dis-
tressed farmer in the audience: ‘Oh no,’ he said, ‘we
know that the 800 job loss calculation in the report is
wrong. We know that there are substantially bigger
socioeconomic impacts. We think the model was
wrong. We think it took a net cross-basin approach.
Yes, we know it’s wrong. Our data is not up to it. But,
of course, we had a problem with the legislation.’
I do not think there is any problem with the legisla-
tion, and I certainly think Minister Burke is wasting
our time by even debating that issue. You just have to
read sections 20 and 22 to see that it quite categorically
spells out that there must be in the basin plan consid-
eration that ‘optimises economic, social and environ-
mental outcomes’. That is a quote from section 20(d).
It also says that the authority and the minister must, in
exercising their powers and performing their functions
under this division (b), act on the basis of the best
available scientific knowledge and socioeconomic
analysis. It goes on and on referring to what should be
in the report mandated in the final plan, which includes
the social and economic circumstances of basin com-
munities dependent on the basin water resources.
It is just a red herring—a furphy, a time waster—for
us to now say that the authority did not deal with the
economic impacts because it did not think it was al-
lowed to. How come we now have the basin authority
saying, ‘We’ll rush out now and do some socioeco-
nomic analysis work, and we’ll have it done by March,
and yes, it parallels the panicked response of the minis-
ter, who said that we’ll also get a parliamentary com-
mittee to do that missing socioeconomic analysis work;
they have a few more weeks to get their report in in
April’?
This is extraordinary. We really have to get the min-
ister out there in the basin reassuring our communities
that what they read in the plan is not necessarily gov-
ernment policy, despite what Prime Minister Gillard
said before the election, and that the government really
does understand that the guide is an inadequate and
flawed document and that it will take more than just
so-called purchase of water back from willing sellers
and that it understands that we must also have on-farm
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
water use efficiency—a massive investment. There
must be a win-win scenario where we make half the
water grow twice as much. The ecosystems, the
economies and the communities together have to be
sustained, because one depends on the other. It is not a
hierarchy with the environment at the top and every-
thing else going to whistle, because it simply does not
work that way. If you beggar human communities in
the basin, they cannot look after and manage the envi-
ronment in the way they have done for generations and
struggle to do during record droughts. This government
has failed in its leadership to reassure the basin that it
will bring the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to task
and make them do the work they have failed to do so
far. The minister himself should attend some of these
community meetings and show that he does, despite
every other impression, intend to have a basin plan
which is right for the nation. (Time expired)
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (5.18 pm)—Mr
Deputy Speaker Scott I would first like to congratulate
you on your election to the position of Second Deputy
Speaker. I am very humbled to be standing here today
as the re-elected member for Kingston. I thank the
people of Kingston for putting their trust in me and I
assure them that I will continue to fight in their best
interests, both here in Canberra and back in Adelaide. I
also take this opportunity to welcome my Uncle Frank
and Aunt Jessie, who are in the gallery with us here
today. I hope they have enjoyed their time at Parlia-
ment House.
On 21 August the people of Kingston overwhelm-
ingly endorsed Labor’s plan for the future. In Kingston
we received a 9.5 per cent swing to Labor. When I was
talking with residents on the campaign trail, it became
clear that they believed that Labor had a positive plan
for our country’s future while the Liberal Party was
fixated on the past. They believed that, while Labor
was focused on improving quality of life and deliver-
ing in critical areas such as infrastructure, health and
education, the Liberal Party was opposed to almost
everything.
The southern suburbs of Adelaide is a beautiful
place to live and work, with long stretches of coast,
rolling hills and beautiful vineyards. There is a deep
sense of pride among those living in the southern sub-
urbs. However, our region of Adelaide, under the
Howard government, had been forgotten, particularly
in the area of infrastructure investment. Take broad-
band, for example: residents in large sections of my
electorate do not have access to ADSL2+. For those
who think that access to broadband is an issue only in
rural and regional Australia, I can assure them that the
problem is far greater. Suburbs only 24 kilometres
from the CBD of Adelaide are not able to access
ADSL2+. Lack of broadband has been a significant
impediment to economic development in our local
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
area, not to mention a frustration for those trying to
study or stay in touch.
On 21 August the people of Kingston gave a clear
endorsement of Labor’s plans to build a national
broadband network. I was pleased to accompany the
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the
Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, to roll out some of
the first fibre cables into the township of Willunga in
my electorate. For those on the other side of the House
who say that this is not a popular plan, I am pleased to
inform the House that 84 per cent of the households in
Kingston have signed up to have fibre rolled out into
their homes. The detractors of the NBN should allow
themselves to imagine a little. This is not just about
getting fast internet access to many of those who need
it now, although that is a huge benefit, but also about
equipping our nation for the future, a place where there
are still so many possibilities that we are not even
aware of yet, in the areas of health, education, social
inclusion and economic development. For those who
say it is not a role of government to build this critical
infrastructure, I would ask: if this is not the role of
government, then what is?
The role of government is to act in the national in-
terest and to build our nation, not to think just in the
short term. Its role is to be looking not just at how our
nation is today and will be tomorrow but at what it will
be in 10 years time and in 20 years. Imagine if gov-
ernments that had gone before us had not built the
transcontinental rail, the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the
Snowy Mountains Scheme. The National Broadband
Network will for the first time provide an open whole-
sale telecommunications network that will finally pro-
vide a level playing field where any internet provider
will be able to have access and compete with other
internet providers to deliver competitive prices and
competitive packages of telecommunications. Resi-
dents in my electorate are looking forward to being
part of this future as we all look forward to the fibre
network being extended next to McLaren Vale, Seaford
and beyond.
The election result in Kingston also endorsed the
federal Labor government’s record investment in
transport infrastructure. As I said previously, the south
had been overlooked by previous governments. An
example of this would be the rail extension from Noar-
lunga to Seaford. This extension had been promised to
the residents of the south for the last 30 years. I lobbied
very hard for this extension because it is critical for the
growing suburbs of Seaford to have transport options
that are economical and to have reduced urban conges-
tion. It was through the establishment of Infrastructure
Australia and the Building Australia Fund by the Labor
government that this important transport project was
delivered. Ensuring that there is infrastructure invest-
ment in the southern suburbs of Adelaide and that this
CHAMBER
81
infrastructure keeps up with the growth of the suburbs
is essential. I will continue to fight for essential infra-
structure investment in the south, including roads and
rail.
In addition to infrastructure in the south, our focus
needs to be on creating job opportunities in southern
Adelaide. Maximising job opportunities close to where
people live is both economically and socially impor-
tant. Many residents in the southern suburbs of Ade-
laide travel a significant distance to work, and travel
does take its toll, not only the household budget but
also on family life. Good urban planning is critically
important to ensure that there is a balance of housing,
commercial and industrial areas. I welcome the pur-
chase of the old Mitsubishi site by the South Australian
state government and believe that it has huge potential,
if we get it right, to become a key opportunity for
smart, clean manufacturing to be developing, creating
job opportunities in the south.
Accessing good-quality health when one needs it is
also of critical importance to the residents of Kingston
and was regularly raised with me as an issue during the
election. In the first term of the Labor government, we
saw record investment in health services and health
infrastructure, including, importantly, in my electorate
the construction of the Noarlunga GP superclinic. In
addition, we saw a record investment from the gov-
ernment in my electorate in training facilities for doc-
tors and health professionals. There was investment in
expanding operating theatre capacity at the local hospi-
tal, after-hours GP services, and extra training places at
our local university for doctors, nurses and allied
health—and this is just a start. Those on the other side
opposed many of our initiatives, including GP super-
clinics, and unfortunately fail to see the practical im-
portance of these clinics to local communities. I will
give one example. Due to the investment in the GP
superclinic at Noarlunga, we will be able to double the
public dental chairs available there, providing im-
proved access to those who need it the most. For too
long, dental care has been seen as separate from health
services. However, when I talk to those affected by
dental problems, it leaves me in no doubt that their
dental problems are affecting their health and wellbe-
ing. Enabling greater access to public services, as the
Noarlunga GP superclinic will, will help the most dis-
advantaged in our community and improve the overall
health of our community. There is a lot more to be
done in health, and this government is committed to
repairing the damage done by the previous Howard
government.
Improving our health system also includes investing
in mental health. In my life before I was in this place,
as a practicing psychologist, I saw firsthand just how
debilitating mental illness can be to the individual suf-
fering from it and the impact it has on their family and
82 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
friends. Serious mental illness affects everything in a
person’s life, from relationships to employment to
physical health. We need to ensure that our health sys-
tem is equipped to ensure that those suffering with a
mental illness get the treatment and support they need
and, importantly, that this treatment and support is ef-
fective. We need to ensure that healthcare for those
with a mental illness is integrated and coordinated and,
importantly, part of a continuum of care
Prevention is also critical in the area of mental
health. I commend the government’s announcement
during the election campaign that we would extend the
number of Headspace sites around the country, includ-
ing a commitment to put one in the southern suburbs of
Adelaide. With an estimated 147,000-plus people un-
der the age of 25 in my electorate, it is critically impor-
tant to have services that focus on young people and
their mental health but that also treat mental health in a
holistic way, providing assistance in employment,
physical health and social wellbeing as well as specifi-
cally in mental health issues. If we get in early, just as
with any other illness, we can prevent suffering and
make the road to recovery shorter and easier.
We have heard a lot of debate about this but, as a
member from South Australia, water is always of criti-
cal concern and never far from my mind, as I know is
the case for many of my constituents. The situation in
the Murray-Darling Basin is an enormous challenge.
For too long the basin has been seen as a segmented
system bound by state borders that provides unlimited
resources to everyone. As a result of this, the river has
been deteriorating for decades. In South Australia, at
the end of the river, we are seeing the dire effects. I am
pleased to be part of a federal government that is not
just putting this problem in the too-hard basket. In its
first term, this government invested in water-efficient
infrastructure and bought back water entitlements from
willing sellers, helping to return water to the system to
restore the health of the Murray. This government has
continued the implementation of the Water Act intro-
duced by the Howard government and, in doing so, set
up the independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority to,
without political fear or favour, objectively investigate
what we need to do to save this river system. The inde-
pendent authority has released its draft guide to the
Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which maps out a course
of action to save the system and prevent the irreversi-
ble decline of the basin.
There will be ongoing consultation about this guide.
I have no doubt that feedback will be carefully consid-
ered, and I look forward to seeing the final plan. While
we consider that important consultation, what we must
not do is walk away from reform in the basin if we
want a sustainable and healthy river system that in the
long term supports both economic production and local
communities all along the river. There will be difficult
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
issues that will have to be worked through, but if we do
nothing we will leave future generations with a de-
stroyed river system that is no good to anyone.
Water efficiency should be seen as a challenge not
just for irrigators but for urban areas as well. Invest-
ment in water infrastructure for irrigation is critical but
investing in urban water infrastructure is equally im-
portant if it is to help reduce our draw on the Murray-
Darling system. I was very disappointed to hear the
member for Indi scoff at the potential use of recycled
water in her local communities. In my local communi-
ties, due in part to the investment from the federal gov-
ernment and due to the commitment of those local
communities, recycled water is now being used in the
vineyards of McLaren Vale and in local parks in south-
ern Adelaide, and it is being plumbed into houses for
the watering of gardens.
This federal government has invested jointly with
state governments and local councils to fund water in-
frastructure that enables not only the recycling of
household water but also stormwater reuse. I look for-
ward in this next term to working with all levels of
government on practical solutions to reduce our reli-
ance on the Murray, and to conserve and reuse water in
our local communities.
In the last parliament I raised issues about the sex-
ualisation of girls—matters I know you are also very
concerned about, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke. This
continues to be a concern of mine. Since raising these
issues I have been overwhelmed by support from
around the country. Mass media continues to send a
message to our children, particularly to our girls, that
they need to be sexy and that is the only thing that mat-
ters. As I have previously stated, while adults have the
capacity to critically evaluate such messages, children
do not. This is not about banning or censorship but
about asking publishers, broadcasters and advertisers to
have set guidelines to limit the negative impact that
these messages have on our children and to assist par-
ents to provide age-appropriate content to their chil-
dren.
The election result in Kingston on 21 August was
due to the hard work of many. I would like to thank the
many ALP volunteers who helped out over the election
campaign and on election day. It was a winter election
in Adelaide; however, no matter how cold or rainy the
weather was, it did not dissuade the Kingston volun-
teers accompanying me to train stations and shopping
centres, or when I was door knocking, putting up elec-
tion signs and handing out Labor how-to-vote cards.
I would like to thank all of those Labor party mem-
bers and other volunteers who helped out on election
day and during the campaign. I would especially like to
thank my staff: Emmanuel Cusack, Suzanne Kellett,
Mary Portsmouth, Ellen Calam and James Wangmann.
I also would like to thank my campaign team: Dale
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Colebeck, Chris Hansford, Matt Marozzi, Aarron Hill,
Antony Cole, Sonia Romeo, Sam Nock and Sarah Huy.
My thanks also go to Senator Annette Hurley and
Senator Don Farrell for their support during the cam-
paign, along with the local state members in my elec-
torate: Chloe Fox, Allan Sibbons, Gay Thompson,
Leon Bignell, John Hill and Bernard Finnigan. I would
like to also thank Peter Malinauskas and the SDA,
John Camillo, John Short and Nigel Alford from the
AMWU, Debbie Black from the FSU, and Jamie
Newland and the MUA for all their ongoing support
during the election campaign. In addition, my thanks
go to the local activists: John Gucci—otherwise known
as the corflute king—Phil and Jo Giles, Sarah Brawley
and Charles Wright. I would like to also thank the staff
from both the state and federal ALP offices, particu-
larly the South Australian state secretary, Michael
Brown, and Reggie Martin at the South Australian ALP
branch.
I would like to thank my family, especially my mum
and dad, who are always there to help—they have been
there for the last three years and I hope they will con-
tinue to be for the next three years. Finally, I take this
opportunity to thank my campaign manager, Emily
Bourke, for her enthusiasm, commitment and fantastic
ability in running Labor’s campaign in Kingston. She
is the best campaign manager in the state, even in the
face of discovering on the first day of the election
campaign that she had conceived twins. My final
thanks go to the people of Kingston who have placed
their confidence in me for a second term.
This election was hard fought but there was only
one winner. I would like to take this opportunity to
recognise my colleagues who I worked with in the
42nd parliament who did not return to this new parlia-
ment. I put on record my appreciation for the hard
work they did for their electors, as well as for the
friendship that they provided to me personally.
The election on 21 August provided us with a new
and diverse but also tightly balanced parliament. I am
optimistic, despite what some commentators suggest,
that this term of the Gillard Labor government will see
us continue to establish a strong Labor agenda that is
compassionate, visionary and fair. It will also be part of
an agenda that will involve the parliament. To that end,
I can assure the residents of Kingston that I will con-
tinue, as I have over the last three years, to ensure that
the residents in the southern suburbs of Adelaide are
heard and not forgotten in this place.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—
Before I call the member for Brisbane, technically this
is not her first speech, but given the circumstances I
think we will extend the normal courtesies that we usu-
ally do at this time.
Ms GAMBARO (Gambaro) (5.36 pm)—Madam
Deputy Speaker, thank you for your indulgence and
CHAMBER
83
your generosity. It is with great pride and humility that
I stand before the House to deliver my address in reply
contribution and my first speech as the federal member
for Brisbane in the Commonwealth of Australia par-
liament. I have the honour of having represented two
federal electorates in this House. I served proudly as
the member for Petrie from 1996 to 2007 and now I
have the privilege of having been elected as the 950th
member of the federal parliament since Federation,
representing the seat of Brisbane. Only 28 people be-
fore me have had the distinct privilege of serving dif-
ferent federal electorates following an absence from
parliament. I was proud to serve as part of the Howard
government. John Howard, as well as being the sec-
ond-longest serving Prime Minister of Australia, will
be also remembered as a man of principle, dignity and
vision.
Brisbane has a truly remarkable history as a federa-
tion seat. Brisbane is home to the Jaggera and Turrbal
people and today I wish to acknowledge them and pay
respect to their elders past and present. It was in 1825
that European settlement began in North Quay in what
is the edge of the Brisbane CBD. The city was named
after Sir Thomas MacDougall Brisbane, who was then
the Governor of New South Wales who had succeeded
Governor Macquarie. Brisbane in 1825 was not a place
of high society and was the destination and the new
home for the worst and the repeat offender convicts
who were rejected by New South Wales.
Despite our inauspicious beginnings, a city of prom-
ise, enterprise and opportunity was born. One hundred
and seventy-five years on from the settlement, I stand
before you as the federal member for Brisbane. I am
the 11th federal member for this electorate and the first
woman to represent this seat. I wish to acknowledge
my predecessor, Arch Bevis, who represented the seat
for 20 years. I acknowledge his service to the House
and I wish him and his family the very best.
The seat of Brisbane truly personifies the way that
Australia has evolved. Brisbane has emerged as one of
the great cities of the world. It is dynamic, it is diverse,
it is proud of its past and it is excited about the promise
of its future. From its early beginnings, the Brisbane
River has been a source of food and life, and the river
continues to be the focal point of the electorate of
Brisbane. It weaves through the suburbs of Milton,
Teneriffe, Newstead, Hamilton and my beloved New
Farm, the suburb of my childhood. Once called
Binkinba by our local Indigenous population, New
Farm derived its name from the fact that the peninsula
was used as a farming area from early settlement.
The Brisbane electorate is truly unique in that it is
made up of many community villages, including Wil-
ston, Paddington, Red Hill, Spring Hill, Ascot and
Kelvin Grove. These villages are dotted with coffee
shops, art galleries, boutiques and restaurants. And of
84 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
course the young people who work and play in the en-
tertainment precinct of the vibrant Fortitude Valley
have enriched the suburb and made it their own.
Sitting proudly in Fortitude Valley is Brisbane’s
Chinatown. The father of Brisbane’s Chinatown is
Eddie Liu, who is the longest serving honorary secre-
tary of the Chinese Club of Queensland. He is indeed a
distinguished Chinese Australian. He has been the driv-
ing force behind Chinese cultural heritage in Queen-
sland and has been a tireless advocate for the less for-
tunate.
Close to Chinatown is the bustling CBD of Bris-
bane, the heart of commerce and industry for Brisbane
and Queensland. On the edge of the city sits the beauti-
ful botanical gardens, overlooking the Brisbane River
and next to the Queensland parliament house. The gar-
dens are often a place of frenetic activity as students
make their way to the Queensland University of Tech-
nology, a centre of excellence in tertiary education for
over 40,000 students. I have had a long association
with QUT as a student and a tutor, and as an alumnus. I
wish to acknowledge the outstanding work that is be-
ing done by the QUT business school in innovation,
research and fostering business leadership both domes-
tically and internationally.
Under the leadership of Professor Peter Little, one
of Australia’s leading business educators, groundbreak-
ing QUT partnerships have been developed with exter-
nal organisations such as the Defence Materiel Organi-
sation. The DMO understood that there was a need for
improvement in the delivery of complex, high-priority,
long-term, multibillion-dollar projects and that the cur-
rent ageing workforce would be unable to meet these
requirements. QUT, in conjunction with DMO, devel-
oped a new award course, the Executive Master of
Business (Complex Project Management), to fill this
gap. Support for this program has come from compa-
nies as diverse as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Mincom
and John Holland. QUT works internationally with the
International Centre for Complex Project Management
as they raise awareness and provide solutions to com-
plex project management needs across the globe.
Today provides a unique opportunity to thank Su
Mon Wong, an inspirational lecturer who instilled in
me a great passion for marketing and business. Su
Mon, you have had a profound effect on thousands of
business students throughout your 34-year teaching
career at QUT. I am delighted that you are in the gal-
lery today. This year I had the pleasure of working with
Professor Peter Little, the Executive Dean of the QUT
School of Business, and the QUT business alumni to
establish the Su Mon Wong scholarship, to recognise
students of outstanding marketing ability. Su Mon,
your educational legacy will live on for future genera-
tions.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Just as QUT and education have been a driving force
for me professionally, my family have had a profound
influence on my personal development. Today I stand
before you as the proud daughter of Italian parents,
Domenic and Rosetta Gambaro. My parents’ story is
the story of millions of immigrants who migrated to
this country after World War II. They fled the devasta-
tion of post-war Italy to make a better life for them-
selves and for their family. Many of my achievements
can be attributed to the values and the standards in-
stilled in me by my family.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay respect
to my father, a proud Italian Australian. Domenic
Gambaro, like so many Italian immigrants from the
war and immediate post-war years, hoped to forge a
better life for himself in a new land after seeing the
horror and the havoc that war had inflicted on his be-
loved homeland. He taught me the value of work. He
was driven by the opportunities this country provided.
He flourished in a country where the past and where
you came from did not matter, and the efforts of your
labours were rewarded.
My father began as a farmhand in North Queen-
sland, eager to make a start in Australia. His begin-
nings were humble but his dreams were not. From the
toil of North Queensland, he was able to save to buy a
small fish store in Petrie Terrace where, in accordance
with a time-honoured tradition, other members of his
family soon joined him in building what became a
prosperous family seafood business that incorporated
restaurants, wholesaling, exporting and retail. Together
with my mother Rosetta, they are a wonderful partner-
ship at work and at home.
My mother Rosetta taught me the value of service to
others, kindness, generosity and the value of family.
They worked hard so that my two sisters, Elisa and Ida,
and my brother, John, could have a better life. All this
from two Italian immigrants who arrived in a distant
and unfamiliar new country, armed with nothing more
than optimism, an unstoppable work ethic and a genu-
ine feeling of gratitude towards this country.
There are so many distinguished Australians of Ital-
ian descent who have forged careers in this place, par-
ticularly those who have assisted me in my career.
There are countless Australians of Italian descent who
have made amazing commitments to the development
of the social fabric of our suburbs. It is these connec-
tions and the service of these unsung heroes in our
Brisbane electorate community that truly deserve
praise in this place. In days gone by, remarkable
achievements were made by Joe Rinaudo and Annibale
Boccabella through the Associazione Nazionale
Famiglie degli Emigrati Australiani—that is, the asso-
ciation of immigrants of Australia—and today, in the
spirit of this association, Nereo Brezzi and Dina Rani-
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
eri keep our community connections as strong as ever
through Co.As.It.
Whether my local residents are involved in Co.As.It,
Lions, Elley Bennett Hostel, the Red Cross, the Multi-
cultural Development Association, National Seniors or
the countless other community and non-profit organisa-
tions in my electorate, they all perform a remarkable
service to our local areas, and for that I thank them.
Indeed, as the shadow parliamentary secretary for citi-
zenship and settlement and shadow parliamentary sec-
retary for international development assistance, I very
much look forward to increasing these connections
with many local groups, churches and non-government
organisations. As recently as last weekend I attended a
remarkable event in Brisbane, the Bridging the Gap
Sudanese community forum, which was organised by
the Gateway Presbyterian Church. Reverend Guido
Kettniss and Jounis Adwanga, as well as the members
of the Sudanese community in Brisbane, made me very
welcome, and I look forward to working with them and
will be keenly watching the 2011 referendum in Sudan.
My father once said to me before I departed for an
overseas holiday many years ago, ‘You go and see the
world but you will realise that the best country in the
world is Australia.’ How right he was, and that is why
so many people have wanted to come to this country.
Australia is known for its hospitality, its openness, its
respect for others, its culture and its harmony. These
characteristics make us the envy of the world.
My parents instilled in me a great love of education.
I will be eternally grateful for the standard of education
of the Catholic Sisters of Mercy at All Hallows School.
I am proud to have in the gallery my former principal,
Sister Ann Hetherington. If Sister Ann had not chosen
a life of religious service and vocation I suspect that
Lend Lease and Mirvac would have been fighting to
have her as the CEO of their respective companies. Her
business acumen and common sense is well regarded
in Queensland. Next year the Sisters of Mercy will
celebrate 150 years of service in Queensland. Perhaps
the best way to sum up the Sisters of Mercy philosophy
is with what they instil in their charges: strong minds
and gentle hearts. Their philosophy has also been my
guide in this place and in my business life. Sister Ann,
thank for your contribution and that of the Sisters of
Mercy. Thank you for all that you have done for the
education of young women in Queensland.
I am committed to ensuring that every child in every
school has the best education; that one day we can say
that no child will slip through the cracks. The impor-
tance of education cannot be overemphasised, and in
the past three years working in my family’s business I
saw firsthand some of the results of the inadequacies of
our education system. It is a sad reality that many of
our young people are incapable of filling out a form,
writing a legible letter or even counting out the correct
CHAMBER
85
change. I hear this complaint echoed by business peo-
ple throughout my electorate, and amazingly some
businesses have resorted to offering literacy classes in
workplaces. It is a shame that while listening to locals
in my electorate in the recent past I have heard many
young parents from suburbs like Ashgrove, Dorrington,
Kalinga and Clayfield observe that, while they did not
wish to reject a Julia Gillard memorial hall, they were
very concerned about the continued wasteful spending
that casts a shameful pall over the provision of educa-
tion in this country at present. I, along with Christopher
Pyne and my parliamentary colleagues on this side of
the House, will continue to call for an inquiry into the
BER program and its plethora of faults. Physical
monuments are no substitute for quality teaching and
that is what makes this wasteful spending so appall-
ing—millions of dollars wasted on amphitheatres when
teachers are crying out for basic educational resources.
It is at this point that I wish to acknowledge the tre-
mendous contribution that Julie Bishop made towards
the introduction of a national curriculum during the
time she was education minister. She should be ap-
plauded for that.
Education can take us to so many places, whether it
be to a trade or to the boardroom table, but one of the
areas where education truly can make a difference is in
running a small business. During the past eight months
I have had the wonderful opportunity of meeting many
of the 10,000 small business operators in the Brisbane
electorate. From a very early age I have had many
years of working in the retail, hospitality, personnel
and franchising industries, so I know that more often
than not small businesses out there—in Bowen Hills,
Albion, Kelvin Grove and Lutwyche—are doing it
tough. They are entangled in red tape and interpretive
issues that even the employees of those government
departments tasked to assist small business do not un-
derstand. We all know that small businesses are the job
generators of our local economies. They employ our
mums and dads, our children and our friends, and it is
for this very reason that I will continue to fight for and
be a champion of small business.
The electorate of Brisbane is at the centre of health
and medical research, with the Queensland Institute of
Medical Research at Herston being associated with the
electorate for more than 65 years. Groundbreaking re-
search is currently being undertaken at the institute into
dengue fever, schizophrenia and bipolar disorders,
parasites associated with giardia and many other areas
of research. I wish to place on record my praise for the
institute’s director, Dr Michael Goode, and his team of
world-leading scientists. The Queensland Institute of
Medical Research shares research facilities with Royal
Brisbane and Women’s Hospital and the Royal Chil-
dren’s Hospital where world-class work into childhood
leukaemia is taking place.
86 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Unfortunately many of the clinical and research
synergies that currently work to the best advantage of
all Queenslanders will be lost because of the short-
sighted decision by the Queensland government to
close the Royal Children’s Hospital. There was no
community consultation regarding this closure and
residents were kept totally in the dark. This is a deci-
sion which is both hasty and illogical and hardly trans-
parent in my opinion—sadly a process that is all too
common for the Queensland government.
There have been many champions who have fought
and continue to fight for the retention of the Royal
Children’s Hospital on the site at Herston. I wish to
acknowledge Dr Harry Smith, Dr Chris Davies and of
course Queensland parliamentary colleagues Tracy
Davis and Mark McArdle. I know that these dedicated
people truly have the interests of Brisbane’s north side
at heart, as do I. The northern suburbs of Brisbane in-
cluding Windsor, Alderley, Gordon Park and Grange
are fast-growing areas for families and these are the
very suburbs that will be adversely affected by the loss
not only of their dedicated paediatric emergency de-
partment but also of 130 years of medical expertise and
excellence. These are the issues that I will be fighting
for locally in this term and hopefully in future terms in
this place.
In my maiden speech to parliament in 1996, I spoke
of my first steps in this place. This, for me, is the sec-
ond step on the journey to representing the people of
Australia, this time through the residents of Brisbane. I
wholeheartedly dedicate myself to their service for as
long as I have their support.
My journey here would not have been possible
without the support of many colleagues. I would like to
pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Ab-
bott. No-one can doubt his commitment and his dedica-
tion to public service. I am proud to be part of your
team and working under the strength of your leader-
ship.
I wish to thank all my colleagues who assisted me in
my recent campaign in Brisbane: Julie Bishop, Joe
Hockey, Greg Hunt, Brett Mason, Sophie Mirabella,
Bronwyn Bishop, Eric Abetz and Bruce Scott. In par-
ticular, I would like to recognise the support of shadow
Attorney General and deputy leader in the Senate,
Senator George Brandis. Senator Brandis, thank you
for your generous counsel during my campaign. Your
constant statewide campaigning, including your dedi-
cation to Brisbane, cannot be in doubt—especially
when you braved torrential rain on Kingsford Smith
Drive during those early mornings. Yes, senators do
campaign in the rain. I thank LNP president Bruce
McIver and deputy campaign director James McGrath
and their dedicated team. Thank you so much for your
collective efforts.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Campaigns are run on the strength of their volun-
teers. Mine was no different and that is why I want to
say thank you to all those who assisted me from within
the party in any way—my campaign director, Mark
Wood, Vicki, Tony, the three Roberts, the two Helens,
Jan, Trish, Shirley, Lyle, Paul, Maddy, Rennae, Kate
and all the YLNP crew who came out every weekend,
staffed our booths, letterbox dropped and ran the of-
fice. Your smiles and laughter kept me going and for
that I thank each and every one of you.
I wish to acknowledge my family—my brother
John, my sister Elisa and my brother-in-law Glenn,
who also campaigned for me. Family is everything to
me, and I am delighted that they are in the gallery to-
day. My thoughts and thanks go to my sister Ida and to
my parents Domenic and Rosetta, who could not be
with us due to ill health. I wish to acknowledge my
father-in-law, Michael Duffy. Thank you for raising
such a wonderful son. To my husband Robert, thank
you for your steady guidance, your constant encour-
agement and your love. To my daughter, Rachelle, who
is in the chamber today, and to my son, Benjamin, who
is studying for university exams at home in Brisbane,
you are the joy of my life and my inspiration to help
others. As Winston Churchill once said:
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak,
Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
To the residents of Brisbane, thank you for allowing
me the privilege of representing you. I will always lis-
ten to your wishes and display the courage to stand up
and speak for these aspirations as your federal member.
I will work tirelessly on your behalf and be your voice
in Canberra. Thank you for this honour.
Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (5.57 pm)—I rise to
speak in reply to the Governor-General’s address at the
opening of the 43rd Parliament of Australia just a few
weeks ago. Her Excellency Quentin Bryce, in her
opening remarks, acknowledged ‘the remarkable cir-
cumstances of our nation having its first female Gov-
ernor-General and first female Prime Minister’. It is
indeed a remarkable event in our political history and
worthy of celebration, particularly, as the Governor-
General mentioned, for the inspiration it provides for
women and girls of our nation and to all Australians.
We are indeed the land of opportunity—something we
should never take for granted.
The Governor-General will visit Newcastle on Fri-
day and I extend to her a warm welcome. As soon as
the city learnt of her visit, demands began for her to
expand her program. I am grateful that Her Excellency
graciously agreed to lend her support to additional
community events.
I also congratulate our Prime Minister Julia Gillard
on her successful negotiations with the Independent
members of parliament to form a minority government
and allow the 43rd Parliament to open and operate.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
That she achieved the Independents’ support was not
only a tribute to her ability to negotiate but also a re-
flection of the Prime Minister’s determination to oper-
ate fairly and to protect the status and integrity of this
parliament, an important institution in its own right and
deserving of our respect.
The August election results reflected the diverse
views of Australians, with inconsistent and varying
voting patterns across the nation linked to specific is-
sues, demographics, state political environments and
the power and persuasion of political campaigns and
the media. But no messages from any political party
managed to attract a clear majority of voters. From
what was largely a campaign of negatives, no particu-
lar vision galvanised sufficient belief or inspired the
people of Australia to overwhelmingly commit to the
policies of any political party. That should be a matter
on which we all reflect.
Whilst diverse views are part of our democracy,
finding the courses of action that unite our nation can
be elusive. At best they galvanise and inspire. At worst
they minimise what we are capable of as a people. But
that is a challenge we need always to tackle. In most of
the complex issues that face Australia and the world
doing nothing is not an option.
I believe that the Australian public absolutely crave
bipartisanship and combined leadership on the most
challenging issues that confront us—issues like climate
change and the energy economy; responding to the
mass movement of people around the world seeking
asylum and opportunity; sustaining the wealth from our
commodities and resources boom; providing a national
high speed broadband network to better link communi-
ties and deliver health and education services more
equitably; the challenges of securing the nation’s water
supply fairly; prospering Indigenous Australians; bal-
ancing social and personal wellbeing; diminishing the
scourge of international terrorism; and building a
world-class health system.
Strengthening and achieving these goals remains
central to what we do here. Australians are tired of spin
and weary of the politics of division. By their vote,
they have almost dictated to us their requirement that
we work more positively together across the political
party divide for the interests of all Australians and our
nation’s future. That sounds fair to me. The use of lan-
guage that derides by gender, I notice, creeps into de-
bates here too frequently. Apparently women are al-
ways shrill but men are strident. And too many at-
tempts are made to diminish the contribution of women
to public life. The test we need to bring to our delibera-
tions is always the test of what best reflects the needs
and aspirations, the beliefs and interests of the Austra-
lian people—both men and women. Approaches that
diminish the substance of the debate or that dwell on
the personal and the political divides are a waste of the
CHAMBER
87
energies, talents and abilities of every member of this
parliament.
As the federal member for Newcastle it is an under-
statement to say that I was relieved that the ALP under
Julia Gillard’s leadership gained government—not just
for my own interests but for the interests of the people
of Newcastle. Over the past three years under a Labor
government Newcastle has done very well, benefiting
from over $1½ billion of investments from the federal
Rudd and Gillard governments. For Newcastle, this has
meant that our unemployment has remained below
both the state and national levels, that workforce par-
ticipation has set new record highs and that our quality
of life has not been diminished by the global financial
crisis.
For the nine years that I have been the member for
Newcastle I have worked successfully with our com-
munity, business and education and research leaders to
develop the knowledge base to our economy, to make
us resilient and sustainable. My government in its first
term funded two potentially world-class institutes at
the University of Newcastle—the Hunter Medical Re-
search Institute, now under construction, and the En-
ergy and Resources Institute. Health and education are
now our largest employment sectors, and in fact in my
electorate of Newcastle the largest group are profes-
sionals. In addition, our university gained over $100
million in research grants and programs, an amazing
achievement and a testimony to the quality of their
academics and their research programs.
The federal Labor government also responded to
Newcastle’s agenda to build a sustainable energy future
for our region based on clean energy. In our first term,
the federal Labor government located the Australian
Solar Institute at the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcas-
tle, where the largest solar thermal tower is presently
under construction. A new grid facility there leads the
way in integrating renewable grids into the main elec-
tricity grid. The $20 million national Enterprise Con-
nect Clean Energy Innovation Centre was also located
in Newcastle by our government and the $100 million
Smart Grid, Smart City was awarded to a Newcastle
consortium, which is busy mapping out the way ahead
over the next three years to find the best technological
solutions for a secure and efficient grid and the most
efficient energy uses in homes and businesses.
Health, education, training, defence, transport infra-
structure, environment and community services and
programs all benefited from the funding of the last
government. So the last three years have been very
good ones for Newcastle under a federal Labor gov-
ernment, but the three years ahead hold very special
promise.
The National Broadband Network, the $20 million
high-speed rail feasibility study with a focus on the
route between Newcastle and Sydney, as well as the
88 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
prospect of potential revenue from a resource rent tax
being invested into our region all present ‘big picture’
opportunities for my city. They are opportunities that I
will determinedly pursue. I will continue to provide
leadership to Newcastle so that together we can build
the best strategic cases to secure these future invest-
ments.
The big picture items are very exciting, but there is
always more to do in my city. Now that the economy is
strong, Newcastle will be looking to the federal gov-
ernment for support for some key projects, particularly
our new Federal Court building in our CBD where re-
newal is essential. While successful urban renewal
along the Newcastle foreshore was directly related to a
previous federal Labor government’s Building Better
Cities program, the state government, Newcastle City
Council and the business community continue to strug-
gle with regenerating the CBD.
The 1989 Newcastle earthquake saw major employ-
ers shift out of the CBD. The Honeysuckle Foreshore
Development, under the Building Better Cities pro-
gram, and the rise of the suburban supercentres and
shopping malls also led to enterprise and customers
relocating out of the CBD. But creating a vibrant heart
for our city is something that all Novocastrians desire.
At the federal level we have an interest in sustaining
the growth of our major cities. The University of New-
castle’s intention to expand its inner city campus holds
much promise for the CBD as well as for the positive
impact it would have on the student experience, on
student enrolments and on lifting retention rates in the
region. The university’s recent submission for assis-
tance under the Higher Education Structural Adjust-
ment Fund has my full support, but if the city wants to
gain the maximum urban renewal advantage from the
university’s expansion into the CBD then both the New
South Wales government and Newcastle City Council
need to demonstrate their strongest support by devoting
significant financial and physical resources to assist the
university.
Whilst the New South Wales government has con-
tributed land for development, what is actually needed
is, I believe, a direct funding commitment in the order,
I would suggest, of $25 million. Such an investment
would provide certainty, strengthen the university’s
submission for federal funding and give considerable
encouragement for private investment into the CBD. I
am comforted that any cost-benefit analysis of that sort
of amount would validate the investment.
The other driver of any regeneration in our CBD
must be modern transport. Whilst the argument contin-
ues in Newcastle around the heavy rail providing a
barrier between the harbour and the retail areas of the
CBD, the real task is to involve the Newcastle commu-
nity, the best transport engineers and urban planners in
designing a modern light rail system for the CBD and
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
the wider city. Any approach that dictates a narrow
solution will fail, given the conflicting views of com-
muters, residents and the business community. Consen-
sus is achievable and essential if we are to successfully
drive public and private investment into such a trans-
port solution.
Having recently undertaken a study of light rail in
Europe, I have seen the power of modern, safe and re-
liable light rail networks to successfully drive urban
renewal and growth and to build social participation
and productivity. I look forward to sharing a report of
this experience with the parliament and with Novocas-
trians in the coming weeks. I also look forward to dis-
cussions with the Newcastle City Centre Renewal
Steering Committee about how Newcastle can best
prepare and advance a unified and supported case to
Infrastructure Australia for support to our CBD’s
growth and renewal.
But I could not be in the House discussing this
agenda, planning the way ahead for my electorate,
without the support of many Novocastrians in the Au-
gust election. So I would like to take this opportunity
to thank my staff for their tireless efforts, their ongoing
dedication and their selflessness in serving the people
of Newcastle. I will be forever grateful to them and I
make mention of Sharon Claydon, Simonne Pengelly,
Fiona Ross, Kim Hall, Nick Kachel and Emma Good-
win. I also thank the relief staff for their assistance.
They have included James Cameron, Shannon Byrne,
Tegan Cone and Ryan Turner.
To my ALP branch members, who ask little for
themselves and demand much that is good for the Aus-
tralian people: thank you for your wisdom and guid-
ance and for your support through good times and not-
so-good times. I have already apologised for the
coughs, colds and shivers shared in the winter cam-
paign. You were, and are, amazing. I want to thank the
40 people who worked on the ground in Newcastle,
manning street stalls, the campaign office and prepolls.
I wish I could name each and every one of them to
show my personal gratitude, but time will not permit
that.
To my FEC executive, whom I will name—James
Marshall, Barbara Whitcher, Noel James, Gaylene
Adamthwaite and Victoria Phillis—and my steadfast
Federal Electorate Council delegates who dedicate
themselves month in and month out to the Labor cause:
I could not have done it without you. Thank you. I es-
pecially want to acknowledge the selfless work of my
campaign director, Donovan Harris, who took annual
leave to work on the Newcastle campaign and ensure
that the thousand and one campaign tasks were com-
pleted. And I thank his partner, Tash Godress, for her
support and patience in that time. I also thank my
friends in the trade unions—the Newcastle Trades Hall
and its secretary Gary Kennedy, the MUA, the AWU
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
and, in particular, the Northern Districts branch of the
United Mineworkers Federation for their ongoing sup-
port for me and for the working people of Newcastle.
Without you, Newcastle would not be the place it is
today—proudly independent, committed to commu-
nity, committed to protecting workplace rights, with a
strong streak of fairness and equity.
To the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who maintains
her interest in everything we do in Newcastle, I thank
you for your support. To my wonderful family and to
my very special friends, who are always there for me:
you are long suffering when it comes to supporting my
political life. I love you, thank you and cherish your
belief in me.
But elections also bring pain. The loss of good col-
leagues here brings us all back to the reality of the in-
security of political life and to the courage and com-
mitment of those who champion our cause with their
communities, particularly in marginal seats. Thank
you, you are appreciated and you are missed. I know
you all will continue to be an important part of your
communities and of the Labor cause. But the election
also brought new Labor members into the parliament.
They represent renewed inspiration and energy for our
government and I congratulate them all.
More than anything, the election and the Governor
General’s address challenge each of us to reconsider
what guides us in what we do and what we believe in.
For me these beliefs are always rooted in Labor values,
values that foster the dignity of work; access to quality
education and training for all Australians; the rights
and freedoms to demand a fair go and have a voice in
our country’s progress; a strong economy that lifts eve-
ryone up, be they in business or workers; a welfare
safety net for the most vulnerable; a social framework
that centres on inclusion and participation; the impor-
tance of engaging with the world around shared beliefs
and interests; commitment to preserving our unique
environment; and providing security and safety for our
nation. I commit to doing all I can to foster those val-
ues here.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—
Order! Before I call the honourable member for Macar-
thur, I remind the House that it is the honourable mem-
ber’s first speech and I ask the House to extend to him
the usual courtesies.
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (6.12 pm)—Madam
Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate
you on your re-election to high office in this chamber. I
would like to pay my respects to the Ngunnawal peo-
ple, the original custodians of the land on which we
now stand. I am humbled and honoured to represent
the people of Macarthur in this the 43rd Parliament.
I am deeply passionate and committed to serving the
public. I have strong community values and believe
that we should support those who are in need. Most
CHAMBER
89
importantly, I am a believer in providing opportunities
to each and every Australian through high quality
health care and disability support services, safe and
stable employment, affordable home ownership, the
best education possible and the best opportunities and
small business support. Our laws should protect these
principles. They should be available regardless of a
person’s socioeconomic background or place of resi-
dence. As an elected representative, I will strive to en-
sure that every person in Macarthur is given these op-
portunities to build a life for themselves and their fami-
lies. There can be no greater honour bestowed upon a
person than to serve the community and nation they are
proud to call home. I am looking forward to the chal-
lenges that lie ahead for me as the member for Macar-
thur.
I would like to take this opportunity today to reflect
upon the service commitments that others have made
to our wonderful country and on those who have made
the ultimate sacrifice. As the son of a returned ser-
viceman, the significant personal contributions that
others have made have inspired me to want to help
others. I want to continue my father’s legacy of
proudly serving our community. As a member of our
nation’s armed forces, my father fought gallantly in the
Battle of Long Tan, which was one of the biggest and
most important conflicts in the Vietnam War involving
Australian troops. It was one of the most successful
campaigns Australia has been involved in, yet at the
same time it is so symbolic of a heartbreaking period
of history.
On the afternoon of 18 August 1966, 108 Australian
and New Zealand soldiers of the 6th Battalion, Royal
Australian Regiment D Company faced an enemy force
of over 2½ thousand. The 103 Field Battery, of which
my father was a member, played a pivotal role in this
historic battle. The 103 Field Battery pounded the en-
emy with over 1,000 rounds of artillery—a round every
10 seconds—creating a wall of steel around the embat-
tled men of D Company.
Non-military personnel at the base formed ad hoc
teams of labourers and worked through the night in the
pouring rain to keep up the supply of ammunition to
the guns. The 103rd Field Battery had to be resupplied
by helicopter, making the guns a prime target for en-
emy fire. The 103rd Field Battery struggled through
torrential rain, which made aiming the guns almost
impossible, leaving gunners to rely on their own intui-
tion to ensure that they fired on the enemy on not on
the men of D Company. To make a bad situation worse,
poisonous cordite fumes from the artillery fire built up
a toxic haze around the guns. Despite hardly being able
to breathe or even see through the haze, the brave men
of the 103rd and 105th field batteries kept up the artil-
lery fire all through the night and into the morning in
delivering victory to the Australians.
90 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The men involved in the Battle of Long Tan demon-
strated courage, bravery and determination in spite of
the next-to-impossible conditions. Their actions set a
standard for the rest of us in how we should conduct
ourselves in every aspect of our lives. I am immensely
proud of my father for his courageous actions on that
dreadful day. We can only imagine what it was like to
be there.
While the success of the Battle of Long Tan will be
remembered by generations of Australians to come,
what most people forget to consider is the effect of the
war on a person, a family and their community. The
Vietnam War was especially cruel to the minds and
bodies of returned servicemen because of the strong
political antiwar sentiments that were rife at the time.
There are few who will endure the haunting realities of
war. We should not take these soldiers’ personal sacri-
fice for granted. Their actions set a standard for future
generations and I am immensely proud of my father
Reg for his courageous actions on that historic day. I
would like to take this opportunity to honour and pay
tribute to him.
Vietnam veterans are often referred to as ordinary
boys who became extraordinary men. Similarly, my
beginnings were that of an ordinary boy. While I can-
not profess to be an extraordinary man, my father’s
commitment to serving our country inspired me to
want to make a difference and to continue my family’s
history of proudly serving our community.
My desire to serve saw me join the New South
Wales Police Force in October 1985, graduating from
class 216. For the past 25 years I have proudly served
my community as a police officer, reaching the rank of
sergeant. My career in the Police Force was very re-
warding, but as an office I had to deal with many per-
sonally challenging and confronting situations. I will
never forget my first autopsy, my first deceased person
or the first fatal motor vehicle accident that I attended.
I have the utmost respect and admiration for my col-
leagues in the Police Force. It takes a person of great
integrity and character to carry on through the many
tragic and heartbreaking situations that they encounter.
I hope that one day society will understand and respect
the great undertaking that is required to serve as a po-
lice officer and give these great men and women the
respect and honour that they deserve.
Outside of the Police Force, I have had the opportu-
nity to serve my community as a councillor on Camp-
belltown City Council for the past 17 years. My oppor-
tunity to serve in this capacity arose from my humble
beginnings. I came into the public domain on the back
of a sporting achievement. As captain-coach of the
Campbelltown Australian Rules football side the Mon-
arch Blues, I proudly led my team to four successive
grand finals from 1986 to 1989, supported by club
president Jim Little and my best mate, Bob Prenter,
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
who have both since passed away. They are always in
my thoughts. I am sure that they are looking down to-
day having a bit of a chuckle that a flatfoot and a foot-
baller is now in parliament.
My success in the sporting arena became a catalyst
for my political career. I was approached by councillor
Jim Kremmer, who became a good friend and mentor.
Thanks for being here today, Jim. I went from leading
a football team to becoming a leader in my community.
What I considered to be a daunting task at the time
became a wonderful relationship with my community
of Campbelltown and the broader Macarthur area. I
was honoured to serve as Mayor of the City of Camp-
belltown on five occasions. The work that I was able to
undertake with that community, the issues which I
helped solve and the advocacy role that I was able to
undertake have been privileges and honours. I look
forward to continuing to serve my community with
great pride.
I believe that my extensive life experience holds me
in good stead to represent the people of Macarthur. My
public responsibilities have given me a solid under-
standing of the needs of the community that I have
proudly been part of for over 30 years. One such need
is for infrastructure. South-western Sydney is one of
the fastest growing areas of urban sprawl in Australia.
Of primary importance to the people of Macarthur is a
need to ensure that any population growth in the region
is supported by appropriate infrastructure and commu-
nity services. The population of the Macarthur region
is predicted to almost double in the next 20 years. If
these predictions are correct, it is essential that appro-
priate transport, health, education and recreational in-
frastructure is provided. Currently, there are still areas
in Campbelltown and Wollondilly that do not have ac-
cess to Sydney’ sewerage system. Our major motor-
ways are already over-congested and peak hour com-
muter services are at capacity. Infrastructure should
precede population to ensure that growing communi-
ties are not neglected.
The election campaign brought to light many issues
facing the people of Macarthur. These included the cost
of living, soaring electricity prices—and who knows
where they are going to go under a Labor govern-
ment—traffic congestion, air quality and high housing
prices. Labor promised cheaper child care, but it in-
creased in cost. There are insufficient health services
and insufficient services for those with special needs.
And in my community there was anger surrounding the
bungled BER, insulation and solar schemes, and with
the wasteful spending and a growing national debt.
While much of this pain can be attributed to the failure
of the Labor government, all levels of government
must now work together to correct these wrongs and
better plan for the future.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
With continued development it is important to create
effective policies to make growth in Macarthur sus-
tainable. It is important that more resources be dedi-
cated to infrastructure such as roads, hospitals and edu-
cational facilities in the Macarthur region. The Macar-
thur region is a shining example of the positive effects
small business brings to a local economy. It provides
opportunities for growth and employment. Macarthur
draws its name from John and Elizabeth Macarthur,
who demonstrated their entrepreneurial spirit when
they pioneered the merino wool industry in Australia.
Rural Macarthur continues to make a significant
contribution to the community, due to a large percent-
age of Sydney’s fresh milk and produce supplies. We
need to ensure we continue to support local farmers
and our agricultural industry by finding a good balance
between local industry and urban development. Whilst
Macarthur still boasts a sizeable agricultural industry, it
is also home to a growing number of small and me-
dium sized businesses, with 80 per cent of these busi-
nesses employing fewer than 10 people. These busi-
nesses range from retail, commercial, hospitality, min-
ing, manufacturing, building and construction.
For working families in Macarthur, stable and sus-
tainable employment is a key issue of concern, and I
am a strong believer in implementing good policy
which seeks to generate jobs and raise living standards.
One of the fundamental keys to encouraging employ-
ment is supporting an accessible education and training
system that helps upskill people for apprenticeships,
skills training and professional development so that
people have the opportunity to enhance their skills and
abilities, particularly those who are unemployed, have
a disability or who come from disadvantaged socio-
economic backgrounds. The people of Macarthur also
rely on good governance to keep interest rates manage-
able and unemployment levels low. As a mortgage
holder myself, and having felt the pain of high interest
rates when I was starting a family, I know how these
pressures affect people financially and emotionally.
The Macarthur region has given many families the op-
portunity to realise their dream of home ownership. I
do not want the dream of home ownership to slip away
for future generations in Macarthur.
The provision of health services is essential in re-
gions like Macarthur. Air pollution is one of the biggest
health issues facing many families in Macarthur, as the
Macarthur region has one of the highest rates of asthma
related hospital admissions in New South Wales. At the
2007 election one of the major local issues was the
approval of a twin turbine gas-fired power station in
our backyard. The Asthma Foundation of New South
Wales were very concerned about the state govern-
ment’s proposal to construct the Leaf Gully power sta-
tion in the Campbelltown area. They were not even
consulted in relation to issues raised about the air qual-
CHAMBER
91
ity and the health and wellbeing of the people of Mac-
arthur. Those concerns were ignored. This is not a case
of ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome. There were good
and valid reasons why this power station should not
have been approved. With the assistance of the mayors
of the region: Paul Lake, Michael Banasik and Chris
Patterson, along with the Liberal candidate for Wol-
londilly, Jai Rowell, I will continue fighting the battle
to ensure that this power station remains only as a peak
power station, not a baseload power station.
There is one particular issue that I am very passion-
ate about—that is, children with special needs. Many
families and their children are faced with insufficient
support services due to a lack of resources and funding.
Fortunately, Macarthur has a strong sense of commu-
nity. I am very honoured to assist people who go be-
yond their normal civic duties to help those around
them. One community based group that operates in
Macarthur is the Right Start Foundation, a not-for-
profit organisation, founded by Glenda Grabin, with
the support of a handful of parents who have children
with Down syndrome. Whilst only a year into its estab-
lishment the organisation has achieved so much, pro-
viding support, friendship and community services for
families who would otherwise feel so isolated in their
needs. They are currently raising funds to build a cen-
tre in Macarthur for people with Down syndrome.
They currently receive no funding from the govern-
ment whatsoever, but imagine all that they could
achieve if they did.
Not-for-profit groups like the Right Start Founda-
tion, Mater Dei, Beverly Park and Mary Brooksbank
special needs schools play an integral part of delivering
disability support services to the Macarthur region.
These groups work tirelessly to make our society a
better place. I believe that the federal government
should share in the responsibility for children in need
and ensure that it facilitates and coordinates adequate
services across government and non-government agen-
cies so that all our children can enjoy the quality of life
they deserve, no matter what circumstances may con-
front them.
There are many other not-for-profit community or-
ganisations, such as registered or licensed clubs, that
also contribute to the Macarthur region. These organi-
sations provide a forum for people to come together to
promote and pursue a common interest, ranging from
sport, service in our armed forces, religion or occupa-
tion. There are 15 of these clubs in Macarthur. They
employ a total of 827 full-time, part-time and casual
staff and rely on the help of 676 volunteers. Last year
these clubs gave over $23.5 million worth of support to
local charities and recreational groups. Clubs in Macar-
thur have over 131,000 memberships and receive close
to 4.5 million visits from members and guests each
92 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
year and play a significant part in creating a closer,
more socially involved community.
Mr Speaker, I now take this opportunity to ac-
knowledge and thank all those individuals who assisted
me during the election campaign. It is only through the
hard work, effort and an enormous amount of support
from these people that I stand here today in this mag-
nificent chamber. To my good friend and campaign
director Jai Rowell, I am forever grateful for your sup-
port and wisdom. You, along with my campaign team,
Michael Shaw and Benn Banasik, put your lives on
hold for six weeks. Without your hard work and dedi-
cation I would not be here today. Thanks, guys.
To my tireless volunteers: Reece White, Karina Ral-
ston, Kathryn Steinweiss, Michael Banasik, Jarred Hil-
leard, David Gavin, Jeff and Janet Gray, Paul Hillbrick,
Paul Hawker, George Grace, Eleni Petinos, Jason
Bosketti-Zanotti, Toese Faapito, Anna-Grace Millard,
Jean Newton, Chris Paterson, Tanya Harris, Jim Riley,
Debbie Dewberry, Belinda Rowell, Brett Mcgrath, the
Elliot family, the Hon. Charlie Lynn and the Hon.
Mathew Mason Cox: I cannot thank you enough for all
the hard work and hours you put into my campaign. To
all the people who gave up their Saturday to man the
polling booths—there are too many of you to name—I
am grateful to you all. It is now up to me to provide
Macarthur with the representation it deserves.
To my many good friends, some of them in the gal-
lery today, words cannot express the gratitude that my
family and I have for all your support and friendship
over the years. Thanks to Dash, Johnny Mac, Sam,
Dave, Lakey and Tosi, who are all here today. I am
fortunate to have wonderful and supportive women in
my life. To my mother Shirley, my sister Kerry and my
wife Sharon, who is here in the gallery supporting me
today, I am forever grateful for your unconditional love
and support, which has allowed me to live my dream.
To my beautiful daughters, Alana and Jess, who are
also here in the gallery today, you have been my inspi-
ration. I will always strive to make this world a better
place for you both.
To the people of Macarthur, thank you for this great
honour you have bestowed upon me. I give a solid
commitment that I will serve my community and coun-
try to the very best of my ability. My door will always
be open and I will give my very best to ensure that the
standard of living in Macarthur is as high as anywhere
in the world and that Macarthur is a place you can
proudly call home, just as I do.
In finishing it would be remiss of me not to thank
the Leader of the coalition, the Hon. Tony Abbott; the
Deputy Leader, the Hon. Julie Bishop; the Hon. Bron-
wyn Bishop; the Hon. Dr Sharman Stone; Mr Scott
Morrison; Mrs Sophie Mirabella; Mr. Alby Schultz;
and Senators Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Marise
Payne for their contribution and support to my cam-
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
paign. I also take this opportunity to thank the Liberal
Party for the honour of allowing me to represent my
community. I thank members of the chamber for their
indulgence today.
Debate (on motion by Mr Clare) adjourned.
AIRPORTS AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr
Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of the Nationals)
(6.32 pm)—When this debate was interrupted last
night, I was talking about the important role that air-
ports play in our economy and the conflicts that often
occur between airports and their neighbours. It is very
important that we recognise the key role that airports
play as a vital piece of our national infrastructure, but it
is also essential that airports live in peace with their
neighbours and that they work cooperatively with those
that surround them.
The Airports Amendment Bill 2010 will make
changes to the master plan arrangements. The current
airport master plan and major development proposed
systems are not necessarily integrated with the off-
airport transport systems or with state and local plan-
ning authorities. Consultation is required under the
current arrangements and it is extensive in most cases.
I think it is fair to say that the airports have got much
better at living and working with their communities
over recent years than was the case perhaps a decade or
so ago. They know that to have a good relationship
with their neighbours improves their capacity to oper-
ate smoothly. Although, to be fair, it must be acknowl-
edged that in some cases conflicts still occur. Some-
times that is because communities might have unrealis-
tic expectations, but sometimes also it is because the
airport has not done a good enough job in actually talk-
ing and working with its neighbours.
In this legislation some proposed developments that
are not canvassed in detail in master plans and that do
not meet the trigger criteria for major development
plans and so are not subject to the requirement for pub-
lic consultation will be picked up. The aviation white
paper identified these issues as problems in the airport
development process. The bill will increase require-
ments for airport master plans and major development
plans to align more closely with state and local plan-
ning. It will require that master plans include a ground
transport plan illustrating how airport developments
will impact the surrounding transport network and will
include analysis on how the master plan aligns with
state and local planning laws. Master plans will be re-
quired to integrate the airport environment strategy
rather than having it separate to the master plan. In
addition, some kinds of development that are deemed
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
incompatible with the operation of an airport site as an
airport will be prohibited. Airports will be able to seek
an exemption from this prohibition in the event that
exceptional circumstances exist.
The bill will also restructure the triggers for the
preparation of major development plans to include de-
velopments with significant community impact, thus
enabling public consultation for all airport develop-
ments that impact on surrounding areas. Additionally,
the bill will seek to streamline certain development
applications. If a development has little community
impact there is currently no provision for airports to
seek an exemption from the major development plan
process. The bill will introduce such an exemption.
The bill will also allow airports to seek a reduction
in the public consultation period from 60 days to 15
days in the event that a major development plan is
aligned with the latest master plan and therefore has
already been subject to public scrutiny. On the other
hand, the bill gives the minister more time to assess
applications. He will have 60 working days, where the
current arrangements give him only 50 working days.
This bill was introduced into the previous parlia-
ment and a Senate inquiry into the bill was set up. A
number of organisations made submissions to the in-
quiry, but the election was called before the committee
could report. Now the bill has been introduced into the
new parliament and the Senate has again referred it to
the Senate Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport
for an inquiry. The subject of airport planning and the
impact of airport development is a controversial one
and it is entirely appropriate that the Senate committee
should canvass opinions from a variety of sources and
allow airports, community organisations, local gov-
ernments and other interested parties to air their con-
cerns. Like all planning legislation, the new arrange-
ments are complex and would benefit from a full and
detailed committee examination.
The committee is currently accepting submissions.
There are many competing interests, and the submis-
sions that the committee has already received—at the
last count I saw there were 28—reflect the fact that
there is widespread community interest in this legisla-
tion. I would certainly encourage any organisations or
individuals that have concerns about this issue to make
a submission before the deadline of 28 October. Of
course, one submission of considerable importance that
the committee will need to take into account is the
submission from the Australian Airports Association,
which represents 270 member airports, including the
airports that will be covered by this legislation. They
have raised a number of areas of concern, and it is ap-
propriate that those areas of concern be properly as-
sessed and that the committee examine whether in fact
this bill needs to be amended to take account of their
concerns or, indeed, the issues raised in some of the
CHAMBER
93
other submissions. This bill really should not have
come up for debate in the House until after the com-
mittee had finalised its inquiry and issued its report,
which is due to occur by 16 November. There is no
reason this bill needs to be debated at this time, and it
should have the benefit of a proper committee inquiry.
It is an important subject, and we could be more fully
informed by the Senate inquiry that is currently under-
way.
Under the new paradigm, bills will need to be con-
sidered also by the committees of the House of Repre-
sentatives where there is a wish to do that. The gov-
ernment will no longer be able to simply a ride rough-
shod over the House of Representatives and send eve-
rything, even if they know it is defective, off to the
Senate in the hope that the Senate will patch up the
faults in the legislation. The reality is that I have al-
ways been uncomfortable as a member of the House of
Representatives with that process, and I recognise that
it occurred under the previous coalition government
just as it has under this one. But why should members
of the House of Representatives be asked to put up
their hands and vote for—or against, for that matter—
legislation that they know to be defective because they
expect the other house to fix up the mess? We should
get the legislation right here. We should have our own
committees of inquiry and investigation so that the leg-
islation is delivered to the Senate in a form that is ca-
pable of being adopted.
I think it is an insult to the Senate and an insult to
the members of the House of Representatives that they
are asked to deal with legislation when it is not in its
final form to receive parliamentary approval. Inquiries
uncover defects in legislation or look at ways in which
it can be improved. Given the contribution that airports
make as a critical part of our national infrastructure, we
would be remiss if we did not take the time to get this
legislation right. The bill will not, of course, be able to
address many of the concerns that will be raised in the
submissions that go to the committee, but I think both
houses of parliament need to take into account the con-
cerns raised in the submissions.
As I said earlier, the airports are vital pieces of eco-
nomic infrastructure. Most people agree that Sydney
Airport is probably the single most important piece of
economic infrastructure in Australia, and I single it out
as an example because it is the busiest airport. Sydney
Airport handles 45 per cent of Australia’s international
airline passengers. The plane loads of overseas visitors
that land in Australia are the basis of our tourism in-
dustry and much of our commerce. The tourism indus-
try is struggling at present and needs low-cost and ef-
fective infrastructure to support its operations. In 2009,
Sydney Airport serviced 33 million passengers, ac-
commodated nearly 290,000 aircraft movements and
handled 647,000 tonnes of freight.
94 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Aviation activity at the airport is projected to in-
crease significantly during the lifetime of its current
master plan. Between 2009 and 2029, annual passenger
numbers are expected to more than double to 78.9 mil-
lion, aircraft movements are expected to increase to
427,000 and airfreight is expected to increase to over
one million tonnes. Either directly or indirectly, Syd-
ney Airport is estimated to generate 200,000 jobs.
These jobs will provide payroll tax revenue to the New
South Wales government totalling around $257 million
in this year alone. The total economic contribution of
Sydney Airport to the national economy is estimated at
$16.5 billion, and it is forecast to rise to $27 billion by
2016. It is quite a staggering statistic that this single
site—this single airport—represents about two per cent
of the entire Australian GDP. So it is a very important
piece of infrastructure.
Other airports make relatively similar contributions
to their local communities and enable Australians
across this sparsely populated country to travel safely
and efficiently and to conduct business or to visit fam-
ily and friends. As such, it is important that these
pieces of infrastructure are not unduly hindered by ex-
cessive regulation and onerous costs. This of course
must be balanced against the interests of the communi-
ties surrounding airports. While it plays a valuable role
in supporting the economy and connecting Australians,
aviation also imposes burdens on communities that
surround airports through increased noise, traffic and
pollution. That is why airport master plans and major
developments are subject to periodic public consulta-
tions.
The bill makes changes to the manner in which
these consultations are to be conducted, and it is im-
portant that it does so as sensibly as possible. The bill
has aroused concern and elicited comment from a
number of aviation industry stakeholders, local gov-
ernments and community groups. Expanding the range
of matters that are to be included in an airport’s master
plan is something that many groups support in princi-
ple, but there is concern that this will result in an in-
creased complexity in airport master plans, and thus
hinder the assessment process, and delay the approval
of master plans or result in more onerous conditions
than currently exist. Requiring master plans to work
with local and state governments to create a good
transport system that fits in well with surrounding
communities is essentially entrenching current prac-
tice, although I know that in many instances local gov-
ernment would like to see current practice work better.
It is also important that we recognise that this coor-
dination with the surrounding transport system benefits
not just the local community but also the airport itself.
Sydney and Brisbane, for instance, have regular elec-
tric train connections, even if they do not make any
money. Other cities have buses and certainly extensive
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
systems of roads. The Brisbane airport is an example of
an operation that gave up a significant amount of its
own land to develop road systems for access to the air-
port but, more importantly from Brisbane’s point of
view, for through traffic north and south around the
city as part of the Gateway Arterial Road. But if state
or local governments are unwilling or unable to con-
tribute to an adequate road network surrounding the
airport then there are clearly problems for all sides. The
Commonwealth has recently committed to significant
road upgrading around the Perth airport, but unfortu-
nately some state governments have proved themselves
to be manifestly incapable of building adequate road
and rail infrastructure to keep up with growth.
The list of proposed developments that would re-
quire a major development plan under the bill has been
criticised as being fundamentally flawed and likely to
lead to unintended and negative outcomes. The bill
also proposes that any alteration to a runway would
require a major development plan and public consulta-
tion and would have to be approved by the minister.
This would seem to apply not simply to alterations that
changed flight paths, the number of aircraft movements
or aircraft noise. Some airports are concerned that,
with no definition of what constitutes ‘altering a run-
way’, routine maintenance of a runway or the installa-
tion of new runway lights—simple and benign runway
works—could require airports to go through the proc-
ess of public consultation and seeking ministerial ap-
proval. This would obviously impose unnecessary
costs on airports, which would be passed on to airlines
and the flying public and waste the time and resources
of both the airports and the government. If carrying out
much-needed maintenance work had to be delayed to
allow for a major development plan to be formulated
and approved, this would potentially compromise avia-
tion safety, which is clearly not the goal of the Airports
Act.
The bill also requires an airport to put together a ma-
jor development plan for any development ‘that is
likely to have a significant impact on the local or re-
gional community’. The lack of precision in this lan-
guage is a cause for concern, as it would apply to de-
velopments that may have a positive impact on the sur-
rounding community as well as those that may have a
negative impact. Indeed, every development has some
kind of impact on the businesses around it or the peo-
ple who live nearby. Surely it is not intended that all of
these be picked up in this legislation. Perhaps the bill
could simply be altered to apply to developments that
may have an adverse impact. There is a risk the vague
language contained in this part of the bill could prompt
airports to refer every development to the Department
of Infrastructure and Transport to determine whether or
not it would require a major development plan. Again,
this imposes undue costs or delays on projects and
works counter to the intent of the bill.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The bill does seek to streamline the planning proc-
ess by enabling the minister for transport to waive the
requirement for a major development plan for terminal
extensions or new taxiways that do not increase the
capacity of the airport. This is a welcome idea in prin-
ciple, but again it is not clear that the need for a major
development plan could ever be waived in practice.
Streamlining the development process where possible
and reasonable is a worthy goal, but I am not sure that
anything will be accomplished through many of these
provisions. Likewise, limiting the consultation period
to 15 days for major development plans associated
with projects that have already been set out in the mas-
ter plan and do not raise any issues that have a signifi-
cant impact on the community is a good idea, but again
it may be difficult to execute in practice. A project that
requires a major development plan necessarily has an
impact on the larger community. As such, it would be
politically difficult for the minister for transport to re-
duce the consultation period, even if the issues of con-
cern had been heard during the consultation period as-
sociated with the master plan. The master plan process
already imposes strict requirements on airport opera-
tors. This is entirely appropriate and necessary to pro-
tect local communities from airport developments that
impose unjustifiably heavy burdens upon them. But it
is important to remember that every requirement im-
posed on airports is inevitably passed on to airlines and
eventually to the flying public. Increasing the regula-
tory burden unnecessarily should be avoided if at all
possible.
The coalition believes that the debate on the bill
should not be occurring in this House until the Senate
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee has
completed its deliberations so that we can take the re-
port of the Senate committee into account when the bill
is debated here. Practices have developed where the
government uses its numbers to force legislation—
even legislation known to contain errors—through the
House of Representatives and expects the Senate
committee process to repair the damage. House of Rep-
resentatives committees have rarely been used to ex-
amine legislation, and usually the only opportunity the
House of Representatives has for detailed considera-
tion is after the bill has come back from the Senate. In
the new parliament, where the Greens and ALP alli-
ance has the numbers in the Senate, so the Senate will
just be a rubber stamp, the role and scrutiny of the
House of Representatives will be very important in
delivering good legislation. So this practice of not lis-
tening to Senate inquiries, or not listening to House of
Representatives inquiries, really has to stop. It is for
that reason that I move:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to
substituting the following words: “the House declines to give
the bill a second reading until the Senate Rural Affairs and
CHAMBER
95
Transport Legislation Committee has reported to the Senate
on its inquiry into the bill”.
Whether or not amendments are required and what
those amendments should be is not yet clear, but we
will take the appropriate action to ensure that Austra-
lia’s airports are well and efficiently regulated. There
are a number of issues of concern that have been
raised. They need to be considered in detail and it is
inappropriate for this House to be dealing with the leg-
islation before that process has been completed. It is
for that reason that we believe the legislation should be
set aside. It can still be debated and completed before
the end of this calendar year if the government chooses
to take that action, but at least the people who have
issues with this legislation will have had the opportu-
nity to be heard. I therefore commend the opposition’s
amendment to House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—
Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Hunt—I second the motion and reserve my
right to speak.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (6.52 pm)—I
rise to welcome the Airports Amendment Bill 2010 and
the reforms moved by the Minister for Infrastructure
and Transport to give local communities a greater
voice and better information about planning and devel-
opment at our nation’s airports. These reforms continue
the implementation of the Australian government’s
aviation white paper, which undertook extensive con-
sultation with the aviation and business sectors and
with communities living in the vicinity of airports. For
my own part, I worked closely with local residents in
my electorate living around Essendon Airport to put
forward a detailed contribution to this process, and I
encourage the minister and the parliament to ensure
that my constituents’ legitimate concerns, which I will
outline, are at the forefront of our minds when consid-
ering this bill.
Essendon Airport is located in the electorate of
Wills. If anyone ever needed an example of how plan-
ning decisions and aviation policy affect peoples’ day-
to-day lives, they need look no further than Essendon
Airport. It has experienced some of the most signifi-
cant shifts in aviation use and commercial operations
of any airport in the country. It has gone from being
Melbourne’s major international and domestic airport
to being light aviation focused to now being a jet fo-
cused airport.
The Essendon Airport 2008 Master Plan states on
page 62 that:
State Planning Policies do not apply at Essendon Airport, and
therefore have not been incorporated …
This is a clear indication that local planning expecta-
tions are not one of the priorities in the airport’s com-
mercial development. So the introduction of a bill to
increase the opportunities for local communities to
96 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
have their say on the airport’s development is one I
very much welcome.
Essendon Airport was first established in the 1920s.
It was Melbourne’s main airport until the opening of
Tullamarine in 1970 saw international flights relocated,
followed by domestic flights in 1971. The airport was
used as a defence facility during the Second World
War. In 1998, Essendon Airport was granted a 50-year
private lease with a 49-year option. The joint venture
company paid just $22 million for the 305-hectare site
located only 11 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD.
At the time, the site was valued between $70 million
and $100 million—yet the lease was given for $22 mil-
lion. That was a remarkable piece of dealing with pub-
lic assets by the former Liberal government.
In May 2001, the then Labor shadow transport min-
ister stated that Labor would support the relocation of
aircraft from Essendon to more suitable airfields. In
October 2008, the Minister for Infrastructure, Trans-
port, Regional Development and Local Government
approved the current master plan, which has meant that
aviation operations will continue. The current man-
agement direction of Essendon Airport is to cater for
the increased demand in the corporate jet market, at the
expense of a declining light propeller driven aviation
sector, and to provide a base for the state’s emergency
service air wings. Essendon Airport Pty Ltd has also
been investigating ways to maximise commercial op-
portunities on non-aviation parcels of land throughout
the airport.
At no time during any of these significant changes
to Essendon Airport’s aviation and commercial opera-
tional focus, particularly the privatisation phase, was
the local community seriously consulted or their views
adhered to. My constituents have had to live with the
airport’s ongoing aviation operations in their backyard
for many years now and residents have made it clear to
me time and time again that Essendon Airport is well
and truly past its use-by-date. It is situated in the mid-
dle of highly dense built-up communities; has a history
of air accidents that have claimed lives; generates sig-
nificant noise and disturbances, particularly during the
curfew period; has a negative effect on local air quality
through ground-running operations close to homes; and
has a negative impact on local amenity and liveability.
My view and the view of my constituents is that avia-
tion operations should be phased out and reallocated to
more suitable airfields. Essendon Airport’s land could
then be put to alternative use to generate more local
jobs and help boost local economic activity, while lift-
ing local amenity and improving community safety. All
of this is consistent with the Victorian government’s
Melbourne 2030 plan.
I welcome the fact that this bill will help give the lo-
cal community a better chance to have a say on the
planning and development of Essendon Airport. The
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
bill will support more effective airport planning, com-
munity consultation and better alignment with state and
local planning guidelines. It requires master plans to
outline the extent of consistency with local planning
schemes. If the plans are not consistent with relevant
planning schemes they must outline why they are not.
The proposed amendments will allow the minister to
extend the master plan and major development plan
assessment period up to 60 days from the current 50-
day period. The bill will require master plans to outline
ground transport linkages and provide detailed infor-
mation on proposed non-aeronautical developments
and the likely effect on jobs. It will require public con-
sultation on significant changes to airport runways. It
will prohibit types of developments which are incom-
patible with the operation of an airport site. It will also
increase the triggers requiring airports to lodge major
development plans to include any developments that
are likely to have a significant impact on the local
community. These are all necessary changes to make
airport planners more accountable to local communi-
ties and to give the neighbours of airports a greater say
in what their local neighbourhoods look like. These
changes are in addition to the establishment by the
minister of the Essendon Airport Community Consulta-
tive Committee, which I am now a member of and
which has the task of designing a Fly Neighbourly
Agreement as well as working through issues of con-
cern to local residents as they arise.
I have always held regular meetings with local resi-
dents living around the airport to ensure that I am fully
aware of their views and concerns regarding ongoing
and emerging issues. In March 2007 and June 2007, I
held two community meetings which attracted a com-
bined total of over 400 residents. I have previously
reported the discussion and outcome of these meetings
to the House. In May 2008 and February 2009, I made
submissions to the Australian government’s national
aviation policy review recommending more consistent
and stringent planning guidelines for airport develop-
ment and master plan processes. In those submissions I
stated that airport planning guidelines should be con-
sistent with local and state government planning
frameworks and that local residents should be con-
sulted.
In March 2008 I made a joint submission with the
state member for Essendon, Judy Maddigan, to the Es-
sendon Airport master plan process, recommending
minimum 20-metre setback buffer zones between the
airport perimeter, the surrounding community and resi-
dential back fences. Essendon Airport has given an in-
principle agreement not to construct any developments
within these areas and have indicated to me that they
will formalise this recommendation through the next
master plan process. However, in the absence of any
formal and clear planning guidelines not all planning
issues have been addressed to meet local expectations.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The 2008 draft master plan indicated that the Victorian
government was intending to construct new and mod-
ern aviation infrastructure for its police and ambulance
air wing services. These emergency services have been
based at Essendon for some time and the proposed up-
grading of their base did not raise many eyebrows at
the time.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—
Order! It being 7.00 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Anti-Poverty Week
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (7.00 pm)—I rise to-
day to speak about Anti-Poverty Week, an expansion of
Anti-Poverty Day, which was held on October 17.
Anti-Poverty Week is a nationwide campaign with the
stated aims of, firstly, strengthening public understand-
ing of the causes and consequences of poverty and
hardship around the world and in Australia and, sec-
ondly, encouraging research, discussion and action to
address these challenges, including action by individu-
als, communities, organisations and governments.
Across Australia this week people are gathering for
food drives, fundraisers, trivia nights, art exhibitions,
church services, seminars, workshops and festivals in
the name of raising awareness on this important issue. I
am deeply committed to eradicating poverty wherever
possible, and I am a fierce advocate for the Millennium
Development Goals.
In September, a UN summit was held in New York
to re-affirm the commitment to achieve the goals by
2015. The summit included a $40 billion commitment
for the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s
Health. The strategy will aim to: save the lives of more
than 16 million women and children; prevent 33 mil-
lion unwanted pregnancies; protect 120 million chil-
dren from pneumonia and 88 million children from
stunted growth due to malnutrition; ensure that access
for women and children to quality facilities and skilled
health workers is improved; and advance the control of
deadly diseases such as malaria and HIV-AIDS. I have
firsthand experience of the last issue. As many in this
House would know, my husband is from New Guinea
and we have had many family members who have suf-
fered, and indeed lost their lives, as a result of both
these diseases.
As stated on the UN summit outcome document, the
MDGs are achievable, but:
Every effort must now be made to accelerate progress to
achieve these goals through national action plans, policies
and strategies that address barriers to progress.
The eight goals which we continue to promote—and I
think it is important to highlight them tonight—are: to
eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; to achieve uni-
CHAMBER
97
versal primary education; to promote gender equality
and empower women; to reduce child mortality; to im-
prove maternal health; to combat HIV-AIDS, malaria
and other diseases; to ensure environmental sustain-
ability; and to develop a global partnership for devel-
opment. This final goal is plainly not the least in im-
portance.
Anti-Poverty Week provides us with an opportunity
to remember that poverty is also something that is in-
deed happening in our own backyard. The time tonight
does not allow me to expand on this significantly but I
do want to make a few points. First, it is important that
we face the matter of poverty in terms of homelessness
and joblessness in our own local communities, and I
wish to acknowledge all those non-government and
volunteer organisations that are working very hard on
the ground to respond to those challenges.
I also wish to acknowledge the many community
organisations and not-for-profit-organisations that this
week have focused on poverty being an important issue
for us to respond to. One such organisation is the Blue
Mountains TEAR group, which seeks to raise aware-
ness about social justice issues by partnering with
church and aid organisations, locally and around the
world. TEAR is also one of the key Christian organisa-
tions supporting the Micah Challenge, which focuses
on delivering better outcomes for the poorer communi-
ties across the globe. Both TEAR and Micah seek to
work within the key framework of the Millennium De-
velopment Goals which I mentioned earlier.
We have an urgent duty to address the matter of
poverty, not just around the globe but also in our local
communities. In my final remark, can I note that 2015
is approaching rapidly and we, together with the na-
tions in our region and around the world that also have
committed to the Millennium Development Goals, can
work together to make a difference. (Time expired)
Calwell Electorate: Mental Health
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (7.05 pm)—I would
like to bring to the attention of the House two signifi-
cant events related to mental health that recently took
place in my electorate of Calwell. The events coincided
with Mental Health Week, which ran from 10-16 Octo-
ber, and World Mental Health Day, on 10 October, and
marked significant initiatives which will determine
how mental health issues are prevented, and indeed
treated, in my electorate of Calwell over the coming
years.
The first launch was the ABC plan, or the ‘Act-
Belong-Commit’ campaign plan, which is aimed at
promoting a mentally healthy Hume and Moreland,
and the other was the opening of the Broadmeadows
prevention and recovery centre. The ABC plan places
an emphasis on connecting to the community, while the
Broadmeadows centre is part of an $11 million federal
Labor government investment to open three similar
98 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
centres that will change the way mental illness is ap-
proached in Melbourne’s north-west.
Mental health is a serious issue and it has risen to
prominence in recent times, partly because of the very
good work of Australian of the Year and mental health
advocate Professor Patrick McGorry. I recently had the
opportunity of catching up with Professor McGorry in
Melbourne, where I had the opportunity to discuss
mental health issues with him both in general and also
as they relate specifically to my electorate of Calwell.
The two launches in my electorate were significant
indicators of the heightened awareness of mental health
issues and how this awareness is translated into the
community. Key issues that emerged from the launches
focused on the importance of preventative mental
health care, encouraging an active connection to the
community and, of course, easing social isolation. The
ABC plan developed by Curtin University of Technol-
ogy, in Western Australia, was originally inspired by
the Victorian Together We Do Better campaign, with a
view to making the ABC Hume and Moreland plan one
of the first pilot programs in Australia. The ABC plan
shows beyond any reasonable doubt that social con-
nectedness is one of the most powerful determinants of
our wellbeing. The more integrated we are with our
community, the less likely we are to experience ill-
nesses which range from the common cold to more
serious and debilitating illnesses such as heart disease
and depression.
Mental health professor and guest speaker at the
ABC launch, Professor Tony Jorm, said that, of the
109,000 people over the age of 16 in the city of
Hume—and indeed my electorate of Calwell—about
22,500 would suffer mental illness. Professor Jorm said
that our area had a higher rate of certain mental health
risk factors: we have more young people, greater un-
employment and more people who are socioeconomi-
cally disadvantaged. He also said that the area’s large
population of people from non-English-speaking back-
grounds sometimes came from cultures where mental
illness is more stigmatised, making it harder for them
to seek help and to talk about their conditions.
Calwell is home to 132 diverse cultural groups, who
are often unaware of the services available to them.
The ABC plan responds to this as part of addressing a
2008 report from North Western Mental Health. The
plan aims to remedy the situation by involving 20
agencies including the Hume City Council and
Dianella Community Health to help make communities
more proactive in this area.
Furthermore, the 2008 Victorian Population Health
Survey released this month found that my electorate
had the highest proportion of self-reported psychologi-
cal distress in the state. The opening of the Broad-
meadows prevention and recovery centre last Thursday
is crucial to addressing this issue. The opening of the
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
centre came about as a result of a partnership between
the North West Area Mental Health Service and Mind,
which is an organisation which focuses on helping
people manage their mental illness. The centre’s ser-
vices are often referred to as ‘step up/step down’ pro-
grams because they allow for different levels of mental
health care ranging from preventing mental relapses to
short-term intensive residential programs.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the
importance of the federal Labor government’s promise
to invest $276.9 million over four years to provide
more psychology and psychiatry services and commu-
nity support, to invest more in direct suicide prevention
and crisis intervention and to promote good mental
health in young people.
Both initiatives are to be commended for recognis-
ing that social inclusion and connectedness are funda-
mental to maintaining good mental health. (Time ex-
pired)
Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the
Northern Territory
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (7.10 pm)—I rise to talk
about the Inquiry into the Child Protection System in
the Northern Territory. On Monday, 18 October 2010,
yet another report was released that will bring distress
to all caring human beings about the treatment of chil-
dren in the Northern Territory. The Inquiry into the
Child Protection System in the Northern Territory was
announced by the then Minister for Child Protection,
the Hon. Malarndirri McCarthy, on 11 November 2009
and the board of inquiry was appointed by the Chief
Minister, the Hon. Paul Henderson, on 9 December
2009. The inquiry made a total of 147 recommenda-
tions but in reality is a distressing indictment of a sys-
tem that has failed our children.
I stand here in this place both saddened and angry at
what has occurred over a long period of time. I have
listened to the response of the Northern Territory Labor
government and Minister Macklin on how they have
spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet they have
not successfully protected these children. When I hear
these comments, it is as if they are saying that by
spending this money it somehow absolves them of any
type of responsibility or accountability. It drives me to
ask: who is responsible? Why shouldn’t those respon-
sible for administering these programs accept some of
the blame? Why shouldn’t parents accept some of the
blame? Why shouldn’t people who abuse their children
physically, mentally and emotionally be dealt with the
most harshly? Blessed are the children. There is noth-
ing more blessed than the innocence of a child. To
abuse that trust is to set up a future society for failure.
It is simply not good enough to sit back and say,
‘We’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars.’
Of the 147 recommendations, two relate directly to
actions as needed by the Commonwealth government. I
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
will read out these recommendations, but I point out
that the Hon. Kevin Andrews MP, shadow minister for
families, housing and human services, has already in-
dicated that the coalition supports both these recom-
mendations. They are recommendations 6.2 and 6.4.
Recommendation 6.2 is:
That the Northern Territory Government explores with the
Commonwealth the (trial) development (or expansion of)
existing infrastructure in remote areas (e.g. women’s safe
houses, day care centres, health clinics) to provide on-
community therapeutic residential options for mothers and
small children where the latter have been identified as being
at risk of removal into foster care because of ‘failure-to-
thrive’, neglect, or otherwise inadequate parenting. The trial
of such options would need to include the development of a
therapeutic intervention model and staffing /supervision op-
tions.
Recommendation 6.4 is:
That the Northern Territory Government seeks the coopera-
tion of the Commonwealth in undertaking a strategic review
of child and family wellbeing services in the Northern Terri-
tory. The review should inform the development and imple-
mentation of a joint strategic plan around service planning
and funding in order to overcome fragmentation, inefficien-
cies and duplication and to target services where they are
most needed.
Let me put both these options this way. The Common-
wealth must adopt a ‘big brother’ approach to this
problem. I do not believe that any Australian—or any
Territorian, for that matter—will oppose the protection
of children. It is absolutely unspeakable that a society
like Australia in 2010 could be faced with such horren-
dous outcomes as those outlined in this report.
Let me make it clear to the Gillard Labor govern-
ment and to the Henderson Labor government: you are
being judged. You are being watched and you will be
judged. I do not care how much money you tell the
Northern Territory society you will pay. I want to know
how many children’s lives have been bettered and
saved. I also call on Australia’s leaders, especially our
Indigenous leaders, to step forward because your chil-
dren, our children, need you. I ask all members of this
place to ensure we keep a vigilant watch on how this
matter is addressed.
Page Electorate
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (7.15 pm)—I want to talk about
some of the wonderful events that I have been able to
attend in my electorate of Page over recent times. I
attended one in September, when a palliative care vol-
unteers support service invited me to meet with the
palliative care volunteers. I was able to listen firsthand
to the stories about the wonderful job that they do. It is
very exacting work and it is all voluntary but it is also
wonderfully enriching. I was able to hear some of
those stories. The service has been operating for six
years now, all voluntary, supported through Libby
Shearer, the manager of volunteer services community
CHAMBER
99
programs in Grafton, and supported widely throughout
the community and also supported by some of our ser-
vice clubs. They have given vital support to that ser-
vice over the years, as some of the clubs do right
across our communities. So I want to thank them for
the work that they do and for having me there as their
guest. I am following up for them to do some advocacy
around better services for palliative care. It is one of
those issues that really is just care and it is part and
parcel of what happens in health. Yes, we always need
volunteers to supplement and to complement, but the
North Coast Area Health Service does provide some
support to the service as well.
Another event I went to was with Uniting Care Age-
ing, the official opening of their palliative care suite in
Lismore. It was an opening and naming ceremony of a
special room like a unit, wonderfully done and organ-
ised through the Lismore-Caroona auxiliary. It is Ka-
lina Palliative Care Room. It also got a special name on
the day, Waratah. It is a special room for end-of-life
and the opening was something the whole staff and
community and the residents were involved in. Mollie
Strong gave the address on behalf of the Uniting Care
Ageing North Coast regional board. She is also the
state president of the Hospitals Auxiliary for New
South Wales and does wonderful work in that role.
I also was going to attend the Kyogle Pastoral, Agri-
cultural and Horticultural Society event. Unfortunately
there was lots of rain but we are resilient and still
pressed on. I want to thank the president, Les O’Reilly,
and secretary Wendy Piggott, but I did not have a voice
so I could not actually go and open it.
Mr Secker—That would be a first.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—You seem to have re-
gained your voice.
Ms SAFFIN—That is right. I regained it in time to
get here. I had been around a lot of smokers, which I
had not been for a long time, and it affected my voice.
The event went off really well. The state member was
able to be there. I am only sorry I could not be there,
but I wanted to talk about it.
This weekend in Lismore we have got the North
Coast National, held at the showgrounds over a few
days. It is celebrating its 125th anniversary and prom-
ises to be one of the biggest and the best. I want to
thank all the people involved in it, particularly John
Gibson.
A couple of other events happened a few months
ago but it is my first opportunity to mention them. Ca-
sino is a beef capital of Australia and we have Casino
Beef Week. It has a wonderful committee, again vol-
unteers, headed up by Stuart George, who is a council-
lor and Deputy Mayor of Richmond Valley Council.
He did a really great job this year of making it success-
ful. It is a very important industry in our area. We have
100 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
a big processing centre there, the Northern Meat Coop-
erative. It has nearly a thousand employees and that is
a big employer in a small but growing and thriving
country town. Casino is also host to Primex, which is
regional Australia’s premier primary industry exhibi-
tion. It has the largest agricultural machinery and
commercial sectors that cater for almost every aspect
of primary industry. That is a wonderful event which
goes over a whole week. It was very successful. I was
able to have a stall there along with other people, meet
up with a lot of friends and make new friends.
Swan Electorate: Langford Senior Citizens Club
Mr IRONS (Swan) (7.20 pm)—It is a bit of deja vu
for me to be following the member for Page, because I
followed her maiden speech with my maiden speech. A
lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. It is
good to see she has got her voice back. I look forward
to the maiden speech next week of the new member for
Longman, who sits next to me in the House.
I rise this evening to brief the House on the progress
of my campaign to protect the Langford and Districts
Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club from a new
council lease payment. By way of background for in-
terested members, the Langford Senior Citizens Club is
a place for seniors to get together and take part in
shared activities, including regular bingo sessions.
Langford itself has a significant retired community
made up of good and genuine people who have made a
positive contribution to society throughout their lives. I
have visited the club on several occasions and I must
say that it is an uplifting and happy social club that
provides a good service to the community and it is a
club that is highly valued by the local community.
Many local councils, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I am
sure this would be the same in your electorate of
Fisher—show respect for our older community by
making seniors clubs and organisations exempt from
lease payments on their facilities. Councils in my elec-
torate that deserve particular credit for this include the
City of Canning, City of South Perth and City of Bel-
mont. These arrangements are good for the clubs, good
for seniors and good for the community. Most ratepay-
ers do not mind their rates being used to support youth
and seniors. Lease payments make it difficult for sen-
iors clubs to stay afloat without putting membership
fees up, which would make membership impossible for
seniors doing it tough. At a time when society is wor-
ried about seniors being isolated we should be doing
everything we can to make it easier for seniors to be a
part of the community.
For years this principle has extended to the Langford
Senior Citizens Club, and the City of Gosnells should
be congratulated for this. During this time the club has
been able to flourish, providing a great service to the
community. However, just a few months ago staff at
the City of Gosnells council contacted the Langford
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Senior Citizens Club with plans to change this ar-
rangement and charge the Langford and Districts Sen-
ior Citizens and Retired Persons Club lease payments.
The proposed charges were quite substantial, with
council staff suggesting two options. Option 1 was a
lease including outgoings, in which cleaning is in-
cluded. The proposed fees were estimated at $1,575 for
the first year going up to $6,300 in year 4. Option 2
was based on an hourly charge with a share base facil-
ity, starting with a year 1 cost of $1,458 and going up
to $2,916 in year 4. But the sharing factor made it vir-
tually impossible for them to keep their club running.
As you can probably imagine this caused great dis-
tress to the organisers of the club and they contacted
me for assistance. The organisers have managed to
keep membership down to just $7 a year, making it
accessible to most people in the community, many of
whom survive solely on pension payments. After meet-
ing with the treasurer, Myra Cunningham, it became
clear that they could not afford to pay proposed lease
payments that would total $1,500 in the first year and
rise steeply in subsequent years. It looked likely that,
should Langford Senior Citizens Club be forced to
meet these payments, they would have to disband. This
would of course be devastating for the Langford com-
munity. As a response, I launched a petition in the
Langford community against the proposals and there
has been a fantastic response from local residents with
hundreds signing and returning forms to my office. It
was particularly pleasing to receive signatures from
young an old alike, demonstrating that the club is
highly valued by the entire community. I would like to
thank all residents for their support.
I used the results of this petition in a letter to City of
Gosnells councillors ahead of their vote on the staff
recommendations last Tuesday and I am pleased to
advise the House that community will was heard, with
councillors voting against the proposed changes and
deciding instead to refer the item back for further con-
sideration. This is certainly a reprieve for the Langford
Senior Citizens Club and I thank the councillors for the
clear thinking and process they showed last Tuesday.
The Langford Senior Citizens Club is happy with this
short-term success, although it is important for us to
continue to be vigilant as council staff reconsider their
options. It is likely they will sit down with the club and
negotiate, and I am happy to provide the senior citizens
with support if and when this happens.
In closing, our seniors, who have contributed so
much to our society over their lifetimes, should be
treated with compassion and respect by local councils.
Many councils do, and they deserve credit for it. I
would like to congratulate the City of Gosnells council
for listening to the people and rejecting moves to im-
pose impossible payments on the Langford and Dis-
tricts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Greenway Electorate: Health Services
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (7.25 pm)—I think
we can all agree that few things are more important
than the health of our family and friends. That is why I
have made fighting for better healthcare for our com-
munity one of my top priorities as the member for
Greenway. Blacktown-Mt Druitt Hospital is one hospi-
tal with two campuses physically located in the elec-
torates of Greenway and Chifley respectively but ser-
vicing patients from both.
Two weeks ago I met with senior staff at Blacktown
Hospital—Professor Peter Zelas, the executive medical
director for Blacktown Hospital, and Kate Murphy, the
hospital’s acting general manager—to discuss the fu-
ture healthcare needs of our local community. It was a
great opportunity to listen to and exchange ideas with
the hospital about their strategic plan to meet the health
needs of our community and to see how I, as their rep-
resentative in the federal parliament, could be the most
effective advocate to deliver the best outcomes for
residents in west and north-west Sydney.
I previously served as a director of the Sydney West
Area Health Service, so I know there is growing de-
mand for health services in our region and the chal-
lenges of service delivery in an area of both rapidly
expanding population and, unfortunately, some of the
highest presentation and mortality rates in areas such
as cardiovascular disease and respiratory illness. As I
said in my first speech in this place, our community is
Australia’s nursery, with eight per cent of the popula-
tion under the age of five, which is second only to the
Northern Territory. Significant greenfield residential
development is currently occurring in north-west Syd-
ney, particularly in my electorate and the neighbouring
electorate of Chifley. Indeed, it is a statistical fact that
the population growth in the Blacktown local govern-
ment area far exceeds that of the Parramatta local gov-
ernment area in which Westmead Hospital is located.
According to the NSW Department of Health’s De-
mand and Performance Evaluation branch, Blacktown-
Mt Druitt Hospital has one of the highest levels of
emergency department presentations—higher than
Westmead Hospital, higher than RPA and higher than
Nepean Hospital. The need for more resources at
Blacktown Hospital is further highlighted by the fact
that there is, at any one time, a high level of patients
from the Blacktown local government area in West-
mead Hospital. As such, it is clear that the community I
represent is a region in great need of the best-quality
health services.
The government’s historic health reforms provide
the perfect opportunity to address these disparities and
respond to the growing health needs of west and north-
west Sydney. It is an opportunity we cannot afford to
squander. We must get it right. In particular, a guaran-
teed majority level of Commonwealth funding; the
CHAMBER
101
establishment of local health networks; and, activity
based funding will enable us to address these concerns
by ensuring that health services are properly resourced
and allocated as efficiently as possible. Hospitals will
also have new national standards to meet in areas such
as elective surgery, emergency departments and safety
and quality of care.
I think it is also important to remind ourselves that it
was only in April this year that the historic COAG
agreement was reached, whereby the Commonwealth
government became the majority funder of services,
capital and research and training in our public hospi-
tals. I have been in ongoing discussions with the minis-
ter for health and she has been a frequent visitor to
Blacktown Hospital during and post the federal elec-
tion. I thank the minister for the interest she has shown
in the health needs of my electorate and I am sure the
member for Chifley echoes my sentiments. We look
forward to working with her to deliver more services
for the residents of west and north-west Sydney. And
from my discussions with local health administrators, it
is clear they also want to work with the government to
ensure that our community has the health services we
need to meet projected population growth and to help
address the geographic disparities that currently exist
in health outcomes.
I am particularly encouraged by the objectives of
Blacktown Hospital to pursue a variety of modes of
care that reflect, for example, the importance of pre-
ventative health measures. The figure that has been
quoted to me by the hospital is that for every notional
health dollar that is spent, a mere two cents is invested
in preventative health and the remainder is spent on
treatment. It is my objective to work with my colleague
the member for Chifley and with the staff of Black-
town Hospital to ensure better health services are de-
livered.
It is my objective to build on the already significant
investments that have been made by the Common-
wealth government to local health services. These in-
clude $15 million for the Blacktown GP superclinic to
take the pressure off Blacktown Hospital’s emergency
department; $17.6 million for the construction of the
University of Western Sydney’s clinical school and
research and education centre at Blacktown Hospital
which will train more doctors, nurses and health pro-
fessionals for Western Sydney; $4.2 million for 18 ad-
ditional beds at Blacktown Hospital, including six new
acute beds and 12 new emergency beds; and $854,000
for new equipment at Blacktown Hospital, including a
new defibrillator, heart-monitoring and breathing ma-
chines and urological equipment. Local residents can
be assured that I have been and will continue to be a
strong fighter on their behalf to improve local health
services in Greenway. (Time expired)
102 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Personal Services Income
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (7.30 pm)—I have a cou-
ple of issues I would like to raise tonight, one a famil-
iar one and one a very much local achievement that I
would like to share with the House. The first issue con-
cerns personal services income and the ongoing assault
of the Gillard government on self-employed and inde-
pendent contracting people. We have been witness to
one of the most extraordinary arrays of weasel words,
of slick billy sophistry and of what I think are mislead-
ing claims about what has been going on within the
government, at a time when more than two million
people derive their livelihoods from independent con-
tracting.
It was very clear, prior to the 2007 election. The
then Labor opposition said to the independent contract-
ing community that they would make no change to the
personal services income tax laws. It was that simple;
it was that straightforward; it was that reassuring. ‘No
change’ were the words. The Labor Party earned some
credit from the independent contracting community for
being so clear and upfront—but, my, has so much
changed! Within a short period of months after the
election of the Labor government we saw the Board of
Taxation with a review sponsored by Senator Nick
Sherry claiming that the whole system was a threat to
the integrity of the tax system and that independent
contracting was somehow was depriving employees of
their entitlements, not for one minute recognising its
important economic contribution, that self-employment
is a virtuous and honourable ways to earn a livelihood
and the key economic driver that independent contrac-
tors were providing right throughout our community.
We pressed the issue. Had the government changed
its mind? Were they going to backflip on these very
clear assurances? We saw Senator Sherry laud the re-
port for change and sponsor it to the Henry tax review,
completely contrary to the assurances that had been
given. Then it went off to the Henry tax review. The
government had ruled out a number of Henry tax re-
view recommendations quite explicitly, but not the
recommendation to turn on its head the personal ser-
vices income tax regime that governed the way in
which independent contracting and self-employed peo-
ple interacted with the tax office.
Then, leading up to the most recent election, we
could not get the government to repeat their assurance.
We saw every weasel word, all the ducking and weav-
ing—everything you could possibly imagine to tell the
independent contracting community that something
was on. Then after the ALP national conference, what
did we learn? We learned through the media that a se-
cret task force involving senior government ministers
and unions had been set up to attack this very issue to
undermine the reassurance that had been given. In re-
cent weeks we have pressed the government for clarity:
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
what are their plans? All we could get out of the new
Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, is that there is no
desire for change. I am not sure what stimulates Bill
Shorten’s desire, but being in secret meetings with un-
ions may well go some way towards stimulating that
desire. But could we get those simple, straightforward
words, ‘no change’? No, we could not get that assur-
ance.
Today in Senate estimates, when Senator Sherry was
asked about his involvement in these secret meetings—
meetings reported in the Financial Review—and the
unions’ involvement and the number of them before the
election, Senator Sherry said, ‘No, there were no such
meetings.’ You could almost hear the clunk as the Fin
Review journalists fell off their chairs at what seemed a
blatant contradiction of what is known to be the case.
Having sponsored this assault—this attack on self-
employed and independent contracting people—and
having lauded recommendations to turn on its head the
very system that Labor promised it would make no
change to, Senator Sherry was asked what representa-
tion he is now making on behalf of the small busi-
nesses whose minister he is supposed to be. Is he high-
lighting the grave concerns his own action has gener-
ated? We got told in Senate estimates: ‘Nothing to do
with Senator Sherry anymore. He’s no longer the As-
sistant Treasurer.’ That is the point, Senator Sherry:
you are now the Minister for Small Business. You are
supposed to be out there advocating for the small busi-
ness community, for the more than two million inde-
pendent contractors and self-employed people. They
are the backbone of so many communities. They are
small business entrepreneurs. You are supposed to be
their advocate. Simply saying that you will take no
action, because you are no longer the Assistant Treas-
urer, just highlights how small business has been re-
duced to a sideshow within this Gillard government
and how Labor just does not care for small business.
This complete neglect of a crucial community
within our economy and a crucial group of people who
provide opportunities and enterprise right across this
continent must stop. Those people from Labor who
claim, however falsely, that they have an interest in
small business need to get their Minister for Small
Business to take an interest. He was recognised as hos-
tile to small business as Assistant Treasurer; he has
proven himself to be completely indifferent and inef-
fective as minister now. Something has got to change.
This cast on my foot reflects me trying to kick Labor
into having some interest in small business. They need
to get on with it and do it now. (Time expired)
Gene Patents
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (7.35 pm)—I want to place
on record my gratitude to those members who spoke in
support of my motion relating to gene patents that was
debated on Monday, 18 October: the members for
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Moore, Page, Moreton, Mallee, Greenway, Robertson
and Wentworth. We spoke of how patents over human
genes are preventing Australian doctors and scientific
researchers from carrying out testing for disease and
research for treatments because these patents prevent
access to the underlying genes causing disease. We also
spoke of our collective bewilderment as to how patents
could even be granted over genes, given that they are
naturally occurring phenomena and not inventions.
Tonight I wish to speak to a related aspect of the
gene patents debate, and that is the direct link between
the granting of gene patents and the cost to the PBS in
the supply of essential biomedicines to the Australian
people. I will illustrate this with the specific case of
erythropoietin. Two decades ago a 22-year patent enti-
tled ‘Polypeptides of erythropoietin’ was granted by IP
Australia to Kirin-Amgen, a US biotechnology giant.
Amgen is the world’s largest biotechnology company,
and it is easy to understand why once you know of the
billions of dollars it has received on the back of this
one patent. Erythropoietin, also known as EPO, is a
naturally occurring human protein. It controls the pro-
duction of red blood cells in the human body, a func-
tion it has performed as humans have evolved. EPO is
given to patients on chemotherapy and kidney dialysis.
In 1983 one of Amgen’s scientists, Dr Lin, identified
the human gene that regulates the production of EPO in
the body. He was only able to do this because Amgen
was given exclusive access to samples of this sub-
stance extracted from human urine by a US academic
scientist. That scientist, Dr Goldwasser, had received
substantial amounts of US taxpayer research funds to
undertake his research. But having gained a valuable
biological sample he gave it exclusively to Amgen,
which used it to identify the human gene which con-
tains the genetic information for EPO.
The genetic sequence of the human gene was not in-
vented by Amgen. In fact it is identical to the human
gene as it exists in every human being. This is an un-
deniable fact, as a US court found in 1989. The court
said:
… the overwhelming evidence, including Amgen’s own ad-
missions, establishes that uEPO—
human EPO—
and rEPO—
synthetic EPO—
are the same product. The EPO gene used to produce rEPO is
the same EPO gene as the human body uses to produce
uEPO. The amino acid sequences of human uEPO and rEPO
are identical.
But on the basis that Amgen had been the first to iden-
tify the gene and isolate it—that is, merely remove it
from the human body—IP Australia decided that Am-
gen had met the patentability criteria provided by sec-
tion 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act, namely that it had in-
vented erythropoietin.
CHAMBER
103
How can this be so? A human gene carries the ge-
netic information common to all humans. It might be a
chemical but its sole function is to store biological in-
formation, much as a DVD or CD stores digital infor-
mation, so that when it is played by the human body
the end result is a protein. But there is an important
distinction. While the digital information stored on a
DVD is the result of human creativity, a human gene
and the information it contains is a product of nature.
As a result of the grant of this patent over the EPO
gene to Amgen, the cost to the Australian taxpayer
through the PBS has been over $1.5 billion. But the
exorbitant cost of this biomedicine, which is little more
than a synthetic form of a naturally occurring biologi-
cal material, has been exacerbated because, during the
time when Amgen held an exclusive 22-year monop-
oly, it was the exclusive supplier of this biomedicine
under the PBS. Since their introduction on the PBS,
EPO biomedicines have been No. 1 in the PBS Highly
Specialised Drugs list. In 2006, the last year of Am-
gen’s patent, the cost of EPO to the PBS was nearly
$100 million.
What this has also meant is that Australian compa-
nies were unable to manufacture EPO in Australia. Nor
were they able to supply it in competition to Amgen.
Not only did this mean that the cost of EPO to the PBS
was much higher than it needed to be, but it meant the
loss of Australian jobs in Australia’s generic medicines
industry. Furthermore it has prevented Australian R&D
into EPO biomedicines.
In the long term we know that genetics is going to
play an even greater role in the health of Australians
and so it is critical that this parliament eradicate these
morally offensive, legally unjustified and research-
suppressing gene patents once and for all. We must
return innovative competition to Australian scientists
and to Australian manufacturers of generic biomedi-
cine so that they can work together to improve health
outcomes, spark deeper and wider research and mas-
sively reduce the unnecessary impost on the Australian
taxpayer.
Road Infrastructure
Mr COULTON (Parkes) (7.40 pm)—Tonight I rise
to speak on an issue that is of grave concern to the
people of regional Australia, including the people of
the electorate of Parkes, and that is the issue of local
rural roads. As most people would realise, nearly eve-
rything that we find on our supermarket shelves starts
its journey on a local road. As the face of agriculture
has changed over time, the funding for rural roads has
not kept pace. That has prompted the formation of a
new group within Australia called the Australian Rural
Road Group, which is very much in its infancy but has
a membership of rural councils with agricultural pro-
duction in excess of $100 million per year.
104 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Australian Rural Road Group presented at the
National Local Roads and Transport Congress in Bun-
bury in Western Australia last week to rousing applause
from delegates, who felt at last there was someone
planning to tackle the issue of local rural roads head-
on. The Australian Rural Road Group have identified
several methods of attack to approach this problem.
Over the years, the level of asset management and re-
porting from local government has been less than satis-
factory. There has been an improvement over the last
few years, but at the moment there is not a nationally
unified, uniform method of asset management of local
roads. That is one of the first things that the group are
lobbying for—that there be an asset management sys-
tem that can identify the issue right across Australia.
Their preliminary studies point to an annual shortfall of
$3 billion in Australia in these roads.
What does this mean? In my electorate I have agri-
cultural businesses that are generating produce worth
millions of dollars. They are expected to meet market
contracts, with grain and livestock, on roads that were
built in the time of Cobb and Co. and are very little
different from that time. As well as getting produce to
market, people need to get their children to school. A
lot of farm people work off farm as well and need to
get to their place of employment or into town for
medical emergencies and the like. Last week I went to
the village of North Star, which is in an area known as
the Golden Triangle in north-west New South Wales. I
met with a farmer who, two weeks out from this year’s
grain harvest, is still trying to deliver last year’s grain.
He has contracts to meet but he has been able to shift
very little grain for the last couple of months because
of the wet weather we have been having. This is caus-
ing enormous financial hardship to this farmer, and he
is just a small example of what is happening right
across the country.
While I was on this road visiting Mr Greg Hohn,
and looking at the condition of the road that he has to
use to deliver his grain, I spoke to a neighbour, a lady
who was going to collect her children from the school
bus. She explained to me that the week before she had
been hopelessly bogged in her four-wheel-drive vehicle
trying to get her kids to school. The rural roads group
was formed by the Gwydir and Moree shire councils—
they were the nucleus—and has now grown exponen-
tially. Their membership is coming to Canberra next
week. They are meeting with Minister Albanese and
Minister Crean. I thank them for their time and I thank
the member for Fremantle, who has just left, for help-
ing facilitate that meeting for me. That will start the
ball rolling to finding a clear and definite method to
tackle the problem of the gross underfunding of local
roads and the severe productivity brake that this is put-
ting on the development of regional Australia.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Cunningham Electorate: Aspect South Coast School
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (7.45 pm)—On 17 Sep-
tember I was invited to attend a thankyou morning tea
at one of my local schools at Corrimal. It was the As-
pect South Coast School. They were having a morning
tea to say thank you to a whole variety of people in the
community who have undertaken activities in support
of the school. The school provides educational pro-
grams for children with autism aged between four and
16. It not only services my electorate but covers the
whole of the Illawarra from Helensburgh in the north
to Kiama in the south and west to Appin. It provides
educational services to Shoalhaven and the Riverina as
well. It operates from its prime site at Corrimal in my
electorate but also has satellite classes in both Depart-
ment of Education and Training and Catholic schools
across the region, including in the seat of my colleague
the member for Throsby.
This particular school has a tremendous reputation.
It is very well regarded locally and well supported. I
was particularly pleased to be able to be there to cele-
brate with them the multipurpose library facility and
two new classrooms that they had been able to put in
place with the $850,000 grant under the Primary
Schools for the 21st Century program. The principal,
Mr Bruce Rowles, told me that this was something that
they had been desperately keen to do but had had a
view that it would take them years and years of fund-
raising before they would get to the point of building
these new facilities. And we celebrated the thankyou
morning tea in those facilities. It was particularly re-
warding to see how important that program had been to
that school and how well received it was by the stu-
dents and their parents and supporters.
All of the different classes of students put on musi-
cal performances for us. Music plays a very big part in
the curriculum at the school. They were all particularly
enjoyable. The young children did a lot of rhythmic
activities with drums and percussion instruments. Then
there was a young woman called Cheyenne Mazzini
who sung for us. She did an individual performance
and was part of a choir performance. She is an amazing
performer. Singing has given her a great deal of confi-
dence and given her an opportunity to expand her
school performance because of finding that confidence
through singing. It was a tremendous performance.
I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge those
from our community who were also at the thankyou
morning tea who go out and do all sorts of things in
order to raise money for the school or to provide activi-
ties for the students at the school. I should here ac-
knowledge that in 2010 the school was supported by
the combined Rotary clubs of the Illawarra. They fund-
raised for the school through the ‘Wings over the Illa-
warra’ event, a tremendous annual activity. Other sup-
porters included the Wollongong Innerwheel Club; the
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Illawarra Police; Charity Ball—another annual event
that is a tremendous fundraiser, and that was in 2010
aimed at raising funds for the school; the Woonona
Women’s Bowling Club; the Kiama Leagues Club; the
Wollongong RSL Bowling Club; Michael Seaman and
the Goodguys, a local business; the Leisure Coast
Horse Trail Riders, who are particularly involved in
activities with the students; Masonicare; Gloria Jeans
at Figtree; Quota International; the North Wollongong
Surf Club; the University of Wollongong through the
University Cares and Social Club; Paul Charlton and
the Woonona Boardriders; McKeon’s Swim School,
which provides activities for the students as well; Do-
reen O’Keefe; Interchange Illawarra; and the Illawarra
Small Business Club.
I met some volunteers. As with so many schools, the
volunteers are an invaluable part of it, particularly
Helen Whelan. Helen this year was the Autism Spec-
trum Australia Volunteer of the Year for 2010. I also
met local volunteers Jim Caitons and Di and Stu Pear-
son. I want to commend all of those who support a
tremendous local school. I want to commend Bruce
and his staff, who take such joy in the job that they do.
I also want to commend the students for a very wel-
coming and enjoyable day at the school. I look forward
to visiting time and time again.
Palm Island
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (7.50 pm)—In 2007,
when Kevin Rudd led the Labor Party to power, the
outgoing coalition government left them $762 million
in housing funding for our first Australians. Those first
Australians include the community of Palm Island in
my electorate of Herbert. The coalition’s Minister for
Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, Mal Brough, had re-
leased a plan for an estate of 46 houses on this island.
The island community was looking forward to this
much-needed housing. We are now in October 2010,
three years on from Labor’s hollow words, and I would
like to inform the House on the progress on this hous-
ing project. Let us see. You carry the one, add up the
next column, bring it all down and what do you get?
You get zero. Not one of these 46 houses has been
built.
There have been four temporary structures placed on
the island. These homes are in kit form and are not
much bigger than an average sized garden shed. They
have been plumbed and erected on steel posts, with the
veranda resting on the neighbour’s fence line in one
case. The cost of these ‘structures’—because you can-
not call them homes—has been approximately
$300,000 each. I can go to a local hardware store in
Townsville and buy a three-bedroom kit home for
$25,000, have it helicoptered to the island, import a
master builder by hydrofoil and serve him cocktails
while he puts the house together and I cannot get to
$300,000 each.
CHAMBER
105
The most disturbing part of this gross waste of
money is that, although the island has its own electri-
cian, four registered plumbers as well as a number of
tradesmen and women, none were given any work on
this job, not even the site clean afterwards. It all came
from the mainland. No local labour was used to build
these temporary dwellings. When is the Minister for
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indige-
nous Affairs going to release the desperately needed
funding for permanent housing on Palm Island?
In my maiden speech, I referred to a consultant class
of government and non-government people taking too
much on the way through. Clearly, I was wrong. For
that statement to have any veracity, some must, by
definition, have made it through to the people in need.
What the people of Palm Island need is a government
that does what it says it is going to do—a government
of action. During the election campaign, Labor trotted
out the member for Griffith—in his new capacity as a
backbencher—to Palm Island. He pranced around
looking, for all intents and purposes, as though he was
going to say or, shock horror, do something, but of
course he did nothing. Still, nothing has happened for
the people on this island. Despite promises, the minis-
ter certainly did not come anywhere near Palm Island.
The people of Palm Island have, quite rightly, said that
they do not want to talk about welfare; they want to
talk about small business opportunities and jobs. I
would like to suggest that the government stops sitting
on its hands and actually creates opportunities for local
residents to build their own lives through gainful em-
ployment.
Those opposite will have you believe that they are a
party that believes in egalitarianism—that a child from
Aurukun can become a High Court justice. He or she
may be able to become a High Court judge but, under
this government, he or she cannot even get a job build-
ing houses in their home town.
In conclusion, I ask the government to let us just get
on with it. Palm Island residents are living in deplor-
able conditions, with up to 20 people to a house. On
Palm Island there are licensed plumbers, licensed elec-
tricians, many local people with building and labouring
experience. We could do anything and would get a bet-
ter result than the one by which the government must
stand shamed. Zero houses in three years is not that
hard to beat.
Deakin Electorate: Maroondah Hospital
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (7.54 pm)—I would like to
inform the House of developments at Maroondah Hos-
pital, a large public hospital in my electorate of De-
akin. As the member for Deakin since 2007 I am al-
ways out and about talking to local people about what
concerns them. One of the most frequent topics of dis-
cussion is the quality and accessibility of local health
services. Whether it is getting in to see a doctor, the
106 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
length of waiting lists at local hospitals or the treatment
at emergency wards, health in the outer eastern suburbs
is now and always has been one of the high-order is-
sues.
During the election campaign, back on 14 August,
we announced that if re-elected a federal Labor gov-
ernment would invest $5.7 million to deliver 20 new
subacute beds to Maroondah Hospital and a further 10
subacute beds to Angliss Hospital, which is in the
neighbouring electorate of La Trobe. Both these hospi-
tals are part of the Eastern Health network. A total of
seven hospitals run under that banner.
On 14 August Nicola Roxon, the federal Minister
for Health and Ageing, the Victorian health minister
Daniel Andrews, and I made an announcement at Ma-
roondah Hospital on a lovely sunny Saturday morn-
ing—a very nice setting for an announcement like that.
The announcement was part of a larger package of
funding—a big one—of $265 million for new capital
works projects and equipment. It came about as a di-
rect result of the National Health and Hospitals Net-
work Agreement reached between the federal and, in
this case, the Victorian state government. This agree-
ment, signed in April this year, not only delivered these
20 new subacute beds for Maroondah Hospital but will,
over the next four years, deliver more than $900 mil-
lion in additional federal spending in Victoria. New
beds will mean shorter waiting lists. Sick patients will
get to surgery quicker and families will get better ac-
cess to the health care they need, both for them and
their children.
Maroondah Hospital is some distance out of Mel-
bourne proper. It is 30 kays east of Melbourne and it
has a huge catchment area. It does not really have a
major hospital further east than that, so many people
come from the outer suburbs and outlying areas to get
treatment there. Originally built in 1976 and now oper-
ating with 326 beds, Maroondah Hospital also operates
as a teaching hospital. But, despite recent expansions
and rebuilding, it continues to get busier, as I said, as
people travel in for treatment not only from outlying
areas but also because our local population is ageing,
so there is a heavy demand on the hospital.
In addition, Maroondah Hospital also provides sec-
ondary acute care and acute adult mental health ser-
vices. Under that heading comes things such as the
emergency department, general and specialist medicine
and surgery, critical care services, ambulatory and al-
lied health services. Like most hospitals the emergency
department is always busy but waiting times have been
dropping, and that is a good thing. But I expect to see
them drop even more once the National Health and
Hospitals Network is in full operation.
For many residents of Deakin and the surrounding
areas in the outer eastern suburbs, there is no alterna-
tive but to go to the emergency department at your lo-
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
cal public hospital if you have a sick child in the mid-
dle of the night. It is not that easy to find a GP who is
open and, even though we are extending programs so
that there will be, it is still a difficult task.
Overall this extra $265 million in funding will mean
that Victorian hospitals will have the capacity to treat
5,000 extra patients every year, once these additional
beds are in place. That is happening soon and that is a
good thing to hear.
I would like to commend the state Labor govern-
ment, led by Premier John Brumby, for working in
partnership with the Gillard Labor government to de-
liver better health services for the people of Victoria. It
is so important. I would also like to thank the board
and CEO of Eastern Health and the health profession-
als working at Maroondah Hospital for their hard work
to ensure that they have the capacity to use these fed-
eral funds and serve the local electorate.
Under the National Health and Hospitals Network
the reforms that will come in will see surgery waiting
lists cut. It will see treatment times at emergency wards
capped at four hours and will deliver an additional
5,500 new or training GP places over the next 10 years.
The federal government’s health reforms will bring the
total new health investment over the next five years to
$7.3 billion. I look forward to the opening of these 20
extra subacute beds in the near future and know that
the community and residents of Deakin will benefit
greatly.
House adjourned at 7.59 pm
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Martin Ferguson to present a Bill for an Act to
make provision in relation to the selection of a site for,
and the establishment and operation of, a radioactive
waste management facility, and for related purposes.
Ms Kate Ellis to present a Bill for an Act to amend
the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, and for
related purposes.
Mr Bandt to present a Bill for an Act to deliver es-
sential financial services at reasonable cost, fair loans
and mortgages and increased competition for the com-
munity, and for related purposes.
Mr Bandt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the
Defence Act 1903 to provide for parliamentary ap-
proval of overseas service by members of the Defence
Force.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

—————
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 9.30 am.
MAIN COMMITTEE: SITTINGS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Yesterday the Main Committee was due to convene at four
o’clock and, quite understandably, the decision was made to delay our meeting so everyone could listen to the
Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House. No-one mentioned that decision to the clerks or to
the Serjeant-at-Arms, so we had all the staff here. If a similar decision is made in future, it would be appreciated if
that information could be conveyed to the appropriate sources.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Murray Electorate: Murray-Darling Basin Plan
Dr STONE (Murray) (9.30 am)—Since the release of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan there has been a spate of
letters and articles in my local media written or submitted a small group calling themselves the Northern Victorian
Irrigators. The group’s President, Dudley Bryant, has usually been the one whose name appears at the bottom of
these pieces. He has been one of the most determined supporters of the pipeline taking water away from farms to
Melbourne. He and his group are trying very hard to convince the public that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan’s
failure to address the socioeconomic impacts of a reduction of up to 45 per cent of irrigators’ water is as directed
by the coalition’s Water Act 2007. Alternatively, he argues it is due to that act overlooking socioeconomic ele-
ments as an essential part of the act. Mr Bryant no doubt took his lead from Mike Taylor, Chair of the Murray-
Darling Basin Authority, who used this excuse when confronted with the fact that the Basin Plan had not properly
taken the community impacts into account and in fact was inaccurate in statements about job losses expected.
So let us look at the Water Act. In part 2 of the legislation, under subsection (b) of section 20, the act says:
The purpose of the Basin Plan is to provide for the integrated management of Basin water resources in a way that promotes
the objects of this Act, in particular by providing for:
… … …
(d) the use and management of the Basin water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental
outcomes …
The Water Act also says the Basin Plan is to be developed:
(b) … on the basis of the best … scientific knowledge and socio-economic analysis; and
(c) have regard to …
… … …
(v) social, cultural, Indigenous and other public benefit issues.
The mandatory content of the Basin Plan, according to section 22 of the Water Act 2007, must also include:
(d) the social and economic circumstances of Basin communities dependent on the Basin water resources.
So, quite obviously, there is no problem with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority picking up the elements of the
act, the socioeconomic analysis requirements, and doing the hard yards. They failed to do that. We will never
know quite why. They understand their mistakes and they are trying urgently to patch up the problems, having
announced an inquiry themselves to be completed by March next year.
I want Mr Bryant and the Northern Victorian Irrigators to really put their hearts into trying to create a win-win
scenario, not be apologists for the Labor government, not back up Mr Crean’s suggestion that it is all the fault of
the Water Act. They really need to do better because too many people throughout the Murray-Darling Basin un-
derstand the significant impacts on communities if all they get out of this is a bald figure of some 3,000 gigalitres
to 7,000 gigalitres less water for them to provide food and fibre for the rest of Australia and, indeed, for the world.
I am certainly going to do my best to get a win-win scenario with on-farm water use investment and irrigation
infrastructure investment. (Time expired)
World Teachers Day
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (9.34 am)—I rise today to pay tribute to the many teachers in my electorate of Holt and
around the country. We here know teaching is one of the most important jobs in our community and we welcome
the acknowledgement of their contribution on World Teachers Day, which will be held on Friday, 29 October.
World Teachers Day has been held annually since 1994 and its aim is to mobilise support for teachers and to en-
sure that the needs of future generations will continue to be met by teachers. According to UNESCO, World
Teachers Day represents a significant token of the awareness, understanding and appreciation displayed for the
vital contribution that teachers make to education and development.

MAIN COMMITTEE
108 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

We are very fortunate to have in my part of the world examples of outstanding teachers who, by sheer force of
their commitment, their vision and their leadership, indelibly shape the schools they both teach in and lead—in
many cases physically—and imbue their schools with strong community and student development values. They
profoundly influence the lives of the students who attend their schools. One such example is the principal of
Hampton Park Primary School, Christine Wakeling, who has inspired many by both her teaching achievements
and her leadership of the school over many years. Hampton Park Primary School was opened in 1922 and pro-
vides a prep to year 6 program for its 421 pupils. Hampton Park Primary School is a very cultural and ethnically
diverse community. In fact, 213 of the students were born overseas and 456 of the parents were born overseas as
well.
Hampton Park Primary School aims for at least a 95 per cent attendance rate, as the school recognises the need
for students to attend school ‘all day, every day’ to achieve and actuate their potential. During her time as princi-
pal, Christine has led a number of great initiatives to improve the educational experience for students, such as es-
tablishing a breakfast club and conducting free twilight movie nights at the start of each year. The twilight movie
nights were held for the first time in 2007 and they have proved very popular for the community, particularly for
Hampton Park Primary School students and parents, who in that forum come together and have the opportunity to
meet and know each other at the start of each new school year. A twilight movie night brings these families to-
gether and, I think, starts fostering the process of strengthening the school community.
The significant contribution of Christine has been recognised by many including Ms Lynda Carter, the Presi-
dent of Hampton Park Primary School. In Lynda’s words, Christine Wakeling is someone who has given 110 per
cent to the school daily. As an example, just before the last holidays she had family commitments that took her to
hospital until three o’clock in the morning but, notwithstanding this, arrived at the school at 7.30 that same morn-
ing and worked until late in the evening. There are many more anecdotes of this nature but most of them go
mainly untold, I think because of Christine’s self-deprecating and self-effacing nature. Christine is just one of
those great teachers, an inspiring example to the residents and school members of our community. (Time expired)
Mayo Electorate: Immigration
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (9.37 am)—I rise today to again place on the record a matter of extreme concern for my
community. The ambush announcement by the Prime Minister on Monday, that my community will have a deten-
tion centre built at Inverbrackie, has caused enormous concern leading to an emergency community meeting, to be
held tomorrow evening. For those who consider themselves to be vastly morally superior to the rest of us in this
place and outside, I make this point very clear to begin with: my issue is not with the people; my issue is with this
government and the decisions that this government has made, because it has failed to manage Australia’s border
security properly. The decision to turn the defence housing site at Inverbrackie, near Woodside, into a low-security
detention centre has been made necessary because this government has lost control completely of Australia’s bor-
ders. It is an emergency decision not well thought through or planned at all.
The most appalling aspect of this decision is the total lack of consultation by this government with my commu-
nity or anyone associated with governance in South Australia. In fact, yesterday Premier Mike Rann expressed his
frustration on Adelaide radio over the fact that he had only been called an hour before the decision was an-
nounced. He did not even get the opportunity to ask questions prior to the announcement of this decision.
What is very clear from the community feedback and the concerned citizens making contact with me and my
office is that there is real concern about the plan’s effect on local schools, health services, law and order and
community services, and that concern will need to be addressed. The immediate impact on property values in the
area is of large concern to many of the constituents who have contacted me. These are hardworking members of
my community and, like the rest of us, they found out through a press conference. But what makes this worse is
that the Prime Minister herself was in the Adelaide Hills on Sunday for a photo-opportunity with our CFS, 17
kilometres from Inverbrackie and Woodside, and did not have the courage to get in her car and go there and front
the community members to be honest with them and tell them what she intended to do with this site. It is an abso-
lute disgrace and it underlines what this government is: it is rotten to the core.
This Prime Minister has not only now abandoned South Australia on the Murray-Darling Basin plan but also
abandoned the South Australian community by failing to consult on this decision. The anger in my community is
white-hot, and it should be. South Australians and the Adelaide Hills deserve better than this. They deserve better
than this government. This government has completely lost control of Australia’s borders. (Time expired)
Food Labelling
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (9.40 am)—As time ran out for the debate on the private member’s motion on food label-
ling I wish to continue the discussion. I was going through the New Zealand guide because it gave a very good
explanation of what is and should be on labels in Australia. Labels should tell the truth. If you have a picture of

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109

strawberries on the label, it must contain strawberries, not some other fruit that might be in season or a chemical
substitute as the flavouring agent at the time of labelling.
Labels should be readable, prominent and distinct from the background and in English. Warning statements
should be at least three millimetres high and once again readable even on small packages. Directions for cooking
and storage should be clear. It should show the use-by date and should show that it be kept refrigerated at the ap-
propriate temperature. And it should suggest that it is important that cooking instructions be followed.
The food additives should be listed in the ingredients list by name or number and those should not be in a very
complicated code. Allergens should also be very carefully labelled because there are a lot of ingredients that seem
to be in everything that is a problem for many people. Such foods as peanuts, tree nuts—almonds, cashews and
walnuts—shellfish, finfish, milk, eggs, sesame and soya beans are the usual ones. There are others too for certain
people such as chocolate, tomatoes, lentils, peas, red wine and citreous to name a few. Information about GM and
irradiated foods should be on the label.
Country of origin can be very confusing as there has been a distinction between ‘product of Australia’, ‘made in
Australia’ and products made overseas, and the country from which the main products originate. We also have to
have the name and address of the manufacturer or the importer for recall purposes as well as a lot number or date.
Any other information such as whether it is organic, kosher, halal or vegetarian also needs to be there. Also the
glycaemic index should be included. As well, other symbols, such as ‘fat free’, should be explained.
I think the review that is being done in Australia is going to be very important in helping Australians become
more familiar with what is going into our food, where it comes from and how it is processed. The review is being
led by a great Tasmanian, Neal Blewett. I wish him well in his work.
I am a great believer in foods in season being sourced as locally as possible. I think our farmers should be en-
couraged to serve local markets first and keep the processing within a reasonable travel distance so that our food
can be fresh and keep its taste naturally without chemical intervention. (Time expired)
Paid Parental Leave
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (9.43 am)—In the time available to me I would like to advise the House that it is my
intention to introduce on behalf of the opposition a private member’s bill called the Paid Parental Leave (Reduc-
tion of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010. The coalition will be introducing this bill—and
hopefully we will have the opportunity to debate it—to end the needless and pointless red tape and compliance
burden being imposed on employers big and small by the Gillard Labor government’s Paid Parental Leave
scheme. Despite strong objection from every corner of this continent from Gladstone to Esperance and from every
organisation that has any concern whatsoever about the compliance and red tape obligations on businesses large
and small, the government seems to steadfastly want to persist in imposing this pay clerk obligation—a mandatory
duty to do the government’s work for it—on employers, despite the fact that it has offered no compelling reason
for doing so.
In fact, the concerns the coalition have raised and that many big and small employers, industry organisations
and those engaged in this debate have also raised about the cost, the compliance risk, the complete needless and
pointless nature of this mandatory obligation, have been swatted away by the government, as if they do not matter,
saying: ‘It will only affect a few employers. What kind of big deal could it possibly be? The coalition are wrong in
raising these concerns.’ It says this despite the chorus of support that our actions have generated amongst those
with an interest in letting business get on with the business of creating employment opportunities and wealth for
our country. But you do not have to follow the coalition’s argument. In fact, the government’s September 2010
document ‘Centrelink employer engagement plan: paid parental leave scheme implementation’ says:
A major potential constraint for many employers will be the readiness of their payroll and accounting software to implement
the scheme. This may impede our—
‘our’ being the government’s—
advocacy of early adoption and in a worst case scenario could cause severe disruption in the lead-up to the mandatory em-
ployer rollout from 1 July 2011 if the necessary systems are not in place.
That is a direct quote from the government’s own document and it highlights the very specific, legitimate and real
concerns many employers have, particularly smaller employers. Yet the government is displaying arrogance and
indifference, and is out of touch with the small-business people of this nation. It continues to ignore their con-
cerns, swats them away as if they do not matter because it so disconnected from the real-life challenges of small
business. In the government’s first 2½ years, it has reduced the number of people employed in small business by
300,000. This lack of interest has to end. (Time expired)

MAIN COMMITTEE
110 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Mr Gareth Clayton
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Effi-
ciency) (9.46 am)—I rise today to speak about Gareth Clayton, a predecessor of mine as the federal member for
Isaacs, who tragically passed away on 1 July in Bangkok, Thailand, following a road accident. Gareth was born in
Hampshire, England, in 1942 and studied at Liverpool University, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Science.
He also obtained a Diploma of Education from Makerere University in Uganda. Gareth then came to Australia
where he worked as a teacher before becoming a scientific officer for the Australian Road Research Board. In
1974 at the double dissolution election that saw Gough Whitlam win a second term as Prime Minister, Gareth won
the seat of Isaacs for Labor from the Liberal, David Hamer. It is worth noting that at that election Labor lost five
seats and Isaacs was one of only two seats that Labor won from the opposition. Gareth was an active local Labor
member. ALP branch meetings at the time were held at his home in Chelsea. Bob Corcoran, a very long-serving
local ALP branch member, remembers Gareth as someone who did not feel bound by convention, which included
once turning up in the chamber in a red jumper rather than the obligatory suit. Gareth held his seat for only one
term, losing it to David Hamer in the 1975 election that followed the disgraceful dismissal of the Whitlam gov-
ernment.
His maiden speech in this place had three areas of focus: equality for women, fairness for Indigenous Austra-
lians and care for the environment. I am proud to share these long-held Labor values with Gareth and I think that
there would be few members of this parliament now who would disagree with his sentiments. Back in 1974, how-
ever, these were not universally agreed positions. After serving in parliament, Gareth went on to have a very
strong academic career, including more than a decade in Thailand as a special lecturer in statistics at King Mong-
kut’s University of Technology in North Bangkok. Gareth’s commitment to public life extended to being a regular
contributor to the Thai publication The Nation, where he wrote on a range of matters, including education in Thai-
land, the ongoing religious conflict in the south of the country and the recent heated protests in Bangkok. Having
read some of the 40 pages of online tributes his students left following his passing, it is clear to see that in his
post-parliamentary career Gareth was a dedicated, caring and much loved academic. His legacy will live on
through the many students he taught both in Australia and in Thailand. I paid my condolences to his loved ones,
his family, his friends and those in my local community who knew Gareth from his time as the member for Isaacs.
Paterson Electorate: Great Lakes
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (9.49 am)—I rise to talk about the most environmentally pristine and valuable lake
system in Australia. The lakes all reside within my electorate. They are the Great Lakes, Smiths Lake and Myall
Lake, which are connected to Port Stephens, starting at Tamboy, through the Myall River.
At the approach to it, in Port Stephens, there is an island called Corrie Island. Corrie Island is a Ramsar listed
site and, as such, deserves and requires certain protections. The Ramsar convention, according to its website, is:
An intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation
and wise use of wetlands and their resources.
The issue at hand here is siltation. There have been environmental problems through Myall Lake and down
through the Myall River. There have been massive sand shifts from areas like Winda Woppa through to the eastern
channel between Winda Woppa and Corrie Island. In discussions with me, Gordon Grainger, who heads the Myall
River Action Group, has pointed out that there is clear evidence that dingoes, feral dogs and feral cats are now
able to cross from the mainland to Corrie Island and they are destroying the birds and habitat.
Corrie Island is managed by the New South Wales government through the Department of Environment and
Climate Change. They have provided funding for dredging of the western channel—and they are to be congratu-
lated on that—but the eastern channel is the channel that separates the mainland from Corrie Island. The eastern
channel is now silted up to the extent that people are able to walk across it at low tide, and if people are able to
walk across it then so are predatory animals. It is having a dire effect on species such as the eastern curlew. There
are five threatened shorebird species on Corrie Island and one endangered ecological community, coastal salt
marsh.
I call on the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, to have
real discussions with the state government and to look at what sort of funding package can be provided to make
sure that the eastern channel is dredged. This will improve the water flow out of the Myall Lake system and down
through the Myall River. It will help prevent the diseases that are spreading through the fish stocks in this area
because of the lack of water flow and the natural salinity washed back up through tidal movement. The timing is
now critical, and I call for urgent dialogue and discussion on this issue.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 111

Ms Jessica Sparks
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (9.52 am)—I take the opportunity in the debate this morning to recognise an Illawarra
woman, Jessica Sparks. I met Jessica not so long ago—only last year, actually. It was through her family contact-
ing my office about a standard matter. We did some representations and then she came and did some volunteer
work in my office. She is now at university, studying journalism—we all go astray in our youth, so I will allow
her that activity.
The important thing to know about Jessica is that at 16 she was declared near the end of her life, and in 2009
she had a double lung transplant. She is the most amazing young woman—full of life and enthusiasm with the
brightest smile you have ever seen. I have to say, it brings a bit of sunshine into my day every time I see it. She is
absolutely grabbing life with both hands and enjoying every day, and I think she gives us all a great lesson in do-
ing that.
I particularly want to acknowledge that earlier this month Jessica participated in the Transplant Games, which
were held here in Canberra. She has an amazing medal haul in the Cunningham hall of fame; she brought home 16
medals from the Transplant Games. Jessica won gold in the three-kilometre walk; she won silver in the discus, the
ball throw, the four by 100-metre relay and the singles darts; and she won bronze in the shot-put, the 100 metres,
the long jump, the doubles darts and the crossword competition. We take great pride in every single one of the
medals that Jessica has brought back to Cunningham and we acknowledge that the Australian Transplant Sports
Association, as it was initially in 1988, organised and ran the first Australian Transplant Games and there were
151 competitors at that point in time.
I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the significance the transplant program has for people’s
lives. We can see that reflected in Jessica’s life. I acknowledge the generosity of the family who, in their grief,
gave us the opportunity to enjoy Jessica’s sunny smile every day.
There were 174 donations recorded between January and July of this year, and we have seen a significant in-
crease in those under the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority. I want to pay trib-
ute to Jessica. We all take pride in her—I know her mum, family and friends do. She is an inspiration to all of us
in the broader community. I congratulate the volunteers and organisers of the Australian Transplant Games this
year.
Gippsland Electorate: Farms
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (9.55 am)—Last week I attended a forum in Bairnsdale hosted by the Victorian
Farmers Federation. It was a very constructive debate attended by about 70 people. Two of the key issues were the
ongoing dry conditions and the impact of wild dogs on farming productivity and the natural environment. While
there has been some recent and very welcome rainfall in the Gippsland area, the annual rainfall figures for the
region still indicate very dry conditions in many parts of Gippsland and the exceptional circumstances provisions
may need to be extended beyond 30 April next year. Neither this week’s rain nor the recent floods primarily
caused by the snow melting have done enough to alleviate the very dry conditions farmers are recording in vast
areas of my region.
One of the senior VFF representatives, Chris Nixon from Orbost, believes that the Gippsland and Eden-Monaro
areas are maybe the only two remaining areas in Australia that are still in drought. I raise this point because I have
had the opportunity to speak briefly to the federal agriculture minister this week about this issue to simply high-
light that it should not be assumed that all parts of Australia, and in this case, all parts of Gippsland, are showing
signs of recovery from the drought. The EC provisions of income support and interest rate subsidies may need to
be retained beyond 30 April next year.
On the issue of wild dogs—and I note the presence of the member for Indi, who also has a major problem with
wild dogs in her electorate—many farmers are simply disgusted with the Brumby Labor government’s failure to
recognise the extent of the problem and the impact it is having on regional families, both in Gippsland and in the
upper Murray area.
I have raised this issue in the past and I will continue to do so until I am convinced that both the state and fed-
eral Labor governments understand the impact that these dogs have. Wild dogs not only affect the costs of farming
but also produce social and environmental costs through the emotional stress placed on the mental health and well
being of farming families and through their impact on native fauna.
The state candidate for Gippsland East, Tim Bull, is working with my colleagues at the state level to develop
very practical solutions while Labor and the Independents simply talk about the problem. The coalition has al-
ready announced a bounty on wild dogs and foxes in the lead-up to the state election, and if it wins that election it
is also committed to using aerial baiting as part of a suite of measures to complement the existing activities. I cer-

MAIN COMMITTEE
112 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

tainly do not blame the doggers on the ground—they are doing the best they can—but there has been a lack of
urgency for the past decade from the Labor government in dealing with these problems.
A Victorian Liberal and Nationals coalition government will use aerial baiting to control wild dogs and protect
livestock and native fauna. In addition to its introducing an aerial baiting program, the coalition will reinvigorate
the wild dog management committees to increase their effectiveness and participation in decision making on wild
dogs. It will also lobby the Gillard government to create a national threat abatement plan for wild dogs. These are
more good reasons for Victorians to get rid of the arrogant Brumby government. It is an arrogant government
which is Melbourne-focused and it is completely out of touch with the needs of regional families.
Makin Electorate: GM Holden
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (9.58 am)—Last Wednesday, 13 October, I and the member for Wakefield attended the
commissioning of the new Holden Cruze production line at the GMH plant at Elizabeth. The new production line
was switched on by Minister Kim Carr and South Australian Deputy Premier Kevin Foley in the presence of
GMH CEO Mike Devereux, Elizabeth plant manager, Martyn Cray and Holden employees, many of whom were
personally associated with designing and building the new production line.
The commissioning of the new line was a great day for South Australia, particularly for the people whose fu-
tures depend on GMH’s future in South Australia. For several years, particularly since the closure of the Mitsubi-
shi plant in Adelaide, GMH’s future in Adelaide has been a frequent topic of public discussion and negative com-
mentary by doomsayers. The Elizabeth plant has so far proved the critics wrong, which is testimony to the resil-
ience and commitment of all associated with it.
We saw evidence of that commitment over the last 18 months when production at the plant slumped during the
global economic downturn and the workforce rostered themselves and effectively shared the hours of work avail-
able rather than see fellow workers retrenched. What makes the new production line exceptional is that the plan-
ning and necessary investment required was made in the midst of a global economic downturn when motor vehi-
cle assembly plants around the world were scaling down operations and cutting costs.
The new Holden Cruze, which will be manufactured at the plant, is an impressively designed car and I expect it
will become a market leader. For much of the workforce, the new line means a return to full-time employment. A
combination of full-time employment with increased production at the Elizabeth plant will add a massive boost to
the local economy in which Holden has for decades been a key economic driver.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Senator Kim Carr for his personal commitment to the automo-
tive industry in Australia. The federal government’s $140 million support obviously was crucial to GMH’s deci-
sion and that support was very much driven by Senator Carr’s belief in GMH and his belief in Australian manu-
facturing. The demise of GMH’s Elizabeth plant would have been devastating for northern Adelaide and the Gil-
lard government recognised that. On behalf of the families, many of whom live in the Makin electorate and in the
member for Wakefield’s electorate, who are employed at the Elizabeth plant, I express my appreciation to the
government and to GMH for their continued faith and investment in the Elizabeth plant.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for
constituency statements has concluded.
TRADEX SCHEME AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by Mr Garrett:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (10.01 am)—I rise to speak briefly on the Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2010
and to indicate that the opposition will be supporting these changes. We are quite content to accept the govern-
ment’s assurances that these are well-intentioned amendments. They will better clarify the eligibility status of
partnerships for assistance under the Tradex Scheme Act and they will also remove some redundant provisions
from the act.
The Tradex Scheme was introduced in 2000 as a key initiative in the Howard government’s industry statement
of the time. It has effectively served its purpose since then in streamlining the way in which relief is provided for
businesses paying customs duty and GST on imported products that are ultimately intended for re-export, or for
incorporation into other exported goods.
The coalition will not be opposing the amendments contained in this bill on the understanding that their effect
will be to make minor adjustments to improve the administration of the Tradex Scheme. We also trust that the
government’s intention is to continue to provide good stewardship of a scheme which has for a decade provided

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113

genuine and important benefits to Australian industry and enhanced our international competitiveness as a trading
nation.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (10.03 am)—I thank the opposition and the parliament for its support of this bill. This is
an important amendment which looks at a number of key features of our international competitiveness, which are
very important. It is right to say that the legislation was first introduced in 2000 as a program to relieve business
specifically from paying customs duty and GST on imported products where those products are then further used
and re-sold on as export products themselves. It makes perfect sense to make those adjustments and ensure that
Australia remains competitive as a trading nation, and that our customs duty and GST are reflected adequately in
the regulations that we have.
The Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2010 clarifies the eligibility of particular partnerships for the Tradex
Scheme and it removes a number of redundant provisions. It specifically outlines the goods that may be imported
and subjected to a process of treatment and then their re-exportation—and how that actually works—and whether
they are incorporated in those goods, and the time period. It specifies the process that takes place, and that it must
happen within a period of 12 months, for the people importing those goods and accessing the relief that this
scheme provides. The current scheme provides about $200 million worth of upfront duty and GST relief to indus-
try—a significant amount on importing and exporting.
What the Tradex Scheme does is make sure that organisations in this country not only remain innovative but
also remain competitive. That is something that this government has always had as a priority for its policy devel-
opment.
I take note too of comments from the member for Indi and her support for the bill. I say to her and to the oppo-
sition that the bill, as it reads, is quite simple and the amendments are straightforward. There are no complexities
or unintended consequences. It is really just about removing any confusing parts particularly in terms of how it
reads for partnerships in relation to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. It specifically provides that it include a body
politic or a corporate as well as an individual.
Of course, while a partnership is a relationship recognised by law, it is also an unincorporated body. Therefore
coverage of partnerships under the Tradex Scheme could be considered unclear. While partnerships are not explic-
itly referred to in the Tradex Scheme in the legislation, they were not and are not intended to be excluded from the
scheme itself. The bill clarifies that position and makes clear if there was any confusion in the past.
Also the redundant provision being removed by this bill relates to the transitional arrangements that you would
expect in transferring the proceedings from the former scheme, the Texco Scheme, to the Tradex Scheme, which it
superseded in 2000 when the new scheme was brought into play by the previous government. These are com-
pletely consistent with this government’s approach since 2007 to remove the regulatory burden on business, in-
cluding small business, and we ought to continue doing that not only as a government but as a parliament.
This bill is being reintroduced. It was introduced earlier this year but due to the House being prorogued for the
election it needed to be reintroduced. It is a good bill and is supported by everyone and I commend it to the
House.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (10.07 am)—I
thank those members who have contributed to the debate on the Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2010. I am
speaking in my capacity as representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.
As expected, this is a non-contentious bill seeking to clarify the eligibility of partnerships for the Tradex
Scheme and also to remove redundant provisions. I want to thank the member for Oxley for his contribution. The
Tradex Scheme was previously introduced as a streamlined program for providing relief to businesses paying cus-
toms duty and GST on imported products that are to be exported or incorporated into other goods that are to be
exported. While partnerships were not explicitly referenced in the Tradex Scheme legislation, they were not and
are not intended to be excluded in the scheme. This bill seeks to clarify this position in law.
The bill’s other minor amendments remove redundant parts of the act consistent with the government’s objec-
tive of reducing the regulatory burden. The Tradex Scheme will continue to provide real benefits to Australian
industry and improve our international competitiveness as a trading nation.
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.

MAIN COMMITTEE
114 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

CIVIL DISPUTE RESOLUTION BILL 2010

Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Mr McClelland:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (10.09 am)—I rise to speak on the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010, and I will keep
my comments relatively brief. Civil disputes today have the unfortunate association with an adversarial culture; a
culture that conflicts with the values our courts are designed to uphold. Too often people involved in civil disputes
slide into the litigious entrenchment of a mud-slinging match between two adversaries. This leads to lengthy court
battles and the greater burden on the court system.
The aims of this bill are to change that culture to encourage people to turn their minds to resolution. In the case
where a resolution cannot be reached, the bill ensures that when such matters progress to court the issues are
properly identified, ultimately reducing the time required for a court to determine the matter. The bill is intended
to complement the Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Act 2009, which imposed a require-
ment that federal civil procedure be directed towards the just resolution of disputes quickly, inexpensively and as
efficiently as possible. It implements the recommendations of the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advi-
sory Council in its 2009 report The resolve to resolve.
The principle measure in this bill is to require an applicant in proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court or
the Federal Court to file a genuine step statement at the time of commencing proceedings, describing the steps that
have been taken in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The requirement does not apply to family law or native title
proceedings, which have their own alternative dispute resolution processes. It does not apply to criminal or quasi-
criminal proceedings, appeals—including appeals from tribunal decisions—where a party has been declared a
vexatious litigant, proceedings that relate to warrants, or compulsory disclosure notice or ex parte proceedings.
When proceedings are urgent or if the safety or security of a person or property would be compromised by taking
alternative steps, the statement may specify the reasons that such steps were not taken. The sanctions applicable to
failing to take genuine steps are at the court’s discretion and are in the nature of other failures to comply with the
rules of the court, such as appropriate interlocutory orders and orders as to costs. Examples of alternative steps
include mediation, conciliation, expert appraisal, early mutual evaluation and arbitration. Less formal processes,
including simple offers to negotiate and the timely exchange of information and documents, would also be cap-
tured by the requirement.
A potential problem arises in relation to the obligation imposed upon lawyers to advise claims as to compliance
with the requirement. The bill provides that the lawyer must not only advise but also assist clients to comply.
Costs may be ordered against lawyers personally if they fail to comply with this obligation. Lawyers already have
a duty to assist their clients and, where the client accepts the advice, restating it adds nothing. The question, how-
ever, arises as to the scope of the obligation upon a legal representative to assist a party to comply with its duty in
circumstances in which a party chooses to conduct the proceeding in a manner which may not be in compliance
with a duty imposed upon the client.
In conclusion, it is important to note that this bill does not prescribe specific steps to be undertaken. It is about
flexibility to enable parties to turn their minds to what they can do to attempt to resolve the dispute before it
reaches the courts—I think something that everyone would agree is a sensible outcome. Whilst the coalition sup-
port the bill in principle, we reserve the right to move amendments pending the report of the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee’s report, which is being undertaken at the moment.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10.13 am)—I speak in support of the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010. About five
per cent of cases, whether it is in the Federal Magistrates Court, the Family Court or the supreme or district courts,
ever get to a final hearing. Ninety-five per cent of cases are resolved either at pre-institution stage or during the
course of conciliation conferences, mediation, collaborative law methods and simply negotiating on a without-
prejudice basis by correspondence or through face-to-face meetings at solicitor’s or litigant’s premises.
But there are cases that get to a final hearing. Sometimes litigants want their day in court and it is necessary be-
cause weighty matters, in terms of people’s liberty, property and rights, are at risk. When it is a matter concerning
the Federal Magistrates Court, which often deals with family law matters, it relates to children, not just property.
When it deals with issues relating to the care, welfare and development of children, it is quite common for people
to be passionate and to want to pursue their rights and have their final say before a federal magistrate. That is
okay, but they must make bona fide efforts and attempts to resolve litigation before it starts. It should not get to
the stage where you say that we have litigation between people. In various pieces of legislation, particularly the
Family Law Act, there are very well set out courses of alternative dispute resolution processes, whether they be
conciliation conferences or pretrial conferences or whether it be mediation conducted at family relationship cen-
tres where there is a requirement to file a certificate or a notice in court prior to the institution of proceedings.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 115

Only in circumstances where there is child abduction, where it is an urgent ex parte matter or where there is egre-
gious domestic violence are those requirements waived—and they are exceptions.
The legislation before this chamber deals with encouraging litigants not to have obstacles to the institution of
proceedings but to make a bona fide, or genuine, attempt to resolve the matter and to bring to the notice of, say,
the Federal Magistrates Court what attempts have been made to resolve the matter, so as to get out of the adversar-
ial culture and resolve issues. It is better for our community and it is better for individuals, their companies and
their families if they can take steps to settle matters.
In Ipswich there is a family relationship centre, and prior to speaking with Relationships Australia last week I
attended their premises to discuss how they are going. I intend to go back and be involved in a reference group. In
my first term I was involved with a reference group that dealt with issues concerning grandparents and with their
rights and their concerns for their grandchildren in circumstances where they did not have any parental rights but
wanted to have contact with their grandchildren. So I commend the previous government for what they did to es-
tablish family relationship centres. That was a good initiative and a good way to try to resolve matters. What we
are talking about in this legislation before the chamber is not forcing people to go down that road—and there are
plenty of roads for alternative dispute resolution—but to get them to say, upon getting advice from their lawyer,
‘What way we can take and what efforts can we make to resolve this matter?’ That brings it to the attention of the
courts.
Turning people’s minds to resolution is often difficult. I practised as a lawyer for more than 20 years before
coming here. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, you and I first met at a settlement of a conveyance in Ipswich
when you were in private practice and I was a junior articled law clerk. You might recall you tried to convert me
to the conservative cause at that settlement, but I was not prepared to go down that road to ruin, so I stayed on the
progressive side of politics! This is an important way to try to resolve disputes. It is important that we do resolve
disputes, because not every form of legal proceeding or activity involves a conveyance like the one that you and I
first met over. Many times it involves a civil dispute.
The bill does not prescribe that you have to go off to a family relationship centre, but it does prescribe that you
have to consider and take steps to facilitate this process. I think what will happen is that, as a result of this legisla-
tion, people will turn their minds to going to family relationship centres or engaging a mediator, an arbitrator or
someone to try to resolve matters. I think we will have more without-prejudice conferences between lawyers and
their clients to try to resolve matters, because this legislation does not have just a practical effect; there is an aspi-
rational aspect to the legislation to say, ‘Let’s avoid litigation and let’s resolve it.’
So there are some really practical steps that have to be undertaken. The lawyers have a duty to advise their cli-
ents to make genuine attempts to resolve it. Then those clients have to sign off. A ‘genuine attempt’ statement has
to be signed by them as an applicant before they institute proceedings, and then a respondent has to do likewise
and tell the court that. The consequences of that are that they have to put in writing what steps they had to take
and to turn their minds to how to resolve it. It is a key aspect of their obligation, and there are legal obligations on
their lawyers and the litigants. There is potential for costs orders if people do not do it.
You might think that is pretty draconian and authoritarian, but you will find, for example, that in the Family
Court rules or the rules of the Federal Magistrates Court there are similar onuses upon lawyers and litigants to
think that way as well. If they do not take steps, judges and federal magistrates can already impose costs orders
against litigants or against lawyers who fail in their obligations to their clients. I do not have a problem with that. I
also do not have a problem with us keeping in place the case management systems and powers that exist in the
Federal Magistrates Court as well.
I think there are exclusions here, and they are sensible exclusions, on certain legislation. I mentioned before the
kinds of things that are excluded: you are talking about the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Copyright Tribu-
nal and the Migration Review Tribunal. There are also other courts that are excluded and other legislation that is
excluded. For instance, I mentioned before the Family Law Act. There are already really set pre-institution proc-
esses in place that force people to negotiate together at, say, family relationship centres.
There are exceptions to lodging the ‘genuine attempt’ statements—for example, if it is an urgent ex parte mat-
ter. I can think of an Anton Piller-type order or other circumstances where there are enforcement proceedings in-
volved and where you do not have to file this type of statement. But generally people need to. This bill has a wor-
thy aspect to it, because I think it will reduce the cost to litigants. Lawyers have enough areas of law to enrich
themselves, to prosper and to continue to act in the best interests of their practices, the public, their community
and their families without going to court.
In my experience, most lawyers try to resolve the case. There is a mythology out there that most lawyers simply
want to make money by forcing people into expensive court proceedings. That is not the reality. That might play

MAIN COMMITTEE
116 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

out well in the Daily Telegraph, the Australian Financial Review or the Courier Mail, but that is not the reality on
the ground, because most litigation lawyers, whether in family law, civil proceedings, criminal matters or personal
injuries actions, want to resolve the case, because they know it is in the best interests of their clients and their
community. They want to get on with other aspects of their legal practice. This legislation has a worthy aspect that
says to litigants, ‘We want you to resolve this matter if at all possible before you go down the expensive road of
engaging in more litigation which could involve expert evidence, which is costly; barrister engagement, which is
costly as well; and engaging the taxpayers’ dollars in litigation that has an impact upon all of us.’ So the objectives
of this bill are worthy and are to be commended, and the Attorney-General is to be commended for this legislation
being in this chamber. I commend the legislation to the House.
Mr McCLELLAND (Barton—Attorney-General) (10.23 am)—in reply—By way of summing up and respond-
ing to the debate on the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010, I thank members for their contributions to the debate
today. In particular I thank the member for Blair, who always brings a sound contribution to matters of legal prac-
tice. He was himself a practitioner for many years—not that he is that old—and has considerable experience.
This Civil Dispute Resolution Bill is an important step towards improved access to justice. It will help ensure
that the mechanisms available to people and businesses for resolving disputes are reasonable, lawful and fair, and
proportionate to the costs at issue. Members’ comments today echo the broad consultation that the government has
already initiated in relation to improving the justice system. These include national consultations taken by the
government’s Access to Justice Taskforce in relation to its 2009 report, A strategic framework for access to justice
in the federal civil justice system, and by the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council in relation
to its 2009 report, The resolve to resolve. That report recommended the enactment of genuine steps and this bill
does that.
As members will know, the government are improving access to justice on a number of fronts, including
through measures such as this bill, which complement the significant reforms to the Federal Court’s case man-
agement powers enacted last year. But we are also acting to improve other aspects of the justice system, including
through the reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission to explore options to improve the discovery
process. As any lawyer will know, discovery is often the single largest cost associated with litigation. But our re-
forms do not just focus on the courts or lawyers; we have also successfully negotiated with the states and territo-
ries for a national partnership agreement on legal aid with a focus on early intervention and better access to infor-
mation and services for ordinary Australians. Significantly, the government have made support for legal assistance
a priority with the injection of $154 million of legal aid funding in the last budget. This includes $92.3 million for
legal aid, $34.9 million for Indigenous legal aid and $26.8 million for community legal services. These are all
measures of which the government are particularly proud. I commend the bill to the House, and thank honourable
members for their contribution.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Ms King:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (10.27 am)—The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010
seeks to implement a reform agreed by COAG on 3 July 2008. Specifically, these amendments to the Food Stan-
dards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 seek the recognition by Food Standards Australia New Zealand of the Aus-
tralian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, residue risk assessment and the promulgation
of the resulting maximum residue limits in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code—the food code.
What that means is a reduction of duplication. At present, we have two bodies. The Australian Pesticides and Vet-
erinary Medicines Authority sets maximum residue limits and has a prescribed use for using pesticides specifi-
cally, so that they can be used in a safe way on crops. But in order for food to enter the food supply, it is Food
Standards Australia New Zealand that actually sets what might be different maximum residue limits.
There is a compliance cost associated with this for primary producers. This is a very sensible reform. The pre-
sent situation is that Food Standards Australia New Zealand and APVMA prescribe separate limits on agriculture
veterinary chemical residues in food. So where a primary producer may use a particular chemical product on their
crops and livestock in accordance with the relevant APVMA product registration or permit, they might not legally
be able to sell the treated produce where there is no corresponding MRL in the food code preventing its sale. So

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 117

this bill streamlines the current regulatory process. It reduces the regulation on business by government and re-
moves duplication.
These reforms stem from a Howard government initiative designed to reduce red tape on business. In 2005, a
task force was established to identify practical options for alleviating the compliance burden on business from
Commonwealth government regulation. Its final report recommended that COAG should establish a high-level
task force to develop an integrated national chemicals policy. At the time, the coalition recognised that there were
overlaps and inconsistencies in a number of regulatory hotspots, in particular chemicals and plastics.
The Productivity Commission undertook an inquiry into chemicals and plastics regulation. They released an in-
terim report which recommended, among other things, avoiding duplication of the setting of MRLs by Food Stan-
dards Australia New Zealand and the APVMA by enabling the MRLs which are established by the APVMA to be
automatically incorporated into the food code.
This Productivity Commission recommendation was adopted by COAG on 3 July 2008. The coalition supports
this bill. It will be welcomed by primary producers and it will be welcomed by groups such as the National Farm-
ers Federation, by pastoralists and by graziers associations. Our only question is: why has it taken two years to get
to this point of actually presenting the legislation to parliament? Why two years after a no-brainer? The Productiv-
ity Commission said, ‘This can be done quickly,’ and COAG agreed, yet it has taken two years to get to this point.
Perhaps this is one of the bills which were slowed up when Kevin Rudd was in his control freak phase. The gov-
ernment needs to explain why it has delayed two years in implementing these reforms.
This bill was introduced in the dying days of the last parliament and was referred to a Senate committee to al-
low stakeholders an opportunity to put forward any concerns they may have had, including any public health and
safety concerns. Based on the evidence provided during that Senate inquiry, the committee was satisfied that the
proposed legislation would not increase the risk to human health or safety. In fact, it was the committee’s opinion
that there would be an overall gain as a result of streamlining the current regulatory process.
As it stands now, stakeholders support the legislative change to remove the inconsistencies between those two
regulatory bodies with regard to the MRLs. This is about synchronising the two regulatory systems to reduce the
regulatory burden on primary producers without any trade-off in human safety. This bill achieves that end. The
coalition continues to support improving efficiency of government regulation and reducing red tape on small busi-
nesses, in particular primary producers. That is why we support this bill.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (10.33 am)—I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this very important bill, the
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010, which I am happy to say is supported by everyone
in this parliament. There is no opposition because it is a good bill. It is a flow-on and reduces the regulatory bur-
den on business, ensuring that we remove duplication and administrative burdens where we can and that regula-
tions match what happens in practice, particularly at the farm gate. This bill amends the Food Standards Australia
New Zealand Act 1991 and implements a reform that was agreed by the Council of Australian Governments in
late 2008. It is really part of a broader agenda which this government has brought forward—that is, a seamless
national economy. If we are to compete internationally, if our primary producers are to have every advantage that
government can provide, we need to play our part not only by reducing the regulatory burden but by creating a
seamless national economy, ensuring that we remove overlaps or duplication across departmental regulations so
that what happens in practice is the same as what is needed to happen in public health regulation.
These reforms call for the recognition of domestically grown produce by Food Standards Australia New Zea-
land and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to improve the residue risk assessment and
promulgation of the resulting maximum residue limits to the Food Standards Code. This bill addresses some of the
deficiencies in the FSANZ annual reporting requirements and also corrects some minor inconsistencies. The ob-
jective of the amendments is to eliminate that duplicate administrative process between FSANZ and APVMA and
the conflict in maximum residue limits without compromising public health. Public health is obviously a primary
concern but you might have found—without these amendments being brought in to make the necessary changes—
that, while herbicides, pesticides or other chemicals a primary producer uses may be legal, they may not meet the
food standards requirements, which would mean that farmers might not be able to sell their produce. There is an
inconsistency there which needs to be sorted, and it is to be done through these amendments.
The maximum residue limit is the highest concentration of a residue of a particular agricultural or veterinary
chemical that is legally permitted in food or animal feed. APVMA sets that maximum residue limit in the course
of approving registrations and permits for specific chemical products which reflect the residue resulting from
those which would be used on crops or livestock.
The Food Standards Code also includes a corresponding maximum residue limits standard, which reflects the
levels permitted in the food that is available for sale. In today’s world where everything is global, it is important

MAIN COMMITTEE
118 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

that we have the right standards, that they are consistent and match across agencies because there is such avail-
ability of produce from different parts not only of the country but of the globe. In the interests of public health, it
is important to get those standards right.
Another aim of this reform is to remove a specific time lag which exists between getting any standards gazetted
and prescribed and in the promulgation of corresponding maximum residue limits standards into the Food Stan-
dards Code. There is a time lag and this can cause some confusion or create a circumstance where a primary pro-
ducer would use a particular chemical legally only to find that, because of the time lag as the crop matures or the
animals are ready for the lot, they can no longer sell those products, which would be unacceptable. It is in the in-
terests of primary producers that we get the standards right and remove the time lag. This is all done in conjunc-
tion with making sure that the standards are of the highest level. This will maintain the current degree of scientific
rigour and assessment required before a decision on a maximum residue limits standard may be made, thereby
ensuring the protection of public health and safety.
There is a financial impact with these changes. The reform agreed by COAG was done without additional fund-
ing, so the funding has to be transferred from one organisation to the next—from Food Standards Australia New
Zealand to APVMA. The funding associated with these two functions should be transferred as appropriate and in
accordance with the roles each body now plays. The quantum of that funding will be agreed by the ministers of
the day.
There are also a range of amendments relating to annual reporting requirements which correct some minor in-
consistencies. The need to do this arises simply from the relatively complex amendments made to the FSANZ Act
back in mid-2007. This was subsequently identified by the Department of Health and Ageing, which identified a
number of gaps. The amendments are required to ensure that there is effective monitoring of the act itself. In terms
of timing sensitivities, the reforms should not be delayed any further. We need to resolve a number of legal issues
with regard to the respective roles that the Food Standards Australia New Zealand and APVMA standards play.
Dealing with them should be considered urgent now, as we have them before us. Any additional delay would actu-
ally create a disadvantage for primary producers. I know that primary producers are waiting for the outcome of
these amendments so that they can get on with their business. These are good amendments that do the right thing
in streamlining a number of approval processes. The legislation is also about eliminating duplicative regulation
and removing the red-tape burden but at the same time not jeopardising the protection of public health in the proc-
ess. This is about better integration and the very important role that these two regulatory agencies play. I know it
is well supported by everybody in this place and I recommend the legislation to the House.
Mrs MOYLAN (Pearce) (10.41 am)—The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010 had
its origin in the 42nd Parliament. It has a stated purpose to implement a reform designed to streamline current
regulatory processes which create circumstances whereby a primary producer may legally use a particular chemi-
cal product on their crops and livestock but may not legally be able to sell the treated produce in the domestic
market. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee held an inquiry into the proposed legislation and
found that it is expected to improve the efficiency with which the approval of chemical products can occur. I do
welcome this bill. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am very particular about food standards in our country
and, indeed, anything we export to other countries. I have spoken many times in this place on the importance of
labelling, most recently on Monday, but we must make sure that we are not disadvantaging our producers by cre-
ating unnecessary red tape.
Submissions to the Senate committee inquiry noted that the delay between the Australian Pesticides and Veteri-
nary Medicines Authority applying to Food Standards Australia New Zealand to include a maximum residue limit
in the food code averaged approximately 12 months. CropLife and the Animal Health Alliance informed the
committee that their members had experienced waits of up to 18 months. During this time it would be legal for a
farmer to use the particular chemical product but not to sell the treated produce. This delay causes significant
problems for users of chemical products because a farmer may legally purchase a chemical that has been assessed
as safe for use by the APVMA and use that product in accordance with the label directions but ultimately find that
he or she is not able to sell their produce because the APVMA determined maximum residue limit is yet to be
adopted within the Food Standards Code.
It is important to note that agvet chemicals are used by farmers when needed to protect crops and animals from
a wide variety of pests, weeds and diseases. In Australia, agvet chemical products are strictly regulated by state
and federal government agencies to protect human health, safety, trade and, of course, the environment—all very
important things for us to be doing. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority conduct a rig-
orous scientific risk assessment on each new agvet chemical product before it can be approved for use in Austra-
lia. The assessment process determines whether the agvet chemical product is effective and safe with respect to

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 119

people, animals and the environment and does not pose a trade risk. As part of this process, the APVMA also ap-
proves agvet chemical product labels which contain instructions on how to use the product correctly and safely.
I speak to the many great food producers in the electorate of Pearce. They are broadacre wheat and sheep farm-
ers, market gardeners, large export fruit growers and everything in between. They grow olives, table grapes and
wine grapes. A large number of products are grown and produced in the electorate of Pearce. I know my growers
are very mindful of the need to protect human health and protect the environment. It is in their interests that they
continue to safeguard both human health and the environment.
The member for Kingston, who is in the House today, moved a motion on food labelling on Monday. When
speaking to that motion and on many occasions previously I strongly advocated measures to make it easier for
Australian food producers to sell their goods. It is now more than ever essential that we as legislators work to
make this possible as our food producers have never done it tougher. To add to the usual mix of difficulty for food
producers in Australia we now of course have the rising value of the dollar, which for some people is a benefit but
for others wishing to export their products in a tough and competitive international marketplace it is not.
A useful illustration of how difficult it is for our food producers is the 2009 cash flow estimates that a farmer in
my electorate kindly made available to me. I have mentioned these figures before but they are worth mentioning
again. Return rates for local farmers are quite slim. Sometimes they are as little as 3.5 per cent or below. I do not
think we would see too many bankers in Australia being prepared to work long hours for such a low return and
with all the vagaries of the weather with droughts and so on.
Based on a 5,000-hectare wheat belt cropping and wool property, my constituent calculated a notional $40.84
profit per hectare, but when farmers’ expenses, taxation, repayments and capital expenditure are taken into ac-
count, assuming repayments are kept to a minimum, the farmers expect to lose $36.06 per hectare. With such
losses continuing over time, local farming is increasingly becoming unsustainable. A number of forces contribute
to this worrying outcome. Many of them are not controllable by government, but this amendment bill is certainly
one positive measure we can make on behalf of Australia’s primary producers, and every effort should be made to
support them where it is safe to do so. Of course, I believe the emphasis in terms of food production should al-
ways be on the safety of that food for human consumption.
Consumers have consistently shown a willingness to vote with their wallets in support of local produce that is
ethically grown, harvested and manufactured by environmentally conscious producers where such items are easily
identified. The public enthusiasm is there. It is now up to government to show its political will and make good on
this significant issue.
Safety was covered quite extensively in this Senate committee report. In his submission the Hon. Bob Such MP
did not oppose the legislation but did call for the use of chemicals and pesticides to be kept to an absolute mini-
mum and recommended increased provision of information about the use of chemicals on food products. The
APVMA, Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the Department of Health and Ageing were of the opinion
that the bill would not result in an increased risk to human health and safety. The APVMA informed the commit-
tee that all current dietary exposure measures would remain the same. I think it is important to highlight that for
those who may think that this in some way reduces the safety of the food that they consume.
The dietary assessment would be undertaken by APVMA and checked by Food Standards Australia New Zea-
land, as is currently the case, with FSANZ undertaking its own dietary assessment if needed. Food Standards Aus-
tralia New Zealand made a similar point in its submission, stating that ‘the bill removes duplication of administra-
tive processes but the scientific assessment required to ensure the safety to human health and the environment re-
mains unchanged’. The code will retain its current structure whereby no chemical residue in food is legal unless
there is a relevant prescribed MRL standard in the code. MRLs are specific to the chemical product and to the
produce on which the product may be used. The ministerial council will still have the power to request a review of
any food standard, including MRLs, and FSANZ will still be responsible for preparing or overseeing the dietary
modelling used to determine the appropriateness of an MRL—that is, the maximum residue limits, for those who
are not used to the acronyms.
The department of health further noted in their submission that ‘the food code would retain its current structure
under which no chemical residues in food would be legal without a relevant approved MRL’. Food Standards Aus-
tralia New Zealand retains the power to make urgent variations to the food code for the purpose of protecting pub-
lic health and safety. The ministerial council is also able to request a review of any food standard, including an
MRL standard. In more than 10 years of operation, Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the ministerial
council have never disagreed with an MRL proposed by the APVMA on the basis of public health and safety.
In its conclusion the committee said it was satisfied that the proposed legislation will not increase risks to hu-
man health and safety. Given the efficiency gains arising from the streamlining of the approval process and the

MAIN COMMITTEE
120 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

absence of opposition to the proposed changes, the committee supported strongly the amendment to this legisla-
tion. So I think the public can be reassured, and we need in this place to reassure ourselves, that, along with these
changes, we are indeed looking after the health of those who might consume these products.
One of the sore points in my electorate a few years ago revolved around current growers who had to meet the
most rigorous standards in terms of any chemicals and pesticides they sprayed on their products. They were dis-
mayed to learn that we have products being imported into this country where no such safeguards are required. The
food is packaged in another country and then brought here and sold more cheaply than our producers can produce
it, because we do require producers to go through a rigorous process. All of that adds to the cost of production, so
anything we can do which removes red tape in a safe way has to be welcomed by those of us who represent food
producers in our electorates.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I was very interested to read the
Senate committee’s report and was reassured that the amendments we are passing in this place today have health
and safety as an important keystone in this amending legislation.
Ms KING (Ballarat—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary for Infra-
structure and Transport (10.54 am)—Can I start by thanking those members who have taken part in the debate on
the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010: the member for Boothby, the member for Ox-
ley and the member for Pearce. I acknowledge the longstanding interest and advocacy by the member for Pearce
on the issue of food standards and also her contribution on the notice of motion moved by the member for King-
ston on food labelling, which I listened to with interest. I thank you for your contribution to that. I certainly note
those contributions as we head into making some decisions once the labelling review is announced and I get a
look at it in December.
The amendments to this bill are designed to reduce the level of unnecessarily and poorly designed regulation
and its resulting negative impact on business. The bill does implement a reform agreed to by all states and territo-
ries through COAG as part of the seamless national economy reform agenda to streamline the process of setting
maximum residue limits for chemicals in the Food Standards Code. I also note the bipartisan support from the
opposition for this bill.
Specifically, this reform will address the delay and uncertainty for users of agricultural and veterinary chemi-
cals, who are typically primary producers, which results in overlapping regulatory responsibilities for setting
maximum residue limits of chemicals allowed to be present in food. These overlapping responsibilities mean that
there has been a time lag of nine to 12 months—and, unfortunately, in some cases, as the member for Pearce
stated, occasionally 18 months—between the APVMA establishing an MRL in relation to an agricultural or vet-
erinary chemical product and when FSANZ is able to effect a corresponding modification into the Food Standards
Code. The amendments contained in the bill streamline these processes by establishing the APVMA as the single
decision maker for setting MRLs. Under the new system, the APVMA can use a decision on a maximum residue
limit taken in the course of approving a chemical product registration or permit application to vary the maximum
residue limit standard in the Food Standards Code.
FSANZ, as the scientific experts in food safety, will retain responsibilities for the dietary modelling that the
APVMA will rely on to establish safe chemical residue limits. I do note that the Senate Community Affairs Legis-
lation Committee inquiry into this legislation canvassed the issue of food safety and public health and safety ex-
tensively and concluded that there was no risk in this legislation at all. I want to thank the members for their con-
tributions to the debate on this bill. I think it has brought out a number of issues in terms of primary producers
which have been helpful to hear. These amendments do reduce duplicative administrative processes while retain-
ing a no compromise approach to protecting public health and safety. They do demonstrate that the government is
committed to identifying and taking action in areas where unnecessary or poorly designed regulation is impeding
Australian business but also note the government’s absolute commitment to public health and safety. 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.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES LEGISLATION
AMENDMENT BILL 2010
Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Mr McClelland:
That this bill be now read a second time.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 121

Ms O’DWYER (Higgins) (10.58 am)—I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Interception and Intelli-
gence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The coalition supports this bill in principle, subject to consid-
eration of any potential recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.
The need for this bill has been highlighted by events in recent years. The failed terrorist attack on Northwest Air-
lines flight 253 on Christmas Day last year brought to attention the need for intelligence, law enforcement and
other national security agencies to be both well resourced and well connected. There is a clear need to remove
legislative barriers to interoperability and intelligence sharing, and this bill goes some way towards achieving this.
The bill is intended to enable the various security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to respond
quickly to a threat, to share information and to operate effectively within their defined roles in multi-agency
teams. The government has recently announced the establishment of the Counter-Terrorism Control Centre, which
is the principal example of the interoperability sought to be facilitated by this bill. In particular, ASIO has exper-
tise in areas that would assist law enforcement agencies to have access to information.
The bill will enable ASIO to provide assistance to those agencies in relation to telecommunications intercep-
tion, technical support, logistics and analytical assistance. This assistance will be invaluable in combating serious
organised crime and in urgent matters where people’s lives are at risk. In some circumstances telecommunications
data may be obtained to find missing persons or to access stored communications of victims of crime whose con-
sent cannot otherwise be obtained. Each of the security and intelligence agencies has its character or delimited
areas of operation to ensure that powers entrusted to them are not abused.
The intention of the bill is not to authorise operation outside agencies’ charters but to permit cooperation for
limited purposes so as to enhance interoperability and approved joint activities requiring information sharing. As
noted in the explanatory memorandum, the bill will enable the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the
Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Defence Signals Directorate and the Defence Imagery and Geospatial
Organisation to more closely cooperate and assist one another in the performance of their functions. The bill will
facilitate these agencies being able to work together and harness resources in support of key national security pri-
orities.
It is appropriate to note the hard work and serious efforts of our Australian security agencies and their outcomes
in achieving to make Australia a safer place to live. Australia is privileged to boast a reputation as one of the safest
nations in the world. May it always be so.
The bill is a step towards better utilising the talent and resources that will preserve the safety of Australian citi-
zens. The coalition, as I have said before, supports this bill in principle; however, it foreshadows potential
amendments pending the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11.02 am)—I rise today to also fully support the Telecommunications Interception and
Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This bill is another important step forward in protecting
the Australian people. It will allow this country’s leading law enforcement agencies, the Australian Security Intel-
ligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Defence Signals Directorate and the Defence
Imagery and Geospatial Organisation to work cooperatively and effectively.
Prior to coming to this place I spent many years representing respective police jurisdictions across the country.
As a consequence I have a very healthy respect for the work of the men and women of our police forces. I cer-
tainly have an undying appreciation for the work they do in making our country safe. Police officers in areas I was
less familiar with, particularly in the intelligence areas, certainly have a very important job to do. Their job is ever
changing and we must provide them with the necessary tools to do their job on behalf of the people of this coun-
try.
During my time with the Police Federation Australia I had a significant involvement in the early stages of some
of the discussions about telecommunications intercepts. I know that, from a criminal point of view, it is certainly a
very significant tool in combating not only organised crime but other aspects that police become involved in in-
cluding issues of terrorism.
Clearly, across the broader perspective of securing the safety of the nation this aspect is absolutely crucial. Our
law enforcement agencies require the development of equally sophisticated methods of accessing telephone inter-
cepts because those we compete against, who are seeking to inflict or potentially inflict damage on this country
and its people, are very sophisticated—the same sophistication as would be applied to the capabilities of organised
crime. Those involved in planning aggressive acts against this country and its people are not lacking when it
comes to intellectual ability with respect to communication systems. Therefore, we must ensure that our people
who are charged with that vital responsibility of protecting Australia and its people have the necessary tools to do
their job and do that job effectively.

MAIN COMMITTEE
122 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

That is why this piece of legislation is so important: to ensure greater cooperation between our respective agen-
cies. As it stands now, under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act it is not possible for ASIO to
intercept communications on behalf of smaller agencies which have limited interception abilities. Quite frankly,
we cannot expect our law enforcement and security agencies to do all the things that we require of them if we in-
sist on tying their hands behind their backs.
This bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to allow ASIO to intercept on behalf of
other agencies. It will also enable ASIO to provide the necessary range of technical and logistical assistance and
support to other agencies which have obtained warrants to intercept communications. This will help facilitate a
whole-of-government approach when we speak of national security.
It is not possible for any government to guarantee that Australia will be free from the threat of terrorism. But
this government can guarantee that we will take all necessary and practical measures to combat the threat of ter-
rorism. With the emerging threat of home-grown terrorism it is now more important than ever that our security,
intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the right tools and resources to assist them to identify terrorists
and potential terrorist organisations, as well as the ability to take protective action.
One thing I would like to note is that our constituents do not see any great distinction between our different law
enforcement agencies when it comes to the issue of national security. They simply want to know that things are
happening and that they are going to be protected. They certainly are not going to go down and look for some di-
viding line between various agencies. They simply want protection for themselves and their families. I think that
is quite an acceptable position for our constituents. It is certainly one that we need to have regard to, and we need
to relieve some of the interjurisdictional burden when it comes to information sharing to ensure that our overall
objectives are being achieved.
With this in mind, I fully support the bill and the amendments, which allow for greater flexibility of ASIO to
share information that it has with other intelligence agencies within the broader national security community. Im-
portantly, the amendments in this bill preserve the accountability framework which guarantees the way that agen-
cies can acquire and rely on that provided information.
This bill does not extend the jurisdiction of the role of ASIO. The bill does not affect the distinction between
law enforcement and intelligence functions. Arrests and prosecutions will remain within the province of the police
and the prosecutorial agencies. ASIO’s primary function will remain the gathering and analysing of intelligence.
The bill also makes amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to improve the op-
erations of that act. These amendments will mean that nominated carriers of service providers are required to
regularly inform the Communications Access Coordinator of proposed changes to their service and networks
which may affect the carrier’s ability to meet its legal obligation to assist interceptions for that agency.
As a parent, I can only imagine the fear and anxiety that must come when a child or family member goes miss-
ing. If I were ever faced with that horrible situation, I would expect that our police and our law enforcement agen-
cies would do all that they possibly could to find the loved one. That is why I think it would be common sense to
expect that everybody would fully support the thrust of this bill, which will provide support to our police in find-
ing missing persons. The amendment will allow police to obtain and use telecommunications data such as phone
records to assist the finding of a person or, regrettably, in some instances a victim. The amendments also give po-
lice access to the stored communications of victims of crime when the victim cannot be located or is unable to
give consent to their communications being accessed.
Last year a young woman from Cecil Hills was lured by a communication through, in this case, Facebook—and
I know that is beyond Australia’s jurisdiction—to meet with a person she thought was an animal rights activist,
unfortunately just down the road from where I live. That person lured her there with a view to assaulting and mur-
dering her, and that is what occurred. I know part of the investigation involved access to her phone records and
that is the sort of thing that is being looked at in this legislation. It is not about what is carried on Facebook, which
is beyond our jurisdiction, being an international server, but it is certainly about having access to the phone re-
cords of the victim in this case.
Regrettably, we all have stories about the way people have been pursued through electronic means. I have to
say that this is not something I grew up with, but as a parent and grandparent it is something that I am very con-
scious of. I think that most parents out there would think that the thrust of this legislation, allowing law enforce-
ment authorities to access stored material, text messages and all those sorts of things that will assist the police to
locate missing persons as well as victims, is something that should be applauded.
I support the bill because it offers greater assistance to not only our intelligence agencies but also our police to
do their work. It gives them greater tools, greater resources, without extending their jurisdiction to undertake what
is expected of them within a modern community. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 123

Mr McCLELLAND (Barton—Attorney-General) (11.12 am)—in reply—By way of summing up, can I thank
honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence
Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access
Act) 1979 and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, as well as the Intelligence Services Act
2001. Its purpose is to facilitate greater cooperation, assistance and information sharing between law enforcement
and intelligence agencies. The inaugural National Security Statement, delivered to parliament on 4 December
2008, highlighted the need for a closer relationship between the agencies that make up the National Security
Committee. The National Security Statement also acknowledged the critical need for the sharing of intelligence
and data in the current security environment.
The failed terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines flight 253 on 25 December last year also highlighted the need
for intelligence, law enforcement and other national security agencies to be well connected and the need to re-
move legislative barriers to interoperability and intelligent sharing. The National Security Statement, the govern-
ment’s counterterrorism white paper, acknowledged that responding to modern national security threats requires
an intelligence-led, coordinated effort across government. To achieve this, agencies, as I have said, must be well-
connected and free from technical and other barriers to sharing relevant information and also expertise.
Vital information is less likely to fall through the gaps if agencies can draw on the expertise of others within
law enforcement and national security communities. An example of this is the amendments to the Telecommuni-
cations (Interception) Act, which will provide for greater cooperation between Commonwealth and state intercep-
tion agencies. Currently, under the interception act law enforcement agencies can seek the assistance of other law
enforcement agencies in exercising an interception warrant. This ability has enabled smaller agencies with limited
interception capability to rely on larger agencies to intercept on their behalf.
The bill will amend the interception act to enable the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to also in-
tercept on behalf of other agencies. This will ensure that ASIO has greater flexibility to support whole-of-
government efforts to protect our communities. The bill will also amend the ASIO Act and the Intelligence Ser-
vices Act to enable Australia’s security and intelligence agencies to cooperate and assist one another more closely.
Specifically, ASIO, the Defence Signals Directorate, the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation and the
Australian Secret Intelligence Service will, on request, be able to assist one another in the performance of their
functions. The modern security environment requires an intelligence community that is well connected. Multi-
agency teams and task forces, such as the Counter-Terrorism Control Centre that is based in ASIO, are an increas-
ing feature of the national security landscape.
These amendments will facilitate greater interoperability in those multi-agency teams and will enable agencies
to harness resources in support of key national security priorities. The bill also makes amendments to enhance
intelligence sharing between intelligence agencies and the broader national security community. This bill will help
to ensure that our national security agencies are able to work together in responding to our increasingly fluid and
evolving national security environment. The bill also makes several amendments to the interception act that will
improve the operation and responsiveness of the telecommunications interception regime. The bill amends the
interception act to require carriers and service providers to inform the Communications Access Coordinator,
which is currently a position held by a senior officer within the Attorney-General’s Department, of proposed
changes that could significantly affect their ability to comply with their statutory obligation to assist interception
agencies. This early notification will ensure that carriers and service providers can meet their obligations to assist
and avoid the need for costly alterations once a change has been implemented.
The bill also includes amendments that will support police forces to find missing persons, as indicated by the
member for Fowler in the story that he recounted to us, and to solve crimes where the victim cannot be found or
cannot consent to their communications being accessed. The bill will also allow an interception agency to notify a
delegated officer within the carrier, rather than the managing director, of the existence of a warrant. This removes
administrative burdens upon managing directors of carriers in their provision of assistance under the interception
act.
The bill makes several minor and technical changes to address formatting and typographical errors and to better
reflect plain English drafting conclusions. In conclusion, ensuring that our national security law enforcement
agencies have the ability to respond to threats to our national security is a key priority for this government and
indeed for any Australian government. The measures contained in this bill build on the steps previously taken in
this area to facilitate better interoperability and intelligence sharing between our law enforcement and national
security agencies. By shaping and supporting our national security community we will strengthen the capacity of
all agencies to protect our communities from criminal and other activities that threaten our national and personal
wellbeing. I commend the bill to the House.

MAIN COMMITTEE
124 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Sitting suspended from 11.19 am to 11.40 am
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS
MEASURES) BILL 2010
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Mr Griffin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (11.40 am)—I rise to lend comment to the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation
Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 after the bill was lost following the proroguing of parliament.
This bill implements Labor’s 2007 election commitment to reconsider the unimplemented recommendations of the
Clarke review of veterans’ entitlements. The review of veterans’ entitlements of course was conducted by the Hon.
John Clarke QC and was completed in 2003. In 2004 the previous coalition government responded with a package
of $236 million over five years. Building upon this in 2007 the Labor Party promised:
A Rudd Labor Government will give further consideration to recommendations of the Clarke Review of Veterans’ Entitle-
ments that were not acted upon by the Howard Government. This process will also give early priority to recommendations
relating to those Australian participants in the British Commonwealth Occupational Force in Japan and Defence participants in
the atomic tests in Australia.
That was on page 22 of Labor’s Plan for Veterans’ Affairs.
Subsequently, on 9 September 2008 the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs issued a press release titled Government
kicks off Clarke review nuclear veterans and BCOF a priority. Submissions from veterans about unimplemented
recommendations were due by 1 December 2009. The recommendations of the re-review of the Clarke review—
lots of reviews there—were delivered to Minister Griffin in February 2009. It is disappointing that it took more
than 30 months from the election of the government and 15 months from the time the report was delivered to the
minister for any action on those recommendations. However I am pleased that the government has sought to bring
the bill back unamended after it was prorogued with the parliament.
In terms of specific measures, in the 2010-2011 budget the Rudd Labor government announced $36 million
over four years to implement the re-reviewed recommendations of the Clarke review. As part of this, the govern-
ment announced three recommendations were accepted and acted upon, four had been accepted, four deferred for
further consideration, 22 referred to review of military compensation acts, and 12 rejected for a second time. It is
disappointing that the government had not sought with the re-introduction of the bill to relook at some of those
provisions that they had either deferred for further consideration or outright rejected. Recommendations relating
to the British Commonwealth Occupational Force veterans have been further delayed, the government stating that
it proposes to defer its response to these recommendations to allow further examination and discussion within the
government and with the Defence Nature of Service review team. May I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird,
that since parliament was prorogued in August there has been plenty of time to review those recommendations and
to allow for further examination.
Disappointingly, there is also no time line for the completion of this further review. The Rudd Labor govern-
ment made a big noise about correcting the service of BCOF veterans under the review of the Clarke review, yet
here we are waiting 30 months, plus now another five or six since the election commenced, and we are still seeing
three recommendations going off to another review—or a re-review of the re-review of the Clarke review—with
no firm timetable for delivery. I think I can speak for everyone in the parliament that perhaps we do not need any
more re-reviews of the re-review of the Clarke review; we just need someone to do something.
There are 2,700 aged veterans and their families, not to mention the rest of the nation, the parliament and, I
suspect, most of Labor’s side of parliament, who are none the wiser about the commitment that Labor made to
them at the 2007 election and that was still in force at the 2010 election. Notwithstanding that, there are five
schedules. Schedule 1, relates to the British nuclear test recommendation 45 of the Clarke review. It states that the
Australian government will reclassify the service of British nuclear test defence service veterans to an equivalent
hazardous non-war like status. This reclassification has an appropriation cost of $23.4 million over four years.
Eligible ex-defence personnel will be able to access disability pensions, war widow(er) pensions and, where ap-
plicable, the gold card. In 2006 the previous coalition government extended coverage of the white card to all ex-
defence and civilian personnel who were involved in the tests. White card coverage will remain for civilian per-
sonnel who were not ex-defence personnel. Under changes to the VEA, the Veterans Entitlements’ Act 1986, a

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 125

new classification of service will be inserted into the act to reflect this spirit of the Clarke review recommenda-
tion.
Schedule 2 looks at recommendation 31a of the Clarke review. The Australian government will seek to reclas-
sify the service of submarine special operations undertaken between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1992 as
‘qualifying’ and ‘operational’ service. This change will entitle them to access to assets- and means-tested service
pension at age 60, disability pension, war widow(er) pension and the gold card at age 70. The Rudd Labor gov-
ernment’s response states:
… based on advice from the Department of Defence, for certain submarine special operations between 1978 and 1992 where
submariners and others are eligible for the award of the Australian Service Medal with the Submarine Special Operations
Clasp, the Government will seek to amend the VEA to extend operational and qualifying service. This goes further than the
Clarke Review—
to their credit—
and grants Service Pension at age 60, the Gold Card at age 70 and disability pension with the reasonable hypothesis test.
The Naval Association of Australia strongly supports the extended classification and, frankly, so do I. For anyone
who has not spent time in the now decommissioned Oberon submarines, which is what we are talking about,
imagine dressing yourself in one big greasy oily rag and staying that way for months at a time, while conducting
significant operations in our region. They are the conditions that these men served under. So I congratulate the
government for its foresight in this area.
Schedule 3 deals with service in Thailand. The Australian government will again reclassify certain service be-
tween 31 May 1962 and 27 July 1962 in north-east Thailand at Ubon as ‘qualifying service’. This will entitle eli-
gible veterans access to service pensions at age 60, the gold card at age 70, on top of existing entitlements to dis-
ability and war widow(er) pensions. This reclassification is not due to a specific recommendation in the Clarke
review—again to the government’s credit. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel
at the time said in a press release on 11 May 2010 that this item was not in response to the Clarke review but a
decision taken by the government.
It is instructive to look at the history of this service to understand, perhaps, a little of where the government
came from in its decision. Throughout the sixties, Australian service personnel were stationed throughout South-
East Asia and were involved in conflicts in Malaya and Indonesia. Indeed, in a Malayan emergency 36 Australian
service personnel were killed—the first Australian deaths in action since the cessation of World War II. After
1965, personnel were involved in the Vietnam War through the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam. In May
1962, the 79th Squadron from the Royal Australian Air Force was dispatched to north-east Thailand to protect the
territorial integrity of Thailand. At the time of their dispatch, I think it is fair to say that there were few, if any,
facilities at Ubon. By the end of July, more permanent facilities had begun to be constructed, but prior to that they
were literally eking a living out of the jungle. Although personnel remained at Ubon until 1968, this particular two
months of service has been reclassified due to the ‘potential risk from the activities of hostile forces and dissident
elements’, not to mention living in particularly parlous circumstances. I think schedule 3 receives universal ac-
clamation from the parliament in what it is seeking to do.
Schedule 4 of the bill deals with section 60 of the Clarke review. The Australian government is seeking to cor-
rect an anomaly in the VE Act to enable certain British Commonwealth and allied veterans who were aged be-
tween 18 and 21 at the time of enlistment in the Commonwealth or allied defence force to access the Australian
repatriation system. Under the VE Act, British Commonwealth and allied veterans may be eligible for pensions
and other benefits if they have eligible service with the Commonwealth or allied defence forces and if they had
Australian domicile immediately prior to their enlistment in that defence force. It, indeed, makes sense to support
that.
Schedule 5 deals with the effect of war widows and widowers entering into a de facto relationship. Recommen-
dation 54 of the Clarke review looks at the Australian government removing an entitlement from war widows or
widowers who claim a war widow or widower pension after entering a marriage-like—de facto—relationship.
Consequently the government will require eligible war widows or widowers to claim a war widow or widower
pension before they enter a new relationship in order to qualify for their pension. Under current legislation, a war
widow or widower who applies for a war widow or widower pension after marrying or remarrying is not entitled
to a pension. However, a war widow or widower who enters a marriage-like relationship, including a de facto one,
can still apply for that pension. Whilst this change is prospective—so no current war widows or widowers will be
affected by this change—it does seek to make some assumptions about the way people live their lives. I note the
government is seeking to save $1.4 million over four years, denying approximately 10 new applications per year.

MAIN COMMITTEE
126 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Again, looking at the history of this may be instructive. In 1984, the Hawke government ‘reinstated’ pensions to
married or remarried war widows who, until then, lost their pension upon remarriage. This change applied from
1984 and was not retrospective. In 2001, the previous coalition government broadened this 1984 change to any
married or remarried war widow who lost their pension as a result of their marriage or remarriage after applying
for—and being granted—a war widow pension. Justice Clarke recommended, inter alia, that no change to present
arrangements be made, including the broadening of the base of war widow and widower pensions to people who
applied after marriage. The war widow and widower pension is a compensation payment and is not means tested.
It is paid at the rate of $703.90 per fortnight and some eligible war widows and widowers may also receive an
income support supplement. This change has the support of the veterans and ex-service community, including the
War Widows’ Guild of Australia and Legacy. My view, for what it is worth, remains that a war widow or widower
remains a war widow or widower regardless if they are remarried or move into a de facto relationship. I cite a
tremendous lady, Nicole Pearce, whose husband, David ‘Poppy’ Pearce, was tragically killed in Afghanistan very
early in the conflict. Regardless of how she moves forward in her life, she remains a war widow. Her husband was
killed in combat operations. Her two small daughters were there when her husband was buried and I see them
each year and talk to them on the anniversary of her husband’s death, 9 October. Regardless of how she chooses to
move forward in her life, she remains a war widow and this nation still has a debt to pay to her. Whilst accepting
Justice Clarke’s recommendations and whilst accepting what the government is doing with this schedule, I point
out that my comments are simply a reflection of a personal view, that a war widow will always remain a war
widow. Otherwise I conclude my comments with respect to this veterans bill before it moves back to the House.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11.53 am)—I speak in support of the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation
Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010. At the beginning of this speech, I wish to pay tribute to the for-
mer Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Alan Griffin, the member for Bruce, particularly for his support of
veterans in the Ipswich and West Moreton community in the electorate of Blair. It was at the Ipswich RSL that he
announced that we would undertake a parliamentary inquiry into the deseal/reseal program which resulted in what
I would call the Bevis parliamentary committee recommendations that were taken up and brought about some de-
gree of justice for the people—in the Ipswich and West Moreton area and across Queensland and elsewhere—who
worked in the deseal/reseal area. He also attended upon my community of Ipswich and conducted a forum on a
number of issues raised by people in the veterans community as well as by serving RAAF personnel at the Amber-
ley base. So I pay tribute to him and say that the legislation that we are dealing with here today is the work of him,
his staff and his department and I thank him for it. It has been taken up, of course, by the new minister, the hon-
ourable member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon.
This legislation picks up from where it was before the parliament was prorogued and, as the member for
Fadden outlined in very great detail by way of schedules, makes a number of amendments with respect to the ser-
vice of notices, dealing with Australian participants in British nuclear tests, dealing with dependants of war veter-
ans, and dealing with the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme in relation to the collection of a state emer-
gency service levy from policyholders—which, by the way, will have no impact on the bottom line of the budget.
It also protects the integrity of our regimes with respect to Specialist Medical Review Council matters and deals
with compensation and the interests of those who receive it under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation
Act by making sure that compensation can be paid into bank accounts in the recipients’ names.
The member for Fadden correctly, and quite eloquently actually, outlined by way of the schedules what this leg-
islation contains. It is really a plethora of amendments through which there are significant reforms to the legisla-
tion. Extending nuclear test participant eligibility to a number of people who served during the British nuclear
tests at Maralinga is credible and worthy, and the government is to be commended for it. While I am on that sub-
ject, I wish to pay tribute to a local advocate in my area, a guy called Merv Kleindon, who lives in Ipswich in the
One Mile-Leichhardt community and has been such an advocate for everyone who worked in that program back
in the fifties and beyond. A number of Indigenous people were also exposed to the effects of radioactivity, as were
the service personnel who were engaged in working on the planes that went through the area. People like Merv
had advocated for justice not just for Indigenous people and not just for people who worked in the military but for
others, such as the Australian Protective Service officers, covered by the legislation here, and other participants
who suffered ill health as a result of their involvement in the British nuclear tests. We see in this bill the extension
of eligibility for non-liability health care under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act
for those people involved in British nuclear tests between 20 October 1984 to 30 June 1988 who now suffer ma-
lignant neoplasia. Many people were involved who were exposed to activities in the past which should not have
happened.
There are other changes here in the legislation with respect to notices. For instance, Federal Court decisions fol-
lowing the absence of provisions in Commonwealth legislation setting out the requirements of service of written

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 127

notice involving the operations of the act and the need for the Acts Interpretation Act, which provides for service
on a person by sending it to the residential address, impacted on the current legislation. Amendment to the pro-
posed legislation will extend the period of time for lodgement of claims and will provide benefits by making the
statute clearer in many areas that are currently ambiguous under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. Sometimes when
legislation is passed we see notice provisions in relation to one piece of legislation that do not quite marry, say,
with the Acts Interpretation Act, but what we are doing here is making improvements in that regard.
As I said before, the bill enables Defence Service Homes Insurance to collect a state emergency services levy
from policy holders in New South Wales to assist the New South Wales Labor government with the cost of provid-
ing emergency services in that state. This is done throughout the country in various places, particularly New South
Wales, and there will be no impact on the bottom line here. This is a sensible amendment in the circumstances and
I commend the minister for that.
The bill also enhances the operation of the Specialist Medical Review Council by making it clear that that par-
ticular council may review a decision of the Repatriation Medical Authority so as not to amend a statement of
principles—another worthy thing in the circumstances. There are changes aplenty in this legislation and they con-
stitute a myriad of improvements. I was intending to speak at length on each and every one but the member for
Fadden outlined the changes very clearly in his speech, for which he should be thanked. I also thank him for rec-
ognising at times where we have taken very just and humane and decent steps to help people who have been the
recipients of injustice.
I thank the government for what it undertook and for looking at the review of veterans’ entitlements and look-
ing at the recommendations of Justice Clarke. They have certainly had an impact in my area and, as I say, with
respect to the work of the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I could not have asked for more cooperation in
my community, particularly with respect to the Clarke review but also in relation to the deseal-reseal issue. It
made a big impact locally in my electorate.
This legislation, again with important amendments, will impact to the benefit of the Australian community in
terms of certainty of statutory interpretation, notice provisions, and making sure the legislation that deals with our
veterans, who should be honoured, deals with them in a just and humane way.
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (12.02 pm)—I rise today to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation
Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010. I state from the outset that the coalition supports this bill, which
makes a number of minor amendments to legislation affecting the veteran community. Despite this bill having
been presented in November of last year, the legislation has been continually pushed aside and delayed. This is
disappointing; however, I am pleased to have this opportunity in the House to speak about issues that are impor-
tant to the veteran community.
The Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 contains eight
parts. I will focus briefly on each part of the bill. Part 1 of the bill makes amendments to the Australian Partici-
pants in British Nuclear Tests Treatment Act 2006. This legislation was passed in the parliament in 2006 under the
previous coalition government. The act provided a white card to veterans of British nuclear testing in Western
Australia and South Australia. It covered not only defence personnel but also guards and other employees who
worked on the sites until the 1990s. The legislation passed in 2006 was intended to benefit up to 5,500 veterans
and former public servants. This amendment extends the coverage to Australian Protective Service officers who
served on the site between 1984 and 1988. They were inadvertently left out as a result of other acts and the situa-
tion of the Australian Federal Police. I am pleased that this amendment is being made now.
The government has created a new classification for veterans’ service—British nuclear test defence service—
equivalent to hazardous non-warlike service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. This will enable eligible
participants to access disability pensions and war widower pensions where applicable. This new classification is in
response to the Rudd Labor government’s re-review of the Clarke review, which sat on the minister’s desk for 15
months after being released publicly.
Part 2 of this bill amends the Defence Service Homes Act to allow the Commonwealth to make payment to the
state or a state authority where, under a law of the state, a person carrying on in that state the business of insuring
against the risk of loss of or damage to property is liable to make payments to the state or a state authority to assist
in meeting the costs of the state emergency services of that state. The New South Wales state Labor government
has decided to place a levy on insurance policies held in that state to meet the costs of operating the State Emer-
gency Service. This is a tax grab from a cash-strapped state Labor government, penalising insurance policyholders
with a tax.
Whilst the coalition has opposed this new tax in New South Wales, the constitution largely requires the federal
parliament to allow this legislative change to pass. It is not pleasing, nor does it seem fair, that veterans and de-

MAIN COMMITTEE
128 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

fence personnel who have insurance policies in the state of New South Wales are unfairly charged a levy, expected
to be around $10 per annum, to meet what should be a cost met through other revenue sources. There has been
some suggestion that the cost for insurance companies to charge this levy will be around $20 million, with these
costs also being passed on to holders of insurance policies.
This is an open-ended amendment which allows any state to charge an SES levy and for the Defence Homes
Insurance Service to transfer revenue raised for this purpose to the relevant state government. This change in ef-
fect means that federal parliamentary approval will not be required should Victoria or Queensland also decide to
levy the charge. This amendment gives that approval in advance. I am disappointed that this new levy is being put
in place. This is additional evidence of the need for a new coalition government in New South Wales headed by
Barry O’Farrell.
Part 3 of the legislation extends the period in which claims for travel expenses may be lodged with the depart-
ment. Specifically, the amendment extends the time limit for the lodgement of a claim for non-treatment related
travel expenses from three months to 12 months. That will align the time limit with that already available for
travel expenses for obtaining treatment. The amendment also introduces to each of the non-treatment travel cate-
gories a further extension to the 12-month time limit for exceptional circumstances, as currently exists for travel
expenses for obtaining treatment. The veteran community largely has been calling for this for some time now.
Part 4 makes a technical change in the way documents are served under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. The Federal Court recently highlighted the absence
of provisions within the VEA and MRCA that set out the requirements for the service of written notices or other
documents under the acts. The amendment will enable a number of entities under each act, such as the Repatria-
tion Commission and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, to specify in writing the manner
in which a notice or other document may be given to a person.
Part 5 fixes a drafting anomaly in the VEA concerning injuries and diseases and their coverage by MRCA. It
makes clear that compensation remains payable under the VEA for the original war-caused and defence-caused
component of an injury or disease that is subsequently aggravated or materially contributed to by defence service
on or after 1 July 2004, when MRCA began. The member has the option of electing to make a claim under VEA
or MRCA for the component of the injury or disease that has been aggravated or materially contributed to by ser-
vice on or after 1 July 2004. This was the original intention of the legislation and ensures that legally this process
is undertaken and carried out.
Part 6 makes a prospective amendment to the MRCA regarding widows of prisoners of war. This amendment
will enable them to claim a pension under MRCA—a provision which is available in the Veterans’ Entitlements
Act but not under MRCA.
Part 7 is a technical amendment which will enable the Specialist Medical Review Council, or SMRC, to review
decisions of the RMA. The RMA is responsible for preparing statements of principles which are utilised by the
Department of Veterans’ Affairs in assessing the eligibility of a veteran for particular entitlements for injuries or
part of their service. There are two statements of principles used in determining whether an injury or disease is
related to war or defence service. One sets out the types of conditions which need to exist as a minimum before it
can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting the injury or disease with service. The other
statement sets out factors that must exist and which of those factors must be related to service before it can be said
that, on the balance of probabilities, an injury or disease is connected with service.
Statements of principles are prepared by the Repatriation Medical Authority. They can be reviewed by the Spe-
cialist Medical Review Council, and under the current legislation there is no requirement for the SMRC to review
both statements of principles. This can lead to the potential for the two statements to differ slightly. So under this
amendment the SMRC will review both statements to ensure that they remain aligned.
The final amendments in part 8 clarify some technical arrangements under the MRCA as they relate to the
payment of money into bank accounts. The amendments also enable recipients of the Victoria Cross to receive an
annuity from a foreign government in addition to the Australian government’s Victoria Cross allowance. Currently
annuities cannot be received by Australian recipients in conjunction with an Australian annuity. The VEA will be
amended to exclude any foreign allowance or annuity from counting as income under the act’s income test. Any
payment will be included in the hardship test of the act. The Social Security Act will also be amended to exclude
any foreign allowance or annuity from the act’s income test in line with existing practice.
Madam Deputy Speaker, these are minor but not inconsequential amendments. We support the changes to the
legislation which make it easier for our veterans and their families to access assistance and benefits that they may
be entitled to. Whilst we have some reservations about the SES levy, more broadly this legislation does carry the
bipartisan support of the opposition.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 129

Ms HALL (Shortland) (12.12 pm)—I would like to commence my contribution on the Veterans’ Affairs and
Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 by paying my respects to all those veterans in
the electorate of Shortland, and for that matter throughout Australia, who have made an enormous contribution to
Australia. I think every time we debate veterans legislation it is important to look at the group of people that the
legislation is impacting upon. In Shortland electorate we do have a large number of veterans, particularly Second
World War veterans and veterans who have been affected by the nuclear tests that took place in Australia. This
legislation does extend the nuclear test participation eligibility to certain Australian protective services officers for
the period of 1984 to 1988.
I am very familiar with the impact that those nuclear tests had on the lives of our veterans and Australians who
were in that area at the time the tests took place. I have done a lot of work in my electorate with veterans and
those affected by those tests. I have seen some of them die. I have seen others who have constantly fought cancers
such as cancers of the skin, in one case working with and helping over an extended period of time a person with
myeloid leukaemia. He was somebody who really raised with me the issues associated with the atomic testing. I
could see at a personal level how that testing impacted on his life, and then I met with a wider range of atomic test
veterans. I think the extension of this participation eligibility is important. Those officers of the Australian protec-
tive services deserve to have that coverage because I know that their health and their lives have been impacted
enormously.
As a member of this House who stood up at times on this issue when the Howard government was in power and
saw how little compassion and sympathy that government had towards our nuclear test veterans, it really warms
my heart to be part of a government that has not only recognised the impact that the testing had on the lives of our
veterans but has also extended it to the Australian Protective Services. This extension, this eligibility for non-
liability healthcare treatment, provides for the government to fund cancer treatment for participants in the British
nuclear tests in Australia. Members of the Commonwealth Police, now known as the AFP, were previously
granted access to non-liability health care by an amendment to the Australian participation act in 2008. I point out
that was under the Rudd government. It took a Labor government to bring about the changes that have been
needed. This extension was granted on the basis of scientific evidence, something really important to put before
the House. There has been a wide body of scientific evidence that has supported the fact that atomic testing in
Australia did impact on the lives and health of those people that were in the area at the time. To be quite frank, it
is very disappointing that there was such a long period when those persons that were in that area went without
having the recognition and the healthcare treatment that they should have been entitled to. The fact is that this sci-
entific evidence indicated that the unique nature of the service of the police and APS officers increased the possi-
bility of exposure to contaminated dust and dirt.
The constituent to whom I referred earlier who had myeloid leukaemia had worked in a truck. He told me how
everyday when he would return from work his clothes would be covered in this contaminated dust. There was no
decontamination process to go through; rather, he walked in, took his clothes off and his wife threw those clothes
into the washing machine and then he went to work the next day in either those clothes or a fresh change of cloth-
ing. It is interesting to note that his wife has cancer. It is not myeloid leukaemia; it is a different kind of cancer. So
I do not think we can underestimate the impact that being in that area and being exposed to contamination had on
the lives of those people.
The APS officers patrolled the Maralinga area alongside the Commonwealth Police and the AFP. The amend-
ment provides treatment eligibility for APS officers who served in the Maralinga area up until 30 June 1988, after
which time comprehensive precautions and protocols were put in place to prevent exposure. So those APS officers
will be eligible for the non-liability medical care and treatment that should have taken place a while ago. It has
taken a Labor government to recognise that these APS officers really need the support of their government to be
able to obtain the health treatment via white card that they should have been able to claim for a long period of
time. The amendment allows APS officers who claim within six months of the introduction of this legislation to
have their reimbursement for treatment backdated to 2006. I think that is a very important aspect of this legislation
because we all know that the treatment for cancer can be quite an expensive process. This is recognition by the
government that those APS officers who served during the relevant period should not be disadvantaged because
they were not included in the extension in 2008. That is a really important part of this legislation. While this legis-
lation may seem quite minor in nature, it has enormous implications for a number of APS officers who were in
that atomic test area.
Some of the other items included in the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous
Measures) Bill 2010 include the payment for the State Emergency Service. It is my understanding this will have
no financial impact. The amendment has a minimal administrative impact on the Defence Service Homes Insur-
ance. DSHI can collect a levy from policyholders but requires the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 to be

MAIN COMMITTEE
130 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

amended to pass the moneys collected onto the New South Wales government. So this is a requirement of the New
South Wales government. This levy is being implemented because it is needed to help finance the State Emer-
gency Service. The New South Wales government introduced this levy on insurance policies specifically to fund
the State Emergency Service, which plays a very vital role in communities throughout New South Wales. Madam
Deputy Speaker Bird, I think that your area recently was badly hit by adverse weather events and the SES played
a very important role. I know they did very similar sorts of work in my own electorate after the 2007 storms hit
the Hunter. The State Emergency Service is a vital service and it is so important that we ensure that it is properly
funded.
Another aspect of the legislation is the extension of time from three months to 12 months in which certain types
of travel expenses can be claimed, bringing it into line with other travel reimbursements. Sometimes it is very dif-
ficult to put claim forms in within the three-month period. It is an anomaly that there are different periods of time
within which different travel expenses can be claimed. It is sensible that all travel claims can be claimed within
the same period of time. I think legislation should be put in place that requires all people who are eligible to claim
their travel expenses to be treated similarly. So this is, once again, a very sensible change.
The legislation also makes provision for serving notice under both the war entitlements act 1986 and the Mili-
tary Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. Further, it makes clear that war-caused or defence-caused injury
or disease remains compensable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, even if the injury or disease has been
aggravated, or materially contributed to, by defence service under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation
Act 2004. This is very important because we need to support our veterans. We need to make sure that they get
compensation when they need it—and legislation should be about enabling, not preventing, that. I see this legisla-
tion as enabling compensation to those who are entitled to it under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.
The legislation corrects the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to enable the payment of a pension to a dependant
of a veteran who was a prisoner of war during operational service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, where the
veteran died after the commencement of the current act. Once again, this is a very, very important change to the
legislation. A further provision enables a Specialist Medical Review Council to review both versions of the state-
ment of principles applicable to the same injury, disease or death. The legislation also clarifies that the Specialist
Medical Review Council may review a decision of the Repatriation Medical Authority. Further, the legislation
ensures certain lump sum payments of compensation and it enables Victoria Cross recipients to receive an allow-
ance if they are also eligible for an allowance from a foreign country. This is very important legislation. It should
be embraced by all members of this House, and I encourage members to support it as it is about benefits to all our
veterans. (Time expired)
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (12.27 pm)—Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, before I speak on the Veterans’
Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010, I would like to congratulate you
formally on your re-election at the 2010 election. I do not think I have had the opportunity to do that in this place
to date.
The veterans community is a very significant community across my electorate of Corangamite and also my sis-
ter electorate, the federal electorate of Corio. In fact, under the veterans affairs legislation, some 3,000 veterans
are provided entitlements within my seat and some 2,000-odd in the federal seat of Corio. It is a very active com-
munity. A number of service organisations meet regularly with me to advise and discuss matters that concern vet-
erans. I certainly warmly acknowledge the active representations that they make to me.
I would also like to acknowledge the dedicated work of former Minister Alan Griffin, the member for Bruce,
who worked in a very diligent way with the veterans community over the last three years to ensure that the Gillard
government was responding to their needs. I certainly look forward to working with our new minister, Minister
Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, in implementing further reforms that support the veterans community. They
have made an outstanding contribution to Australia, and I certainly acknowledge that.
This piece of legislation has been many years in the making. The schedules associated with it have necessarily
recognised some changes that have been a long time in the making. I first wish to discuss the Australian partici-
pants in the British nuclear test sites, particularly Maralinga, which has been an issue many governments have
failed to recognise for a very, very significant period of time. The medical evidence has been mounting over many
years that these nuclear tests have caused significant damage to the veterans community. The contribution made
by the Deputy Government Whip and the practical example that she highlighted drew parallels to many people in
our community suffering from asbestos related diseases. It is not just those who worked for the Australian Federal
Police who were impacted on by radioactive dust. Particularly with those suffering mesothelioma and other dis-
eases like that, it is often the women who might have had responsibility in the home for laundering the clothes of
their husband or partner who also might have been adversely affected.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 131

It is fair to say that through the white card the government has enabled these Australians to access this measure
that has been a long time in the making. The non-liability healthcare treatment provides government funded treat-
ment for cancers in the form of the white card for participants in British nuclear tests in Australia. The Common-
wealth police at that period of time—now know as the Australian Federal Police—were previously granted access
to non-liability healthcare treatment by an amendment in 2008to the Australian Participants in British Nuclear
Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. The extension was granted on the basis of scientific evidence indicating that the
unique nature of police and APS officer service increased the possibility of exposure to contaminated dust and
dirt. As I relayed earlier, it occurs to me that there is a large parallel here with those suffering mesothelioma and
particularly those who might have had responsibility for laundering clothes and the like of their partners or hus-
bands.
The APS officers patrolled the Maralinga area alongside the AFP for many decades to ensure that the site re-
mained safe from the rest of Australia. But that did do significant harm to them, as I understand it. The amend-
ment provides treatment eligibility for APS officers who served at that test site up until 1988, after which time
comprehensive precautionary protocols were put in place to prevent exposure. As I indicated earlier, it did take a
long, long time for the Commonwealth to recognise the potential harm that that was doing. That is why I am so
supportive of these amendments.
The amendment provides treatment eligibility for APS officers who served at that test site up until 1988; after
which time, comprehensive precautionary protocols were put in place to prevent exposure. As I indicated earlier, it
took a long time for the Commonwealth to recognise the potential harm of that exposure. That is why I am so
supportive of these amendments. The amendment allows for APS officers who claim within six months of its in-
troduction to have their treatment reimbursed back to June 2006. I think that recognises that our government has
been working on this for a significant period of time, but also that there has been significant harm done. We want
to recognise that, and this is a practical way we can as a government—and as a parliament hopefully—recognise
the contribution that these men and women paid.
The next schedule that I wish to speak on is the New South Wales government’s introduction of a levy on in-
surance policy holders to contribute to funding for their state emergency services. As the Deputy Speaker well
knows, I am a Victorian and we have sister organisations in Victoria—the CFA and the Victoria State Emergency
Services. Having seen over the last couple of years the very significant contribution that the CFA and the SES
have made to the Victorian community, I fully appreciate the need to have properly and adequately funded emer-
gency organisations to provide a level of protection for us, whether it is responding to wildfire, which has been a
significant issue in Victoria over the last few years, or flooding—this winter seems to have been a particularly wet
one. I think it is quite reasonable that the New South Wales government puts in place mechanisms to ensure that
their emergency organisations are properly funded to provide that level of protection to all of us.
The third component that I wish to speak to is the issue of claims for travel expenses. Under changes to the Vet-
erans’ Entitlements Act, ‘an eligible person may be paid travelling expenses incurred in obtaining treatment’. I
think that is quite reasonable. We live in a country that is huge. Many in our veterans community come from rural
and regional areas, and travel is a significant impost. I warmly welcome the provision, which will enable travel
expenses to be recognised as appropriate. Under the arrangements the time limit for submitting a claim for travel
expenses in the above circumstances is three months, and there are no exceptional circumstances provisions to
extend that period. I think it is quite reasonable that people are given a window to make their claim for travel ex-
penses and I think three months is adequate time to do that.
The fourth point I wish to touch on is the giving of notices and other documents. A Federal Court decision high-
lighted the absence of provisions within the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Com-
pensation Act 2004 setting out the requirements for service of written notices or other documents under each of
those acts. The court found that there were no provisions in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act that specified how a
person was to be served with a written notice. As a consequence, section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901
was applicable to the circumstances of the case.
The amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and, of course, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensa-
tion Act 2004 will require a number of entities under each act, such as the commission or a person’s service chief,
to specify in writing the manner in which a notice or other document may be given to a person, and I think that is
quite reasonable.
A number of the provisions under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compen-
sation Act require persons to be given notices that affect them and may have, of course, legal consequences. Ac-
cording to the judgment, as I am informed, notices sent to a post office box or non-residential address would not
be legally effective. I think that is a commonsense decision, and these amendments recognise that judgment. The

MAIN COMMITTEE
132 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 20 October 2010

amendments will ensure that notices and other documents that are served will be legally effective, and that is of
course critically important.
This will also protect taxpayer funds in relation to the recovery of overpayments, and will ensure that time lim-
its for appeal periods apply as they are intended to, and again that seems to me to be quite reasonable.
There are a number of other issues spelt out within the amendments which I will not go into. I do again just
want to touch on this point: we have some 5,000 people within the broader Geelong area—again, across my seat
and the neighbouring seat of Corio—who are paid one way or another and are recognised under the veterans af-
fairs legislation. They have made an outstanding contribution to Australia, and I certainly continue to look forward
to working with those veterans’ community organisations to ensure that the Gillard government responds in an
appropriate way to their needs, recognising the significant service that they make, and I look forward to working
with Minister Snowdon to ensure that we do deliver on that.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari—Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and
Minister for Indigenous Health) (12.42 pm)—I thank the member for Corangamite for his contribution and his
comments and observations, and other speakers: the members for Shortland, Macquarie, Blair and Fadden. It is
clear that there is no division on this issue in this parliament, and that is a very important thing.
As we know, the Veterans’ Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 will
make a variety of changes to veterans affairs portfolio legislation that will improve the ways in which we provide
support to our veterans’ family members and dependants. You will have heard that included in the bill are changes
that will provide eligibility for free cancer treatment to certain Australian Protective Service officers involved in
patrolling the exclusion zone at Maralinga between 1984 and 1988. The officers will be included in the existing
scheme that provides such treatment to Australian Defence Force members and Commonwealth employees who
were involved in the British nuclear testing program during the 1950s and 1960s, and who were subsequently em-
ployed at Maralinga.
The bill will give veterans more time to make claims for non-treatment-related travel expenses, which is a very
important thing. These changes will extend from three months to 12 months the period within which the non-
treatment travel claims may be submitted for reimbursement. This change, as I am sure you would be aware, Mr
Deputy Speaker, will benefit veterans and their dependants who travel for non-treatment-related purposes such as
attending claim reviews or obtaining medical evidence.
The bill will also enable Defence Service Homes Insurance to contribute to the cost of providing emergency
services in New South Wales through the payment of the State Emergency Service levy. As you heard from the
member for Corangamite, the levy will be collected from Defence Service Homes Insurance policyholders and
remitted to the New South Wales government.
The bill also includes minor changes to improve the operation of the Specialist Medical Review Council, firstly
by making it clear that the Specialist Medical Review Council may review a decision of the Repatriation Medical
Authority to not amend a statement of principles. Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you would now
know, the changes will provide for the Specialist Medical Review Council to review both versions of a statement
of principles that relate to a particular condition even if an applicant has requested a review of only one of the
statements of principles. The bill will also clarify the relevant provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to en-
sure that compensation will continue to be payable to eligible members in the circumstances where an initial war-
or defence-caused injury or disease is aggravated or materially contributed to by service under the Military Reha-
bilitation and Compensation Act. The bill will also ensure that the payment of a pension to the dependant of a vet-
eran who is a prisoner of war will continue as originally intended after the commencement of the Military Reha-
bilitation and Compensation Act 2004.
Other changes made by the bill will protect the interests of compensation recipients under the Military Reha-
bilitation and Compensation Act by requiring that certain compensation payments are made to an account main-
tained in a compensation recipient’s name, which of course is most important. Additionally, the bill will also en-
able Victoria Cross and decoration allowance recipients to receive both Victoria Cross or decoration allowances
under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and a Victoria Cross or decoration allowance or annuity from a foreign coun-
try. Finally, the bill will enable certain entities under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation
and Compensation Act to specify the manner in which notices and other documents may be served. This will en-
sure that the legal effect of such notices and documents is protected. Changes made by the bill demonstrate this
government’s commitment to continually review, update and improve the services and support we provide to our
current and former military personnel and their families. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

MAIN COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 20 October 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 133

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Main Committee adjourned at 12.48 pm

MAIN COMMITTEE