House of Representatives

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 

House of Representatives 

Votes and Proceedings 

Hansard 

MONDAY, 3 JUNE 2013 

CORRECTIONS 

This is a PROOF ISSUE. Suggested corrections for the Official Hansard and Bound Volumes 

should be lodged in writing with Hansard DPS as soon as possible but not later than: 

10 June 2013 

Facsimile: Senate (02) 6277 2977 

House of Representatives (02) 6277 2944 

Federation Chamber (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—2013 

Month Date 

February 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 

March 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 

May 14, 15, 16, 27, 28, 29, 30 

June 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27 

August 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29 

September 9, 10, 11, 12 

October 1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31 

November 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28 

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—NINTH PERIOD 

Governor-General 

Her Excellency the Hon. Quentin Bryce AC, CVO 

House of Representatives Office holders 

Speaker—Ms Anna Elizabeth Burke MP 

Deputy Speaker—Hon. Bruce Craig Scott MP 

Second Deputy Speaker—Mr Steven Georganas MP 

Members of the Speaker's Panel—Hon. Dick Godfrey Harry Adams MP, Mr Darren 

Cheeseman MP, Ms Sharon Joy Grierson MP, Ms Jill Griffiths Hall MP, Dr Andrew Keith 

Leigh MP, Ms Kirsten Fiona Livermore MP, Mr Geoffrey Raymond Lyons MP, Hon. Robert 

Bruce McClelland MP, Mr Robert George Mitchell MP, Mr John Paul Murphy MP, Mr Robert 

James Murray Oakeshott MP, Ms Deborah Mary O'Neill MP, Ms Amanda Louise 

Rishworth MP, Ms Janelle Anne Saffin MP, Mr Michael Stuart Symon MP, 

Ms Maria Vamvakinou MP, Mr Anthony Harold Curties Windsor 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—Mr Christopher Patrick Hayes MP 

Government Whips—Ms Jill Griffiths Hall MP, Mr Robert George Mitchell MP and 

Mr Graham Douglas Perrett 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 

Frydenberg, Joshua Anthony Kooyong, VIC LP 

ii



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 

Neumann, Shayne Kenneth Blair, QLD ALP 

iii



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 Ind 

Smith, Hon. Anthony David Hawthorn Casey, VIC LP 

Smith, Hon. Stephen Francis Perth, WA ALP 

Smyth, Laura Mary La Trobe, VIC ALP 

Snowdon, 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 Ind 

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 

Van Manen, Albertus Johannes Forde, QLD LP 

iv



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—C Mills 

Parliamentary Budget Officer—P Bowen 

v

GILLARD MINISTRY 

Title Minister 

Prime Minister The Hon Julia Gillard MP 

Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy 

Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP 

Minister for Social Inclusion The Hon Mark Butler MP 

Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform The Hon Mark Butler MP 

Minister for the Public Service and Integrity The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP 

Cabinet Secretary The Hon Jason Clare MP 

Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of 

ANZAC 

The Hon Warren Snowdon MP 

Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister The Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP 

Treasurer 

(Deputy Prime Minister) 

The Hon Wayne Swan MP 

Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation The Hon Bill Shorten MP 

Assistant Treasurer The Hon David Bradbury MP 

Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer The Hon Bernie Ripoll MP 

Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital 

Economy 

(Leader of the Government in the Senate) 

Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy 

Minister for Finance and Deregulation 

(Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) 

Senator the Hon Penny Wong 

Special Minister of State The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP 

Minister Assisting for Deregulation The Hon David Bradbury MP 

Minister for Defence 

(Deputy Leader of the House) 

The Hon Stephen Smith MP 

Minister for Veterans' Affairs The Hon Warren Snowdon MP 

Minister for Defence Science and Personnel The Hon Warren Snowdon MP 

Minister for Defence Materiel The Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP 

Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Senator the Hon David Feeney 

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport 

(Leader of the House) 

The Hon Anthony Albanese MP 

Minister for Road Safety The Hon Catherine King MP 

Minister for Regional Development and Local Government The Hon Anthony Albanese MP 

Minister for the Arts The Hon Tony Burke MP 

Minister for Sport Senator the Hon Kate Lundy 

Minister for Regional Services, Local Communities and Territories The Hon Catherine King MP 

Parliamentary Secretary for the Arts The Hon Michael Danby MP 

Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous 

Affairs 

The Hon Jenny Macklin MP 

Minister for Disability Reform The Hon Jenny Macklin MP 

Minister for Housing and Homelessness The Hon Mark Butler MP 

Minister for Community Services The Hon Julie Collins MP 

Minister for the Status of Women The Hon Julie Collins MP 

Parliamentary Secretary for Homelessness and Social Housing The Hon Melissa Parke MP 

Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers The Hon Amanda Rishworth MP 

Minister for Foreign Affairs Senator the Hon Bob Carr 

Minister for Trade and Competitiveness The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP 

Parliamentary Secretary for Trade The Hon Kelvin Thomson MP 

vi

Title Minister 

Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs Senator the Hon Matt 

Thistlethwaite 

Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population 

and Communities 

(Vice-President of the Executive Council) 

The Hon Tony Burke MP 

Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water The Hon Amanda Rishworth MP 

Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP 

Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations The Hon Bill Shorten MP 

Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare The Hon Kate Ellis MP 

Minister for Employment Participation The Hon Kate Ellis MP 

Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development The Hon Julie Collins MP 

Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace 

Relations 

(Manager of Government Business in the Senate) 

Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins 

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig 

Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry The Hon Sid Sidebottom MP 

Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP 

Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation The Hon Greg Combet AM MP 

Minister for Small Business The Hon Gary Gray AO MP 

Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation Senator the Hon Kate Lundy 

Minister for Science and Research Senator the Hon Don Farrell 

Minister for Higher Education and Skills The Hon Sharon Bird MP 

Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business The Hon Bernie Ripoll MP 

Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, Industry and 

Innovation 

The Hon Yvette D'Ath MP 

Minister for Health The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP 

Minister for Mental Health and Ageing The Hon Mark Butler MP 

Minister for Indigenous Health The Hon Warren Snowdon MP 

Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health The Hon Melissa Parke MP 

Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing The Hon Shayne Neumann MP 

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship The Hon Brendan O'Connor MP 

Minister for Multicultural Affairs Senator the Hon Kate Lundy 

Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs Senator the Hon Matt 

Thistlethwaite 

Attorney-General The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP 

Minister for Emergency Management The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP 

Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig 

Minister for Home Affairs The Hon Jason Clare MP 

Minister for Justice The Hon Jason Clare MP 

Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General The Hon Shayne Neumann MP 

Minister for Resources and Energy The Hon Gary Gray AO MP 

Minister for Tourism The Hon Gary Gray AO MP 

Minister Assisting for Tourism Senator the Hon Don Farrell 

Minister for Human Services Senator the Hon Jan McLucas 

Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is 

one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence 

portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. 

vii

SHADOW MINISTRY 

Title Shadow Minister 

Leader of the Opposition The Hon Tony Abbott MP 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Senator Arthur Sinodinos 

Opposition 

Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs 

The Hon Julie Bishop MP 

Shadow Minister for Trade 

(Deputy Leader of the Opposition) 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for International 

The Hon Teresa Gambaro MP 

Development Assistance 

Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport The Hon Warren Truss MP 

(Leader of The Nationals) 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Mr Darren Chester MP 

Transport 

Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Senator the Hon Eric Abetz 

Relations 

(Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) 

Shadow Minister for Employment Participation The Hon Sussan Ley MP 

Shadow Attorney-General 

Senator the Hon George Brandis SC 

Shadow Minister for the Arts 

(Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) 

Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection Mr Michael Keenan MP 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney- Senator Gary Humphries 

General 

Shadow Treasurer The Hon Joe Hockey MP 

Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Shadow Minister for Senator Mathias Cormann 

Financial Services and Superannuation 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tax Reform 

The Hon Tony Smith MP 

(Deputy Chairman, Coalition Policy Development 

Committee) 

Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and The Hon Christopher Pyne MP 

Training 

(Manager of Opposition Business in the House) 

Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning The Hon Sussan Ley MP 

Shadow Minister for Universities and Research Senator the Hon Brett Mason 

Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport 

Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP 

(Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education Senator Fiona Nash 

Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs 

Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion 

(Deputy Leader of the Nationals) 

Shadow Minister for Indigenous Development and 

Senator Marise Payne 

Employment 

Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Senator Barnaby Joyce 

Government and Water 

(Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) 

Shadow Minister for Regional Development The Hon Bob Baldwin MP 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald 

Australia 

viii


Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government Mr Don Randall MP 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray-Darling 

Basin 

Senator Simon Birmingham 

Shadow Minister for Finance, Deregulation and Debt 

Reduction 

(Chairman, Coalition Policy Development Committee) 

The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP 

Shadow Special Minister of State The Hon Bronwyn Bishop MP 

Shadow Minister for COAG Senator Marise Payne 

(Chairman, Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) (Mr Jamie Briggs MP) 

Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources The Hon Ian Macfarlane MP 

Shadow Minister for Tourism The Hon Bob Baldwin MP 

Shadow Minister for Defence Senator the Hon David Johnston 

Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and 

Personnel 

Mr Stuart Robert MP 

Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Shadow Minister 

Assisting the Leader of the Opposition on the Centenary of 

ANZAC 

Senator the Hon Michael Ronaldson 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel Senator Gary Humphries 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Defence Force and 

Defence Support 

Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald 

Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP 

Shadow Minister for Regional Communications Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP 

Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing The Hon Peter Dutton MP 

Shadow Minister for Ageing 

Shadow Minister for Mental Health 

Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare Dr Andrew Southcott MP 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health 

Services and Indigenous Health 

Dr Andrew Laming MP 

Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human 

Services 

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP 

Shadow Minister for Seniors The Hon Bronwyn Bishop MP 

Shadow Minister for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary 

Sector 

(Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) 

Senator Mitch Fifield 

Shadow Minister for Housing Senator Marise Payne 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Supporting Families Mr Jamie Briggs 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Status of Women Senator Michaelia Cash 

Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and 

Heritage 

The Hon Greg Hunt MP 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment Senator Simon Birmingham 

Shadow Minister for Productivity and Population 

Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 

Mr Scott Morrison MP 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and 

Settlement 

The Hon Teresa Gambaro MP 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration Senator Michaelia Cash 

Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science Mrs Sophie Mirabella MP 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation, Industry, 

and Science 

Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck 

ix


Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security The Hon John Cobb MP 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck 

Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy The Hon Bruce Billson MP 

and Consumer Affairs 

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair 

Competition 

x 

Senator Scott Ryan

CONTENTS 

MONDAY, 3 JUNE 2013 

Chamber 

PRIVILEGE................................................................................................................................................................1 

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS— 

Private Members' Motions— 

Reference to Federation Chamber .......................................................................................................................1 

PETITIONS— 

Diabetes— 

Gippsland Electorate: Television Reception— 

Visas— 

Banking— 

Clinical Trials— 

Asylum Seekers— 

Responses ............................................................................................................................................................2 

Foreign Aid— 

Hasluck Electorate: Radio Station— 

Medical Research Funding— 

Age Pension— 

Statements ...........................................................................................................................................................4 

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee— 

Report ..................................................................................................................................................................5 

BILLS— 

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013 [No. 2]— 

First Reading .......................................................................................................................................................6 

Australian Ownership Bill 2013— 

First Reading .......................................................................................................................................................8 


Penalty Rates ..........................................................................................................................................................9 

Department of the Treasury and Department of Finance and Deregulation .........................................................19 

COMMITTEES— 

Economics Committee— 

Report ................................................................................................................................................................22 

DELEGATION REPORTS— 

Delegation to Lebanon .........................................................................................................................................23 

COMMITTEES— 

Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry Committee— 

Report ................................................................................................................................................................25 

COMMITTEES— 

Education and Employment Committee ...............................................................................................................26 

Advisory Report on the Australian Education Bill 2012 ......................................................................................26 

BILLS— 

Australian Education Bill 2012— 

Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................26 

Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013— 

Report from Federation Chamber ......................................................................................................................33 

Third Reading ....................................................................................................................................................35 



STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS— 

Yunupingu, Dr M ..................................................................................................................................................42 

Greenway Electorate: Cancer Council's Biggest Morning Tea ............................................................................42 

Economy...............................................................................................................................................................42 

Regional Development Australia Fund ................................................................................................................43 

Australian Bat Lyssavirus .....................................................................................................................................43 

Parramatta Electorate: Sunday School Anniversary .............................................................................................43 

Education ..............................................................................................................................................................43 

Canberra Electorate: Small Business ....................................................................................................................44

CONTENTS—continued 

Australian Bat Lyssavirus .....................................................................................................................................44 

United Nations Youth Parliament .........................................................................................................................44 

STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE— 

Yunupingu, Dr M— 

Reference to Federation Chamber .....................................................................................................................46 

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................46 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE— 

National Broadband Network ...............................................................................................................................46 

Geelong Region ....................................................................................................................................................47 


Education ..............................................................................................................................................................48 

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS .................................................................................................................................49 


Education ..............................................................................................................................................................49 


Leaders Debate Commission ................................................................................................................................50 



DISTINGUISHED VISITORS .................................................................................................................................52 



Education ..............................................................................................................................................................52 


Automotive Industry ............................................................................................................................................53 

Asylum Seekers ....................................................................................................................................................54 

Asian Century .......................................................................................................................................................55 

National Security ..................................................................................................................................................55 

MOTIONS— 

National Security ..................................................................................................................................................56 

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS ...............................................................................................................................62 

BUSINESS— 

Days and Hours of Meeting ...............................................................................................................................62 

Days and Hours of Meeting ...............................................................................................................................62 

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS— 

Audit Report No. 41 of 2012-13 ..........................................................................................................................63 

DOCUMENTS— 

Presentation .......................................................................................................................................................63 

BILLS— 



Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012— 

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013— 



Cybersafety......................................................................................................................................................... 100 

Assyrian Population of Iraq ................................................................................................................................ 108 

ADJOURNMENT— 

Banking .............................................................................................................................................................. 114 

Regional Development Australia Fund .............................................................................................................. 115 

Education ............................................................................................................................................................ 115 

United Kingdom Economy ................................................................................................................................. 116 

Swan Electorate .................................................................................................................................................. 117 

Roberston Electorate .......................................................................................................................................... 118 

Petition: Barnabas Fund Proclaim Freedom ....................................................................................................... 119 

Gillard Government ............................................................................................................................................ 120 

Education Funding ............................................................................................................................................. 121 

Department of Health and Ageing ...................................................................................................................... 121 

Road Safety ........................................................................................................................................................ 122

CONTENTS—continued 

DisabilityCare Australia ..................................................................................................................................... 124 

Petition: Youth Mental Health ............................................................................................................................ 124 

Adelaide: Traffic Congestion ............................................................................................................................. 125 

NOTICES ............................................................................................................................................................... 125 

Federation Chamber 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS— 

National Disability Insurance Scheme ............................................................................................................... 127 

Automotive Industry .......................................................................................................................................... 127 

SPC Ardmona ..................................................................................................................................................... 127 

Pastorelli, Mr Rocco ........................................................................................................................................... 127 

Election Funding ................................................................................................................................................ 128 

Kingston Electorate: Roads ................................................................................................................................ 128 

Veterans .............................................................................................................................................................. 129 

Food Education .................................................................................................................................................. 129 

Economy............................................................................................................................................................. 130 

Ahmadiyya Muslim Association ........................................................................................................................ 130 

Flynn Electorate: Medical Workforce ................................................................................................................ 131 

Barton Highway ................................................................................................................................................. 131 

BILLS— 

Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013— 

Second Reading ............................................................................................................................................... 132 


Christian Assyrians in Iraq ................................................................................................................................. 137 

Polio Eradication ................................................................................................................................................ 145 

BILLS— 

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013— 

Consideration in Detail .................................................................................................................................... 154 

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS ............................................................................................................................... 164 

BUSINESS— 

Rearrangement ................................................................................................................................................ 176 

CONDOLENCES— 

Hawke, Mrs Hazel, AO ...................................................................................................................................... 176 


Bahrain: Human Rights— 

Sugar Industry— 

Reform Agenda for Older Australians— 

Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012— 


Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013— 


GRIEVANCE DEBATE— 

Papua New Guinea ............................................................................................................................................. 197 

Newcastle: Economy .......................................................................................................................................... 199 

Gas Reserves ...................................................................................................................................................... 202 

Electorate of Hasluck: Aircraft Noise ................................................................................................................. 204 

Questions In Writing 

Resources, Energy and Tourism: Staffing—(Question No. 1443)...................................................................... 206 

Resources, Energy and Tourism: Staffing—(Question No. 1444)...................................................................... 206 

National Long-Term Tourism Strategy—(Question No. 1445) .......................................................................... 207 

Tourism—(Question No. 1453) .......................................................................................................................... 207 

Tourism Australia: Staffing—(Question No. 1456) ............................................................................................ 208 

Tourism Australia—(Question No. 1457) .......................................................................................................... 208 

Tourism Australia: Staffing—(Question No. 1458) ............................................................................................ 209 

Tourism Australia—(Question No. 1459) .......................................................................................................... 209 

Tourism Australia: Events—(Question No. 1464) ............................................................................................. 209

Monday, 3 June 2013 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1 

Monday, 3 June 2013 

The SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 

10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read 

prayers. 

PRIVILEGE 

The SPEAKER (10:01): On 30 May 2013, the 

Leader of the Nationals raised as a matter of privilege 

whether the member for New England had abused the 

privileges of the House in making remarks on 28 May 

concerning Senator Joyce. 

Matters of privilege have been raised regarding the 

possible misuse of privilege by members making 

remarks in the House. The judgement in such matters 

involves a balancing of the right of members to be able 

to express themselves as they wish and a recognition 

that the privilege of freedom of speech is very 

powerful and should be exercised with care by 

members. This balancing is one largely for the 

judgement of individual members to make, recognising 

that anything said in the House will be assessed and 

judged by the community. 

To be pursued as a matter of privilege, by reference 

to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, 

there would need to be some prima facie evidence that 

the references had constituted an improper interference 

with the work of the House. In my opinion the 

information provided does not constitute prima facie 

evidence that a contempt has been committed. 

I note that a member of parliament has the 

opportunity to respond on an equal footing to remarks 

made about them in the House. I also note that 

offensive references to senators are not permitted under 

the standing orders, although no point of order was 

raised at the time. Private citizens, by means of an 

application for a right of reply, also are able to respond 

to remarks they believe have damaged their reputation. 

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 

Private Members' Motions 

Reference to Federation Chamber 

The SPEAKER (10:02): In accordance with 

standing order 41(g), and the recommendations of the 

Selection Committee, I present copies of the terms of 

motions for which notice has been given by the 

members for Berowra, Werriwa and Dawson. These 

items will be considered in the Federation Chamber 

later today. 

PETITIONS 

Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:03): On behalf of the 

Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance 

with standing order 207, I present the following 

petitions: 

CHAMBER 

Diabetes 

To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House 

of Representatives 

This petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of 

the House the fact that type 2 Diabetes incidents is growing 

in Australia and the average age of sufferers in now 

becoming younger and younger; 

We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to ensure 

the government implements measures to reduce the risk of 

Australians developing type 2 diabetes and to better manage 

type 1 and type 2 diabetes, specifically: 

Resourcing primary prevention programs focussing on 

populations, communities and individuals; 

Implementing a systematic, national risk assessment 

aimed at the early identification of those with type 2 

diabetes and those likely to develop the disease; 

Investing in health programs and public education to 

improve the detection and early intervention for prediabetes 

and existing diabetes; 

implementing programs to prevent progression and 

complications of both type 1 and type 2 Diabetes; and 

Establishing a sustainable program for optimal, 

individualised diabetes management for both type 1 and 

type 2 diabetes. 

from 42 citizens 

Gippsland Electorate: Television Reception 



This petition of…The People of Churchill in the State of 

Victoria. Draws to the attention of the House 

To the state of television reception in Churchill 

We therefore ask the house to: Look into this matter as a 

matter of urgency We get good reception most of the time, 

BUT we get NO signal for short periods many times a day. 

This is not caused by two aerials as stated by on behalf of the 

Minister for Broadband, Communications and the digital 

economy. (checked) 


Visas 



This petition of concerned residents and friends of the village 

of Metung in East Gippsland draws to the attention of the 

House: to the inequitable circumstances regarding the 

temporary residency of and, originally from England, arrived 

in Australia in November 2007 and settled in Metung, East 

Gippsland where they purchased, successfully operated and 

expanded an important local business. They are hard 

working, financially independent, well liked and through 

their active community spirit have become an asset to our 

local community. 's Sister has lived in Brisbane for over 

forty years and now one of their children has also decided 

that she would like Australia to be her home and is currently 

undertaking a second degree at Monash University as an 

International Student. 

They have committed to stay in Metung and are currently in 

the process of having a new home built.

2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 3 June 2013 

Whilst they accept the requirements of their Visa subclass 

405 in respect of the need for them to be totally self-funded 

and the continued necessity for full health cover, this visa 

gives them no permanency of residency. 

We therefore ask the House to: do all in its power to grant 

and the security of permanent residency, rather than the 

temporary visa they are required to submit for approval 

every 4 years. 


Banking 

Australia Urgently Needs a Glass-Steagall Separation of 

Banks 



This petition of the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia 

draws to the attention of the House the threat facing 

Australia's banking system from the deepening global 

financial crisis, which puts at serious risk the bank deposits 

of the Australian people, and essential banking services for 

the real economy. 

Australia is now vulnerable because our banking system is 

concentrated in just four banks, which between them hold 

the overwhelming majority of deposits and provide the 

majority of banking services, but which have dangerously 

exposed themselves to shocks in the global financial system, 

including through nearly $20 trillion in derivatives 

speculation. 

We therefore ask the House to take immediate action to 

protect deposits and essential commercial banking services, 

by enacting strict banking separation as did U.S. President 

Franklin Roosevelt's Glass-Steagall Act 1933. Glass-Steagall 

split deposit-taking, standard commercial banks from Wall 

Streets speculative investment banks, creating entirely 

separate entities under different roofs, thus successfully 

protecting the U.S. banking system until Glass-Steagall's 

repeal in 1999. We ask the House to apply the Glass-Steagall 

principle to Australia through legislation to divide each of 

the four major banks into two parts: 1) normal commercial 

banks as per Glass-Steagall standards, and 2) institutions 

involved in investment banking and other forms of 

speculation. Banks that speculate will then do so with their 

own money and at their own peril, with no government 

protection whatsoever. 

from 501, 137 and 860 citizens 

Clinical Trials 



This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the 

attention of the House: A Commonwealth Legislative 

Matter. 

We therefore ask the House to: 

Make all medicines safe by creating necessary changes to 

our Laws to mandate that Pharmaceutical Companies 

document truthful data, especially in regards to the potential 

risks and dangers pertaining to all medicines. Lack of 

information can undoubtedly adversely affect patient care. 

Many leading experts from around the world are very 

concerned that Pharmaceutical Companies are publishing 

results of positive clinical trials and are suppressing results 

CHAMBER 

of negative clinical trials. The effects of suppressed data are 

cutting some lives short. 

We are all worthy of the highest standards of safety. We 

therefore ask the House to do all in its power to: 

1. Demand legislative changes so that there is transparency 

and accountability in research. 

2. Place truthful and accurate warning labels on all 

medicines, including the Consumer Information Pamphlet 

(CPI). 

3. To list all risks regarding the dangers of ingesting 

medicines (not just a selected few). 

My mission goal is to create changes which will give 

consumers reliable and truthful information. Once Laws are 

changed, we can all be better informed about the risks, 

instead of leaving anything to chance. Increased 

transparency of test results, equates to better choices and 

ultimately safer medicines. The current Laws need to be reevaluated 

and reassessed, especially when it comes to 

people's safety. Thank you to each and every individual who 

has contributed their time and support to a worthy cause. 


Asylum Seekers 



The petition of the undersigned is to show the concern of 

parishioners of the Parish of St John the Apostle in Kippax, 

ACT, for the wellbeing of children who are asylum seekers 

and to ask for action by the House of Representatives to 

ensure that their living conditions are appropriately 

organised. 

from one citizen 

Petitions received. 

Responses 

Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:03): Ministerial 

responses to petitions previously presented to the 

House have been received as follows: 

Foreign Aid 

Dear Mr Murphy 

Thank you for your letter of February 11, 2013 regarding the 

petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions 

requesting that 0.5 per cent of Australia's Gross National 

Income (GNI) be allocated to overseas aid by 2015. 

The Australian Government is committed to reaching 0.5 per 

cent of GNI. 

In 2012, the Government took the difficult, but fiscally 

responsible, decision to defer this commitment until 2016- 

17. While this will slow the growth of the aid program, aid 

funding will continue to increase over the next four years. 

This financial year, the overseas aid budget will increase to a 

record $5.2 billion. 

The Australian Government recognises that adequate 

nutrition is vital to ensuring that children grow, learn and 

become productive members of society. The Government 

addresses malnutrition in a number of ways. Support is 

tailored to the needs of individual countries and, where 

possible, uses a multi-faceted approach. For example, in 

Timor-Leste Australia is helping to address nutrition by


improving health care for women and children, increasing 

access to clean water and sanitation, and improving food 

security through increased agricultural productivity. 

In 2011-12, Australia spent around 13 per cent, or $643 

million, of its aid budget on health programs and around 

$194 million on water and sanitation programs. As 

Australia's aid budget increases it is likely that funding to 

address nutrition issues will also increase. 

I trust that this information is of assistance. 

Yours sincerely 

from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob 

Carr 

Hasluck Electorate: Radio Station 


Community Radio Station Petition 

Thank you for your letter of 11 February 2013 (reference 

742/1187), regarding a submission received by the Standing 

Committee on Petitions from 'the people and businesses 

within the City of Swan region of Western Australia'. I note 

the petitioners seek the assistance of the House to secure a 

community radio service for the Midland CBD, within the 

Local Government Area of the City of Swan, including a 

variation to the Perth Radio Licence Area Plan, as necessary. 

You may be interested to know the petition was referred 

to the Australian Communications and Media Authority 

(ACMA) for consideration, as under the terms of the 

Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the ACMA is the 

independent statutory authority responsible for the planning 

and allocation of all broadcasting licences. In planning the 

economic and efficient use of radiofrequency spectrum, the 

ACMA is to have regard to planning criteria, including 

demographics and the number of existing broadcasting 

services in a licence area 

(section 23 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992). The 

Broadcasting Services Act 1992 also provides for the ACMA 

to determine the number and type of broadcasting services to 

be available in particular areas of Australia. 

The ACMA has advised that it has received applications 

for temporary community broadcasting licences (TCBL) 

from two groups seeking to provide temporary community 

broadcasting services within the City of Swan, including an 

application from Swan City Community Radio Inc, for a 

service to cater for the Midland CBD. In January 2013, the 

ACMA advised both aspirant groups that the 104.1 MHz 

frequency was suitable for use for temporary community 

broadcasting purposes in the Swan TCBL RA1 licence area, 

which encompasses the City of Swan (including Midland). 

Both aspirant groups have notified the ACMA that they have 

agreed to share the frequency, with each group broadcasting 

for 84 hours per week. 

It is expected that the communities in the suburb of 

Midland will be able to access the Swan TCBL RA1 service. 

I trust this information will be of use to the Standing 

Committee on Petitions. 

from the Minister for Broadband, Communications 

and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy 

CHAMBER 


Medical Research Funding 

Thank you for your letter on 18 March 2013 regarding a 

petition calling for the House of Representatives to invest 

funding for research in to Myalgic 

Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) 

and its accompanying illness Multi Chemical Sensitivities 

(MCS). 

As you may be aware, the National Health and Medical 

Research Council (NHMRC) is the Australian Government's 

leading health and medical research funding body. The 

NHMRC invests in research support through a variety of 

mechanisms including investigator-initiated research 

projects, broad programs of research and people support 

schemes targeted towards supporting health and medical 

research for the Australian community. 

The NHMRC considers approximately 4,000 applications for 

research funding each year and over 1,000 applications for 

individual support from the more junior level scholarships to 

senior level research fellowships each year. 

In all cases, the research proposals are initiated by the 

researchers and not predetermined by the NHMRC. These 

schemes are highly competitive and undergo rigorous expert 

peer review. Research focussed on ME/CFS has continued to 

be well supported by the NHMRC with over $1.2 million 

invested into this area of research between 2000 and 2012. 

You might be interested to know that the NHMRC awarded 

$500,000 over five years (2008-12) through a Practitioner 

Fellowship to the University of New South Wales for 

research into CFS led by Professor Andrew Lloyd. Professor 

Lloyd has made a substantial contribution to the 

understanding of CFS, with his work being the first to show 

the prevalence and variability of CFS, its differentiation from 

depressive disorders, its validity and reliability as a 

diagnosis, the heritability of CFS, and the first substantial 

randomised controlled trial of immune treatments. 

For individuals with this complex medical condition, the 

Government continues to support access to high quality 

medical care and medicines through subsidies provided 

under Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, 

which provides funding for services delivered in hospitals 

and supports good primary health care. 

Once again, thank you for writing. 

from the Minister for Health, Ms Plibersek 

Age Pension 

Thank you for your letter of 18 March 2013, about a petition 

recently submitted for the consideration of the Standing 

Committee on Petitions regarding increases to the rate of 

Age Pension and health and age care issues for pensioners. 

The Department of Human Services delivers payments and 

services on behalf of a range of government departments and 

agencies. The policy and legislation for the rate of Age 

Pension falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the 

Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous 

Affairs, the Hon Jenny Macklin MP. The policy relating to 

health care falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the 

Minister for Health, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP. The 

policy related to aged care falls within the portfolio 

responsibilities of the Minister for Mental Health and 

Ageing, the Hon Mark Butler MP.


I have, therefore, referred your correspondence to the offices 

of Ministers Macklin, Plibersek and Butler for consideration. 

Once again, thank you for writing. 

from the Minister for Human Services, Senator 

McLucas 

Statements 

Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:04): Further to last 

week’s statement, today I will discuss the two public 

hearings the committee conducted in Sydney and 

Brisbane with selected principal petitioners and/or their 

representatives. 

Since the inception of the first committee in 2008 

the committee has elected to hold roundtable public 

hearings on a variety of petitions which have met the 

House's requirements and have subsequently been 

tabled and, usually, have already been responded to by 

the executive. 

These hearings are conducted to enable a further 

airing of the petition issue through a public dialogue on 

the petition, and not to inquire into the matter with a 

view to resolving, following-up or making 

recommendations to government on any individual 

petition concern. This type of activity is beyond the 

scope of the committee's role. 

However, considering that petitioners are aware that 

the committee is not a body of resolution, it is 

gratifying to see that petitioners have willingly 

appeared at these meetings and have gone to much 

trouble with their pre-preparations. Many of those who 

have appeared have enthusiastically reported how 

much they valued simply being able to discuss their 

petition matter with the committee. And the matter, 

which is condensed in the petition terms to 250 words, 

can be elaborated on—and this discussion is a public 

one. 

I am sure that I speak for all members of the 

committee in endorsing the value of conducting these 

discussions with principal petitioners and/or their 

representatives. More often than not the committee 

comes away from these hearings with a clearer, or new, 

perspective on an issue. Petitioners may do likewise, 

even on matters close to their hearts. Sometimes 

participating in discussions may help petitioners to 

advance solving a matter for themselves or may simply 

satisfy their understanding why something is the way it 

is. 

In addition, the full transcripts of the public hearings 

are published by Hansard and to the committee's 

website, so these insights and clarifications may be 

ascertained by interested stakeholders and the general 

public more broadly. Once the official transcript has 

been finalised, a copy is sent to the relevant portfolio 

minister or ministers pertaining to those petitions 

discussed. 

CHAMBER 

Hearings have also provided the added opportunity 

for the committee to learn of the reasons petitioners 

utilised the House's petitioning process to air their 

concerns, rather than through other mechanisms, and 

what they thought of the process. And these hearings 

were no exception. 

In Sydney, the committee met with the principal 

petitioners (or their representatives) of four petitions, 

on the following matters: calling for the full 

implementation of the National Bowel Cancer 

Screening Program; requesting various considerations 

during the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade 

Agreement negotiations; maintaining the current civil 

aviation standards for flight-crew ratios; and ways in 

which customers are informed, and give consent for, 

their financial data being held offshore. 

In Brisbane, the committee heard from the 

petitioners on yet another diverse range of petition 

matters calling for special award payments for on-thejob 

risk for truck drivers, seeking an intercountry 

adoption program between Australia and Burundi, 

requesting that Australia support the recognition of 

Palestine as a non-member state of the United Nations, 

and seeking to have all food which is manufactured 

using halal processes labelled as such. 

The committee was interested to learn of the 

firsthand experiences of most of the principal 

petitioners who had prepared petitions. In Sydney, one 

petitioner spoke of firsthand experience with bowel 

cancer; another had been made redundant when the 

service area they worked in moved offshore, whilst 

another had worked as a flight attendant over many 

decades of change in the aviation industry. 

In Brisbane, one petitioner who was a truck driver 

with over 20 years experience in the industry told the 

committee he had witnessed the consequences of 

serious vehicle accidents, including being injured in 

three massive, no-fault collisions. Another petitioner 

and her husband had independently adopted their son 

from the small African country of Burundi, after many 

years of trying to adopt through the officially 

supported intercountry adoption programs. These 

petitioners came to express their concerns and desires 

about matters which were not only personally 

connected to them—in many cases, deeply so—but 

these people also had expertise in the subject matter. 

These petitioners did not just come to the committee 

with problems. The petitioners had thoroughly 

researched their concerns—they brought statistics and 

data and thoughtful suggestions or reasoning. And this 

is entirely understandable given that the petitions 

process reinforces this type of thinking. 

Petitions to the House must draw to attention an 

issue of concern; they must set out reasons why there is 

a problem, and then they must ask the House to take 

action. Therefore, formulating a petition encourages


petitioners to think not only of the problem but of what 

they would like changed, introduced or resolved. 

I thank the House. 

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint 

Committee 

Report 

Ms SAFFIN (Page) (10:09): On behalf of the Joint 

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and 

Trade I present the trade subcommittee's report, 

entitled Australia's trade and investment relationship 

with Japan and the Republic of Korea. The committee 

welcomed the opportunity to examine Australia's 

relationship with two of our most important trading 

partners. I will first turn to Japan. 

The importance of the Australia-Japan relationship 

should not be obscured by the rise of other countries. 

Japan was Australia's number one trading partner for 

over 40 years, and today remains second only to China. 

In that time Japan has made a significant contribution 

to Australia's prosperity, originating with its 

investment in the resources and energy sector in the 

1960s. 

Today Japan is Australia's third-largest source of 

foreign investment, totalling $123.4 billion in 2011. It 

is also Australia's second-largest market for food and 

agricultural products, with safe, high-quality food and 

reliable supply from Australia making a significant 

contribution to Japan's food security. On the other side 

of the ledger Japan is Australia's third-largest source of 

imports, with products such as cars and manufactured 

goods in high demand by Australian consumers. 

Today Japan is moving toward trade liberalisation 

and agricultural reform, including negotiating a freetrade 

agreement with Australia. This agreement is a 

significant milestone: Japan's first with one of its top 

six trading partners, and first with a major developed 

economy. 

The committee strongly supports the FTA, or freetrade 

agreement, negotiations. The services sector is 

one area expected to benefit from the FTA. Education 

and tourism are two of Australia's most important 

services exports. The committee supports efforts to 

attract more visitors and international students to 

Australia. The committee heard that Australia's 

particular expertise in financial services is being 

increasingly recognised in Japan, a country with the 

world's second-largest pool of investable wealth. Both 

countries' expertise is also being capitalised upon in 

investment projects, and in particular through joint 

ventures in third countries. 

The committee has recommended that the 

government showcase the marketing of Meat and 

Livestock Australia in its export facilitation activities. 

In the committee's view, approaches like that of MLA's 

'Aussie Beef' promotion can reduce competition 

CHAMBER 

between individual Australian brands, improve 

customer awareness and tap into Japanese perceptions 

of Australian food as safe, high-quality products. 

I turn now to the Republic of Korea. Korea is 

Australia's fourth-largest trading partner, and a country 

with which Australia shares a longstanding and 

complementary relationship. After the Korean War, 

Australian exports of raw materials supported Korea's 

industrial development from the 1960s onwards. 

Indeed, energy, minerals and metals exports continue 

to be the bedrock of the ongoing relationship. 

The committee heard about significant growth in 

Korean investment to secure Korea's ongoing energy 

needs. Korean companies are taking increasingly large 

stakes in a number of Australian resources projects. 

With 70 per cent of its food needs met from imports, 

Australia also has an important role to play in Korea's 

food security—providing safe, high-quality food to our 

fifth-largest agricultural export market. In turn, 

Australia continues to demand Korea's consumer 

products, including cars, electronics and refined fuels. 

Korea's active free-trade agreement schedule, 

including negotiations with Australia, occupied a 

central role in our inquiry. With Korea's FTAs in force 

with the United States and European Union, the 

committee was concerned about the implications of 

ongoing delays in concluding our own agreement. 

Considerable attention has been given to the 

implications for Australia's beef exports to Korea, our 

third-largest beef export market, as well as other 

outstanding issues, such as investor-state dispute 

settlement. I thank the trade subcommittee, and 

particularly my deputy chair, the honourable member 

for Maranoa—can I get an extension, Speaker? 

The SPEAKER: No. 

Ms SAFFIN: That is a shame. 

The SPEAKER: That is a shame. I am terribly 

sorry. 

Mr Bruce Scott: I want to give her an extension of 

time; she is saying something nice about me. 

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report 

was made a parliamentary paper. 

Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Deputy Speaker) 

(10:15): I rise with pleasure to support the tabling of 

our report from the Joint Standing Committee on 

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on the trade and 

investment relationship with Japan and Korea. I say to 

the chair, the member for Page, that I think one of the 

great things we had on the committee was that we all 

looked in all our hearings to get the right outcome 

without looking at politics. It was about what is the 

right thing for Australia. There was wonderful 

camaraderie throughout what had been a very long 

process. It underpins the importance that the committee


places on our trade relationship with two very 

important trading partners, Japan and Korea. 

Japan has been our No. 1 export destination for 

almost 40 years and it will remain a very important 

country to Australia. Whilst we do not have a free trade 

agreement with it yet, I am hopeful that negotiations 

continue, even in the lead-up to this federal election. It 

must continue because it is important to both countries. 

I am concerned that perhaps it may get lost in the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations that are 

occurring between other countries in that partnership, 

but I want to put Australia's interests and Japan's 

interests ahead of those others. From Australia's point 

of view, Japan is a very significant investor in 

Australia—I think our third largest investor. That 

remains important to us and also to Japan. In relation to 

the beef industry, it has long been our No. 1 or No. 2 

destination for Australian beef. Coming from the 

electorate that I do and coming from Queensland, 

whose second largest export commodity is beef, I say 

that we must continue to make sure that we do all we 

can to negotiate an agreement that is complementary to 

our beef industry. One of the things I found and I am 

sure the committee found while we were in Japan was 

the importance they place on our food, be it beef or 

other products, and our clean, green image. That is a 

trading asset that we have and that we must always 

protect. 

I also thank the embassy staff in Japan and the 

consuls-general that we met as we took evidence 

across Japan. I want to thank those companies and their 

very senior people who attended those hearings for the 

very comprehensive evidence they gave us. I want to 

touch on a program called the JET program, those 

students from Australia who go to Japan and live in a 

community. They are an inspiration to me and I 

thought: what a wonderful way to continue to build 

that relationship that goes beyond the high levels that 

we were exposed to. Those students were an 

inspiration to us and also great ambassadors in a 

wonderful program taking Australian students into 

Japanese communities with their language skills to 

broaden the Japanese speaking skills for those 

Australians who also to take English language skills 

into Japan. 

On Korea, I have been very impressed by Korea's 

growth. As a former veterans' affairs minister I have 

observed Korea's growth over a long time since the 

Korean War. After the Korean War it was MacArthur 

who said that Korea will always need foreign aid. In 60 

years they have transformed that economy from an 

economy that was an aid recipient to an aid donor, 

which underpins how that country has grown and 

become such an important part of the trading scene 

globally. 

CHAMBER 

I want to touch very quickly in the limited time that 

I have—because I know I will not be given additional 

time—on the chair talking about the investor-state 

dispute in relation to the Korean free-trade 

negotiations. It is, I think, one of those elements 

holding up the finalisation of that agreement. I note the 

government's position, which is stated in the report, 

and I just want to say for the benefit of the Hansard 

that the committee also notes some important words 

from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow 

minister for trade, the Hon. Julie Bishop. These are the 

important words that I want to reflect on in these few 

moments left: 'The coalition would, as a matter of 

course, put ISDS clauses on the negotiating table and 

then negotiate the …'— (Time expired) 

BILLS 

Broadcasting Services Amendment 

(Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013 [No. 

2] 

First Reading 

Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr 

Bandt. 

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:20): The 

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertisements 

for Sports Betting) Bill 2013 is a timely and necessary 

intervention that is aimed at limiting harm to children 

and preserving the place of sport in Australian life. 

There has been much talk in recent times about 

gambling ads and betting ads during sports, but there 

has been precious little action. The Greens began the 

parliamentary debate earlier this year on this issue with 

our Senate inquiry. In the absence of action, the Greens 

will take the lead. This bill will ensure that children are 

able to watch sports on Saturday and Sunday 

afternoons with their parents and not be exposed to 

gambling ads. 

Australians love sport. Sport is indeed at the centre 

of our culture. Organised sport is one of the primary 

ways we entertain ourselves, spend time with family 

and build community. It is an inherently healthy 

pursuit and one easily shared with friends and family 

of all ages. From playing backyard cricket to packing 

the stands of the MCG for the AFL Grand Final, many 

of us are passionate about our sport and make it part of 

our daily lives. We also make sport a priority in public 

policy. The Commonwealth spends over $170 million 

each year on elite sports through the Australian 

Institute of Sport, and Australia is famous around the 

world as a sporting nation. Despite being a small 

country we are consistently near the top of the Olympic 

medal tally. 

Because Australians love sport so passionately, it is 

big business. Our major sporting codes such as 

Australian Rules football and rugby league have 

billion-dollar television deals. Huge sums are involved


in the sponsorship of these events. In recent times, the 

involvement of gambling companies in sports 

sponsorship has increased. It is now virtually 

impossible to watch major sports without being 

subjected to multiple exhortations to bet on the 

outcome, either during the advertising breaks or, 

increasingly, by commentators during the event itself. 

The statistics reinforce the size and scope of the 

problem. Online betting, of which sports betting is a 

major component, has risen from $2.4 billion in 2007 

to almost $10 billion in 2012. It is estimated that 

billions more are wagered by Australians on 

unregulated, offshore websites. 

Having a bet is also part of Australian culture and 

betting on sport is an enjoyable activity for many 

people. For some, who become problem gamblers, it 

can be incredibly destructive. Because of this potential 

for harm, there are serious questions to be answered 

about just how much Australians want gambling to be 

part of sport. Somewhere, the line must to be drawn 

between a benign, family-friendly activity and one that 

is inextricably linked to gambling, such as horse 

racing. 

In recent years this line has been crossed more and 

more frequently. It has become increasingly difficult, if 

not impossible, to avoid repeated exposure to betting 

advertisements and gambling odds when watching any 

major sporting event. The number of sports betting ads 

on free-to-air TV quadrupled in the last two years. In 

2012 there were 528 individual ads, collectively 

broadcast more than 20,000 times. There has also been 

a blurring of the line between commentary and 

advertising when it comes to gambling. The recent 

inclusion of a prominent bookmaker as part of the 

rugby league coverage has caused concern for many. 

This growing nexus between sports and gambling 

companies has not gone unnoticed by the Australian 

public. The saturation advertising has come to irritate 

many people who love sport and worry about the 

corrosive impact it might have on the game. In 

particular, they are concerned about the impact on 

children. 

A recent inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on 

Gambling Reform has heard disturbing evidence into 

the problem. Academic researchers have recounted 

how children are now able to name an average of two 

or three sports betting firms simply by virtue of 

watching sport. Anecdotally, young children are 

discussing the odds of their favourite teams winning a 

match. Given the strictly adult nature of the product, 

many people are concerned about this overexposure of 

children and the way in which it may be normalising 

the connection between gambling and sport for them. 

The potential for harm is obvious, and problem 

gambling already costs individuals and the community 

dearly. Where there are obvious harms, there is a need 

CHAMBER 

to regulate. How best to do so can be a difficult 

question when the activity involved is legal and, for 

many, both safe and enjoyable. However, an 

unregulated market is not appropriate where the 

product has such a high potential for harm. It is true 

that this is a problem the industry could solve itself 

without government intervention. In fact, the 

government in 2011 gave the industry an ultimatum 

with regard to the promotion of live odds, threatening 

regulation if the industry did not do something to curb 

the practice. The response by television and radio 

broadcasters has been change to their codes of conduct 

that places some limitations on the promotion of odds. 

These codes still allow promotion during scheduled 

breaks, and under this code the current situation where 

a bookmaker appears during editorial segments 

discussing gambling would not be prohibited. 

There has been a recent reiteration of the threat from 

the Prime Minister, but even if action were taken—and 

we have not yet seen anything from the gambling 

industry to suggest that any legally binding rules will 

be in place before this parliament rises—it would still 

be possible during the quarter-time or half-time breaks 

when you are watching football with your kids on a 

Saturday or Sunday afternoon for gambling ads to pop 

up. 

The problem has escalated to the point where there 

is real potential for harm to children, setting them up as 

a new generation of problem gamblers. Industry selfregulation 

has failed to properly limit this harm. Under 

these circumstances, and given the level of disquiet in 

the community, it is appropriate and timely for 

parliament to step in and regulate this area. 

This bill takes some modest steps to limit the harms 

of gambling advertising. That children should be 

protected from overexposure to gambling 

advertisements is incontestable. The bill puts 

restrictions on commercial radio and television 

broadcast licensees that limit their ability to broadcast 

advertisements for gambling services in a way likely to 

be consumed by children. 

Firstly, the bill prevents the advertising or 

discussion of live odds at any time. Children and adults 

will no longer be exposed to a constant barrage of 

changing numbers as the game progresses, or the most 

intrusive inducements to bet in the lead-up to the game. 

Secondly, the bill prevents any advertisements for 

gambling services before 9 pm at night. Although the 

broadcasters comply with a code that prevents the 

advertising of these services during children's viewing 

hours, they have left a loophole for sports broadcasts. 

But sports programs are among the most popular 

shows viewed by children. We would not tolerate the 

advertising of harmful products like gambling during 

Saturday morning cartoons. Yet for a sporting event 

being broadcast at the same time, with as many child


viewers, there is no restriction. This bill closes that 

loophole once and for all. 

Thirdly, the bill puts an end to so-called 'cash for 

comment', perhaps the most intrusive way that 

gambling has intruded into team sport. Under these 

provisions of the bill, licensees would not be allowed 

to accept payment for the promotion of gambling 

services by commentators on a sports broadcast or their 

guests. It would prevent such situations we have seen 

developing recently where bookmakers join the 

commentary team, or where commentators slip 

references to odds or gambling services into their 

remarks about the game. 

In addition to now putting into law something that 

should be a law that is not appropriate for selfregulation, 

unlike the other proposals that have been 

circulated this bill would encompass those others for 

shows such as the footy show that can run summer up 

to half an hour before the game and still be promoting 

live betting. Also under this bill, unlike the government 

proposal, it would not be possible to cross to an online 

bookmaker during the scheduled quarter-time or halftime 

breaks. 

The time has come for the parliament to take action 

on this issue. Along with legislation to restrict the 

promotion of odds during a sports broadcast by 

commentators and bookmakers alike, we also need to 

close the loophole that allows gambling advertisements 

during kids' viewing times. While gambling 

advertising is banned in programs that are likely to 

have a substantial child audience, an exception is still 

made for sports. A simple change preventing gambling 

advertisements before 9 pm is a simple, common-sense 

solution. 

The Greens are pleased to have led the legislative 

campaign to protect children and to protect sport. This 

bill has been introduced into the Senate and I am very 

pleased to commend this bill to the House. 

Bill read a first time. 

The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 

41(c), the second reading will be made an order of the 

day for the next sitting. 

Australian Ownership Bill 2013 

First Reading 

Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr 

Katter. 

Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:30): The Australian 

Ownership Bill 2013 limits foreign investment in 

Australian business and agricultural land. 

Unashamedly protecting our agricultural and food 

security, the bill prevents a foreign person or body 

corporate from holding ownership interests and more 

than 49 per cent of an Australian agribusiness or a 

parcel of Australian land of four hectares or greater. 

CHAMBER 

The bill aims to protect the future of Australians' 

food security and redress the sell-off of Australia 

overseas. This bill also recognises that in limited 

circumstances foreign investment is necessary to 

provide our farmers and producers with the only exit 

possible from many years of unfair prices or to open 

new markets and provide new technology or finance. If 

the foreign person or body can demonstrate that the 

acquisition will provide substantial benefit, and I 

emphasise substantial benefit, to the nation and is in 

the national interest—for example, by the opening of 

new markets, by providing for financial betterment of 

all Australians or by providing for either or both 

technological advancement and major capital 

investment—then that exception may prevail. 

In saying these things, it amazes me that there does 

not seem to be in this place the slightest scintilla of 

nationalism. There is no thought that we should ask 

ourselves: do we want our country to be owned by 

foreigners so that Australians become some sort of serf 

working for a foreign landlord? With the Liberal Party 

looking very likely to become the government of 

Australia in a deregulated labour market, we would be 

serfs working for foreign landlords for increasingly 

less money each year as our pay and conditions are 

undermined—back to where they were a hundred years 

ago, before we had a regulated labour market. 

There has been talk, continuously, and it is very 

good as far as I am concerned that the talk is less about 

carbon and less about the horror of the Murray-Darling 

somehow drying up and more about food security. 

Members of this parliament have heard me many times 

on this issue. Suffice it to say that Australians are net 

importers of fruit and vegetables, net importers of 

seafood—in fact, fairly massive net importers of 

seafood now—and net importers of pork. I am told that 

with apples, if we include apple product, there is more 

product coming in from China than there is produced 

in Australia. 

If you have a look at the graph of the growth of 

prawn and fish production in China then you could 

argue that within 40 or 50 years all the world's protein 

will come from China. I had better not without his 

permission mention his name, but the leading fruit and 

vegetable wholesaler in Australia told me that unless 

we get bumblebees we will be a net importer of 

tomatoes from China. I would think we would be close 

to being a net importer of peanuts, for example, from 

China. 

So the people lacking any interest in research, 

lacking any interest in a bigger picture, lacking any 

interest in anything except holding on to their seats in 

three months time, have failed in any way to come to 

grips with the situation in which your country in three 

years time will be a net importer of food. That is the 

definition of food leaving out grain and live cattle. You


cannot eat live cattle and you cannot eat grain. You can 

eat flour or you can eat processed meat but you cannot 

eat an ox. If you put those back in, it is probably in 

about eight or nine years that we will become a net 

importer of food. Either way, I have heard time after 

time in this place people get up and seriously talk 

about how we are going to be the food bowl of Asia. 

For heaven's sake, will you realise that you will be the 

begging bowl of Asia? You will not be the food bowl, 

you will be the begging bowl. You are living in a 

country that will not be able to feed itself within three 

to nine years time. You are living in a country that will 

not be able to feed itself, and the morality of 

continuing down this pathway is to me extremely 

dubious; the morality of our situation is extremely 

dubious. 

I sit under the two greatest man in Australian 

political history by a long way: the famous Red Ted 

Theodore and Jack McEwen. Both those men said 

again and again that unless we develop this country we 

will not be able to hold on to it. People in this 

parliament come from giant cities and have most 

peculiar attitudes, such as that we have too many 

people. That is a view that you could see maybe in 

inner Melbourne or inner Sydney, but if you walked 

100 kilometres outside of either of those cities and 

went across the rest of Australia to the sea in Western 

Australia you would not see anybody. There is nobody 

living there. Take out a narrow 100-kilometre coastal 

belt from Adelaide to Cairns through Sydney and 

Melbourne and a little dot around Perth, the country is 

populated by less than a million people. If ever there is 

a truism of history, it is that a land without people shall 

be populated by a people without land. If you think I 

am exaggerating, read Mr Hitler's book called Mein 

Kampf. It is excellent reading in the sense that living 

room is on every third page of the book. Have a look at 

the little black book that was handed out to Japanese 

troops as they swarmed south and that is exactly the 

same message. It is about the land and owning the 

productive resources. 

I must digress on that in the little bit of time that is 

left to me. There are 23 licensed wheat exporters 

operating in Australia today that are foreign-owned. 

These exporters have invested in grain handling 

capacity. Under the sale of GrainCorp the situation is 

not quite as clear as I would like it to be, but it would 

appear to me that almost all of your grain handling 

facilities—your silos, your storage, your rolling stock 

and your port facilities—are now foreign-owned, and 

foreign-owned by a single corporation. Our forebears 

spent their entire lives fighting to get single-desk 

sellers in this industry so they could get a fair go and a 

decent return. But what this parliament, on both sides, 

has done is sell that single-desk seller to a single 

foreign entity! 

CHAMBER 

With the single entity in the case of sugar mills, you 

can only have a monopoly. You cannot put it in the 

back of a truck and send it up the road to the next mill. 

Heavens! It is only worth $40 a tonne, so you simply 

cannot afford to do that. And sugar deteriorates very 

rapidly. So you have a monopoly position you have 

imposed upon every sugarcane farmer in this 

country—a monopoly position—because almost all the 

sugar mills are foreign owned, except for Mackay and 

the very small industry in New South Wales. All the 

rest of the 28 mills are owned by foreigners. Sixteen 

years ago they were all owned by Australians. 

Prior to dairy deregulation—another clever initiative 

of this parliament; and if Madigan spat hatred, then I 

cannot blame him because I would feel the same 

way—in the year 2000, both sides of this parliament 

sold off the dairy industry in exactly the same— (Time 

expired) 

Bill read a first time. 

Debate adjourned. 


Penalty Rates 

Debate resumed on the motion: 

That this House: 

(1) recognises the reliance of many families and individuals 

across our community on penalty rates as a key component 

of their income, particularly our lowest-paid workers; 

(2) acknowledges that work-life balance is important to the 

health and welfare of workers, families and our community; 

(3) recognises that penalty rates often compensate workers 

for time they may otherwise spend with family; and 

(4) opposes measures that would remove or undermine 

penalty rates, 10:41:19 AM— 

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:41): I am pleased to 

rise to stand on this important motion. I know that 

everyone on this side of the chamber believes that 

Australian workers should be able to lead a decent life, 

sustained by a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, and 

to have working conditions that allow for the building 

of a life with family and friends: to plan your finances, 

to spend time together and to build the things that 

matter in a good life—health, financial security, family 

and friends. The motion before the House reminds us 

of what a working life supports: that balance between 

home and work that allows for the formation of those 

family units—whatever they look like—and 

community networks that form the basis of a cohesive 

society. 

When you work unusual and changing hours, a price 

is paid in lost time with family and friends, and penalty 

rates are one way that the price is shared between the 

worker, who pays the price, and business and 

consumers who benefit from it. Penalty rates are 

something that for over 100 years we recognised 

should apply in jobs and workplaces. They share that


price out so it is not just paid by the worker. They have 

been examined, inquired into, tested by economists, 

argued about, negotiated, measured by statisticians, 

arbitrated by tribunals and so on for longer than 

taxation has existed in this country. Opposition to these 

rates is as perennial as the argument to support them. 

I have a very pragmatic view. I believe that penalty 

rates are a genuine reflection of what Australian 

society expects as compensation for people who have 

to work at times when others are not expected to. We 

know that historically the opposition has not been a 

strong supporter of penalty rates. We have seen what 

they did with Work Choices, we have well and truly 

seen the ripping away of overtime and penalty rates 

and we have heard statements from the opposition 

since that time that they would go down that path 

again. I acknowledge that they are backing away a 

little in their rhetoric at the moment, but one can 

always expect them to revert to type. 

If they did that—if they were in government again 

and did that—they would remove between nine and 11 

per cent of the weekly take-home wages of people 

working in the accommodation and food sectors in my 

electorate. Similarly, they would reduce about seven 

per cent of the weekly take-home pay for people 

working in the retail sector. Of those people working in 

hospitality, 72 per cent are low-paid workers who work 

on weekends and on shifts, and in the food and 

accommodation industries it is 56 per cent—all heavily 

reliant on penalty rates for their family budgets. And I 

would have to say that there is not a lot of fat in those 

family budgets. 

I read the economic data—the ABS figures and so 

on—and I have seen the analysis of costs and the share 

of wages and profits in those industries, and there is 

simply not a case to remove penalty rates. Employment 

has grown in these sectors, and the highest growth has 

been in small business. For six years, the net price of 

labour in those industries has risen by a mere 0.8 per 

cent, whereas income and expenditure on other items 

for small business in these sectors has risen from 

anything between eight and 25 per cent. Gross wages, 

including penalty rates, have not been a problem, but 

the loss of those penalty rates would be a major 

problem. 

I have doorknocked tens of thousands of houses in 

my electorate—over 70,000 in total—but redistribution 

has moved about 40,000 of them into a neighbouring 

electorate. At least 30,000 of those houses are in my 

electorate, so I have a very good idea about the 

everyday lives of those people. I wonder at the 

thinking of those who would even consider the wiping 

out of penalty rates. How do they think the typical 

hospitality and retail and food service worker are going 

to get by if they lose up to 11 per cent of their weekly 

wage? If their children are at school from Monday to 

CHAMBER 

Friday, where is their weekend child care when they 

are working weekend shifts and how much does it 

cost? Where is their weekend or late-night public 

transport? When and where do they get quality time 

with their family and friends? What are irregular hours 

of shiftwork doing to their health and control of their 

lives? 

These are real-life questions about the type of life 

the typical worker would have to face if penalty rates 

were lost and these are questions that we, as 

parliamentarians, must be mindful of. It does not need 

much spelling out: the removal of penalty rates would 

be a tragedy for many of the families and workers in 

my electorate, and I commend the resolution to the 

House. 

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (10:46): The 

member for Parramatta just spoke about there being 

not a lot of room in family budgets and I am sure, 

having doorknocked 70,000 homes in her electorate, 

she has been told that time and again. The reason there 

is not a lot of room in family budgets in this day and 

age is that day-to-day costs of living have been forced 

up and up and up, because of the policies brought 

down by this federal Labor government. 

We heard in last year's budget speech by the 

Treasurer in the very first paragraph 'the four years of 

surpluses I announced tonight' and he went on. We all 

know that that is now no longer the case—more like 

four years of deficits. In this year's budget speech, the 

Treasurer referred in his second sentence 'to support 

jobs and growth in an uncertain world' as he talked 

about the need to consolidate the economy. Under his 

vision he thinks that jobs and growth are necessary, 

and he would get no disagreement from this side of 

politics. If we are lucky enough to form government, 

we will go about it. We will be far removed from the 

way he has gone about it in his years as Treasurer— 

because he has done nothing but produce debt and 

deficit. In the last two budgets the introductory remarks 

by the Treasurer belonged more in the fiction than the 

nonfiction section. 

The Fair Work Commission is the industrial umpire 

with responsibility to make and vary modern awards— 

something which will continue under a coalition 

government. It is vital that the Fair Work Commission 

look objectively at these matters and reach a balance 

between the needs of workers, their employers and, 

most importantly, the national interest. Governments of 

all colours and creeds have conventionally made 

submissions in significant cases before that umpire, 

and it is something that will continue, as it has in the 

past, irrespective of the result of the 14 September 

election. If anything, under Labor, the government's 

intervention has been called out as being too one-sided, 

leading to the High Court criticising the Minister for 

Employment and Workplace Relations as meddling in


an education union case as being 'not that of an 

intervener, but that of a partisan'. 

The interaction between labour costs and job growth 

is something that the Fair Work Commission is 

required to consider under Labor's laws but, even the 

member for Batman, in his former capacity as the 

Minister for Tourism, publicly observed that penalty 

rates were a major obstacle for the industry in these 

difficult times, when he said: 

I hope the bench of Fair Work Australia has given proper 

regard to the input of the tourism industry in this context 

because I understand that is the key issue to industry at this 

point in time. 

This is about fairness and sustainability and, as the 

Treasurer noted, talking about supporting jobs and 

growth, you cannot have a job if the employer shuts the 

shop because the cost for that particular business 

owner are too high. Onerous workplace conditions 

impose great burdens on businesses, particularly in 

regional Australia. 

Small towns have beautified their streetscapes, 

thanks to considerable investment by local councils, 

and they encourage weekend visitors, but, the way we 

are going, it is getting harder and harder to get a cup of 

coffee or a meal on a Saturday or Sunday or indeed a 

weekday night because of onerous workplace wages 

and conditions forcing the owners to work seven days 

and seven nights a week rather than employing people 

as they would have done in the past. If they go down 

that path, they are going to be working many, many 

hours. Their families miss out—because a lot of them 

have children—but, if they employ people and have to 

pay the higher and higher penalty rates, they simply 

cannot make a profit. Therefore what is the point of 

working for so many hours and paying the higher 

electricity bills due to the carbon tax and higher fuel 

costs—depending what business they own—due to the 

carbon tax, with all the other burdens that are being 

forced on them and prices which are going up and up 

under this Labor government? 

This is about jobs and growth, and certainly nothing 

this government has done has ever helped those two 

important aspects of the economy: jobs and growth. 

We need to be very mindful of this particular 

resolution because what we need is fairness and equity 

and businesses to stay open. (Time expired) 

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (10:51): 

Whilst the actual resolution deals with penalty rates, 

the previous speaker had recourse to significant 

bombast and rhetoric about the state of the overall 

economy. Therefore it is necessary to put on the public 

record a few realities. In fact, unemployment in this 

country, for instance, at 5.6 per cent, is strongly at 

variance with the Europe-wide average of 12 per cent 

and the United States rate of 7.6. He talked about 

inflation in this country and the pressures that is 

CHAMBER 

creating. He did not seem too concerned when the rate 

of inflation under the Howard government was 6.75 

per cent, in contrast to the 2.75 per cent today. He did 

not say that the economy is 13 times larger than it was 

overall when this government came to power. He did 

not refer to the reality that the overall tax impost in this 

country is 22.2 per cent of GDP, as opposed to 24 per 

cent under Howard. Those are a few realities out there. 

But the main axiom he came against was the 

question of the carbon tax, trying to somehow imply 

that the thing that really does affect people in this 

country, energy cost increases, is something 

overwhelmingly to do with the carbon tax. The fact of 

political life, the truth, is that the reason that energy 

prices are moving significantly in this country is that 

state governments, Labor and Liberal, disregarded the 

need to build infrastructure for decades, pretending to 

the Australian people that cheap energy could occur 

forever. Unfortunately, it has come home to roost. 

Infrastructure has to be renewed, it has to be replaced, 

and it is costing people a significant amount of money 

these days. 

But the resolution before us today deals with the 

question of penalty rates. When I go to the Liverpool 

Titans football games or go to the South-West Sydney 

Tigers Aussie rules or the Campbelltown City rugby 

league games, I see a reality of this society: people 

working on weekends to keep society going, to keep 

the community having the option for people to play 

sports. When I go to the Country Women's 

Association, I see organisations that are struggling. In 

regard to RSL service organisations, Rotary and Lions 

around this country, we all know the truth that they are 

struggling because people have no confidence that each 

week they will be available, that they will be able to be 

there, that they will not be on call 24 hours a day for 

work and that they will not be required to work every 

weekend. That is a reality. 

Penalty rates are about compensating people for the 

loss of family life, the fact that they cannot be with 

their children going to sport on Saturdays and Sundays, 

that they cannot be sure that they can do those 

sidelines, that they cannot be referees and umpires and 

people on the grounds, that they cannot help the ethnic 

school on the weekend at the local public school, that 

they cannot be involved in community radio because of 

the impact of the workforce changes in this country. 

That is what penalty rates are about. They are about 

compensating people for the loss of family life, for the 

loss of networks with their friends, their community, 

their society, their suburb. 

And for those opposite, quite frankly, despite the 

attempt to be a small target before the next election, to 

pretend that nothing is going to change, the reality is as 

we have seen in Queensland. They came to power 

against an unpopular government that people wanted to


throw out, and, once again, they were a small target; 

nothing was going to change, but we have seen in 

Queensland very significant attacks on society by the 

new state government. In New South Wales we have 

seen significant attacks upon the Public Service and 

also on workers compensation. 

Of course, despite the fact that they are trying to 

pretend that not much is going to change—'We're 

going to be the same as Labor on industrial relations; 

don't worry'—the employers and the big end of town 

know what the reality is. We have seen it from two 

industries that the previous government speaker spoke 

about: the retail sector and the hospitality sector. These 

are places where there are very low-paid workers, 

earning a lot less than the people opposite who will be 

speaking in support of, basically, attacking penalty 

rates. Those people desperately need these penalty 

rates not only to compensate them for their loss of 

lifestyle but also to actually live. We have seen those 

industries come out in the last few weeks, after the 

opposition leader's budget reply, and they have said: 

'We can see a way through. Even though you're saying 

that your industrial relations policy is not much at 

variance with the current government, we are sure that 

we can use your measures to attack penalty rates.' We 

know, of course, that the hospitality industry have 

joined retailers in enthusiastically embracing Tony 

Abbott's proposed workplace changes as a mechanism 

to extend trading hours without penalty rates. So what 

we see there is that despite Tony Abbott saying, 'Look, 

I love John Howard but I disagree with him so greatly 

in industrial relations. I found it hard to sit in the 

cabinet room. I was so opposed to my hero's moves on 

industrial relations. I won't resign; I'll be part of it'— 

(Time expired) 

Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (10:56): It is just 

lucky I am prepared today, because we have one Labor 

speaker followed by another Labor speaker because the 

other side of the House, sadly, have not shown up for 

the debate. But I guess that is something we have come 

to expect on this. It used to be that they were like 

dragons. They were like monsters with Work Choices. 

We could not keep them under control, could we? In 

2007 they were all for cutting penalty rates and 

people's job security. They were all for getting out 

there and giving the employer 100 per cent of what 

they wanted. But, of course, now they have gone 

completely silent. The proof is that, here in the 

chamber today, they do not even show up for the 

debate. 

We know what happened under Work Choices, and 

I saw it first under the Reith legislation and then under 

the Work Choices legislation. It was a slow 

progression in the destruction of people's penalty rate 

clauses under awards, and the trade-off for that was 

sometimes pay rises in the order of 1c an hour. That 

CHAMBER 

was the trade-off: give up all your penalty rates for 1c 

an hour—hardly fair. 

People in this building talk about cost of living. On 

both sides people talk about cost of living, and it is 

always an issue in the minds of our constituents. But, 

of course, the best defence against the cost of living is 

growing wages and a decent pay packet. We know that 

many people in retail, in hospitality and in cleaning 

who work unsociable hours do so to get the penalty 

rate. They work those unsocial hours so that they can 

pay the bills and keep up with the cost of living. We 

know how critically important penalty rates and 

growing wages are to that process of coping with the 

cost of living. Indeed, it is the only way of coping with 

the cost of living, because, sadly, we know that 

inflation is a fact of life. 

We know that penalty rates are important to 

protecting people's community life. My state of South 

Australia is one of two places in the world to protect 

Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. That was put in 

this year in a deal between unions and business. They 

came to the state government and said, 'We want to 

make sure that these two days are protected for 

community life,' and in exchange there were some 

trade-offs to work on public holidays for the retail 

industry. It was a very innovative and cooperative 

approach and the sort of approach that we would seek 

with business—that is, sensibly protecting community 

life while making sure we have a productive economy. 

The two things can be done at the same time. It is not 

the either-or proposition that is put by those opposite. 

We know that so many people struggle with worklife 

balance. It is certainly a challenge for anybody in 

politics, but it is also a challenge for fly-in fly-out 

workers, for people in the defence community and for 

anybody who has to travel for work, such as truck 

drivers and people in transport and storage. Anybody 

who works antisocial hours struggles, I think, with the 

challenges of work-life balance. Sometimes that is 

spending time with your partner, or your wife or 

husband; sometimes that is, very importantly, spending 

time with children; sometimes that is spending time in 

the community, at the footy game, with your mates. I 

think a critical aspect of people's holistic lives is that 

we do not just spend time at work. Australians are 

some of the hardest working people on the face of the 

planet, but we want to make sure that we have the best 

community life as well. 

There is a whole army of Liberals in the chamber 

now, lined up to tell us what their plans are, but we 

basically know what their plans are. They will go after 

the unions and, once they have finished with the 

unions, they will go after workers' wages. They will 

not be so, I guess, honest this time and say, 'We're 

going to take away your penalty rates.' What they will 

do this time is they will not say a word, they will just


come for them in the dead of night and slowly but 

surely, using that cutting approach, whittle away all the 

things that have made this country fair, made this 

country decent and protected it, and protected working 

people in the process. (Time expired) 

Ms LEY (Farrer) (11:01): It gives me pleasure to 

speak on this private member's motion about penalty 

rates. People listening to the debate might imagine that 

it is us as parliamentarians that are deciding right here, 

right now, what the penalty rates of Australia workers 

should be; that it is the subjective judgement that we 

bring to this chamber, the discussion that we are 

having, the poor quality example that we just heard 

from the member opposite. But, in fact, there is a body 

entirely established for this purpose, thankfully, that 

does not rely on the contributions of members of the 

government. I want to remind those members, 

including the member who brought this motion to the 

House, that it is the Fair Work Commission, as the 

independent umpire, that has the responsibility for 

reviewing all modern awards. This process is actually 

well underway, in line with the requirements in the 

Fair Work Act 2009 that a review be undertaken two 

years after the commencement of modern awards. 

The Minister for Employment and Workplace 

Relations, Minister Shorten, has indicated, however, 

that the government will not tolerate any reduction in 

penalty rates, in essence telling the Fair Work 

Commission that their review must not recommend any 

reduction to penalty rates, even though we have spotted 

some dissension in the ranks, with the then tourism 

minister, the member for Batman, identifying that 

penalty rates were the bane of the hospitality sector— 

and we all know this is the truth—acknowledging that 

penalty rates could well force companies out of 

business. So we understand there is a balance and we 

have to find the right balance, but this is the task that 

the Fair Work Commission has been entrusted with. It 

is actually their job to consider the cases that are put 

them and find that happy medium. The government, in 

turn, should accept the decision of the Fair Work 

Commission. 

We should bear in mind that the Fair Work 

Commission was a Labor creation. The membership is 

heavily dotted with former union officials. Those 

opposite still want to intervene and still want to 

manipulate the outcome, rather than saying to the Fair 

Work Commission: 'Examine the landscape in which 

we are all living, the economic environment that exists 

in Australia at the moment, the circumstances of 

businesses, the arguments of business, the arguments 

of employers, the arguments of unions, the arguments 

of the workforce, the arguments that come to light in 

here and in state parliaments and then make an 

informed decision, and we would then trust that 

outcome.' No, the minister has already stepped in and 

said: 'Do all those things, but don't do this.' I do not 

CHAMBER 

know why the government does not trust its own 

creation the Fair Work Commission. 

We want to see a fair and balanced system. To this 

end, if we are elected in September, we have outlined 

our plan to build a strong and prosperous economy. 

Under our policy no Australian worker will be worse 

off and businesses will be supported to grow, 

contributing more jobs and revenue to the economy. 

Our plan will see the creation of a million new jobs 

within five years and two million within 10 years. We 

will offer real hope to unemployed Australians, helping 

them realise their dreams of paid employment. 

The government is resorting to tired old classwarfare 

rhetoric—really tired, really outdated, really 

irrelevant. What the government should be debating is 

how to reduce unemployment, forecast to rise, and how 

to decrease welfare dependency in a country with an 

unacceptably high number of intergenerational 

unemployed young people, in a country where we 

cannot seem to get a policy that gets youths into a job. 

In every part of Australia, youth unemployment is 

between 20 and 45 per cent. 

This is what we should be talking about today. We 

should be considering how we will give Australians a 

brighter future and an opportunity for meaningful jobs, 

and how we will reward them for their hard work. 

Instead, we are debating something that is clearly the 

responsibility of the Fair Work Commission to 

determine. I am disappointed that members of the 

government cannot come to an agreement on the role 

of the bodies that they themselves established. 

We have to be so very careful that we do not lock 

out a group of Australian workers who are currently 

unemployed, losing their jobs and slipping out of the 

workforce disappointed and disengaged. We have to 

be careful that we do not create a system that looks 

after—fantastically well—those who have a job but 

does not acknowledge those who do not and does not 

provide a pathway for those outside the labour system 

to have a real chance in the real economy. That is what 

we have to be really careful of. 

We have said we are happy with the Fair Work 

Commission. We just would like the minister to stop 

interfering with the process of that independent quasijudiciary 

body and let it do its job. 

Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (11:06): I rise in support of 

the motion by the member for La Trobe and note the 

importance of penalty rates to ensure that many of the 

poorest workers in our society are able to make a 

living. We know the significance of penalty rates for 

part-time workers, students and young people trying to 

get a start in life. We know that those penalty rates are 

about compensating people for working at times that 

are outside the norm. It is fair to say that the norm, for 

some industries, has changed dramatically over the 

years, but if you expect people to work at night, on


weekends and on public holidays there is a penalty you 

pay in terms of your living standards, the time you 

have to enjoy leisure activities and the time you have 

with your family. This is something that needs to be 

taken into account. 

I have noted from this present debate, and the one in 

October last year when this motion was first debated, 

that the view from the other side is very much of two 

or three clear points. There is the question of flexibility 

and the need for flexibility from a business point of 

view to ensure that jobs can be created, workers can be 

employed and businesses can make a profit. Obviously, 

that is an important consideration—if there are no jobs 

there will be no workers. It is a very simple point. The 

point also is not what it says but what it hides—what it 

really means and has meant under those opposite. 

The opposition leader is of the view 'You cannot 

believe what I say unless I write it down', and we 

found out last week you cannot even believe it then. 

When we go to some of the things that he has written 

down on workplace reform, we know that his record is 

very different to his rhetoric today and to the policy 

that the coalition is taking forth to the next election. 

We know that under Work Choices—and they now say 

that is not what they are about—that is not what 

happened. 

We need to go back to Work Choices to understand 

what the Liberal Party has done. We saw agreement 

after agreement that was against the workers' needs and 

established conditions. One hundred per cent of AWAs 

cut at least one so-called protected award condition: 64 

per cent cut annual leave loading, 63 per cent cut 

penalty rates, 52 per cent cut the shift-work loadings, 

51 per cent cut overtime loadings, 48 per cent cut 

monetary allowances, 46 per cent cut public holiday 

pay, 40 per cent cut rest breaks, 36 per cent cut 

declared public holidays and 22 per cent provided 

employees with no pay rise, some for up to five years. 

The Australian public needs to understand that that 

is the record of the coalition, and as much as they may 

try to move away from it, as much as they may say, 

'That's not what we are about now,' that is, in fact, what 

they have been about, and when they had control of 

both houses of parliament that is what they did. 

In terms of the walking away from it: let us go to the 

very words of the opposition leader with respect to 

this. In 2008 the opposition leader said about Work 

Choices: 

… it was good for wages, it was good for jobs and it was 

good for workers. And let’s never forget that. 

In 2009 he said that workplace reform was one of the 

greatest achievements of the Howard government. And 

in his book, Battlelines, in writing his policy manifesto 

Tony Abbott, 'Work Choices wasn't all bad'. 

The fact is that quite a bit of it was. One of the 

interesting points is the difficulty we have on the other 

CHAMBER 

side to get speakers even to address these issues. I note 

the member for Farrer, who spoke previously—this is 

her second contribution to this debate. The member for 

McPherson spoke twice in October. They are not even 

interested in debating the issues; they are not prepared 

to. That is what is wrong with this motion when it 

comes to the— (Time expired) 

Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (11:11): I am certainly 

pleased to rise to speak to this penalty rates motion 

because, in many respects, like most things that Labor 

does this penalty rates motion looks great in the 

headlines but the stark reality for Australian workers is 

very different. 

On the Gold Coast, in my electorate—an electorate 

built off the backs of hospitality workers, of which 

there are around 500,000 across Australia—we know 

that Labor like to herald the fact that they claim their 

legislation is great for Aussie workers. We see the 

Prime Minister and we see Bill Shorten consistently 

saying that they are all about Australian workers. In 

my city, Australia's sixth-largest city—a city where the 

single biggest employer is the tourism industry—the 

simple reality is that Labor's so-called penalty rates 

reforms have driven unemployment up. 

Take, for example, a sandwich bar just down the 

road from my electorate office, which used to be open 

six days a week. With Labor's reforms, and as they 

introduced the penalty rates which were great for 

Aussie workers according to the Labor Party, the 

situation arose with that particular sandwich bar, which 

had three mothers working as part of the team 

employed by the sandwich bar owner, that for the store 

to remain open six days a week—Tuesday through 

Sunday—was no longer feasible. Because of the rates 

that had to be paid on a Sunday, the decision was made 

that it was actually better for the sandwich bar to be 

closed on Sundays than it was to be open. As the 

proprietor said to me: 'Why would I open to lose 

money? It actually makes more sense for me to enjoy a 

two-day weekend, rather than the one-day weekend I 

have had for the past four or five years.' 

The consequence is that the workers in that 

particular small business, the people whom Labor 

claims they are going to help, ended up in net terms 

receiving less pay because they had fewer hours to 

work every week. And the amenity of the local area 

was reduced because there was one less small business 

available for people to frequent on the weekend. In a 

tourism town, it could not be more right or necessary 

for there to be flexibility when it comes to servicing 

the needs of today's tourists and, importantly, today's 

employers and employees. 

The reality is that in a city like the Gold Coast there 

is a lot of demand for people to have flexibility. Some 

people do not want to work standard business hours 

because that is actually not consistent with what they


need for their families. There are a lot of people who 

like the fact that they can get flexible work hours 

which enable them to work out of the home at a time 

when their partner is in the home, so that when one 

finishes work, the other can go to work. That is exactly 

the practice that we wanted to put in place. The overall 

test is always: is the employee better off? Now, Labor 

is great at headlines, and it is great at saying, 'This is 

about extra pay to recognise the fact that people are not 

with their families.' But in doing so they ignore the 

simple fact that for many families this is a positive 

choice that Labor denies them. 

On public holidays on the Gold Coast, people now 

pay an extra 10, 15 or 20 per cent on the cost of going 

to a cafe or a restaurant or some other tourist 

operation—if it is even open. If you walk up and down 

the so-called glitter strip these days, chances are there 

are more places closed on public holidays than there 

are open. That is the great reform that the Labor Party 

has driven. This is not just for tourists but also for the 

community. We have seen, for example, many 

pharmacies which used to be open seven days a week 

now closed on weekends or on Sundays as a direct 

consequence of Labor's reform. Again, the straight-upand-down 

translation: fewer services—some would 

argue, essential community services—and fewer work 

hours for the so-called workers that Labor is so 

concerned about. This is nothing more than a headline 

motion that disregards the fact that there are many 

positives that flow from increased labour flexibility. 

The coalition is not about Work Choices; to quote 

the Leader of the Opposition: 'That is dead, buried and 

cremated.' And Labor member after Labor member can 

get up and run its pathetic scare campaign, but all 

Australians see right through that pathetic scare 

campaign. They know that the only puppet controlling 

the strings when it comes to that side of the House is 

Australia's trade union movement—and Labor's 

attempt to keep it a lockdown is part of the their desire 

to maintain power. (Time expired) 

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:16): I rise to speak on 

this motion and it is a pleasure to follow the member 

for Moncrieff's words and caution the government 

about what this will do to small businesses around the 

country. In a motion of this nature, once again we see 

the government undermining confidence in our 

economy by fruitlessly proposing unnecessary 

legislation in this parliament to do nothing for our 

economy except damage the confidence of our 

businesses. I think the shadow Treasurer put it best 

when he cited CEDA, the Committee for Economic 

Development of Australia, on the IMD World 

Competitiveness Yearbook results. He said: 'The 

competitiveness result is the worst result for Australia 

in 17 years. The rankings this year show that in labour 

productivity growth, Australia has dropped from 

number 26 in the world to number 51 of the 60 

CHAMBER 

countries surveyed.' Former Labor Speaker of this 

House and one of your predecessors, Madam Deputy 

Speaker, CEDA Chief Executive Professor the Hon. 

Stephen Martin, could not have been clearer when he 

said: 

The key issue is that we are seeing other countries … rapidly 

improve this measure of economic efficiency. 

While they are not at our levels yet, they are catching up at a 

rapid pace and we need to look at productivity-enhancing 

reforms now rather than when we fall behind. 

It is too late. We heard the member for Parramatta 

talking about industrial relations policy. I say to the 

member for Parramatta: unemployment in her 

electorate is at 7.2 per cent—higher than the national 

average. In Western Sydney, where my electorate is, 

youth unemployment is at 17 per cent. The member for 

Greenway is in the chamber—what is her plan to fix 

youth unemployment in Western Sydney? It certainly 

will not be helped by this legislating of inflexible 

things into modern awards. In fact, we take the view 

that we do not need legislation for all of these features 

of modern awards—we do not need to legislate the 

details. We do not need to legislate to take away 

flexibility. 

We are very surprised to see that, once again, the 

unions have had the final say here. This amendment 

was not suggested by the Fair Work Review Panel that 

the government is proposing. This motion that we are 

debating today was not proposed by the Fair Work 

Review Panel Who did propose it? All of this has been 

proposed by Mr Dave Oliver, Secretary of the ACTU. 

Surprise, surprise! The member for Greenway has gone 

very silent. 

Of course, we on this side want to see harmonious, 

productive, smart workplaces but I want it known out 

there that there are calls from industry and other 

sectors to explain what is going on with penalty rates 

in today's world. We have heard the restaurant and 

catering industry say that 10,000 new jobs could be 

created if they had more flexibility in their 

businesses—10,000 new jobs straightaway! Mr John 

Hardy is right about that: flexibility means more jobs. 

There are no wages for anybody when a business does 

not open on the weekend. The member for Moncrieff 

outlined that compellingly. 

News.com.au cites a cafe and its cost of doing 

business from Monday to Friday compared to Sunday. 

The total cost, including superannuation, on a weekday 

with two wait staff, one dishwasher, one cook and one 

manager: $644—that is the cost of opening their cafe 

on a Monday to Friday. On a Sunday the cost of 

opening the cafe—Oli and Levi, a small family 

business—with the same number of staff: $1,239— 

almost double. The cafe's owner, Lloyd Smith—says if 

your labour costs are 50 per cent to 70 per cent more 

expensive on a weekend then it is not worth opening


and is too risky. He then goes on to say, 'My staff are 

crying out for more hours and I'd love to be able to 

open on weekends, but I can't justify the expense.' That 

is the experience of the small business sector all around 

this country at the moment. That is what they are 

telling government, unions and this parliament: they 

need more flexibility, not less. 

We may not be able to do anything about penalty 

rates; and we may not want to, because they are an 

enshrined part of our workplace relations system. But 

we do need to do more to have flexibility in our 

workplaces. We do not need fake motions from the 

government to create an issue for their re-election 

strategy, and motions which undermine confidence. 

We see that competitiveness is falling. We see that 

productivity is now at rock-bottom levels. If we are to 

have wage increases and legislate this sort of thing, we 

have to work on productivity increases. The flexibility 

of our labour market is vital. 

We certainly see at the moment a government 

addicted to the unions. Labor is on track to have given 

about 160 special rights to unions. Unions now 

represent only about 13 per cent of workers in the 

private sector. Why should the unions get 160 special 

privileges? This motion is faked for the government's 

electoral advantage and we should vote it down. 

Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Government Whip) 

(11:21): I rise to strongly support this motion. In the 

seat of McEwen I represent over 37,000 people who 

work in industries affected by unsociable hours. This 

includes over 8,500 people who work in retail, another 

8,000 who work in health care and social assistance 

and 3,700 workers in the accommodation and food 

services industry. Removing penalty rates, overtime, 

shift work allowance and public holiday pay is the 

introduction to around-the-clock work and lengthening 

the working day. 

Why is it that the coalition think that it is not 

important for families to be able to sit around the table 

together, to share a meal and share some quality time? 

Working on weekends or in unsociable hours have 

penalty rates because those people working on the 

weekends and at night are missing out on what we 

value in Australia. We have penalty rates because 

weekends or working through nights is different, so we 

place different conditions on these times to reflect that, 

and to recognise those social differences. 

There are many issues that shift workers face, such 

as health and wellbeing, and family and social 

disconnection. I know that from my own experience, 

when my father worked the night shift in the printing 

room of the Herald Sun for 35 years. He was unable to 

participate in what we term 'normal family life' because 

when we were getting up in the morning, he had just 

gone to bed after a full night's work. This meant that, 

due to his working commitments, on many occasions 

CHAMBER 

he would be unable to participate in family functions, 

school sports events or be there for other activities 

when a parent would like to spend time with their kids. 

I know from my experience when I was with the 

RACV, having to work on Christmas Day and doing 

weekend work on both day shifts and night shifts, how 

this had a big impact on family life and the loss of 

participation in special family occasions. 

Penalty rates are also extremely important because 

industries like hospitality and retail have some of the 

lowest-paid workers in this country. For Australians 

working in insecure forms of work, penalty rates are 

more important than ever for casual and low-paid 

workers to help pay the bills. The Liberal leader has 

already said to a Liberal-organised community forum 

in Kingston that he thinks: 

The best way forward, at least initially, is to try to ensure 

the award situation does maximise employment and at the 

moment we are not maximising employment by closing 

down businesses and preventing people from getting jobs. 

He then went on to say: 

I am confident that if the government were to back, for 

argument's sake, applications to the Fair Work Commission 

for adjustments in this area it may well be successful. 

What he is saying is that an Abbott government would 

support the axing of penalty rates. It will use the 

Productivity Commission to drive greater use of 

individual contracts and attacks on workers' rights and 

conditions. The coalition's IR policy will legislate for 

the greater use of individual flexibility agreements, 

which for businesses and associations have been 

appalling. Only recently, the Australian Retail 

Association lost a Fair Work Commission case to slash 

penalty rates, and they have been very heavy in their 

praise of Mr Abbott. It has also been reported in 

newspapers that retailers and hospitality employees 

plan to campaign after the election for the relaxation of 

penalty rates after opposition leader Tony Abbott 

signalled support in such cases in the workplace 

tribunal. 

Let us never forget that the key element of Work 

Choices policy was winding back penalty rates. It is in 

the Liberals' DNA to ensure that they hurt the lowestpaid 

workers in this country. We all remember their 

anti-worker laws which allowed retail giant Spotlight 

to try to impose AWAs on its workers by granting a 

two-cent-an-hour pay rise for removing all their 

penalty rates, overtime and holiday pay. When he was 

minister, Mr Abbott was quoted as saying: 

… a bad boss is a little bit like a bad father … He might be a 

bad boss, but at least he's employing someone while he is in 

fact a boss. 

I think that goes to the heart of his DNA. He does not 

particularly care how people in the suburbs or the 

community feel; he only worries about himself.


We heard a member before talking about how the IR 

policy will be no WorkChoices because it is written 

down. Last week we saw that his word is not worth the 

paper it is written on. During their time they removed 

penalty rates, breaks between shifts, minimum and 

maximum shift lengths and a cap on the number of 

consecutive days worked. You only have to read the 

FIFO report by the regional Australia committee to see 

how it impacts on families. 

It is the Gillard government that will enshrine 

penalty rates into law to give workers greater certainty 

that they will be protected—whether it is those 

working on night shift, overtime, unsocial or irregular 

or unpredictable hours on weekends and public 

holidays. It is we who support shift workers, whether 

they are in manufacturing, hospitality or public safety, 

such as police and ambulance officers. It is about time 

that those opposite really went out and did the same. It 

is this side of the House that always stands up for 

workers; those on that side of the House that always 

want to stand on them. 

Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (11:26): The coalition 

supports individual flexibility arrangements—Labor's 

individual flexibility arrangements—but we want them 

to be more effective. Individual flexibility 

arrangements should not be excluded by enterprise 

bargaining agreements. Our position is clear, and has 

been stated on a number of occasions. I will state it 

again: the umpire, the Fair Work Commission, after 

hearing all submissions, should make the decision, 

balancing all considerations. The liberal parties are the 

true originators and protectors of the great Aussie 

notion of the fair go. There can be no better way of 

getting ahead than getting a job. The Liberal Party has 

always, and will always, work to ensure that jobs are 

our number one focus. A Liberal government will work 

to create the conditions for growth and make it easier 

to get a job. Cutting back on red tape and green tape 

will increase the pool of available jobs. 

This motion aspires to a noble and worthwhile end, 

but adopts a misguided means laden with potentially 

unintended consequences. By this I mean that every 

single member of the coalition wants to see the quality 

of life of all Australians improve. However, the way to 

go about doing this is not to resort to outdated 

economic concepts like price floors. Unlike Labor, the 

coalition recognises that the world of work has 

changed and that the world in which we work has 

changed. Australia has to become more competitive. 

We compete every day with every country around the 

world. The work week is no longer nine to five, 

Monday to Friday. To deny the obvious changes in our 

way of living is as inane as to deny the internet, 24hour 

shopping and banking and so on. 

In 2009, noted New York Times columnist Thomas 

L. Friedman wrote The World is Flat. The book is a 

CHAMBER 

prescient reminder to Australia and all Western 

developed nations that we must adapt to the new reality 

of a globally-connected world, where intellectual 

services are traded easily, or die. One has only to look 

at Australia's position on the competitiveness index to 

know that we are not going in the right direction. 

Presently, Australia is ranked 20th by the World 

Economic Forum, two places lower than Saudi 

Arabia—so too on unit labour productivity, as it is 

when one removes the crutch of the resources industry. 

One can see again that we are moving in the wrong 

direction, and the trend is negative. By implementing a 

price-floor model into a globally obsolete notion of the 

working week, Labor is ensuring fewer of the people it 

purports to help will be at work. Fewer young people, 

part-time workers and those returning to work will 

have work. Put simply, the higher the unit cost of 

labour, the fewer people will be employed. 

The Fair Work Commission is best placed to 

arbitrate on the market-clearing rate of labour, plus 

sufficient and appropriate compensation to correct 

asymmetries of information on the part of the worker. 

Making Australia more uncompetitive does nothing to 

address the needs of the Australian worker in the 

knowledge economy, to say nothing of the Asian 

century. There needs to be less red and green tape. 

There needs to be a recognition of individual flexibility 

arrangements, provided a greater or compensating 

benefit has been won—again, the proper recourse 

being the Fair Work Commission. 

Scrap the carbon tax to ease the pressure on 

Australian business. Fix the budget to return certainty 

and confidence to the Australian economy. If we do 

not work to build real solutions and instead opt for 

ideas best consigned to the scrap heap of history, then 

we will never get to having that cafe society. The 

hospitality industry will continue to feel the strain and 

our best chance of sustainability growth via a 

sustainable industry in tourism will be jeopardised. 

The Fair Work Commission was set up to be the 

independent umpire on issues of award and penalty 

rates, yet here we are discussing a motion that in 

essence undermines the role of the Fair Work 

Commission. Where is the trust in the umpire—an 

umpire the Labor government set up? 

Mr MARLES (Corio) (11:31): Rather than being a 

motion which undermines the work of Fair Work 

Australia, as has been said by the member for Tangney, 

this is a motion which absolutely supports the work of 

Fair Work Australia and its predecessor, the Australian 

Industrial Relations Commission, since its inception in 

1904—because that is what occurred to give rise to 

penalty rates. That is why am so pleased to speak today 

in support of the member for La Trobe's motion before 

the House.


Penalty rates are an acknowledgement of the fact 

that, when you work other than nine to five, there is a 

cost. There is a cost to your ability to pursue your 

personal life, your family life, whatever you choose to 

do. Working unsociable hours is a more difficult thing 

to do and comes at a greater cost to people personally 

than working between nine and five, and that is 

because, naturally, our society has organised itself 

around people largely working from nine to five. 

Therefore, many of the things we enjoy doing in our 

lives are scheduled outside of those times, which 

means people miss out in the event they are asked to 

work outside that spread of hours between nine and 

five. 

Penalty rates acknowledge that and acknowledge 

that there should be appropriate compensation for that. 

Obviously, it varies according to how much you are 

working outside the nine-to-five spread, what day you 

are working on and the significance of that day. That is 

how it should be and that has been built up through the 

process of collective bargaining and the process of 

arbitration in the Australian Industrial Relations 

Commission and in Fair Work Australia since 1904. It 

is a very significant part of the way in which we 

conduct our working lives today. It is also now a part 

of people's remuneration, forming the basis on which 

people calculate their take-home pay. When you 

remove penalty rates, you actually eat in to people's 

ability to earn a living wage. So penalty rates go really 

go to the heart of the balance between work and family 

life in terms of both the hours that you work and the 

amount you are able to bring home to sustain your 

family. 

The most important defence or safety mechanism 

that we have to ensure that penalty rates have their 

appropriate place within our society and within our 

working arrangements is collective bargaining. 

Collective bargaining ought to be and is right now at 

the heart of our industrial relations system—enterprise 

bargaining to workplace, not centralised wage fixing. 

Indeed, that is the international norm that we as a 

member of the International Labour Organization 

promulgate to the world in terms of how bargaining 

ought to be conducted, and it is the safeguard of 

penalty rates in this country. The reason I raise this is 

that when we see laws put up which seek to undermine 

collective bargaining, as we did through Australian 

workplace agreements under the previous Howard 

government's Work Choices legislation, that is when 

we see a serious attack on penalty rates and that is, in 

fact, what occurred. 

Most Australian workplace agreements which were 

signed did something to remove the penalty rate for the 

worker. It is a system which encourages people to 

bargain away long-fought gains which have been 

achieved over decades through collective bargaining 

and through arbitration. That is the great concern about 

CHAMBER 

a legislated scheme of individual contracts, which is 

what we saw with Australian workplace agreements 

and what, in the policy announced by the Tony Abbott 

opposition, would come into being were they ever to 

achieve government in this country. The centrepiece of 

what they are about, as always, is to remove enterprise 

bargaining as the centrepiece of our industrial relations 

system and replace it with a legislated individual 

contract agreed between a worker and their company. 

In no other place in our economy do we see such a 

discrepancy in bargaining power enshrined in our law 

as we saw with Australian workplace agreements and 

as we will see again if ever there is a coalition 

government which puts forward the policy Tony 

Abbott is talking about. It puts one person totally at the 

mercy of another. There is no unfairer place in 

Australia's system of law and it will lead to a reduction 

of penalty rates. 

Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Chief Opposition 

Whip) (11:37): In addressing this private members 

motion today, I have to agree that work-life balance is 

extremely important. However, I must say that too 

much emphasis on either and the other one suffers. 

Like most of the legislation which comes through this 

place from the government, there is always a sting in 

the tail. We are focusing on the health and welfare of 

workers, their families and our communities, but the 

silent victims are the owners of small businesses who, 

in my electorate in particular, are being driven to the 

wall financially and emotionally. Penalty rates are very 

much a contributor. It is no surprise for me to see that 

tourism provides 11.3 per cent of all jobs in Cairns, 

with retail accounting for 11.3 per cent and hospitality 

10.9 per cent. 

When talking about work-life balance, it is 

important to realise that that scenario is only an issue if 

you have a job. We are seeing many small 

businesses—particularly in hospitality—fold as a direct 

result of an imbalance created in this area. In my 

region, of the 23,900 businesses 1,303 were classified 

as medium- or large-sized companies meaning that, as 

of June last year, 22,597 businesses in my electorate 

were classified as small businesses. 

In these small, family-owned businesses the smallest 

change in profitability margins can make a huge 

difference as a result of the slightest of downturns, new 

competitors or high staffing costs. I highlight the case 

of Krokodillos restaurant at Yorkeys Knob where I 

live, a place I visit on many occasions. It is a lovely 

spot with relaxed tropical dining, friendly service and 

great modern Aussie tucker put on by the owners Greg 

and Sarah Rochford. This small business is open five 

nights a week from Wednesday to Sunday and operates 

only between 5 pm and 9 pm. As you can see, those 

hours mean that they are constantly forced into a 

penalty rate situation.


Krokodillos has been operating now for seven years. 

Greg and Sarah now need to spend more time with 

their seven-year-old daughter, Madison and they have 

had it on the market for a long time. Greg and Sarah 

work every day and every night. They work it 

themselves to make a living. But the work-life balance 

is clearly not there and they cannot spend time with 

their daughter. I know that they would love to be able 

to take on more staff so that they have more quality 

family time, but they have limited opening hours and 

have to pay penalty rates to staff for every one of 

those. When people go out for a meal and a drink late 

at night, they expect people to be working and 

businesses to be able to offer their products at a price 

that they are prepared to pay. We need to create an 

environment where small businesses are able to 

provide those jobs—because, at the end of the day, 

they are the only ones that will. 

The Fair Work Amendment Bill came up for debate 

recently, and penalty rates formed a key discussion 

point. I note the secretary of the trades and labour 

council said in a speech on 6 February, 'We are asking 

the government to enshrine penalty rates and weekend 

work legislation to protect it forever'. I have seen many 

businesses in my electorate close down and the 

heartbreak and financial and emotional stress that 

follows. Unfortunately, this motion demeans the Fair 

Work Commission and its role as the so-called 

independent umpire. The minister has indicated that 

the government would not countenance any reduction 

in penalty fees. Therefore, if the Fair Work 

Commission rules that way, as the minister has 

signalled, it will be perceived that the Fair Work 

Commission is being monstered by the minister. I am 

very sympathetic to the concerns of businesses but, at 

the end of the day, it is a matter for the Fair Work 

Commission to determine, and I hope that it will take 

into account the very real impact that they are having 

on small businesses. 


Department of the Treasury and Department 

of Finance and Deregulation 

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (11:42): I move: 

That this House expresses full confidence in the: 

(1) Department of the Treasury and Department of Finance 

and Deregulation; 

(2) Treasury Secretary, Dr Martin Parkinson and Finance 

Secretary, David Tune; and 

(3) following words by Treasury Secretary, Martin 

Parkinson: ‘I can say on behalf of David Tune, the Secretary 

of the Department of Finance and myself—and get this 

right—were PEFO [the Pre Election Economic and Fiscal 

Outlook] to have been released on the 14th of May, it would 

have contained the numbers that were in the budget.' 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Owens): Is the 

motion seconded? 

CHAMBER 

Mr Windsor: I second the motion and reserve my 

right to speak. 

Mr OAKESHOTT: I am all for vigorous debate in 

this chamber, as I hope we all are about the ideas 

facing our nation, but there has been a recent trend 

where rhetoric has drifted a long way from reality. 

That is why on the motion last week we got the House 

to move a confidence motion and see the House of 

Representatives and every single member in this House 

support with full confidence the science community of 

Australia and the advice that man-made climate change 

is real. 

Likewise, today is a chance for the House of 

Representatives to express in full its confidence on the 

work of the Department of the Treasury and the 

Department of Finance and Deregulation and end this 

game of rhetoric in the public domain, somehow 

questioning the advice that is received from the best 

that we have got in this country on advice around the 

budget, around PEFO and around forecasting and 

estimates. It is a problem that, culturally, we seem to 

be getting more and more into. Only today the 

candidate in my electorate was questioning the 

estimates from the New South Wales and the 

Commonwealth education departments. We are seeing 

questioning of the corporate plan of the National 

Broadband Network. We are seeing ASIO's work being 

questioned. 

Again, I am all for full debate in this chamber, but it 

is drifting off our job if we are attacking those who 

cannot respond, who are working in an apolitical way 

and providing the best advice possible, and saying that 

it is all being done for some sort of political 

expediency. Public servants are just that—they are here 

to serve the public in this country—to serve the public. 

They are not here to serve one political persuasion or 

the other; they are here to do the job of providing the 

best possible advice they can without fear or favour. I 

would hope that this chamber accepts that, 

acknowledges that, respects that and endorses that 

ongoing work regardless of temperatures raising over 

the next three or four months with regard to elections. 

My colleague next to me, the member for New 

England, and I, on the back of the 2010 election, saw 

this firsthand with the departments of Treasury and 

Finance. All the election promises were put on the 

table. There was a break of the conventions around 

elections, where, thankfully, the leaders of both 

political parties agreed to allow us access to Treasury 

and Finance, and we witnessed firsthand the very best 

in this country working through all the election 

promises made and providing advice, without fear or 

favour, at a very difficult time and, in many cases, with 

personal consequences to these senior public officials. 

They did it without bias. They sat with the leadership 

teams of all persuasions, argued the toss, and then put


their signatures onto paper in the most objective way 

possible. 

They are honest men and women. They are men and 

women of integrity, and I think they are doing all they 

can to provide the very best and most certain advice in 

challenging political times. So the reason for this vote 

today is to make sure the House has not forgotten that, 

and to make sure the words spoken publicly, from 

people like the Treasury secretary, Dr Martin 

Parkinson, are confirmed as accurate by all members in 

this House. When he says that of 14 May the budget, if 

we are talking about the pre-election financial outlook 

known as PEFO, then PEFO would have equalled the 

budget, and the budget would have equalled PEFO. 

There is no difference. There is nowhere to hide in any 

fudging of the figures. There is nowhere to hide in 

some grand conspiracy of public servants turning into 

political party apparatchiks. 

The figures are the figures. The deficit is the deficit. 

There is no secret bottom-drawer figure. PEFO would 

have equalled the budget, and the budget would have 

equalled PEFO. So to have heard comments in this 

chamber that challenge that—and certainly to have 

heard comments in the public domain that challenge 

that—and question the integrity of officials who will 

work for all sides of politics in the best way they can 

for our nation, I think— (Time expired) 

Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (11:47): We share the 

member for Lyne's confidence in the Treasury and 

Finance but we certainly do not share the member for 

Lyne's confidence in the Treasurer and the government 

which the member for Lyne and the member for New 

England support. There is a small fact that the member 

for Lyne may wish to acquaint himself with—it came 

from an act of parliament put in place by the best 

Treasurer Australia has ever had, Peter Costello, in 

1996— 

Mr Windsor interjecting— 

Mr BRIGGS: The member for New England might 

not want to follow the standing orders that he 

sanctimoniously claims that he supports all the time 

but if he would not mind not interrupting during this it 

would be terrific. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Owens): Order! 

The member will address his remarks through the 

chair. 

Mr BRIGGS: The Charter of Budget Honesty Act 

1998 has several divisions. Division 1, section 10, 

budget and economic fiscal outlook report, starts with: 

The Treasurer is to publicly release and table a budget 

economic and fiscal outlook report at the time of each 

budget. 

So that is the Treasurer's own document. Division 2, 

the midyear economic and fiscal report, is owned by 

the Treasurer, I remind the member for Lyne. The 

CHAMBER 

Treasurer is responsible for the public releasing and 

tabling, under division 3, of the final budget outcome 

report, Member for Lyne. The Treasurer is responsible, 

under part 6, for the intergenerational report, Member 

for Lyne. And under part 7, the pre-election economic 

and fiscal outlook report, the responsible secretaries 

publicly release, member for Lyne. 

So there is a distinction in the acts of parliament, 

putting aside the fact that the Treasurer and the 

Minister for Finance and Deregulation have their 

names attached and signatures on the actual budget 

document. It is their document. That is the executive 

responsibility of the government of the day. 

The forecasts, the numbers and all the projections 

are the work of the Treasurer and the minister for 

finance. Of course they are advised. Of course they 

take advice and information from the Treasury and the 

finance department. We support the Treasury and the 

Department of Finance and Deregulation in the work 

they do, but they are owned and operated documents 

and directions from the executive government. It is a 

perfectly clear fact, and we are perfectly right to 

question the government when they put in policies that 

have such negative consequences not just for today but 

for the future. 

I will just point to one that the member for Lyne has 

supported up hill and down dale—that is, the mining 

tax, the farce of the mining tax that he still supports to 

this moment. He nods his head in agreement—the farce 

of the mining tax! This is a document that the Prime 

Minister herself takes credit for. There is no Treasury 

involvement there. In fact, they bragged about them 

not being in the room. We know that other 

Independents in this chamber know a fair bit about the 

mining industry as well. 

This mining tax is the tax that in this forward 

estimates, in this budget year, was expected to have $4 

billion in revenue. Do you know how much it has 

raised? How much has it raised? It has raised five per 

cent, but it gets better. The member for Lyne is sitting 

there going: 'This is terrific. Woo hoo! What a great 

job the Treasurer is doing. What a great job this 

government I am propping up is doing. Five per cent!' 

Guess how much the government has spent on it? One 

hundred per cent of the five per cent it got. You joke, 

seriously. This is the government that this member for 

Lyne supports. That is just one example of where the 

Treasurer and his document, the one that he signs off 

on, are a farce. 

Another example, one close to my heart, was last 

weekend, where we had in the low-detention facility in 

Inverbrackie a convicted Egyptian jihadist—and the 

member for New England laughs. He laughs! You will 

be answerable to the electorate about this.


Dr Leigh: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point 

of order on relevance. I would urge you to draw the 

member back to the matter before the chair. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The parliamentary 

secretary has a point. The member was straying quite 

significantly from the— 

Mr Briggs interjecting— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has 

expired. 

Dr LEIGH (Fraser—Parliamentary Secretary to the 

Prime Minister) (11:52): Too often the crucial work of 

our nation's public servants goes unnoticed and goes 

unthanked. As the member for Fraser I am pleased to 

say that many of these hardworking public servants are 

my constituents. I myself have been seconded to 

Treasury and have seen firsthand the hard work of 

those public servants. We on this side of the House 

believe in a frank and fearless Public Service in the 

great Westminster tradition. Those opposite would 

prefer to have a flaccid and fearful Public Service. That 

is their ideal of public service. 

It is clear why those opposite have spent three years 

waging a smear campaign against Treasury. It is 

because they have an ever-widening costings black 

hole. They are therefore desperate to avoid scrutiny of 

their costings, and they see the boffins and the bean 

counters as an obstacle to that. At the 2010 election, 

the member for North Sydney concocted bogus 

allegations of Treasury politicisation to avoid 

submitting coalition policies to Treasury and Finance. 

Instead, the opposition had their policies costed by a 

private accounting firm, who overlooked that they had 

an $11 billion black hole. That private accounting firm 

was subsequently fined by the Institute of Chartered 

Accountants for breaching professional standards. 

Despite that, the member for Goldstein has in this 

chamber claimed that those faux costings were 'as good 

as you can get anywhere in the country, including in 

Treasury'. 

On 19 September, I was witness in this chamber to a 

savage attack by the member for Goldstein against the 

institution of Treasury and against then Treasury 

Secretary Ken Henry, who, as honourable members 

know, was appointed by Treasurer Costello to that 

position. The member for Goldstein claimed the $11 

billion black hole was: 

… something fabricated with the use of Treasury officials to 

give government a political advantage. 

The member for Mackellar—who in 1992 shot to 

prominence after attacking public servant Trevor 

Boucher—joined in, saying: 

… this Parliamentary Budget Office is something that is 

simply linked to the coattails of Treasury. 

She went on: 

CHAMBER 

I made the point that Treasury and the head of Treasury had 

been rewarded for things that they had done to assist the 

government. 

… … … 

… it is politicised and that is why we cannot trust them. 

The member for Mackellar has even said of former 

Treasury Secretary Ken Henry: 

He served the government very well in the latter stages of his 

appointment, particularly when it came to assessing the 

budget savings that were put forward by the opposition prior 

to the last election. 

This is like a rich kid who gets a maths question wrong 

and, instead of accepting the right answer, goes to the 

principal asking for the teacher to be sacked. 

The opposition in the last election were badly out in 

their costings, and their pretext now is that budget 

forecasts cannot be relied on. The member for North 

Sydney has said: 

The numbers are just not believable. It is fundamentally a 

dishonest budget. 

… … … 

I don't believe they are Treasury numbers. They are Wayne 

Swan's numbers. 

Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson has directly 

rejected these allegations. He said on 21 May: 

I can say on behalf of David Tune, the secretary of the 

Department of Finance and myself—and get this right—were 

PEFO to have been released on the 14th of May, it would 

have contained the numbers that were in the budget. 

PEFO is produced independently by Treasury and 

Finance in caretaker period, without political oversight. 

Dr Parkinson has told us in crystal clear terms that the 

numbers in the budget represent the best professional 

estimates of Treasury and Finance. They have not been 

tampered with by the Deputy Prime Minister as those 

opposite would have you believe. They are the best 

estimates of honest and hardworking public servants. 

The member for North Sydney continued his 

extraordinary slur, saying: 

I would have expected Martin Parkinson to say nothing 

different yesterday because he is, quite appropriately, a 

servant of the government. 

This is continuing in the same vein as the members for 

Goldstein and Mackellar. He should withdraw that 

claim. Attacking Treasury is not only unfounded; it is 

also weak. In public debate, public servants do not 

have the opportunity to defend themselves as we in this 

place do. It is wrong to treat them like a political 

football. 

On the other side of politics, Senator Sinodinos, my 

opposition counterpoint as shadow parliamentary 

secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, has worked 

hard in the Department of Treasury and who I think 

knows as— (Time expired)


Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (11:57): I rise today to 

speak on this most curious of motions. I call it curious 

because I find it intriguing that a so-called Independent 

would be parroting the exact same lines as the 

government. I find it curious that a so-called 

Independent is pursuing the distraction agenda of the 

Treasurer and, through this motion, would seek to try 

to politicise the public service. 

It seems that the member for Lyne, and for that 

matter the member for New England, who has 

seconded this motion, have more confidence in the 

Prime Minister and Treasurer than many members of 

the government's increased backbench—just ask the 

member for Hotham. I must say that I find it hard to 

keep up with the Treasurer: on the one hand, he claims 

to be a great economic manager when compared to 

European countries whose economies have imploded, 

then we are meant to believe he is a mere cipher for 

Treasury, that the budget produced itself and that he is 

merely the messenger. 

Anyone with even a cursory understanding of a 

budget knows that it is the government's document; 

wholly and completely. There are only two names 

attributed to these documents, and neither of them are 

Dr Martin Parkinson or Mr David Tune. They are, in 

fact, the Treasurer and the finance minister. These 

documents are theirs; they own them. They own the 

numbers inside them and must take responsibility for 

them. 

The Charter of Budget Honesty states clearly that 

the budget papers and the mid-year economic update 

are signed off by the Treasurer and the Minister for 

Finance and Deregulation. These are political 

documents. The heroic assumptions and massive 

revisions are the product of the Treasurer and finance 

minister. The charter is explicit: the only document 

signed off by the Treasury Secretary and the Finance 

secretary is the pre-election economic and fiscal 

outlook—PEFO—which is released within 10 days of 

the writs being issued for an election. 

Let me be clear: on this side of the chamber we 

understand that Treasury have a job to do and they do 

it well. There are many talented and hard-working 

people in Treasury and Finance who serve our nation 

with great distinction. Our concern has never been 

about Treasury or Finance; it has been about the 

constant shortcomings of this government, and in 

particular this Treasurer. It was not Dr Parkinson or Mr 

Tune who promised a surplus over 500 times, it was 

the Treasurer, Wayne Swan— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott): 

Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. 

The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the 

debate will be made an order of the day for the next 

sitting. 

CHAMBER 

COMMITTEES 

Economics Committee 

Report 

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12:00): On behalf of the 

Standing Committee on Economics, I present the 

committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting 

report, on the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures 

No. 2) Bill 2013, together with the minutes of 

proceedings. 

Leave granted. 

Ms OWENS: by leave—the Tax Laws Amendment 

(2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013 amends various 

taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to 

Australia's tax system. The bill contains 11 schedules. 

Full details of the measures are outlined in the 

explanatory memorandum. 

The proposed amendments are implementing key 

government objectives as part of an ongoing tax 

reform. For example, schedule 1 amends tax laws to 

require large entities in the pay-as-you-go instalment 

system to make their instalments monthly instead of 

quarterly. While not increasing companies' tax burden, 

this measure is forecast to raise around $950m over the 

forward estimates. Schedule 2 introduces a tax loss 

incentive for designated infrastructure projects, which 

in turn will encourage investment. 

On 30 May 2013 the selection committee referred 

the bill to the Standing Committee on Economics for 

inquiry and report. It is the view of the committee that, 

due to the urgency of the bill and the need to resume 

the second reading debate, there is insufficient time to 

undertake an inquiry. 

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report 

was made a parliamentary paper. 

Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (12:02): by leave— 

Coalition members put in a dissenting report to the 

committee's advisory report on the TLAB bill No. 2. 

We did so because coalition members were aggrieved 

at the fact that, despite schedule 1 alone representing 

an increase in tax revenues for this government of 

around $1 billion, the government has so poorly 

handled and scheduled the legislation for debate in this 

chamber, with over 100 bills still outstanding, that now 

on an initiative that will raise nearly $1 billion, the 

government deems that they do not have enough time 

for there to be an inquiry of the House of 

Representatives Economics Committee into the 

measures contained in the bill. One of the most 

fundamental aspects of the parliamentary committee 

process is to ensure scrutiny over executive 

government. We all remember the days when the 

Prime Minister stood up and heralded this being a new 

age of enlightenment: let the sunshine in, let there be 

transparency and scrutiny. Yet when it comes to a 

billion-dollar measure the government says, 'Sorry, we


don't have enough time, there is not going to be any 

inquiry. Tough luck.' So coalition members issued a 

dissenting report because it is a travesty that there is 

not adequate parliamentary committee oversight of this 

executive government—100 per cent a consequence of 

nothing else other than this government's inability to 

direct and control its legislative agenda. 

DELEGATION REPORTS 

Delegation to Lebanon 

Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, 

Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water and 

Population and Communities) (12:03): by leave—On 

25 May a delegation of myself and the member for 

Cook was sent to Lebanon for the ordination of the 

new Maronite bishop. The ordination of the new 

Maronite bishop, Bishop Tarabay, represents a 

wonderful moment for the Maronite Church in 

Australia. 

I have known Father Tarabay, as he then was, for 

many years both as the priest at St Charbel's in 

Punchbowl and as a friend. He has been a genuine 

community leader and a voice for peace and unity in 

the community for a long time. When I contacted him 

to congratulate him after the announcement had been 

made of his imminent appointment, he immediately 

asked whether or not it would be possible to have 

Australian representation, and I was pleased that, for 

the first time, we had a bipartisan delegation go across 

to Lebanon to attend the ordination. It is the first time 

that the Australian parliament has sent such a 

delegation to an event such as this anywhere in the 

world. It is also the first time that the Maronite Church 

have chosen their bishop of Australia from amongst the 

Australian clergy. There were messages presented to 

his Lordship—or, as he is called within the Maronite 

Church, Sayedna—from the Prime Minister and from 

the Leader of the Opposition, and when I have both of 

those in my possession I will be happy to table them 

together. The decision to choose the new bishop from 

among the Australian clergy is a great tribute to the 

growth of the Maronite Church within Australia and to 

the significant strength of that faith as it is viewed by 

the hierarchy and by the patriarch himself in Beirut. 

At the event, where the member for Cook and I 

represented Australia, the representative of the 

government of Lebanon was a minister, Mr Walid 

Daouk. I think it is significant that the President chose 

a Sunni Muslim as the Lebanese government's 

representative at the ordination of the Maronite bishop. 

Lined up along the front row were Mrs Nayla 

Mouwad, His Excellency Mr Gibran Basil, Mr Chaker 

Salame, Mr Samir Geagea, Mr Boutros Harb and Mr 

Tony Franjieh, all of them political rivals in different 

ways. Some of them have lost loved ones through 

assassination and through extraordinarily heated battle, 

and one of them has spent many, many years 

CHAMBER 

imprisoned, yet all of them lined up for what was an 

extraordinary moment of unity for the ordination itself. 

The following day, we had a celebration in the 

village of Bishop Tarabay, the village of Tannourine. I 

have to say the Lebanese know how to celebrate in a 

way that Australians cannot match. It was one of the 

most extraordinary celebrations I suspect I will ever 

see. As we walked through the streets, a number of 

young women from the area in traditional dress threw 

rice and rose petals everywhere, which the member for 

Cook and I were assured were being thrown for the 

benefit of the Bishop, not for us! We had Lebanese 

drums being beaten loudly, we had fireworks going off 

and we had other forms of percussion in the 

background, celebratory as well. There was an 

extraordinary sense, as thousands lined the streets— 

almost all of whom had some connection to 

Australia—that this was a unique celebration, as 

special for Australia as it was for Lebanon. 

A couple of days earlier, I had had the opportunity 

to meet with President Sleiman. I am very glad, 

Madam Deputy Speaker Owens, that you are in the 

chair at this moment, because it was you who first 

raised with me the prospect, in honour of this occasion, 

of planting a cedar of Lebanon in Australia. After my 

meeting with President Sleiman, I was able to go to the 

gardens of the presidential palace and, there, right in 

the middle of the gardens, are an old cedar tree, a 

young cedar tree and an olive tree. Planted there with 

them now is an Australian gum tree. I took the 

opportunity on behalf of the Prime Minister, when we 

were in Tannourine, to invite Bishop Tarabay, on his 

return to Australia, to come to the Lodge in Canberra 

where, in amongst the Australian trees, a cedar of 

Lebanon will be planted too. In this way, when the 

westerly winds blow through Canberra and the 

eucalyptus leaves fall, they will be landing side by side 

with the needle-like leaves of a cedar of Lebanon. In 

Lebanon, in the presidential palace, the roots of the 

cedar of Lebanon will intertwine with an Australian 

eucalypt. They will be criss-crossing their way on the 

same soil on which stood the apostles, the gum tree's 

roots forever bound with those of the cedar of 

Lebanon. 

There is an extraordinary pride within the Maronite 

community and the Lebanese community generally 

about the connections that have remained with family 

and with faith between Australia and Lebanon. This 

was a wonderful occasion. I was deeply pleased that it 

was able to be dealt with in a bipartisan manner and I 

have no doubt that the ordination of Bishop Tarabay 

augurs very well for the Maronite community and all 

Australians for many years to come. 

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (12:10): by leave—I rise 

also to offer my congratulations to His Grace Bishop 

Antoine Tarabay. I had the privilege of attending his


ordination representing the Leader of the Opposition, 

and attended with the minister at the table, Minister 

Burke. It was a truly significant event in the life of the 

Maronite community, not only in Australia but also in 

Lebanon itself, and particularly for the village of 

Tannourine, which was able to celebrate its first-ever 

Maronite bishop from that village. The look of pride on 

Bishop Tarabay's parents' faces—very modest people 

from very humble circumstances, who were the pride 

of their village; indeed, they were the pride of the 

entire Maronite community—was something to behold 

and something to truly remember and reflect on for 

some time. 

It was a privilege to be there to represent the Leader 

of the Opposition, and I will later seek leave to table 

the letter that the Leader of the Opposition forwarded 

to His Grace Bishop Tarabay during the thanksgiving 

mass that was celebrated in the village of Tannourine. 

But it is a joyous time for the Maronite Church of 

Australia, and we join with our brothers and sisters in 

Christ in offering our prayers of thanksgiving as well 

as for wisdom and guidance and grace for His Grace. 

We also recognise the work and pay tribute to the 

service of Bishop Abi Karam, who for 12 years was the 

third Maronite Bishop of Australia, as he hands on his 

responsibility for his flock to Bishop Tarabay. 

It was a privilege to go to Lebanon two weeks ago 

and participate in the ordination at the Patriarchal See 

on 25 May. This was truly an amazing event in the 

most spectacular of locations. You could not be 

anything but struck by the history and the solemness of 

this occasion, and its significance in the life of this 

tremendous faith community in this very, very 

remarkable place. It was an honour to bear witness to 

his ordination and to have so many of the flock that he 

will serve here in Australia, and particularly in my 

home state of New South Wales and across Sydney, 

joining the minister at the table and I in attending that 

significant event. 

The following day we were invited together, as the 

minister has said, to the thanksgiving mass at St 

Anthony's church in Tannourine, and we were made 

most welcome by that village. Our hosts there were 

incredibly generous with their time and their 

friendship. The history of the Maronites dates back to 

the fifth century and the church owes its name to St 

Maron's monastery and the life of service lived by the 

hermit Maron. The love of the gospel he instilled in his 

followers was the cornerstone on which this, his 

church, was built. There have been and there remain 

great challenges, but the Maronites draw great strength 

from their faith. I was pleased to be reminded of the 

words of James when he said: 

Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter 

various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces 

endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that 

you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 

CHAMBER 

This was borne out to me when, on the morning of the 

thanksgiving mass, I had the opportunity to be joined 

by a very good friend in Joseph Assaf where we 

stayed. The minister stayed with him on the previous 

night at his home village of Hardine, 80 kilometres 

from Beirut. Mr Assaf is a constituent of the member 

for Reid and an outstanding Australian. In this place, in 

a week or so, we will celebrate the Ethnic Business 

Awards, which he has championed over many, many 

years. On this occasion he hosted me in his home 

village—but not only that, he also took me through the 

villages of the entire north of Lebanon where so many 

in our Maronite community in Australia come from. 

Of the 370,000 or so Maronites who live in New 

South Wales, 85 per cent have descended from or have 

come directly from these villages—Mazrahat Abi Saab 

Knat, Hadith El Joubbe and Diman. We visited the 

Maronite Patriarcate summer residence and its 

beautiful church. We were at Hasroun, Bahkafra, the 

birthplace of Saint Charbel, Becharre—which I 

understand is the home village of Bob Katter and it 

was great to remind him of that when I saw him in the 

chamber last week—Hadcheet, Ban, Blawza, 

Kfarsghab and Ehden. We also visited Saint Antonio's 

monastery where we lunched with monks and shared a 

meal with the hermit Father Khawand, who was in 

Australia for many years before ending up at Kosba 

and Bouza Salem, which is where the husband of the 

Governor of New South Wales is from. 

The last place I visited was Tannourine and the 

Bishop Tarabay himself was baptised in its picturesque 

and ancient church. That really brought the whole thing 

full circle. It is about the faith of this man, who is now 

our Maronite Bishop of Australia. He is a devoted man 

to his faith and to his community. He entered the 

Lebanese Maronite Order in 1983 and was ordained a 

priest in 1993. He served as the rector of St Charbel's 

monastery, church and college in Punchbowl, southern 

Sydney, for more than 10 years. He is well respected 

within and outside the Australian Maronite community 

and leads through service in his ministry and pastoral 

care. He has overseen the academic and religious 

education of young Australian-Lebanese Maronites and 

under his tenure as principal, St Charbel's has earned a 

reputation as a truly fine educational institution. 

Father Tarabay set up a Maronite youth centre and 

has encouraged young Australians to play a part in 

their community, to be involved in the church and to 

volunteer. It was pleasing to see a number of them 

present in the village and at the ordination. During his 

time as rector he has been involved in a wide range of 

community initiatives and has invested countless hours 

in charity. 

The depth and breadth of those who have travelled 

so far, from all walks of life, to be there in Lebanon on 

this tremendous occasion and to stand by him was


indeed a reflection on the bishop and his character and 

a further testimony to the great enduring faith of the 

wonderful Maronite people who, over centuries, have 

suffered all manner of things. It is their faith that has 

provided them stability in their cultural, religious and 

personal lives, and they can truly celebrate—as will be 

done this evening, in Sydney, where I understand he 

will celebrate his first mass. 



Population and Communities) (12:17): I table the 

letters of congratulations to Bishop Tarabay from the 

Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. 

COMMITTEES 

Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry 

Committee 

Report 

Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (12:17): On behalf of the 

Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, 

Fisheries and Forestry I present the committee's report 

on the inquiry into the National Rural Advisory 

Council annual report 2011-12 together with the 

minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the 

committee. 

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was 

made a parliamentary paper. 

Mr ADAMS: by leave—The council, commonly 

referred to as NRAC, is an independent body providing 

advice to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and 

Forestry on matters including rural adjustment, 

regional issues, training, exceptional circumstances 

applications and the extension of the exceptional 

circumstances declarations. 

In 2011-12 one of the NRAC's core responsibilities 

was the review of the exceptional circumstances 

declarations that would expire that year. They included 

declarations in the Murray River and Lower Lakes 

Corridor, Bundarra and the Eurobodalla regions. The 

NRAC's determination was that these declarations did 

not need renewal. Australia was deemed drought-free 

for the first time in a decade. Following this, the 

NRAC was tasked with a program of policy 

development work within the agriculture sector. This 

included assessment of the multiperil crop insurance 

and the Farm Management Deposits Scheme, aimed at 

reducing volatility in farm incomes over the longer 

term and agriculture employers workforce planning 

capacities. 

To reflect this shift in its focus, the committee 

recommended that the NRAC's competition be 

monitored to ensure that its membership adequately 

reflected the skills needed to deliver high-quality 

outcomes for its current work program. In parallel with 

the NRAC's work, a process has been undertaken by 

the Council of Australian Government's Standing 

CHAMBER 

Council on Primary Industries to examine drought 

assistance reform. This was born in part by the 2008 

declaration of that body stating that exceptional 

circumstances declarations were no longer an effective 

mechanism for managing drought assistance, and that 

the focus would be better placed on better planning and 

preparation for times of hardship. 

In examining the shape of a future effective policy, 

the council commissioned economic, social and 

climatic assessments aimed at examining how the 

current national drought policy affected farming 

families and communities. Armed with the results of 

these assessments, a trial of new measures was 

conducted in Western Australia over 2010-2011. A 

review of this trial made a range of recommendations 

to provide a more robust future policy. Broadly, those 

included income and social support, strategic farm 

business planning and ongoing access to the Farm 

Management Deposits Scheme and other taxation 

incentives. 

Moving on from the trial, the Standing Council on 

Primary Industries entered into an Intergovernmental 

Agreement on National Drought Program Reform in 

May this year. The agreement centres on five key 

areas: a farm household support payment; promoting 

farm management deposits and other taxation matters; 

a national approach to farm business training; a 

coordinated and collaborative approach to division of 

social support and services; and tools and technologies 

to inform farmer decision-making. 

An early part of these reforms has included the 

announcement of a farm financing package, aimed at 

providing assistance to agribusiness. At the time of this 

report formal agreements between the Commonwealth, 

states and territories had not been reached, nor had 

relevant legislation been enacted to enable the elements 

of the package to commence. The committee 

recommends that those agreements and legislation be 

finalised as soon as possible to ensure that assistance 

flows to farmers and communities by the planned 

commencement date of 1 July 2013. The committee 

also recommended that the agreements be implemented 

and the full package of drought reform be completed so 

that it could be commenced no later than the agreed 

date of 1 July 2014. 

I would like to thank the representatives of the 

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and 

the National Rural Advisory Council who appeared 

before the committee's public hearing. Their assistance 

in clarifying a range of matters for the committee 

proved invaluable in the development of the report. I 

hope that the committee's recommendations and the 

significant effort of all levels of government in 

developing a package of drought assistance reforms 

concludes with a positive outcome for farming families 

and communities throughout Australia.


Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (12:23): by leave—I think 

it is extremely important as we discuss this report this 

morning that we note we have the Parliamentary 

Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in the 

chamber here with us, because I would like to support 

the comments by the chair on our committee's 

investigations of this report. I would also like to thank 

the secretariat, who are with us today in the chamber as 

well, for their work on this. 

All members of the committee, from all sides of 

parliament, were unanimous in the recommendations 

they put forward. I would like to read the two 

recommendations which I think are incredibly relevant 

to Australian farming today. Recommendation 2 states: 

Given that regions across Australia are once again 

experiencing drought conditions, the Committee calls on the 

Australian Government, States and Territories to finalise the 

Farm Finance Package so that it can be implemented by 1 

July 2013. 

Recommendation 3 states: 

The Committee recommends that the Australian 

Government, through the Council of Australian 

Governments’ Standing Committee on Primary Industries, 

ensures that the complete new package of drought reform 

measures is agreed and implemented by the stated target date 

of 1 July 2014. 

There are conditions across the country at the moment 

which are placing huge stresses on our farmers, 

whether they be in Western Australia, the Northern 

Territory, Queensland, New South Wales or Victoria— 

both the northern parts of Victoria and my electorate in 

the south-west part of Victoria. 

We need the federal government and the states to 

work cooperatively to get the farm finance package 

concluded by 1 July 2013. We also have to ensure that 

the further reform of how drought assistance is 

provided to our farmers is finalised by 1 July 2014. I 

call on the federal government and the states and 

territories to please understand the need, in particular, 

to give assistance to our farmers immediately. There is 

a real need out there in our communities, and I call on 

the federal, state and territory governments to sit down 

and get the farm financing package concluded. I 

understand that the interest rate subsidy has been 

decided at 4½ per cent. We need to get the rest of the 

details agreed, and we need to get help to these farmers 

who are doing it very, very tough at the moment. 

COMMITTEES 

Education and Employment Committee 

Advisory Report on the Australian Education 

Bill 2012 

Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (12:26): I seek leave to table 

an erratum to the advisory report on the Australian 

Education Bill 2012. 

Leave granted. 

CHAMBER 

Mr RAMSEY: In the dissenting report a quote was 

attributed—using the proof of the Hansard transcript, 

which was later updated—to Dr Griffiths, CEO of the 

National Catholic Education Commission. It should 

have instead been attributed to Stephen Elder of the 

National Catholic Education Commission, and I table 

that correction. 

BILLS 

Australian Education Bill 2012 

Second Reading 


That this bill be now read a second time. 

to which the following amendment was moved: 

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to 

substituting the following words: 

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the 

House is of the view that the: 

(1) objects of the bill should be amended to read: 

(a) families must have the right to choose a school that 

meets their needs, values and beliefs; 

(b) all children must have the opportunity to secure a 

quality education; 

(c) student funding needs to be based on fair, objective, 

and transparent criteria distributed according to socioeconomic 

need; 

(d) students with similar needs must be treated 

comparably throughout the course of their schooling; 

(e) as many decisions as possible should be made locally 

by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and 

school systems; 

(f) schools, school sectors and school systems must be 

accountable to their community, families and students; 

(g) every Australian student must be entitled to a basic 

grant from the Commonwealth Government; 

(h) schools and parents must have a high degree of 

certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan 

for the future; 

(i) parents who wish to make a private contribution 

toward the cost of their child’s education should not be 

penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and 

encourage private investment; and 

(j) funding arrangements must be simple so schools are 

able to direct funding toward education outcomes, minimise 

administration costs and increase productivity and quality; 

(2) definitions in the bill should be supplemented to define a 

non-systemic school as a non-government school that is not a 

systemic school, and a systemic school as an approved 

school that is approved as a member of an approved school 

system; and 

(3) bill should provide that the current funding arrangements 

be extended for a further two years, to guarantee funding 

certainty for schools and parents”. 

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:27): I continue my 

remarks from 13 March on the Australian Education 

Bill 2012 and welcome the opportunity as so much has


moved on since then—or has it? Before my speech was 

interrupted 10 weeks ago and then put off by 

legislation that the government thought more 

important, I was talking about education and how 

devoid of detail the bill and the government's plans 

were. The lack of detail remains disappointing—yet 

typical of the big-talking, over-promising and underdelivering 

Gillard government. 

This Labor government like to talk about how they 

are implementing Gonski, with their National Plan for 

School Improvement. It sounds grand. It sounds 

impressive. The name 'Gonski' is something like a 

symbol that some see as a panacea for education. 'Just 

say 'Gonski' and all will be good,' they say. Under this 

Labor government our OECD standing in education 

has been on a slide—but, again, just say 'Gonski' and 

all will be good again! Gonski is therefore somewhat 

messianic in how it is viewed. 

I look now at the detail that is available. The 

government claim they are implementing Gonski, but it 

is not Gonski—nothing like it. If it were Gonski, where 

is the $6.6 billion of new money each year for the next 

six years that was required by Gonski? This is an 

illusion by an over-promising and under-delivering 

government, and the teachers and the principals in 

every school across this country should not be taken in 

by the charade. Over six years there should be more 

than $36 billion extra for education. So this is therefore 

not Gonski but the illusion I spoke of. 

The budget papers indicate $2.8 billion of additional 

money for the National Plan for School Improvement, 

yet at the same time we can see in the coming years 

redirections from other programs—$258.5 million out 

of the National Partnership for Low Socio-economic 

Status School Communities; $411.9 million out of 

Empowering Local Schools; $405 million out of 

literacy and numeracy; $665 million out of the Reward 

for Great Teachers program; $203.2 million out of the 

Reward for School Improvements program; and the 

reduction of $1.182 billion in recurrent funding for 

non-government schools when comparing parameters 

under the Schools Assistance Act 2008. So this 

represents a reduction of $325.1 million. A cut is what 

this government stands for—way less than the $6.6 

billion a year that Gonski requires. I would like to 

highlight the fact that Minister Garrett has not refuted 

the $325.1 million cut to other programs. For Western 

Australia the reduction through redirections or just cuts 

over the period out to financial year 2015-16 is $229.2 

million less in federal funding. It really is a con, and it 

is typical of a government that talks big but achieves 

small. The only thing they are good at are grand 

announcements coupled with cliches and spin lines. Of 

course, people are on to it. I saw in The Australian 

today that the Gillard government's favourite 

catchword has been 'Gonski' for a long time and then it 

was switched to the far less catchy 'national schools 

CHAMBER 

improvement plan'. We await what question time today 

will bring from this government. 

However, I was talking about Labor plans for the 

next three years. The government's plan is to redirect 

or cut existing spending so that they do not have to do 

much of the hard work in the budget. All the big 

money is out at 2018 and 2019, but of course nothing 

like the $6 billion a year required under Gonski. But 

the bigger money is beyond their time and beyond their 

responsibility to find the money for it—again, all 

promise, no delivery. Right now the federal 

government has cut school funding and requires the 

states to spend more. Labor promises to spend $9.8 

billion on the National School Improvement Plan. 

Almost all of that money comes in 2018-19 and before 

that Labor delivers less money than now. Schools will 

not see any of the promised new federal funding until 

2017, which is two federal elections away. Not only 

has school performance declined under this 

government, but the government's performance on 

education has also declined. The Labor government 

does not understand that the key to making better 

schools is better teachers, better teaching, higher 

academic standards, more community engagement and 

more principal autonomy. 

The empty promises of this government will not 

achieve this and neither will this legislation. For this 

reason we are introducing an amendment to the bill 

which looks at all aspects of the education system. We 

understand that all children must have the opportunity 

to have a good, quality education and that families 

must have the right to choose a school that fits their 

child. If parents wish to make a private contribution 

towards the cost of their child's education they should 

not be penalised for it. In an effort to fundraise and 

encourage private investment, schools should not be 

penalised either. This ties in with our belief that as 

many decisions as possible should be made locally by 

parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and 

school systems. Furthermore, schools, school sectors 

and school systems must be accountable to their 

community, families and students. When it comes to 

funding, the coalition wants to ensure that every 

Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant 

from the Commonwealth government. 

This country has had enough of this Labor 

government's failures. Education standards have fallen 

over the term of this Labor government and the way 

ahead is through a different approach. One of the first 

things we will do is to extend the current recurrent 

funding model for both government and nongovernment 

schools so that planning can continue 

through funding certainty. Another two years of 

existing funding arrangements will see indexation and 

National Partnership funding continue which will see 

that no school is worse off. Then we will negotiate and 

work with the states and territories. This will ensure


that any agreement on a common per student funding 

benchmark takes account of the fiscal capacity of each 

state and territory. This will ensure that governments 

like Western Australia are not punished for their strong 

support for schools while also allowing others to reach 

benchmarks as and when circumstances allow. Our 

approach will also ensure that schools are not punished 

for taking steps to obtain alternative funding sources. 

By way of contrast, the government as usual cannot 

be trusted to deliver what they promise or to tell the 

truth about policies. I say again that what the 

government offers is not Gonski: there is no extra $26 

billion over the next four years under Gonski's plan; it 

is not in the forward estimates; it just is not true. Of the 

$9.8 billion it is not until 2018-19 that most of it flows, 

and that is two elections away. For the next three years 

there is a cut of $325 million. This therefore is a 

facade, an illusion, and everyone should look at the 

figures in the budget to see it. What makes it worse is 

that the Labor government has also made false claims 

that schools would be worse off under the coalition by 

$6.4 billion because of a politically-driven and fanciful 

government assumption about the likely indexation 

rate for school funding. The key benchmark is known 

as the average government school recurrent cost and 

that has averaged 5.8 per cent per year over the last 10 

years. The Labor government mendaciously makes the 

assumption that we would allow the AGSRC to fall to 

three per cent. As usual nothing they say is true. 

Clearly, with recent funding announcements by states 

the AGSRC will return to almost six per cent. 

In every respect, what the government says is 

wrong, and what the government delivers is not what it 

suggests. It outlines the spending in the distant future 

but do not outline the way to pay for it. It looks to me 

that the Labor Party has acknowledged that it cannot 

find the $26 billion over four years, and cannot even 

finance what it is talking about in the forward 

estimates. 

We should not forget that Gonski handed down his 

review two years ago. There are now just 12 sitting 

days in the House and eight in the Senate in this 

parliament. How are schools meant to plan for next 

year when this government plans only for politics? 

This government is a fiasco in education and across all 

portfolios. The Prime Minister has established a 30 

June deadline for all states and territories to sign up, so 

that she can have just one success story to campaign on 

in the election. But this is not a success; this is a 

demonstration of the driven pursuit of political success, 

and not educational outcomes. The government has 

intentionally delayed this to take the focus away from 

the figures and instead try to panic stakeholders into 

accepting its plan. The government's dodgy numbers 

and cuts to education in the next three years relate to its 

claim about a future Labor surplus. This is what it is all 

about—a government pursuing politics, driven by 

CHAMBER 

catchwords, with no idea of the ramifications for 

schools and school communities. 

The government has failed to bring forth the detail. 

The government is just trying to push stakeholders into 

accepting what it says. Scrutiny of the figures reveals 

that this government is not about Gonski and is not 

about education—only politics. 

Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (12:36): I am 

very happy to stand on this side of the parliament and 

support the Australian Education Bill 2012. One of my 

favourite things to do as a local member is to visit and 

spend time at schools in my electorate. Whether it is 

standing in a classroom and talking to students about 

the parliament, attending a musical performance, 

celebrating the induction of new school leaders or 

congratulating students as they graduate, it is always a 

pleasure and an important insight into the challenges 

and possibilities of our education system. 

The most obvious observation to make as I take part 

in those activities is the differences between schools, 

and the differences within schools. In the space of a 

week I might be at Mistake Creek State School, which 

is an hour's drive on a dirt road from the nearest town, 

with just a handful of students, and at Lakes Creek 

State School in Rockhampton, where the children of 

migrant meatworkers get the help they need to learn 

English. We also have the Rockhampton Grammar 

School, a P-to-12 boarding school renowned for its 

academic and sporting achievements. Then there is the 

Hall State School, which has a high proportion of 

students with special needs and which engages staff 

and students alike with an award-winning 

environmental education program. And, of course, 

there is Crescent Lagoon State School—the school my 

children attend and the one that I know as a parent 

rather than as an MP. This small snapshot of schools, 

which would be familiar to MPs right across the 

country, goes to illustrate that we ask a lot of our 

education system to meet the needs of students from 

vastly different places and backgrounds, and to 

overcome disparities in size, remoteness and so many 

other factors. 

With so much at stake for individual students and 

our national wellbeing and prosperity, we need to 

know that our education systems in Australia can 

deliver on our expectations and the demands of the 

global economy. This is especially the case at this time 

of transition. Australia is on the threshold of a new era 

of prosperity, but we cannot assume that it will look 

like those times that have gone before. As set out in the 

Australia in the Asian century white paper, and core to 

the government's policy agenda, there is the promise of 

opportunities ahead of us, but not a guarantee. 

Our future is not predetermined. It will be the 

product of how successful we are at converting our 

current advantages into the human capacity,


adaptability and innovation that will be the currency 

we will need to prosper in the coming century. All 

those things start with education, and that is why the 

bill we are debating today is so important. It is 

important because it says to the community that this 

government gets it. We understand that our education 

system is not meeting the needs of today's students, let 

alone the generations that will be making their way in 

the world beyond this time of mining-generated 

wealth. 

Not one of us can afford to ignore the results of 

international tests and comparisons that show Australia 

is failing to keep up with the educational achievements 

of our neighbours and competitors. 

Over the past decade the PISA exams—the Program 

of International Student Assessment—coordinated by 

the OECD has shown an alarming drop in the 

comparative performance of Australian students. For 

example, in that period Australian students have fallen 

from second to seventh in reading and from fifth to 

13th in maths. Another similar statistic that has been 

quoted often in this debate is that in test results 

released at the end of last year it was shown that 

Australian year-4 students were significantly 

outperformed in reading literacy by 21 countries out of 

the 45 that took part in the testing. 

This government came to office with education as 

one of its key priorities and we have backed that up 

with investments to improve teaching and learning, as 

well as significant upgrading of school infrastructure. 

The international ranking results I have just quoted, 

however, demand an even greater national effort aimed 

at giving Australian students the education they need to 

secure their place in the world. The question is: what 

should that greater effort look like? This government 

understands that for each student to truly get what he 

or she needs from education and to truly realise their 

potential we need to do more than simply add more 

funding to the existing system to do more of what it 

currently does. Instead, we need a new funding 

framework built on a set of explicit principles and 

goals so that we can be sure of getting the maximum 

value for every extra dollar spent on education. 

The Australian Education Bill 2012 lays out the 

legislative framework which will deliver more funding 

and resources to every school as part of the 

implementation of the National Plan for School 

Improvement, also enshrined within this bill. The 

purpose of this bill is made very clear in its preamble 

and it is something I fully subscribe to and 

wholeheartedly support: 

All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent 

education, allowing each student to reach his or her full 

potential so that he or she can succeed and contribute fully to 

his or her community, now and in the future. 

CHAMBER 

The quality of a student’s education should not be limited by 

where the student lives, the income of his or her family, the 

school he or she attends, or his or her personal 

circumstances. 

The quality of education should not be limited by a school’s 

location, particularly those schools in regional Australia. 

… … … 

… future arrangements will be based on the needs of 

Australian schools and school students, and on evidence of 

how to provide an excellent education for school students. 

These arrangements will build on successful reforms to date. 

These are all important statements of the value this 

government and, one would hope, this parliament 

places on education and its role in the lives of 

individual Australians and the prospects of our nation. 

They should not, however, come as a surprise to 

anyone because the words in this bill actually reflect 

the substance of Labor's education policy and programs 

since we came to office in 2007. In her second reading 

speech when this bill was introduced to the parliament 

the Prime Minister outlined the path we have been on, 

step by step putting in place the foundations for this 

significant and necessary reform of school education. 

We knew when we came to power in 2007 that 

reform had to be built on evidence of what is 

happening in schools right now—which students go to 

which schools; what are the indicators of success or 

disadvantage within a school population; what is a 

school contributing to the educational performance of 

its students and how does that compare to other 

schools; and, which schools are successful in meeting 

the needs of their students and getting the best out of 

them? We could not answer those questions when we 

first came to government in 2007. So we set about the 

task of answering those questions and building an 

education system for the future. My School was 

developed to gather the information that could answer 

those questions and guide appropriate responses. 

Over the same period our government has made 

massive investments in delivering extra resources into 

schools through national partnerships with states and 

other schooling systems. Schools put those resources to 

work in new approaches and programs to address poor 

literacy and numeracy, to lift the quality of teaching 

and to overcome disadvantage experienced by low- 

SES students. Using the data from My School and 

other measures we have worked to identify what works 

in schools. We can identify the elements of success and 

where more support is needed if those results are to be 

achieved in each and every school. 

The Gonski review has confirmed that more support, 

more funding, is needed if we are to replicate the lift in 

standards and educational results seen in those 

National Partnership schools around the country. The 

Gonski review went further in recommending 

important new characteristics of school funding. Those 

characteristics are central to the fundamental reform of


school funding that this government is committed to 

and they are given legislative force in this bill. The bill 

provides assurance that the Commonwealth will 

introduce a needs-based funding model for future 

Commonwealth funding. That funding will be provided 

on the basis of a schooling resource standard which 

will provide a base amount for all students, according 

to a formula that accounts for the costs associated with 

providing a high-quality education and additional 

loadings that address the costs associated with 

educational disadvantage. So schools will get the 

funding they need to meet the needs of their individual 

students, whether those students face disadvantage 

because they come to school with a disability or they 

attend a small, remote school or they experience other 

barriers linked to lower educational attainment. The 

Prime Minister explains in her speech that the 

schooling resource standard will be based on what it 

costs to educate a student at schools we know already 

get strong results. 

I am proud to say that at least one of those 

benchmark schools is in my electorate of Capricornia, 

and it is the evidence I have seen at that school that 

makes me such a strong supporter of the Gonski model 

and this bill. Berserker Street State School has been on 

a remarkable journey in the time I have been the local 

member and especially since this government came to 

power. Most of that improvement in transformation has 

occurred since the special needs of the school's 

students and community were recognised and the 

school was allocated significant extra funding as part 

of the national partnership for low SES schools. Under 

the leadership of the Berserker principal, Rebecca 

Hack, and with the help of those extra resources, the 

school has been able to employ additional staff to 

support programs in literacy, numeracy and Indigenous 

engagement as well as special staff such as a social 

worker. There has been room in the budget for 

innovative teaching programs, including targeted 

diagnostic screening for things like oral-language skills 

and professional development for teachers and 

teachers' aides. 

I have probably spoken about it in the House before 

but it would be no surprise to members to know that I 

have visited Berserker Street State School many times 

and seen for myself the commitment of the staff and 

the way students are responding to the efforts that are 

made to meet their individual educational and personal 

needs. You can actually sense the focus, engagement 

and enthusiasm of the students as you move from class 

to class, and I have got to say that it is not something I 

could have said about Berserker school 10 or 12 years 

ago. I visited the school just in the last couple of 

months with Senator Jacinta Collins and during that 

visit we were both invited to sit-in on a grade 1 reading 

group. A number of students jumped up to read aloud 

to us and one in particular, named Josh, was put on the 

CHAMBER 

spot and asked to read to us while being filmed for the 

local news bulletin and photographed by the local 

newspaper photographer. Josh did not skip a beat and 

he confidently treated us to a couple of pages of the 

book he was reading. It was only later that his proud 

teacher pulled us aside and told us that when Josh 

started prep a year earlier he had been identified as 

having almost no oral language skills, to the point 

where he could only put one or two words together. 

Poor oral-language skills are closely linked to 

difficulties in learning to read. 

The support and specialised interventions that 

Berserker has had the resources to provide, thanks to 

its extra funding, have resulted in the progress we saw 

that day and the people of Rockhampton saw that night 

when Josh read to all of them on the evening news. 

This is all reflected more broadly in Berserker's data 

and is the reason that Berserker is amongst those 

excellent schools identified to formulate the schooling 

resource standard. Berserker school is the schooling 

resource standard and the national plan for school 

improvement in action and the results are truly 

inspirational. The point of the Berserker example is 

that every school needs to be resourced to respond to 

its students' needs and the community's expectations. 

I have given that example because it means that we 

have seen in Rockhampton what can be achieved with 

extra investment in schools towards lifting standards of 

leadership, teaching and learning. 

I was very disappointed to see today that the 

Premier of Queensland is rejecting the federal 

government's offer of the extra investment that has 

seen those results achieved at schools like Berserker, 

and others in my electorate and right around 

Queensland. Instead, what is being offered by the 

Queensland government—if it fails to sign up to the 

national school improvement plan, and if we go into 

the next election without the national school 

improvement plan having passed through this 

parliament and being on its way to being implemented 

as the funding model for Australian schools—will see 

cuts to schools in the state of Queensland, cuts to each 

and every school, at a time when there needs to be 

more investment in education. 

Every student deserves to have an excellent 

education. These have always been core Labor beliefs, 

but now they are also national imperatives. That is why 

this bill commits the government to goals for the 

excellence, equity and international competitiveness of 

our schooling system and sets the framework for 

school funding to achieve those goals. I commend the 

bill to the House. 

Mr IRONS (Swan) (12:51): In my electorate of 

Swan we have a wide range of schools. I see a former 

member for Swan in the chamber; he is now the 

member for Canning. I know he has an education


background and was a teacher in my electorate as well. 

So I know how important education is to him. 

Mr Randall: Cloverdale Primary School. 

Mr IRONS: Cloverdale Primary School, he tells 

me. The diversity goes beyond the simple government 

and non-government distinction the Prime Minister 

often frames this debate around. 

Mr Sidebottom: Ahem! 

Mr IRONS: It is good to see the member for 

Braddon is awake today. I think the member for 

Braddon is trying to make the point that he was a 

teacher as well. The reality is: most schools have an 

element of public and private funding. As the shadow 

minister said, in the current Schools Assistance Act 

there are over 70 definitions relating to schooling. This 

bill before the House has only five definitions. The 

issue here is the government trying to make broad 

generalisations that simply do not fit with the detailed 

picture on the ground. 

What we are debating today is a statement of 

principles—not a bill. It has no financial impact and it 

is not even legally enforceable. Perhaps this has 

something to do with the manner in which it was 

introduced—rapidly, at the end of last year, to try to 

convince the Australian people that there is an agenda 

for this government. 

What the government has put out would be better 

put in a press release than a bill. It is an empty shell in 

a number of respects. For example, it lacks details on 

funding; it contains no details at all as to how much 

money will be available, or which level of government 

will be required to stump up for additional funding. 

Too often, Labor's approach has led to politicisation 

of an important policy area which ought to be above 

politics, and I fear this will only worsen in the lead-up 

to their deadline of 30 June 2013. The politicisation 

has the potential to colour an appropriate and rational 

consideration of Labor's current offers to the state and 

territory governments. 

I refer the House to comments in The Australian on 

25 February: 

WA Premier Colin Barnett said he believed the federal 

government was a 'small player'' in education and heavily 

criticised Ms Gillard's style of negotiation with the states. 

'We have never indicated we would sign up to Gonski,' 

Mr Barnett told reporters in Perth. 

'If the federal government has some proposal, they are 

very much the small player in education. 

'We are not going to sit back and suddenly let the 

commonwealth take over the running of our schools.'' 

These concerns are shared by the schools themselves. 

We had the CSA state: 

CSA supports the general principles of a Gonski-style 

approach. We cannot however give our full support to any 

CHAMBER 

proposal that has not fully been modelled and released for 

consultation. 

… … … 

We must express however our serious concern at the lack 

of detail about the achievement of this promise. 

Should data modelling, and funding commitments not be 

provided to fulfil this undertaking our support would 

immediately be withdrawn. 

I note Dennis Shanahan's piece on the front page of 

The Australian newspaper today, which says that the 

Queensland Premier has virtually ruled out the 

Queensland government's agreement to the Gonski 

funding by the Prime Minister's deadline. Furthermore, 

the article goes on to quote Mr Newman's letter to the 

Prime Minister, in which he refers to officials in her 

Treasury department as being intransigent, failing to 

negotiate constructively and unable to set out base 

education funding for the 2014 education year. The 

Queensland Premier told the Prime Minister that 

because of the intransigence of the federal government, 

even if agreement could be reached on the starting 

point, the flow-on effects would require substantial 

revision of the federal government's funding offer. 

I note that the Victorian government has described 

the negotiations as 'a farce' and 'puerile'. Even the 

South Australian Labor government has warned of 

concerns about funding for independent schools. 

Further to this, it has been reported by The Australian 

that: 

Victorian Education Minister Martin Dixon excoriated the 

commonwealth over its handling of the Gonski negotiations, 

claiming the reforms amounted to nothing more than a 

slogan. 

In unusually strong language, Mr Dixon said he no longer 

trusted the federal government over the way it had conducted 

the negotiations. 

He said that he was being forced to read in the media about 

key developments in what were meant to be confidential 

negotiations about the future of billions of dollars worth of 

education funding. 

"This process has been a farce and it's been a sham," Mr 

Dixon told parliament. 

We are not going to sign up to a slogan. We want a real 

funding deal. We are going to sign up to what's best for 

every student, school, family and taxpayer. 

Senior government sources said Victoria would only now 

sign up to the Gonski reforms if there was a "deal breaking" 

offer by Canberra. 

Mr Dixon, Catholic Education Commission Victoria 

executive director Stephen Elder and Independent Schools 

Victoria chief executive Michelle Green have written to the 

Gillard government asking for four-way negotiations to 

address funding proposals. This is believed to be due to 

existing discussions having collapsed. 

"The current bilateral negotiations have not achieved results 

we would have liked," the trio wrote in a letter to School 

Education Minister Peter Garrett.


Mr Dixon's outburst makes it increasingly unlikely that Ms 

Gillard will be able to broker a truly national approach to the 

Gonski reforms. While Mr Dixon has not ruled out signing 

up to the reforms, he has sent the clearest possible message 

that Victoria's support is highly conditional. 

Queensland is still holding out on the reforms while Western 

Australia says it is not signing. 

The South Australian Premier, who took on Treasury in his 

January frontbench reshuffle, yesterday hosed down any 

expectation he was about to sign up to Gonski and was just 

waiting for the right time to announce it with the Prime 

Minister before next Thursday's state budget. 

And rightly so—the recent budget confirmed a number 

of suspicion long held by the coalition. In short, the 

total amount of federal Commonwealth money devoted 

to education over the forward estimates period to 2016- 

17 has been reduced by approximately $1.5 billion. 

While Budget Paper No. 21 indicates that $2.8 

billion of additional money will be available over four 

years for the National Plan for School Improvement, 

NPSI, that spending is offset by concurrent reductions, 

redirections and savings of approximately $3.283 

billion. Their total exceeds the additional amount that 

had been set aside for the NPSI by some $484 million. 

This means the Labor government will not contribute 

any additional money for education between now and 

2016-17. In fact, it will contribute less over the same 

period than it otherwise would have. In addition, an 

examination of the relevant portfolio budget statement 

confirms further reductions to school-specific spending 

under the Schools Assistance Act 2008 by 

approximately $1 billion until 2016-17. The 

cumulative effect of these changes shows an intention 

to reduce spending over the forward estimates period 

by $1.5 billion from that which would otherwise have 

been spent absent of the NPSI. 

What has become clear is that even if it manages to 

be re-elected for another two terms, the Labor 

government is not introducing Gonski. If it were, it 

would have committed the extra money Gonski called 

for. Far from increasing funding, the government has 

handed out a budget last month which reveals that 

Labor will reduce spending on schools by $325 million 

over the forward estimates from was forecast in the 

2012-13 budget. What the government is doing is 

robbing Peter to pay Paul—except they are paying Paul 

a lesser amount. Overall, the government will spend 

$4.7 billion less on education, including higher 

education and vocational training, in the four years to 

2016 than was budgeted last year. 

I refer the House to some of the responses the 

government have received to their proposals. The lack 

of detail leaves many questions remaining. Where will 

the at least $6.5 billion per year the government floated 

come from? What programs will be cut and what taxes 

will the government increase to pay for it? If the leaked 

Gonski modelling shows 3,254 schools worse off, how 

CHAMBER 

much extra will it cost for every school to receive more 

funding as Ms Gillard has promised? When will the 

modelling be available showing the impact of this 

funding for each school? Will the Prime Minister 

guarantee no school will have to increase school fees 

as a result of the changes? Where is the detailed 

response to the 41 recommendations in the Gonski 

review? How much indexation will each school and 

school sector receive? What will be the benchmark 

funding per primary and secondary school student? 

How much funding per student will be allocated for 

students with a disability? Will this funding be portable 

between the government and non-government sectors? 

What, if any, future capital funding arrangements will 

be provided for schools? What new reporting 

requirements and other conditions will schools have to 

meet in order to qualify for government funding? 

In the Southern Gazette newspaper, in my 

electorate, on 4 September 2012, in an article written 

by journalist Susanne Scolt, it was reported that 20 

local schools could be faced with a combined funding 

loss of more than $8 million under federal government 

education plans. The article states that modelling based 

on data provided by the department of education to 

schools and state governments, based on the Gonski 

review, shows that 688 WA schools could emerge as 

potential losers, with Belmont City College, in my 

electorate 22nd on the list, projected to lose over $2.2 

million. Other local schools in my electorate are also 

facing losses according to this news article include 

Como Secondary College, $975,185; Lathlain Primary 

School, $466,316; East Victoria Park Primary School, 

$293,926; Wesley College, $167,969; and Penrhos 

College, $85,458. In the article, local Kewdale resident 

Joe Mahon, who sends his children to Lathlain Primary 

School, was quoted: 

"If these figures are true, then I imagine that this would be 

a substantial part of the school's budget," he said. 

"The school is quite well equipped now but if we were to 

lose that money how would they expect to catch up on the 

technology of other schools in the area?" 

Based on these figures, it is hardly surprising that 

schools and ministers are asking for more information. 

I mentioned earlier the Independent Public Schools 

initiative from the Liberal government of Western 

Australia, and it is worth mentioning here as it will be 

a key plank of coalition education policy going 

forward. The Independent Public Schools initiative was 

introduced to give public schools choice, independence 

and freedom to provide for their communities' diverse 

education needs. Currently, 255 schools across 

Western Australia are operating, or are beginning to 

operate, as independent public schools. The IPS 

initiative empowers school communities by giving 

them greater capacity to shape the ethos, priorities and 

direction of their schools. I am on the board for 

Bannister Creek Primary School in Lynwood, in my


electorate of Swan, which is an independent school. 

We visited with the shadow minister recently to show 

how the school would be developing a specialist in 

languages as a result of being granted independent 

school status. 

In my electorate of Swan, 10 schools have become 

independent public schools since 2010, with six more 

electing to become independent in 2013. These schools 

assume greater responsibility for their own affairs and 

have greater flexibility to respond to their 

communities. The Western Australian government has 

recognised the great importance of government funded 

schools in our community by allowing very diverse 

schools to respond to the individual needs of the 

communities they service. By giving more power to the 

individual schools, programs can be tailored to meet 

the student needs of a particular enrolment area. School 

funding can be more wisely spent in line with the 

needs of the individual school, avoiding the rampant 

waste we have seen with the school halls program, 

Building the Education Revolution. 

The standards for schools to become independent 

public schools are understandably rigorous. Every 

public school in Western Australia will be given the 

opportunity to be selected once they meet the high 

standards required to become an independent public 

school. This approach recognises that schools perform 

better, and achieve higher outcomes when granted 

flexibility to adapt to community and student needs in 

education. The approach also acknowledges some 

schools need more support than others when 

transitioning and provides guidance and expertise to 

ensure that schools and students around Western 

Australia are reaching their potential. Importantly as 

well, the IPS initiative provides parents, students, 

communities and schools with choice. Choice is 

incredibly important for schools as no two schools are 

the same in terms of funding needs, infrastructure 

needs, and student and staff needs. 

The bill before the House today is unclear as to 

whether or not additional administrative burdens would 

be placed on schools with regard to funding, creating 

more red tape and a less efficient school system. While 

independent public schools are funded on the same 

basis as all Western Australian public schools, the 

ongoing funding uncertainty and the lack of a proposed 

funding model could inhibit some schools in their 

transition to become independent. All in all, this bill 

does little or nothing to improve education outcomes, 

but it has afforded many coalition members the 

opportunity to expose the hollowness of the 

government's budget and the hollowness of their 

commitments to the Gonski report. The focus needs to 

shift. Differences need to be made in the classroom 

rather than the bureaucracy. Our schools and children 

deserve better. 

CHAMBER 


Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 

2013 

Report from Federation Chamber 

Bill returned from Federation Chamber with 

amendments; certified copy of bill presented. 

Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. 

Federation Chamber's amendments— 

(1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 2, insert: 

2A Object of this Act 

The object of this Act is to establish the Asbestos Safety 

and Eradication Agency to administer the National Strategic 

Plan, which aims to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres in 

order to eliminate asbestos-related disease in Australia. 

(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 18), after "asbestos awareness", 

insert ", education and information sharing,". 

(3) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 8 and 9), omit the definition of 

National Strategic Plan, substitute: 

National Strategic Plan has the meaning given by section 

5A. 

(4) Page 3 (after line 16), after Part 1, insert: 

Part 1A—National Strategic Plan 

5A National Strategic Plan 

The National Strategic Plan means the plan that: 

(a) is known as the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos 

Management and Awareness; and 

(b) aims to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres in order 

to eliminate asbestos-related disease in Australia; and 

(c) addresses the following priority areas: 

(i) the systematic identification of material containing 

asbestos in the built environment and of asbestos dump sites; 

(ii) systems, timelines and processes for the 

prioritised safe removal of material containing asbestos from 

public and commercial buildings and the safe disposal of 

such material; 

(iii) measures to assist the residential sector to 

minimise the risks of asbestos, including raising awareness, 

education and mechanisms for identifying and classifying 

risks associated with asbestos; 

(iv) improving education and information about 

asbestos; 

(v) improving asbestos safety; 

(vi) improving the sharing of information about 

asbestos and asbestos safety; and 

(d) deals with any other relevant matters. 

(5) Clause 12, page 7 (lines 13 and 14), omit "advice, makes 

recommendations or issues guidelines", substitute "advice or 

makes recommendations". 

(6) Clause 12, page 7 (line 16), omit "or guidelines". 

(7) Clause 12, page 7 (after line 16), after subclause (1), 

insert: 

(1A) The CEO must comply with any guidelines issued 

by the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council under 

section 29.


(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply to the extent that: 

(a) compliance with the guidelines would be 

inconsistent with the CEO's performance of functions or 

exercise of powers under the Financial Management and 

Accountability Act 1997 in relation to the Agency; or 

(b) the guidelines relate to the CEO's performance of 

functions or exercise of powers under the Public Service Act 

1999 in relation to the Agency. 

(8) Page 11 (after line 31), at the end of Division 3, add: 

23A Delegation 

(1) The CEO may, in writing, delegate all or any of the 

CEO's functions or powers to a person who is a member of 

the staff of the Agency. 

(2) In exercising any powers or performing any functions 

under the delegation, the delegate must comply with any 

directions of the CEO. 

(9) Clause 29, page 14 (lines 12 and 13), omit "asbestos 

safety, if requested to do so by the Minister.", substitute 

"asbestos safety; and". 

(10) Clause 29, page 14 (after line 13), at the end of 

subclause (1), add: 

(c) to monitor the implementation of the National 

Strategic Plan by Commonwealth, State, Territory and local 

governments; and 

(d) to provide advice, and make recommendations, 

about the National Strategic Plan and annual operational 

plans. 

(11) Clause 29, page 14 (after line 16), after subclause (2), 

insert: 

(2A) The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council must 

not issue guidelines that are inconsistent with any directions 

given under section 14 (Minister's directions to CEO). 

(2B) Any guidelines that are inconsistent with a 

direction of the kind referred to in subsection (2A) have no 

effect to the extent of the inconsistency. 

(12) Clause 29, page 14 (lines 20 and 21), omit subclause 

(4). 


30A Committees 

(1) The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council may, by 

writing, establish committees to assist the Council in the 

performance of its functions. 

(2) A committee is to consist of such persons as the 

Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council determines. 

(3) If the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council 

establishes a committee under subsection (1), the Council 

must, in writing, determine: 

(a) the committee's terms of reference; and 

(b) the terms and conditions of appointment of the 

members of the committee; and 

(c) the procedures to be followed by the committee. 

(4) An instrument made under subsection (1) or (3) is not 

a legislative instrument. 

(14) Clause 31, page 16 (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraphs (c) 

and (d), substitute: 

(c) 4 members representing State, Territory and local 

governments; and 

CHAMBER 

(d) 1 member representing the interests of workers in 

Australia; and 

(e) 1 member representing the interests of employers in 

Australia; and 

(f) 2 other members. 

(15) Clause 32, page 16 (after line 18), after paragraph 

(2)(c), insert: 

(ca) the member representing the interests of workers in 

Australia; or 

(cb) the member representing the interests of employers 

in Australia; or 

(16) Clause 32, page 16 (line 21), omit "31(a) or (d)", 

substitute "31(a), (d), (e) or (f)". 

(17) Clause 32, page 16 (after line 30), at the end of the 

clause, add: 

(4) A person is eligible for appointment as a Council 

member under paragraph 31(d) only if: 

(a) the person has been nominated for the appointment 

by an authorised worker body; and 

(b) the Minister agrees to the person being appointed. 

(5) If an authorised worker body nominates a person but 

the Minister does not agree to the person being appointed, an 

authorised worker body (which may be the same or a 

different body) may nominate another person for the 

appointment. 

(6) The Minister may authorise a body for the purposes of 

subsections (4) and (5) if the Minister considers that the 

body represents the interests of workers in Australia. If the 

Minister does so, the body is an authorised worker body. 

(7) A person is eligible for appointment as a Council 

member under paragraph 31(e) only if: 

(a) the person has been nominated for the appointment 

by an authorised employer body; and 

(b) the Minister agrees to the person being appointed. 

(8) If an authorised employer body nominates a person 

but the Minister does not agree to the person being 

appointed, an authorised employer body (which may be the 

same or a different body) may nominate another person for 

the appointment. 

(9) The Minister may authorise a body for the purposes of 

subsections (7) and (8) if the Minister considers that the 

body represents the interests of employers in Australia. If the 

Minister does so, the body is an authorised employer body. 

(18) Clause 37, page 20 (after line 17), at the end of the 

clause, add: 

(4) The Council member: 

(a) must not be present during any deliberation by the 

Council on the matter; and 

(b) must not take part in any decision of the Council 

with respect to the matter. 

(19) Heading to Division 4, page 22 (line 1), omit "Meetings 

of", substitute "Procedures of". 


41A Quorum 

(1) At a meeting of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication 

Council, a quorum is constituted by:


(a) 2 members appointed under paragraph 31(c) 

(members representing State, Territory and local 

governments); and 

(b) any 4 other Council members. 

(2) However, if: 

(a) a member is required by section 37 not to be present 

during the deliberations or to take part in any decision of the 

Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council with respect to a 

particular matter; and 

(b) when the member leaves the meeting concerned, 

there is no longer a quorum present; 

the remaining Council members at the meeting constitute a 

quorum for the purposes of any deliberation or decision at 

that meeting with respect to that matter. 

(21) Page 22, at the end of Division 4 (after proposed section 

41A), add: 

41B Voting at meetings 

(1) A question arising at a meeting of the Asbestos Safety 

and Eradication Council is to be determined by a majority of 

the votes of the Council members present and voting. 

(2) The person presiding at a meeting has: 

(a) a deliberative vote; and 

(b) if necessary, also a casting vote. 


41B), add: 

41C Minutes 

The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council must keep 

minutes of its meetings. 


41C), add: 

41D Conduct of meetings 

The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council may 

regulate proceedings at its meetings as it considers 

appropriate. 

Note: Section 33B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 

contains further information about the ways in which 

Council members may participate in meetings. 


41D), add: 

41E Decisions without meetings 

(1) The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council is taken 

to have made a decision at a meeting if: 

(a) without meeting, a majority of the Council members 

entitled to vote on the proposed decision indicate agreement 

with the decision; and 

(b) that agreement is indicated in accordance with the 

method determined by the Council under subsection (2); and 

(c) all the Council members were informed of the 

proposed decision, or reasonable efforts were made to inform 

all the members of the proposed decision. 

(2) Subsection (1) applies only if the Asbestos Safety and 

Eradication Council: 

(a) has determined that it may make decisions of that 

kind without meeting; and 

(b) has determined the method by which Council 

members are to indicate agreement with proposed decisions. 

CHAMBER 

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Council 

member is not entitled to vote on a proposed decision if the 

member would not have been entitled to vote on that 

proposal if the matter had been considered at a meeting of 

the Council. 

(4) The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council must 

keep a record of decisions made in accordance with this 

section. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms O'Neill) (13:06): 

The question is that the amendments made by the 

Federation Chamber be agreed to. 

Question agreed to. 

Bill, as amended, agreed to. 

Third Reading 



Population and Communities) (13:06): by leave—I 

move: 

That this bill be now read a third time. 


Bill read a third time. 






That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to 


"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the 

House is of the view that: 

(1) the Objects of the bill should be amended to read: 







need; 









grant from the Commonwealth government; 





toward the cost of their child's education should not be 


encourage private investment; and




administration costs and increase productivity and quality. 

(2) the definitions in the bill should be supplemented to 

define a non-systemic school as a non-government school 

that is not a systemic school, and a systemic school as an 

approved school that is approved as a member of an 

approved school system; and 

(3) the bill should provide that the current funding 

arrangements be extended for a further two years, to 

guarantee funding certainty for schools and parents." 

Mr SYMON (Deakin) (13:07): I speak in support 

of the Australian Education Bill 2012 and against the 

amendment moved by the member for Sturt. This bill 

provides the framework for a needs-based schoolfunding 

model that incorporates the work of the 

Review of Funding for Schooling, better known as the 

Gonski review. A benchmark funding rate will be 

established that will provide for the costs associated 

with providing high-quality education. In addition, 

loadings for disadvantage will be added to cover the 

educational costs associated with that. With the stated 

aim of ensuring that Australia is in the top five 

international performers in reading, mathematics and 

science by 2025, this bill provides the legislative 

framework that opens the door. 

The National Plan for School Improvement is the 

basis for lifting both school and student results by 

addressing five core reform directions: quality 

teaching; quality learning; empowering school 

leadership; transparency and accountability; and 

meeting student need. In addition, the loadings for 

educational disadvantage will provide extra funding for 

those students in need of extra support, covering areas 

such as: students with a disability; Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander students; students with low 

English proficiency due to immigration circumstances 

or ethnic background; students of low-socioeconomic 

status; rural, regional and remote schools; and small 

schools that have higher costs due to a lower number 

of students. This extra funding will be provided as 

grants to the states and territories to assist schools 

regardless of the sector—that is, government, Catholic 

and independent schools across the board. As tied 

funding, it is dependent upon the individual states and 

territories agreeing to the National Plan for School 

Improvement. Upon agreement, each state and territory 

will continue to run its own education system and the 

Commonwealth will provide increased funding over 

what is currently available. 

As chair of the Standing Committee on Education 

and Employment I presented the advisory report on 

this bill to the House on 29 May. This report was 

written after the committee had held public hearings in 

Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne to hear 

from witnesses. In addition, the committee received 53 

submissions from interested parties—although I must 

CHAMBER 

say that, somewhat disappointingly, few were received 

from state or territory governments. The committee's 

report recommended that this bill be passed whilst 

noting that the amendments that have been 

foreshadowed will introduce a funding formula and a 

variation to clause 10 of the bill to provide legal 

enforceability. 

It is fair to say that the current model of school 

funding in Australia is a mess. It is a system that is 

broken, that does not direct funds to where they are 

most needed and that does not take enough account of 

those that it was put in place for—that is, the students. 

Around $12.9 billion of Commonwealth funding was 

directed to schools in 2012-13; 64.6 per cent of this 

was for non-government schools, whilst the states and 

territories provided most of the funding to their 

respective government school systems. Although 

constitutionally the states and territories have the 

responsibility for school education, the Commonwealth 

has been providing funding to state schools since 1964 

in various forms. This funding initially started as 

capital grants for science laboratories and equipment 

but were extended five years later to cover the building 

of library facilities and then a bit later on to cover 

general capital works. Commonwealth recurrent 

funding of non-government schools first occurred in 

1970 under the States Grants (Independent Schools) 

Act 1969. This funding was extended by the Whitlam 

Labor government as a result of the recommendations 

of the committee chaired by Professor Peter Karmel. 

Therefore, since 1974 both government and nongovernment 

schools have received a percentage of their 

recurrent funding from the Commonwealth. 

Currently schools receive funding under the 

National Schools Specific Purpose Payment, national 

partnerships and Commonwealth own-purpose 

expenses. These rates vary greatly between the sectors 

and I think it would be more than fair to say that 

almost all users of the education system would struggle 

to identify both the source and the actual amount of 

funds that are made available to schools. Currently, the 

Commonwealth provides 10 per cent of the average 

government school recurrent costs, or AGSRC, for 

government schools in the states and territories through 

the NSSPP. This rate was increased by the Labor 

government as from 2009 from 8.9 per cent to 10 per 

cent for government primary school students. To my 

great dismay, my state, Victoria, did not flow this 

funding directly through to schools. In dollar terms this 

funding was worth around $100 per student per year, 

and many of my local schools were counting on this 

funding as a way of employing extra specialist staff for 

a few hours per week—staff that were needed to 

overcome educational disadvantage within their 

schools. 

There are many national partnership programs that 

provide additional funding for government and non-


government schools with different objectives and time 

frames of operation. National partnership funding is 

not recurrent funding; it is provided to achieve specific 

objectives agreed between the Commonwealth and the 

states and territories. Many of these national 

partnerships will expire in the near future, having 

provided the funding to achieve their agreed outcomes. 

These national partnerships include the Digital 

Education Revolution program, which has provided 

hundreds of thousands of computers to secondary 

schools and which expires on 30 June this year. They 

also include the National Partnership Agreement on 

Improving Teacher Quality, which expires at the end of 

this year; the National Partnership Agreement on 

Literacy and Numeracy, which expires at the end of 

this year; the National Partnership Agreement on 

Youth Attainment and Transitions, which expires at the 

end of this year; the National Partnership Agreement 

on Empowering Local Schools, which expires on 30 

June 2014; the National Partnership Agreement for 

More Support for Students with Disabilities, which 

also expires on 30 June 2014; and the National 

Partnership Agreement on Low Socio-Economic Status 

School Communities, which expires on 30 June 2015. 

Some national partnership agreements extend beyond 

these dates, such as the National Partnership 

Agreement on Rewards for Great Teachers, the Trade 

Training Centres in Schools Program, and the national 

partnership agreement on reward for school 

improvement. 

The non-government schools receive their national 

schools specific purpose payments through the Schools 

Assistance Act 2008. That provides for both recurrent 

and capital funding. This also includes targeted 

programs such as a literacy, numeracy and special 

needs program, the English as a second language new 

arrivals program and the country areas program. In 

addition, there is funding provided for Indigenous 

students through another program called the 

Indigenous supplementary assistance. There are also 

loadings for non-government schools in remote areas 

that range from five per cent to 20 per cent of the 

school's SES funding rate for general recurrent grants. 

Currently there are 46 different funding rates under 

the SES system for recurrent grants to non-government 

schools. Introduced by the Howard Liberal government 

in 2001, this system calculates general recurrent 

funding for students, on the basis of the SES index that 

includes the three components: income, education and 

occupation and also the student's residential address 

within a census collection district. SES funding for 

non-government schools can vary from as low as 13.7 

per cent up to 70 per cent using these measures. 

However, special schools and special assistance 

schools receive the maximum rate as do the majority of 

Indigenous student schools. Additionally some schools 

receive different SES funding rates due to the 

CHAMBER 

introduction of that system in 2001. These schools 

receive more than the calculated rate through 

mechanisms called funding maintained or funding 

guaranteed. At the start of 2012 there were 1,642 nongovernment 

schools funded according to their SES 

score, 1,075 funding maintained schools and five 

schools funding guaranteed. 

This is a short version of the funding examples that I 

have just listed and to me it is one of the greatest 

reasons why we need to change our system of funding 

school education in Australia. The National Plan for 

School Improvement has many components but I 

believe that the transparency and accountability 

components are just as valuable, if not more valuable, 

than providing extra funding for the states and 

territories to distribute among their education systems. 

It is even harder to explain or account for a 

particular dollar of funding than it is to describe the 

various funding programs that make up our school 

education funding system in Australia today. If I was 

to look at that from the ground level, the school gate 

level, and then what I have just been through in this 

speech, I would honestly have no chance of convincing 

a school parent as to what all these acronyms mean, 

where all these programs take things and how they 

benefit their particular son or daughter at a school. I 

really hope that with this bill we manage to simplify 

some of this jargon that has built up over the many, 

many years that in some cases have isolated our 

education system from the users of it because, to me, 

the most important thing about our education system is 

that our students get a great education but at the same 

time the parents and the taxpayers—if that is the right 

description, and I think it is—know what we are doing 

with the dollars that we put into education. Just going 

through the list that I have, and that is only a short list, 

it is not much of a surprise that most people think they 

know what happens in the education sphere when it 

comes to funding but in reality they do not know those 

sorts of details. 

The National Plan for School Improvement 

introduces the schooling resource standard. This 

provides a base amount of $9,271 per primary school 

student and and $12,193 per secondary school student. 

In addition to these amounts, schools can receive more 

funding through the various loadings that are 

introduced with the National Plan for School 

Improvement. These loadings are: the low SES loading 

that ranges from $695 up to $4,635 for a primary 

school student and from $914 up to $6,096 for a 

secondary school student; an Indigenous loading that 

ranges from $$1,854 up to $11,125 for a primary 

school student and from $2,439 up to $14,631 for a 

secondary school student. There is also a loading for 

students with limited English skills set at 10 per cent 

and a location loading for regional and remote schools 

ranging from 10 per cent up to 80 per cent, dependent


upon where the school is situated. There is a size 

loading for smaller schools that ranges from $150,000 

for a primary school with up to 200 students to 

$240,000 for a secondary school with up to 500 

students. There will be a loading for students with 

disability that will be phased in from 2015, once the 

required data has been collected. 

All of this funding will be indexed every year, but 

the most important point to make is that none of the 

above will apply to states or territories that do not sign 

on to the National Plan for School Improvement. My 

own state of Victoria, which has yet to sign up, stands 

to lose $4.2 billion of school funding over the next six 

years if the current school funding system remains in 

place. That is around $3 billion less for government 

schools or an average of $1.9 million per school. It is 

also $1.2 billion less for non-government schools or an 

average of $1.7 million per school. These figures are 

large but they mean so much to individual schools. 

There are many individual schools in my 

electorate—and of course in the electorates of other 

members as well—that are really great schools that 

need more on the inside. This government has done 

some fantastic things on the outside of schools with 

infrastructure and has had some great national 

partnerships run, but the recurrent funding of schools is 

the issue that comes back time and time again. It is 

now over 5½ years since I started in this job and it has 

been an issue that I think I have spoken about on every 

occasion that I have visited my local schools. It is 

always, 'How are we going to fund the extra teachers 

we need and provide the services that we need to make 

sure that the children that come to our school'— 

whether it be government or non-government—'get the 

best education possible?' 

I do not think there is a huge amount of 

disagreement with that statement. I think the 

disagreement comes from how we achieve that. What 

we have now with the National Plan for School 

Improvement is a plan that is laid out based upon the 

Gonski report that provides that pathway to the future. 

I note that New South Wales and the ACT have both 

signed up to that. I congratulate both states for being 

far-sighted and doing that. I certainly hope my home 

state of Victoria also follows that same path. The 

Australian Education Bill establishes the National Plan 

for School Improvement that will fund all schools 

through a fairer system based on the needs of 

individual students whilst providing extra assistance 

where it is most needed. It is warmly welcomed, and I 

commend this bill to the House. 

Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (13:22): I rise to 

speak in support of the Australian Education Bill 2012. 

Much like the National Disability Insurance Scheme 

and the National Broadband Network, the Australian 

Education Bill is a landmark initiative of this federal 

CHAMBER 

Labor government. As a former teacher and principal 

for 30 years prior to entering parliament, education and 

the wellbeing of young people is a particular passion of 

mine as I know it is of yours, Deputy Speaker O'Neill. 

Gaining knowledge, new insight and experiences are 

central to the human quest for fulfilment, and our 

schools play a vital role in prospering that human 

quest. It is a great privilege to be part of a government 

that is taking action to strengthen and support that 

nexus in everyone's lives. 

The Australian Education Bill implements federal 

Labor's National Plan for School Improvement and is 

core to our education endeavours. This plan is the 

result of the federal Labor government commissioning 

in 2010 the review of funding for schooling, headed by 

David Gonski AC, with the aim to create better schools 

for our kids. Prior to this Australia had not conducted a 

thorough review of our schools funding system for 40 

years The review team received over 7,000 written 

submissions, visited 39 schools and met with 70 

education groups. The report, therefore, is informed, 

comprehensive and overall quite critical of our current 

funding system—one that is inadequate for the 21st 

century. In my opinion it is not just broken; it is mindboggling 

in its complexity and shameful in its ability to 

be manipulated. In addition, under our current system, 

the federal indexation is linked to how much states and 

territories spend on their schools systems each year. As 

state Liberal governments slash school funding as they 

have in NSW particularly, Commonwealth funding to 

every school is impacted. This year, our indexation 

dropped from 5.9 to 3.9 per cent, which will only 

worsen. But I am pleased to say New South Wales has 

now come into the scheme. But it is important to know 

that, if indexation falls as projected, our schools would 

have been around $2.1 billion worse off in a few short 

years. 

The review is informing the steps our government 

needs to take to improve our education system. Our 

plan requires a multibillion-dollar injection into our 

national schools education system. Our plan is 

ambitious; but, in order for our students today to be the 

global citizens and problem solvers in the Asian 

century, strong action is required now. It is heartening 

that the NSW government has officially signed up to 

the federal government's National Plan for School 

Improvement, which will deliver an additional $5 

billion to New South Wales schools. This will benefit 

all schools in Newcastle and the Hunter region. 

Unfortunately, those opposite have committed to 

scrapping the agreement if they ever gain government, 

believing that a broken funding system is adequate for 

the children of Australia. 

Regrettably, Australia's performance in international 

education league tables is in decline. Globally we rank 

highly in mathematics, science and literacy; however, 

we also have a wide disparity of up to three full


schooling years between our highest achievers and our 

lowest. World leaders in education such as South 

Korea, Singapore and Finland show far less 

inconsistent results amongst peer groups. It is worth 

noting here that after International Women's Day 

Australia moved to highest in the world in educational 

attainment for women. I for one would like that to 

continue, and I know the extra effort that has been put 

in to make that so. 

The average year 9 student from a struggling family 

is around two full years behind their peers in the best 

performing quarter in reading and mathematics. Over 

the past decade Australia has fallen from second to 

seventh in reading. We have also fallen from fifth to 

13th in mathematics. As countries overtake us, 

obviously their competitive advantage over Australia 

increases. Our task is now to ensure that no child's 

education is neglected and to prepare them for a highskilled 

and high-paid employment opportunity that our 

modern economy will demand. 

The Australian Education Bill sets out three broad 

goals: for our schools to provide an excellent quality of 

education for all students; for our school system to be 

equitable; and for our nation to be ranked in the top 5 

countries in the world in reading, science and 

mathematics by the year 2025, providing high-quality 

and high-equity education. Those are goals that 

everyone should aspire to and support. 

The Prime Minister has rightly dubbed this our 

national crusade. A world-class education ought to be 

not just accessible and attainable but an inalienable 

right in such a fortunate country as ours. Our plan will 

provide a better funding system based on the individual 

needs of every student in every school. It will provide 

teachers and principals the support required to deliver 

on our key objectives through increased funding, 

resources and training opportunities from pre-service 

teachers through to principals. Additional support will 

be given to schools that require a performance boost, 

with emphasis on resource allocation for disadvantaged 

students. Higher entry requirements for trainee teachers 

will be introduced, ensuring that those in the teaching 

profession are in the top 30 per cent of Australia's 

population for literacy and numeracy. 

Teaching is a very demanding profession, as my 

experience shows. I think I spent 12 years as a 

demonstration teacher and, of course, many years 

supervising students in practicums, and I can only say 

that there were times I particularly knew someone was 

not a suitable candidate for education. The system 

made it very hard if you made the recommendation that 

this person was not suitable for taking the lives of 

children in their hands. I am afraid it was not easy to 

have that acted on by others, but it is terribly 

important. You would not like to see teachers come 

into the system who are not suitable. I really do favour 

CHAMBER 

a system that not only looks at attainments but also 

looks like medical entry schemes such as are at the 

University of Newcastle, which looks at suitability and 

the commitment levels of those people. 

I also am pleased to see that in our system beginning 

teachers will have a reduced teaching load, allowing 

them more time and flexibility to plan lessons 

thoroughly. They will also be paired with experienced 

mentor teachers who can guide them, and that really is 

a fabulous commitment. They will also be trained in 

the management of disruptive students, ensuring that 

no students are disadvantaged by the negative 

dominance of disruptive students. I look back on my 

first year as a teacher. Due to a flood, I was sent to a 

local school and became a teacher of a class of 30 

students who were behaviourally disturbed. As a firstyear-out 

teacher, I can tell you that was very, very 

difficult. They were from all different schools. I would 

never like to see a beginning teacher put in that 

situation. But in my last year of school I was principal 

of a school with a behavioural intervention unit. I 

guess it became a specialty, for obvious reasons. 

Teachers will undergo annual performance reviews 

to meet national teaching standards, helping them to 

improve their practice and deliver the best results for 

students. My personal view is that peer review is 

always a wonderful exercise for teachers. Working as 

part of a team, peer review is a very positive process 

and not a punitive process. Additionally, teachers and 

principals will be able to access ongoing training 

linked to the national professional standards. There is 

no nobler vocation or profession than teaching. When 

done well it is the most generous of vocations. The 

more we invest in teachers the more our whole nation 

will benefit. 

We have also committed that no school will lose 

funding. Instead, we will see consistent funding for all 

schools, with benchmark funding for each student 

based on the cost of delivering education at highperforming 

schools. Thank goodness we are setting the 

base level for education per student that is equivalent 

to a high standard. Having spent most of my 30 years 

of teaching time in disadvantaged schools, I know the 

inequity that exists. If this inequity is not addressed, for 

example by this education bill, it is an inequity that 

will see a downward spiral for this nation and for 

young people. 

We will also see that benchmark funding 

complemented by additional funding based on loadings 

for low-socioeconomic students, Indigenous students, 

students with disabilities, students from non-Englishspeaking 

backgrounds, as well as being determined by 

the size and the location of the school the student 

attends. That is just so eminently sensible. You have to 

wonder why it did not happen before. I think I know 

why it did not happen before—too many years of


conservative governments that were not particularly 

interested in equity. 

Contrast our plan with the attitude shown by those 

opposite. In a 2012 Lateline interview the opposition 

education spokesman, Christopher Pyne, denied that 

socioeconomic background affects student outcomes. I 

could not believe it. I could not believe that that 

correlation was not understood by someone who 

aspires to be an education minister in this country. 

They certainly do not understand how necessary it is to 

give those students a boost and be on an equal playing 

field with their peers. Education should not be about 

chance, luck or postcodes. A high-quality education is 

a right for all young people, regardless of their 

circumstances in life. That is what Labor governments 

and Labor reform agendas are all about. 

Under our plan principals will be given greater 

powers to run their own schools, like hiring and 

controlling the budget. I agree that principals know 

their schools best: their classrooms, teachers, students 

and resources—certainly better than bureaucrats in 

another city. There is an assumption that every 

principal is a great educational leader, an effective 

business manager, an effective asset manager, an 

effective risk manager, a diplomat in community 

engagement and satisfaction, an expert in media and 

marketing, and an all-round genius. Well we need to 

make sure that principals have the skills needed to be 

all of that in this 21st century. 

I want to talk about my experience regarding merit 

selection and developing every teacher. Merit selection 

is a good process but it just as important to make sure 

every teacher is the best they can be. That was of vital 

importance. One of the greatest joys for me was seeing 

a teacher regain their love of teaching and stay in their 

career. I am very much for the professional 

development of every teacher and every principal. 

It is important that additional information be added 

to the MySchool website, including details regarding 

school finance; the number of teachers accredited at 

different levels; results of student, parent and teacher 

surveys; NAPLAN proficiency levels reached by 

students; post-school destinations, such as work and 

university; year 12 attainment rates; the school's 

individual improvement plan; and attendance data. I 

am all for data, having had a supervisor who insisted 

on that. I know the benefit of data, but it has to be wellrounded 

data contributed by every school to give that 

personal flavour. I always say to constituents who ask 

about choosing a school: 'Yes, you should look at the 

data, but then go and visit yourself. Schools have 

wonderful cultures and a walk through a school will 

tell you whether that is the right school for your 

children.' I also say to them that it is far better to enrol 

at your local school so your child is part of the local 

community, so make sure you make that a priority. In 

CHAMBER 

this country today families experience greater mobility 

and certainly across states we need more 

harmonisation, which this legislation also includes. 

Our reform agenda comes in the wake of: a $1.7 

billion loss out of the state education system in New 

South Wales, a funding freeze that just happened on 

Catholic schools in particular, 1,800 jobs lost in 

education support, 9.5 per cent increases to TAFE fees 

and significant cuts to TAFE programs. These are cuts 

that do affect every school and every student in the 

state. The local state members should be ashamed. We 

cannot allow those cuts to permeate our communities. 

Recently we also saw the Australian Education Union 

speak out against those savage cuts in New South 

Wales. They urged the New South Wales government 

to put aside politics and to fund the system— 

investment 'which thus far has been lacking'. It does 

take every state to make Gonski real and to put the 

Australian Education Bill into effect. I urge all states to 

do that. 

Federal Labor has a strong track record when it 

comes to education. Our government has delivered the 

greatest investment in school infrastructure since 

World War II through the Building the Education 

Revolution program. There is a myth that that was not 

effective. Every school in my electorate ran an 

effective program. Every principal stepped up and 

made sure that those resources were well spent and the 

outcomes were exemplary. I can only say to those 

people who bleat about it: 'Why didn't you get 

involved? Why didn't you make sure it was wellmanaged 

in your schools?' 

What a wonderful investment. I never saw those 

sorts of facilities in all of my 30 years of teaching and 

in education as a principal. It is an absolute blessing to 

go now into schools and know that children finally 

have 21st century facilities to match the 21st century 

new teaching methods that are so important. There are 

people who think that nothing has changed since they 

went to school, but the children have changed, their 

whole experience levels have changed and the context 

has changed. We are in the Asian century. 

I am very proud to be part of a federal Labor 

government that has already invested over $150 

million into Newcastle's schools and the education of 

young people. I thank the minister for his recent visit to 

Newcastle and the Prime Minister for her passion and 

commitment to education. It is a very exciting time for 

us. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (13:37): This bill, 

the Australian Education Bill 2012, is a very brief 

document. At 1,400 words, it contains fewer words 

than were contained in the honourable member's 

speech or will likely be contained in my remarks. It 

sets out some worthy objectives, acknowledging that 

all students should be entitled to an excellent education


regardless of where they live or their income. It notes 

that, if Australia is to be a prosperous nation with a 

high standard of living, the performance of our schools 

must continuously improve and so forth. All of those 

are worthy goals. 

But it does not have a number in it; it does not set 

out a plan; and it finally says, in proposed section 10— 

which, I guess, summarises this or discloses that it is 

essentially a political document—that this act does not 

create rights or duties that are legally enforceable in 

judicial proceedings, and a failure to comply with this 

act does not affect the validity of any decision. It is at 

best a statement of intent so general as to be barely 

worth debating, but nonetheless we are here discussing 

education. I think we should be focusing on the real 

issues in education as opposed to the warm words and 

noble goals of this bill which are expressed, as I said, 

in such general terms that it is very difficult to have a 

debate about them. 

A lot of this debate has been going on in the context 

of the so-called Gonski reforms. I have to say that it is 

a matter of some concern to me that my old friend 

David Gonski has become not simply a leading 

business figure and great lawyer, but also now a proper 

noun. Indeed, on occasions he has become a verb. It is 

a very disturbing development for a gentleman of his 

standing. Whether he is going to be decapitalised as the 

next step in his grammatical progression is yet to be 

seen. But the point about the Gonski review and the 

Gonski report is that it essentially identified—fairly, I 

think—the need for additional financial resources to be 

made available for schools and students who are 

getting inadequate resources given their particular 

needs, whether that be not coming from an Englishspeaking 

household, poverty, an Indigenous 

background or so forth. Again, in general terms, who 

would argue with that? 

But the government has gone from taking these 

valuable insights from the Gonski review to claiming it 

is implementing them, when what Gonski was saying 

was that there should be more money invested in 

education. And yet the government seems now to be 

employing—this is a government which has promised 

and failed to deliver many surpluses—what can only 

be described as accounting tricks to make it appear as 

if there is more money going into the education 

system, when there is not. The fact is, over the forward 

estimates, the government is removing nearly $3.1 

billion from education funding through various 

redirections of national partnership arrangements and 

reductions in recurrent funding for non-government 

schools, while only returning roughly $2.8 billion in 

new spending over the same period. That is giving with 

one hand and taking with the other, and we have heard 

Mr Gonski himself lamenting the way in which the 

government is cutting funding for higher education as 

CHAMBER 

part of this shuffling of money from one pocket into 

another. 

Spending money on education is one thing, but it is 

not enough to simply spend the money without looking 

for outcomes. The critical issue, if you look at the big 

picture for Australia, is this: we are moving into a 

vastly more competitive world than ever before. We 

are no longer competing with low-wage economies 

doing low-skill jobs. We now have low-wage 

economies doing very high-skill jobs and developing 

very sophisticated products. The internet has made 

more and more of our economy trade exposed, so not 

only are higher-skill occupations in Australia being 

competed against by a broader range of countries— 

many of them with a lower wage regime and lower 

incomes than Australia—but the internet has also made 

many businesses, industries and jobs, which used not 

to be trade exposed, trade exposed. Think of the retail 

sector. Ten years ago it would not have occurred to us 

that retail was competing in a global market, yet 

virtually every category of retail is now competing 

globally. So how do we maintain a high-income, 

developed economy in Australia, with a generous 

social welfare safety net? 

We can only do that by raising our productivity and 

competitiveness, and that means better and better 

education and higher and higher levels of skills. But it 

is not enough merely to throw money at the problem 

and hope that will solve it. We have tried that and it 

has failed. The reality is this: under Labor, all we have 

seen is a decline in Australia's educational outcomes. 

In Australia, educational spending per student has 

already risen, in real terms, over 40 per cent in the past 

decade; yet according to the OECD PISA rankings, our 

outcomes have declined from among the strongest in 

the world in 2000 to still fairly good in 2009, but well 

behind a leading group of five school systems—four of 

them in East Asia. Under this government's watch, 

therefore, we have seen education spending increase 

and student performance fall. 

Where Labor thinks it can just throw money at 

education, cross its fingers and hope it can improve, 

the coalition knows we can do better. We do better by 

focusing on the teacher, on choice, on incentivising 

and on rewarding teachers. I refer to a paper, published 

in October 2003—so it is almost 10 years old—on this 

topic by John Hattie, from the University of Auckland. 

It makes a very powerful point: 'The greatest source of 

variance in terms of the performance of any student is 

the teacher.' 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas): 

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with 

standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later 

hour and the member will have leave to continue 

speaking when the debate is resumed.


STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 

Yunupingu, Dr M 

Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:45): Our nation 

pauses, as does this parliament, with the loss earlier 

today of Mr Yunupingu—a very unexpected loss to the 

Northern Territory and to his Yolngu people. Mr 

Yunupingu was a leader, a giant in this nation and a 

leader in music. Many will remember his contributions 

with Yothu Yindi—'mother and child'—and his song 

Treaty, which, in 1992, stopped a nation and has 

become an anthem in beer gardens ever since. 

He opened the eyes of Australians to the needs of 

Aboriginal Australia. He was the first Yolngu man 

with a university degree. He became a teacher, 

assistant principal and principal in Yirrkala. He went 

on to be recognised in the ARIA Hall of Fame in 

December, last year. Tragically, though, in 2007 he 

was diagnosed with chronic renal failure, a battle that 

has tied him to thrice-weekly dialysis for a number of 

years, both in Darwin and, more recently, in his 

homeland. 

He unceasingly had a passion for fighting renal 

failure. As recently as a month ago he convened a twoday 

meeting in his own community to find a regional 

solution to this scourge that afflicts Aboriginal 

Australia. He will be remembered for his music. He 

leaves a wife, Gurruwun, his six daughters and his five 

grandsons. As he said in his very own words: 

I am … Yunupingu. I am a crocodile man. I am also the 

song writer and lead singer with the band Yothu Yindi. My 

name Yunupingu means 'rock', a rock that stands against 

time. Fire is my clan symbol. Fire is my life force. We must 

connect with old people, we need to tap into their wisdom. 

The hearts of Aboriginal women are crying for their culture. 

Our nation today cries out for him and supports him, 

his people and his community at this great loss. 

Greenway Electorate: Cancer Council's 

Biggest Morning Tea 

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (13:46): I rise to 

commend the fantastic fundraising efforts of the 

Greenway community in supporting the Cancer 

Council's Biggest Morning Tea this year and to 

acknowledge the 20th anniversary of such a great 

initiative. 

On 19 May I had the pleasure of attending Kings 

Langley Adventist Aged Care for their annual Biggest 

Morning Tea event. A big thank you must go to Julie 

Summers and Christine Khan and all their team for 

their efforts in putting together such a great day and for 

raising vital funds for the Cancer Council. The Kings 

Langley Lions Club must also be commended for their 

great work in helping organise the event and generally 

for the selfless work they do in the Kings Langley area. 

On 23 May I also joined the Lalor Park Community 

Garden's Biggest Morning Tea at the Lalor Park 

CHAMBER 

Community Centre with members of the local 

community. It was great to see so many residents in 

attendance, despite the inclement weather. And a big 

thank you must go to Lalor Park Community Garden's 

public officer, Rebecca Lewis, for organising such a 

successful event and also to the CommonGroundz Cafe 

and its manager, Nathan Marshall, for providing the 

excellent coffee on the day. 

And this Thursday the Blacktown Advocate will be 

hosting its annual Biggest Morning Tea event. I am 

sorry I will not be able to attend. However, a big thank 

you must go to its editor and my constituent, Joanne 

Vella, for her commitment to another great event. I had 

the pleasure of joining this event last year where I was 

the successful bidder at its auction. I am sure this 

week's event will be even bigger and better than ever. 

Throughout the Greenway electorate many 

organisations and individuals have chipped in for the 

Biggest Morning Tea over the past 20 years. I want to 

praise them all for their efforts and generosity. 

Economy 

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (13:48): I rise to speak 

on the motion that was previously brought before this 

place by the member for Lyne. It was not Dr Parkinson 

or Mr Tune who promised a surplus over 500 times; it 

was Treasurer Wayne Swan and the Prime Minister, 

Julia Gillard, promising to deliver a surplus of $1.5 

billion this year, yet delivering a deficit of more than 

$19 billion. It was not Dr Parkinson or Mr Tune who 

said the debt ceiling would only need to be $75 billion, 

only to raise it three additional times to a staggering 

$300 billion, with the prospect of further increases over 

the forward estimates; it was the Treasurer and the 

Prime Minister. It was not Dr Parkinson or Mr Tune 

who told us the deficit days are behind us and that 

deficits were temporary, only to have a minimum of 

seven years of deficits, totalling over $220 billion; it 

was the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. 

It was the Treasurer and the Prime Minister who 

delivered a carbon tax they promised not to introduce, 

who dumped the centrepiece of last year's budget 

before this year's budget—that is, the increase in 

family tax benefit part A—who guaranteed company 

tax cuts they never delivered, who cut defence 

spending to the lowest level as a percentage of GDP 

since 1938, who made Australia the third largest 

recipient of Australian foreign aid due to its $10 billion 

border protection failures, and who is making 

Australian taxpayers foot the $8 billion interest bill on 

their borrowings. The list goes on. 

This leads me to ask one very pertinent question: 

given the track record of this Treasurer, if he were your 

suburban accountant, how happy would you be? So 

when the member for Lyne calls on the House to 

'express full confidence in the Department of the 

Treasury and Finance,' well might we have confidence


in them. But there is no evidence to suggest we ought 

to have confidence in this Treasurer or in this 

government. (Time expired) 

Regional Development Australia Fund 

Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:50): I rise today to place on 

record my strong support for the Tasmanian North 

Eastern Mountain Bike Development Project, which is 

currently being considered under the Regional 

Development Australia Fund, round 4. The project is a 

joint initiative between the Launceston City, Dorset 

and Break O'Day Councils and Northern Tasmania 

Development. These will be high-quality trails that will 

attract not only interstate but also international visitors 

to the state, creating economic activity and 

diversification for the area. 

Another objective of the project includes new 

tourist, hospitality and recreation opportunities, 

including new business opportunities, which will assist 

with the re-invigoration of the north-east of Tasmania. 

The project includes the development of 90 kilometres 

of mountain bike infrastructure, mapping, signage, 

skills development and marketing, which will drive 

mountain bike tourism in the north-east of Tasmania. 

This project, together with existing popular tourism 

attractions in the area, such as the world-renowned 

Barnbougal and Lost Farm golf courses will make the 

north-east a must visit destination for all sporting 

enthusiasts. I have been and will continue to be a 

strong fighter for this important project for north-east 

Tasmania. 

Australian Bat Lyssavirus 

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:51): Last night, 

the 60 Minutes program on the Nine Network put to air 

an important story about the dangers of the bat 

lyssavirus, a form of rabies. It told the heartbreaking 

story of the death of a Queensland boy who had been 

scratched by a bat, while playing tennis, and how he 

developed a brain infection that led to fits, paralysis 

and, ultimately, a painful death. The message from the 

program is that we must educate our children never to 

handle bats and, should they ever be scratched or bitten 

by a bat, they must immediately be taken to a doctor. It 

is a matter of life and death. There is a post exposure 

vaccination available, but it is recommended that 

medical advice be sought immediately. 

The question arises: what happens when our 

children are disabled and they cannot speak and so 

cannot tell us if they have been bitten or scratched by a 

bat? That is the problem that faces the parents, carers 

and teachers of Bates Drive Special School and the 

Sylvan Vale Foundation in Kareela, for, right next to 

their facilities in Sydney's south, a colony of 10,000 

flying foxes has moved in after their relocation from 

Kurnell during the construction of the desalination 

plant. The Sutherland Shire Council, led by Mayor 

Kent Johns and Councillor Tom Croucher, are doing 

CHAMBER 

the right thing. They are preparing a management plan, 

but they need the support from the environment 

minister. I call on the environment minister do 

everything he can to work with the Sutherland Shire 

Council— (Time expired) 

Parramatta Electorate: Sunday School 

Anniversary 

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:52): Sunday was a 

very wet day in Parramatta, but a large number of 

people on Sunday morning braved the weather and 

arrived at St John's Anglican Cathedral in 

Parramatta—largely wet from at least the knees down, 

for most of us—to celebrate a very special day. It was 

the 200th anniversary of the first Sunday school in 

Australia. In May 1813, Mr Thomas Hassall, who later 

became, of course, the Reverend Thomas Hassall, was 

sitting out in the sun—and this story is told in a 

publication of St John's Anglican Cathedral: 

One hot Sunday afternoon Thomas Hassall was resting 

and a fly persisted in trying to settle on his face; he 

continued to drive away the intruder until it became too 

much to him. Sleep was driven away, if not the fly, and with 

a little warmth of temper he walked outside the house. There 

he saw some children at play. It then occurred to him that he 

ought to find some better way of spending his Sunday 

afternoon. He took the children indoors and told them Bible 

stories … 

The next week the children returned and the first 

Sunday school in Australia was born. 

It was a wonderful service on Sunday. A time 

capsule was buried, in the rain. And we paid tribute to 

the many teachers who, over the last 200 years, have 

worked so hard with the children to keep that Sunday 

school thriving—and thriving it is. I congratulate St 

John's Anglican Cathedral and the Anglican Sunday 

School of St John's for 200 years— (Time expired) 

Education 

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (13:54): The attacks on 

public servants continue today with new attacks on 

state and federal education departments. In my local 

Port Macquarie News today we read the headline: 

'Don't trust Gonski estimates: Gillespie'. Gillespie is 

the National Party candidate arguing against the 

Gonski reforms in school based equity. The Gonski 

report explains 'an intolerable link'—a three-word 

slogan, if we need to break it down—between data that 

says there is a 30 per cent lesser outcome in regional 

and rural communities versus metropolitan 

communities. And the funding formula, as it is, is at 

the heart of that intolerable link. I cannot accept that 

this chamber is, potentially, going to get in the way of 

agreements reached between the New South Wales 

government and their education department and the 

Commonwealth and their education department, based 

on some sort of political expediency. That will mean 

that regional students, like my own children and many


of my friends' children, are to accept as normal that, as 

a collective, they are 30 per cent dumber than 

metropolitan kids 'just because'. Come on! Let us deal 

with the intolerable link that exists, and let us listen to 

the data that is coming from the state and the federal 

education departments, and start to trust it and deal 

with common solutions to common problems. (Time 

expired) 

Canberra Electorate: Small Business 

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:56): Members 

will be aware of my passion for small and micro 

business. Before entering parliament, I ran my own 

microbusiness for 10 years, and I loved it. Since 

entering parliament, I have spent a great deal of my 

time talking to small business operators in my 

electorate and advocating for their needs and interests. 

That is why I am so concerned for the plight of the 

Canberra small business community. 

On 22 May this year, the member for North Sydney 

spoke at the National Press Club about Australian 

small business. Ironically, in the same speech he 

reaffirmed the coalition's plans to cut thousands of jobs 

from the public service in Canberra. Doesn't the 

coalition realise that cutting 12,000 to 20,000 public 

service jobs in Canberra will also devastate Canberra's 

small business community? 

In 1996 the Howard government cut 15,000 jobs 

from the public service in Canberra, and I had one of 

those jobs. The flow-on effects to Canberra's small 

business community were devastating. Fifteen 

thousand jobs meant 15,000 people no longer spending 

on Canberra's small businesses, buying their products 

and using their services. Business bankruptcies in 

Canberra increased by 38.4 per cent in the 1996-97 

financial year. 

With between 12,000 and 20,000 public servants set 

to go should the coalition win in September, the 

prospects for small business could be bleak. It seems 

the coalition has one plan for small businesses in other 

states and territories and a different one for Canberra's. 

Canberra: the best indicator of future behaviour is past 

behaviour— (Time expired) 

Australian Bat Lyssavirus 

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:57): Following 

on from the story on 60 Minutes last night about the 

serious issue of bat lyssavirus: we have many areas in 

Sydney that have these problems with bats, especially 

the area of Kareela. The bats are not native to that area. 

They were moved on from the Kurnell Peninsula when 

the desalination plant was constructed. There were 

warnings at the time that the construction of the 

desalination plant would result in those bats moving 

and their habitat being disturbed. Unfortunately, like 

many things about the desalination plant, those 

warnings were not adhered to. Now we have a colony 

CHAMBER 

of 10,000 bats right next to a disabled school and an 

area that educates disabled adults. 

Our Sutherland shire local council is doing the right 

thing. However, they have been forced to pay $70,000 

for a management plan—$70,000 from the ratepayers 

of the shire to put together a management plan to move 

these bats on. That management plan is already 

finished. However, they have a very short period of 

time in which they can act. Therefore it is up to the 

Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, 

Population and Communities, Minister Burke, who I 

see is here in the chamber now. I call on the 

environment minister to ensure that he works with the 

Sutherland Shire Council and that the management 

plan is put into place quickly so that these bats can be 

moved on during the winter period and the kids— 


United Nations Youth Parliament 

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:59): Just 

recently I had the pleasure of speaking to the UN 

Youth Parliament. They were here in Canberra for a 

range of sessions and attended a number of the sessions 

at Parliament House. It is inspiring to see so many 

young people interested and engaged in national and 

international affairs. These were truly some of our best 

and brightest. I talked with our UN Youth Parliament 

representatives about my time at DFAT and in 

parliament, and we discussed the valuable work done 

by the United Nations. What really impressed me was 

there is an understanding of how the UN and other 

multilateral bodies provide a country like Australia 

with opportunities to get more airtime and influence— 

airtime and influence that is out of proportion to our 

population and economic size. 

The SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with 

standing order 43, the time for members' statement has 

concluded. 

STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 

Yunupingu, Dr M 

Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for 

School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) 

(14:00): The House would be aware that it is a very 

sad day for Australia. One of our leading Aboriginal 

citizens has died. We understand his name is widely 

known; it will be widely reported today, but in respect 

of the tradition of his people I refer to him as Mr 

Yunupingu. 

The story of Aboriginal advancement in Australia is 

not a story of consensus; it is a story of struggle—the 

bark petition, the 1967 referendum, land rights and 

native title, the national apology. There was a real and 

robust and in every sense Australian argument about 

every one of those steps. It was only ever in hindsight 

that they became steps no-one could unmake.


Mr Yunupingu knew this, and he lived it. He was 

first and foremost a Gumach Yolngu man, with totems 

of fire and crocodile, but he shared his message with 

all Australians. As our nation struggled to find the 

contrition which was the necessary beginning of 

reconciliation his words and music were a challenge. 

He spoke from the heart. It is now more than 20 years 

since the music of Yothu Yindi thrilled us with a new 

artistic fusion and an urgent political intent. When he 

sang: 

Well I heard it on the radio 

And I saw it on the television 

Back in 1988 

All those talking politicians 

Words are easy, words are cheap 

Much cheaper than our priceless land 

he sang something which resonates to this day. I can 

say to you and through you, Speaker, having been there 

on the occasion when those words were sung, it makes 

today even more moving for me. 

He dreamed that Australians could be better, and he 

demanded that Australian politics be better—and so it 

became. Today, on behalf of all Australians, I honour 

all his work over the years; in the arts and in education, 

with the Yolngu people in East Arnhem Land, with so 

many Aboriginal and Australian communities right 

across our country. 

He was the first Yolngu person to gain a university 

degree, earning a Bachelor of Arts in Education from 

Deakin University in 1988. In 1990 he became the 

Principal of Yirrkala Community School, becoming 

Australia's first ever Aboriginal school principal. He 

used his own education to make sure Aboriginal people 

could do what he did and more. He was also committed 

to the education of all Australians, and with his family 

and his wife, Gurruwun, he established the Yothu 

Yindi Foundation and the Garma Festival, helping to 

bridge the gap between two cultures, bringing us closer 

day by day. 

This is a day of sorrow, but also a day of pride—for 

the pride all Australians feel in his creativity and 

character, so strongly informed by his culture; and the 

pride we feel in his achievements, a foretaste, I hope, 

of what we will feel when the first Australians take 

their place in the first document of all Australians. Not 

just respect but self-respect. But that is to contemplate 

on a future day. 

For now, he is gone and, like so many Aboriginal 

and Torres Strait Islander people, gone too young. He 

was right; often, words are cheap, but his death shows 

us what a high price is paid by Aboriginal people for 

Indigenous disadvantage. As we sit in this House on 

the hill and mourn what the nation has lost today, let us 

recommit to closing the gap that so diminishes us all. 

We pay tribute to a leader, the tribal voice of his 

CHAMBER 

people, who gave so much and who will be 

remembered so well. 

Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (14:04): on indulgence—I 

echo the words of Minister Garrett. Both he and I had 

the privilege of being with Mr Yunupingu on many 

occasions in the work that he did, and so the special 

relationship showed the character of an individual that 

was so rich, so powerful and yet so loving of all 

Australians. 

Australia has suffered a great loss in the passing of 

Mr Yunupingu; a musician, an educator and a leader 

within Indigenous Australia. This former Australian of 

the Year was a great advocate for education and, 

during his life, achieved so much in bringing together 

Australians of all walks of life in common 

understanding and goals for the future. 

Many Australians may not realise that beyond 

leaving an incredible gift to Australia in the form of 

Yothu Yindi's music, including that incredible song 

Treaty, we have also been given the gift of an 

incredible legacy in education. Graduating, as the 

minister said, as one of the first Aboriginal people 

from Arnhem Land to gain a university degree, Mr 

Yunupingu worked first as a teacher and then as an 

Aboriginal principal in the Northern Territory. This 

began an incredible journey to increase awareness 

about Aboriginal Australians and bring all Australians 

closer together in a combined vision for our nation's 

future—a vision that continued until death and that I 

hope will continue in Australia's collective 

consciousness far into the future. 

It is a journey that included contributing to the 

public debates on education and his work to improve 

outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, 

particularly in the areas of health where, through his 

own suffering of renal failure, he brought to the minds 

of many around him and of those within the medical 

profession the need to provide models of care for renal 

disease in a way that is very different from that of a 

hospital. 

Mr Yunupingu brought with him an insight into 

learning which led to an innovative approach to 

education and which incorporated both Western and 

Aboriginal approaches—standards which still inform 

education practices in rural and remote regions of our 

country today. Mr Yunupingu's journey in 1992 saw 

recognition of his contribution to education when he 

was awarded Australian of the Year for his role in 

'building bridges of understanding between Aboriginal 

and non-Aboriginal people'. 

I recall the time I stood with him on the banks of the 

Swan River, sharing my thoughts on his vision, what 

could be and what should be for the future of our great 

nation for all Australians including the role and place 

of Indigenous Australians within our society. To me 

and so many others who knew him personally, he was


an inspiration. One quote in particular highlights the 

passion and belief that he had in all Australians. He 

said: 

Australia will become a model for other global communities. 

… I see Australians coming together from all walks of life, 

especially Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia, for a 

better tomorrow. We need to lock in to one another's point of 

view. 

I hope that we can continue in this vein, and I hope that 

we can benefit from our combined wisdom and that in 

the near future Australia will be the model for others 

around the world for the way in which all Australians 

work together. Mr Yunupingu, thank you for making 

our lives so much richer. 

Reference to Federation Chamber 




move: 

That further statements on indulgence on the former 

Yothu Yindi lead singer and former Australian of the Year 

from 1992 be permitted in the Federation Chamber. 


MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:08): 

The Leader of the House, the Minister for 

Infrastructure and Transport and the Minister for 

Regional Development and Local Government will be 

absent from question time today due to personal 

reasons. The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, 

Water, Population and Communities and Minister for 

the Arts is acting Leader of the House, and the Minister 

for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation will 

answer questions in relation to his portfolio and in 

relation to Broadband, Communications and the Digital 

Economy. The Minister for Defence will be absent 

from question time today and tomorrow as he is 

returning from a visit to Afghanistan and will then host 

a visit by the Indian Minister of Defence in Perth. The 

Minister for Defence Materiel will be absent from 

question time this week as he is representing Australia 

at the United Nations General Assembly. The Minister 

for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Science 

and Personnel, and Minister for Indigenous Health will 

answer questions on behalf of both the Minister for 

Defence and the Minister for Defence Materiel. 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 

National Broadband Network 

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the 

Opposition) (14:10): My question is to the Prime 

Minister. I remind her that her government has 

committed some $50 million to advertising the 

National Broadband Network. Does the Prime Minister 

agree that this $50 million could have been better spent 

ensuring that communities in Western Sydney, 

CHAMBER 

Ballarat, Adelaide, Perth and Tasmania were protected 

from exposure to asbestos resulting from the National 

Broadband Network rollout? 


The Leader of the Opposition: I am a little bit surprised 

that he would choose to play politics with this because, 

as he well knows, this is a matter involving pits and 

ducts and those pits and ducts are the responsibility of 

Telstra. The Leader of the Opposition well knows that, 

but has chosen to play politics with this important 

matter nevertheless. I suppose we really should not be 

surprised, given that this is the same person who 

insulted Bernie Banton on his deathbed. We should not 

be surprised at all. 

Opposition members interjecting— 

Mr Dutton: Why is this scripted? 

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dixon— 

that behaviour is disgraceful. The Prime Minister has 

the call and has the right to be heard in silence. 

Ms GILLARD: Certainly playing politics with this 

matter is disgraceful. As I said last week in this 

parliament, if the Leader of the Opposition had chosen 

to listen, the health and safety of the community and 

workers is always paramount. We all know what a 

dangerous material asbestos is. We know that from the 

legacy of Wittenoom and the like. We as a government 

therefore take this matter very, very seriously. We 

expect Telstra and its contractors to follow the very 

strict laws we have in this country, and have for good 

reason, in relation to the handling and removal of 

asbestos. 

As I said initially in answer to this question, we are 

talking about infrastructure pits and ducts owned by 

Telstra. It is its responsibility to get them ready for the 

NBN rollout in a safe and secure way. So concerned 

have we been about this matter that ministers Shorten 

and Conroy have invited Telstra and NBN Co. 

executives, Comcare, the Office of Asbestos Safety, 

unions and asbestos safety and victims groups to meet 

in Canberra today to agree on the next steps required in 

response to this matter. At the meeting, the government 

has been seeking from Telstra details of its safety and 

removal program, and specifically a commitment to 

remove asbestos from the high-risk pits. 

Already the government regulator, Comcare, has 

stopped work and ordered asbestos removed from two 

sites in New South Wales. The government is also 

looking to establish a national register to keep a record 

of people, be they workers or members of the general 

public, who think that they have been exposed to 

asbestos. 

The government is very conscious of how serious a 

matter this is. Consequently, the two ministers have 

been meeting with Telstra and others today to


emphasise the government's desire that Telstra get on 

with the job. (Time expired.) 

Geelong Region 

Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:13): My 

question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime 

Minister update the House on how the government is 

working to make the Geelong and Barwon regional 

communities stronger in light of recent 

announcements? 

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:13): I 

thank the member for Corangamite for his question. It 

was a very great pleasure to join him today, as well as 

the member for Corio and the Minister for Disability 

Reform, Minister Macklin, to make a very important 

announcement for the community of Geelong. In this 

parliament we know that Geelong has been doing it 

tough. We know that it has been doing it tough after 

the announcement of the loss of jobs from Ford. Of 

course, those job losses are not only in Geelong, they 

are also in Broadmeadows, and they are of great 

concern to the government because our focus is always 

on jobs and growth. I had the opportunity to meet with 

Ford workers in Geelong on the weekend and to speak 

to them about some additional assistance we will make 

available for Ford workers in Geelong and Ford 

workers in Broadmeadows to assist with their 

retraining so that they can get the next opportunity. 

But we also want to make sure that in Geelong and 

in Broadmeadows we are seeing new sources of 

opportunity, which is just one of the reasons that I was 

so delighted to announce today that the national 

headquarters of DisabilityCare Australia will be in 

Geelong. This national headquarters will employ 300 

people. Geelong is the right place for this national 

headquarters—the right place because it is home to the 

Transport Accident Commission; it is a community 

with expertise in the management of disability, and 

DisabilityCare Australia will have a great home in 

Geelong. It is the right place because the Victorian 

government—and I congratulate the Premier—has 

stepped forward to see Geelong become home to the 

headquarters of DisabilityCare Australia with an 

allocation of $25 million of support. It is the right place 

because, of course, it is a community waiting to hear 

good news, and this is good news for Geelong. And it 

is certainly the right place because the members for 

Corangamite and Corio have been waging a very fierce 

campaign to put the credentials of Geelong before the 

federal government. 

Today I am in a position to say we have listened and 

we have decided that the national headquarters of 

DisabilityCare Australia will be in Geelong. The 

launch office for the launch site is already there in 

Geelong, employing some 120 people. We are less 

than a month away now from the launch of 

DisabilityCare in Geelong and in other parts of the 

CHAMBER 

country. I was absolutely delighted to be there today to 

deliver such good news for the people of Geelong. 


Opposition) (14:16): On indulgence: in the spirit of 

bipartisanship in respect of the National Disability 

Insurance Scheme, the opposition applauds this move. 

It will be good for the NDIS and it will be good for the 

people of Geelong. 


Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:17): My 

question is to the Minister for Employment and 

Workplace Relations. I remind him that since the NBN 

Co. agreed to use Telstra's ducts and pits in June 2011 

the two companies have known asbestos could be a 

danger in the rollout. Concerned unions contacted 

NBN Co. about this issue in early 2011 and there have 

been at least a half dozen incidents reported in the 

press over the last year. Can the minister inform the 

House whether and, if so, on what occasions he has 

met with Telstra and NBN Co. regarding asbestos 

problems prior to last week? (Time expired) 

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for 

Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister 

for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:17): I 

thank the member opposite for the question. I wrote to 

Telstra in 2009 to talk to them and to say that there 

were people reporting that there were problems with 

pits. Telstra wrote back and said they had the matter 

under control. We have seen in recent days and weeks 

that clearly they have not. I can report that I have been 

meeting with Telstra and other stakeholders today and, 

in fact, I went to Penrith on Saturday with the member 

for Lindsay, David Bradbury, who has been standing 

up for these residents. 

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the 

minister was asked, very pointedly, how many times he 

had met with Telstra before last week. That is the 

answer that we are looking for and nothing else. 

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition 

Business will resume his seat. Question time is not 

about the answers you are looking for; it is about 

ministers being relevant to the question. The minister 

has the call. 

Mr SHORTEN: I should say also at the outset of 

this issue that the identification and eradication of 

asbestos in Australia is a priority for this government. I 

am pleased that the House of Representatives on a 

bipartisan basis passed the legislation less than an hour 

ago. 

In terms of Telstra we have met with the CEO, 

David Thodey, and other people from his company, 

stakeholders including unions, including contractors, 

including the Chief Medical Officer and we went 

through the issues which have been widely reported in 

recent days. Telstra made it very clear at this meeting


that they accepted that they have to do more. Telstra 

accepted, in matters going from inspection to training 

to education, that there had been deficiencies and that 

they needed to do more. 

I am pleased to inform the House that Telstra, along 

with all the stakeholders, including victim support 

groups—I do not think I had mentioned they were 

there—agreed about the outcomes of this meeting we 

have just had. What was good was that we saw 

organisations taking the high road in terms of not 

seeking to blame but, rather, to accept responsibility. 

We saw that Telstra accepted responsibility for end-toend 

training throughout the system, making sure that 

contractors and everyone working with pits and ducts 

were trained adequately in the safe handling of 

asbestos. Telstra also accepted the need to do much 

better in terms of respecting the anxieties of the 

community, particularly those in Penrith and 

Ballarat—the member for Ballarat was also with us at 

the meeting—but not just them. I congratulate the CEO 

of Telstra on the way he conducted himself in the 

meeting. Indeed, in the discussions that we had there 

was a recognition that Telstra and stakeholders—in 

particular, contractors—needed to do better than they 

have been doing, because asbestos is a real scourge in 

the Australian community. 

It is estimated that one in three houses built between 

the end of World War II and the late 1980s would have 

asbestos within them. Asbestos was widely used in 

Australia and we have the highest per capita incidence 

of asbestos related diseases. It is a problem which the 

labour movement has been tackling for generations. It 

is a problem that the labour movement wishes we 

could uninvent. (Time expired) 

Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, just a point of 

order: could the minister please table the letter he 

referred to? 

The SPEAKER: Was the minister reading from a 

document? 

Mr Turnbull: No, he referred to a letter that he 

wrote. 

The SPEAKER: All I can refer to is documents he 

was reading from. I cannot ask for tablings of anything 

else besides his notes. 

Mr Turnbull: He might want to table it, if he is so 

concerned about it. 

The SPEAKER: Given the debate, that was 

unwarranted. 

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker— 

The SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition Business: 

I am not going to enter into points of order. 

Education 

Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) 

(14:22): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. 

CHAMBER 

How is the government implementing its plans to 

invest in our schools and our young people? Why is 

investing in a smarter Australia critical to us becoming 

a stronger nation? 

Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and 

Treasurer) (14:22): I thank the member for Moreton 

for this question, because a world-class school system 

is one of the pillars that modern families rely on to 

prosper in a globally competitive economy. 

The most fundamental thing we can do for our 

country, both economically and socially, is to invest in 

the education of our young people. We know this; it 

went to the very core of our recent budget. What we 

did was to put in place funding to invest in the Gonski 

school reforms—the school improvement program— 

knowing that this is the most fundamental investment 

we can make. 

There is a lot of discussion out there about 

competitiveness and about productivity, but all the 

evidence shows that if you lift the quality of your 

education system you can lift your productivity in your 

economy. So this is the smartest thing we can do for 

families and it is the smartest thing we can do for our 

country. 

Some people just see spending on education as a 

cost to the budget. But spending on education is a vital 

investment in our future. Of course, that is what the 

Gonski report showed, and that is what all of the 

research shows. It does not matter whether you go to 

the research from the Treasury, from private think 

tanks, from overseas, from the OECD or from the 

World Bank: it all says the same thing. And, of course, 

if you have a broken funding model, that impacts upon 

quality. What the Gonski report said is that our model 

is broken. So what we have to do is to put in place an 

up-to-date funding model that will deliver the 

resources and that will deliver the quality outcome for 

our country. 

If we look at some of the studies that have been 

done, there is the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, 

which has said that our current declining education 

performance will reduce the size of our economy by 

$1.5 trillion over the life of a child today. All of the 

work shows that if you increase retention rates through 

to year 12, that will increase GDP and add wealth to 

the economy. 

So, from our point of view, a stronger Australia has 

to come through being a smarter Australia. We also 

understand that this needs to be done working in 

cooperation with state governments. That is why the 

Prime Minister was so delighted to see the Premier of 

New South Wales sign up to a modern funding model; 

a funding model that delivers to every child at every 

school at every postcode, right across the state of New 

South Wales. What we want to see for Australia is to 

deliver that to every state: to every child across every


postcode in every state of Australia—that is what we 

need to see if we are going to meet that challenge of 

the future to invest in our people. 

We saw that the education minister in New South 

Wales made the point that this was a funding model 

that was too good to refuse. But, unfortunately, we do 

not have sign-on—particularly from my home state of 

Queensland, where the Premier of Queensland has 

been thugged by the Leader of the Opposition in 

putting his political—(Time expired) 

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 

The SPEAKER (14:25): I inform the House that 

we have present in the gallery this afternoon the 

Speaker of the Parliament of Papua and New Guinea, 

the Hon. Theo Zurenuoc. On behalf of the House I 

extend to him a very warm welcome. To him and his 

clerks, I wish a fruitful week of discovery in the 

Australian parliament. 

Honourable members: Hear, hear! 


Education 


(14:26): Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The 

Treasurer has spoken about increased school funding. 

How would schools in my electorate of Moreton and in 

other parts of my state be affected if the Queensland 

government does not sign up to this funding 

agreement? 

Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and 

Treasurer) (14:26): I do thank the member for 

Moreton, because there are 45 schools in the electorate 

of Moreton with 21,000 students, and because the 

Leader of the Opposition has thugged the Premier of 

Queensland, they are now going to miss out— 

The SPEAKER: Order! The member would 

withdraw the— 

Mr SWAN: I do withdraw. But, of course, as we 

know, there are students right across the state of 

Queensland. We have the electorate of Brisbane, where 

there are something like 47 schools, and 25,000 

students will miss out. 

Mr Christensen: Finish your last line! 

Mr Dutton interjecting— 

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dickson 

is warned! 

Mr SWAN: And there we have up in Dawson tens 

of thousands of students who are going to miss out. 

The fact is that we need a world-class funding 

system— 

Mr Fletcher interjecting— 

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bradfield 

is warned! 

CHAMBER 

Mr SWAN: to make sure that every child across 

our country gets the best possible start in life. 

And, of course, politics has intervened. The Leader 

of the Opposition is saying to state premiers, 'Don't 

sign up!' just like he is saying to the Queensland 

government, 'Don't sign up to the Cross River Rail,' 

because he thinks it is in his political interests. And the 

losers here are the families right across Australia— 

Mr Tudge interjecting— 

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Aston is 

warned! 

Mr SWAN: who will not see this sort of funding 

increase that they deserve to see. 

In Queensland there is the loss of billions of dollars 

each year, and per school. If you go to a school in the 

electorates of Brisbane or Moreton, that is something 

like $2.5 million each over the next six years. That is 

the loss to education in Queensland: a huge loss right 

across the country, and all because the Leader of the 

Opposition puts his political interests over the interests 

of Australian schoolchildren. 




Workplace Relations. I refer to his previous answer in 

which he referred to a letter he wrote to Telstra about 

its pits in 2009, two years before the NBN signed its 

deal with Telstra. Did the letter refer to asbestos? Did it 

refer to the NBN Co.? In what capacity did he write it, 

and will he table a copy of it? 



for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:28): In 

terms of the issues which the shadow minister is 

raising, I will go to a number of the points which are 

inherent in the question. The first point is that what has 

triggered this debate is the debate about what has been 

happening in Penrith. I had the opportunity to go and 

meet the residents— 


The SPEAKER: Order! 

Ms Julie Bishop: Just answer the question! 

Mr SHORTEN: Well, we all know why the issue 

is being raised. It is because there has been a whole lot 

of debate in the media— 

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of 

order. The minister was asked a very simple question 

about the relevance of his letter that he mentioned in 

his answer before. He needs to explain an answer to the 

member for Wentworth's question very clearly. 

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The 

Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. 

The minister has the call, and will refer to the question 

before the chair.


Mr SHORTEN: I will refer to the question in 

terms of my answer. The issue which has prompted the 

member for Wentworth's question, of course, has been 

the most recent reports about asbestos exposure in 

Penrith and, indeed, the role of Telstra and contractors, 

and responsibility for that exposure. 

The first point I want to make in coming to the 

answer of the member's question is this: asbestos 

should not be a political football. I met with a family 

whose 11-week-old child may have been exposed to 

asbestos. This is a very serious matter. This is why I do 

not believe it is appropriate that we use exposure to 

asbestos in a political way, which the member for 

Wentworth is doing. What is it about asbestos exposure 

which the opposition do not get? It is not politics; it 

actually should be above politics. 

The second point I wish to make is that the meeting 

we had just before has agreed—stakeholders, including 

Telstra and contractors, have agreed—that there should 

be, for the first time ever, a national public health 

register for exposure. That is a very important 

breakthrough. And it does not just extend to employees 

or contractors. Under this Labor government, which 

has got a track record of tackling asbestos, what we 

will do is establish a public health register. Those 

opposite had 12 years to do it when they were in 

power, and they just did not do it. 

Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of 

order. 

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Wentworth, 

on a point of order other than relevance. 

Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, the minister is 

defying you. You have told him to go to the question. 

He is refusing to answer a very simple question. 

The SPEAKER: The member for Wentworth will 

resume his seat. The question obviously went to 

asbestos. The minister has the call and will be relevant 

to the question. 

Mr SHORTEN: I know the coalition has moved to 

the far right, but it is disappointing to see the member 

for Wentworth having to demonstrate his right-wing 

bona fides by engaging in this cheap politics. 

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will return to 

the question. 

Mr SHORTEN: But for the purposes of assisting 

the House I would like to table the letter that I wrote to 

Telstra on 27 March 2009. 

Leaders Debate Commission 

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (14:31): My question is 

to the Prime Minister, with the standing opportunity for 

indulgence from others. 

The SPEAKER: Which I will not grant. 

Mr OAKESHOTT: It was taken up earlier by 

others. Is the Prime Minister committed to a leaders 

CHAMBER 

debate commission as agreed in 2010? If so, why hasn't 

the matter progressed? 


thank the member for his question. The government is 

committed to a leaders debate commission. We are 

committed to it. We are open to progressing 

discussions about it. I will certainly look forward to 

debating the Leader of the Opposition on many 

occasions. 

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (14:32): Speaker, I ask 

a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister 

agree, with others in the chamber, in light of the 

answer given, to table all correspondence between 

leadership teams and head offices on all matters related 

to accountable and open government and election 

debates in 2013? 


These matters have been pursued, as I am advised, 

between the National Secretary of the Labor Party and 

his counterpart, Mr Loughnane. I must admit I could 

not tell the House how much of that has been in writing 

and how much of that has been in periodic discussions 

which the national secretaries have. But let me be very 

clear. We certainly are committed to a leaders debate 

commission, and I will certainly look forward to 

debating the Leader of the Opposition on a number of 

occasions. 


Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:33): My question 

is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace 

Relations and Minister for Financial Services and 

Superannuation. Will the minister update the House on 

the steps that Telstra is taking in relation to asbestos? 

How will the government better protect Australians 

from this deadly scourge? 




thank the member for the question. I note that it is the 

labour movement who have got, I think, the proudest 

record of tackling the issues on asbestos. We 

understand that asbestos in Australia will still kill— 

Mr Christensen: You're not political, are you! 

Mr SHORTEN: Member for Dawson, what is it 

about asbestos that you think there is a need for you to 

pollute with your political palaver? Asbestos is an 

absolute priority to tackle and eradicate in this country. 

It is a Labor government which has now created, for 

the first time, a national agency to deal with asbestos 

and coordinate a national plan. Asbestos is something 

which for generations the labour movement and—I am 

going to use those words that the opposition hate 

hearing; they put their hands over their ears—the trade 

unions pushed hard on. Everyone in the labour 

movement wishes, as I know many in the opposition


do, that we could uninvent the scourge of asbestos. We 

wish that companies like James Hardie had done it 

differently from the way they did, but they did not and 

that is the sad legacy of asbestos. 

We know in this country that it is not just those who 

have mined asbestos and it is not just those who have 

worked in the manufacturing of asbestos but now it is 

people in their own homes and in the communities who 

can be exposed to asbestos. That is why this 

government commissioned an asbestos management 

review, chaired by Geoff Fary, to make 

recommendations on how we can have a national 

approach on asbestos. In implementing the 

recommendations of that report, we have created 

legislation to create an asbestos agency. I acknowledge 

that the opposition have supported that asbestos 

agency. I particularly acknowledge the member for 

Farrer and a speech she gave about supporting this 

matter. 

Today I have had to meet Telstra, along with my 

ministerial colleagues the member for Ballarat, the 

member for Lindsay and the Minister for Broadband, 

Communications and the Digital Economy. We met 

with Telstra, we met with NBN Co., we met with 

stakeholders, we met with trade unions and we met 

with the victims groups—we had the Chief Medical 

Officer present—to talk about what we do, because it 

is clear to me, having spoken directly with the member 

for Lindsay and to the residents in Penrith, that they 

have not been treated properly in the way that this 

matter has been conducted. But what is particularly 

pleasing is that the CEO of Telstra, David Thodey, 

came to the meeting and he took a leadership position. 

He did not take a political position and he did not take 

a legal position. He took a leadership position. He 

agreed that Telstra accepts responsibility that it has to 

do more. So residents should be pleased that that is the 

open transparency which Telstra is committed to. He 

put the contractors on notice that he expects people to 

live up to the standards and to make sure that Telstra's 

standards are trained throughout the system. 

Furthermore, he said that he accepted responsibility for 

the end-to-end training involved. 

This has been a dreadful time for those Penrith 

residents. It is a dreadful time to think that your child 

might have been exposed. It will hardly be enhanced 

by some of the opposition questioning, I have to say. 

But what we will do, I can inform the House, is 

establish a national asbestos register for anyone to 

record their possible exposure to asbestos—not just 

employees and contractors but residents, people in 

their own homes and people in our communities. We 

will work with all stakeholders and we will work with 

the opposition when they choose to work with us, and 

we will not see the people of Penrith and other areas let 

down in the way they were by Telstra and other 

CHAMBER 

organisations who should have done better. (Time 

expired) 




Workplace Relations, and I refer to his previous 

answers and the letter he has just tabled. Since it is 

clear that from March 2009, the month before the NBN 

Co. was actually established, the minister was 

personally aware of asbestos in Telstra infrastructure, 

why did he apparently not have any meetings or further 

contact with Telstra or the NBN Co. concerning 

asbestos prior to last week—and, if he did, could he 

tell us what the contact was? 



for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:38): In 

March 2009—and I am sorry the member for 

Wentworth has not followed my career as closely as he 

ought to have—I was the Parliamentary Secretary for 

Disabilities and Children's Services. So, of course, as 

parliamentary secretary for disabilities I still wrote to 

Telstra, because people had come to me and said there 

were concerns and, as a conscientious member of 

parliament, you still raise issues. But, if the member 

for Wentworth is saying that as parliamentary secretary 

for disabilities somehow I am not doing my job there, 

let us have a look at the National Disability Insurance 

Scheme, which the leader opposite is so keen to hug. 

When we talk about asbestos, since I have become 

the minister we have implemented the Asbestos 

Management Review and we have put in place a 

national agency. When the matters in Penrith came to 

light, I went up on the weekend to go and see the 

residents and to hear from them. I would be interested 

to see how the member for Wentworth went with the 

residents of Penrith when he met with them, if he has 

actually done that, seeing that he is very keen to give 

advice. But, furthermore, I convened a meeting with 

Telstra. I am having a look at my correspondence, 

Member for Wentworth, on all the occasions on which 

you have raised with me the issues of asbestos and 

Telstra. What I might suggest here is that what really 

matters is the safety of Australians. What really matters 

is dealing with exposure to asbestos. What really 

matters is not taking some sort of petty political rightwing 

points— 

Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of 

order on relevance. We are seeking to give the minister 

the opportunity to answer a very specific question as to 

why he did not raise the matter with Telstra between 

March— 

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. 

The minister has concluded his answer.



The SPEAKER (14:39): Just before I call the 

member for Wentworth, I have been informed that in 

the House today we have present the Hon. Ian Viner, 

former member for Stirling. I welcome him to the 

chamber. 

Honourable members: Hear, hear! 



Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:40): I have a 

supplementary question to the Minister for 

Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the 

minister confirm to the House that between March 

2009 and last week, notwithstanding his knowledge of 

asbestos contamination in Telstra infrastructure, he 

made no contact and raised the matter with neither 

Telstra nor NBN Co. in that intervening period? 




appreciate the member for Wentworth continuing the 

politicisation of asbestos. But, in terms of following up 

on the matters, following 27 March I did actually write 

to Telstra again, on 4 August 2009. I am happy to table 

that. Then on 2 November I wrote again to Telstra 

about their issues. At that point Telstra again wrote 

back to me with a detailed proposition about what they 

are doing. So, in fact, I am happy to see how many 

communications— 

Mr Hockey: No. Then what happened? 

The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney! 

Mr SHORTEN: My goodness! This is more 

relevant than your questions. I am happy to understand 

from the shadow minister for communications how he 

has not raised any issues if he is meant to be across the 

issues of Telstra. I am interested to see— 


Mr SHORTEN: I tell you what: whilst I may have 

got in a traffic jam going out to Penrith on Saturday, it 

was not caused by a whole long list of federal Liberal 

MPs rushing out to see asbestos exposure victims. 

Very tawdry! 

Education 

Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (14:41): My 

question is to the Minister for School Education, Early 

Childhood and Youth. How will schools in Queensland 

benefit from the National Plan for School 

Improvement? Why is the plan so important for 

students in our schools and a smart investment in our 

nation's future? 

Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for 

School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) 

(14:42): I thank the member for Capricornia for that 

CHAMBER 

question, and I know that she has had a profound 

commitment to the delivery of support for education in 

her electorate: nearly $130 million in improving school 

facilities, 60 libraries, 26 multipurpose halls and 63 

classrooms. The member would be familiar with the 

results for Queensland students, where more effort and 

more support are needed. I had a look at the NAPLAN 

results for 2012, and we can see that in year 3 reading 

around 17.4 per cent of students in Queensland are at 

or below national minimum standard. That is around 

10,000 students. In international testing in year 4 

reading, almost one in three students in Queensland are 

at or below benchmarks. The key thing here—and the 

Treasurer referred to it—is that, if kids are below these 

benchmarks, they will not get good jobs in the future 

and their learning will not proceed as well as it could. 

Of course, our response to that is to make sure that 

we invest in reforms that will make a difference: 

individual help for students, lifting teacher quality and 

giving principals more say over their school. If Premier 

Newman would put the petty politics aside then 

schools in Queensland would benefit from additional 

investment of around $3.8 billion over the next six 

years. I am asked why the plan is so important. The 

reason why this plan is so important is that the opposite 

to that is that if Queensland does not sign up then over 

the next six years Queensland government schools will 

lose a total of around $3 billion and non-government 

schools a total of around $1.2 billion. Incidentally, that 

is about $2.5 million on average per school. 

I notice that others outside the parliament can see 

how critical and important this is. I saw the release 

from the Australian Government Primary Principals 

Association. I applaud the primary principals for 

speaking up, because they have been very clear that 

Australian students deserve to have their governments 

act on their behalf. That is what they specifically said, 

but they had something to say about the opposition as 

well, and it was this: they rejected the views expressed 

by Tony Abbott and Christopher Pyne that the current 

school-funding model is satisfactory and any changes 

should be postponed to a distant future. 

That is 5,300 school leaders in government primary 

schools around Australia declaring absolutely clearly 

that what the opposition leader and the member for 

Sturt have on the table in rejecting this National Plan 

for School Improvement will mean less investment 

going to schools in Queensland, not more. At the end 

of the day, if we want a stronger, smarter and fairer 

nation, we need to support a National Plan for School 

Improvement. That is what we will do. The opposition 

will not. 


Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (14:45): My 

question is the Minister for Employment and 

Workplace Relations. In September 2012 NBN Co.


issued a request for capability statements for 

contractors that included 'toxic waste and asbestos 

removal' as part of the description of work to be 

undertaken. How many NBN Co. contactors have so 

far undertaken asbestos removal? What training and 

accreditation is required by NBN Co. before it hires 

contractors for this work? 




appreciate the member for Cowper promoting me to 

Minister for Communications. I will take some of that 

question on notice to find out the answers to the 

matters to do with NBN Co., which is not in my 

portfolio. But what I can say in answer to the question 

about asbestos and training is that I have represented 

the debate about asbestos, the victims of asbestos and 

people being exposed to asbestos while I was with the 

union. I have done this alongside many of the other 

representatives of the union movement throughout the 

history of dealing with asbestos. 

I have certainly also represented issues about people 

being exposed to asbestos while I have been in the 

parliament. I have also represented them upon 

becoming minister for workplace relations and in 

making sure that we get the recommendations to the 

asbestos management review and also upon 

implementing the recommendations. I also believe I 

was representing them when I was there on Saturday 

with the member for Lindsay, Mr Bradbury, the 

Assistant Treasurer. I believe that I was representing 

people today, along with the member for Ballarat, the 

member for Lindsay and the communications minister, 

by making sure that— 

Mr Hartsuyker: Speaker, I rise on a point of order 

on relevance. The question was very specific. How 

many contractors have so far undertaken asbestos 

removal? What training and accreditation are required 

before NBN Co. hires them? 

The SPEAKER: The minister has the call and will 

be relevant to the question. 

Mr SHORTEN: I thank the member for Cowper. I 

tell you one thing I have never done: I have never 

represented the companies in court who made the 

asbestos and damaged workers. 

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will return to 

the question. 

Mr SHORTEN: I will tell you what I have also 

done: I have never insulted the victims of asbestos and 

their campaigners. 

Automotive Industry 

Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (14:47): My 

question is to the Minister for Climate Change, 

Industry and Innovation. How is the government 

working with Australia's automotive manufacturing 

CHAMBER 

industry to support jobs, health and safety and deal 

with the economic challenges affecting the industry? 

Why is it critical that we have accurate information 

about these challenges? 

Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate 

Change, Industry and Innovation) (14:48): I thank the 

member for Wakefield for his question because the 

government is working with Australian manufacturers 

to support jobs and to improve competitiveness and to 

improve productivity. Just last February the Prime 

Minister and I released a $1 billion plan to support 

manufacturing jobs in particular. We have also got our 

$5.4 billion new car plan which is assisting the 

automotive industry. That is $5.4 billion in assistance 

that the coalition would take an axe to, just like they 

voted against our $300 million Steel Transformation 

Plan to support jobs in the steel industry—they would 

take an axe to that as well—and just like last week the 

coalition voted against the government's Australian 

Jobs Bill to give local manufacturers fairer 

opportunities on major resource projects. We stand for 

jobs on this side of the House, they stand to axe them. 

It is important to rely upon accurate information 

when considering the challenges facing industries like 

manufacturing, otherwise policy responses will not 

have a proper foundation. If you took the approach of 

the opposition leader to policy development, you 

would be in all sorts of trouble because he blames 

everything on carbon pricing. It is responsible for 

every problem in the country. Over the weekend he 

once again blamed carbon pricing for Ford's decision 

to cease manufacturing in 2016 and he once again 

wrongly and falsely claimed that carbon pricing added 

$400 to the cost of a car. That is a totally false and 

mendacious claim that has been disproven on 

numerous occasions. It relies upon speculation from 

early in 2011 before the government even announced 

the carbon price policy. It assumes a carbon price 

significantly higher than the actual price that is in the 

market. It assumes there is no assistance to industries 

like steel and glass, that there is no assistance to 

industries, and all of his assumptions—of course—are 

wrong. The opposition leader knows it. 

The fact is that the carbon price impact on car 

manufacturers is about $50 a car, not $400 a car as he 

falsely claimed. If you compare it to the appreciation in 

the Australian dollar of just 1c, 1c appreciation equates 

to about a $250 impact on the competitiveness of an 

Australian car. So every time the opposition leader 

repeats this $400 figure he is deliberately misleading 

the Australian public and the auto manufacturing 

workforce. That deception was called out on the 

weekend by none other than the star of today's question 

time, the member for Wentworth. He had this to say 

about this claim, 'It would be disingenuous to suggest 

that the reason Ford is shutting down is because of the 

carbon tax'. He is on the move. He has been sitting up


here at the table and he is absolutely right on that. 


Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (14:51): Speaker, I 

have a supplementary question. Further to the 

minister's answer and the issues he identified for 

industry, what has been done in recent years in relation 

to health and safety and asbestos exposure? 

Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate 

Change, Industry and Innovation) (14:51): I thank the 

member for Wakefield for his supplementary question 

because health and safety are a very important part of 

relationships with the manufacturing industry. 

Mr Pyne: Speaker, a supplementary must follow 

the answer that the minister has just given and the 

supplementary question bears no relationship whatever 

to the answer that the minister has just given. 

Mr COMBET: Yes, dealing with health and safety 

is very important in relation to the manufacturing 

industry and other industries—including the 

communications industry, in fact. It is very important 

to deal with these issues of exposure to asbestos, and 

the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations 

and I in particular, in our previous careers as union 

officials, had a lot to do with this particular issue, 

supporting the victims of asbestos, which of course 

leads to extremely debilitating diseases. 


order. It is quite clear from the minister's answer that 

the question bore no relationship whatsoever to the 

original question, since the original question was about 

the carbon tax and this is a question apparently about 

asbestos. 


Business will resume his seat. The minister will refer 

his answer to the original question. The minister has 

the call. 

Mr COMBET: It is relevant to the original 

question, particularly the importance of health and 

safety in these industries and having a track record of 

supporting people in their jobs and in health and 

safety—not like those on the other side, who do not 

have any track record and who come here today asking 

questions about asbestos that are completely 

hypocritical. It is total hypocrisy. You on that side of 

the House have got no track record in supporting 

people. 

The SPEAKER: The minister will refer to the 

original question. 

Mr COMBET: We know perfectly well where the 

Deputy Leader of the Opposition was in her previous 

career in dealing with the victims of asbestos— 

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. 

CHAMBER 

Asylum Seekers 


Opposition) (14:54): My question is to the Prime 

Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that the first 

public commitment she made as Prime Minister was, 'I 

understand the Australian people want strong 

management of our borders and I will provide it.' After 

42,000 illegal arrivals on over 700 boats, does she 

believe that she has delivered on that commitment? 


To the Leader of the Opposition's question and quick 

change of topic: what the government has done and is 

continuing to do is implement the expert 

recommendations from the panel overseen by Angus 

Houston and participated in by Paris Aristotle and 

Michael L'Estrange. The government is continuing to 

pursue those recommendations. 

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition walked into 

this parliament and voted for more boats. At the same 

time, and in accordance with the recommendations of 

that expert panel, we are working with our neighbours 

on cooperation against people smuggling. We do work 

very strongly, for example, with Indonesia on 

cooperation against people smuggling. What we do not 

do as we cooperate with Indonesia is verbal them, 

pretend that an agreement has been reached with them 

and only then, in an embarrassing move, back away 

from it—that is, we do not conduct ourselves like the 

opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. 

Mr Abbott: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of 

order. The question was the Prime Minister's 

commitment to deliver strong management of our 

borders. I have asked her: does she believe she has 

delivered on that— 

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will 

resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. 

Ms GILLARD: I am being directly relevant to the 

question of protecting our borders, directly relevant to 

the question of regional cooperation and, consequently, 

directly relevant to how one has to deal with our 

neighbours with respect to ensure that one can 

maximise cooperation. What you do not do if you are 

treating our neighbours with respect is give an 

interview claiming that you have got a deal with them 

only, when it gets a bit hot and people go inquiring 

about that deal, to then, in a shambolic way, back away 

from it. But that, of course, is exactly the position the 

opposition has found itself in today. It is in that 

position because, in this very important area of people 

smuggling, what it is continuing to do is try and peddle 

a slogan. 

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to 

the question. 

Ms GILLARD: They are continuing to try and 

pretend that they have got some solutions. The Leader


of the Opposition well knows that, when he had an 

opportunity to meet with the President of Indonesia, he 

did not even raise his so-called 'policy' of turning back 

boats, because he knew he would be repudiated. 

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to 

the question. 

Ms GILLARD: Now today the Deputy Leader of 

the Opposition has embarrassed herself, embarrassed 

the opposition and embarrassed the nation. 

Asian Century 

Mr MURPHY (Reid) (14:57): My question is to 

the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian 

Century Policy. Minister, how is the government's 

AsiaBound program contributing to stronger relations 

with countries in the region? Moreover, what obstacles 

are there to Australia's relations with our neighbours? 

Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and 

Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, 

Skills, Science and Research and Minister Assisting 

the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (14:58): I 

certainly thank the member for Reid not only for his 

question but also for his interest in Asian century 

policy. Through the AsiaBound program the 

government are supporting young people studying in 

Asia. We are providing financial support for around 

3,600 students a year from Australia to go study in 

Asia. There is legislation being debated to bring that to 

fruition from 1 July. In addition, through the Asian 

century scholarships we are supporting young people 

from the region coming to study in Australia. Indeed, 

the Asian century scholarship program supports 12,000 

students from the region and therefore dwarfs the 

Colombo Plan. Everyone knows of the Colombo Plan, 

but this is so much bigger. In fact, the Asian century 

scholarships does in five years what the Colombo did 

in 30 years. 

I am asked about obstacles to building those 

relationships with our neighbours in the region. Of 

course, there are very substantial obstacles, and they 

are sitting over on the other side of the parliament. The 

Deputy Leader of the Opposition has embarrassed not 

only the coalition but also the Leader of the 

Opposition, the Australian parliament and the 

Indonesian government by falsely claiming that highranking 

Indonesian ministers and officials have 

indicated privately that Indonesia would cooperate 

with a coalition government to turn back people 

smuggler boats. The report says the Deputy Leader of 

the Opposition insisted on that. Indeed, to quote her, 

she said: 

I have had a number of conversations with high-ranking 

Indonesian ministers and officials, as has Scott Morrison as 

has Tony Abbott and I am convinced we can work in 

cooperation with Indonesia to achieve our policy aim— 

of towing back boats. She was challenged about that by 

the Indonesian ambassador, who completely repudiated 

CHAMBER 

any such suggestion. When he said, 'No such 

collaboration will happen between Indonesia and 

Australia to bring back the people to Indonesia,' the 

Deputy Leader of the Opposition told the Guardian: 

Professional diplomats are paid to present particular views 

but what goes on behind the scenes can be quite different … 

So she is saying that the ambassador for Indonesia has 

had a private conversation with her—obviously, no 

such conversation with her ever occurred. 

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— 

Dr EMERSON: Oh, really? She has just again 

raised this proposition that the Indonesian ambassador 

had said to her privately that they will agree to tow 

back boats. They will not. Indeed, the foreign minister, 

Marty Natalegawa, has said they will not and the 

Indonesian ambassador has said, 'We will not,' yet she 

persists with this false claim. (Time expired) 

Mr Frydenberg interjecting— 

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kooyong 

is denying the member for Cook the call. The member 

for Cook has the call. 

National Security 

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:01): My question is 

to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I 

remind the minister of evidence given in Senate 

estimates by the Director-General of ASIO that ASIO 

informed his department on 30 August last year that a 

man they were holding in a low-security family 

accommodation facility in the Adelaide Hills was a 

convicted Egyptian Jihadist terrorist subject to an 

Interpol red notice. Why was no action taken by the 

then minister to remove the man to a more secure 

facility at that time? He was only moved to a secure 

location once the story was published in the media in 

April, more than seven months later. 

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister 

for Immigration and Citizenship) (15:01): I thank the 

honourable member for his question. I can assure the 

House and assure the honourable member that national 

security is the most important priority of this 

government. I can assure the House that our security 

agency, ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and the 

department work very closely together to ensure that 

our people are kept safe. For that reason we can assure 

this House that we will continue to ensure there is 

rigour when we make assessments. What people do 

understand is that when we have people arrive in such 

a fashion—that is through irregular maritime arrivals— 

there are assessments for security, for identity and for 

health purposes. That occurs so as to ensure that, if we 

were to release people, we would release people in an 

appropriate manner. 

In so far as the matter in question that has been 

raised by the honourable member is concerned— 

Mr Robb interjecting—


The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein does 

not have a right to continually interject. 

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: at no time has that 

person been out of detention in the entire period he has 

been in Australia. 

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting— 

The SPEAKER: Nor does the member for 

Mackellar! 

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: It would be 

misleading for the honourable member in asking the 

question to suggest that the person in question has been 

out of detention. He has not been out of detention. 

Further to that, there has also been surveillance and 

monitoring of that person while in detention. 

There are a number of things that I will not disclose 

and should not disclose because they are matters of 

national security. We have a convention of providing 

briefings that we are very happy to extend to the 

opposition, of course provided that, if we do allow 

such a briefing, they do not disclose those details 

publicly, which happened last week by the shadow 

Attorney-General after being briefed by— 


order. I am sure all of this is very interesting, but he 

was asked why the Jihadist in question remained in the 

Adelaide Hills after 30 August last year and it was true 

he was only moved when it appeared in the media. 


Business will resume his seat. The minister has the 

call. 

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: As I was saying, 

we have ensured that the person has been detained at 

all times. That was the advice I received from my 

department. The department continues to work with the 

Australian Federal Police and ASIO to ensure that our 

people are kept safe. It would be absolutely 

outrageously misleading for the honourable member to 

suggest otherwise. 

Further to that, we do not want to reflect on the 

hardworking men and women of our agencies. They do 

a wonderful job. This question insinuates that 

somehow those agencies failed us. They did not fail us. 

For that reason the honourable member should rethink 

what he wants to be putting to me in question time if 

he is suggesting and impugning the good name of our 

agencies. 

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:05): Madam Speaker, 

I wish to ask a supplementary question. My question is 

to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in 

relation to his just answered question. I remind the 

minister that article 32 of the refugee convention 

enables signatory countries to deny asylum claims on 

national security grounds. Has the department of 

immigration commenced processing the asylum claim 

CHAMBER 

of the convicted Egyptian Jihadist terrorist who was 

the subject of an Interpol red notice and, if so, why? 


for Immigration and Citizenship) (15:05): I have not 

received advice as to whether the person in question 

has gone through any assessment, but I can assure the 

House that the person is in detention and there is no 

determination made insofar as any protection visa 

being provided to that person and, as I have made very 

clear, the department, the security agency, the 

Australian Federal Police and other agencies do a very 

good job in ensuring that they protect the interests of 

this country. 


The SPEAKER: Order! I would have thought that 

people were actually interested in the answer. You are 

definitely not giving that impression. The minister has 

the right to be heard in silence. 

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: The honourable 

member would also know that there might be situations 

where people may be afforded protection even if they 

have committed offences or where there are allegations 

of offences; however, as we have already seen in 

relation to other individuals where there has been, for 

example, protection afforded or potentially afforded to 

them because of the situation in which they are in, 

there has been sufficient security in place in order for 

them not to be released. The honourable member 

would understand that there are situations where a 

person could indeed be determined to be a refugee, on 

one hand, and yet still not be able to be released into 

the community because of the offences they may have 

committed. That, of course, is why we rely so heavily 

upon ASIO and other agencies. (Time expired) 

MOTIONS 

National Security 

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:07): I move: 

That so much of standing and sessional orders be 

suspended as to allow the member for Cook to move the 

following motion: 

That given the Government’s refusal to answer questions 

in this House and their refusal to establish an independent 

inquiry into the Government’s ‘light touch’ handling of 

national security issues regarding the detention and 

processing of a convicted terrorist who arrived illegally by 

boat in and around May 2012 that: 

(1) a Select Committee on the ‘National security issues 

relating to the processing and detention of a convicted 

terrorist who arrived by boat in and around May 2012 and 

other related matters involving the Government’s handling of 

national security issues for irregular maritime arrivals’ be 

appointed to inquire into and report on, having regard to the 

following circumstances,: 

(a) in or around May 2012, an Egyptian adult male 

accompanied by his family arrived illegally by boat at 

Christmas Island claiming asylum. After initial processing


the man and family were transferred to the Inverbrackie 

Alternative Place of Detention, a detention facility for low 

risk asylum seeker families in the Adelaide Hills; 

(b) by end August 2012 it was established by ASIO that 

this man was convicted of multiple terrorist offences, a 

member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which merged with Al 

Qaeda in June 2001. He was the subject of an Interpol Red 

Notice; and 

(c) the man and family remained in low security detention 

at Inverbrackie until April 2013 when they were transferred 

to higher security detention facilities at Villawood in 

Sydney; 

(2) the Select Committee should: 

(a) establish the facts surrounding the case in relation to: 

(i) the full chronology of the events relating to the man 

and his family’s arrival and detention in Australia and 

associated security and criminal investigations; 

(ii) how and when relevant agencies and Ministers 

became aware of the man’s terrorist conviction and what 

action was taken in response to that knowledge; 

(iii) the adequacy of interagency co-operation, and in 

particular co-operation between DIAC, ASIO and the AFP, 

in identifying, sharing information, and taking steps to 

appropriately deal with the individual concerned; 

(iv) why the individual was left so long at the 

Inverbrackie low security facility before being transferred to 

Villawood; 

(v) the current location and security arrangements for 

the man and family; 

(vi) the current status of immigration processing of his 

asylum or any other claim; and 

(vii) action being taken in relation to his extradition to 

Egypt and the point of responsibility for ongoing 

management of this national security case; 

(b) review the facts and make an assessment of any 

failings in the Government’s handling of this case and who 

will be responsible; 

(c) identify and establish the facts relating to the 

Government’s handling of other cases, involving national 

security issues including, but not restricted to: 

(i) a Sri Lankan national suspected of murder who was 

released into the community before being taken to Villawood 

detention centre; 

(ii) a suspected Iranian drug smuggler who arrived via 

boat and is now in a mental health facility; 

(iii) asylum seeker claims involving membership of the 

group the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; and 

(iv) any other asylum seeker claim that has received a 

negative ASIO security assessment; and 

(d) make recommendations to address issues identified in 

the review; 

(3) the committee consist of seven members, three members 

to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three 

members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 

and one non-aligned member; 

(4) the committee may supplement its membership by up to 

four members, with a maximum of two extra government 

and two extra opposition or non-aligned members. 

CHAMBER 

Supplementary members shall have the same participatory 

rights as other members, but may not vote; 

(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be 

notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives; 

(6) the members of the committee hold office as a select 

committee until presentation of the committee's report or the 

House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion 

of time, whichever is the earlier; 

(7) the committee elect a government or a non-government 

member as chair at its first meeting; 

(8) 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; 

(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the 

deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote; 

(10) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of 

the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the 

quorum shall include one government member and one nongovernment 

member; 

(11) the committee have power to appoint sub-committees 

consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any 

sub-committee any matter which the committee is 

empowered to examine; 

(12) the committee appoint the chair of each sub-committee 

who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the 

chair of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the 

sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present 

shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as 

chair at that meeting; 

(13) two members of a sub-committee constitute the quorum 

of that sub-committee; 

(14) members of the committee who are not members of a 

sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that 

sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be 

counted for the purpose of a quorum; 

(15) the committee or any sub-committee have power to call 

for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced; 

(16) the committee or any sub-committee may conduct 

proceedings at any place it sees fit; 

(17) the committee or any sub-committee have power to 

adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment 

of the House of Representative; 

(18) the committee may report from time to time but that it 

present its final report no later than 30 June 2013; and 

(19) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are 

inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect 

notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. 

This government has a light touch on our borders and it 

has a light touch on national security. This inquiry is 

required, and it is important that standing orders be 

suspended, because this is an urgent matter. This 

House sits for just three more weeks before the break. 

This minister has refused to conduct an independent 

inquiry when given the opportunity to do so. It seems


this minister has not one word of concern, let alone 

action, in relation to these incredibly serious matters 

that have enabled a convicted terrorist to sit in a lowgrade 

facility in the Adelaide Hills for a period of 

seven months without being moved. It was only when 

the West Australian published details of this that he got 

out from under his desk, decided to make a decision 

and put this person in the place he should have always 

been, which was a high-security facility. 

This is a government whose light touch on our 

borders has resulted in over 700 boats turning up over 

the course of its tenure—more than 550 under this 

Prime Minister herself—and more than 200 people 

turning up on a boat within the last 48 hours alone. 

There have been 35,000 arrivals since the last election 

and cost blow-outs of more than $10 billion. 

It is a true fact that we spend more today on the 

department of immigration than we spend separately, 

net, on the capability of our Navy and our Air Force. 

We spend more on immigration, dealing with the blowouts 

in costs, than we spend on the capability of our 

Navy and our Air Force. The time line on these things 

is an absolute disgrace, because it shows a government 

that has completely sat on its hands while a convicted 

terrorist came into the country and was known to be 

here. ASIO and the AFP advised the department of 

immigration of the serious nature of this individual and 

the government thought that this individual should stay 

in a low security facility under the government's 

watch—a process that the Prime Minister herself said 

she was satisfied with, which was a light-touch 

approach. 

That is the standard and that is where the bar has 

been set for national security issues by this 

government. That is why an independent inquiry is 

needed and why standing orders need to be suspended, 

because this is not the first time. We all remember that 

Captain Emad could come into this country by boat as 

a people smuggler and fly out of this country as a 

people smuggler because, under this government, 

everybody was pointing fingers in the opposite 

direction. Nobody knew what each other was doing, 

nobody was paying attention to what was happening on 

our borders and, as a result, Captain Emad remains at 

large and his family remain in public housing here in 

the ACT, much to the disenchantment of the entire 

Australian population because that story in itself 

speaks volumes of the light touch approach that this 

Prime Minister sanctions, that this minister operates 

and the ministers before him also operated on our 

borders. We need an inquiry, because this government 

does not learn from its mistakes. We see repeatedly in 

this place, whether it is pink batts or anything else, that 

this government just never learns from its mistakes. 

So we gave the government the opportunity last 

Friday for this minister to step up and actually do his 

CHAMBER 

job and find out what went wrong to enable this 

situation to proceed for seven months. He said no. I 

suspect the government do not want to know the 

answer. They do not want to know how many more 

risks are out there. They do not want to know how 

wide the cracks are in the system the government have 

built over the last six years that have allowed the 

Captain Emads and an Egyptian jihadist terrorist to 

come into the country on boats and go into low grade 

facilities next to a Defence Force facility in South 

Australia, in the Adelaide Hills, in the electorate of 

Mayo. The member for Mayo has stood up in this place 

and in other places and was told by the then Minister 

for Immigration and Citizenship that only people on 

low security risk would be in there. 

A convicted Egyptian terrorist, with an Interpol red 

notice, does not qualify as low security. But this 

government thinks it does. This government thinks it is 

appropriate, that that is where that sort of a person 

should be and it is so endemic of the way these 

national security matters are handled by this 

government. They are a light touch on our borders and 

they are a light touch on national security and this 

minister is a light touch. (Time expired) 

Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (15:17): I second the 

motion. I do so because we are dealing today with one 

of the gravest national security breaches that have 

occurred under this government and in recent memory. 

I say that, because we know a lot about this case. I will 

list the reasons why I say this is a grave breach of 

national security. The individual whom we are talking 

about today is a member of Egyptian Islamic jihad, an 

organisation that merged with al-Qaeda prior to the 

September 11 attacks in the United States, an 

organisation which was headed at the time by Ayman 

al-Zawahiri, who people will know took over the 

leadership of al-Qaeda once Osama bin Laden was 

killed. It also furnished other leadership positions 

within al-Qaeda, including Mohammed Atta, who led 

the attacks on September 11 in the United States. 

Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mohammed Atta, both from 

the Islamic jihad organisation, share membership of 

that organisation with an individual whom this 

government has placed in what is essentially low 

security detention in the Adelaide Hills, surrounded by 

the equivalent of a pool fence. 

The crimes that this man has not been accused of but 

convicted of through an Egyptian court, in 1999, 

include: premeditated murder, destruction of property, 

firearm possession, possession of explosive devices 

without a permit, membership of a terrorist group and 

forgery of documents. He has been convicted of crimes 

both inside and outside Egypt. He arrived in Australia, 

apparently, in May last year and was subsequently, 

within a very short space of time, released in 

Inverbrackie.


Since then, ASIO and the AFP have both taken an 

interest in this individual. ASIO went through a 

process where they formally identified him on 25 

August last year and, on 30 August, they notified the 

department of immigration that, within their low 

security family facility in the Adelaide Hills, they had 

a convicted terrorist, a member of Egyptian Islamic 

jihad. What do the department of immigration do? 

Absolutely nothing, under the failed leadership of these 

ministers and the Labor Party. 

Subsequently and astonishingly, in November last 

year the Australian Federal Police, who were 

apparently conducting a parallel investigation, reported 

the same facts to the department of immigration that, 

within their Inverbrackie low security facility, they 

were holding a convicted Egyptian terrorist. What did 

the department do? Absolutely nothing. In fact, nothing 

happened to this individual, even though Australia's 

domestic security agency and the Australian Federal 

Police had reported who he was to the department. 

Nothing happened to this individual until the West 

Australian published a story, on 16 April this year, that 

he was being held in Inverbrackie. Only subsequent to 

that story being published was this individual taken 

from low security and placed in the more secure 

environment of the Villawood Detention Centre. Once 

the matter was raised in the newspapers I wrote to the 

minister in my capacity as the acting shadow minister 

for immigration. He wrote back to me and he said: 

Where further information of a security or criminal nature 

comes to hand, the department works with relevant agencies 

to ensure placements remain appropriate. 

Does this minister, Minister O'Connor, sitting at the 

table, seriously believe that Inverbrackie, a family 

detention facility, is an appropriate place for a 

convicted Jihadist terrorist? If he does, in one minute's 

time he will be able to get up and explain to the House 

why he feels that is appropriate. 

If this were the only situation we were dealing with 

in terms of grave security breaches for people who 

have come here courtesy of people smugglers then it 

would be bad enough. But what we know is that there 

are other cases—maybe many other cases. For 

instance, a Sri Lankan man accused of murder arrives 

in Australia courtesy of a people smuggler and he is 

not released into low security detention; he is released 

into the community on a bridging visa. And there was a 

suspected Iranian drug smuggler—again, held in a low 

security environment. 

It is bad enough that we have lost control over who 

is coming here—and if you cannot control who comes 

here then you will leave that space open for criminals 

to take advantage of our border weakness—but when 

people are dealt with in this way, and when they have 

been identified as people who surely pose a danger to 

the Australian community, then we would expect that 

CHAMBER 

any government that takes national security seriously 

would make sure that they are housed in appropriate 

detention accommodation. But this government have 

failed to do that, and they have failed this test of 

national security. 


for Immigration and Citizenship) (15:23): I have 

listened to both honourable members, but the reality is 

that this issue is being dealt with by our agencies. As I 

say—and it is very important for people to understand 

this—there have been no offences committed by this 

person while in Australia, and this person has been in 

detention all along. Indeed, there is no doubt that there 

has been monitoring and surveillance of that person in 

detention. 

What we have always made clear is that we are very 

happy to provide briefings to the opposition. If they 

choose to actually have briefings— 

Mr Frydenberg: That is outrageous. 

The SPEAKER: The member for Kooyong is 

being outrageous. 

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: on information that 

matters, that relates to national security matters, I can 

assure you we will provide those briefings. However, 

on the last occasion we provided such briefings to the 

opposition, to the shadow Attorney-General, we saw 

that some of that information was actually used 

publicly in a manner that was not proper—that was, in 

fact, improper. So we are very happy to convey to the 

opposition, so that they are aware of the facts, 

information in relation to these matters. But what we 

will not do in this case, or in any case equivalent to 

this, is to allow the opposition to play with national 

security like it is a political football. That is not 

something that an alternative government would ever 

contemplate doing. 

This matter has been, of course, examined in 

estimates. Indeed, I have answered a question in 

question time in relation to the person and the 

circumstances in which he was detained. I also made it 

very clear that our agencies were involved beyond the 

detention itself, and I have made clear, too, that the 

person is now in high security detention. 

But the fact is: the reason why this motion is being 

brought on today is that the member for Cook and the 

member for Stirling are of course trying to scare the 

Australian people in a way that really is quite 

outrageous—they are trying to scare the Australian 

people. What we know is: when they have nothing 

positive to say in relation to a whole range of areas of 

public policy, the opposition leader authorises a 

number of frontbenchers to try and create fear and 

anxiety in this country. Well, that is not going to be the 

appropriate response in this instance, and nor is it the 

way in which we should be dealing with these matters.


I make it very clear again: if the shadow minister, 

the member for Cook, or the member for Stirling want 

to be briefed more fully on this, then I can assure those 

members opposite that those briefings will be 

forthcoming so that they can actually be provided with 

all of the information. And if they have any questions 

arising out of such briefings, I am certainly happy for 

those questions to be put—with one caveat, and one 

caveat only: that that information is not disclosed 

publicly or used as a political plaything. Yet that is 

what we have seen done by the shadow Attorney- 

General and indeed other members of the opposition in 

recent times. 

We have, of course, some very serious issues to deal 

with here, but it is quite extraordinary that the 

opposition want to, on the one hand, raise issues of 

national security and border protection but, on the 

other hand, not listen to the experts when it comes to 

dealing with our borders. It is quite extraordinary that 

they want to raise matters here today but, when it 

comes to the experts making recommendations about 

protecting our borders, where are they then? Where is 

Tony Abbott then? 

Mr Keenan: Did you know this guy was in 

Inverbrackie? Were you even aware? 

The SPEAKER: The member for Stirling is 

warned! 

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, clearly, he is 

not there to support the experts. He has never been 

there to support a plan that would reduce boats. Indeed, 

he wants to see more boats come. He wants to see 

more boats come and rubs his hands every time a 

vessel arrives in our waters. 

This was obviously made even clearer last Friday. 

Last Friday, the Indonesian ambassador made it very 

clear that they will not support the opposition leader's 

plan to turn back boats. He made it unequivocally 

clear. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may seek 

to make a liar of the Indonesian ambassador, but I have 

to say: it is a pretty outrageous thing to verbal the 

Indonesian ambassador in such a way. 

The Leader of the Opposition is in a situation where 

he effectively says yes to the country that says no, 

Indonesia, and no to the country that says yes, 

Malaysia. What a ridiculous situation! We have a 

transit country, Malaysia, that wants to transfer arrivals 

in a safe manner. But the Leader of the Opposition says 

no to it! Yet we have a country that does not want to 

see an unsafe way to transfer arrivals on the high seas, 

in the case of Indonesia, and the opposition leader 

pretends he has an agreement. Well, if we want to have 

a debate about national security, let us talk about the 

lack of responsibility and leadership by the opposition 

leader in dealing with transit countries and countries in 

our region in order to put in place a very important 

CHAMBER 

regional response to what is a complex regional 

problem. 

We do not have that, of course, because we do not 

have a compact in this parliament, and we do not have 

a compact in this parliament because the Leader of the 

Opposition has yet again refused to accept the advice 

of the experts. If I were to consider who I might take 

advice from, would I be taking it from the former chief 

of the Australian Defence Force, appointed by the 

Howard government and this government; Michael 

L'Estrange, a very eminent diplomat and former 

Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and 

Trade; and Paris Aristotle, with 25 years of refugee 

settlement history—three eminent Australians coming 

from different positions, putting a perspective, and 

forging recommendations for us to consider? And all 

we get from the opposition leader is: 'No, no, no.' That, 

of course, has really been exposed as being an 

absolutely hollow shell, because last Friday the 

Indonesian ambassador made it very, very clear that 

that unsafe proposition—unsafe, as has been advised 

by the chief of our Navy—to turn back boats on the 

high seas is unacceptable to the Indonesian 

government, and will not fly. That proposition— 

Mr Briggs: Speaker, I rise on a point of order on 

relevance. This is a motion about the suspension of 

standing orders for an inquiry as to why there is a 

terrorist in a low-security facility in the Adelaide 

Hills— 

The SPEAKER: The member for Mayo will 

resume his seat. The minister has the call and will 

speak to the motion. 

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I oppose the motion 

because, clearly, the opposition are entirely 

disingenuous when it comes to this issue. They do not 

seek to find a compact with the government on national 

security matters. They have always sought to object 

and oppose anything that might reduce the chances of 

people endangering their lives at sea. They have 

always sought to get in the way of policies as 

recommended by experts which would see a reduction 

of vessels arriving in our waters. They have done that 

for political purposes. They have done it with a 

disregard for the men, women and children on those 

vessels, and they have done it with a disregard for our 

men and women on Customs and Naval boats that go 

out each and every day to interdict and stop those 

vessels. This disregard for our personnel is outrageous. 

On top of all of that, if they think they are going to 

cut the Public Service by the thousands and not cut the 

staff of ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and 

Customs and Border Protection then they are kidding 

themselves. On one hand they have made it clear they 

are going to cut public servants; on the other they are 

trying to pretend that they will ensure those agencies 

will continue to have the resources they have now.


They will not. If we want to talk about undermining 

national security, if the Abbott government were ever 

elected and Mr Abbott ever became leader he would be 

cutting the staff in ASIO, in the Australian Federal 

Police, in Customs and Border Protection and, indeed, 

in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. I 

oppose this motion because it is put up deliberately to 

cause concern within our society and to create fear 

within our community. 



Population and Communities) (15:31): Let us make it 

clear that the reason the opposition want this 

amendment is because there is another story running 

on this issue today in The Guardian, which they want 

to make sure no-one is talking about. They want to 

suspend standing orders on this and they want to go out 

there and leak confidential meetings because they have 

this other attitude about the special, confidential deal 

they have with Indonesia, the deal that is so 

confidential that the Indonesian government is entirely 

unaware of it! 

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows all too 

well that she is not simply the only person who knows 

about the Indonesian deal in Australia—she is the only 

person in the world, apparently, who knows about this 

special deal! 

Mr Pyne: Speaker, I rise on a point of order on 

relevance. We have all been very generous about the 

elasticity in this debate, but clearly— 


Business will resume his seat. The minister 

representing the Leader of the House will refer to the 

motion before the Chair. 

Mr BURKE: Thank you very much, Speaker. It is 

a rather long motion; it would be hard to find anything 

on the planet that is not in some way relevant— 

The SPEAKER: The time for the debate has 

expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to. 

The House divided. [15:37] 

(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke) 

Ayes ...................... 69 

Noes ...................... 68 

Majority ................ 1 

AYES 

Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG 

Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC 

Billson, BF Bishop, BK 

Bishop, JI Briggs, JE 

Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S 

Chester, D Christensen, GR 

Ciobo, SM Coulton, M (teller) 

Dutton, PC Entsch, WG (teller) 

Fletcher, PW Forrest, JA 

Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T 

Griggs, NL Haase, BW 

Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG 

CHAMBER 

AYES 

Hockey, JB Hunt, GA 

Irons, SJ Jensen, DG 

Jones, ET Katter, RC 

Keenan, M Kelly, C 

Laming, A Ley, SP 

Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB 

Markus, LE Matheson, RG 

McCormack, MF Mirabella, S 

Morrison, SJ Moylan, JE 

Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD 

O'Dwyer, KM Prentice, J 

Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE 

Randall, DJ Robb, AJ 

Robert, SR Roy, WB 

Schultz, AJ Scott, BC 

Simpkins, LXL Slipper, PN 

Smith, ADH Somlyay, AM 

Southcott, AJ Stone, SN 

Tehan, DT Truss, WE 

Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB 

Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX 

Washer, MJ Wilkie, AD 

Wyatt, KG 

NOES 

Adams, DGH Bandt, AP 

Bird, SL Bowen, CE 

Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G 

Burke, AS Butler, MC 

Byrne, AM Champion, ND 

Cheeseman, DL Clare, JD 

Collins, JM Combet, GI 

Crean, SF Danby, M 

D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA 

Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM 

Emerson, CA Ferguson, LDT 

Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA 

Garrett, PR Georganas, S 

Gibbons, SW Gillard, JE 

Gray, G Grierson, SJ 

Griffin, AP Hall, JG 

Hayes, CP Jenkins, HA 

Jones, SP King, CF 

Leigh, AK Livermore, KF 

Lyons, GR Macklin, JL 

Marles, RD McClelland, RB 

Mitchell, RG (teller) Murphy, JP 

Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM 

O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM 

Owens, J Parke, M 

Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ 

Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA 

Roxon, NL Rudd, KM 

Saffin, JA Shorten, WR 

Sidebottom, PS Smyth, L 

Snowdon, WE Swan, WM 

Symon, MS Thomson, CR 

Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M 

Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 

PAIRS 

Andrews, KJ Albanese, AN 

Cobb, JK Kelly, MJ 

Crook, AJ Melham, D 

Gash, J Ripoll, BF 

Ruddock, PM Smith, SF


PAIRS 

Secker, PD Husic, EN 

The question being not carried by an absolute 

majority of members as required by standing order 47. 

Question negatived. 


ask that further questions be placed on the Notice 

Paper. 

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of 

the Opposition) (15:42): Speaker, I wish to make a 

personal explanation. 

The SPEAKER: Does the Deputy Leader of the 

Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? 

Ms JULIE BISHOP: Yes, I do. 

The SPEAKER: Please proceed. 

Ms JULIE BISHOP: In question time today, the 

Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and 

Competiveness, claimed that I said in an interview that 

the coalition had an agreement with Indonesia over 

border protection matters, as reported in an early 

version of The Guardian online. This was also referred 

to later, during the suspension motion by the Minister 

for Immigration and Citizenship and the Minister for 

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and 

Communities. 

The claim that I said the coalition had an agreement 

with Indonesia is not true. At no time did I say in an 

interview with The Guardian online or in any other 

interview that the coalition had either negotiated or 

reached an agreement with Indonesia. Indeed, I said 

repeatedly in that interview that the coalition in 

opposition cannot reach agreements with foreign 

governments. After I contacted The Guardian online, it 

has withdrawn its original headline and has now 

included a paragraph that stated: 

Bishop emphasised it was not possible to reach any 

agreement with a foreign government from Opposition and 

no formal agreement with Indonesia had been reached. 

I have stated on numerous occasions that the coalition 

has not reached an agreement and I seek leave to table 

the press release I put out this morning headed 

'Guardian beat up'. 

Leave not granted. 

Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (15:43): Speaker, I rise 

to make a personal explanation. 

The SPEAKER: Does the member for Indi claim 

to have been misrepresented? 

Mrs MIRABELLA: Yes, I have been. 

The SPEAKER: Please proceed. 

CHAMBER 

Mrs MIRABELLA: In today's electronic media 

and several sources, the following comments were 

made. On some versions, this has been corrected. The 

first claim was that Simon McKeon had tried to contact 

me on Thursday and Friday last week to inform me of 

the decision—that being the reappointment of the 

CSIRO CEO. That is not correct. My office was 

contacted by Kimberley Shrives. It then goes on to say 

that 'Mr McKeon told Mrs Mirabella's office he had an 

important issue to discuss with her'. That is not correct. 

Kimberley Shrives was asked why I was requested to 

contact CSIRO and she refused to state what the issue 

was. 

The report then goes on to say, 'When he was unable 

to talk to her he sent a text message directly to the 

Liberal MP, also stating he needed to discuss an 

important issue.' That is not correct. I received a text 

message on Friday after a missed call, informing me 

that there was a CSIRO issue that would be of interest 

to me. Then I was informed of the decision to 

reappoint Megan Clark for a further 12 months at about 

14:50 on Sunday, about 40 minutes before it was made 

known to CSIRO staff. 

BUSINESS 

Days and Hours of Meeting 




move: 

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be 

suspended as would prevent: 

(1) the time and order of business for Tuesday, 4 June 2013 

being as follows: 

(a) the House shall meet at 12 noon; 

(b) the Federation Chamber shall meet from 12.10 p.m. 

until 1.45 p.m. and from 3.30 p.m. until 10 p.m., and 

standing order 193 (Members’ Constituency Statements) 

shall be suspended; 

(c) during the period from 12 noon until 2 p.m. any 

division on a question called for in the House, other than on 

a motion moved by a Minister during this period, shall stand 

deferred until the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of 

public importance; and 

(d) during the period from 12 noon until 2 p.m. if any 

member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the 

House, the Speaker shall announce that she will count the 

House at the conclusion of the discussion of a matter of 

public importance, if the Member then so desires; and 

(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a 

motion moved by a Minister. 


Days and Hours of Meeting 




move:



suspended as would prevent the time for the meetings of the 

Federation Chamber for this week being varied as follows: 

(1) on: 

(a) Wednesday, 5 June 2013, the Federation Chamber 

shall meet from 9.30 a.m. until approximately 1.45 p.m. and 

from 3.30 p.m. until approximately 7.30 p.m.; and 

(b) Thursday, 6 June 2013, the Federation Chamber shall 

meet from 9.30 a.m. until approximately 1.45 p.m. and from 

3.30 p.m. until 5 p.m. or the adjournment of the House, 

whichever is the earlier; and 

(2) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a 

motion moved by a Minister. 

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (15:47): Speaker, can I 

just get some clarity as to why? 



Population and Communities) (15:47): It is simply 

providing more opportunity for debate. We have got 

some long lists and a lot of business before the House. 


AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 

Audit Report No. 41 of 2012-13 

The SPEAKER (15:48): I present the Auditor- 

General's Audit report No 41 of 2012-13 entitled 

Performance audit: the award of grants under the 

Supported Accommodation Innovation Fund: 

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services 

and Indigenous Affairs. 

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary 

paper. 

DOCUMENTS 

Presentation 



Population and Communities) (15:48): Documents are 

presented as listed in the schedule circulated to 

honourable members. Details of the documents will be 

recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: 

That the House take note of the following documents: 

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing 

Committee—Australia’s overseas representation - punching 

below our weight?—Government response. 

Regional Australia— House of Representatives Standing 

Committee—Report into certain matters relating to the 

proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan—Government 

response. 


BILLS 





CHAMBER 


That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to 


"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the 

House is of the view that: 

(1) the Objects of the bill should be amended to read: 







need; 









grant from the Commonwealth government; 





toward the cost of their child's education should not be 


encourage private investment; and 




(2) the definitions in the bill should be supplemented to 

define a non-systemic school as a non-government school 

that is not a systemic school, and a systemic school as an 

approved school that is approved as a member of an 

approved school system; and 

(3) the bill should provide that the current funding 

arrangements be extended for a further two years, to 

guarantee funding certainty for schools and parents." 

Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (15:49): When the 

debate was adjourned earlier today I was referring to 

an article by John Hattie concerning the question of 

how much of a difference experienced and expert 

teachers make. He identified that, of all the influences 

that account for the variance in achievement of 

students, obviously the largest one, at 50 per cent, is 

the qualities and abilities of the student himself or 

herself. But the next largest factor, at 30 per cent, in 

the variance in achievement was due to the quality of 

the teacher. He makes the point—and this is a point we 

have made repeatedly from this side of the House— 

that we have to direct attention to higher quality 

teaching. Simply throwing money at the system, 

campaigning for smaller class sizes, regarding the 

teachers unions' industrial objectives as being 

consistent with good educational outcomes—that is all


very misconceived. The focus has to be on the quality 

of the teachers. 

This was brought home to us yet again in February 

last year when the Grattan Institute published a report 

following its conference that examined four highperforming 

school systems in our region—in Korea, 

Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore—all of which 

were overtaking us to varying degrees. I quote from 

Ben Jensen's report where he says: 

Today's centre of high performance in school education is 

East Asia. Four of the world's five highest-performing 

systems are Hong Kong, Korea, Shanghai and Singapore ... 

in Shanghai, the average 15-year old mathematics student is 

performing at a level two to three years above his or her 

counterpart in Australia, the USA, the UK and Europe. In 

recent years, many OECD countries have substantially 

increased education expenditure, often with disappointing 

results. Between 2000 and 2008, average expenditure per 

student rose by 34% across the OECD. Large increases in 

expenditure have also occurred in Australia, yet student 

performance has fallen. 

He goes on to say: 

Success in high-performing education systems in East Asia 

is not always the result of spending more money. Korea, for 

example, spends less per student than the OECD average. 

I think we all know this from our own experience. I 

remember being a very poor student of Greek in year 9. 

I think I got six per cent in the annual exam, which I 

assume was awarded to me for spelling my name— 

probably only in English! And then the next year, due 

to a remarkable and charismatic teacher—John 

Sheldon, who I pay tribute to today, to his charisma 

and knowledge—I was so inspired to improve my 

performance that 12 months later I did very well and, 

in fact, came fourth in the state. We have all had 

experiences like this, where it is the outstanding 

teacher who makes the difference. 

This is where, when the previous speaker, the 

member for Newcastle, was referring to the school 

halls program of the Rudd government and saying 

what a fabulous program that was, the real tragedy 

was, of course, that this was not directed at teachers at 

all. The truth is that the Gonski proposals—the socalled 

Gonski reforms—were simply about financial 

resourcing, and it is a very valuable piece of work by a 

very outstanding Australian. But what the government 

has not done is to put genuinely new money on the 

table, or additional money on the table. As I said 

earlier: it is taking with one hand and giving with the 

other. But, above all, it is not providing any detail as to 

what this money is actually going to be used for. 

There is talk about giving schools more money, but 

how is it going to be used? The one thing that we know 

for sure is that just putting more money into the 

education system will not, in and of itself, produce 

better educational outcomes. The focus has to be very 

keenly on the quality of the teachers, rewarding 

CHAMBER 

teachers—good teachers—more generously and 

encouraging them to stay in the classroom. One of the 

characteristics of the Australian education system that 

comes up in the OECD's PISA studies—and these are 

the big studies on school performance and student 

performance across all the OECD countries—is that 

Australia has the narrowest range in teacher 

remuneration for classroom teachers between the 

starting salary and the highest salary you can earn 

while remaining in the classroom. That means that all 

too often the outstanding classroom teacher goes on to 

an administrative job—becomes a principal or a deputy 

principal—gets out of the classroom in order to earn 

more or, indeed, leaves teaching altogether. 

We have to recognise that a good teacher—a really 

effective teacher—is very intelligent, is well 

educated—particularly if they are in science or 

mathematics; they have quantitative skills which are in 

enormous demand—and, above all, is an engaging and 

compelling communicator. Those are skills which are 

immensely valuable in just about every other part of 

the economy. 

I do not think that anyone becomes a schoolteacher 

in order to get rich, or because the income is attractive. 

But, equally, we have to recognise that teachers have 

husbands, wives, children and obligations, and that 

unless the best teachers are better rewarded there will 

be a continual loss of them either to non-teaching roles 

within the educational system or, indeed, to the rest of 

the economy. 

The most concerning thing, therefore, about the 

government's program is that it has this word, 

'Gonski'—and my old friend, as I said earlier, has 

become not just a proper noun but a verb as well—but 

where is the detail? None of the states are yet aware of 

the precise funding details. What are the precise 

requirements? What does it really mean? The Prime 

Minister is seeking to get the states to sign up to what 

is effectively a press release. This issue is too 

important to be politicised in such a transparently crass 

way. 

We have to get down to the specifics: how is this 

program that the government is proposing actually 

going to put more money into schools? Is it going to be 

a net increase in funding? And what is the outcome 

going to be for each and every teacher in the system? 

How is this funding going to change the quality of the 

teaching in the classroom? Until the government can 

do that, this will be seen as yet another reminder of 

Kevin Rudd's great campaign on health: all hype, all 

headlines, all press releases without the detail that is so 

critical to our children's future. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Saffin): I thank the 

honourable member for his contribution. And in 

relation to the word 'Gonski', the honourable member 

might consider that it is a gerund—a verb-noun!


Mr Turnbull: I thank the Deputy Speaker for that. 

On indulgence, I may say that David Gonski is just 

rising up the scales of grammatical achievement! He is 

a noun, he is a verb, he is a gerund! It is 

extraordinary—better than an AC! 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the honourable 

member—that is enough! 

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (15:57): I welcome the 

opportunity to speak on the Australian Education Bill 

2012. I am not familiar with the data used to make 

comparisons with education outcomes in other 

countries; and, whilst I have heard some commentary 

about education standards in this country slipping, I 

nevertheless believe that Australia has a pretty good 

education system. Of course it could always be better, 

and that is what we all should be striving for. 

For as long as I can remember, at each election 

education has been an election issue. That indicates to 

me two things: firstly, that the importance of education 

is well understood by the Australian people and by the 

educators we have throughout all of the schools in this 

country. And secondly, and perhaps more pertinently, 

that we still do not have the education system right, 

and the education system that we as a nation are 

striving for. So 40 years after the last major funding 

review was commissioned, we again have the 

opportunity to reassess what works, what does not and 

what is needed to improve education standards across 

Australia. 

For our children, education is a continuous journey 

from infancy and preschool right through to adulthood 

and university. Each stage links to the previous one. 

The process cannot be changed along the way. You 

need a whole-of-education-life process to get it right, 

because one thing leads to the other, and the one it 

leads to is dependent on the right education being 

applied by the previous sector. That is why we need to 

get it right. Doing so will enable schools to plan for the 

future with a degree of confidence. This bill is not 

about the funding; it is about establishing a framework 

and some of the guiding principles that are 

fundamental to putting in place a good education 

system for all schools, both public and private. 

When I visit schools in my electorate, as I often do, 

I have nothing but praise for the staff I meet and for 

their commitment to their students. I also commend 

each of the schools for the way they adapt and respond 

to the individual characteristics of their school 

community and for the range of opportunities schools 

provide to their students—opportunities in areas 

including sport, the arts and even humanitarian projects 

and the like, all of which complement academic 

education and better prepare students for life after 

school. Despite my view that Australia has a good 

education system, there are still too many students who 

either do not even complete secondary school level or, 

CHAMBER 

if they do, exit without the educational standards that 

will give them the best chance in life. In fact, 

according to one commentator, one in five public 

school students will leave school without the skills and 

knowledge to participate in society. That is of 

particular concern in today's society, when we live in a 

global environment. Competition for young people's 

future comes not only from within their own 

neighbourhood, state and country but from right across 

the world. 

What is equally concerning is that many of those 

people whom the education system fails inevitably fall 

into a cycle of hardship and poverty which then flows 

on to their own children. Those children in turn 

become the children with poor educational outcomes— 

not because they do not have the ability or the 

intelligence but because they do not have the home life 

support that is also so important to achieving a good 

education. Educational outcomes are as much about 

home life as they are about school life. Our current 

education system fails those children, not because it is 

responsible for the problems at home but because 

schools are inadequately equipped to deal with 

problems arising at home. The National School 

Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program is a 

commendable program which provides a level of 

support, but other measures are also required. 

Conversely, a good education system is the nation's 

best strategy for overcoming the cycle of poverty and 

the associated social problems that inevitably flow. 

This bill articulates a process by which Australia's 

national education system will be improved. Funding 

will always be a consideration. However, funding 

without an agreed process about how the funding will 

be allocated is irresponsible. The process is required 

because Australia's education system has become a 

shared responsibility between the federal government, 

the eight separate states and territories, and parents, 

many of whom choose to additionally fund their 

children's education by enrolling them in private 

schools. For a policy to ensure that every child is 

treated equally and fairly under those circumstances 

requires an agreed framework based on guiding 

principles. This legislation sets out those guiding 

principles. The first step is to reach agreement on those 

principles between all the parties who have a stake in 

this matter. Those principles were clearly spelt out by 

the Prime Minister in her second reading speech. For 

the record, I will restate them. Principle 1 is a new 

citizenship entitlement. Principle 2 is new goals for 

Australian education by 2025. Principle 3 is a new 

national plan for school improvement. Principle 4 is 

new principles for school funding. Principle 5 is a new 

link between school funding and school improvement. 

These principles and the framework that this 

legislation establishes build on earlier educational 

reforms implemented by the government since coming


to office in 2007, reforms which were matched by 

significant funding allocations. In our first four years, 

this government invested over $65 billion in schools, 

almost double the $32.9 billion spent over the last four 

years of the Howard government. We are also 

investing a record $23.2 billion in early childhood 

education and care over the next four years. This 

government implemented the largest school 

modernisation program in the nation's history, with 

24,000 projects in around 9½ thousand schools, 

including around 3,000 libraries being funded—a 

program applauded and appreciated by every principal 

of a school in my electorate whom I have spoken with 

and applauded by the leaders of the Lutheran, Catholic 

and independent schools sectors in South Australia in 

their discussions with me. It is funding that has enabled 

schools to provide much-needed modern facilities that 

would otherwise not have been possible in the 

foreseeable future and which will make a difference for 

the better for the students who attend those schools. In 

addition to the school modernisation program, to date 

the government has approved $1.2 billion for more 

than 370 trade training centres, which will benefit 

about 1,070 schools; and more than 967,000 computers 

have been delivered to schools around Australia. Other 

reforms include the implementation of the National 

Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, the My 

School website, the National Partnership Agreement on 

Improving Teacher Quality and the National 

Partnership Agreement on Literacy and Numeracy. 

The amendments from the opposition are nothing 

more than an attempt to defer consideration of this bill 

because the opposition have no policy response of their 

own to the Gonski report. This bill was referred to the 

House of Representatives Standing Committee on 

Education and Employment. That committee has now 

reported back. Other than some minor amendments—I 

believe there are four of them—the committee has 

recommended that this legislation be passed. I am 

encouraged by that, because this is an important 

matter. Having the committee look at the legislation 

was quite appropriate, but it is interesting to note that 

the committee has now recommended that it be passed. 

Statements made by members opposite about the 

importance of education are not commitments. What 

we have not seen from members opposite, to date, is 

their own commitment to education in this country. We 

have heard plenty of criticism about the fact that this 

bill does not have any details with respect to funding. 

Well, rather than move the amendments that they have 

done, why didn't they move amendments which 

included specific amounts of funding? They could have 

made their position absolutely clear if they wanted to 

simply by doing that, but they did not. When it comes 

to funding, we know what the track record of the 

coalition is with respect to education, because in the 

CHAMBER 

2010 election the coalition were prepared to cut $2.8 

billion of education funding. 

The Australian people quite rightly have a right to 

know what the coalition policy is with respect to the 

response to the Gonski report. The coalition have had 

some six years in opposition to develop their policy. 

They have had almost 18 months since the Gonski 

report was handed down in December 2011 to come to 

a policy decision on it, yet to date they have made no 

comment at all other than to oppose this bill. From 

what I understand, what they are proposing to do if 

elected in September this year is to engage in further 

discussions with the education sectors across this 

country. One of the urgent things about all of this is 

that the schools need to have certainty of funding with 

respect to 2014 and onwards. What the coalition is 

effectively saying to schools is: 'We will not make any 

commitments with respect to that, and you will have to 

wait till after September of this year to know what 

funding you are likely to get if we are elected. In the 

meantime, we may continue with the current funding 

model.' Frankly, that is unacceptable and it certainly 

does not give any confidence to the schools around the 

country as to what level of funding they might get from 

2014 onwards. 

The government's position with respect to funding, 

however, is clear. The minister and the Prime Minister 

have made it absolutely perfectly clear. There will be 

$9.8 billion of funding over the next six years. That 

will be $9.8 billion of additional funding. Under the 

agreements being negotiated with the states and 

territories, for every $2 of federal funding there will be 

an additional $1 of state or territory government 

funding, bringing the total additional education funding 

that schools across Australia can expect to over $14 

billion over the next six years. That is the certainty that 

this government is committing to. Yes, there are 

ongoing negotiations and discussions still taking place 

between the government and the various state and 

territory governments. I am pleased to see that the New 

South Wales and ACT governments have already 

agreed to the new funding model, and I have no doubt 

that other states will also come on board once the 

negotiations have been completed. I recall an answer in 

question time only last week from the minister for 

education that there are also ongoing discussions and 

negotiations between the government and the Catholic 

and independent school sectors, and it is quite 

appropriate that those discussions take place. But, at 

the end of the discussions, the bottom line is that there 

will be an additional $14 billion over the next six years 

if all of the parties agree to the reforms that this 

government is committing to, and this government is 

committing to $9.8 billion of those funds. 

What I would say to those states that are still 

negotiating is: by all means you have the right to 

negotiate, but this is an opportunity to reform


education funding in your state and across Australia—a 

reform that is now 40 years overdue since the last time 

we had a good look at education funding and the 

education needs of this country. We have had a report 

brought back to us by Mr David Gonski. There has 

been plenty of time for that report to be debated and 

considered across Australia. Most of the schools that I 

have gone to and discussed it with are keen to ensure 

that the general principles outlined in the Gonski 

reforms come to be, and this government has 

committed to ensuring that that will happen and is 

trying to do all it can to make sure not only that we 

reform the system as a system but that we support 

those reforms with the necessary funding. What I say 

to those states that are still negotiating is: support these 

reforms, because if you do not then what you are doing 

is denying the students and young people in your state 

the opportunity for a better future that they will get if 

we can have a nationally consistent and properly 

funded education system right across Australia. 

Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:12): It has come to 

this: our national parliament debating a 1,400-word 

pamphlet at five minutes to midnight. The government 

has had six years to get this right, and we find that at 

the last minute we are presented with figures that 

nobody believes—not state governments, not the 

school sector and not my constituents. Masquerading 

as an education bill is a pamphlet that pretends to set 

out a plan for education for all children, pretends to 

make schooling more equitable—whatever that should 

mean—and pretends to return Australia to the top five 

nations in the world while, under the watch of this 

government, it has actually gone the other way. At five 

minutes to midnight, we are being asked to believe a 

federal government that has run out of ideas on every 

other policy front and, in this parliament today, sets out 

what purports to be a plan for the future of Australia's 

education. It is a government that has failed to index 

early childhood education and ripped billions out of 

university education yet, straight-faced, talks to the 

Australian people and complains that it cannot get a 

bill through that can guarantee the educational future 

of this country. 

The Australian Education Bill 2012 is a pamphlet 

devoid of any detail. It is a pamphlet claiming that it 

can make Australia the world's best, from a 

government that does not have a plan for five minutes 

from now, let alone five years or a decade. We in this 

great country always wanted a government that 

planned for the future, but never at any moment did we 

want a government that abdicated the more important 

role of governing for today at the same time. We have 

a government quite capable of reeling off massive 

figures in the billions of dollars on the pretext that first 

you need to vote for it again both this year and in three 

years time. But what is its plan for the next three 

years? Well, you need to go to the budget papers and 

CHAMBER 

see that all of the estimates that were accurate last year 

about indexation of education have been quickly Tipp- 

Exed out and replaced with new estimates for what the 

average government increase in recurrent education 

will be. It used to be much higher than it is now 

claimed to be. We cannot find where those numbers 

come from. No, they are simply new numbers, 

designed to make the Gonski plan on offer better than 

it actually is. 

All the money that is promised around the country 

of $16.2 billion is derived from three basic facts. First, 

they assume that everyone signs up and the states— 

who already have stressed budgets with no chance to 

increase their tax base—will put in a two for one offer 

which states are saying is nigh impossible. Second, we 

know overall that there is a $4.7 billion cut through 

clever budget manipulation of the indexation of 

education funding. It was all happening until the most 

recent budget when that was basically expropriated 

away. Then, third, there is a vague promise of $9.8 

billion—more money than anyone in this gallery can 

even dream of—flowing into education, not this term 

and not the next election term but the term after that. 

We are wondering who in this chamber will even be 

here to keep those promises. 

What we need is a government so committed to 

education that they can save, get their budget spending 

under control and run the economy so that, like every 

government before them, they can save the money to 

invest in education. But that concept is long gone. The 

notion that one saves in order to spend has long been 

destroyed and now we have vague and mostly 

irrelevant promises. The $2.8 billion that is even meant 

to go into schools in the next four years sounds like a 

reasonable figure until you take out the $2.1 billion 

that has been removed. The discontinued national 

partnerships are gone, the reward payments for 

teachers are gone, the cash bonuses for schools are 

gone, literacy and numeracy funding are gone. That is 

all removed with the other hand as Peter is busily 

robbing Paul. These are all discontinued programs 

which have not in any way been explained by the 

government and there is simply no detail on what this 

fund really sets out to do. 

It is a good time to read out the 10 essential 

principles that the coalition commits to in running an 

education system and which every Australian deserves 

to know. Families must have a right to choose where 

and how they meet their education needs, values and 

beliefs. All children must have the opportunity to 

secure a quality education wherever they are. Student 

funding must be based on fair, objective and, most 

importantly, transparent criteria. Every school deserves 

to know if it is better or worse off. Students with 

similar needs must be treated comparably wherever 

they are and never should we be satisfied that large 

numbers of students do not attend school in this great


nation. Decisions, wherever possible, must be made by 

local parents and school communities wherever that 

can be achieved and every Australian student is 

absolutely entitled to a basic grant for their education 

from the Commonwealth, after all the Commonwealth 

is the main collector of a range of national taxes. 

Schools and parents need a high degree of certainty. 

After six years and for all the claims from the 

government—and people have not yet seen a coalition 

policy—this Labor government now, and even before 

in opposition, has never given a clear signal that it will 

protect schools and that no school will be worse off. 

We are yet to hear that commitment made. Schools 

should not be penalised, not for their efforts in fund 

raising nor for encouraging private investment in 

education. Lastly, funding arrangements must be 

simple enough so that schools can direct that funding 

where they wish to education outcomes or to increase 

productivity and quality in their schools. 

What we have in this pamphlet before us is a 

definitional problem because still while it is being 

debated in this chamber there is not a clear 

supplemental definition about what comprises a 

systemic or a non-systemic school. We know that 

Catholic education sits in the systemic column but 

there clearly is not information about how that funding 

can flow from a Commonwealth to non-government 

systems. I can understand that is a massive concern for 

schools in my electorate, many of whom are highly 

efficient, highly successful, low-fee independent 

schools. 

Everyone in Australia does know there is now a 30 

June deadline, but states are increasingly finding it a 

highly unsatisfactory arrangement dealing with this 

Prime Minister: (a) because the numbers do not add up, 

(b) because she is not negotiating constructively, (c) 

because there is a sense of panic in this government 

and we are not quite sure what they are going to do 

next and (d) because in my great state alone, where 

there are 2,000 schools across that largely 

decentralised population, up to 300 schools have no 

idea if they will be better or worse off. There is no 

commitment to those 300 schools and I would argue 

that any reform of education begins from the simple 

proposition that the current funding enjoyed by every 

school is secured and any of the indexation is 

guaranteed. But in fact that is not the case at the 

moment. 

In my electorate I have some of the largest and 

finest state schools and also, as I have said, some great 

low-fee independent schools. Not one of those school 

communities would brook a cut to their funding but, as 

long as there are 300 schools in Queensland, it is a 

reasonable proposition—given that I cover about onethirtieth 

of Queensland—that a number of schools in 

the electorate of Bowman are under threat. I am not 

being histrionic or alarmist, but until you can rule it out 

CHAMBER 

we cannot have a basic and honest conversation about 

how we can index and increase funding. That basic 

starting point must be absolutely settled and that the 

funding they currently enjoy will not be cut. 

If you look at the debate that is occurring at the 

moment and the increasing sense of panic from a 

Commonwealth government that effectively at five 

minutes to midnight is trying to strike an education 

deal that they have had six months to put together, it is 

quite clear that there is very little bargaining in good 

faith. I know that we have seen a majority of mainland 

states still not agreeing. There are three basic numbers 

that we cannot get an answer on from this government. 

This debate is the right time to come forward and be 

completely frank about three things. The first one is 

that despite the claims in the next budget estimates— 

this is where a government puts skin in the game and 

promises what they commit to for the next four years— 

precisely what is the state of education investment? On 

our side of politics we claim a $325 million cut. That is 

because of all of the changes to national partnership 

agreements and the backloading by a government that 

up until 12 months ago actually held onto that almost 

ephemeral dream that they could still create a budget 

surplus. But no, it is a government that after five 

attempts has had five failures. You would have to go 

back decades to find a Labor government that can 

actually raise the money that they also promise with 

the other hand. 

With that in mind, there is absolutely no sign of 

where this money will come from. So when you hear a 

Labor politician around the country promising money 

that ends in the word 'billions' you have to ask this very 

simple question: from where does the money come? 

It is a government that is quite prepared to backload its 

promises so that most of the money you will hear them 

promising is appearing not after this election but after 

the next one. This is a government that has barely been 

able to predict exactly what is going to happen with 

terms of trade, the mining boom and the costs of their 

own programs, but again at five minutes to midnight 

they want us to believe their education promises for 

2017. 

I for one—and I know there are many people out 

there listening—would just ask a simple question of 

this government: can you balance a budget? No. Do 

you have fiscal spending under control? No. There is 

very little disagreement from any economic analyst 

about those factors. So long as those basic antecedents 

cannot be mastered by this government, nothing they 

promise about education can work. It is a government 

fighting over the crumbs. It is a government unable to 

grow the cake. It is a government unable to budget for 

the future. It is a government that fundamentally 

cannot be trusted on education.


Mr WILKIE (Denison) (16:23): The 

recommendations for sweeping reform of education in 

Australia proposed by David Gonski provide the 

blueprint for necessary and affordable reform and must 

be adopted. Like the National Disability Insurance 

Scheme, the so-called Gonski reforms are genuinely 

nation changing and just the sort of strategic reforms 

that the federal parliament should be working to 

achieve. They have my support. 

To me, the great attraction of Gonski is not just the 

promise of a big increase in spending on education in 

Australia, as attractive as that obviously is. Even more 

important is the promise to finally get over the divisive 

public-versus-private dispute and instead to focus on 

the funding of education based on need. 

And need there certainly is. Despite Australia being 

one of the richest and most fortunate countries in the 

world, education remains seriously underfunded, and 

this is increasingly being reflected in any number of 

indicators. For instance, according to the Australian 

Education Union, students in disadvantaged areas are 

up to three years behind those of the same age who live 

in wealthy areas and one in seven 15-year-old students 

in Australia does not have basic reading skills. 

Moreover, according to the Organisation for Economic 

Cooperation and Development's Program for 

International Student Assessment, by the age of 15 

more than one-third of Australia's Indigenous students 

'do not have the adequate skills and knowledge in 

reading literacy to meet real-life challenges and may 

well be disadvantaged in their lives beyond school'. No 

wonder Australian Education Union Federal President, 

Angelo Gavrielatos, has said the NAPLAN national 

report, by highlighting the achievement gap, confirms 

the urgent need for reform of the way our schools are 

funded. 

The statistical evidence in support of implementing 

the Gonski reforms is sizeable and persuasive. For 

instance, the OECD reports that the bottom 10 per cent 

of maths students in Shanghai perform at a level that is 

21 months ahead of the bottom 10 per cent of students 

in Australia. The OECD has also found that between 

2000 and 2009 Korea's mean reading score improved 

by 15 points, which is equivalent to nearly five months 

learning, while Australia's fell by almost the same 

amount. Moreover, the Grattan Institute has 

consistently reported that, even where funding has 

been increased under the current scheme, educational 

outcomes have stagnated. In other words, Australia is 

being left behind—left behind by our economic 

competitors at that—the result being that not only are 

our students increasingly ill-prepared for their futures; 

but Australia as a nation is increasingly ill-prepared to 

compete in the future global economy. 

One of the single biggest impediments to turning 

this situation around is that for decades now the vitally 

CHAMBER 

important area of education policy has been a publicversus-private, 

have-versus-have-not battleground. But 

David Gonski has given us a pathway through this by 

detailing a needs based funding arrangement where all 

students, regardless of where they are schooled— 

public, independent or Catholic; it doesn't matter—are 

treated as equal, with those in special need being given 

the extra support they need. This is, I suggest, a 

fundamentally fairer approach and one that removes 

the ideological stumbling block that has limited 

funding to a school-centric model for so long. 

Despite my support for the Gonski reforms, I do feel 

that it is important to ring some alarm bells here. For 

instance, this legislation is flimsy and hardly the sort of 

detailed material we were all expecting, especially 

considering the time the government has taken to 

prepare the bill and the nation-changing scope of it. 

Another concern I have is that the government is 

inclined to tinker with Gonski's recommendations. 

Already some of the settings the Independent Schools 

Council of Australia, among others, were happy 

enough with look set to change, the result being a 

diminishing support for the reforms among nongovernment 

schools. 

The government really must tread very carefully 

here because, if the spirit of Gonski's recommendations 

is lost, then so too will be lost the spirit of goodwill 

which existed across much of the education sector 

when Gonski's recommendations were first announced. 

Frankly, I cannot emphasise this point strongly enough. 

Unless and until the focus is genuinely on funding all 

students consistently regardless of where they are 

schooled and on funding disadvantaged students and 

schools to fully address that disadvantage regardless of 

whether or not they are public or private students or 

schools, we will keep coming back to the bun fight 

over public versus private and it will be the students 

more than anyone else who will suffer. 

School funding must be according to need. 

Regrettably, that very essence of Gonski is at real risk 

of being watered down, and already the public-versusprivate 

debate has crept back into the conversation. 

This must be stopped in its tracks, and that would be 

achieved if the government clearly explained how this 

reform is to be fully funded so corners do not need to 

be cut or funding priorities introduced. The reforms 

would also be greatly helped if the opposition stopped 

politicising the issue and reverting to type on the whole 

private school issue. 

As far as the funding goes let us get one thing 

straight. By some estimates Australia spends $1 billion 

a week on education—yes, that is right: $1 billion a 

week—so what Gonski is asking for here, an additional 

$6.5 billion a year, as much as that sounds and in fact 

is, is still only a little more than a 10 per cent increase 

in education funding, or in other words an additional


six weeks worth. Surely, in one of the richest and most 

fortunate countries in the world, with an annual federal 

budget of maybe $350,000 million, we can find the 

money for such a significant and nation-changing 

reform. If we cannot find such a relatively small 

amount of money for such an important purpose, then 

what on earth is public money for? 

I said David Gonski recommended an increase in 

spending of $6.5 billion a year—that is, in fact, the 

indexed amount; his original recommendation being $5 

billion a year, or $30 billion over six years—but the 

government's proposal is less than half of that and a 

significant slice comes from tertiary education. That 

disappoints me greatly because it means that in reality 

the government is seeking to roll out a much 

diminished version of what David Gonski expertly 

judged to be needed if we are to properly fund 

education in this country. I know money is tight and 

that means some important areas of government 

spending must be cut back, but surely we can find the 

cash to properly fund education. Surely it is just about 

priorities—the regrettable reality being that the Gonski 

reforms, being so loudly trumpeted by the government, 

is but a fraction of what is really needed and what 

could in fact be funded if there were the political will 

to do so. 

That money should not come from the tertiary 

sector. The government's decision to strip $2.8 billion 

from the universities and their students is an appalling 

error of judgement. For heaven's sake what a truly 

dumb idea to cut education funding to boost education 

funding. No wonder the sector is up in arms, and I say 

power to the arms of the National Tertiary Education 

Union's campaign to have this cut overturned. In my 

home state of Tasmania this cut to the tertiary sector 

will translate into 150 job losses at the University of 

Tasmania at a time when UTAS is more important than 

ever for the way it is underpinning a sagging economy. 

Then there are the University of Tasmania's students, 

many of whom are disadvantaged and who will be hit 

especially hard by these cuts. 

I note the Greens have suggested an amendment to 

the bill that would give priority to the most 

disadvantaged schools in the event funding overall falls 

short. I see the sense in that and will likely support 

their amendment but, frankly, it should not be 

necessary to be considering such a sandbagging of 

Gonski. The fact that we are, seriously points to the 

alarming realisation that these reforms are at risk of 

collapsing or at least being seriously diminished. If 

Gonski does not go ahead in any credible way the 

opposition will also have some explaining to do, not 

just for any refusal to support it in this place but also 

because of the behaviour of at least some of the 

Liberal-held states that would much rather play politics 

with our children's education than work cooperatively 

with Canberra. 

CHAMBER 

Frankly, I do not care much for who pays for Gonski 

just so long as the job gets done. I do note that the 

reform is designed to be paid for by both the federal 

and state governments, which seems perfectly 

reasonable to me given the longstanding joint 

responsibility for education implementation and 

funding. However, here we are with Western Australia 

and Queensland in particular carrying on like pork 

chops, more interested it seems in the Liberal-Labor, 

state-federal contest than in any sort of meaningful 

improvement to school funding. Where all this ends up 

remains to be seen, especially when any number of 

points of detail are still to be properly addressed. For 

instance, what is to be done about the non-government 

schools that are currently deemed to be over-funded 

but protected by historic promises of never being 

worse off? This thorny issue is set to become even 

more problematic as the new funding model is 

implemented. 

In closing, there is no reason whatsoever why 

Australia cannot have the best schools in the world, 

populated by the best teachers in the world, producing 

the best students in the world. The raw truth of the 

matter is that we do not and in fact we are going 

backwards compared to many countries. Please let us 

get behind Gonski and start to turn this around. Our 

kids need it. 

Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (16:35): I rise to 

speak on the Australian Education Bill 2012. I start 

with the statement that we all want better school 

outcomes, but this bill before the House does not 

deliver those better outcomes. It is simply not good 

enough that in Australia today a 15-year-old student 

has fallen behind their Chinese, Hong Kong, 

Singaporean, Korean and Japanese counterparts in 

reading, maths and science—in some cases by more 

than two years. 

This government thinks that if it can say the word 

'Gonski' often enough people will think it is doing 

something for education. The answer is it is not. 

'Gonski' has become this government's byword for 

inaction and this bill, the Australian Education Bill, is 

symptomatic of a broader problem. There are simply 

no details or funding, merely aspirational goals. The 

Prime Minister said that this was the most important 

bill of the year when she first introduced it, but it is just 

nine pages and 1,400 words long 

It promises that the Australian schooling system will 

be highly equitable, provide excellent educational 

outcomes and see Australia placed in the top five 

countries for reading, science and maths by 2025. Who 

could disagree with such noble goals, for education is, 

after all, what Thomas Jefferson once described as the 

first defence of the nation. 

But the weakness of this bill before us today is that 

it provides no details. What is more, the weakness of


the government's position is that it has a track record of 

cutting government funding to schools. Just look at the 

last federal budget: $325 million less for schools over 

the forward estimates compared to what they forecast 

in 2012-13. The so-called new money promised to 

schools falls beyond the forward estimates, from 2017 

onwards—another three elections away. Just look at 

the impact that their funding cuts have had: 

discontinuing the national partnership funding for low 

socioeconomic status schools, lowering reward 

payments to teachers and cash-bonus payments for 

schools, and literacy and numeracy funding cuts to the 

tune of over $2 billion. Indeed, if one looks at 

education funding overall, taking into account higher 

education and vocational education and training as well 

as schools, there will be $4.7 billion less over the four 

years to 2016. No wonder Fred Hilmer, the Vice- 

Chancellor of the University of New South Wales and 

a nonpartisan figure, said of the government's cuts to 

higher education: 

With these cuts coming we will have to slow down hiring 

and slow down our investment in technology. How you 

reconcile that with the Asian century ambition is just a joke. 

On Gonski, the Prime Minister's tactics and package is 

a lesson in how not to win the agreement of the states 

and territories. The Victorian Minister for Education, 

Martin Dixon, has criticised the government saying, 

'They should be working with us, not holding us to 

ransom', while his Premier, Dennis Napthine, has 

criticised the Prime Minister's cuts to other educational 

areas saying, 'This is very disappointing that the Prime 

Minister is seeking to rob Peter to pay Paul.' The 

Western Australia Premier, Colin Barnett, has said of 

Gonski: 

I would have to be nuts to sign up to something like that … I 

think it's a disgraceful and shameful pretence by a Prime 

Minister who is not genuinely looking at education 

improvement, is simply playing divisive politics. 

He went on to say it shows 'a disdain for Western 

Australia and for Western Australian children'. 

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman has said he 

has 'serious concerns' about the government's proposal 

making it 'impossible' for him to meet the 30 June 

deadline: 

I just get the feeling it's a great big mirage in an election 

year. 

Northern Territory Chief Minister, Adam Giles, said: 

There will be no deal on Gonski. The model is a flawed 

model. It takes too much money out of higher education. It 

puts the Northern Territory government in a very poor 

financial position. 

The National Catholic Education Commission 'strongly 

expressed' its concern over the government's funding 

approach, referring to the 'unsatisfactory situation that 

still drags on and now threatens to become a political 

football for several more months'. The Independent 

Schools Council of Australia said there is a: 

CHAMBER 

… reduction in Australian government funding for schools 

rather than the increases to school funding that the 

government indicated would flow to disadvantaged students 

… without an appropriate level of replacement funding … 

independent schools will not be in a position to adequately 

support their disadvantaged students. 

Effectively, the government is asking these states and 

these important peak bodies to throw their support 

behind the government's unfunded, unclear and 

unexplained proposal for the education sector. Trust 

what Labor does, not what Labor says. We in the 

opposition are simply not prepared to do that. As the 

member for Kooyong, with 30,000 school students in 

my electorate attending 52 schools, 30 of which are 

non-government, I am simply not prepared to trust this 

government. The government does not deserve the 

benefit of the doubt. Given this government's track 

record with waste and mismanagement in the Building 

the Education Revolution, computers in schools, 

Schoolkids Bonus and, most of all, in declining school 

education standards relative to our competitor nations, 

we cannot simply give it the benefit of the doubt. 

In contrast, we on the coalition side have a different 

approach. As effectively articulated by our 

irrepressible shadow minister for education, the 

member for Sturt, we have outlined 10 broad principles 

that guide our approach to school funding and reform. 

This is the subject of our amendment to the bill. 

Families must have the right to choose a school that 

meets their needs, values and beliefs. As I said in my 

maiden speech in this place, there is bipartisan 

agreement with Sir Robert Menzies' proposition that 

'lack of money must be no impediment to bright 

minds'—but it is at this point the ideological battle 

begins. 

On this side of the chamber, we believe that parents 

have a fundamental right to choose the type of school 

they send their child to. It is a fundamental tenet of 

Liberal philosophy. It does not matter if it is a 

government or non-government school—it is their 

choice and it should be supported by government. In 

fact, to do otherwise is to deny parents, as taxpayers, 

equal government support for a non-government 

school. This in itself is inequitable. Those on the other 

side of the House must understand that parents who 

send their children to non-government schools often do 

so at great personal expense, but they prioritise their 

tight budgets to choose a school with the right culture 

and values for their child. And despite the financial 

constraints, we are seeing an increasing number of 

parents having to pay more and more for their child's 

education at non-government schools. Of the nearly 3.5 

million Australian school students, 34 per cent attend 

non-government schools—a figure which reaches as 

high as 42 per cent in years 11 and 12. In the light of 

these numbers at non-government schools it is more 

important than ever that we ensure that this


government's ideological approach to education does 

not see any student short-changed and any school lose 

funding under a new funding model. 

The second principle of our amendment is that all 

children must have the opportunity to secure a quality 

education. The third principle is that student funding 

needs to be based on fair, objective and transparent 

criteria, and distributed according to socioeconomic 

need. Currently, there is no detail in this bill as to 

whether the government's proposed funding model 

stacks up against this principle. The fourth principle is 

that students with similar needs must be treated 

comparably throughout the course of their schooling. 

The Gonski report did find that students with a 

disability were funded in an unfair and inequitable 

manner. This needs to be addressed and we continue to 

wait for further details from this government. The fifth 

principle is that as many decisions as possible should 

be made locally by the school community, including 

parents, principals and teachers. There is in this bill a 

reference to a new National Plan for School 

Improvement, which refers to 'empowering school 

leadership,' but there is little else. This is a really 

critical area of reform and one which the coalition has 

consistently advocated for. 

The sixth principle is that school sectors and school 

systems must be accountable to their community, 

families and students. Again, the bill makes reference 

to schools becoming more accountable to the 

community but little else is provided. The seventh 

principle is that every Australian school student must 

be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth 

government. As mentioned earlier, as taxpayers, all 

parents have equal rights to government support 

whether their child is at a government or nongovernment 

school. In fact, by sending their children to 

non-government schools, those parents are crosssubsidising 

the public education system in the vicinity 

of $6,000 per child per year. 

The eighth principle is that schools and parents must 

have a high degree of certainty about school funding so 

they can effectively plan for the future. This bill 

provides no certainty in this regard and is an issue that 

needs to be urgently addressed by the government, 

with more detail. The ninth principle is that parents 

who wish to make a private contribution towards the 

cost of their child's education should not be penalised, 

nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and 

encourage private investment. Schools should be 

encouraged to raise private investment, not penalised 

for it, as the Greens would like us to do. The 

government, with its record of school hit lists based on 

accumulated assets, needs to come clean about its 

intentions in this important area. 

Finally, the 10th principle is that funding 

arrangements must be simple so that schools are able to 

CHAMBER 

direct funding towards education outcomes, minimise 

administration costs, and increase productivity and 

quality. Again, there is little detail in the bill to counter 

the impression among many stakeholders in the 

schooling system that the government's new proposals 

will substantially increase the administrative burden. 

In addition, our amendment as to definitions in the 

bill will also provide for a proper definition of both a 

systemic school and a non-systemic school. That is 

important because, in the main, Catholic schools are 

funded by the Australian government through the state 

or territory Catholic Education Commission, which 

then distribute the funding among Catholic schools on 

a needs basis, whereas with the independent schools 

system, they are non-systemic and funding is provided 

by the Australian government directly to the school. 

Through our amendment, the coalition also calls on 

the government to give certainty to schools by 

extending the current funding arrangements for another 

two years. With the current funding agreement for 

schools expiring at the end of the year, there is a lot of 

anxiety in the system with schools unable to 

appropriately plan for the year ahead and to guarantee 

teaching places. 

In conclusion, education is just so important to the 

state of our nation's wellbeing and to our level of 

prosperity, harmony and security for tomorrow. The 

coalition recognise how important education is. In the 

event that there is no national agreement, all schools 

can be assured that a federal coalition government will 

see schools receive at least the same quantum of 

Commonwealth funding as they currently receive, 

indexed to meet the rising costs. We will also continue 

to empower school leadership, giving principals more 

autonomy, and increase the focus on standards and 

accountability. 

The Australian people demand that we in this place 

get the school funding model right. I have over 50 

schools in my electorate, with more than 30,000 

students attending some of the best government and 

non-government schools that can be found anywhere in 

this country. It is my duty to them to uphold good 

policy, to advocate for good values and to ensure that 

they, the next leaders of our country, are provided with 

the best education possible. We deserve much more 

than what the government has produced for us today: 

merely pious aspirations with little detail and that is not 

good enough. I will do all that I can, not just in 

promoting our amendment to the Australian Education 

Bill but in all my efforts in this place to ensure that the 

leaders of tomorrow, the children of today, receive the 

best education possible, based on their parents' own 

personal choice. 

Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:50): Today I am 

very proud to be speaking on the Australian Education 

Bill 2012. The purposes of the bill are numerous. I am


very pleased to be speaking on an issue that is very 

important to us in the Labor Party, which of course is 

education. The purposes of the bill are to articulate and 

acknowledge the government's aspirations for school 

education and to set goals for Australian schooling that 

address these aspirations. Also, to commit to a national 

plan for improving school performance and student 

outcomes and to itemise the reform directions for a 

national plan that will achieve the government's 

aspirations and goals. And, finally, make agreement to 

implement a national plan by education authorities a 

prerequisite for receiving Australian government 

funding for schools with grants based on the outlined 

principles. 

The bill before us lays down the cornerstone of a 

legislative framework that puts an excellent education 

for every child at the very core and centre of how 

Australia will deliver school funding into the future. So 

it is vitally important for our nation's future. We have 

done this because the federal Labor government 

understands the important role of education. We 

understand that it is through education that people gain 

the skills to be able to thrive in the world, and it is 

through education that people gain the knowledge and 

abilities to expand on those skills which will set them 

up for their future. Every child has the fundamental 

right to obtain a quality education, to reach their full 

capabilities and potential. It is the Labor government 

that has had the vision to be able to improve education 

throughout Australia, because we know that in the 21st 

century access to modern, quality schools is absolutely 

vital for our children, to provide that quality education. 

The bill reflects our understanding that we need 

school-based reform for the development of our 

national plan for school improvement. Of course, as we 

know, the bill was introduced as a result of the findings 

of the Gonski report and, as we also know, the report 

found that the current funding arrangements were just 

not getting the best results for our students. The current 

arrangements are very complicated and lack 

transparency, so we needed to have a change. The 

report also showed that funding is one reason that our 

nation is not giving every child a great education. So 

there certainly was a major challenge that needed to be 

faced and a challenge that needed to be corrected. As I 

have said, we know our prosperity as a nation rests on 

having schools that can really compete with the best in 

the world, and I certainly want to make sure that every 

school is of a world-class standard, and that is why I 

definitely support this bill today. 

The bill's ultimate purpose is to enable Australian 

schools to achieve the three fundamental and basic 

goals for Australian schooling. The three goals are: for 

Australian schooling to provide an excellent education 

for all students, for Australian education to be highly 

equitable, and for our nation to be placed in the top 

five countries in reading, science and mathematics by 

CHAMBER 

2025. To achieve these goals, the federal government 

has committed itself to working with state and territory 

governments and the non-government sector in a 

bipartisan approach to bring about the full 

implementation of the National Plan for School 

Improvement. I certainly call upon those states that 

have not yet signed up to do so, to make sure that we 

can work together to get a great result for our kids 

across the nation. 

The bill will also introduce five specific new 

measures to make Australian schools smarter and 

fairer. The first measure is a new citizenship 

entitlement. As the Prime Minister said in the 

introduction of this bill, an education for an Australian 

child will no longer be a privilege extended by the state 

from time to time; it will be an entitlement arising from 

their common citizenship in our nation. The second 

measure is new goals for Australian education. 

Australia must strive to be ranked in the top five 

countries in the world in terms of reading, science and 

mathematics by 2025, and I believe that, through the 

introduction of this bill, and if we have everyone 

signing up to it and being committed to it, we will see 

our country working towards that really important goal 

that we should all be working towards. The third 

measure is a new national plan for school 

improvement, and the bill will set in legislation that 

agreement between Commonwealth, states and 

territories and Catholic and independent school 

authorities to implement the plan in full. Our fourth 

measure is new principles for school funding. The bill 

ultimately provides a new funding standard based on 

what it does in fact cost to educate a student. And the 

fifth measure is the new link between our schools' 

funding and school improvement. This bill will take 

into account each state's and territory's individual 

strengths, needs and weaknesses in terms of provision 

for education in each varying jurisdiction. This 

approach will ensure that all schools are fully 

supported in the undertaking of such vitally important 

reform. 

In achieving these aims, these reforms are based 

soundly on five fundamental directions. The directions 

are: quality teaching, quality learning, empowered 

school leadership, transparency and accountability, and 

meeting student need. By focusing on delivering 

quality teaching, we are making it essential that the 

teachers of our children will have the skills and support 

they need to deliver a high quality education. By 

focusing on delivering quality learning, we are 

ensuring that students have the opportunity to reach 

their full potential through a relevant and high-quality 

curriculum that will assist them in that process. By 

following a path that empowers school leadership, we 

are recognising that all school principals and teachers 

can be leaders at a local level. The reform will also 

make solid moves to enhance the transparency and


accountability of our school funding models. This will 

provide data on schools and students to track 

performance and continue to create paths for success 

for our young people in their schools. Finally, by 

focusing on meeting student needs, we recognise that 

providing a quality education is not just about meeting 

preset criteria but about providing students with the 

skills that they require. Students need to be provided 

with the necessary skills and knowledge that they need 

to develop as individuals to reach their full potential, 

and that really is the cornerstone direction of this bill. 

Even before the introduction of this bill, schools 

right across the nation have really seen the difference 

that the Labor government's commitment to education 

has made—in fact our doubling of investment in 

education over those past few years and our record on 

education are things that I, for one, am very proud of, 

particularly when I look at the improvements within 

my electorate. We, on this side of the House, as I say, 

know the importance of education and have continually 

worked to improve those outcomes and those particular 

situations for our children. 

I cannot think of one better example when I reflect 

upon my electorate than the Building the Education 

Revolution. The BER and the belief in the power and 

transformative nature of education really was the key 

motivator behind our Building the Education 

Revolution. I have seen firsthand in my electorate of 

Richmond that it has been an amazing benefit for local 

children, parents and local communities. We have had 

great new halls, libraries, classrooms, science labs and 

so many other facilities delivered by this Labor 

government. And it is not just the schools that have had 

the benefit. The wider community have embraced 

many of those facilities—particularly the school 

halls—and I am often hearing feedback on what a vital 

part they have become in many smaller communities in 

my electorate. So I am very proud to have seen 205 

projects completed over the 90 schools in Richmond, 

and this investment saw more than $115 million 

injected locally into our schools and, indeed, into the 

local economy. 

And of course, it was not just about providing those 

great school improvements but also about providing 

very, very important local jobs as part of our economic 

stimulus package which, can I say, within my 

electorate, made a huge difference—and not just with 

the schools funding. In particular, our economic 

stimulus package was used to upgrade the Pacific 

Highway as well, providing necessary infrastructure 

and jobs in regional areas, which was vitally important 

at that time. 

Just going back to the Building the Education 

Revolution: let us look at it nationally and look at what 

it provided. We had over $16 billion being delivered 

Australia-wide, through more than 24,000 projects in 

CHAMBER 

9,000 schools. It truly is remarkable when you look at 

the major difference that it has made. Indeed, families 

and children in my electorate have also benefited from 

many other education initiatives, particularly ones such 

as the Schoolkids Bonus and also the MySchool 

website. Of course, local families have benefited from 

the Schoolkids Bonus. In fact, in January this year the 

Schoolkids Bonus gave families $205 for each child 

attending primary school and $410 for each child 

attending high school. Families will receive this again 

in July, bringing totals to $410 for each primary school 

child and $820 for each secondary school child. That 

means 9½ thousand local families in my electorate of 

Richmond have benefited from the Schoolkids Bonus 

since those payments commenced. It really has made a 

big difference to many families in terms of those costs 

associated with education, particularly for things like 

uniforms and books and all those requirements that 

kids need. 

It really is a great insult to locals when we see the 

opposition—and in my area in particular the National 

Party are opposed to it—wanting to take away the 

Schoolkids Bonus, to take away something that is 

helping parents get their kids to school. It really is 

quite shameful behaviour on their behalf that they 

continue to oppose what is such a great initiative for 

helping families. When I talk about 9½ thousand 

families, that is a significant number of people who 

desperately need to be able to access that funding. 

We also have the My School website; it has helped 

families nationally and in my electorate by providing 

new information, including financial data for more 

than 9,000 schools across Australia and information on 

changes in student performance. My School displays 

student performance over the past three years, 

comparing the gains made by students who were in the 

same school in previous years. The new information on 

My School will also help us to see at a local level 

which schools are performing well and will better 

inform discussion about improving school 

performance. Many parents in my electorate have been 

very pleased by the difference that My School has 

made in terms of them accessing information. 

It is really only the federal Labor government which 

has consistently shown how much we value a quality 

education, and the education bill falls soundly within 

this tradition. It shows how much we are committed to 

making sure we can improve those educational 

standards. I really hope these reforms will be supported 

by those opposite and by state governments. I 

commend both the New South Wales and ACT 

governments, which have committed to that, and I call 

upon those other states to commit to the future of our 

children. 

I particularly acknowledge the fact that in New 

South Wales we have Premier Barry O'Farrell and


education minister Piccoli. It is not often in this place 

that I commend and acknowledge the role of a National 

Party member, but in this case I put on the record that 

Minister Piccoli, the education minister in New South 

Wales, has shown how concerned he is about kids right 

throughout New South Wales and kids in my area of 

the north coast of New South Wales—he wants to see 

them able to access that quality education. I sincerely 

hope we see the other states realising the importance 

and value of signing up, not using it as a political 

football but recognising that this is a great opportunity 

to be embraced for the formulation of our education 

system for generations to come. 

I do not think we can afford to miss this opportunity 

to make sure we can put in place what really is a 

transformative approach to making sure we can 

improve education. We must always remember that, 

without a doubt, one of the most important things that 

governments can do is deliver future prosperity. 

Governments must always commit to giving that 

helping hand to the citizens of tomorrow, and the 

provision of a high-quality education is at the very 

cornerstone of that commitment. It is the Labor 

government that makes so many major reforms to 

shape our nation for the future and to provide for 

generations to come. We have recently spoken about 

the National Disability Insurance Scheme; we have 

seen what a strong commitment that is, and it is Labor 

governments that have committed to those many 

reforms over the years, whether they be in heath or 

education. This bill is part and parcel of that in terms 

of our future views and shaping the nation, and it is at 

the cornerstone of that. 

In conclusion, it has taken the Labor government to 

bring this forward and legislate for this major 

prosperity and for our nation's future. I call upon those 

other states that have not signed up to do so. I reflect 

on what it may mean for regional students. This whole 

package will make such a big deal, particularly for 

people in regional areas, in terms of extra funding and 

extra loading that can be provided, and recognising the 

extra resources that are required for them. There are 

extra challenges that we have in rural areas that we do 

not have in the metropolitan areas. We really need to 

keep a focus on that. Indeed, everything we are doing 

to transform our education system makes massive 

improvements for rural and regional Australia. 

I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (17:04): It is a little strange 

standing up here this evening and talking about this 

Australian Education Bill 2012. We do not really have 

any idea what it is about. It is a bit strange. It contains 

nine pages and 1,400 words and sets out aspirational 

goals. The three suggested goals that the Prime 

Minister is aiming for are: for Australian schooling to 

provide an excellent education for all students; for 

CHAMBER 

Australian schooling to be highly equitable; and for 

Australia to be placed in the top five countries in 

reading, science and mathematics. Quality, equity and 

recognition in international testing by 2025—those 

aspirations are hard to disagree with. 

We on this side would like all Australian schools to 

be the best in the world, but what we need is some 

detail. We need to know how the government is going 

to do this. If there is one thing we—especially the 

Australian people—have had to learn the hard way it is 

that you cannot trust this government to implement 

anything. The idea that on a whim we would just say, 

'Yes, Prime Minister, we will pass this education bill 

and trust you with all the detail,' borders on the absurd. 

It is a bit like being asked to buy a house but not being 

allowed to look inside the house: how many rooms it 

has, what are the quality of those rooms, whether they 

are carpeted, whether there is a kitchen, whether there 

are bathrooms. We are being asked to say: 'Yes, Prime 

Minister, off you go. We trust you. We know that you 

will deliver on behalf of the Australian education 

system.' Sadly, we are not in a position to do this. 

As a matter of fact, what we would like is some 

questions answered as to what the detail would be. 

Those questions are along the following lines. First, 

where will the at least $6.5 billion per year which the 

government has touted come from? Where is the 

money? We have no idea where the money is. All we 

know is the government is going to find the majority of 

the money in three elections' time. That is when the 

money is going to magically appear. 

Another question is: how much will the 

Commonwealth contribute and how much are the states 

expected to find? All we know about this aspect is that 

this is still under negotiation, and the government is 

struggling. Because we have read the papers today, we 

know that Queensland do not seem to be very happy 

with the current arrangements that the Commonwealth 

are putting to them. We know that Victoria has the 

same problem. We know that Western Australia has 

the same issue. As a matter of fact, it seems that the 

government went all out to get one state on board. 

Given that the government have done that, there might 

not be much left for the other states. As the Prime 

Minister has set a deadline of 30 June for this to be 

completed and as yet she only has one state and one 

territory on board, it would seem that where the money 

is going to come from with regard to state governments 

is still very uncertain. 

The third question that we want answered is: what 

programs will be cut and what taxes will the 

government increase to pay for this? Sadly, it seems 

we will have to wait for the detail on that, if the 

government is re-elected. Personally speaking, I hope 

for the benefit of the country, the government are not 

re-elected on 14 September. We also have questions on


the leaked Gonski modelling. The only thing we have 

seen on what Gonski means with regard to modelling is 

the leaked document. The government has not 

transparently come out and said: 'Here is the modelling 

which will sit behind this bill, and this is what Gonski, 

in the government's form, would mean for individual 

schools.' The leaked modelling had 3,254 schools 

worse off. Which schools are worse off? Which states 

are they in? That is what we need to know. Is the 

government going to come out and say, 'We've 

changed the leaked modelling, and this is what it looks 

like now and what it would mean for individual 

schools'? Is the government going to be transparent 

with the Australian people on this issue? 

Sadly, I do not think that is going to be the case, 

because what we are hearing behind the scenes is not 

only will there not be transparency but there are gag 

orders being put on various consultations occurring, 

whereby those the government take into confidence are 

not allowed to publicly release the detail of those 

discussions. We are actually seeing the reverse of 

proper transparency. We are seeing people being 

gagged, which does not mean that we can look with 

great faith at what the government is proposing and 

think that there will not be problems in the process. 

Once you start moving away from transparency, it 

usually shows that there are flaws in your approach. 

When will the modelling showing the impact of this 

funding for each school be available? When are we 

going to see what the individual impact on each school 

will be as a result of the approach that the government 

says it is going to take? I say 'says it is going to take' 

because we have not seen the approach detailed in any 

form. We want to hear from the Prime Minister a 

guarantee that no school will increase school fees as a 

result of her changes. Is she going to come out and 

give a guarantee that some schools will not be worse 

off and will not have to lift fees? I look forward to 

hearing that from the Prime Minister. Where is the 

detailed response to the 41 recommendations in the 

Gonski review? When are we going to see the detail? 

The devil is in the detail, and you would have thought 

that this government would have learnt that by now. 

How much indexation will each school and school 

sector receive? What will be the benchmark funding 

per primary and secondary school student? How much 

funding per student will be allocated for students with 

a disability? We saw some movement on this from the 

government today, but still questions need to be 

answered. Will this funding be portable between the 

government and non-government sectors? This is a 

very important point. What type of competition are we 

going to see brought into the school system as a result 

of these changes? What, if any, future capital funding 

arrangements will be provided for schools? We have 

heard that there are schools that will not move to 

develop extra parts of their schools. We have particular 

CHAMBER 

sectors in the education system which will not build 

new schools while they are waiting for the government 

to get its act together on this. 

What new reporting requirements and other 

conditions will schools have to meet in order to qualify 

for government funding? Once again, we are in the 

dark with regard to this issue. As a matter of fact, we 

are hearing that the government, especially when it 

comes to the Catholic sector and the independent 

sector, wants to put more regulation in place so that 

how the independent and Catholic schools want to 

spend their money will be regulated. We hear they will 

need to get permission from the federal department 

before they can make decisions with regard to 

allocating funding which, in the normal course of 

events, they would make themselves. Those are the 

questions that we need answered. We need them 

answered soon because, if the artificial deadline of 30 

June which the Prime Minister has set is to be believed, 

then you would think that the government would allow 

the public system, the independent system and the 

Catholic system time to look at this model and to 

decide whether it is in the interests of all Australians. 

What will the coalition do if we are elected to 

government? We have our own set of principles which 

outline our values for schooling. These values are seen 

in the amendments that we have put forward to this 

bill. We believe that families must have the right to 

choose the school that meets their needs, values and 

beliefs. All children must have the opportunity to 

secure a quality education. Student funding needs to be 

based on fair, objective and transparent criteria, 

distributed according to socioeconomic need. Students 

with similar needs must be treated comparably 

throughout the course of their schooling. As many 

decisions as possible should be made locally by 

parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and 

school systems. 

Schools, school sectors and school systems must be 

accountable to their communities, families and 

students. It is a very important point, because if they 

are accountable locally that means the schools know 

that their community is judging their performance. And 

there is no greater judge of your performance than your 

peers, and especially when it comes to local and 

country communities that is absolutely the case. 

Every Australian student must be entitled to a basic 

grant from the Commonwealth government. Schools 

and parents must have a high degree of certainty about 

school funding so they can effectively plan for the 

future. Parents who wish to make a private contribution 

towards the cost of their child's education should not 

be penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to 

fundraise and encourage private investment. Funding 

arrangements must be simple so schools are able to 

direct funding towards education outcomes,


minimising administration costs and increasing 

productivity and quality. 

They are the principles that will guide us. They are 

the principles that have guided the amendments to this 

bill that we have put forward. Until we see the detail, 

they are the amendments we are going to base our 

approach on to this bill. I would like to commend our 

shadow minister because he has had the sense to give 

the government a chance to come in and provide the 

detail. He has also provided a way for the government 

to be able to say: 'We're really not competent enough to 

do this. Everything like this that we have done we have 

failed on.' What we are putting forward is a way out for 

the government—a way for the government to say, 

'Yes, you're right, this is too big a reform for us to 

handle.' So let's postpone it for a couple of years. Let's 

cement the existing funding arrangement to keep it in 

place and then, hopefully, we can get a competent 

government in place that can do the reform that is 

necessary. That is what our shadow education minister 

has put in place, and I think it is a pretty reasonable 

compromise. It understands the incompetence of the 

other side and reflects the need for us to get some 

certainty into the funding arrangement in the next 

couple of years and then for a competent government 

to come along and do the necessary reform. 

I would like to congratulate our shadow minister for 

that very sensible and reasonable approach he has 

adopted on this bill. He has acted in extreme good faith 

in the approach that he has taken and given the 

government a very good way out on this bill. As I 

explained at the start, it is very difficult to come in here 

and talk about a bill on education funding and talk 

about reform of those education funding arrangements 

without any detail. I understand the government is 

negotiating, or trying to negotiate, in good faith with 

the states. The fact that they have left it to the eleventh 

hour, the fact that they have not got their act together, 

the fact that we have Queensland coming out today and 

saying, 'Sorry, we don't trust your government and 

what you are putting towards us,' show that this is 

lacking in credibility. So I think the best thing is for the 

government to admit, 'Yep, too hard, too difficult, 

we're not competent enough,' and for us to roll over the 

existing funding for a couple of years and put reform 

of education in competent hands. Hopefully, the 

Australian people will recognise that the competent 

hands will be on this side, if they see fit to vote us into 

office come 14 September. 

Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary 

Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 

(17:19): I am really pleased to be able to talk on 

education, having been involved in education for some 

25 years of my previous working life. I would like to 

comment on some of the statements made by my friend 

the member for Wannon—and he would expect this. 

What we have on this side is a plan which involves 

CHAMBER 

funding, certainty of funding, and expectations and 

improvements related to this funding for both public 

and non-public schooling by state and territory 

governments along with the federal government. 

What we got from the other side is, firstly, a 

desperate attempt to try and defend the opposition 

spokesperson on education, who thinks educational 

policy is a racehorse, because that is as close as he 

would ever get in reality to it. Secondly, what we got 

from every member who has spoken so far, with the 

templated answers they are provided with, is a set of 

values. So we have got a plan versus a set of values. I 

ask all of those listening to this debate to weigh up 

what they believe is the substance in both these 

approaches. I do not think they will take very long to 

work out that one side indeed has a plan and is working 

assiduously to see that plan reach fulfilment in a very, 

very important sector of public policy and in 

socioeconomic outcomes for this country, and the other 

side is effectively saying no. 

I think everyone observing this debate or 

participating in it respects the Gonski review. One of 

the fundamental statements of the Gonski review was 

that we have a broken funding system and we need to 

give that funding system certitude and assurance into 

the future no matter where you are educated—both in 

the school and in the state and nationally. Some of the 

factors that affect and are affected by the school 

funding debate are the outcomes of our schooling 

system. We really do have some challenges we all have 

to face. It is no good passing the buck. We have got to 

deal with it 

Part and parcel of that is about resourcing; part and 

parcel of that is about giving certitude to funding into 

the future; and part and parcel of that is also having 

expectations and outcomes from this funding, which 

we want applied nationally. 

For instance, year 9 students from lower 

socioeconomic backgrounds can be up to three years 

behind better-off peers. That is a disgrace. The 

international tests have showed that our year 4s have 

performed the worst in reading and literacy out of all 

English-speaking countries. That is disgraceful! And 

on average, Indigenous students are two to three years 

behind non-Indigenous students in reading and 

numeracy. 

What do we do about this, apart from wring our 

hands, huff and puff and carry on like pork chops in 

this place? The government is seeking a plan in three 

parts. First: fix the school funding system that the 

independent Gonski review found is leaving too many 

students behind. The intent of this plan and the funding 

behind it, irrespective of what is said opposite—and by 

some states at this stage, doing their argy-bargy, which 

you expect in this Federation and when they do their 

argy-bargy discussions—is to fund all Australian


schools under the same approach—all Australian 

schools—with a set amount per student and extra 

funding to tackle disadvantage. 

When we look at this extra funding to tackle 

disadvantage we have, first and foremost, this 

Schooling Resource Standard which we talk about, 

recommended by the Gonski review. It is widely 

endorsed by teaching and education experts. So we 

have this fundamental benchmark of funding for all 

students. I am no educational economist nor, indeed, a 

statistician et cetera, but it is based on that standard 

which we believe provides the best of outcomes in the 

best of schools for those students. 

On top of that, this is in order to overcome need— 

and we all agree in this place that surely, the basis of 

our funding should be a needs-based funding system, 

no matter where that student is. This is the hardest 

thing for people to comprehend, no matter where those 

students are and in what sector or what state or 

territory. What are some of these 'extra' areas, or 

'loadings', as we call them, on top of this benchmark, 

which will all determine the best outcome for students? 

Here are some of these extra loadings that students 

and schools need for more support. First and foremost 

is a low socioeconomic status loading. Just to fill 

listeners in, this ranges from $695 per primary student 

and $914 per secondary student, to $4,635 per primary 

student and $6,996 per secondary student. This is a 

loading where there is need based on low 

socioeconomic status. There is an Indigenous loading, 

where it is appropriate, and this will range from $1,854 

per primary student and $2,439 per secondary student, 

to $11,000 per primary student and $14,000-plus per 

secondary student. Again, these are based on the levels 

of need. 

Students with limited English skills are set at 10 per 

cent of the per student amount. There is a location 

loading applied to each school's per student Schooling 

Resource Standard amounts, plus any school size 

amount. There is a size loading as well and there is a 

loading for students with disabilities, intended to be 

phased in from 2015 once a nationally consistent data 

collection on students with disabilities has been 

established. 

We need to ensure that every school has the money 

it needs to do a great job. I do not think that any of us 

disagree with that. We need to ensure that funding is 

there every year, hence the certainty of funding: not 

just funding by itself but certainty of funding into the 

future. To ensure certainty, states and territories are 

offered $9.4 billion across the next six years under a 

two-for-one funding deal that, if fully implemented, 

will see an extra $14.5 billion invested in school 

education across that time and across all sectors. 

To give effect to this, the Commonwealth will 

increase its school education budget by 4.7 per cent 

CHAMBER 

every year, and we are asking the states and territories 

to commit to three per cent growth in return. So this is 

a genuine funding-guaranteed partnership, not just on 

the total amounts but giving certainty into the future— 

something we have never had before. What will this 

mean? There will be enough funding for every school 

to get, as a bare minimum, its current funding—I say 

that again: every school to get its current funding— 

plus indexation of three per cent. The vast majority of 

schools currently below their Schooling Resource 

Standard will get more. I will return to the more 

specific implications of this possibility and/or its 

rejection a little bit later, if I have time. 

The third part of our plan is really important because 

it is no good just relying on funding. We have to have 

outcomes, we have to have benchmarks and we have to 

have expectations across the nation, no matter what 

school you go to. None of us, I believe would disagree 

with that. To ensure that this investment in schools is 

coupled with wide-ranging school improvement 

reforms is an absolute necessity. So the plan is more 

than allocating moneys; it involves benchmarking. I 

would like to have a look at some of those, if I can, and 

just share with you some of the expectations. 

There are higher entry standards for teachers and a 

requirement that new teachers be in the top 30 per cent 

of the population for literacy and numeracy before they 

can graduate. We rely most heavily and most 

significantly on our teachers—and I was proud to be 

one. I do not think you can invest in anything more 

important, apart from students, but in those who 

influence the most, and that is in our teachers. It should 

be one of the highest remunerated and highest status 

professions in this country. I think we all would agree 

with that, and I think we could do a hell of a lot more 

to ensure that that happens. 

That has something to do with standards. Not only is 

it related to standards for entry into the teaching 

profession; it is also about support and funding for the 

professional development of teachers who are now in 

the system—all the way through. And maybe it is also 

about looking at resourcing different streams of 

support for teachers and their careers inside the 

teaching profession. Rather than having to move over 

to administration, they could remain in our classrooms, 

in our teaching and learning environments, and bring 

that fantastic expertise that they have. 

There should be more support for new teachers. 

There is nothing more daunting than facing your first 

class or two. It is really important that we properly 

resource our schools in order to reduce their workload 

and to mentor them, particularly in the first couple of 

years. It is really important. It can mean so many more 

teachers staying in our system, being absolutely 

comfortable with our system, and being supported


doing that. It is about ongoing professional training for 

all teachers and principals, so their skills remain up to 

date and students benefit from the best teaching 

methods. 

There are annual performance reviews for every 

teacher. I know people get touchy about annual 

reviews—I suppose we have them every three years— 

but it is part and parcel of the modern workforce and 

the modern workplace; and nothing keeps you more on 

your toes and on your mettle than to actually be 

reviewed. Importantly, you are doing this to improve 

your skills; not to worry about the negative side of it. 

There is extra training for teachers in managing 

disruptive behaviour and dealing with bullying—we 

cannot deny that it is going on in all our schools—so 

every child in the classroom gets a chance to learn in a 

safe environment. 

There are personalised learning plans for students 

who need extra help; more power for principals, like 

hiring staff and controlling the budget; better 

information on the My School website; a school 

improvement plan for every school; extra help for 

students that need to improve their results, and 

successful schools will share their ideas and strategies 

with others; access to learning an Asian language for 

all students from their first day at school; the 

Australian curriculum being implemented in every 

school and in every subject; an early years reading blitz 

for foundation to year 3 students to provide early 

intervention to students who need it; expansion of 

NAPLAN to cover science literacy; an annual state of 

our schools report to help track student performance; 

and so on it goes. 

We are effectively saying that we need to guarantee 

funding, and that funding is benchmarked to a 

particular resource standard that gives the best of 

education to our students. Above and beyond that, 

there is a loading and that may involve Indigeneity, 

low socioeconomic status, location and place—in 

terms of remoteness—and so forth. On top of that, we 

need to give certainty to this resource funding. That 

means into the future and it means guaranteed 

indexation; it means that every school will be better off 

than they are. We need to be able to do this into the 

future. Importantly, there are expectations of outcomes 

that we as a nation believe are fair and reasonable. 

At the heart of this is a system that is currently not 

working. I do not care what school you go to; people of 

reasonable intelligence and good will know that we can 

do a lot more. We need to raise the standard of those 

who are involved in teaching our students. We need to 

encourage them, support them and give them the 

training they need, both before they go teaching and 

during. We need to resource our schools the best that 

we can, so that teaching, learning and decision making 

on the ground can be enhanced. We also need to 

CHAMBER 

guarantee funding for our schools into the future. That 

is what Labor offers. Those on the other side offer little 

more than a set of values which they are using to 

defend the opposition spokesman for education. (Time 

expired) 

Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (17:34): Thank you, 

Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the 

Australian Education Bill 2012. I take the member for 

Braddon at his word. He is a very good man. It is just a 

pity that none of what he says is actually in the bill. As 

a matter of fact, on Sky News on Australian Agenda on 

the Sunday morning just a couple of weeks ago, 

Minister Garrett was asked by Paul Kelly, the 

journalist, if he could guarantee funding, or what was 

the funding model for schools next year, and he simply 

cannot answer. 

It is interesting to note also that the explanatory 

memorandum is actually a larger document than the 

bill itself. The explanatory memorandum is chock-ablock 

full of phrases such as 'an excellent education', 

'quality teaching', 'quality learning', 'empowered school 

leadership' and the like. This bill is supposed to be the 

framework to lay the foundations onto which we put 

the dressing which will make up the future of the 

education system of the nation. Now, correct me if I 

am wrong, but the framework to a structure, or the 

laying of foundations, should be rock solid. It should 

be the rigid formwork onto which layers of detail can 

be laid, whilst keeping the shape and the structure and 

the integrity intact, as it was intended. This bill does 

none of that. It is chronically open to interpretation. 

Reading this bill and the explanatory memorandum is a 

bit like watching that classic Australian film The 

Castle. What the minister is trying to get across here is 

the 'feel' or the 'vibe' of education, and it fails at any 

level to give any real direction. 

This government came to office in 2007 with our 

current Prime Minister as the education minister. She 

promised an education revolution. We now have a 

glossary of terms such as 'an excellent education' and 

the like. They have had since 2007 to get something 

up, and here we are in June 2013 with less than three 

sitting weeks to go before the parliament rises, and we 

have a bill before us which is nine pages long, 

including front and back covers. We have a bill which 

is only 1,400 words long in its entirety, which is 

shorter than this speech I am about to give. We have a 

bill which is a brochure for education. What we do not 

have is a blueprint for education reform. What we do 

not have is a bunch of state education ministers 

standing there saying, 'We have had our input to this, 

and we truly believe that it is in the best interests of our 

nation that this is the way we go.' We do not have a 

collective of private, Catholic and Christian schools 

standing there saying, 'We understand what the 

minister is saying because we have worked with him. 

We have had our input. We know why he has gone this


way. We know he values what we bring to the table, 

and we will be better off and better able to provide for 

our students under this scheme.' It does not happen. It 

is not there. 

On the plus side, this bill lays out aspirational goals. 

Its three main goals are for Australian schools to 

provide an excellent education for all students, and as 

the member for Braddon said, who would disagree 

with that; for Australian schooling to be highly 

equitable, which again is highly commendable; and for 

Australia to be placed among the top five countries in 

reading, science and mathematics, quality and equity, 

recognised in international testing by 2025. All these 

are worthy and just. What this minister and 

government haves done, though, is go out of their way 

to not include the people who will have to deliver on 

these promises in the discussions and the 

arrangements. It is the states and the private and 

Catholic schools which will actually have to deliver on 

these things. 

I have an issue when it comes to how this 

government deals with the states, and not just on 

education but on health, disability and anything else 

where the lines of funding are blurred between state 

and federal governments. While not wanting to use this 

bill or this speech as a platform for constitutional 

reform, the time has surely come when the federal 

government cannot continue to belt the states about the 

head with funding conditions tied to outcome 

conditions without any real consultation. If we are 

serious about educational reform, surely we must start 

with the states and the other education providers by 

finding out what they think. Wouldn't that be a good 

way to start, a great starting point? To agree to this 

funding model takes a huge leap of faith from state 

governments, or there are things being said behind 

closed doors about which we are not aware. 

For a start, one of the tenets of the explanatory 

memorandum is quality teaching. This government 

makes the statement but then cuts funding—no, how 

does the minister say it, 'pauses payment'—to the 

university sector. This is the sector charged with 

providing the quality teachers. The cutting or pausing 

of payments to the tune of $2.8 billion from the 

university sector must be the greatest piece of irony 

from this government, which is fast becoming a cross 

between Yes, Minister and a Monty Python sketch. 

State governments will have to be convinced that they 

will be guaranteed funding which is, in the main, 

coming after three more elections. I would think that 

those states are so trusting on this that they should go 

down to the bank and get a loan now for future funding 

and then pay it back when this government comes good 

after 2017. Now, that would be a courageous decision, 

Minister. 

CHAMBER 

Let me outline for the record what the coalition is 

putting on the table for the education sector: 

1. Families must have the right to choose a school that 


2. All children must have the opportunity to secure a 


3. Student funding needs to be based on fair, objective, 


need; 

4. Students with similar needs must be treated comparably 

throughout the course of their schooling. 

5. As many decisions as possible should be made locally 


school systems. 

6. Schools, school sectors and school systems must be 

accountable to their community, families and students. 

7. Every Australian student must be entitled to a basic 

grant from the Commonwealth government. 

8. Schools and parents must have a high degree of 


for the future. 

9. Parents who wish to make a private contribution toward 

the cost of their child’s education should not be penalised, 

nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage 

private investment. 

10. Funding arrangements must be simple so schools are 



Those are also aspirational statements. The major 

difference between these coalition statements and the 

goals of the government is that most of ours are 

already in place and being paid for. States, as well as 

other providers, have funding certainty under the 

current system. We are asking an awful lot of 

organisations to make this change for which the 

government is asking in the period of time in which 

they are being asked to do so. They have been left in 

the dark as to funding for next year, let alone in 2017, 

when the big bucks start rolling in. 

I want to provide some insight into what I see as the 

areas where we can get better outcomes. I must declare 

an interest here, in that my wife is an early childhood 

teacher. But, to balance that, I went to state and private 

schools for my education, my children have been 

educated in the Catholic system and my brother has 

been a state school teacher as well as a primary and 

secondary school principal in the state system. Our 

conversations are quite often heated but always have 

the interests of the child at their centre. 

This is the point of differentiation between where 

the debate should be and where the debate is currently 

held by this government. This government is and 

always has been more concerned with the politics of 

the matter rather than the matter at hand. They have 

made the Gonski reforms this all-powerful panacea for 

education. They have allowed this to become: 'No 

matter what you want, Gonski will provide.' They have


allowed the branding of themselves as 'education 

revolutionaries' to override the outcome of the 

education debate. Remember, Gonski said that there 

would be an additional $6 billion per year spent on 

educational funding. That would be an additional $24 

billion over the forward estimates. The government 

talk a good game, but while they are talking that game 

they are actually delivering a cut of $325 million over 

the forward estimates. If we did not change a thing and 

held to the current funding model, there would be $4.7 

billion more spent on education up to 2016 than this 

big-talking government will deliver under the proposed 

legislation. 

The government dispute both those figures—and, 

with the world's greatest accountants, you can make 

any set of figures work—but they cannot dispute that 

what Gonski has said should be done is a far cry from 

what they are delivering. My younger brother, Stewart, 

sent me a photo of his grade 3 class from Texas State 

School. It was 1970, and some of the kids had shoes 

on. There were 33 kids in the class. The teacher, Miss 

Baker, was a very stern looking young woman dressed 

in a white minidress to the right-hand side of the photo; 

there was no teacher's aide or carer—yet every student 

in that class could read, write, add up, subtract and 

divide. When I started grade 1, we were still using 

slates and damp sponges! We were the lucky ones who 

got the brand-new Cuisenaire rods to help us with 

maths. This was something my older brother, just two 

years before me, did not get. Everyone in my class, 

taught by Mrs Whitaker, could read, write, add up, 

subtract and divide. Where did we go so wrong that we 

are dropping down the list of education rankings? 

Children today are every bit as smart as we were, if not 

smarter. So it cannot be the children. 

In my discussions with educators and parents in 

Townsville, we lament the lack of risks in children's 

lives. I am not trying to glamorise my childhood, but 

there was a certain recklessness to life that we do not 

have now. We were expected to fall off our bikes. 

Everyone broke a bone sooner or later. In that photo of 

my brother's class in 1970, there are bare feet and 

scabbed knees. We used to fall over, we used to climb 

trees and we used to spin around until we fell over. We 

disappeared as soon as we got home in the afternoon 

and on weekends, and did not come home until it was 

dark. We children would organise our own games and 

referee them ourselves. Now, all sport is organised and 

all activities are padded. We are seeing more and more 

children in schools with motor skill problems. They 

can get to level 117 on Call of Duty or whatever but 

they are not allowed to do a cartwheel. 

I speak to school principals and teachers from all 

schools in Townsville regularly. Their concerns are the 

same. More and more we are asking our teachers to do 

more than teach. I cannot remember Mrs Whittaker 

ever being involved in what we did at little lunch or big 

CHAMBER 

lunch; her job was in the classroom. It seems our 

teachers are not allowed to tell a parent that their child 

is struggling or cannot do the work. It is simply 

untenable that they should suggest that a child should 

repeat a grade. It simply would not be acceptable to us 

parents. It seems the good of the child has slipped here 

and it may be more about how they will feel rather than 

their personal pride and self-esteem that they actually 

learn to do the work. When I speak to year 12 students 

about the end of school days, I wish them failure. I go 

on to explain that if they fail they have tried. If they 

keep on trying they will succeed. Like a football team, 

you learn far more about yourself and your mates from 

a loss than you ever will from a win. We learn far more 

in life from scabbed knees than we ever will from 

walking across soft grass. 

I will make a sweeping generalisation: push that 

non-risk-taker attitude to its logical end. When you 

have children leaving school and going to university, 

they naturally want to feel safe. Many choose a degree 

in education because they have not done anything else 

than school. They see their teacher as someone they 

can trust and they follow into education. We are 

currently seeing in Queensland a drop-off rate of 

nearly 30 per cent between the first-year and fourthyear 

teachers. That is not in university but in the 

workplace. Suddenly they find themselves confronted 

with just how hard you have to work when you are a 

teacher. Suddenly you are not just teaching a 

classroom; you are wiping backsides of children who 

are not properly toilet-trained when they come to 

school; you are a marriage counsellor, a confessor and 

keeper of secrets; you are dealing with child abuse and 

suspected child abuse; you are dealing with parents' 

expectations; you are a social worker; you are the 

guidance officer for children who leave home—all this 

while trying to work in a national curriculum, while 

teaching to the test for NAPLAN and trying to bring a 

lot of reading and its importance in life into the 

classroom. 

We need to do more for our children to get music, 

art, drama and sport into their lives. They all play their 

part in the development of the whole child. We need 

teachers to teach. I believe that good and great teachers 

are in the system now. I do not believe that the entry 

level to teaching should be raised or made more 

difficult, because I believe that teachers exist naturally. 

The ability to get an idea across in a way that the 

recipient gets it is the gift a good teacher has. The 

ability to get students to try is the gift that the good 

teacher has in spades. Teaching is not a job; teaching is 

calling or trade like nursing. You can have the skills 

naturally; you can pick up the skills if you are prepared 

to work at it. Some do not and move on to another 

career. Others do not and stay there, to the detriment of 

the child. We have to back our educators to do the right 

thing. That may mean that some principals have to sit


down with a few teachers and have that hard chat. 

Every business and organisation deals with this; 

education is no different. 

I was at a speech night for Ignatius Park College in 

Townsville. The principal, Michael Connor, addressed 

the audience. The thing that struck me about his 

address was his absolute belief in the youth of today 

and that we must address the issue of engagement in 

education. He implored parents to be involved in their 

child's education but to recognise that their child may 

not be perfect. His words were that sometimes learning 

is just plain hard work and the sooner we face up to 

that fact the better off we will be. We are all in this 

together: the states, the communities, the federal 

government are all in this together, and the sooner we 

start working together and trying to do this in a 

collaborative approach instead of coming in with an 

idea and forcing it on the states the better off we will 

all be in the long run. 

Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (17:49): I had taken 

down my posters campaigning for equity in education, 

particularly in regional education. I thought, certainly 

from a New South Wales representative's perspective, 

that this issue was over and that we had been 

successful in getting a sensible funding agreement for 

the future that recognises the problem and finds a 

shared solution between the state and the 

Commonwealth, across party lines, to the benefit of 

students and schools, where the particular loadings of 

regionality, rurality, Aboriginality and low SES were 

directly funded in the new five-year funding formula. 

But that was only the battle; we still look to have the 

war. It is with an element of sadness that I record that 

there are members in this chamber who, at so many 

levels, say so many things and say they believe in so 

many things—including that education is important, 

that regional Australia is important and that state 

sovereignty is important—who now want to get in the 

way of all three. I will be damned if my children are 

going to be left with a funding model that has been 

clearly proven to lead to intolerable outcomes in the 

education data, which show about a 30 per cent gap. I 

will be damned as a parent, let alone as an MP, that, as 

a collective, the students of my communities are being 

told that it is some kind of normality that there is a 30 

per cent gap in education data and that there is an 

intolerable link between that education data and the 

funding formula itself. 

If we, as a chamber, are to accept that business as 

usual in the funding formula is the future then we are 

also accepting the education data that says Aboriginal 

students are coming in 30 per cent lower in 

performance, that rural and regional students are 

coming in 30 per cent lower in performance and that 

low-SES families—poorer families—are coming in 30 

per cent lower in performance. This chamber should 

CHAMBER 

not accept that as some kind of normality, yet that is 

the position we are now seeing from the shadow 

education minister, from the Leader of the Opposition, 

from the National Party and from those who say, over 

and over again, that they believe in regional Australia 

and that they believe in education as part of the answer. 

When it comes to the crunch on the principle of 

equity and when it comes to the crunch on exposing 

either a link that exists or one that is intolerable—and 

that is what we have got to get to the bottom of—some 

people are folding their tents behind political 

expedience and just wanting to take out a Prime 

Minister and a government and build some sort of 

campaign that this is waste and mismanagement. 

What rot! We have data from the New South Wales 

education department and the federal education 

department that is clear. The education data shows that 

we are failing students in regional New South Wales 

and Australia, that we are failing Aboriginal students 

and that we are failing students from lower SES 

families. The crisis is not in education. The crisis is not 

in regional Australia, Aboriginal Australia or poor 

Australia. The crisis is in this chamber—that we are 

even having a political fight over this. 

I plead: where are the shared solutions to the shared 

and clear problems that have been identified? An 

argument and a threat are being presented politically— 

despite state colleagues getting the issue; despite state 

colleagues in New South Wales signing up to it—that 

we have to accept as normal that collectively the 

performance of regional kids is about 30 per cent less 

than metropolitan kids, for no other reason—it is an 

apples with apples comparison—than that they are 

regional kids as compared to metropolitan kids. 

So, yes, we can all fire up the barbecues and have 

lots of beers while talking about teacher performance. 

Yes, we can all say that students should turn up. Yes, 

we can all say, 'In my day kids got grazes on their 

knees,' as the earlier speaker contributed. Yes, we can 

all muse about the failings of the moment across 

Australia in education. But when we compare apples 

with apples, when we segregate this issue, why would 

anyone sit around a barbecue and say that, based 

purely on location—a student in one school in a 

metropolitan area versus a student in a school in a 

regional area—there should be a 30 per cent difference 

in education outcomes? You cannot win that argument 

around a barbecue and you should not be allowed to 

get away with that argument in this chamber. 

It is a disgrace that we are even debating this as 

some sort of controversy when the data is clear. The 

whole point of the expert panel led by David Gonski, 

but also with people like Ken Boston who worked with 

both sides of politics, and the Kathryn Greiners of the 

world who are hardly aligned to the hip of Julia 

Gillard—these are people who say, 'We've got a


problem'—was that we have got an incredibly 

segregated outcome in certain categories that needs to 

be addressed. The way to address it is to put in place 

specific loadings where that segregation exists: 

loadings for regional students; loadings for Aboriginal 

students; loadings for low SES students. It ain't hard. 

We either accept it or we accept the normal that we are 

going to have arguably the most segregated education 

data around the world, let alone in Australia and in 

Australian history. We will arguably entrench an 

education system that favours some and not others. 

This chamber is not about that. No political party 

that I am aware of is about that. Yet I am floored that 

my colleagues from the Nationals in particular—those 

who advocate for regional Australia, supposedly—are 

now taking a position of arguing against regional and 

remote students. That is the only logical position they 

can take. They are arguing a case that they feel 

comfortable with. They think it is normal. They think it 

is all okay that regional and rural students and their 

schools are going to come in roughly 30 per cent less 

as per the education data. 

I am somewhat saddened that this is not a bill that 

has the broad support of all sides in this House as it 

does have the broad support of the Commonwealth and 

certainly the state of New South Wales. I am also 

disappointed that more effort has not been made by 

some to recognise that there are one-offs in national 

partnership agreements, that this debate has been very 

cleverly reframed as one around 'the Prime Minister's 

got to get the majority of states in the bag or the whole 

thing goes boom!' 

There are one-offs in national partnership 

agreements. Anyone from Queensland who has dealt 

with floods knows that, so why cannot New South 

Wales be protected by those who in their budget-inreply 

talked about the importance of state sovereignty? 

Why cannot we just be left alone to actually get on 

with what the New South Wales National Party 

education minister and the New South Wales Liberal 

Party Premier understand—that is, the failing in the 

education data and the right course of action to address 

it? That, if it comes to that, is certainly all I request. 

Sure, it would make a lot of sense for other states to 

sign up for logic, common sense and student interests, 

but if they want to play their politics first, or if they 

find some other reason, they can knock themselves out. 

But this national partnership agreement between the 

Commonwealth and New South Wales must stand. It 

must be left alone because this matters to many schools 

that I represent. If there is honour in the words about 

state sovereignty from the Leader of the Opposition, 

then this is his first and greatest test at the moment. 

I strongly support this legislation. I support it based 

on the evidence provided by the New South Wales 

CHAMBER 

government. I support it based on the word of the New 

South Wales education minister who said: 

It is extremely clear that what we signed up to is better than 

the existing model and better than what the federal 

opposition is suggesting. 

That is the New South Wales National Party education 

minister. He is not playing politics; he is looking after 

students and kids. He gets the shared problem, the 

failure in certain categories and that there needs to be a 

particular loading built into the funding model to 

address that. If we do not, we assign failure as normal. 

I would hope Chris Pyne, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott 

and Peter Garrett are not wanting to assign failure as 

normal. 

Therefore, it is not up to government to explain why 

they are going down this path of particular loadings 

based on the education data that has come from the 

education departments state and federal and of 

following the expert panel report. It is up to the 

opposition to say why they are ignoring all that and 

why for some unknown reason they are choosing to 

assign regional students to education data that proves 

failure. Why do they accept as some sort of normal a 

message that says regional students are 30 per cent 

dumber than those from metropolitan areas? Because 

that is what you are saying by saying 'business as usual' 

in the funding formula. I disagree with that strongly. I 

think it is disgusting that we are actually having this 

debate in the parliament. I congratulate both Barry 

O'Farrell and Julia Gillard for getting on with the job 

based on the evidence and based on the facts. I hope 

this legislation can get through. 

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:01): It is 

always interesting to follow the member for Lyne. I 

rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2012. 

When I looked at this bill, it was nine pages and 1,400 

words and all I found was a series of motherhood 

statements. In the bill, the Prime Minister suggested 

there should be three goals for education: (1) for 

Australian schooling to provide an excellent education 

for students; (2) for Australian schooling to be highly 

equitable; and (3) for Australia to be placed in the top 

five countries in the reading, science, mathematics 

recognised in international testing by 2015. 

They are simply motherhood statements which 

everyone in this parliament agrees with. But where is 

the detail? How are these goals meant to be achieved? 

When we go through the bill, we find that this bill 

contains no detail whatsoever of how much money will 

be available. It provides no detail on which level of 

government will be required to stump up this 

additional funding. There are no details at all on how 

the new funding model will operate. There are no 

details on how much each individual school will 

receive. There are no details of how this funding will 

be calculated. And there are no details of what other


obligations will be placed upon the sector. In fact, this 

bill is nothing more than spin, a simple marketing 

statement full of motherhood statements, meaningless 

motherhood statements. 

This idea of spin is not always seen from this 

government when it comes to education. As I walk 

around the corridors of this place I see in many of the 

windows of our offices these lovely lime green signs 

that say 'I give a Gonski'. The statement of 'I give a 

Gonski' seems to resonate throughout the community 

and is being said over and over again by so many 

members of this House and by so much of the media. 

But what does 'I give a Gonski' actually mean? I asked 

a teacher on the weekend when she came up to me and 

asked, 'Do you give a Gonski?' I said, 'That is all very 

nice but what does that mean?' She ummed and ahhed 

for about five minutes and admitted she had no idea 

except that it would create more money for schools. 

We know that the term 'I give a Gonski' is simply 

marketing. It is a marketing slogan like 'Things go 

better with Coke' or, as Peter Costello noted, 'Lucky 

you're with AAMI'. It simply has little substance. But 

we know it is a very clever marketing scheme. We see 

T-shirts with 'I give a Gonski', we see hats with 'I give 

a Gonski', we see stickers and lapel buttons, banners 

and posters and corflutes all spread around with 'I give 

a Gonski' but very little detail. At least it is teaching 

our kids something about marketing, if nothing else. 

If we look at 'I give a Gonski', we are told that it will 

provide more money for schools. In fact, the Gonski 

report calls for additional funding of $6.5 billion a year 

for schools. So if we are told that everyone on the other 

side of the chamber supports 'I give a Gonski', let us 

look at the budget papers to see how close they have 

gone to getting this $6.5 billion of new money for 

schools. When we look at the numbers, yes, we see a 

little bit of new money for next financial year and 

2014, 2015 and 2016, but during those years we also 

see many cuts to existing programs. There is a $174 

million cut from the redirection of the national 

partnership's low socioeconomic communities 

program. There was also, in total over that period, a 

$412 million cut through the redirection of the national 

partnership empowering local schools. The list goes 

on. This Labor government, this 'I give a Gonski', will 

see cuts of $405 million, again through redirection of 

the national partnership literacy and numeracy funds. It 

goes on. On the great rewards for teachers, the 

redirection again of the national partnership over the 

next four years will see this government cut $665 

million from education. Another $203 million cut from 

education also goes through the redirection of the 

national partnership's reward for school improvements. 

In fact, when we had all this up, over the next three 

years alone—we must be very clear about this—this 

government's plans with their so-called 'I give a 

Gonski' spending will see $889 million cut from school 

CHAMBER 

education. And we have members of this House 

running around the place telling all and sundry about 

the great investments they are going to make when the 

truth is that they going to cut $889 million from 

education over the next three years. This is what they 

are expecting us to believe, but: 'Don't worry about 

that. Look on to 2017, 2018 and 2019. That is when the 

money will flow.' So what the government is asking us 

to believe is that their idea of giving us more money 

for education is to cut those hundreds of millions of 

dollars in the next three years but sometime in years 5 

and 6 the money will start flowing. 

This government is saying: 'Trust us. Elect us at this 

next election, and then elect us in the election after 

that, and then we will deliver this extra money.' Does 

this government take the public for fools? This is the 

same government that went to the last election saying: 

'Trust us. There will be no carbon tax under the 

government that we lead.' For the last 12 months we 

have time after time heard something like 300 

promises of: 'Trust us. The budget will be returning to 

surplus come hell or high water. Trust us.' This is the 

government that told the member for Denison: 'Trust 

us. We will deliver your poker machine reforms.' We 

have heard from this government: 'Trust us. We will 

not cut back on private health insurance.' And now it is 

saying: 'Trust us. In five years time we will deliver you 

more education funding,' and in the meantime it is 

going to rip out $889 million for education over the 

next three years. This is an absolute farce. 

The other speakers from our side have set out the 

coalition's approach 

We do not want to see one school worse off. That is 

something those on the other side have not been able to 

guarantee. But if we are going to improve, if we look at 

the Gonski reforms, we know they are asking for $6.5 

billion in new money. Over four years those Gonski 

reforms if implemented should deliver $39 billion. 

Instead of getting that $39 billion extra funding, we are 

seeing this government cut funds to education. 

We know where that $39 billion has gone. It has 

gone to repay Labor's debt. We know from the budget 

papers that when this government was elected to office 

they were receiving, from the combined surpluses that 

the Howard and Costello government had left them, 

over $1,000 million in interest repayments. That works 

out more than $6 million for every electorate. Every 

member of parliament could have had $6 million every 

single year to spend on community programs in their 

own electorates. But that has been cut. The money that 

was set aside has all been spent. We have run up the 

debt. So rather than that $39 billion that should have 

gone into education over the next four years, the 

Australian population, the Australian taxpayers will be 

asked to pay $34½ billion simply on the interest on the 

debt that this Labor government has racked up. Is it


any wonder that that $39 billion that David Gonski 

called to be invested in education is not there and 

instead we see cut after cut? 

What should we be doing in our education system? 

We need to teach our kids and let them develop an 

entrepreneurial culture. We need to create a 

willingness to learn and a want to learn. We need to 

create an education system where they enjoy going to 

school. But when it comes to creating an 

entrepreneurial culture, again, we have seen the exact 

opposite from this government. We have seen the 

Treasurer especially guilty of this with his attacks in 

this parliament on some of our mining entrepreneurs. 

We should be telling their story in our schools to 

inspire our kids to go out and to take risks and to do 

great things. Instead, we have heard attack and 

demonisation. 

I would also like to express my concern about the 

so-called NAPLAN testing. If we know one thing of 

socialist and totalitarian governments throughout 

history, they do like to keep very good records of 

things. The concern I have about NAPLAN is that it 

only measures a very small part of a child's 

education—maths, science and English. But that is not 

what a full education is about. If we are looking to 

improve our kids' education we need to look at their 

education in totality, not just determine how well they 

went in maths and English and tell them that is the 

result of the school. 

My concern is if that is how we are making our 

judgement of our schools I am sure many of our 

headmasters and teachers, instead of teaching creative 

skills, instead of teaching an entrepreneurial culture, 

instead of teaching kids about music, art, sport and 

drama and spending time on developing those things 

and giving our kids the rounded education that turns 

them into great citizens and lets them make a great 

contribution to our society once they leave school, are 

drilling them to learn for the test. That will only end up 

in tragic results. 

The coalition does not oppose this bill because this 

bill, as we said, is simply motherhood statements. 

There are several questions on education which this 

government has yet to answer following the handing 

down of the Gonski report. Where will this extra $6.5 

billion a year that the government needs come from? 

What programs will the government cut and what taxes 

will the government increase to pay for it? We have 

already seen that there will be large cuts to the 

education sector over the next three years, before we 

even include the cuts to higher education. We will be 

seeing billions taken out of our higher education 

sector—again a completely backward and detrimental 

move. 

The leaked Gonski modelling shows no fewer than 

3,254 schools worse off. How much extra is it going to 

CHAMBER 

cost those schools to receive that funding that our 

Prime Minister has promised? How much funding per 

student is going to be allocated to children with 

disabilities? This bill gives us none of the answers. 

How will the funding for kids with disabilities be 

portable between government and non-government 

schools? These are the answers that the community 

wants. This government has had close to six years to 

give us those answers, and yet here we are in the dying 

days of this parliament, with less than two weeks to go, 

and all this government can come up with is an 

education bill which is no more than motherhood 

statements—no detail, no plan, all spin, all marketing. 

This bill and the way it is presented—the spin and 

marketing behind it—simply sum up why this 

government has had its time and it must go. 

Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (18:16): My old man has 

only ever done one job, and that is being a welder. He 

has done that since he arrived here in 1966. His 

schooling was to the equivalent of our year 10. Mum 

was the same. In our family, you could pretty much 

count on one hand the number of people who went on 

to university. Even though my parents had not been 

through university, through formal education, in our 

household the thing that was valued the most was 

getting a good education. It was drummed into us 

every time we had to hand in our school reports, 

wondering what type of reaction we would get round 

the kitchen table. It did not matter that my parents had 

not been to university; they just knew. In dad's case, 

being a welder and being in the manufacturing 

industry, he always got hit by the booms and busts. So, 

for my parents, getting long-term secure employment 

was pretty much the priority. 

I was the beneficiary of public education. If you 

have been in public education, you will always feel 

very strongly about it—as you will with whatever 

system you go through. There will be people on all 

sides of the chamber who have been through public 

education or through private education and feel that 

that system is the best way to go. Since having the 

honour of being elected as a member of parliament, I 

have been particularly strident in promoting public 

education. I feel very strongly about it. But one of the 

great things about being a member of parliament is that 

you get to see all aspects of your community. I have 

been able to see all schools, government and nongovernment, 

in my area. I have seen the great work 

being done at Evans High School and Doonside 

Technology High School, particularly with their trade 

training centres. I have seen some fantastic stuff at 

Good Shepherd Primary School, Plumpton, and at 

Loyola Senior High School, where they also have a 

trade training centre. I have visited Richard Johnson 

Anglican School. The schools in our area have fostered 

in me a determination that, regardless of the system, 

they all need support, particularly when it comes to


helping and recognising need in our area—and 

certainly in our area there are neighbourhoods of great 

need. As Mark Burnard, the principal of the Bidwill 

campus of Chifley College, said publicly, it is not 

about the system; it is about the student. That is why I 

am a big supporter of what we are doing in these 

reforms. 

For many years now, we have debated as a nation 

how best to fund the education of our children but also 

allow choice for parents as to what schooling system 

they think fits their needs. Different formulae have 

existed over those years to distribute funding to the 

public, Catholic and independent school systems, not 

without some degree of disagreement about the equity 

of these arrangements. Many of the changes in the past 

have been merely tinkering around the edges of a 

funding model whose time, frankly, has well and truly 

passed. 

Recognising the shortcomings of the current model, 

this government undertook a once-in-a-generation 

review of funding for schooling, chaired by 

businessman and philanthropist David Gonski. I would 

like the record to reflect my personal appreciation— 

and, I have no doubt, the appreciation of the entire 

nation—for the work undertaken by Mr Gonski and his 

colleagues Ken Boston, Kathryn Greiner, Carmen 

Lawrence, Bill Scales and Peter Tannock. The report 

they handed down helped lay out the recommendations 

underpinning our National Plan for School 

Improvement, a plan that will establish a framework to 

ensure that by 2025 Australia's schooling system will 

be in the top five international performers in the key 

areas of reading, science and mathematics. Do not get 

me wrong; we have got great schools in Australia, but 

we can always do better, especially when it comes to 

making sure every student in every classroom gets the 

best education possible and reaches their full potential. 

The results from NAPLAN reveal the challenges 

before us and underscore the motivation for our 

National Plan for School Improvement. In recent years, 

results have shown that one in 12 of our kids are not 

meeting minimum standards in reading, writing and 

maths. These kids are in danger of leaving school 

without the skills they need to hold down good longterm 

jobs and function effectively in society. It 

genuinely troubles me that about 150,000 young 

Australians aged between 15 and 24 have not attained 

year 12 or certificate III or above and are not in the 

labour force and/or studying in full-time education. 

That is about five per cent of all 15- to 24-year-olds. 

The schools in the Chifley electorate, as I indicated 

earlier, for many years have been among the most 

disadvantaged in New South Wales. High school 

completion rates over the past decade—and this 

troubles me—have remained stubbornly lower than the 

national average, despite trends elsewhere in the state 

CHAMBER 

for kids to stay on at school longer. When we crunch 

those numbers on past NAPLAN results, we uncover 

the real case for implementing our National Plan for 

School Improvement. 

For instance, the national gap in literacy between 

disadvantaged and advantaged students is equivalent to 

almost three years of schooling, and 89 per cent of 

disadvantaged year 3 students are below average in 

reading by year 9, compared to 13 per cent of 

advantaged students. Just as troubling, if not more so, 

is how Australian students' performance has slipped in 

international rankings. For example, in the OECD 

PISA tests, Australia has slipped from equal second to 

equal seventh in reading, from equal fifth to equal 13th 

in maths and from equal fourth to equal seventh in 

science. In our first Progress in International Reading 

Literacy Study test, Australian year 4 students were 

significantly outperformed by 21 of the 45 other 

countries taking part. There is a massive challenge 

there. 

This bill not only articulates our aspiration for lifting 

students' performance but outlines five core reform 

directions of the national plan: first, to deliver better 

schools that will give every child the individual help 

they need to reach their potential; second, to lift 

teaching standards so the best and brightest are in 

charge of our schools and classrooms; third, to provide 

more information about schools to parents and the 

community; fourth, to deliver fair funding to help 

schools pay for the things they need, like specialist 

staff and modern resources; and, fifth, to help Australia 

remain strong and prosperous by equipping kids to get 

great jobs. Over the past two years, I have quite 

enjoyed talking with the schools in Chifley about what 

they were hoping for from this review, hearing from 

them their enthusiasm to see a response to the Gonski 

report and hearing what they wanted from the 

government's response. I have long supported in our 

education system the work that our local schools do in 

order to support and develop students. I have seen the 

difference that is made to the culture of schools 

through the quality of the senior leadership of those 

schools. I have seen with my own eyes at schools 

overseas, for instance, how a focus on teacher training 

and mentoring can have an impact on education 

outcomes. 

It was certainly eye-opening to learn of the different 

challenges faced by different school systems in our 

area, as well as the common challenges that unite them. 

For instance, last month I met with David Fyfe, CEO 

of Christian Education Ministries, which operates the 

Australian Christian College at Marsden Park as well 

as in other locations around Australia. A number of the 

Australian Christian College campuses offer distance 

education as a delivery option to students in remote 

areas. David was keen to illustrate for me the disparity 

in funding provided for non-government distance


education compared with other forms of education 

delivery. He put forward a very strong argument that 

students in non-government distance education were 

the least resourced students in Australia. Among the 

impacts that he highlighted to me were significantly 

fewer teachers than regular schools, the highest 

teacher-to-student ratios in the country, minimal 

teacher-student contact, minimal education resourcing 

including access to ICT, increased workload for 

teachers, minimal curriculum development 

opportunities and limited opportunities for career 

advancement. If our plan is to have the desired 

outcomes of achieving equity and meeting the needs of 

every student, there will need to be further discussion 

with this sector in order to address their needs, and I 

hope to pursue that further. 

I am heartened that in my home state of New South 

Wales agreement has been reached that will deliver our 

national reforms. New South Wales Premier Barry 

O'Farrell has signed up to the National Plan for School 

Improvement, meaning schools in my state will benefit 

from an additional $5 billion over the next six years. 

Two weeks ago, I attended a ceremony at Chifley 

College Mount Druitt Campus which celebrated the 

reaching of that agreement. The fact that federal Labor 

and New South Wales Liberals have embraced vision 

beyond politics to deliver something concrete for 

school reform is exactly what brought teachers together 

at Mount Druitt. This bipartisan agreement between 

our governments will deliver an average of $1.6 

million for every school and $4,400 for every student 

across the state. We have committed that for every 

dollar that the New South Wales government is 

prepared to invest, the federal government will pay 

two. 

But, if we are to avoid having further generations of 

haves and have-nots, we need all the states and 

territories to get on board for this once-in-a-generation 

opportunity to lift resourcing and standards and to put 

money where it is needed instead of having the 

situation at the moment where we are being whiteanted 

under our own eyes by the federal coalition. Just 

in the past week, the member for Sturt has been 

engaged in a very public stoush with his New South 

Wales LNP counterpart, Adrian Piccoli, over Mr 

O'Farrell's agreement with the Commonwealth. The 

coalition has confirmed it will tear up the agreement 

with the New South Wales government if it forms 

government in September. So on the one hand, if it is 

to protect the minerals of the states, the federal 

coalition is all for states' rights, but on the other hand, 

if it comes to maintaining and honouring agreements 

that will improve the chance of future generations of 

Australians to progress, it says it will basically tear up 

those agreements with state governments. 

Unbelievable! 

Mr Lyons: Shame! 

CHAMBER 

Mr HUSIC: It is a shame, as the member for Bass 

says. On 27 February this year, the member for Sturt 

told Radio National: 

The current funding model does work, it's not a broken 

model. 

He must be the only person in the country who thinks 

that. In his budget reply speech, the Leader of the 

Opposition made it clear: 

We won't back a so-called national education system— 

The member for Sturt wrote to state premiers and 

territory leaders to dissuade them from reaching 

agreement, saying: 

Under the Gillard Government’s plan this means that those 

could receive a much lower rate of Commonwealth 

indexation in the future, when the average indexation rate 

over the last ten years has been 5.6 per cent 

Those claims that indexation will return to 5.6 per cent 

defy logic. Current state budget decisions and 

estimates show that, next year and in future, indexation 

will fall to around three per cent. That is less money 

from the Commonwealth for all schools. 

The Liberal Party continue to peddle untruths about 

the current levels of funding for schools. They are 

falsely claiming that our government is cutting $326 

million from school funding. But the truth is that our 

funding is a direct match of funding provided by the 

states so any reduction in Commonwealth funding for 

schools in my state is a direct result of a reduction in 

school funding by the state government. New South 

Wales education minister Adrian Piccoli is quite clear 

where he stands on the issue of how schools should be 

funded. He says: 

The status quo would see NSW worse off, and what 

essentially the federal Coalition is saying is the status quo. 

I listened earlier to the contribution on this debate by 

the member for Kooyong, and I have to agree with him 

on one point. He said that people should judge Labor 

on what it does rather than what it says. When it comes 

to school funding, Labor is the party that has runs on 

the board. The other side of politics is interested in just 

taking us back to the Howard years or softening us up 

to such things as larger class sizes, as the member for 

Sturt has been on the public record doing. I am more 

than happy to put our record up against those opposite 

and let others decide who they trust to provide the best 

outcomes for their kids—our students. 

This financial year, our government will invest 

$13.6 billion in our schools in stark contrast to the $8.5 

billion spent in the last financial year of the Howard 

government. In our first four years of government we 

invested over $65 billion in schools while the Howard 

government spent only $32.9 billion in its last four 

years of office. To keep people in jobs, this 

government built or upgraded school facilities across 

the country—almost 24,000 projects in 9,500 schools


including 3,000 libraries. In Chifley alone, that equates 

to $140 million spent in 67 schools. 

Those on the other side of the chamber opposed the 

stimulus measures, which included the investment in 

the Building the Education Revolution program and 

helped save the country from recession. In government 

they built 3,000 flagpoles. That was their contribution 

to school improvement. But they then have the 

audacity to say that there is no detail to our National 

Plan for School Improvement. Reflecting on the 

coalition's record, it is clear their lack of care or detail 

then clouds their ability to see detail now. We had the 

member for Wentworth, the member for Bowman and 

the member for Kooyong all claim there is a lack of 

detail with our plan. I ask them to answer this one 

point: are you suggesting the New South Wales 

government signed up to this massive reform on the 

basis of no detail? 

Premier Barry O'Farrell went on TV and basically 

indicated that Tony Abbott had made clear his view to 

Barry O'Farrell that the system was not broken, that the 

agreement should not be entered into, but Barry 

O'Farrell made clear 'what the cabinet would do in 

New South Wales'—that is, the cabinet had examined 

and determined this was the best thing for New South 

Wales. They are happy and have always have been 

happy with the current regime because it fuels an 'us 

versus them' mentality. This reform is far too important 

to let it slip through our fingers and it represents the 

collective hopes of schools, parents, teachers, students 

and all those in the industry. 

Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (18:31): I rise to 

speak about the Australian Education Bill 2013. As the 

member for Chifley has rightly said, the bill sets out 

the apparent aspirational goals of this government. 

However, they are aspirations. There is evidence in the 

budget that indicates that these aspirations are unlikely 

to ever be achieved. 

Let me just note for the purpose of the public record 

what the aspirations are. They are that Australian 

schooling will provide an excellent education for all 

students. All of us would agree that that is what is 

needed, that a focus ought to be on the students and 

them achieving their fullest potential. Another 

aspiration identified in the bill is for Australian 

schooling to be highly equitable. Of course, a third 

aspiration is for Australia to be placed in the top five 

countries in reading, science and mathematics, quality 

and equity recognised in international testing by 2025. 

All of us would agree that these are highly 

commendable aspirations. 

Unfortunately, this bill stops short of providing any 

real substance or way forward in any detail for 

Australian schools and for their students. I am not here 

today to deny the fact that we want education in 

Australia to be among the best in the world. We do. 

CHAMBER 

We do want a thriving educational system where 

children are afforded every opportunity to learn, 

develop and grow to their fullest potential. Having two 

children, one who has completed school and another 

who is studying for her HSC, I am more than aware of 

the importance of a healthy education and the way that 

it can shape an individual and their future. 

This parliament has a responsibility to provide the 

best framework possible to support and fund all 

schools in Australia. The bill, however, does nothing to 

address the real issues currently facing our education 

system. The future funding of schools is relying on a 

risky, confusing set of figures underlying the 

government's approach. The federal budget handed 

down in May revealed that Labor will be spending 

$325 million less on schools over the forward 

estimates than was forecast in the 2012-13 budget. 

Labor and their figures simply cannot be trusted. 

We have calculated there are over $3.1 billion in 

cuts and redirections from the schools budget being 

replaced with only $2.8 billion in extra spending over 

the forward estimates. There is no new money from 

federal Labor. It is clear that over the forward 

estimates the only new or additional money for 

education will come from state and territory 

governments who agree to Labor's proposal and not the 

Commonwealth itself. It not be until the years beyond 

the forward estimates that the new proposed additional 

money claims will be spent on the National Plan for 

School Improvement. 

This is evidence that Labor's school funding model 

remains in reality a promise unlikely to ever 

materialise and is not a solid financial commitment as 

they claim it to be. It is also important to point out that 

under the current existing model, no school would 

actually be worse off. Yes, indexation goes up and 

down, but it has on average delivered 5.6 per cent over 

the last decade in additional funding. This 5.6 per cent 

indexation over the past decade is confirmed in the 

government's own 2012 mid-year economic statement. 

Further adding to the mockery Labor are making of 

the education system is that they are discontinuing 

national partnership funding for low socioeconomic 

schooling which over the four years would have been 

worth $258.5 million. Reward payments to teachers, 

cash bonus payments for schools, literacy and 

numeracy programs are also gone. This all equates to 

funding to the value of $2.1 billion. Under this 

government, the funding structure has actually gone 

backwards. There is simply no detail as to how the new 

funding system is proposed to operate in this bill as it 

stands before the parliament. There is almost no detail 

available about the government's funding model for 

schools to examine. We are also still waiting for the 

legislation before the parliament to be updated with 

new information with additional amendments. What


we are seeing are empty promises and billion dollar 

amounts when the reality is all of these promises have 

strings attached to them. Labor's rhetoric is not 

matched with evidence in real dollars. 

The key to better schools is in providing the highest 

quality teachers and empowering them to do their jobs 

well. High levels of community engagement and more 

principal autonomy are equally as important. The 

coalition also have our own set of principles that 

outline what is important for schooling. These values 

would underline everything we would do should we be 

in government and the policies which we believe will 

best suit our children's future. We have moved these 

principles in our amendment to the bill, and I would 

like to highlight them. 

First, families must have the right to choose a school 

that meets their needs, their values and their beliefs. 

Second, all children must have the opportunity to 

secure a quality education. Third, student funding 

needs to be based on fair, objective and transparent 

criteria distributed according to socioeconomic need. 

Fourth, students with similar needs must be treated 


Fifth, as many decisions as possible should be made 

locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, 

schools and school systems. Sixth, schools, school 

sectors and school systems must be accountable to 

their community, families and students. Seventh, every 


from the Commonwealth government. Eighth, schools 

and parents must have a high degree of certainty about 


future. Ninth, parents who wish to make a private 

contribution toward the cost of their child's education 

should not be penalised, nor should schools in their 

efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment. 

The final value is that funding arrangements must be 

simple so that schools are able to direct funding toward 

education outcomes, minimise administration costs and 

increase productivity and quality. 

I would like to highlight another critical factor to 

our amendment: We have moved in our amendment 

that the definitions in this bill should be supplemented 

to define both a systemic school and a non-systemic 

school. I am sure other members would agree with me 

that electorates are made up of both government and 

non-government schools, each playing a pivotal role in 

education. The diversity of the non-government school 

sector is seen across our electorates—Catholic schools, 

independent schools, Christian schools and Steiner 

schools. No two schools are the same, and there are 

many more options available for parents today. These 

differences need to be recognised in the way nongovernment 

schools are funded. For example, under 

the current funding arrangements, Catholic schools are 

mostly systemically funded by the Australian 

government in recognition that they share a common 

CHAMBER 

ethos. This means that the funding they attract is 

provided by the Australian government to the state or 

territory Catholic education commission for local 

needs-based distribution between Catholic systemic 

schools. Other schools are non-systemic, which means 

that Australian government funding is currently 

provided to the school directly. 

The government must explicitly recognise and 

define the difference between a systemic and nonsystemic 

school in a way that would later allow 

funding to flow from the Commonwealth to nongovernment 

system authorities if they are systemic or 

direct to the school if they are not systemic. It must be 

clear that future funding from the Australian 

government will flow through to non-government 

schools or non-government school systems through a 

direct legislative relationship—which was highlighted, 

I note, in the Gonski report. 

Through the last part of our amendment we are 

calling on the government to extend the current 

funding arrangements for a further two years should 

this be required. Like with any portfolio that affects 

everyday Australians, they need certainty and stability. 

Unfortunately, these two attributes are remiss in this 

government. Parents and schools need funding 

certainty. Principals want to ensure teaching positions 

and resources well in advance. Planning for budgets for 

next year requires certainty as soon as possible. 

The truth is that many schools are struggling to raise 

the extra funds needed. It is no surprise to the coalition 

that schools are struggling. Because of the introduction 

of the carbon tax, school utilities prices have gone 

through the roof. An article published in the Herald 

Sun last week reported that school power bills have 

surged as much as 80 per cent in the last year. This has 

created chaos for schools that are trying to manage 

their budgets and pay their bills. Schools are becoming 

increasingly anxious about their future funding 

arrangements as the current funding agreement for 

schools is due to expire at the end of this year. State 

governments have also said they have been left in the 

dark and are still none the wiser about the full 

ramifications of the Gonski report. As such, the 

coalition has given assurances that, should we win 

government, they could count on the coalition's support 

to extend the current funding arrangements, including 

the same quantum of funds, for a further two years so 

that schools could start to plan with certainty. 

As mentioned, this government has a proposed 

school funding model which is not yet contained in this 

bill. For this proposed funding model to work, it needs 

the support of every state and territory and the nongovernment 

sector. The government's deadline to 

achieve a national agreement is looming; 30 June is the 

deadline. It is very unclear if there will be a national 

agreement; six out of eight jurisdictions have not


agreed. I am sure we have all seen the comments by 

Premier Newman, who has virtually ruled out signing 

onto the deal, saying the Prime Minister is making 

'misleading statements to the public' and 'does not 

understand state funding arrangements'. 

However, we must not forget that the Gillard 

government's record on education is one that breaks 

promises. Labor broke its promises on trades training 

centres, school laptops, performance pay for teachers 

and additional funds for improving schools. The 

bottom line is Labor cannot be trusted when it comes 

to education funding. Should there be no national 

agreement then all schools can rest assured that under a 

federal coalition government they will receive at least 

the same quantum of Commonwealth funds that they 

do now indexed each year to meet rising costs. We 

believe that the current quantum of funds for every 

school and indexation must be the basic starting point 

arising from any new funding model. Let me be clear: 

no school will lose funding. 

At the core of education are these factors: excellence 

in quality teaching, quality learning, empowered 

school leadership, transparency and accountability, and 

needs-based funding. As well as ensuring that schools 

receive immediate funding certainty, a coalition 

government would also take a number of important 

steps, including: ensuring that any agreement on a 

common per-student funding benchmark takes into 

account the fiscal capacity of each state and territory to 

ensure that those governments who have a history of 

strong schools investment are not punished while 

concurrently allowing others to reach a benchmark as 

and when their circumstances allow, ensuring that 

schools are not punished for taking their own steps to 

obtain alternative sources of funding; ensuring that 

schools do not lose money and that levels of funding 

are maintained in real terms, working cooperatively 

with those states seeking to allow their schools greater 

autonomy and parental engagement, and ensuring that 

the non-government sector remains and maintains 

appropriately autonomy from the Commonwealth with 

regard to the management of their financial affairs. 

At the end of the day we need funding and reform 

that will directly help every student. We can never 

forget that each school represents a company of 

students and each student represents a life and a 

future—a future we can help shape. To deliver hope, 

reward and opportunity to every schoolchild is what 

we plan to do. 

Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (18:45): I rise to speak 

on the Australian Education Bill 2012. Within the 

Australian psyche Labor owns the education portfolio. 

That is one of their cornerstones. The great reformist of 

education was Whitlam with free universities. They 

have a track record on education. With the bill before 

CHAMBER 

the House tonight, which is no more than nine pages 

and 1,400 words long, oh how the mighty have fallen. 

The bill sets out a set of aspirational outcomes with 

no funding associated with it. The coalition's strength 

is our capacity to manage the economy. We are all 

businessmen and we basically cut our teeth on reading 

balance sheets and making tough decisions to bring 

businesses back to profitability. This bill is an 

aspirational statement. In the context of the Gonski 

environment that surrounds our nation at the moment it 

would appear there are more unknowns about Gonski 

than there are knowns to the point where you now have 

two conflicting parts of the community: those who 

avidly support Gonski and those who scratch their 

heads and say, 'How is this going to be paid for?' Those 

who avidly support Gonski would have you think that 

those who do not support it do not love their kids—if 

you do not support Gonski, you are so far right of 

doing the right thing for tomorrow's kids. 

This bill is devoid of any real detail and must be 

updated with new information. Until then there is very 

little that can be said about how the proposed funding 

formula might impact on schools in my electorate. I am 

so blessed to represent the electorate that I do. In my 

electorate there are schools from as small as 28 kids 

with one teacher and sometimes with a couple of 

teacher aides through to schools with over 1,000 kids. I 

have spent time with the teachers and teaching staff in 

those schools and we need to acknowledge at every 

turn the outstanding work that our educators do with 

the challenges that face them on a daily basis. It 

changes, it is systematically different, as you move 

through the electorate. In some areas they may be 

dealing with under-resourcing and in the larger schools 

it is not uncommon for deputy principals to spend the 

first couple of hours of their day not dealing with 

student truancy but staff who did not show up. But 

those are not issues that concern the federal 

government or the House here at the moment. 

There is a belief in the House at the moment that 

Tony Abbott, the leader of the coalition, the leader of 

the LNP, is somehow strongarming the states to not 

sign up to the Gonski education reform in the current 

bill, but that is the furthest thing from the truth. States 

have to make a decision on whether they bounce onto 

it. In my home state of Queensland I regret to say my 

state colleagues were left with a terribly enormous debt 

given their state's GDP and there is a long road ahead. 

The debate up there at the moment is about selling 

state electricity assets to try to clear some debt, to try 

to reduce their overall debt level, and get a cheaper 

interest rate so that their interest bill does not start at 

$30 million a week. So a lot of the decisions are based 

on finances. 

The federal budget handed down this month reveals 

that Labor will spend $325 million less on schools over


the forward estimates than was forecast in 2012-13. I 

heard a previous speaker say that that was not true. 

Overall in education, including higher education and 

vocational education and training, they will spend $4.7 

billion less in the four years to 2016 than was 

budgeted. My words will go into Hansard, so to assist 

those on the other side to find where I am getting that 

$4.7 billion less from, I draw their attention to their 

budget papers. These were circulated by the Hon. 

Wayne Swan and Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, so 

these are not Treasury's figures; these figures belong to 

the Australian Labor Party. 

What we do is get the 2013-14 papers and compare 

them to 2014. We go to table 7 in both of these books. 

To make it easy for Hansard, one table 7 is at 6.17 and 

the other table 7, in the 2013-14 edition, is at 6.20. If 

you look at those estimates from last year against what 

was proposed this year, 2012-13, last year they were 

forecasting that it was going to be $29,572,000,000. 

What was actually spent? Twenty-eight billion, four 

hundred and eleven million—a difference of $1.161 

billion. The difference in the next year's actual to 

estimated expenditure was a $187 million shortfall; for 

2014-15, a nearly $1.3 billion shortfall; and in the 

following years, 2015-16, a just on $2 billion shortfall. 

That makes a total shortfall of $4.7 billion between 

what they forecast last year and what they forecast this 

year. Mr Deputy Speaker, do not dare let anyone come 

into this House and say that these numbers are being 

made up. These numbers come from the Treasurer's 

and the finance minister's own workings. 

When it comes to the integrity of these guys, you 

cannot question them because they are honourable men 

and women; they would not mislead the parliament. 

But when it comes to the Treasurer's credibility, there 

was that little throwaway line—it was absolutely 

hysterical—that somehow we are moving towards a 

carbon tax. More recently, when we were speaking 

about the write-downs, they were $7.5 billion; a couple 

of days later the Prime Minister had to come out and 

say: 'Oh no, Wayne got it wrong. I think the writedowns 

are going to be $8 or $8.5 billion'. Then Senator 

Wong had to come out a couple of days after that and 

say, 'Oh no, all those figures are wrong; the writedowns 

in revenue are going to be closer to $12 

billion'—and that was within a period of three weeks. 

These forecasts and aspirations—that go out as far as 

2025, may I add—are somewhat farcical in an era 

when Australia is falling behind our competitors on 

international standards. 

So, with the amount of money we have spent on 

education in recent years, we must pose ourselves an 

ideological question. Of course, no-one will forget the 

education revolution that we had—I think it was $6.4 

billion that was going to enhance education outcomes 

and do wonderful things. When you measure us against 

other nations around the world we went backwards as a 

CHAMBER 

result of that investment, purely from an economic 

benefit point of view. I have seen the benefit of some 

of those outcomes in the classroom and, to give credit 

where credit is due, some of the learning aids are 

substantial and will make a difference into the future. 

But, rather than debate about aspirational visions, on 

behalf of the teachers and parents in our electorates 

when we leave Canberra and go back there, why are 

we not having the debate as to what has gone wrong 

with our education system? We all want the same 

thing. There is a Tally-ho paper of difference, really, 

between the aspirational vision of the Labor Party and 

our vision. Families must have the right to choose the 

school that meets their needs, values and beliefs. All 

children must have the opportunity to secure a quality 

education. Student funding needs to be based on fair, 

objective and transparent criteria and distributed 

according to socioeconomic needs. We all have the 

motherhood statements, but why are we debating 

education without going back and understanding where 

it was in our communities that education started to not 

get the desired results? 

We have seen such a transformation in this country. 

My grandfather will sit there and tell you the story of 

how he used to ride his horse to school and in the 

middle of winter he used to have to get off with no 

shoes and stand in a cow patty to keep his feet warm. I 

would love a dollar for every time Pop gave me that 

one. Then there was Mother, with her stories of writing 

on a slate with a chalk. She would say, 'I used to ride 

my pushbike 230 kilometres to school every morning, 

so stop whinging and keep walking.' The reality is that 

over time our school standards have improved and we 

are a stronger nation for that, but there is such a race 

for us not to drop the ball on this. 

Are we to have a debate about how we are not 

reaching our outcomes because of the quality of our 

teachers? I do not think that is so, but let us be brave 

and bold enough to have that debate; and if we need 

more money to raise the standards of professionalism 

there, let us have that debate. Are our kids not reaching 

the international PISA standards because their 

household environments have changed? Is it a social 

issue? My father died when I was in grade 8. When I 

went to school, I was the odd kid out because I did not 

have a dad. Now it would appear, when I travel 

through the electorate, the odd kid out is the kid who 

still has two parents and the same surname as their 

parents. 

In summary, I do not believe in throwing money 

after money—and this bill does not speak of money. 

This particular bill before the House today does not 

speak of money because, when you go to the 

explanatory memorandum, at page 4, to try to assess 

the financial impact statement, the page is blank other 

than the line: 'There is no financial impact associated 

with this bill.'


In closing, as the coalition have owned 

wholeheartedly the management of the economy of this 

nation for many years, where we have continually paid 

down Labor's debt, we will continue to own this space. 

With respect to Labor's ownership of education, with 

the reforms that have come before the House over 

many years, and when I read such a document as this 

bill, can I just say, ashamedly: how the mighty have 

fallen! 

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (19:00): As 

parliamentarians we all have pressing issues facing our 

electorates, which our constituents expect and demand 

we will address. As the member for a large and diverse 

electorate, that makes the challenge especially onerous 

and interesting. Irrespective of which electorates we 

represent, the top two concerns which affect us all are 

health and education. They are the two great enablers. 

Everyone desires to be well and have the best frontline, 

primary and allied health services and professionals. 

Likewise, education is a top priority. 

In The Weekend Australian there was a section 

entitled 'Your school'. It was a most interesting read. In 

fact, the Prime Minister had an op-ed piece, which was 

headed: 'Let's ensure that no child is left behind'. I 

quote the Prime Minister: 

Every Australian school should be a great school. 

No argument with the Prime Minister there. She 

continues: 

That is the goal our teachers and parents seek every day. 

The supplement included page upon page of the 

nation's top 50, least expensive, most expensive, topperforming 

schools, breaking all the criteria down into 

the best private, best public primary and secondary 

schools based on the national average score in the 

NAPLAN tests for years 7 and 9. But, interestingly, on 

the second page, in the piece entitled 'Literacy, 

numeracy foundation stones', Justine Ferrari writes: 

Using test data to identify the gaps in students' knowledge 

and better target teaching to lift students to the next level is 

still a new skill for many teachers, and some schools have 

adopted the practice more quickly and successfully than 

others: schools such as Ballarat Clarendon College in rural 

Victoria, the only non-metropolitan school in the nation's top 

50. 

It is very disappointing to think that only one regional 

school made the nation's top 50. That is why this 

debate is especially important, because we cannot 

leave our schools and thereby our teachers and, most 

importantly, our students behind. 

My state of New South Wales has signed up to the 

Gonski reforms. That has come at considerable 

criticism of Premier Barry O'Farrell and certainly the 

education minister, Adrian Piccoli, who is also the 

state member for Murrumbidgee, an area which is 

almost entirely in the federal electorate of the Riverina. 

Mr Piccoli is a good man. He wants what is best for his 

CHAMBER 

electorate and he wants what is best for his coalition in 

New South Wales. And, most importantly, he wants 

what is best for his schools within the electorate. When 

you really drill down, he wants what is best for the 

Murrumbidgee. I have had many and detailed talks 

with Mr Piccoli about the Australian Education Bill 

2012 and about the Gonski reforms. 

As the Prime Minister said in this section, he has got 

the deal of a lifetime. Indeed, New South Wales 

probably has. Certainly New South Wales was the first 

state to sign up. The Australian Capital Territory 

followed suit last week. When I look through the 

benefits of the school funding reform report, which Mr 

Piccoli provided me with, with respect to the additional 

Commonwealth funding for states and territories, I see 

that New South Wales tops the list, at $3.3 billion. 

Victoria has $2.6 billion, Queensland has $2.5 billion, 

South Australia has $390 million, Tasmania has $260 

million, Western Australia has $195 million, the same 

amount goes to the Northern Territory, and the ACT 

has $65 million. That is on top of higher indexation 

and the national partnerships rolled into the base. 

I asked Mr Piccoli at length why he had signed up 

and what made New South Wales jump so early. I note 

that it has caused considerable debate within this 

chamber. Unfortunately, it has been politicised to the 

extent where the Prime Minister has praised the New 

South Wales Premier, Barry O'Farrell, and, at the same 

time, attacked the opposition leader. That is 

unfortunate. Certainly, this has become quite a wedge 

issue between the New South Wales coalition, having 

signed an early deal, and the Abbott-led opposition, 

which is seeking to win government on 14 September. 

It has also created a good deal of comment both in 

metropolitan and regional electorates. In response to 

my queries as to why he had signed so early, Mr 

Piccoli demonstrated four points under a heading 'Why 

is the current funding model broken?' Funding does not 

follow the students with the highest level of 

educational need; funding models are inconsistent 

between government and non-government schools; 

Commonwealth and state funding models are also 

inconsistent; and the level of funding is not sufficient 

to keep our schooling system internationally 

competitive. And we do want the best for our children. 

When we have a great school system—a great public 

school system, in particular—we have great kids. 

I had Ashmont Public School come in this morning, 

and they were great kids—very enthusiastic; very 

hopeful of the future. And, you know, there is nothing 

to stop any of those kids, as their teacher pointed out, 

becoming a parliamentarian; becoming, perhaps, a 

future member for Riverina—indeed, becoming, 

perhaps, the Prime Minister. That is the great thing 

about Australia: anyone, from any school, can become 

a scientist, can become a top-class sports man or 

woman, can become the next great inventor, can


become the Prime Minister. It is why we are the lucky 

country. 

And this debate is all about providing schools with 

more money. But at what point do we stop and ask 

ourselves, 'Is this creeping federalism?' Government 

schools were always referred to as 'state schools'. That 

is because the state provided the money for the public 

schools and the federal government chipped in to help 

fund private schools. The thought of private schools 

conjures up images of the rich metropolitan schools 

with their ovals upon ovals, wonderful gymnasiums 

and magnificent science laboratories. But private 

schools in my electorate are not that well off. They are 

doing it tough, not helped by the everyday costs of 

living. 

Certainly many benefited from the Building the 

Education Revolution, because they were able to 

actually manage their own building projects. Their 

principals and school boards, the state Catholic 

organisations within each district, were able to utilise 

those funds to maximum benefit, unlike the public 

school system where it was a one-size-fits-all 

approach: if you had so many students you were able 

to get so big a school hall, based on a formula. And it 

did not work. So, subsequently, in Plunkett Drive in 

Wagga Wagga, I have one of the piece-de-resistance 

school halls, which was built by Mater Dei, a Catholic 

primary school. Yet at Ungarie, another village in my 

electorate, they also got a sizeable amount of money 

but ended up with far less in return. That is because the 

private schools, the Catholic schools, were able to 

build their own projects and the public schools were 

not. Unfortunately, that also provided a class divide. 

But, as far as the Gonski model was concerned, it 

does, as Adrian Piccoli pointed out to me, provide 

benefits for many of the schools in the Riverina. It 

provides benefits for those low-fee-paying independent 

schools, including the Catholic schools—and, as to the 

Catholic schools, I might add that I mentioned, in my 

inaugural speech to this House, that I would certainly 

represent and stick up for their funding from the 

Commonwealth into the future—the socioeconomic 

status schools which do it very, very tough; schools 

with a high Indigenous population; those remote and 

very remote schools which figure, unfortunately, in the 

lower end of the results for the NAPLAN tests and in 

the lower end of the results as far as the resources and 

the money that they have available to give those 

children a better education. Those are the schools 

which have additional needs and which will benefit 

from this Gonski model which, at the moment, has 

only one territory and one state signed up for its 

reform. The Prime Minister is hoping that, by 30 June, 

she will have all the states and territories signed up. 

But Queensland has come out to say today, through its 

premier, Campbell Newman, that they would want a 

lot better deal on the table. Western Australia is also 

CHAMBER 

yet to sign up to the National Disability Insurance 

Scheme, and it looks as though Western Australia will 

not sign up to this deal. 

What are the financial benefits for New South 

Wales? There are four that Mr Piccoli has put forward. 

There is an additional $3.3 billion from the 

Commonwealth over six years. National partnership 

funding from 2011 has been rolled into the base 

funding, permanently. Commonwealth indexation will 

be at 4.7 per cent from 2015 onwards instead of around 

three per cent per annum for schools below the school 

resource standard. There is additional funding for 

government, Catholic and independent schools. That 

has put the New South Wales minister at odds with the 

shadow education minister. It has put him at odds with 

the federal coalition. But he was good enough to come 

to Canberra and detail his ideas on Gonski to the 

Nationals party room; that was last Tuesday. I know he 

met, later in the morning, with the shadow education 

minister, Christopher Pyne. So he has been prepared to 

come and lay his cards on the table. He has what he 

thinks is a good deal. 

It is creeping federalism. It is going to put the onus 

on the federal government to fund schools into the 

future, whereas that requirement was always in the 

state jurisdiction in the past. But, at the end of the day, 

what we want from this place and from any parliament 

in Australia is better qualified students to meet the 

challenges of an uncertain world, to meet vocational 

expectations which are becoming more difficult by the 

day, and certainly to be able to get the sorts of results 

that we would expect and demand. 

I note with interest some of the criticisms of the 

opposition's lack of faith in the Gonski model. Some of 

the schoolteachers who have written to me have, 

unfortunately, had some spelling errors in their emails. 

You have to actually worry sometimes, as the member 

who spoke previously, the member for Wright, said 

about how our kids are being prepared to meet those 

great expectations and challenges. I know our teachers 

are very good—those few spelling mistakes aside, and 

we have all been guilty of that. But I know our teachers 

are very good— 

Ms Hall: You've just put them down. 

Mr McCORMACK: Sorry? 

Ms Hall: You've just put the teachers and kids 

down. 

Mr McCORMACK: No, I am not putting the 

teachers down at all. 

Ms Hall interjecting— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas): 

Order! The member for Shortland will cease 

interjecting. 

Mr McCORMACK: I just finished saying that our 

teachers are very good. They are lacking resources.


They are sometimes lacking help. They have to provide 

everything, from a good education to paying for the 

resources on their own, to being a counsellor, a father 

or mother figure—there are so many kids going to 

school without a breakfast. The demand on schools is 

very high. If there is anything we can do to help those 

kids and those teachers to better prepare our students 

for a challenging world then we ought to be looking at 

it very seriously. 

I commend Mr Piccoli for detailing the Gonski 

reforms. I know he feels as though he has got a deal 

that was too good to refuse. At this stage, only two 

jurisdictions have signed up to it, but it will be 

interesting in the weeks and months ahead to see how 

many more sign up to the deal. 

Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (19:15): I rise to speak 

on the Australian Education Bill 2012. I have lost 

count of the number of bills from this government that 

I have spoken on which outline its hopes and dreams 

for the future, yet again today we are contributing to 

the debate on the future of Australian education. This 

bill, in just 1,400 words and nine pages, purports to 

revolutionise Australian schools. Packed within this 

document the Prime Minister outlines three goals, 

which are: for Australian schooling to provide an 

excellent education for all students; for Australian 

schooling to be highly equitable; and for Australia to 

be placed in the top five countries in reading, science 

and mathematics, with quality and equity recognised 

by international testing by 2025. 

One would be right to ask whether in just 1,400 

words all has been revealed. Right? No. This bill is 

devoid of any detail and must be updated with new 

information to reflect the actual outcomes. We have 

seen that again today, with comments by the minister 

that further amendments will need to be made to 

introduce the funding model. I thought the funding 

model formula would have been the key to this whole 

bill, but it is not in the bill currently before the House. 

This is the height of arrogance, with a 'take-it-orleave-it' 

attitude. The question is: did the government 

learn nothing from the debate on the media laws? 

Without this detail and the proposed further 

amendments, I am unable to see how the funding 

formula in particular will have a positive impact on the 

schools in Forde. There are some very serious pieces of 

the puzzle missing here. The federal budget handed 

down last month reveals that the government will be 

spending $325 million less on schools over the forward 

estimates than was forecast in the 2012-13 budget. Add 

to this the money that has been ripped out of higher 

education and vocational education and training and 

we see this government will give a grand total of $4.7 

billion less in the four years to 2016 than was budgeted 

for last year. 

CHAMBER 

After making these cuts, the government promised 

new money to the tune of $9.8 billion for schools, but 

almost all of this money falls beyond the forward 

estimates. This means there will not be any of the 

promised school funding in my electorate or anywhere 

else around the country until at least 2017. The Prime 

Minister must be very confident of being around in two 

elections time to give the money to these schools. 

Furthermore, anyone who believes that this 

promised funding will be delivered in 2017 must be 

living under a rock because, for the most part, what we 

have seen from this government is a lot of promises 

that have been broken. How could you trust the 

government to deliver on something two elections 

away when we were promised there would be no 

carbon tax, no changes to private health insurance 

rebates and, on more than 500 occasions, that there 

would be a surplus? We were promised that Labor 

would be conservative economic managers, and ended 

up with record debt costing us over $7.8 billion a year 

in interest alone. Families were promised that they 

would get an increase to family tax benefit part A. 

Labor promised 500,000 new jobs within two years, 

but we have unemployment growth falling to its 

slowest pace in over 15 years. The Prime Minister 

promised an automatic tax deduction of 1,000 for 

workers. We were promised our borders would be 

protected, yet we see that 35,000 people or more have 

turned up since the election. We were promised that 

superannuation would not be touched; instead there has 

been $8 billion in new Labor super taxes or changes. 

We were promised 2,650 trades training centres in 

schools, but only got 241. This is a short list of 10 

broken promises from this government, and there are 

many more. Given that we are looking at results and 

not just at aspirations or goals, how could anyone 

believe that our schools would be better off under a 

Labor government? 

Under this government school performance has gone 

backwards. Historically, Australia's education system 

has performed relatively well and, according to the 

OECD's Programme for International Student 

Assessment 2009 results, of the 65 assessed school 

systems Australia was ranked 9th in reading, 10th in 

science and 15th in mathematics. These results were 

significantly above the OECD average on all three 

measures, and ranked us clearly above nations like the 

US, the UK, Germany and France. It is sad to say that 

between 2000 and 2009 Australia was one of only four 

countries to record a statistically significant decline in 

student reading performance. Yet this decline occurred 

despite education spending over that period increasing 

in real terms by some 44 per cent. 

For the last five years, we have heard the constant 

refrain from this current federal government about the 

education revolution. But instead of a revolution, we 

have seen a master class in wasteful spending and


appalling mismanagement, all without any tangible 

impact on what actually matters: improving how and 

what teachers are teaching so student outcomes can be 

improved. Suffice to say this has not been the thriving 

revolution that was promised by the Prime Minister 

and this government. The plans to improve basic 

literacy and numeracy have failed despite some $540 

million being spent in this area over the past five years. 

The independent performance audit concluded that the 

literacy and numeracy program was yet to make a 

statistically significant improvement to literacy and 

numeracy in any state. 

Sometimes it is instructive to get a reflection from 

people outside this place. Greg Sheridan, foreign editor 

for The Australian, wrote on 18 April: 

Education more generally demonstrates our almost complete 

divorce from our Asian neighbours. 

He was writing this in the context of the Asian white 

paper. 

We are about to waste a colossal amount of money on this 

Gonski madness. This money will have no measurable effect 

on our educational quality. 

One thing we certainly won't do is learn from our successful 

Asian neighbours. I have spent a lot of time in schoolrooms 

in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Almost without 

exception, these schoolrooms are physically less well 

endowed than their Australian counterparts. The class sizes 

are bigger, the grounds smaller, the buildings tackier. But the 

instruction is traditional, the teacher is boss, the school day 

and year are much longer, kids have to learn and remember a 

huge amount of content. 

The result? The outcomes are vastly better than Australia's. 

This is a lesson official Australia never wants to learn. Asian 

migrants are now bringing this wisdom to Australia, which is 

why Asian kids do so disproportionately well in our schools. 

Our society is well engaged with Asia, but at most policy 

levels our government hasn't a clue. 

The key to better schools is better teachers, better 

teaching, higher academic standards, more community 

engagement and more principal autonomy. That is 

what we will work with the states to deliver. 

On the topic of school improvement and more 

principal autonomy, I would like to share an article 

from the Weekend Australian regarding two schools in 

Innisfail that were considered as some of Australia's 

most disadvantaged schools. The article states that at 

Innisfail East State School it was not unusual for 

students to refuse to take their feet off the desks, and 

that most parents sent their kids to school to get them 

off the streets rather than to learn. Nowadays the 

school, along with the neighbouring Goondi State 

School, is one of a handful of Australia's most 

disadvantaged schools whose students are scoring in 

the top half of the nation's results in numeracy and 

literacy. 

I think a good question to ask is: what changed? The 

principal of Goondi State School has spent two 

CHAMBER 

decades overseeing the school where the academic 

results are high despite hardships faced by its students 

and families. The reason? The principal set the bar 

high for his students and teachers and refused to accept 

excuses. The article said that one of the secrets of the 

school's success comes from encouraging passionate 

teachers not to waste a moment of classroom time on 

needless 'busy work'. They have set schedules that they 

must adhere to and they have shifted the focus of their 

teaching back to the basics of literacy and numeracy. 

The school is now recognised as a benchmark for 

excellence in this area. 

Whilst the coalition does not oppose this bill in its 

current form, we would like to make a point of 

highlighting our own set of principles that outline our 

values for schooling. We believe that families must 

have the right to choose a school that meets their 

needs, values and beliefs. All children must have the 

opportunity to secure a quality education. Student 

funding needs to be based on fair, objective and 

transparent criteria distributed according to 

socioeconomic need. Students with similar needs must 

be treated comparably throughout the course of their 

schooling. As many decisions as possible should be 

made locally by parents, communities, principals, 

teachers, schools and school systems. Schools, school 


their communities, families and students. Every 


from the Commonwealth government. Schools and 

principals must have a high degree of certainty about 


future. Parents who wish to make a private contribution 

to the cost of their child's education should not be 

penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to 

fundraise and encourage private investment. Finally, 

funding arrangements must be simple, so schools are 

able to direct funding towards educational outcomes, 

minimise administration costs and increase 

productivity and quality. 

Overall, there are four main areas at the top of our 

school agenda for school education. I wish to finish on 

these points. We will relentlessly focus on reforms to 

improve teacher quality. That is not to say that our 

teachers are doing a bad job but, as always, all of us 

can improve or do things differently to get better 

outcomes. We will work with the states to introduce 

real principal and school autonomy to the government 

school system. We will encourage more parental and 

community engagement, and will continue 

implementing a robust national curriculum. 

One of the choices Australians will have on 14 

September is a choice between two different systems to 

achieve an educational outcome for their children. We 

would say to the Australian people that the coalition 

has a positive plan for the Australian school education 

system. It will not just be full of hot air, or full of


promises and aspirations. It will be designed to deliver 

true, practical and beneficial outcomes for all involved. 


Private Health Insurance Amendment 

(Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other 

Measures) Bill 2012 

Private Health Insurance Legislation 

Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013 


Cognate debate. 



Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (19:30): I rise to 

speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment 

(Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) 

Bill 2012 and the Private Health Insurance Legislation 

Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013. In the late 

1990s I was working for a finance company in 

Townsville and I was a single dad. I had private health 

insurance for my children. When I remarried and my 

two daughters were joined by their brother and my son, 

my teacher wife took 12 months off work to be a stayat-home 

mum. We maintained our private health 

insurance. We were certainly not flush with funds and 

we certainly did it very tough, yet we made the 

decision that we wanted choice and certainty in our 

family's health matters. We needed to ensure that if 

something happened we would be able to provide. We 

went without a lot at that time, but we ensured that 

what was important to us was retained. 

The 30 per cent rebate was an essential component 

of that, although I had to pay a levy for 10 years 

because I was late getting on. I do not say this to make 

me sound hard done by, or seeking martyrdom; I am 

using my personal experience as an example of all the 

mums and dads out there who want to take 

responsibility for their own health and that of their 

families and who are being well and truly belted by 

this government. Out there, away from the lattesipping, 

Vespa-riding, black-skivvy-wearing, innercity 

trendies, there lies a nation full of people trying to 

get ahead and provide for themselves. 

This bill seeks to amend the lifetime health cover, or 

LHC, loading on private health insurance. LHC was 

introduced by the Howard government as part of 

reforms that significantly increased private health 

insurance coverage when it came into effect on 1 July 

2000. In fact, this measure helped raise the number of 

people with private health insurance by 75 per cent, 

from 6.1 million to more than 10.7 million. Lifetime 

health cover is a loading on private health insurance 

payments that is applied at a rate of two per cent for 

every year that an individual is over 30 when they take 

out hospital cover. A cap of 70 per cent is applied. It 

CHAMBER 

was brought in to get younger people into private 

health insurance and to maintain their health cover. 

Currently the government pays the private health 

insurance rebate on the value of the total premium paid 

by the policy holder, including the LHC loading 

component. This new measure, if passed, will take 

effect in April 2014. 

The second component of the bill ceases direct 

claiming of the private health insurance rebate through 

the Department of Human Services. This is known as 

the incentives payment scheme. This will take effect on 

1 July 2013. These measures will add $386.3 million to 

the $2.8 billion taken out of private health by this 

government from means testing the private health 

insurance rebate. Put this with the $1.6 billion cut to 

hospital funding in Labor's MYEFO and you can see 

just what this government thinks of health. 

That this measure was not in the budget last year but 

was brought in as a knee-jerk reaction to MYEFO tells 

me everything I need to know about this government. 

The thing that really gets to me about this is that this is 

not about health. This is not about equity. This is not 

about fairness. This is not some altruistic or ideals 

driven argument. We are debating this bill because the 

Labor-Greens-Independent government cannot balance 

its books. This government has lost control of the 

nation's finances, pure and simple. This government 

will do anything to anyone to keep power for as long as 

it can. Just look at from where they have come: 

I would like to read into the Hansard part of a letter 

from the then shadow health minister and our current 

Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who wrote in The 

Weekend Australian on 15 October 2005: 

On Thursday, October 13, the Minister for Health, Tony 

Abbott, asserted in parliament that prior to the last election, I 

had a secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate 

and he cited Mark Latham's diaries as proof of this 

proposition. Yesterday Matt Price reported this claim by the 

minister as if were a fact (The Sketch 14/10). The claim by 

the minister is completely untrue and should not have been 

reported as if it were true. The truth is that I never had a 

secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate and, 

contrary to Mr Latham's diaries, do not support such a claim 

... For all Australians who wanted to have private health 

insurance, the private health insurance rebate would have 

remained under a Labor Government. I gave an iron-clad 

guarantee of that during the election. The difference between 

Tony "rock solid, iron-clad" Abbott and me is that when I 

make an "iron-clad commitment", I actually intend on 

keeping it. 

Put that with 'There will be no carbon tax under a 

government I lead' and you get the sincerity of that 

claim. 

What Townsville people are telling me is that they 

are sick to death of trying to get ahead in this world 

when, at every turn, this government wants to drag 

them back down. What is wrong with wanting to do


better? What is wrong with wanting to look after 

yourself and your family? Why is it that, bit by bit, this 

government sucks that will from hardworking 

Townsville families? This is another broken promise 

from this bad government. How can anyone out there 

take their claims seriously about education and 

disability, with the bulk of the money coming 

sometime way out into the future, when they can 

barely go a week without backflipping and amending 

and blatantly breaking their collective word. 

This government dresses up these things as getting 

at the 'rich'. There are more than 50,000 people in my 

electorate alone with private health insurance. There 

are 3.4 million people in Australia with private health 

insurance who live on an income of less than $35,000. 

There are 5.6 million Australians with private health 

insurance who have household incomes of less than 

$50,000. Hardly rich! 

Let me give this government a lesson in pub 

economics. If you make it tough for people with 

substantial disposable income, they will eventually 

drop off because they have options. They can pay for 

their dental work when they need it. They can pay for 

their knee operations when they need them. What will 

eventually happen is that these measures will increase 

the burden on those people least able to choose other 

options. If left untended, this will eventually see the 

collapse of the system. And where to from there? 

Straight to the public hospital. 

Before I get to the stress on public hospitals, I would 

like to raise a couple of points about private health 

insurance in the regions. I live in Townsville, a 

fantastic city of some 190,000 people. We service the 

greater north and west of our state where some 580,000 

people live and work. We are the major centre; all the 

centres around us, whilst fiercely proud and 

independent, are towns of fewer than 20,000 people. 

Towns like Charters Towers, Ayr and Ingham are all 

great communities, but they are under stress to keep 

vital services which form the fabric of their community 

and offer jobs. If there is a significant drop in the 

numbers of people taking out private health insurance, 

then that will put stress on the dentist, the optometrist, 

the physio and all other allied health professionals in 

these communities and increase the pressure on the 

hospital system. If they close, it will not only be the 

loss of the service but of a couple of jobs, and another 

trip to Townsville for the services. That, my friends, is 

how a town dies. 

Now, this will not happen overnight and certainly, 

with Noeline Ikin as the next member for Kennedy it 

will not happen under her watch. But, if this 

government continues to ignore the regions of North 

Queensland and regions like North Queensland, then 

surely they will stand back, with the Greens and 

Independents, and let this happen. Again, this budget 

CHAMBER 

and this bill are not about health. This is about the 

budget emergency in which the government finds 

itself. This is about shifting costs. By forcing people 

out of private health insurance, they are going to raise 

the level of activity inside the public system. 

So the Townsville Hospital will be asked to provide 

the services for people who can no longer afford 

private services. How much extra is going to the public 

hospital system? Absolutely nothing—not one red 

cent! So elective surgery lists go up and the wait 

becomes longer. Forget about seeing a public dentist. 

The health minister saw that off last year when she 

ripped over a billion dollars out of the health system 

with the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. This health 

minister then pulled $100 million from Queensland 

Health, after it had been committed. Now she has 

charge of another attack on health and on choice. 

Only a coalition government can live within its 

means. Only a coalition government can go to this 

upcoming election with any credibility on health. We 

will cut the red tape in the sector and we will get more 

funds to the pointy end—to the patient. Remember 

them? Remember when we had patients and they were 

important? 

We as a nation and a confederation of states need to 

look at how we are doing things and how we can get 

better outcomes. We need to be more focused on allied 

health and keeping people healthy, not reacting with 

money for machines that go 'ping'. We need to keep 

people out of the hospital system. We need better 

cooperation between public and private hospitals to 

make better use of the skills and equipment we have in 

each system. The public system is fantastic at highend, 

delicate and technical surgery. It has a great 

capacity to provide critical services in intensive care 

and transplant surgery and the like. Townsville's 

Paediatric Intensive Care Unit is a perfect example of 

the high-end care which makes the Townsville 

Hospital such a great facility. And I am proud to say 

that the Campbell Newman government made that a 

promise at the last election, then brought it forward and 

actually introduced it. The previous state Labor 

government, which made so much of health and lost so 

much money with the payroll debacle, would not do it. 

But there can also be no doubt that the private 

system can drive our dollar further when it comes to 

elective surgery and outpatient services such as 

radiology. If we could get a perfect match of the 

services and not duplicate them, as happens now, we 

would go a long way to getting our health system on 

track. 

We must look at ways of getting our students better 

trained and with more time in clinical areas. Again, 

Townsville is perfectly placed to offer such a model 

with James Cook University's School of Medicine and 

Dentistry and school of allied health. If we could


properly integrate the roles of the teachers, mentors 

and students with a properly funded and allocated 

regional model, we will end up with a better outcome 

for all. 

We have over $130 billion running through the 

health system nationally, and the best this government 

can do to bring some balance is to attack people with 

private health insurance. Surely, we are better than 

that? These are the very people who should be 

supported. Instead, this government walks past and 

pretends not to notice them. 

I oppose this bill and will do everything I can to 

bring a fair go back to the people of Townsville with 

private health insurance. I thank the House. 

Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (19:42): Private health 

insurance is vital to the efficient functioning of 

Australia's health system. In my electorate of Tangney, 

95.7 per cent of voters are covered by private health 

insurance. Of these, 87.3 per cent have hospital 

treatment insurance. 

Carbon tax, mining tax and now cuts to the private 

health insurance rebate: simply put, Labor is mounting 

massive cost-of-living pressures on all Australians. 

Private health insurance is not just for the rich but 

rather for those who want to be assured of access to 

effective health care when they need it most. There are 

5.6 million people with private health insurance, who 

have an annual household income of less than $50,000, 

and 3.4 million who have an annual household income 

of less than $35,000. 

The changes to Lifetime Health Cover increase 

premiums for those affected by up to a reported 27.5 

per cent on 1 July 2013. This will hit lower income 

Australians hard. Lower income Australians will be 

forced to choose if they can afford private health 

insurance. They may decide to wait and only take out 

hospital insurance when they need it and have time to 

prepare. But what if they need it for an emergency and 

have no time to wait? It makes basic economic sense 

that the government provides a rebate incentive to 

promote to all Australians access to private health care 

as a preventative measure, just in case they need it. 

Abolishing the Lifetime Health Cover rebate may 

appear to save money initially, but it will not save 

money in the long term. Instead it will cost 

government. People will be deterred from taking out 

cover and as a result be more reliant on government 

assistance for their health care. Removing rebates will 

place more pressure on public hospitals, which are 

already struggling with $1.6 billion slashed from 

hospital funding in Labor's Mid-Year Economic and 

Fiscal Outlook. Public hospital beds have already been 

closed. In operating theatres, delays to elective surgery 

are already occurring. We cannot afford for more 

people to flood the public health system. 

CHAMBER 

How did we get to this day—a bill that makes doing 

the right thing, acting responsibly and buying private 

health insurance more expensive? There is only one 

answer. That is Labor mismanagement and a litany of 

waste and debt. Because of that debt, we now have a 

budget emergency. We need to stand up for Australians 

facing rising costs of living. We do not like the 

changes to private health insurance. We definitely do 

not like them. What we have got to do is carefully 

weigh up the real state of the budget, and then we will 

be in a position to say when we might be able reverse 

these changes, but we are not making a commitment on 

time, because our budgetary position is in crisis 

because of the mistakes and mismanagement of this 

government, which everyone is having to pay for. It is 

well documented by economists and commentators 

more eminent and learned than me that this bill will hit 

low-income Australians hardest. They will be 

disproportionately affected. 

So let us all just stop for but five seconds to consider 

what is really in discussion here, and that is the cost of 

having a minimum of certainty. Labor is making it 

more difficult for people to opt in to private health 

insurance. How can this be in the national interest? To 

me, this clandestine bill has a face, and her name is 

Jane. Jane is a constituent of mine. She likes to bake on 

a Sunday morning, go to church and volunteer as a 

lollipop lady at the local school. Jane is aged and, as of 

last month, alone. Jane came to Australia from England 

with her husband, on a 410 retirement visa. In the years 

since they have been here, they have been hit hard by 

the difficult exchange rate and the never-ending costof-living 

increases. But they had about enough to make 

ends meet. Jane's husband died, and his pension 

stopped. She now has to find new cover and a new 

provider. She is not entitled to Medicare, nor does she 

want it. She is a woman of the war. She is a survivor. 

But even survivors break down. That is what happened 

in my office just the other week. Jane fell apart when 

retelling how she might not be long for this earth as she 

does not have the money anymore and she cannot 

afford the health insurance. Having health insurance is 

a requirement of her visa. Where is the foresight or 

provision for people like Jane? 

This is unquestionably an attack on private health 

insurance. This is undoubtedly an attack on the aged— 

an increase to premiums by an average of 10 per cent 

and in some cases by up to 27 per cent. This Labor 

government seems completely unwilling and unable to 

see the huge pressures on many millions of 

Australians. The pressures of increasing prices and 

rising unemployment are having a significant 

deleterious impact. And the government is making 

things more difficult, not easier. When people do the 

right thing and show personal initiative and 

responsibility, they should be rewarded not punished. 

Where is the incentive? Labor, typically, seek to


reward indolence and irresponsibility. They seek to 

grow the handout culture. Liberals are not about 

handouts. Australians do not want handouts. They want 

the government to get their hands off their wallets. And 

maybe a hand up would be nice. But mainly just get 

your hands off—hands off our money. Stop spending 

recklessly. Start planning and start living within our 

means. That is the only way we can fix this budget 

emergency. 

So it is time to back in government a party that is 

mature, responsible and will reward the responsible— 

hope, reward and opportunity. The currency of politics 

is trust and hope. With Labor, the Australian people 

have no trust and certainly no hope. How can they, 

when the Prime Minister serially misleads and has a 

spending addiction? The government of Australia is 

undermining faith in the institution of private health 

insurance. It is structurally undermining the institution, 

one could speculate, so as to grow the inefficient 

public system—a system that, by the way, is woefully 

ill prepared to deal with the expected increase in 

volume directly due to this bill. 

However, there is hope. The coalition gets it, in 

terms of understanding the very real cost-of-living 

pressures that ordinary Australians are feeling. These 

families need to know that the coalition will work 

tirelessly to fix the Labor mess and end the budget 

emergency. When the budgetary emergency has ended, 

the coalition can then roll back the myopic and miserly 

measures being proposed here in this private health 

insurance amendment bill. Make no mistake, the rebate 

is a part of the DNA of the coalition. He who has 

health has hope. And he who has hope has everything. 

The coalition will return hope, reward and opportunity 

if elected on 14 September. Know the day and know 

the hour when hope rises again—a new morning for all 

Australians. 

Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (19:52): I rise to speak 

on the Private Health Insurance Legislation 

Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013. This bill gives 

effect to changes to private health insurance that were 

announced in Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 

2012-13. Furthermore, a bill removing the rebate from 

lifetime health cover loadings was introduced in the 

last sitting week of last year but has not been brought 

on for debate. This current bill was only introduced in 

the last sitting week. It is being rushed through the 

parliament without giving the opposition time to 

consider it properly through normal processes. 

But we know that this is partly to cover, quite 

obviously, for the government's woeful—that is being 

polite—and totally inept economic management, which 

has seen them turn $70 billion in assets and a $20 

billion surplus into rolling deficits and debt now 

pushing through the government's own $300 billion 

debt ceiling. I hate to repeat myself, but there is 

CHAMBER 

nothing else you can do in this situation: due to Labor's 

economic incompetence, there is now a budget 

emergency which they are trying to plug with a raid on 

private insurance. The effect of the current bill is that 

the government's contribution to an individual's private 

health insurance rebate would be indexed annually by 

the lesser of the consumer price index—CPI—or the 

actual increase in the premium charged by insurers. 

This will not only force up the cost of private health 

insurance further but add significantly to the 

complexity of the product, and it will be 

administratively difficult for any future government to 

implement. 

The effect of this change will not be felt by 

individuals or the health system for some time, as it 

will not commence until April 2014. However, the 

effect of the government's cut from means-testing 

changes has yet to be felt, with over $1.2 billion in 

premium prepayments in June 2012 as people sought 

to avoid the financial consequences for one financial 

year or more. The lifetime health cover changes have 

not passed the parliament and will also have a 

detrimental effect on coverage if passed. 

The cumulative effect of these measures is likely to 

have a significant impact on private health insurance 

coverage and increase demand for public hospital 

services in the years ahead, which will require a 

response from any future government. It is common 

sense. It is just like public schooling and private 

schooling. Private schooling and private health take out 

the cost to government of looking after education and 

health. The more you hurt the private sector, the more 

you force people to depend upon the public, the greater 

the cost to the taxpayer and the more inefficient the 

service is. It is just a rolling stone. However, we all 

know that the Labor Party hate private health and 

private education and will do anything they can to see 

the back end of both. Whether it affects the nation's 

prosperity or the efficiency of the system does not 

seem to be something that affects them. The lifetime 

health cover changes have not passed the parliament 

and, as I said, will also have a detrimental effect on 

coverage if passed. 

This bill adds immense complexity to the private 

health insurance system. It is the third savings measure 

to private health insurance introduced by the Labor 

government and will again force up the costs of 

premiums. The Prime Minister and other members 

over many years have ruled out any changes to the 

private health rebates. In a letter to the Australian 

Health Insurance Association in November 2007, the 

member for Griffith said: 

Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I 

have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal 

Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health 

insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate 

and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.


Through means-testing changes and announcements 

since then, Labor has repeatedly broken its promise on 

private health insurance. 

I spoke in 2012 about the devastating effect the 

government's change to means-testing would have on 

my electorate of Calare, and here I am again speaking 

on the government's continued meddling with private 

health. We all value our health—those in the bush 

especially, as we do not have the same access to health 

care as our city counterparts. We have to look after 

ourselves because, should we get sick, there are a 

number of hurdles to overcome even before we get to a 

hospital. When I was president of a rural representative 

organisation, New South Wales Farmers, we made the 

decision that we had to go after health, because what 

was the point of having a successful farm or a 

successful situation in regional Australia if your health 

were not good? 

There are so many instances from 2005 right up to 

2009 when this government—including when it was in 

opposition—repeatedly made pledges that it would not 

do the sort of thing we are faced with today. But the 

daddy of them all is one that the current Prime Minister 

made in a letter to the editor of The Weekend 

Australian on 15 October 2005, where she gave the 

current Leader of the Opposition a big serve about 

changing his mind on something. In response to claims 

by the then minister that she wanted to knock off the 

private health insurance rebate, she said: 

The truth is that I never had a secret plan to scrap the private 

health insurance rebate … 

She is having a go at her previous leader Mr Latham 

here. She says: 

For all Australians who wanted to have private health 

insurance, the private health insurance rebate would have 

remained under a Labor government. I gave an iron-clad 

guarantee of that during the election. 

The difference between Tony "rock solid, iron-clad" 

Abbott and me is that when I make an "iron-clad 

commitment", I actually intend on keeping it. 

Given that we all remember 'no carbon tax under a 

government I lead', possibly we should not be 

surprised that once again the 'rock solid, ironclad 

guarantee' of the current Prime Minister is worthless 

and that she is doing her level best to destroy private 

insurance. 

Debate interrupted. 


Cybersafety 

Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (20:00): 

I move: 


(1) acknowledges that: 

CHAMBER 

(a) cyber-bullying and inadequate cyber-safety poses a 

significant threat to the welfare and security of all 

Australians, especially young people; and 

(b) this threat will increase with new technology and 

greater connectivity; and 

(2) calls on the Government to enhance cyber-safety 

education in all Australian schools. 

The reasons for my motion are extremely clear. When 

eight- to 10-year-olds tell me they say they are 42 

years old to get onto Facebook and that they have 

hundreds of online friends that they do not know in 

person, I know we have a major problem. When a 

teenager in Perth is stalked using geotagging, I know 

we have a major problem. When teenagers Carly Ryan 

and Nona Belomesoff are lured to their deaths by 

someone they met online, I know we have a major 

problem. When a family has to leave a community 

because their daughter was bullied through the 

distribution of a sexually explicit online video, then I 

know we have a problem. When children do not know 

that everything they post online is there forever, I 

know we have a major problem, particularly when it 

comes to sexting messages, the sending of sexually 

explicit images or videos. With mounting numbers of 

young people committing suicide because of online 

bullying that can happen 24 hours a day, seven days a 

week, I know we have a major problem. 

My motion before the House is designed to help our 

young people to manage online risks they are facing 

every day. I want them to be much more aware and 

alert than they are now, for them to be confident, 

smart, safe and responsible online so that they can 

make the most of their online opportunities. We need a 

national coordinated response We all know the internet 

is a fantastic tool, providing amazing opportunities. We 

can learn in our own homes, achieve degrees and 

qualifications, shop from home, do our banking, 

license our vehicles, pay our rates and get most of our 

business advice. We communicate with our extended 

families. In fact, many of us are actually reliant on the 

internet. 

Young people are particularly active on the net. It is 

their world. They are voracious users and rely on 

technology. It is—and will always be—part of their 

daily lives. According to Telstra, Australian kids aged 

between 10 and 17 are online for an average of two 

hours a day, amongst the highest internet usage rates in 

the world. In my experience, in many instances this is 

actually a conservative estimate of the time spent 

online. However, many young people are completely 

unaware of both the power of the internet and the risks 

it entails. For instance, picture yourself walking 

through an open door where almost anything goes. For 

our children that is exactly what the internet is—the 

open door—so we need to provide as much education 

as possible so that young people can make good 

decisions online to help protect themselves and their


families. Surely this is the most important goal of 

cybersafety policy. And surely it is obvious that selfprotection 

relies almost entirely on education. 

Over the past three years, much of my time has been 

spent providing cybersafety and cyberbullying sessions 

for schools—from preschool through to year 12, at 

times with Australian Federal Police and state police 

officers. In my experience during this time, the 

majority of young people and their parents are not 

aware of online risks, particularly those on social 

media sites. This is backed up by research that shows 

that 61 per cent of 16- and 17-year-olds accept friend 

requests from people they do not know. By year 11, 17 

per cent have sent sexting messages and at least seven 

per cent meet someone in person who they have only 

met online according to the Australian Institute of 

Criminology. Seven per cent have been victims of 

cyberstalking and at least 25 per cent of children have 

been cyberbullied. 

From what young people have said to me, they often 

believe that in some way they are anonymous online: 

'because no-one can see me, I am safe!' I have found 

that view most prevalent in the five- to eight-year-old 

group. Some also believe, because they think they are 

anonymous online, that they can send or post the 

nastiest or most disgusting messages at times! Young 

people are also not aware that material they post online 

can stay online forever because the digital footprint of 

internet access is indelible. It is there forever and it is a 

permanent digital footprint. They simply do not 

understand that the internet never forgets. 

The impacts of sexting are permanent, the images 

are on the internet forever impacting on that 

individual's reputation and opportunities in life. 

Universities, award donors and employers search the 

social websites on the internet. In the US, research 

shows that 70 per cent of recruiters rejected candidates 

for jobs based on information found on social websites. 

Young people are also unaware that sexting may be 

considered a criminal offence. Filming and online 

sharing of sexual activities of people under the age of 

18 can lead to young people being charged by police 

and ending up on the national sex offenders list. 

All Australians need to be better educated about 

cybersafety and young people are a key part of this in 

helping to educate their peers and other generations of 

Australians. This includes their parents, their 

grandparents but very importantly their younger 

brothers and sisters who often put themselves and their 

families at risk with their online postings. I have heard 

this repeatedly in my school sessions. 

Young people also need to be taught the legal risks 

and the potential liabilities of social networking sites; 

of photo sharing; the short- and long-term 

consequences of sexting; and how to use their instincts 

online to recognise and deal with cyberstalking, online 

CHAMBER 

grooming, cyberbullying, their exposure to illegal or 

inappropriate material including the risk of 

inappropriate social and health behaviours, of privacy 

and identity theft and online security. They need to be 

taught about the issues of defamation, privacy 

disclosure and confidentiality, legal and ethical issues, 

intellectual property rights and copyright infringement, 

criminal laws including harassment and offensive 

material, computer gaming addictions, accessing of 

risk-taking sites, and the risk of posting personal 

identifying material that includes names, addresses and 

birthdays. These are the issues young people tell me 

constantly they are exposed to and dealing with online 

on a daily basis. It is difficult for young people to 

know exactly what their risks and liabilities are, 

because there is a fragmentation of cybersafety across 

agencies and jurisdictions, which is why a national 

coordinated approach is essential. 

There will be even more risk in the future. It 

changes constantly. That is why at a purely personal 

level I believe cybersafety should be a core part of the 

national curriculum. It needs to be taught as part of 

information technology and, in my view, the only way 

to achieve uniformity of curriculum quality is to put 

cybersafety into the national curriculum and, through 

education, empower these great young people not only 

to help each other but also to help their families. 

Ongoing education of students is a necessity given 

the rapid and constant changes in technology in apps, 

and I think we need to keep parents up to date through 

annual parent information sessions. We need a national 

commitment to educating our young people. I have 

spent three years doing cybersafety presentations in 

schools and I have listened to our great young people. I 

have come to the conclusion that education is a critical 

starting point for managing online risk. I will continue 

my work with my colleagues and members of the 

community to better include cybersafety in the national 

curriculum. 

While I am here I would like to thank every great 

young person—and there have been so many of 

them—who has attended my sessions. I want to thank 

them because they were honest with me. They gave me 

great information about exactly what they are dealing 

with online. I have every confidence that they are a 

major part of the answer to the online challenges 

confronting us all. I still have many cybersafety 

sessions booked for the weeks and months ahead, and I 

also want to thank the principals, teachers and parents 

for enabling and attending the sessions to date. I also 

really want to thank the Australian Federal Police and 

local state police officers who have come along with 

me. As I said in the initial sense, we very much need a 

national, proactive, coordinated approach to give 

children the education and coping skills to manage 

what they are doing online.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou): Is 

the motion seconded? 

Mr Turnbull: I second the motion and reserve my 

right to speak after the honourable member who is 

equipped with a lectern and ready to go. 


(20:09): I thank the member for Wentworth for his 

deferring to a lectern! I rise to speak on the motion of 

the member for Forrest that makes many suggestions 

and claims that I fully support and some that I do 

retreat from. I am on the same committee—the 

cybersafety committee—as the member for Forrest, so 

we have sat through many of the same presentations, 

and I do commend her for her role in educating her 

electorate about some of the issues associated with 

cybersafety. I also, as a member of this side of the 

chamber, am obviously happy to detail some of the 

appropriate actions that the Gillard government is 

taking to eradicate the issues of cybersafety and 

cybersecurity. I would also like particularly to 

acknowledge the role of Senator Bilyk, the chair of the 

committee that the member for Forrest and I are on, 

and the deputy chair, the member for Mitchell, for their 

contribution and their raising awareness of this issue 

amongst young people, amongst seniors and amongst 

Indigenous Australians—some of the groups that we 

have particularly targeted in our inquiries over the last 

few years. 

I do not have a crystal ball for where the internet 

will take us. If I did have a crystal ball, I am not sure if 

it would be a dark crystal or a light crystal in terms of 

the opportunities the internet will provide for us in the 

future. It is a great tool, but it also does provide 

opportunities for those who are, sadly, ill-disposed to 

take advantage of people in the community. In 

Australia—as we are focusing on this motion by the 

member for Forrest—one of the first comprehensive 

studies of cyberbullying shows that about 10 per cent 

of teenagers and children have experienced some form 

of sustained bullying using technology. The reality is 

that it is probably more. I would be interested in seeing 

the data from the member for Forrest on what is going 

on in her electorate. In our inquiry, when we went to 

my electorate years back, it seemed to be more. 

That is the reality of the internet; people take their 

school environment home. When the member for 

Forrest and I were at school, when you went home it 

was perhaps a safe environment. You at least had your 

family and support people and you did not take the 

schoolyard home. Sadly, as we have heard from school 

students in my electorate and throughout Australia in 

our inquiry, people take the schoolyard home. It can be 

a good thing in that you stay connected and you can 

share information and all the benefits that come with 

this wonderful tool—the internet—but it also means 

the tooth and claw of the schoolyard can be taken 

CHAMBER 

home to your bed at midnight. I have seen it. I have 

seen with family members where, when things go bad, 

you cannot escape from the bullying. When things go 

bad and people wish to bully you, when I was in school 

they had to drag you out the back of the bike shed and 

you could deal with it, but now you can be bullied, 

harassed, excluded, victimised, targeted and 

defamed—all of these things the member for Forrest 

detailed in her speech—in what used to be the safety of 

your own bedroom. This is the modern reality that we 

have heard evidence about. This is the reality 

confronting people as young as 10, 11 or 12—not just 

adults who might make an informed decision about the 

bullying they receive but people as young as 10, 11 or 

12 and perhaps younger, especially with mobile phones 

being such that people can access the internet from 

anywhere. 

And this bullying behaviour can have tragic 

consequences, as touched on by the member for 

Forrest. The cyberbullying committee reports found an 

overwhelming number of incidents where victims fell 

subject to a range of bullying from simple stuff like 

abusive phone calls, offensive photos or photos the 

content of which the Australian Federal Police might 

want to be aware through to stalking. The 

consequences of that can lead to depression, anxiety 

and further symptoms. Young people especially have 

suffered these symptoms when their self-esteem is 

affected. We have heard evidence in our electorates of 

cases of suicide and very serious immediate and longterm 

effects. This happens particularly when someone 

is a little bit different. The same rules of the schoolyard 

have existed for 2,000 years but now differences can 

be exploited, promulgated and distributed much more 

readily. 

Between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2011, the 

Queensland Commission for Children and Young 

People and Child Guardian's child death register 

recorded 140 deaths of children and young people due 

to suicide. Sadly, my wife in her public service job has 

been connected with most of those deaths. Every one 

of those deaths is a tragedy. Those 140 deaths are a 

cold, hard statistic but we can only imagine the tragedy 

associated with losing one of your children. 

The Gillard Labor government takes the safety and 

security of all Australians, especially our young, 

seriously. That is why in 2008 the government 

committed over $120 million towards a range of 

cybersafety programs to inform and educate young 

people as part of our cybersafety plan and has 

continued to invest in cybersafety initiatives. The 

cybersafety plan includes initiatives such as (1) the 

expansion of the Australian Federal Police Child 

Protection Operations team that has resulted in a total 

of 316 offenders having been arrested or summonsed 

for 840 child sex offence charges since mid-2009; (2) 

the improved handling of prosecutions; (3) funding for


the awareness of cyberbullying so people are prepared; 

and (4) funding for a national cybersafety education 

program, which is something that was touched on by 

the member for Forrest. 

The Labor government has also provided an 

additional $3 million to the Alannah and Madeline 

Foundation for a national pilot of its eSmart initiative, 

which I was proud to hear will be rolled out in all 

Queensland state schools. The Labor government has 

committed $4 million to develop new online tool kits 

to help parents, teachers, those training to be teachers, 

and students deal with school bullying. These tools will 

be available early in 2013. They include resources for 

parents, teachers and school support staff, as well as 

equipping graduate teachers with the knowledge and 

skills when they first enter the classroom. This is 

particularly important as there has been a recent surge 

in older graduates going back to teachers college or 

university to become teachers. I know that my fouryear-old 

and my eight-year-old have more knowledge 

in certain areas of the internet than I do as a 47-yearold. 

That is scary. Certainly they have knowledge of 

the iPad and things like that. I imagine there are many 

teachers who have life skills but are not internet savvy. 

Cybersecurity is a collective responsibility shared by 

all who use the internet. It is important, therefore, that 

businesses and individuals are proactive in taking 

measures to protect themselves while online. We need 

to start making progress in providing education for 

parents, teachers and young people about what they 

can do to speak up against bullies and the other risks 

that are on the internet. With a staggering one in six 

students being bullied weekly and one in five students 

having experienced some form of cyberbullying, it is 

clear that we need to take a stronger stand against 

bullying and encourage more people like Tom Wood, 

who has previously been a target of cyberbullying. 

Tom made it through these terrible situations and has 

now become an activist, speaking out in schools about 

tackling cyberbullying. 

The Gillard Labor government is committed to 

tackling the threat of cyberbullying and enhancing 

cybersafety education in all of our schools. One of the 

Gillard Labor government's key priorities is to provide 

all Australians, particularly our younger Australians 

who might be tech savvy but socially unaware, with 

the information, the confidence and the practical tools 

to protect themselves online. Some of these methods 

include: the development of the Stay Smart Online 

website and social media channels as key sources of 

information for all Australians on the simple steps they 

can take to be secure and confident online; the 

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 

operated SCAMwatch, which provides information to 

consumers and small businesses about how to 

recognise, avoid and report scams; the National Cyber 

Security Awareness Week held each year in 

CHAMBER 

partnership with industry; and the department's 

interactive self-learning cybersecurity education 

modules for primary and secondary school students 

that are free for all Australian students. The education 

package includes comprehensive resources for teachers 

and has been embraced by them. (Time expired) 

Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (20:20): The two 

honourable members who have just spoken—the 

member for Moreton and the member for Forrest— 

have both given very good speeches. The member for 

Moreton's speech was memorable but the member for 

Forrest's speech was so outstanding that it should be 

printed and circulated everywhere because it represents 

an extraordinarily comprehensive and concise 

summation of these important public policy issues. I 

really want to commend my colleague the member for 

Forrest for her work in this area. She has been a tireless 

advocate for greater awareness of cybersafety for 

Australian children. She has conducted so many 

cybersafety seminars in schools and has been a real 

example to all of us. I am sitting here next to my 

colleague the member for Casey. I remember a 

cybersafety session we had at Mooroolbark College, in 

the honourable member's electorate, that was inspired 

by the member for Forrest's work. All of us have 

become really energised and made aware of this issue 

by the member for Forrest's hard work. 

I beg to differ somewhat from the member for 

Moreton, our friend on the other side, on this point. I 

am very optimistic about young people and the 

internet. I think the digital natives who have grown up 

with the internet have developed skills of discernment 

that their parents and grandparents by and large do not 

have. In my observation they recognise that online 

there is a vast mass of material and they seem to have 

developed a very considerable skill for working out 

what is reliable, what is not reliable and so forth. They 

are less gullible than their parents who, of course, are 

used to dealing with sources of information, in printed 

form or on broadcast television and radio, which were 

essentially curated. It is the uncurated nature of the 

internet as an information platform that provides so 

many challenges. 

Nonetheless, there are very real concerns about the 

extent of bullying online. Most children are subject to 

bullying in one form or another. You do not need to 

read Lord of the Flies or be a schoolteacher or parent to 

know that children can be cruel to each other, and at a 

very vulnerable time of life. The problem with 

cyberbullying is that that cruelty is amplified to an 

enormous audience, and so what was a nasty remark 

behind the bike shed, as the member for Moreton said, 

is now broadcast to the whole school and community. 

This is where education and awareness is so 

important. It is important, also, for young people to 

recognise that the anonymity they think they have


online is pretty spurious. There is a famous New 

Yorker cartoon of one dog sitting at a chair with his 

paws on the keyboard of a computer, looking down to 

another dog on the floor, and he says to the dog on the 

floor: 'On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.' 

Regrettably, increasingly everybody on the internet 

knows exactly who you are. Privacy on the internet is a 

very spurious concept. As the member for Forrest 

said—and this is really one of the key messages that 

we need to get across to young people—throughout all 

of human history, the default has been to forget. We 

have had to make an enormous effort to remember 

things. We had to paint pictures of mammoths on the 

walls of caves or remember great ballads, develop a 

writing system and carve letters in rocks, or paint 

pictures and take photographs—but generally we 

forgot things. The reality now, in the digital world, is 

that it is almost impossible to delete anything, so it is 

almost impossible to forget. This is the important thing 

for young people to remember: those embarrassing 

photographs that they take of themselves or their 

friends and post on Facebook today could be around 

for ever. They may take them off their Facebook page 

but they can be captured, they can be downloaded by 

someone else, a screenshot can be taken of them and 

they can be recorded for ever, so sober awareness is of 

critical importance. 

I want to end where I began, by commending the 

member for Forrest for bringing this motion before the 

House and supporting her in her effort to make our 

children more aware of the internet. (Time expired) 

Ms HALL (Shortland) (20:25): Cyberbullying is an 

extremely dangerous and hurtful form of bullying 

which has no boundaries and takes bullying to a new 

level. Cyberbullying is particularly harmful because it 

can reach anyone and a lot of people can take part in it. 

It is often done in secret, with the bully hiding who 

they are by creating false profiles or names, or sending 

anonymous messages. It is difficult to remove, as the 

previous speaker stated, as it is shared online and can 

be recorded and saved in many different places. It is 

hard for a person being bullied to accept if they use 

technology often. The content—photos, text or 

videos—can be shared with a lot of people, and this 

content may also be easy to find by searching on a web 

browser. 

While cyberbullying is similar to face-to-face 

bullying, it really takes bullying to a new level. It can 

occur 24/7 and be difficult to escape. It is invasive, 

impacting on students' social worlds at school and at 

home, often online. It can have a large audience and is 

readily shared with groups or posted on public forums, 

and it is very, very difficult to delete. I am sure every 

member of this House has come across incidents where 

students in their electorate have been bullied on the 

net. The government has recognised the impact and 

dangers of cyberbullying and that is why the 

CHAMBER 

government has invested in the cybersafety plan to 

help schools and educators protect children from 

inappropriate material and contacts while online. 

If you are a young person and you are being sent 

threatening emails, being teased or made fun of online, 

having rumours spread about you online, having 

unpleasant comments made about you, being sent 

unwanted messages, having somebody use your 

screen-name or being deliberately ignored or left out of 

things, these are the kind of activities that really impact 

on you. That is why we need to make sure that action is 

taken in this area. 

I would like to recount the story of one young 

woman, a young girl attending one of the local high 

schools in my area, who received texts and messages 

on her Facebook page. These were very threatening. 

She was threatened with physical harm—not only 

within her school but, because of the nature of the Lake 

Macquarie, Newcastle and Hunter area, that threat and 

those comments that were made about her spread 

throughout the whole of the Hunter. They were then 

published on sites down on the Central Coast and this 

young woman, this young girl attending a local high 

school, was scared to leave her home. She was 

terrified—absolutely terrified. This is why 

cyberbullying is particularly dangerous, as it 

depersonalises the abuse and the abusers are not held to 

account. They can say whatever they like on social 

media and it is really hard to track them down and hold 

them accountable. 

Leigh Sales, on 7.30, detailed the case of a young 

girl, Zara Nasr, who idolised the pop star Delta 

Goodrem. She was subjected to the most dreadful 

abuse on the internet. This is a problem facing our 

community as a whole. I hope that we all come 

together on this important issue. Cybersafety is a 

collective responsibility. It is the responsibility of 

government, schools and individuals. Parents should 

monitor very carefully their children's computer usage. 

Children should not be allowed to sit in their rooms, in 

front of their computers with no controls whatsoever. 

Controls on websites are very difficult to enforce 

because many of the websites are offshore. Many 

challenges need to be addressed if cyberbullying is to 

be stamped out and it can only happen if all sides of 

parliament— (Time expired) 

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (20:30): I am very 

pleased to speak on this motion, moved by the member 

Forrest, who has been a very strong advocate on the 

topic of cybersafety for several years. Last year, 

building on the member for Forrest's work, the Leader 

of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, established the 

Coalition's Online Safety Working Group to consult 

around the country in developing policies to assist 

parents, carers and teachers to better protect children


and young people from the risks associated with the 

internet and social media. 

As the chair of that group and in working with 

parliamentarians from every state and territory, we 

have conducted a very extensive program of 

consultation around all states and territories. We have 

spoken with many parents, teachers, industry 

representatives and children, from age six up to 17. We 

visited almost 20 schools and held a range of 

community forums and meetings in every state and 

territory. Of course, those meetings continue. Just 

recently I, along with the member for Casey, held 

cybersafety forums in Upper Yarra and Yarra Junction. 

It is very clear that children's online safety is a major 

concern for parents and teachers. We have heard some 

very troubling stories about cyberbullying. Let me 

mention some things I was struck by. A 13-year-old 

from Caboolture told us that she had over 800 friends 

on Facebook and admitted she did not know many of 

them personally. A principal in Perth told us that he 

had been sorting out Facebook disputes between 

children as young as six and seven. A mother in 

Tasmania sought a court order protecting her daughter 

from online bullies, including an order that they not 

contact her on Facebook, an order which was refused 

by the magistrate because, he said, 'I don't know how it 

works'. There is plenty of evidence that parents and 

children who run into difficulties with online bullying 

and other undesirable behaviour do not know where to 

turn. The major social media outlets are often not as 

responsive as they ought to be. 

So in our discussion paper, which we issued late last 

year, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition 

and the shadow minister for communications, we 

recommended some key measures which we believed 

would go a long way towards addressing these issues: 

establishing a children's e-safety commissioner to take 

a national leadership role in this area; implementing 

rapid removal protocols for large social media outlets, 

for material that is targeted at and likely to cause harm 

to an Australian child through a co-operative 

regulatory scheme; assisting parents and carers to make 

informed decisions about devices such as smartphones 

and tablets, by establishing recognised branding, 

indicating their suitability for younger children and 

teenagers; providing greater support for schools 

through a stronger online safety component within the 

National Safe Schools Framework, and assisting with 

online safety resources for schools; and undertaking a 

national public education campaign to highlight online 

safety issues. 

A key proposal in the discussion paper is for greater 

support for schools in their work to assist the children 

in their care to be safe online. This would involve 

providing greater support for schools through a 

CHAMBER 

stronger online safety component within the existing 

National Safe Schools Framework. 

After several years of no action from this 

government with regard to protecting children online, 

it was good to see an announcement from the current 

government in January this year. The coalition 

welcomed the fact that that announcement followed the 

lead that the coalition had established in key areas, 

announcing an education module for school children 

and voluntary protocols, involving some social media 

outlets. While these arrangements are welcome, it is 

clear that this announcement by government does not 

go far enough. 

The coalition has made it clear that we expect the 

major social media outlets to step up and show a 

greater degree of social responsibility than they have 

shown to date in working with government and 

regulatory agencies to address the problem of 

providing rapid responses to cyberbullying when that is 

experienced by children. 

The coalition expects that our discussion paper 

'Enhancing Online Safety for Children' will stimulate 

discussion. Indeed, we have received an extensive 

range of submissions, which we are working through. 

Based upon our discussion paper and those 

submissions we will be bringing forward a policy at the 

next election. We expect that, in response to that, 

social media outlets and other internet companies will 

be better placed to demonstrate their commitment to 

corporate social responsibility in protecting children 

from harm. We also want to see enhanced cybersafety 

education through providing greater support for 

schools through a stronger online safety component 

within the National Safe Schools Framework. We also 

want to see a national public education campaign to 

highlight online safety issues. I commend this motion 

and congratulate the member for Forrest on her 

significant work in this area. 

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (20:35): I am very 

pleased to speak in this debate on cybersafety and I 

thank the member for Forrest for bringing this very 

important issue before the House. As a parent I am 

very interested in this area and I know that people 

other than parents of course are also very interested in 

this area and rightly so. This motion raises a number of 

very important issues about the role of regulation in 

our society. When we talk about emerging 

technologies, a debate will always happen on how best 

to regulate where regulation should occur. While we 

have that debate, I think two things should remain 

paramount. Firstly, the safety of children is 

paramount—we call it cybersafety and we need to 

focus on the issue of safety—and, secondly, harm 

minimisation generally as it applies to users of 

technology.


I think it is very important to have in that process, as 

previous speakers have said, education in schools 

targeted specifically at young people. But I also think a 

very important role is to be played by parents. I think 

that is one area where education could focus in 

particular on things such as ensuring that parents speak 

to children about it. Even 30 years ago, or a couple of 

decades ago, there were questions in Dolly magazine— 

I am showing my age—like, 'Have your parents talked 

to you about sex education?' Well, today we know 

there are so many different ways that that information 

can be gleaned, but I think the real question today is: 

how much do young people know about the dangers of 

getting involved in some of these practices that, 

unfortunately, a lot of people consider to be normal? 

As previous speakers have said, and it is very true: 

content does not just disappear. It probably does not 

amaze a lot of people here, who have been engaged in 

this debate, but you would be amazed to know, in 

society, how many young people in particular think 

that, because they have deleted a post, text or picture 

from their device, that content is gone forever. But of 

course it is not. 

The other thing to remember—and I think the 

member for Shortland highlighted this—is that this is a 

practice and a phenomenon that has no boundaries. It 

does not matter what you post in the digital age; 

anyone will be able to access it. That brings up 

particularly important issues for people who live in 

small towns. I am sure the member for Forrest will 

have seen it, but last week, on the 7.30 program, there 

was a story with a focus on sexting—in particular, on 

issues that are happening in Victoria and on an inquiry 

that has just finished in Victoria—and there was a 

focus on some things that were happening to some girls 

in a small Victorian town. I will quote from the 

transcript: 

One in five young women have posted images of themselves 

nude or semi-nude online. Nearly half the girls have been 

asked to. 

In this story there was a focus on a small Victorian 

country town where Facebook forums, it said: 

… have trashed the reputations of local girls. 

In small towns, where news spreads fast, and even 

faster in digital format, the lives of these young people 

have been, in some cases, I think, irreparably damaged, 

when you look at some of the evidence. 

One of the people who were interviewed for this 

program, named Fiona Coe, talked about these girls 

and said: 

They had the photos of them, they had their names 

underneath and it said, you know, phrases like "Your local 

slut" such and such a name with their photo or, "Look, she 

wants this." … so it was quite putdown and bullying, really. 

I think it is very disturbing that we have these things 

going on. 

CHAMBER 

I note that there was, as I said, the inquiry 

specifically into sexting by the Victorian Law Reform 

Committee, which looked at the cybersafety 

committee's report that was done by this parliament. 

But I also think it is instructive to look at a couple of 

other things that were mentioned, in terms of 

Australian statistics. The Australian Council for 

Educational Research cited a Victorian study on the 

prevalence of sexting and it said that a 2009 survey of 

4,770 students in years 5 to 11, from 39 independent 

schools in Victoria, found that overall 7.3 per cent of 

girls had been asked to send a nude picture of 

themselves, and this increased with age. I think it is 

very important, as the member for Forrest rightly 

states, that we have education in place. We do need 

consistency in this area, and we do need effective 

education that is targeted towards these very practices 

that we are seeking to make sure are stamped out as 

much as possible. 

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (20:40): I rise with great 

pleasure to support the motion of the member for 

Forrest in relation to cyberbullying and cybersafety 

posing a threat, especially to young people. I want to 

note the contribution of the member for Forrest in this 

space in this parliament. She has done an enormous 

amount of work on the committee and the parliament's 

Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety. Indeed, this 

motion represents yet another step forward in 

acknowledging that this House calls for greater 

education and enhancing cybersafety education in all 

Australian schools. I want to rise to support that in 

particular, because, after an inquiry into cybersafety 

and young people, and with all of the experience I have 

had in my role as the deputy chair of the cybersafety 

committee, I am aware that education is put forward as 

the best solution to this challenge facing young people 

today. 

We have heard from members of this House about 

the challenges facing young people in a rapidly 

changing world and, indeed, it is telling when all 

groups—the internet industry, all of the different 

businesses associated with providing the internet in 

Australia, parent groups and academics—say that the 

best thing they can do is encourage, educate and equip 

young people with things that they need to prevent 

these things from happening in the first place. Perhaps 

the most telling thing that was said in evidence in the 

time that I have been on this committee was, when we 

were discussing internet filtering—a pet hate of 

mine—a witness said that we need to teach these 

young people to use the filters in their heads. I think 

that was perhaps the most telling crystallisation of the 

concept. 

We know that most Australian children are 

immersed in the internet. We know that the attitude of 

social media and social networking is evolving in this 

country. We know that Facebook has opened an office


in Australia, which is a great triumph for Australia and 

Australians, and I commend the work of the committee 

and the member for Forrest in forcing this. And we 

have rejected the attitude of Mr Mozelle Thompson 

from Facebook who said, under questioning from me 

about the issue of children under the age of 13 using 

the Facebook site, when challenged on the fact that 

there were tens of thousands of young people under the 

age of 13 using Facebook: 

I accept that there are people who lie, and sometimes 

those are younger people who maybe do not belong on the 

site. Facebook has mechanisms to try to detect them, but it is 

not perfect. 

This was the response of Facebook—and, of course, 

every kid in my street under the age of 13 is on 

Facebook. That attitude is a thing of the past. Indeed, I 

call again for the internet industry to understand that 

self-regulation is better than failing repeatedly in this 

space and having governments—bad governments and 

good governments—legislate over the top of them. 

There is a great role for self-regulation. There is an 

even greater role for cybersafety education in all 

Australian schools. 

I was privileged to launch, with Kids Helpline and 

Optus, a resource that went into all 10,000 of 

Australia's schools, the 'Make cyberspace a better 

place' campaign. This initiative of Kids Helpline and 

Optus saw this resource—which was an education pack 

containing information on cyberbullying, sexting and 

the safe use of technology—go into 10,000 primary 

and secondary schools. It was piloted at Oakhill 

College in my electorate, and I want to re-commend 

the kids there for the work that they did in improving 

the quality of those lessons and ensuring that they were 

young-people relevant. 

But, as to the breaking up of these categories into 

the right age groups of primary schools and high 

schools, where to fit in sexting, where to fit in 

cyberbullying and where to fit in the safe use of 

technology is an evolving discussion. But it is a critical 

discussion. It is something which I completely support 

as the best mechanism available to our society to help 

protect young people from the dangers they face 

online. It is certainly better than passing a law through 

this place. It is certainly better than seeking to impose 

unnecessary red tape and other institutions like filtering 

to pretend to parents and to communities that the 

government can filter out negative or harmful 

consequences of the online space—it cannot. 

That is why I am very pleased to rise in support of 

the motion of the member for Forrest. She has put 

forward something that is common sense and that 

ought to be common sense; that is, when we move into 

this era where online digital use is prevalent among all 

our young people, it is absolutely vital that we ensure 

this is part of our education system, that we equip our 

CHAMBER 

children with the tools they need to make their own 

decisions and protect themselves online as the best way 

forward. 

Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (20:45): The member for 

Forrest has probably been overwhelmed with 

compliments tonight, but it is a reflection on both sides 

of the House recognising and commending the 

member's efforts in this space. I had the opportunity to 

listen to the member for Forrest's contribution from my 

office before coming to the floor and, seeing all the 

work that she has done, I know this is not just a motion 

in word but in deed as well. I join with others in 

commending the member for Forrest in bringing this to 

the House. 

As is evident from the contributions this evening, 

we all take the security of Australians seriously, 

particularly as it impacts on younger Australians. I was 

fortunate to serve for a brief period with the member 

for Forrest on the Joint Select Committee on Cyber- 

Safety when it handed down its interim report in June 

2011, titled High-wire act: cyber-safety and the young. 

It had about 32 recommendations to it. 

Cybersafety remains an important area of personal 

protection for all Australians, and educating people is 

very important, as has been reflected on a number of 

times tonight. There is no doubt schools and early 

childhood education have a role to play in shaping 

protective behaviours long before cyberbullying 

becomes a problem. The government has made 

enormous commitments in the area of cybersafety 

across portfolios. As has been mentioned by my 

colleague the member for Moreton, there has been a $3 

million grant to the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, 

and a national pilot of its eSmart cybersafety initiative 

has now been delivered to approximately 1,600 

schools. 

Parents are critical. They will form the front line in 

helping to keep young people safe online and in 

keeping lines of communication open, particularly on 

sensitive issues. Parents will be the key group in this 

area of education. There are positive signs worth 

reflecting on, including a 2010 parents survey 

commissioned by the government which found that one 

in two parents, or 46 per cent, feel that they are 'well 

informed' about cybersafety issues. What was 

interesting in the survey was that it found the majority 

of parents—84 per cent—had spoken to their children 

about the risks of being online, and 80 per cent had 

implemented preventative measures to minimise those 

risks. That is an encouraging start, but the findings 

demonstrate the need for further work. 

The government has committed a total of $125.8 

million on its cybersafety plans to combat online risks 

to children and help parents and educators protect 

children from inappropriate material. Under our plan 

the government has established a range of advisory


groups to ensure world's best practice when it comes to 

protecting children online, including a Consultative 

Working Group on cybersafety and a teachers and 

parents advisory group on cybersafety. 

I make special mention of the Youth Advisory 

Group on cybersafety, or YAG, as some like to call it, 

which provides students from all over the country a 

direct voice to the government on cybersafety issues. 

Nearly 3,000 students from 400 schools will participate 

in the 2013 program via online consultations and a 

cybersafety summit, including students from the 

electorate of Chifley. I am proud to say that students 

from Evans High School participated in the YAG, and 

I commend them for their efforts. 

Additionally, and quite separate to this, I pay tribute 

to the Youth Advisory Group of Mount Druitt's 

headspace, which recently walked me through this 

issue and talked through some of the pressures that 

young people are facing from online bullying and—as 

has been mentioned tonight—the ever-present danger 

there. It is not just a matter of being at school; this is 

something that goes home and is almost like a 24/7 

phenomenon. This is a reflection on the fact that social 

media has become an integral dimension of so many 

young people's lives and where they are most 

vulnerable. No longer are computers the sole domain 

of social media; this transfers onto platforms through 

mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. That is 

why the government's Cybersafety Button has become 

an important tool, ensuring young people have 24/7 

access to cybersafety resources and advice and can 

report inappropriate behaviour, including to the AFP. 

Since it was launched in 2010 it has been made 

available on nearly one million computers and mobile 

devices. 

This demonstrates, too, that social networks need to 

be mindful of the danger and ever-vigilant. As much as 

there has been negative comments about social media 

sites like Facebook, having met last year with 

Facebook's Product Manager for Site Integrity and 

Trust Engineering, Jake Brill, it seems there are some 

encouraging signs. But we still have a lot of work to do 

and we need to keep the focus on this. Having a 

parliament debate is one way we can do this. 

Congratulations. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Owens): Order! 

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The 

debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate 

will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 

Assyrian Population of Iraq 

Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (20:50): I move: 


(1) notes that: 

(a) the Assyrian population of Iraq continues to suffer 

persecution 10 years after the fall of Saddam Hussein; and 

CHAMBER 

(b) since 2003, 600,000 Christian Assyrians have left 

Iraq, including many thousands to Australia; and 

(2) being aware of the Assyrian aspirations for the 

establishment of an autonomous province, calls on the 

Government of Iraq to take all appropriate steps to protect 

the rights of minorities, including the Assyrian Christian 

people, and to support the continuation of their linguistic, 

cultural and religious traditions. 

In 2005 I moved a motion in this House highlighting 

the plight of the Assyrian people of Iraq. It called on 

the Australian government to make representations to 

the then newly elected transitional government of Iraq 

to ensure that the Assyrian people, Chaldean people, 

Syriac people and Mandaean people of Iraq would be 

constitutionally recognised and guaranteed the right to 

freely exercise their customs, would be given the same 

protection by law enforcement and international 

security forces as other ethnic groups, and would be 

entitled to proper representation and participation in all 

levels of government. This was a motion moved those 

years ago which passed the House. 

It pains me to say that all these years later the 

situation for the Assyrian people has worsened, not 

improved. Assyrians are tragically used to oppression. 

During the years of Saddam Hussein they are subject to 

the policies of the Ba'ath Party. They were victims, 

along with other groups, of the al-Anfal campaign of 

persecution in the late 1980s which saw many Assyrian 

villages in the north of Iraq destroyed and thousands of 

civilians killed. The Assyrian people and the Chaldean 

people celebrated the fall of Saddam Hussein in the 

hope that democracy would bring freedom—and I went 

to some of those celebrations here in Australia—but 

this has not been the case. The hopes and dreams of the 

Assyrian people have been dashed as the situation has 

worsened in Iraq. 

Assyrians and Chaldeans are easy targets. As 

Christians they suffer violence as proxies. They are 

targeted as representatives for anger directed at the 

United States, Australia and the West. There have been 

many instances of this since 2003. Churches have been 

destroyed and Assyrian people have suffered. On 

Epiphany Day, 6 January 2008, five Assyrian churches 

were attacked in a coordinated assault and destroyed 

by car bombs. The deadliest attack against Assyrians 

since the war began was in 2010, in a Baghdad church 

attack which left at least 58 worshippers dead. 

These are just a few instances of the persecution and 

violence that Assyrian and Chaldean people live under 

in Iraq. This has led to an exodus from Iraq as Assyrian 

people and Chaldean people have fled the violence and 

persecution. It is estimated that just 400,000 Assyrians 

remain in Iraq, many of them older Assyrians who 

have exhausted every last penny of their savings to 

fund the escape of their children. These are the 

indigenous people of Iraq. These are innocent people 

who have been driven from their country. They have


fled to Jordan, to Lebanon, to Turkey and to Syria. 

Many of those who have fled to Syria over the last 10 

years have since been forced to leave this haven where 

they were looking for at least some form of protection. 

These people were the primary target of the 

government's increase in the refugee component for the 

Middle East of 1,000 people affected by the Syrian 

crisis. I am very pleased to say that since I left the 

immigration portfolio I have kept in regular contact 

with progress in settling Assyrian, Chaldean and 

Mandaean people who have been affected by the 

Mandaean crisis. I have been very pleased to receive 

the updates on large numbers of people who have been 

resettled and given the chance of a new life in 

Australia. 

This is the problem, but we must have a view to the 

solution. Having looked at this issue over many years 

and having worked with the Assyrian and Chaldean 

communities, having done much in relation to working 

with the Australian government and the successive 

foreign ministers—Smith, Rudd and Carr—on this 

issue, I have reached the view that the only sustainable 

solution is an autonomous region within Iraq, 

administered by Chaldeans and Assyrians. 

In the north-west of Iraq lies the Nineveh plains, a 

4,000 square kilometre area that is believed to have 

been and is the traditional heartland of the Assyrian 

people. The majority of its population is Christian, 

including many displaced Assyrians who came to the 

Nineveh plains to seek refuge. There have been calls 

for the establishment of an autonomous region in the 

Nineveh plains for the Assyrian people, and I support 

this call. This would help in establishing their own 

police and defence forces, such as other groups have 

been able to do. In 2010, 4,300 Christians fled the 

attacks in nearby Mosul and relocated to the Nineveh 

plains. They were joined in following years by 

Assyrians who, as I said, have left Syria because of the 

conflict there. 

The idea of Assyrian autonomy is not new. It is not 

actually opposed, by all reports, by the current Iraqi 

government. President Jalal Talabani has said: 

… there are areas where the Christians are a majority in Iraq, 

and we do not oppose the formation of a province … 

He went on to say: 

We believe that attention should be focused on healing the 

wounded Christians and to provide humanitarian aid … we 

do not want to displace a dear part of the Iraqi population, 

especially since the Christians are the indigenous people of 

Iraq, who lived in Iraq since the advent of Christianity, 

played a role in civilization and culture of Iraq. 

This is also supported by other groups in Iraq. 

While support has been expressed for this idea, 

action has not been forthcoming. I believe the time for 

talk has passed and the time for action has arrived. As I 

have said in this House in relation to other matters, 

CHAMBER 

there is an obligation on all governments to ensure the 

protection of all its citizens, regardless of their race or 

religion. That is an obligation which of course also 

applies in Iraq. I would foresee the situation—and it 

may at this point seem to be a dream or to be 

ambitious—where some of those Assyrians and 

Chaldeans could feel safe in returning to Iraq, that 

exodus could be reversed and the people who are living 

in very difficult situations in Syria, in Jordan, in 

Lebanon and in Turkey could return to their homeland, 

the nation of which they are indigenous people. If this 

autonomous region were developed and implemented it 

would not be an ambitious dream but could be the 

reality. 

Around the world many Assyrians are working 

towards this, advocating for this. Many Assyrians are 

here in Australia. I recognise the Assyrian Universal 

Alliance and representatives present in the gallery 

tonight, Hermiz Shahen and David David, being the 

leaders of the delegation and being particularly 

forthright in representing the views of their people. The 

clergy, the various bishops, are represented here in 

Australia and around the world. 

The situation facing Christian minorities in the 

Middle East is a crisis. It is a crisis which receives 

nowhere near enough attention in what is a busy and 

jam-packed national and international agenda. But it is 

a crisis which is real and which has seen good people 

and innocent people die, good people and innocent 

families leaving their homeland and facing uncertainty 

and desperate situations. I think it is incumbent on the 

nations around the world, those of us who were 

involved in the coalition of the willing and others, to 

face this issue square on and to work cooperatively 

with the government of Iraq and remind them of this. 

This has been an issue that the Australian 

government has been active on. I know Foreign 

Minister Carr raised the issue with then Secretary of 

State Clinton and current Secretary of State Kerry and 

with Foreign Secretary Hague. He has done that in 

relation to the situation of Christians in the Middle East 

generally, the Syrian and Chaldean situations, the 

situation of the Copts of Egypt and others. So he, and 

we, should: this is an appropriate matter for the 

Australian parliament to be considering tonight. 

We have a strong and vibrant Assyrian population, 

but an Assyrian population which has many sleepless 

nights, worried about the fate of their brothers and 

sisters, their cousins and, in many instances, their 

elderly parents who do not feel able to make the 

journey to safety but who live in constant fear of 

persecution and violence. They should live in that fear 

for no longer. If the measures that are proposed by the 

Assyrian community are adopted then that will be a 

reality. It is something that this House, I think, is right 

to consider this evening.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Owens): Is the 

motion seconded? 

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (21:01): I rise to 

second the motion moved by the member for 

McMahon and to speak in support of it. I note that this 

is the second motion in the House today on Assyrian 

issues, following the motion moved earlier by the 

member for Berowra. I recognise in the gallery tonight 

Hermiz Shahen and David David of the Assyrian 

Universal Alliance and their delegation. 

There are two parts to this motion. The first part, 

clause 1(a), states that this House notes: 

(a) the Assyrian population of Iraq continues to suffer 

persecution 10 years after the fall of Saddam Hussein. 

Saddam Hussein was the most brutal of dictators. He 

led his people into senseless wars—the Iran-Iraq war, 

the invasion of Kuwait—that resulted in hundreds of 

thousands of deaths. He used chemical weapons on his 

own people. I recall a question that was asked at the 

time of the Gulf War: was Iraq the way it was because 

of Saddam or was Saddam the way he was because of 

Iraq? History now answers that question, and it seems 

there is truth in both, for Saddam and his Ba'athist 

regime did at least keep the genie of Islamic militancy 

bottled up for a time. 

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Assyrians in Iraq 

have been the targets of numerous fatal attacks by 

Islamic terrorist groups. I will give a few examples. In 

August 2000 for an attack by Islamists on Iraqi 

Christian churches killed 11 people. In 2006 an 

Orthodox priest, Boulos Iskander, was snatched off the 

streets of Mosul by a group that demanded a ransom. 

Even though the ransom was paid he was beheaded; 

worse still, when his body was found the priest's arms 

and legs had also been cut off. In 2008 the Assyrian 

clergymen Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of the 

Chaldean Catholic Church in Mosul died after being 

abducted. In January 2008 bombs exploded outside 

nine churches. This followed a group affiliated with al- 

Qaeda, calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq, 

stating that Iraq's indigenous Christians were a 

'legitimate target'. And on 31 October 2010 militants of 

al-Qaeda in Iraq laid bloody siege to 'Our Lady of 

Deliverance' Church in Baghdad during Sunday 

evening mass, killing 58 people, including two priests, 

and wounding 78 more. As detailed in The New York 

Times on 1 October 2010: 

Blood still smeared the walls of Our Lady of Salvation 

Church on Monday. Scraps of flesh remain between the 

pews. It was the worst massacre of Iraqi Christians since the 

war began here in 2003. 

Survivors said one of the priests, Father Sahib: 

… was pushed to the ground as he grasped a crucifix and 

pleaded with the gunmen to spare the worshippers. 

He was then killed, his body riddled with bullets. 

CHAMBER 

The motivation behind these attacks on Iraqi Christians 

is religious. It is aimed at driving the minority out of 

Iraq. What is happening today in Iraq is ethnic 

cleansing. Assyrians are being killed in a deliberate 

and strategic way. This brings me to clause 1(b) of this 

motion which notes the fall in the number of Christians 

in Iraq since 2003. At that time there were nearly 1.4 

million Christians in Iraq, but due to deaths and forced 

emigration the figure has fallen to around 500,000. 

The new Iraq, from the time of its liberation from 

the Ba'athist regime, has witnessed a huge exodus of 

Christians. In the decade since the invasion by the 

coalition of the willing, more than half of Iraq's 

Christians have fled to refugee camps in Syria or 

Jordan, reducing a pre-war population of more than a 

million to 500,000 or maybe fewer, maybe only 

400,000, most of whom survive today in Iraqi 

Kurdistan. Those remaining are experiencing one of 

the world's most pressing humanitarian crises, with 

systematic persecution largely unreported in the 

mainstream media. Today, on their ancestral soil, all 

that is left of the world's oldest Christian nation is a 

small and desperate minority. A culture that survived 

centuries of hardship now stands on the verge of 

disappearing completely. If nothing is done, the 

Christian community in Iraq, after more than 2,000 

years as a significant presence, may disappear 

altogether. 

The second clause of this motion sets up what the 

international community must do to ensure this never 

happens. The motion calls for the government of Iraq 

to establish an autonomous province in the Nineveh 

plains region to provide a haven for Assyrians and all 

other historically Christian people, for the continuation 

of their linguistic, cultural and religious traditions. 

In considering this motion, it is important to 

understand that Iraq is a nation artificially created out 

of the ruins of the old Ottoman Empire. It is composed 

of multiple ethnicities and religious sects. Iraq's 

modern borders were mostly demarcated in 1922, not 

by the Iraqi people but by the League of Nations when 

the Ottoman Empire was divided. It placed Iraq under 

the authority of the United Kingdom as the British 

Mandate of Mesopotamia. A monarchy was established 

in 1921, and the Kingdom of Iraq gained independence 

from Britain in 1932. 

In 1958 the monarchy was overthrown and the 

Republic of Iraq was created. It has been controlled by 

the Ba'ath Party from 1968 until 2003 when the Ba'ath 

Party was removed from power after an invasion by 

coalition forces. The coalition presence in Iraq ended 

in 2011. 

Iraq has never known a functioning democracy. Its 

different groups were only held together by Saddam's 

use of political terror, and this worked to keep Iraq 

together until the invasion of 2003. So we cannot look


at Iraq through rose-coloured Western glasses, 

assuming that multiculturalism will just work out fine. 

Just look at the overall chaos in Iraq today: more than 

1,000 people were killed in violence in Iraq in May this 

year, making it the deadliest month since the sectarian 

slaughter of 2006-07. And on Saturday the United 

Nations reported that the fear is raised of a return to 

civil war. Today we read reports of five men being 

arrested in Iraq after three laboratories designed to 

produce sarin and mustard gas were uncovered. Also 

recovered were model helicopters, flown by remote 

control, which were designed to distribute the chemical 

agents. It seems clear that the terror plot of al-Qaeda 

planned to strike targets not only within Iraq but also in 

Europe and the US, using chemical weapons and 

model aircraft. 

Amongst this chaos the new authorities in Baghdad 

are simply unable to protect their Christian minority. 

So the only way forward is what is known as the 

'Nineveh plains solution': the establishment of an 

autonomous province in the Nineveh plains region at 

the centre of the ancestral Assyrian homeland, to 

provide a safe haven for Assyrian and all other 

historically Christian people. In those plains, where the 

Bible places the Garden of Eden, there already exists a 

compact Christian population. For the Assyrian 

Christian, including the Chaldean-Syriac community, 

the only effective solution is for the Assyrian people to 

remain in Iraq in the creation of a new province in the 

Nineveh plains—the heart of the ancestral Assyrian 

homeland. 

Local control would allow these indigenous people 

to gain a stable foothold within their own country, 

where they could sustain, develop and grow a base 

population in a secure and stable environment. 

Christian autonomy in the region would protect 

Assyrian communities and also work as a buffer zone 

between warring sides. This solution is also consistent 

with the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples. 

We now have a nonpermanent seat on the United 

Nations Security Council—one that came at great 

expense to the Australian taxpayer, and we only hold it 

for two short years. This should not just be a trophy 

that sits on our mantelpiece gathering dust. We must 

use our voice to promote freedom, democracy, human 

rights and religious liberty, and to raise the significant 

human rights concerns of the Christian Assyrians with 

the Iraqi government. 

There is no other alternative other than to see the 

ongoing Christian Assyrian genocide—the second of 

this century. We have a moral obligation to see that 

this cultural extinction will not happen. 

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Government Whip) 

(21:11): I would like to thank the member for 

McMahon for bringing this important motion to the 

CHAMBER 

House tonight. Could I also acknowledge his great 

contribution in his ministerial portfolio in increasing 

Australia's refugee intake to 20,000 and, specifically in 

identifying an additional thousand positions to be 

focused on refugees from the Middle East, with this 

particular situation in mind. So, Chris, thank you for 

what you have done and what you have done for the 

community. 

His electorate in McMahon, like my electorate of 

Fowler, has a high proportion of refugees from the 

Middle East, and particularly from Iraq. These refugees 

represent a small proportion, however, of the million 

Christians who have fled Iraq since the invasion of 

2003. A much larger proportion of individuals who 

were lucky enough to escape death now find 

themselves in refugee camps in Syria, Jordan, Turkey, 

Egypt and Lebanon, and they certainly lack basic 

human rights and living conditions. Many others 

escaped to other regions of northern Iraq, where their 

futures are still uncertain but they are somewhat safer 

from harassment and persecution. 

I join the member for McMahon in calling for the 

government of Iraq to establish an autonomous 

province in the Nineveh plains of northern Iraq, where 

Assyrian and other Christian minorities can live in 

peace and free of threat to their lives, their livelihoods, 

their cultural traditions and, most importantly, their 

religion. 

The Nineveh plains hold a high level of importance 

for the Assyrian people, and certainly for those of the 

Assyrian Church of the East—the Syriacs and 

Chaldeans. It is a location which is very much at the 

heartland of Assyrian ancestry, and you will find many 

of the Assyrian ruins in that vicinity. It is also a 

province where the majority of the population is drawn 

from a group of minorities, around half of them being 

Assyrians. 

Unfortunately, life is difficult for the citizens in that 

region particularly given the lack of infrastructure to 

aid the displaced population. There is certainly a grave 

lack of funding going into health, education, roads and 

other things that make this a viable region, ensuring the 

survival and prosperity of the population there. There 

is also growing struggle for political influence in the 

area between the various Assyrian entities, including 

the Assyrian Democratic Movement and sections of the 

Kurdistan Regional Government. 

The situation that Christians face in Iraq, including 

northern Iraq, and in the various refugee camps in 

neighbouring countries, is very alarming to all 

responsible members of the international community. 

The internally displaced people and refugees 

nevertheless are fortunate to at least have a dedicated 

group of representatives around the world who are 

advocating on their behalf and making sure that the 

global community is well aware of their struggle. We


have with us tonight representatives from the Assyrian 

Universal Alliance, an organisation which has a very 

strong presence in my local community and across 

Australia and New Zealand. I have met a number of 

times with their representatives Hermiz Shahen, the 

organisation's regional secretary, and David David, as 

well as with other representatives of the community, 

including Ninos Aaron, James Jacob, Joseph Joseph, 

Redmon Zomaya and Sankhairo Zomaya. I would very 

much like to thank the Assyrian Universal Alliance for 

the work that they do. Only recently, I had the 

opportunity to present them with a community service 

award for the work that they do looking after the 

wellbeing and settlement needs of the local Assyrian 

community. 

An individual who has provided me with significant 

insight into the issues facing the Assyrian population in 

Iraq is His Beatitude Mar Meelis Zaia, the 

Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Australia, New 

Zealand and Lebanon. He has been the leader of the 

Assyrian Church of the East in the Oceania region for 

the last 25 years. During our discussions, we shared 

common views on the importance of education among 

displaced people, particularly those in northern Iraq 

and particularly the younger generations. 

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (21:16): I rise to speak in 

support of the motion put by the member for McMahon 

and commend the member for bringing the motion to 

this House. I note that a motion of very similar intent 

was brought before the Federation Chamber today by 

the member for Berowra, the Father of the House. That 

was an equally worthy measure that should be 

considered by this place. 

It is important we signal our solidarity to those who 

are forced to endure great suffering on account of their 

race and religion. It is important we extend our support 

to those who have been able to escape to build a new 

life here in Australia, by proper methods, but are never 

quite free from the horror as they pray daily for friends 

and family left behind. It is even more important we 

make known to their oppressors that Australia will not 

sit silently and tolerate the abuse of their fundamental 

human rights. 

On 31 October 2010, 58 lives were taken in an 

attack on a Baghdad cathedral. This act of violent 

extremism was sadly not the first or last against the 

Christian Assyrian people. On 6 January 2008, 

Epiphany Day, five Assyrian churches, one Armenian 

church and monasteries in Baghdad and Mosul were 

attacked with coordinated car bombs. In 2011, there 

were eight attacks on churches, with more than 35 

people wounded, both civilians and security forces. 

Christian Assyrians continue to suffer severe and 

barbaric persecution in Iraq and also in Syria. They are 

actively discriminated against. Their land has been 

illegally occupied. Kidnapping for ransom is an all- 

CHAMBER 

too-common occurrence. Harassment is commonplace. 

Since 2003, 600,000 Christian Assyrians have fled 

their homes in Iraq. Thousands have come here to 

Australia and to Sydney to start a new life. But I know 

their brothers and sisters who remained behind are 

foremost in their thoughts. 

There are an estimated three million Assyrians 

around the world, one million of them living in Iraq 

and 700,000 in Syria. Under Saddam Hussein, they 

faced great discrimination, but, though that regime of 

terror has come to an end, 10 years on their plight still 

has not. In Iraq, minorities still do not have adequate 

protection from the state. We call on the Iraqi 

government to change that. 

This morning, the member for Berowra said we 

need to be generous, as we have been in the past, in 

assisting those refugees who are forced to flee. He was 

absolutely right, and that is what our humanitarian and 

refugee program is for. Australia runs—and did so 

even before the change in the level of intake—the most 

generous humanitarian and refugee resettlement 

program per capita in the world. We should never 

forget that these places are extremely precious: they 

mean the difference between life and death for those 

who are genuinely seeking the protection of those 

programs. In any one year, less than one per cent of the 

world's 10 million refugees will be resettled. In any 

one year, 9.9 million people will miss out. These 

places are precious. That is why it is crucial that we 

decide who comes to this country and the 

circumstances under which they come. That is why it is 

crucial that Australia runs our immigration program— 

not people smugglers who gamble with lives and sell 

hope to the highest bidder. 

The commitment of the former minister for 

immigration, who brings this motion as a private 

member, put in place a program that would ensure 

1,000 places for Assyrians in this situation. Those 

Assyrians go across a range of nationalities. They are 

Armenians; they are in other places. That was a worthy 

measure and it is one that the coalition has supported. I 

hope, if the coalition is elected to government, it is one 

that we can continue for some time—supporting 

Assyrians who are placed in this situation. We are in a 

situation to work with the local Assyrian community 

here in Australia to better identify those whom we are 

able to help. That population obviously also includes 

the Armenians who find themselves in this conflict. 

Just the weekend before last, I found myself in 

Lebanon and was in a situation to observe at a little 

closer quarters the conflict that is occurring in Syria. 

This is a very real situation that has no obvious 

conclusion, although we can all assume that there will 

be hardship, there will be great brutality and there will 

be significant humanitarian consequences. A coalition 

government, if we are elected, will stand ready to assist


with supporting the families of Assyrians here in 

Australia with being able to ensure that the refugee and 

humanitarian program is available to those who come 

through the appropriate method. 

Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Government Whip) 

(21:21): I rise to support this motion brought forward 

by the member for McMahon, because it is a very 

important motion. I would like to draw attention to the 

plight of the Assyrian people in Syria who have been 

caught up in the civil war. Syrian Assyrians are very 

aware of the persecution of Christians in Iraq following 

the removal of Saddam over the past 10 years. Many of 

the Assyrians in Syria actually fled Iraq over the last 

10 years and sought haven in Syria and are now being 

forced to flee Syria as well. 

The Assyrian communities in Syria have had a 

complex relationship with the Assad regime, as was the 

case with the Assyrians in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. 

Violence against Assyrians is escalating in northeastern 

Syria, which is home to tens of thousands of 

Christians, many from my community. With 

government forces, Arab rebels of the Free Syrian 

Army and Kurdish fighters locked in a three-way 

struggle for control, the area's Christian population has 

found itself caught in the middle. The Assyrians have 

become a target for criminals and terrorists. They are 

fleeing en masse. About half a million Assyrians have 

already escaped Syria. As well, the region has 

succumbed to lawlessness. Christians have become the 

target of armed rebel gangs which are kidnapping 

people and holding them to ransom. All sides are 

perpetrating terrible injustices on the local population, 

and this is adding to the mass exodus. 

The Assyrian community of my electorate 

desperately want to help their relatives in Syria, but 

they feel helpless. They have been trying their best to 

support their families in Syria by collecting money 

every month to send to help provide food, shelter and 

support. But this has now become impossible due to 

Western Union closing its branches, leaving many of 

my constituents with no way to transfer funds to 

support their families. The community still collects 

money and banks it here in the hope they will soon find 

another way to transfer this much-needed support. 

In recent months the priest from Tal Hamas—a town 

many of my constituents come from—was shot dead in 

front of the community. The rebels went on to occupy 

the town, taking over the school, council buildings and 

many other amenities, which they are still occupying 

today. This has led to more than 300 families fleeing to 

parts of Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. Another village 

near Hasakah was recently bombed by regime forces 

on the grounds that rebels were believed to be hiding 

there. The local church and several homes were 

destroyed and one student was killed. 

CHAMBER 

Trying to reach a refugee camp over the border 

gives no guarantee of safety, and many Assyrians are 

now bypassing refugee camps on the border and 

heading to monasteries and towns further inland. They 

are too afraid to stay in the refugee camps. The 

situation in Syria has gone from bad to worse and it 

seems it will only get worse before it gets any better. It 

has been two years already and more than 70,000 

people have lost their lives. We all hope the Syrian 

crisis will be resolved very soon and peacefully. 

I would like to thank the member for McMahon for 

his work and compassion. As immigration minister and 

as member for McMahon, he has developed responses 

and allocated an extra 1,000 places in the refugee 

program to people affected by the Syrian crisis to be 

resettled in Australia. This included Syrian nationals 

and members of the Iraqi community, many of whom 

had family links to Australia. When I sit in the lounge 

rooms of local Assyrians in my community and hear 

their stories, it is a plight that, as humans, we have to 

take very seriously. We have to see what is going on 

and understand the issues that they face locally. 

Anyone with a family would know that you always 

worry about your relatives when they are in harm's 

way, and many Assyrians are not having the 

opportunity to talk to their families and their loved 

ones overseas because of the issues of getting through. 

I think the member for McMahon should be 

congratulated for bringing this motion to the House. It 

is an important one. We hope that Assyrians are able to 

have a better life that is free from persecution and 

gives them the opportunities that they so deserve. 

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (21:26): I would also like 

to thank the member for McMahon for bringing this 

motion forward. If I have any Assyrians in my 

electorate I am not aware of it, but in all these cases 

where there are Christians in the world that are being 

persecuted—and that takes place across the whole 

world, in many places in many nations—I would like 

to take the opportunity to speak about it. It is a sad 

reality that in places around the world—in Iraq, in 

Syria particularly and in Egypt—it is usual that groups 

such as Christians are targeted by Islamicist extremists. 

That is the case most definitely in Iraq. When you look 

back upon what happened under the Ba'athist regime of 

Saddam Hussein, things were bad then, but things have 

only got worse since then. 

These days we like to look upon the great term 'Arab 

Spring' as somehow leading to a great future—a 

pluralist, secular future where democracy reigns 

supreme. Yet in many ways it seems as if Iraq is the 

example that should have indicated to us for the future 

that that was not the case at all and that what replaces 

these autocratic regimes in the Middle East is so often 

extremist in its views. Always in the background is this 

Islamicist view—the Wahhabiism or Salafism that 

hearkens back to what some holding Islamicist views


might call the 'golden age' of Islam. In any case, it 

always relates to persecuting, finding fault with and 

blaming minorities. 

That is definitely the case in Iraq and Syria. As other 

members have alluded to, so often what has happened 

is that people who have fled the persecutions of 

Christians in Iraq have gone across the border into 

Syria only to find themselves now trapped between the 

Alawite regime of President Assad and the increasingly 

Islamicist opposition. The Islamicists blame the 

Christians for being on the government side, and the 

government blame the Christians for not being 

sufficiently supportive, and all the while the Christians 

have to make the decision, 'What are we going to do 

now?' Many have fled from Iraq into Syria and now 

have to flee again. At the heart of it is always the 

persecution of Christians. 

Shortly I will also take the opportunity of tabling a 

petition from the Barnabas Fund which highlights the 

cause of Christians persecuted in the world, and I thank 

them for that. But when I saw that this motion was 

coming up I thought I would take this opportunity as 

well. I also congratulate the member for McMahon and 

all members that have— 


ADJOURNMENT 

The SPEAKER: Order! It being 9:30 pm, I 

propose the question: 

That the House do now adjourn. 

Banking 

Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (21:30): In November last 

year, this Labor government passed the Treasury 

Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other 

Measures Bill) 2012. That bill shortened from seven to 

three years the length of time that, if there were no 

transactions on a bank account, those funds would be 

considered 'unclaimed' and thereafter transferred to 

federal government revenue. The reason Labor passed 

this draconian legislation was to transfer $700 million 

of Australian taxpayers' hard-earned savings into 

government revenue as one of their many attempts to 

cover up Labor debt which now stands at $192 billion. 

At the time, the coalition warned Labor the 

legislation was ill-considered and should not be passed. 

At the time I noted I had: 

… deep reservations as to the potential unintended 

consequences that this legislation may have for many 

Australians with untouched funds in bank accounts. 

Those unforeseen consequences are now being 

realised, with constituents in my electorate waking up 

to discover that the government has emptied their bank 

accounts. 

My office was first contacted in February by Mr 

Gray of The Gap. He had received a letter from 

Westpac bank regarding a relative's account over 

CHAMBER 

which he has power of attorney. Normally at that time 

of year, the Gray family are away on holidays but this 

year, fortunately, they were not. They received quite a 

rude shock about the status of that account in a letter 

from their bank which said: 

… it's been nearly three years since you last used your 

Westpac account … unless you transact on your account 

before 5 April 2013, your balance will be transferred to the 

Australian government. Once your money has been 

transferred, it won't earn interest. 

You can imagine this family's shock to hear that the 

government would be taking their money if they did 

not make a transaction. The most grievous part of this 

story is that there were no transactions on the account 

because the money was being held to use on their 

relative's funeral. Happily, there had been no reason for 

them to even look at the account. They were also 

fortunate that their bank contacted them before their 

funds were taken. However, others have not been so 

lucky. 

Two weeks ago, my office was contacted by Ms 

Williamson, who rang to say that morning she had 

checked her online savings account to find that the 

balance was suddenly zero dollars. She saw no 

messages from the bank and there was no final 

statement indicating exactly how much had been taken. 

After contacting her bank, she found that the money 

had been transferred to ASIC at the direction of 

government legislation. She spoke to ASIC, who told 

her that it could take more than 10 weeks after 1 July 

this year for her to get her money back. 

But it gets worse. Last week, there were reports in 

the Courier Mail regarding Mr and Mrs Adrian Duffy 

of Toowong. The article said when Adrian and his 

wife: 

… went to check their Suncorp account, they discovered 

their bank balance had plummeted from $22,616 to zero … 

The couple had saved for 14 years in preparation for major 

health-related costs. 

This was exactly the situation in which they found 

themselves, with Adrian having just come out of 

spending 21 days in hospital after a quintuple heart 

bypass and follow-up surgery. Again, the Duffy 

family, to their knowledge, had received no warning 

and no contact to advise that their money would be 

taken. Mr Duffy called it for what it is: stealing. On 

that weekend, the Courier Mail reported a further case 

of a Brisbane business women who had more than 

$157,000 handed over to ASIC! These recent cases 

demonstrate that the concerns about which the 

coalition and the banks had warned Labor have come 

to pass. I have no doubt that this situation is being 

repeated for thousands of Australians across the 

country. 

On 29 May, the government introduced the Banking 

Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013. This


amendment reverses—at least in the short term—some 

of the worst effects of the original legislation, for 

example by allowing customers to keep money where 

they make transactions on their account even after the 

bank has assessed their money as unclaimed. While 

this Labor government is belatedly making some 

changes in acknowledgement of the errors present in 

their original legislation, this is no consolation or 

remedy for the stress and anxiety that they have 

already caused for constituents in my electorate. 

Regional Development Australia Fund 

Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (21:35): It is a pleasure 

this evening to be able to speak about some good news 

for one of the towns in my electorate which is to be the 

beneficiary of funds from the Regional Development 

Australia Fund. Back in 1976 residents in my 

electorate of La Trobe constructed a kindergarten in 

McBride Street in Cockatoo. It was built on council 

land with money raised by a co-op set up by Cockatoo 

residents. The co-op raised money to build the 

kindergarten and then to construct both lawn bowls and 

tennis facilities for local residents. It was a fairly 

impressive effort for what was then and indeed still is 

now a relatively small community, but certainly a 

determined community. The kindergarten was an 

unusual building in its design and it has proved be an 

unusual building in its subsequent use and now in its 

preservation. 

The building is circular and a false facade around 

the roof line was intended to make it resemble a 

carousel with model horses around. It is significant in 

the life of the town and in the Dandenong Ranges 

because on Ash Wednesday, 16 February 1983, 

bushfires struck the Cockatoo township and around 

300 residents—including children, the elderly and 

those with disabilities—took shelter in the building, 

along with many of their pets. That was around onetenth 

of the town's population and they were supported 

by the Red Cross. Several residents climbed up onto 

the roof and certainly did their best to clear burning 

embers from the building to stop it from igniting. The 

fires took a severe toll on the town. Seven residents 

perished and many buildings were destroyed. Happily, 

all of those who took refuge at the kindergarten 

survived the ordeal. 

The kindergarten continued to be in operation until 

2005, but it then fell into considerable disrepair and 

became unable to operate, which was a shame 

considering the significance that its construction had in 

bringing the town together and its subsequent 

significance as a fire refuge for so many locals during 

one of the most terrible natural disasters in that region's 

history. So it is a marvellous thing that, through the 

third round of the federal government's Regional 

Development Australia Fund, funding has been 

allocated to build a new memorial at the former 

CHAMBER 

kindergarten site. It will allow local residents, others 

throughout the Dandenong Ranges and those who visit 

the region to pay tribute to those who have been so 

badly affected by the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires. 

It will restore the site for use by local residents. Indeed, 

the kindergarten will form the basis of a new visitor 

information centre and will commemorate the losses 

suffered through bushfires while at the same time 

promoting bushfire awareness and prevention within 

the region. Though the building is really just a roof and 

a frame now, after a significant local campaign it has 

achieved heritage listing; indeed, it was the first site in 

Victoria to gain heritage listing on the basis of its 

significance as a bushfire refuge. This is once again a 

reflection of the strength and perseverance of the local 

community. 

Cardinia Shire Council will receive $500,000 for the 

restoration of the site. The funding will also deliver 

employment benefits to the region, as it is expected to 

create up to seven new jobs during the project's 

construction and in the first five years of its operation. 

The memorial is expected to be completed by mid- 

2014 and it is a very welcome development in the 

region. I commend all of those who had the foresight 

and the dedication to bring the project to the attention 

of the RDA and all of those local residents who have 

fought to preserve the memory of the events of 

February 1983 and of those who perished. The history 

of this area is one of resilience, one of perseverance 

and determination, and this is simply a marvellous 

result for a small community and for the region as a 

whole. 

Education 

Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (21:38): To the vast 

majority of the people and the 41 schools in my 

electorate the word 'Gonski' is little more than a 

political slogan. The Australian Education Bill 2012— 

the government's hollow response to the Gonski 

education review—sets out aspirational goals. It is 

aspirational because the government has promised $9.8 

billion in so-called new money for schools but almost 

all of the money falls beyond the forward estimates, 

beyond the next four years, beyond three future 

elections. 

The Australian Education Bill was described by the 

Prime Minister as the most important bill of 2012, yet 

the bill is just nine pages and 1,400 words long. It is 

full of words that signify hope and aspiration for 

schooling—words that nobody could disagree with— 

but it lacks any detail at all of how the Prime Minister's 

goals for schooling are to be delivered. This bill is 

devoid of any detail and must be updated with new 

information, so until then there is very little that can be 

said on how the proposed funding formula might 

impact schools in my electorate.


While the government claims that extra funding is 

required to improve the performance of our schools, 

they will spend $4.7 billion less on education in the 

four years to 2016 than was budgeted last year. On top 

of the discontinued programs there is a further billiondollar 

reduction in ongoing funding set aside for nongovernment 

schools when comparing last year's budget 

figures to this year's figures. This reduction in funding 

for non-government schools is very alarming for my 

electorate of Goldstein, which has the second-highest 

concentration of private schools of any Victorian 

federal electorate. Cuts to private school funding 

means that school fees go up, leading to less choice in 

education. Families must have the right to choose a 

school that meets their needs, values and beliefs. 

Schools and parents must have a high degree of 

certainty about school funding so they can effectively 

plan for the future. 

The headmaster of Brighton Grammar School, Mr 

Michael Urwin, recently expressed significant 

concerns: 

There are significant concerns, however. These concerns 

primarily relate to: the delay in confirming specific details 

and hence the impact on budget planning; the quality of data 

being used; the lack of certainty regarding indexation; 

compliance issues and possibly a significant increase in 

reporting requirements; and the need for absolute certainty 

when requested to sign agreements. 

I remember the anxiety schools in my electorate faced 

in 2004 when Labor planned to pull funding from 

independent schools under Mark Latham's infamous hit 

list. Labor simply does not understand the vital role 

that independent schools play. We know that the keys 

to better schools are better teachers, better teaching, 

higher academic standards, more community 

engagement and more principal autonomy. Shoving 

money into perceived problems is very much the Labor 

way. We have seen a massive spike in spending under 

this government across various areas, but can anyone 

say that services have actually improved? In fact 

international comparisons on literacy and numeracy 

has shown a serious decline. This is perhaps best 

symbolised by the overpriced and in many cases 

unwanted school halls under Labor's Building the 

Education Revolution program. 

The key is to get funding right. It must be clear that 

future funding from the Australian government will 

flow through not only to government schools but also 

to non-government schools or non-government school 

systems through a direct legislative relationship. Every 


from the Commonwealth government no matter which 

system they fall under, and there must be 

accountability and proper targeting of education 

spending. 

As a committed federalist, I do not believe in 

Labor's top-down approach to service provision. 

CHAMBER 

Instead, we should be working with the states and with 

schools to find out what they want and what they need. 

To this end the coalition have broad principles that we 

believe should underpin any approach to school 

funding and reform. First, families must have the right 

to choose a school that meets their needs, values and 

beliefs. Second, all children must have the opportunity 

to secure a quality education. Third, student funding 

needs to be based on fair, objective, and transparent 

criteria distributed according to socioeconomic need. 

Fourth, students with similar needs must be treated 


Fifth, as many decisions as possible should be made 

locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, 

schools and school systems. Sixth, schools, school 


their community, families and students. Seventh, every 


from the Commonwealth government, and funding 

arrangements must be simple so schools are able to 

direct funding towards education outcomes, minimise 

administration costs and increase productivity and 

quality. 

The devil is in the detail, and the people of 

Goldstein wait with bated breath for the nuts and bolts 

of Labor's plans. (Time expired) 

United Kingdom Economy 

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (21:43): In 

late April the sister party of the opposition, Britain's 

Conservative government, faced some significant 

reverses with regard to financial commentary. Fitch 

became the latest credit rating agency to strip the UK 

of its coveted AAA rating. IMF chief, Christine 

Lagarde, commented: 

We have said that should growth abate, should growth be 

particularly low, then there should be consideration to 

adjusting by way of slowing the pace— 

of austerity. That was a period in which, of course, 

unemployment in the UK reached 2.56 million and, in 

contrast with Australia's 5.6 per cent, 7.9 per cent. At 

that time Polly Toynbee in The Guardian newspaper 

commented: 

All he— 

Osborne— 

has left to keep him up is blind faith. Growth is flat, debt is 

rising, banks won't lend, business won't invest without 

consumer demand. Now Osborne has lost his last prop as 

unemployment rises. Last week Osborne's most crucial 

supporter betrayed him: the IMF, once staunch proponent of 

his austerity, came knocking at his door. His performance 

was "lacklustre"—a strong word for IMF officials. They 

warn "it may be time to consider adjustment to the original 

fiscal plans". 

That kind of analysis, that kind of thinking, certainly 

has not affected the opposition. Whilst in Australia it


could be contended, as Alan Mitchell in the 18-19 May 

Financial Review did, that: 

The government was dealt a poor hand. 

The slump in nominal GDP … has been dramatic and tax 

revenue per dollar of nominal GDP has fallen. 

… … … 

If the global recovery is not running smoothly and 

commodity prices are volatile, a deterioration in the trend 

could be difficult to recognise. 

Indicating that, despite late knowledge by those 

opposite, it was not all that clear that the significant 

write-downs that occurred in Australia would do so. Of 

course, in the same month when the unemployment 

rate in the UK was climbing to 7.9 per cent in Australia 

there were 50,000 new jobs created, making a total of 

960,000 under this administration. 

The IMF has not only been vocal with regard to the 

failings of the British government; in January this year 

it also had some commentary with regard to Australia's 

most wasteful spending. It noted that it was actually 

during the John Howard regime. The study by the 

International Monetary Fund—no radical think tank— 

bills itself as the first to examine 200 years of 

government financial records across 55 leading 

economies. The IMF study mirrors findings in a 2008 

Australian Treasury study that found real government 

spending grew faster in the final four years of the 

Howard government than in any four-year period since 

the 1990s recession. The number of big-spending 

decisions worth more than $1 billion climbed from one 

in the first Howard budget to nine in the last. The 

proportion of savings measures fell from one-third of 

budget measures at the start of the Howard era to 1.5 

per cent at the end. So we had a situation where at a 

time when revenues were far larger and taxation was a 

greater percentage of GDP than it is today there was 

extremely wasteful spending that has led to part of the 

situation we face today. 

As they advocate austerity over there there has been 

a major demolition job undertaken on this theory. 

Thomas Herndon, a graduate student at the University 

of Massachusetts Amherst, absolutely destroyed one of 

the leading intellectual engines for austerity measures 

in the world—demolition of the article 'Growth in a 

time of debt' by Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart 

and Kenneth Rogoff. He exposed an artefact of 

programming mistakes, data omissions and peculiar 

statistical techniques. He suddenly made a remarkable 

number of prominent people look foolish. That article 

of course had for years argued that economies fall off a 

cliff once government debt exceeds 90 per cent of 

GDP. Day after day we hear those opposite say that we 

should emulate Uzbekistan and we should try to learn 

from the Cameroons, who have an extremely low level 

of government debt. What we have seen in recent 

months is analysis of the so-called argument that low 

CHAMBER 

levels of debt lead to economic resurgence. The major 

work trying to prove that in the early 21st century has 

actually been exposed through major statistical errors. 

Of course, the authors were not too quick in coming 

forward to make the work available to the general 

public. It took very determined action by Thomas 

Herndon and others to expose this document. 

Interestingly enough, Canada, New Zealand and 

Australia, which emerged from World War II with high 

debt— (Time expired) 

Swan Electorate 

Mr IRONS (Swan) (21:48): I rise to update the 

House on some local issues in my electorate of Swan. 

In 2010 I started a campaign to attract the AFL West 

Coast Eagles to relocate their training and 

administration base to Lathlain Oval to coincide with 

the new Burswood stadium being built in my electorate 

of Swan. Since then I have worked closely with West 

Coast Eagles CEO, Trevor Nisbett, and am pleased to 

report to the parliament that progress is being made 

with Lathlain Park one of five sites being seriously 

considered by the Eagles. It is a good option. 

As a former WAFL footballer for the East Perth 

Football Club, a former board member and former 

director of junior development and a current patron of 

the Perth Football Club, I want to see Lathlain become 

a key centre for sporting and community infrastructure 

in Perth. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the 

Lathlain area and for the Perth Football Club. In my 

capacity as the local MP for Swan I support this option, 

as do many others. My feedback is that the Town of 

Victoria Park council is 100 per cent supportive of this, 

as well as the Demons, the Perth Football Club. 

I note there was concern early in the year when the 

WA Labor Party announced a policy to scrap the 

Burswood stadium if it won the March election. This 

was embarrassing for the Labor MLA who had 

strongly supported the stadium and even had photos 

with the Premier and Mayor of Victoria Park showing 

his support. However, following the re-election of the 

WA Liberals the stadium will definitely go ahead at 

Burswood and I will continue to support the Eagles 

option for Lathlain. 

Another Lathlain specific issue I will highlight is the 

vacant Red Castle Hotel. The site had become a place 

for squatters and problems reported included drug use 

and threatening behaviour in the neighbourhood. 

Following calls from residents I worked with the local 

police and the Town of Victoria Park to secure the 

property. Residents are clearly fed up with the lack of 

progress towards redevelopment of this site and want 

to see action to progress it. The previous developer 

decided not to proceed and to sell the site in January 

this year after the council put dozens of conditions on 

the redevelopment proposal. The property sale is now 

in the process of being settled. I hope the new owners


do something with the site sooner rather than later that 

suits everyone, as it is quite an eyesore. This is a 

serious issue for many of the residents in Lathlain. 

The last issue I will touch on—and it has made 

national headlines over the past week—is asbestos 

exposure and the NBN. I first raised this issue in 

February and wrote to Syntheo after a constituent from 

Victoria Park in my electorate sent my office two 

photographs of Syntheo subcontractors removing an 

asbestos pit. I would now like to quote from an article 

that appeared in The Australian on 27 February, by 

Annabel Hepworth: 

NBN Co is undertaking its own investigation into concerns 

raised by a West Australian household with a Liberal MP 

that asbestos might have been released during works on the 

rollout of the $37.4 billion network. 

Liberal MP Steve Irons wrote to the chief executive of 

Syntheo - one of the National Broadband Network 

construction partners - after a household in Victoria Park, in 

inner-southeastern Perth, took two photographs they said 

were of a worker breaking down an old Telstra pit with a 

mash hammer while wearing latex gloves and a protective 

face mask— 

while his colleague worked nearby without a mask or 

any protective clothing at all. It continues: 

Mr Irons wrote that his constituents were concerned at "the 

potential liberation of asbestos spores into the air". 

Syntheo is conducting detailed investigations. 

NBN Co spokeswoman Rhonda Griffin said the company 

and its contractors took these matters "very seriously", and 

the company was also liaising with Comcare in WA as it, 

too, had been contacted by Mr Irons. 

"We fully support further investigations by the proper 

authorities given that the two still photographs supplied are 

open to interpretation," Ms Griffin said. 

Town of Victoria Park chief executive Arthur Kyron said 

that after Mr Irons's office made a complaint about the 

breaking up of a pit that might have contained asbestos, an 

environmental health officer saw no obvious signs of 

asbestos products. Laboratory tests showed a "minute trace" 

of asbestos in one sample, but the asbestos was not a danger 

in this form if properly maintained. 

"We found no connection between this tiny amount and 

the activities of the NBN contractor. This particular pit was 

being constructed adjacent to an asbestos fence in the area." 

The fact is, it was an asbestos pit. The NBN Co. 

spokeswoman, Rhonda Griffin, and the Town of 

Victoria Park need to look seriously at their response to 

those issues. As yet, I have not had a reply from 

Comcare. (Time expired) 

Roberston Electorate 

Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (21:53): I rise with 

considerable pride to speak on another wonderful 

community initiative that I was able to celebrate on 

Sunday, 26 May—just a little over a week ago—with 

the local community at the Wagstaffe community hall. 

CHAMBER 

The book that I have before me, to which I will refer 

this evening—People, Place and Progress: A History 

of the Association at Wagstaffe and Pretty Beach, by 

Robyn Warburton—was the book we were celebrating 

on that occasion. I have mentioned in this place what a 

beautiful place I live in and the Bouddi Headland, 

where the Wagstaffe, Pretty Beach and Hardys Bay 

communities live, was very much a drawcard for 

people from Sydney who went on holidays. There were 

many stories about the ferry ride across from Woy 

Woy—as people got off the train, they made their way 

to the ferry and headed from Woy Woy over to the 

peninsula. We heard many of these wonderful stories 

on that Sunday. 

Robyn Warburton is a semiretired teacher who was 

very happy with her career but, in retirement, has taken 

on this incredible endeavour of telling the story of our 

local community. On the day of the launch, she 

reminded us once again of how she arrived when the 

Wagstaffe hall was undergoing a massive clean-up. 

Having finally been delivered to the local community 

on Christmas Eve 1953, the hall later fell into quite a 

state of disrepair. It was not until the nineties that two 

amazing women, Fay Gunther and Gwen Perry, got 

together and put this hall back into shape. Now it is a 

real hub for us to celebrate all the achievements—the 

many birthdays, parties and celebrations—that go on 

there; and live music with no-one speaking, just sitting 

and enjoying the music, is now another of the things 

we can do at Wagstaffe hall. 

On that Sunday afternoon we were treated to a 

beautiful visual and verbal history of the 1950s. John 

Herron spoke of his father, the projectionist, who was 

critical in getting the hall established in the first place. 

John's father, Laurie, was a draughtsman and actually 

did the drawings and plans for the building. John had 

this to say: 

After coming home on Friday night and having a quick tea, 

he was off down to the hall to put the pictures on. He was 

then not an iceman, not a draughtsman, not a designer, but a 

projectionist. He was the projectionist—the picture show 

man, in living black and white. 

That sense of the community gathering on Friday 

evenings at Hardys Bay, to experience the films they 

were able to show in their own community, was 

tremendous. John Herron told us about the fifties 

through his eyes as a child and recalled the wonderful 

challenges they faced and rose to. 

Jim McFadyen, who is a local Labor councillor, 

spoke about the 1960s, and it was a real pleasure to see 

the projectionist put up pictures of Pam, his wife, in 

her teenage years. Jim and Pam are wonderful 

mainstays of our local community. Bev Walther spoke 

about the seventies. Robert Bell, an independent 

councillor who was one of the longest-serving mayors 

of our region, spoke about the 1980s, when there was a 

real burgeoning of progress associations and their


impact in our community more broadly. I mentioned 

Fay Gunther and Gwen Perry, who were instrumental 

in bringing the old hall back to life and, funnily 

enough, changing its orientation from looking into the 

community—turning it around so you can look out 

through the glass, now, over the ferry wharf at 

Wagstaffe to the beautiful Brisbane Water. Finally, we 

were treated to a version of 'what does it cost a person 

to be involved in the community' by Graham 

Anderson, who spoke about the journey of the 

noughties. 

This community on the Bouddi Peninsula is setting a 

standard for local communities in terms of really 

celebrating our history and keeping it alive, and the 

power of individuals to get together to work as citizens 

and call for the things they need for their community. 

Robyn commences the book with the very first 

mention of the community getting together; she there 

regales us with a story of parents putting their 

signatures to a request for a school in the local area. 

These documents that she has gathered together—the 

photographs, the stories, the oral histories and written 

stories that come from the progress association—were 

about to be turfed out in the nineties as that reparation 

was about to begin. Robyn is a woman of great 

integrity and love of community who has a passion for 

telling stories in an authentic and articulate way, and I 

think she has done a great service to our community in 

the provision of this book. (Time expired) 

Petition: Barnabas Fund Proclaim Freedom 

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (21:59): This is the 

second time I have presented a petition from the 

Barnabas Fund to the House of Representatives; 

however, in the cause of freedom of religion and the 

persecution of Christians around the world, I have 

spoken in the House on many occasions. 

The task of the Barnabas Fund is to show and make 

clear that, currently, there are 200 million Christians 

around the world who are being persecuted, 

discriminated against and disadvantaged. To that end I 

will, at the end of my comments, present a petition 

containing 15,155 signatures from all over Australia. 

That petition is the Proclaim Freedom petition, which 

calls upon the Australian government to: 

Recognise that Christians around the world currently face 

unprecedented levels of persecution and are one of the 

most persecuted groups in the world; 

Put the plight of persecuted Christians both individually 

and as communities, at the forefront of their relations with 

the countries concerned; 

Promote freedom of religion for all using diplomatic 

relations, bi-lateral ties, aid and agreed international 

obligations on core human rights and 

Promote justice for all and specifically to ensure that 

those who incite hatred or act violently against Christians 

are held accountable for their crimes. 

CHAMBER 

Christians are one of the largest and most persecuted 

groups in the world. Yet they often appear to be the 

most neglected group in Western governments' foreign 

policies. There is little concrete engagement with the 

issue of anti-Christian persecution, even though 

government may recognise that respect for minorities 

and human rights is a foundation stone for national and 

international peace and security. 

The Barnabas Fund initiated their Proclaim Freedom 

petition as a means of providing them with the 

opportunity to call on the Australian government to 

pursue decisive policies, aimed at putting pressure on 

nations that persecute or condone the persecution of 

Christians and assisting other countries to improve the 

lot of minority groups within their borders. On this 

point, I think it is important that the government 

recognises and takes active steps to raise the issue of 

religious freedom and diversity in those countries that 

we have diplomatic relationships with around the 

world. 

I agree with the Barnabas Fund that the Australian 

government should be active in promoting human 

rights in other countries for all minorities, including the 

200 million Christians living under the shadow of 

persecution, discrimination and disadvantage. We 

should work to ensure that other countries bring to 

justice citizens who either incite anti-Christian hatred 

or engage in anti-Christian violence. 

I know of this persecution. I have stood in the 

floodwaters of the Mekong River in Vietnam and 

prayed with the Mennonites in Saigon at the Cow Shed 

Church, because they would not bow to the 

government of Vietnam and who, as a result of not 

bowing to the government of Vietnam, were driven 

from the house where they worshipped. I have spoken 

with Catholic Priest Father Ly in Hue, because he 

would not toe the line of the Vietnamese Communist 

Party. We have seen the attacks on the Coptic Church 

in Egypt and today in parliament we have spoken about 

the Christians in Syria and also in Iraq. In too many 

places around the world, churches are burning and 

Christians are persecuted. This petition raises the 

voices of thousands of Australians to cry out for those 

who suffer for their faith. I thank the Barnabas Fund 

and their supporters for their strong support for the 

persecuted church. Their cause is just and, 

unfortunately, the need is great. 

I would also like to pay tribute to the international 

director of the fund, Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, for his 

leadership and his launch of the international petition. I 

also thank past managing director of the fund in 

Australia, the Reverend Ian Wright, and the new 

managing director, Colin Johnston, for progressing the 

petition in Australia. I also thank every church that 

participated and every person who signed the petition.


Madam Speaker, I now present the Proclaim 

Freedom petition of the Barnabas Fund, with 15,155 

signatures: 

The petition read as follows— 



This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the 

attention of the House to the plight of persecuted Christians 

throughout the world. We therefore ask the House to: 

Recognise that Christians around the world currently face 

unprecedented levels of persecution and are one of the 

most persecuted groups in the world; 

Put the plight of persecuted Christians both individually 

and as communities, at the forefront of their relations with 

the countries concerned; 

Promote freedom of religion for all using diplomatic 

relations, bi-lateral ties, aid and agreed international 

obligations on core human rights and 

Promote justice for all and specifically to ensure that 

those who incite hatred or act violently against Christians 

are held accountable for their crimes. 

from 15,155 citizens 

Petition received. 

Gillard Government 

Mr LYONS (Bass) (22:03): The Gillard Labor 

government believes in supporting families and in 

giving every child the best possible start in life. We 

understand the cost-of-living pressures on working 

families. We have eased those pressures through tax 

cuts and increased family payments. We have provided 

childcare assistance and the Schoolkids Bonus and 

introduced Australia's first Paid Parental Leave 

scheme. 

We have also developed a plan for properly 

resourcing all Australian classrooms, teachers and 

students for generations to come: the National Plan for 

School Improvement. Under the national plan, we want 

to introduce a needs-based funding model based on the 

Gonski review recommendations. If state and territory 

governments sign up to the plan, schools across the 

country will benefit from an extra $14.5 billion in 

public investment over the next six years. 

Under our plan, every state and every sector will see 

increased funding and more support for students in the 

classroom. As a bare minimum, we want every school 

in Australia to receive its current funding level next 

year, plus indexation of three per cent. Many schools 

will receive more than this—schools that need 

additional resources the most. Teachers in my 

electorate of Bass know how important it is. When I 

visit schools and talk to teachers and parents, they tell 

me that public schools need more support. We are 

prepared to guarantee this and are asking the states and 

territories to do the same. This means that, in real 

CHAMBER 

terms, no school will be worse off. We cannot be any 

clearer than that. 

Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition and I 

operate in different circles. This is evident from his 

comments on 20 August last year, when he said, 'The 

current funding system poses no injustice to public 

schools.' He said, 'If anything, the injustice is the other 

way.' I know that teachers in my electorate of Bass 

work hard. Indeed, I know that because, on a very 

personal level, my daughter Michelle is a school 

teacher and my wife works in school administration. 

Many teachers have emailed me, telephoned me or 

come to my office to tell me just how important it is 

that we have properly funded public schools. They 

want their students to succeed and achieve to their 

fullest potential. The way that schools are currently 

funded means that this is not always the case. 

The Labor government understands that going to 

school is absolutely essential but it can be expensive. 

There are expenses like school uniforms, school shoes, 

textbooks, camps, excursions, as well as extracurricular 

activities such as music lessons. This government has 

helped to lighten the load for 1.3 million families with 

the Schoolkids Bonus. The first instalment of the 

Schoolkids Bonus was paid in January this year. 

Eligible parents will receive the second instalment in 

July, before term 3 starts. I know this is a big help to 

families in my electorate, so it baffles me why those 

opposite want to rip it away. 

Labor know that about one million families were 

missing out on their full entitlements under the old 

system, the education tax refund. For working families 

on low incomes it is simply too expensive to pay the 

school expenses first and then wait months to get the 

money back. Those opposite have no credible plan to 

support families. The Liberal Party does not 

understand why low- and middle-income families 

deserve extra money to help put their kids through 

school. The Leader of the Opposition does not think 

parents can be trusted to spend this money on their 

kids. 

Let me remind the House what the Leader of the 

Opposition said on 9 May 2012: 'You can go and blow 

it on the pokies, so it's just another cash handout.' As 

workplace relations minister, he actually opposed a 

paid parental leave scheme and said that it should be 

introduced over his government's dead body. One 

could ask when he is going to fulfil his commitment to 

the Australian people! And he wants to tax businesses 

to pay for his millionaire mums' paid parental leave 

scheme, meaning that hardworking families will have 

to pay more at the checkout so that he can give wealthy 

mums up to $75,000. Australians have a clear choice in 

September between a government that looks after 

families or a coalition which has spent the last five


years being mindlessly negative to try and deny 

families a fair go. 

Education Funding 

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (22:07): School funding 

and getting the best possible educational outcomes for 

our students are important issues—important for my 39 

schools in Higgins, and for their students, parents and 

teachers. Critically, it is important for our nation. I will 

always stand up for better education and stronger 

schools in this place, and have made many speeches on 

the subject. The approach, though, that the Gillard 

government has taken to education and education 

funding has been to divide and spin—to put pressure 

on the states to sign up to a new funding arrangement 

without putting all of the relevant information on the 

table for the independent, Catholic and state sectors to 

make considered and informed decisions. 

Rather than a political point-scoring debate, there 

needs to be a rational discussion, with all of the facts 

on the table. And, in the brief time available tonight, I 

would like to outline some of the key facts in this 

debate. The first fact is this. The government is not 

delivering on what the Gonski report recommended. 

Talk of delivering Gonski is a sham. The key 

recommendation of the Gonski report was an 

additional $6.5 billion in new funding for schools each 

and every year. Over the forward estimates, over the 

next four years, this would have amounted to $26 

billion. Yet, when you examine the budget papers, this 

is not what the government has promised to deliver. 

Instead, it has only promised $9.8 billion over the next 

six years, with only $2.8 billion being provided for 

during the forward estimates—that is, over the next 

four years. This is but a fraction of what the Gonski 

report recommended. But the real concern is that, even 

with this so-called new money, the government is 

giving with one hand and taking away with the other. 

That brings me to the second fact, which is: the 

government is cutting overall funding to school 

education. Over the forward estimates period 2017-18, 

the only new or additional money for education will 

come from the state and territory governments that 

agree to Labor's proposal, not the Commonwealth 

itself. The government's new funding model is, in fact, 

a promise for $7 billion more in 2018-19, which is in 

two elections' time—hardly the solid financial 

commitment that they purport it to be. When you look 

more closely, you see that the government is actually 

delivering a $325 million cut in overall funding over 

the next four years. Budget paper 21 indicates that 

there will be around $2.9 billion of additional money 

for the National Plan for School Improvement, and yet, 

at the same time, there are reductions, redirections and 

savings of approximately $3.2 billion. When you look 

even more closely, Victoria specifically is losing out 

on more than $152.5 million over the next three years. 

CHAMBER 

The government is trying to terrify the states into 

signing up and signing up quickly, claiming that they 

will lose around $6.4 billion, based on a false 

indexation assumption. The government is claiming it 

will deliver an indexation rate of around 4.7 per cent, 

and claims the coalition will only deliver three per cent 

if we stick with the current funding model. Yet, under 

the current funding model, the average school recurrent 

costs have averaged 5.6 per cent in indexation over the 

last 10 years, which is hardly a cut. The coalition has a 

plan to ensure that schools do not lose money and that 

levels of funding are maintained in real terms, and we 

have been consistent on this from day 1. 

The third fact is that the government is trying to 

keep the independent and Catholic school sectors in the 

dark. The government has imposed a timetable for the 

states to sign up by 30 June. Why? Because the 

quadrennium of funding finishes at the end of the year. 

Despite having sat on the Gonski recommendations for 

more than 18 months, we are only learning about their 

funding model, in fits and starts, now. The government 

is using this as a lever to force an outcome and to 

encourage the independent and Catholic school sectors 

to take them on trust. 

The chief executive of Independent Schools 

Victoria, Michelle Green, warned that a series of 

different figures have been provided from the 

government about the impact of its reforms and of how 

that impact would affect individual schools in Victoria. 

She stated: 

There's a pointy end for us—our funding model runs out 

at the end of this year. Schools need certainty of funding … 

It may well mean that some schools in Victoria in January 

don't know what their income is going to be, what their 

cashflow is going to look like and there may be some 

closures as a result. 

That is certainly not the outcome we want. There has 

not been any open analysis or sharing of modelling, 

and much of the discussions have been conducted in 

secret—different deals depending on who is talking to 

who. That is why the Victorian Minister for Education 

has asked for everybody to be around the same table— 

Catholic, independent and state schools. 

The fourth fact I wanted to raise in the remaining 

time is that education is more than just funding. The 

government does not seem to understand that teacher 

quality, mentoring, performance-based pay for teachers 

and school autonomy are all critical factors impacting 

on getting better educational outcomes for all students. 

Under this government, our educational outcomes have 

gone backwards. (Time expired) 

Department of Health and Ageing 

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (22:12): I have 

spoken in this House on the important work done by 

the Department of Health and Ageing, particularly in 

the areas of immunisation, diabetes prevention and


health promotion. Tonight I would like to talk further 

on this topic, because the work of the Department 

Health and Ageing is so broad reaching and, I believe, 

so incredibly important. 

The Leader of the Opposition does not believe that 

the work of the Department of Health and Ageing is 

important or so broad reaching. In fact, the Leader of 

the Opposition would have Australians believe that we 

do not need a Department of Health and Ageing at all. 

The Leader of the Opposition has questioned publicly 

and repeatedly whether the Department of Health and 

Ageing needs all of its staff, considering that, in his 

words, 'They do not run a single hospital or nursing 

home, dispense a single prescription or provide a single 

medical service.' 

In the 2011-12 federal budget, this government 

announced a $2.2 billion National Mental Health 

Reform package. This reform package, administered 

by the Department of Health and Ageing, is improving 

the lives of thousands of Australians with mental 

illness by providing more intensive support services 

and better coordinating those services for people with 

severe and persistent mental illness who have complex 

care needs; by targeting support to areas and 

communities that need it most, such as Indigenous 

communities and socioeconomically disadvantaged 

areas that are underserviced by the current system; by 

helping to detect potential mental health problems in 

the early years; and by supporting young people who 

struggle with mental illness. 

Recently I attended the opening of a new home in 

Kambah in my electorate with the ACT Chief Minister. 

We have provided joint funding for this initiative. The 

home provides an opportunity for young adults in their 

late teens and early 20s who are battling mental illness 

issues, and who have come out of hospital and 

intensive care, to enter an environment where they can 

rehabilitate amongst their peers with the intensive 

support they need but in a less clinical environment. It 

is a great initiative and it was wonderful to be at the 

opening of that new house. 

The reforms were developed—with the assistance of 

the department, I might add—with particular reference 

to what has proven to work in the past, such as: models 

of youth-friendly mental health services; the clinical 

effectiveness and accessibility of e-mental health 

services; the ability of programs to meet needs in hardto-reach 

groups; the success of social support services 

to reconnect people back in the community; and the 

growing body of evidence that supports early 

intervention in childhood development. 

Importantly, the reforms recognise that the 

Australian government, states and territories, nongovernment 

organisations and the private sector all 

deliver mental health programs. While the overarching 

objectives of these programs are often quite similar, to 

CHAMBER 

date there is very little in the way of formal links 

across and between programs. This leads to inefficient 

service delivery through duplicative processes. It can 

also mean a fragmented system which individuals 

suffering mental illness find hard to navigate. 

Individuals and providers are not interested in which 

government department is supposed to be funding a 

service; they just want to know that the service is 

available when and as it is needed. Through these 

mental health reforms, the government is rectifying 

this. Through the Department of Health and Ageing, 

the government is exercising national leadership— 

putting its own house in order while giving states and 

territories an incentive to dedicate more resources to 

the mental health system through a national 

partnership. 

Achieving these important reforms will require 

support, engagement and collaboration across all levels 

of government, non-government organisations, 

individuals and providers. Importantly, achieving these 

reforms would not be possible without the Department 

of Health and Ageing. I ask the Leader of the 

Opposition to note, before he cuts thousands of jobs 

within this department, that while it may not be 

dispensing prescriptions, this department is overseeing 

much-needed, nationally coordinated mental health 

reform. Together with the 3.2 million Australians who 

have suffered a mental illness in the last year, their 

friends, family, carers and countless other Australians, 

I believe this is a worthy task. 

Those opposite have complete contempt for public 

servants doing great work in the Department of Health 

and Ageing. They have complete contempt for those 

who work to improve the health and wellbeing of 

Australians in the national interest. They have 

complete contempt for the Public Service. They have 

promised to abolish 12,000 to 20,000 Public Service 

jobs should they win the election in September. The 

best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour: I 

ask Canberrans to remember 1996. 

Road Safety 

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (22:18): I rise to 

discuss the important issue of road safety and to 

highlight my concerns that more needs to be done to 

help reduce the enormous impact of road trauma on our 

nation. I believe there is a need for greater national 

leadership, with a renewed focus on building safer 

roads, supporting the rollout of safer vehicles and 

promoting improved driver behaviour. 

While the nation's road toll has steadily fallen from 

nearly 2,900 deaths in 1982 to 1,300 deaths in 2012, 

more needs to be done to reduce the road toll and the 

number of serious injuries from vehicle accidents. The 

total annual cost of road trauma in economic terms is 

$27 billion, with 25 people dying and 600 people being 

seriously injured each week in Australia. Yes, we have


made dramatic gains in the past, but it is time to reset 

the clock and bring on a new wave of reform with new 

energy and enthusiasm for the task of lowering the 

road toll. 

I fear we have become somewhat complacent and, if 

not accepting of, we seem resigned to the fact that 

people will always die and people will always be 

seriously injured on our roads. That complacency and 

that sense of resignation needs to reversed as a matter 

of urgency. I support a more holistic approach from 

governments for reducing road trauma in recognition 

of the social and economic impacts across the entire 

community and a broad range of government 

departments that have a direct responsibility in this 

area. 

At the moment, there is a very heavy emphasis on 

departments at both state and federal levels which have 

either an infrastructure component or an enforcement 

aspect to their responsibilities. But, as a recent paper 

from the Australasian College of Road Safety correctly 

emphasised, the impacts of road trauma flow across 

many portfolios and there is a compelling argument 

that it should be regarded as the highest-ranking public 

health issue facing our nation. As ACRS President 

Lauchlan McIntosh said: 

Imagine if improvements to combat road trauma were a top 

national health priority—the effect on our nation's health, 

economy and wellbeing would be a gold standard for the 

global community. 

There are many aspects to road safety, and the 

coalition will have more to say about this in the months 

ahead. But there is one area that I want to focus my 

comments on this evening, and that is the issue of safer 

cars. Recently, I attended a crash test in Sydney where 

the Australasian New Car Assessment Program 

demonstrated how it assesses vehicles which are sold 

on the domestic market. The vehicle I observed being 

tested was a Nissan Pulsar and it received a five-star 

rating, and it is worth noting that the federal 

government has a fleet-purchasing policy which 

mandates that all light passenger vehicles purchased by 

the Commonwealth must have a five-star ANCAP 

safety rating. That is a good policy, and it is one the 

coalition would endorse. But given we have that policy 

in place, and given everything we know about the 

importance of safer vehicles reducing the severity of 

injuries, why do we allow lesser vehicles to be sold on 

the Australian market? 

It is my personal view that we should ban the 

importation of any vehicle sold in volume which does 

not achieve a minimum three- or, preferably, four-star 

ANCAP safety rating. Right now, we have vehicles on 

sale in Australia that the federal government would not 

let any public servant drive but that we are allowing to 

be imported and driven on our roads. In safety terms, 

these are duds and they should not be on our roads. 

CHAMBER 

They may be cheap but they are potentially deadly, and 

there is no logical reason why we should import 

vehicles with comparatively low ANCAP safety 

ratings. 

If they are not good enough for Australian public 

servants, then they are not good enough for Australian 

families, they are not good enough for Australian 

workers and they are certainly not good enough for 

Australian kids. If these low-ranking vehicles are 

involved in an accident we know the occupants of 

these vehicles are more likely to be seriously injured or 

killed than if they had been driving a vehicle with a 

higher ANCAP safety rating in the same vehicle class. 

The people who are injured in such a crash are more 

likely to sustain more serious and more debilitating 

injuries that will diminish their quality of life and cost 

all Australian governments much more in terms of the 

overall health budget. 

We should be telling the international vehicle 

manufacturing market that we will not tolerate the 

importation of such vehicles in the future. We should 

give the manufacturers fair warning and ban the 

importation of these vehicles as soon as possible. Lives 

can be saved and serious injuries can be minimised by 

the swift uptake of new technology and by ensuring 

that more Australians are driving safer vehicles. We 

should be banning the importation of any vehicle 

which does not achieve a minimum safety rating, 

because all vehicles manufactured in Australia already 

meet that high standard. It makes no sense to allow the 

importation of vehicles to compete with locally 

manufactured vehicles when we know they are not as 

safe and we know that any accidents will end up 

costing Australian taxpayers more in the longer term. 

On a separate but related point, there is a need to 

ensure that international vehicle manufacturers make 

greater strides to ensure that new safety features are 

more quickly deployed to Australia, when they are 

developed. We know that manufacturers have 

sometimes in the past been slow to include new safety 

features in vehicles imported to Australia, despite the 

fact that those features are included in vehicles for sale 

in their country of origin. I think we can do better in 

that space as well. 

The coalition recognises the need for increased 

national leadership and placing a higher priority on 

issues relating to road safety and reducing road trauma 

in our communities is a pressing area of national 

concern. While great progress has been made in 

reducing the road toll across Australia in the past 40 

years, there is a concern within the coalition that 

momentum has been lost and there is a need for a fresh 

approach and reinvigorated commitment to tackling 

road trauma.


DisabilityCare Australia 

Mr MARLES (Corio) (22:22): The implementation 

of DisabilityCare Australia will be a revolution for 

people with a disability and their carers in this country. 

Much has been said about the significance of it and 

tribute has been paid to the likes of Jenny Macklin and 

the Prime Minister, Bill Shorten, Jan McLucas and 

others who have worked tirelessly in this place to assist 

that campaign. 

That Geelong is a launch site is a wonderful moment 

for people with disability and their carers in the City of 

Geelong. Today's decision to base the national 

headquarters of DisabilityCare Australia in Geelong is 

a wonderful feather in the cap for Geelong. This 

campaign has emanated from the civic leadership of 

Geelong, based on the idea that Geelong is the home of 

the Transport Accident Commission in Victoria, as 

well as being a launch site of DisabilityCare in 

Australia. This lends itself perfectly to Geelong being 

the national headquarters of Disability Care Australia. 

It is true that the decision last Thursday week by 

Ford to cease making cars in Australia from 2016 did 

add some momentum, but the campaign to see the 

headquarters of NDIS in Geelong has been run for a 

year or more. It is an enormous tribute to those who 

have run the campaign. I want to thank the Victorian 

government for their support, and particularly to thank 

Minister Jenny Macklin for her advocacy in relation to 

this issue, and most particularly our Prime Minister, 

Julia Gillard, for making the decision to have the 

headquarters of DisabilityCare Australia based in 

Geelong. 

For all the credit ascribed to people for this decision 

over the last 24 hours, most of the credit, the lion's 

share, goes to the civic leadership of Geelong who 

have run a fantastic campaign for more than a year to 

see this happen. I want to acknowledge some of those 

people. Keith Fagg, our mayor, launched the campaign 

a couple of months ago. Councillor Kylie Fisher, who 

has the portfolio for community development within 

the City of Greater Geelong, also tirelessly worked in 

relation to this campaign. Former mayor John Mitchell 

deserves to be very proud today. The Committee for 

Geelong has played an enormous role. Michael Betts, 

its chair, and Janet Dore its deputy chair is also the 

CEO of the Transport Accident Commission, along 

with Rebecca Casson, CEO for the City of Geelong. 

The former CEO of the Committee for Geelong, Peter 

Dorling, and the former chair, Jim Cousins, also played 

a role, as did Frank Costa who is always at the centre 

of the great achievements that occur in Geelong. 

G21, the regional alliance of five councils in the 

region, along with the City of Greater Geelong also 

played a significant role. Ed Coppe, its chair; Elaine 

Carbines, its CEO; and its board consisting of Barb 

Abley, Michael Malouf, Jason Trethowan and 

CHAMBER 

Bernadette Uzelac; along with the other mayors who 

participate in G21, the Deputy Mayor of the Borough 

of Queenscliff, Bob Merriman; Libby Coker, the Surf 

Coast Shire Mayor; Lyn Russel, the Mayor of Colac; 

and Jenny Blake, the Mayor of the Golden Plains 

Shire. Jane Den Hollander, the Vice-Chancellor of 

Deakin University, Grant Sutherland, the CEO of 

Gordon TAFE have also been fantastic, as have the 

media in Geelong. The Geelong Advertiser, The 

Geelong Independent, K-Rock/Bay FM. And the state 

MPs: John Eren, Lisa Neville, Ian Tresise and Gail 

Tierney and from the government state MPs David 

Koch and Andrew Katos who have been very 

important in advocating to the Victorian government, 

along with David O'Brien. 

Most of all there are the disability groups of 

Geelong of which there are many. Scope, Encompass, 

Kids +, Karingal, St Lawrence, Vision Australia, the 

Victorian Deaf Society, Villamanta, the Barwon 

Disability Resource Centre, Disability Rights and 

Advocacy Service, Gateway, Mackillop, Barwon 

Valley School, Nelson Park—and the list goes on. All 

of these have played a very significant role in the 

advocacy for this decision. 

I want to thank my colleague Darren Cheeseman 

who with me has really enjoyed the privilege of 

providing some advocacy on behalf of this in this 

place. I feel very lucky that I live in a city with that 

sort of leadership. If you look at the response to the 

decision by Ford last Thursday week and the campaign 

around this, they have done a great job. 

This is a decision which is for ever. This is a 

decision which will change the very character of 

Geelong. We are a manufacturing city. We are lifestyle 

city. But as a result of this decision, along with the 

TAC, we can now claim that we are a centre of public 

administration excellence. That will very much change 

our character going forward. It is the first time a major 

federal government agency will be located outside 

Canberra or Sydney. That is an enormous feather in the 

cap of Geelong. I want to thank everyone for the role 

they played in making this happen. 

Petition: Youth Mental Health 

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (22:28): I table a 

youth mental health petition calling on this parliament 

to provide a facility for a headspace unit in Griffith, in 

the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. This petition is of 

the concerned residents of the Western Riverina region 

and the chief petitioner is Councillor John Dal Broi, 

the Mayor of Griffith City Council. The petition tells 

the House that the increasing incidence of mental 

health issues among young people within the 

communities of Hay, Hiliston, Lake Cargelligo, 

Leeton, Narrandera, Darlington Point, Coleambally 

and Griffith requires urgent assistance by way of a 

headspace facility.


Statistically one in 17 teenagers and one in four 

people aged 18 to 25 years suffers from mental illness, 

with episodes of depression, severe anxiety or worse. 

Griffith is a great community and a vibrant community. 

Certainly a headspace unit would be very valuable to 

those people. It would fill in the gaps in health 

provision in the MIA and enable these young people to 

live full and active lives within the communities. I 

thank the House for its indulgence. 

The petition read as follows— 

Youth Mental Health Petition 

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House 

of Representatives. 

This petition of the concerned residents of the Western 

Riverina Region, an area that includes the communities of 

Hay, Hiliston, Lake Cargelligo, Leeton, Narrandera, 

Darlington Point, Coleambally and Griffith, draws to the 

attention of the House the increasing incidence of mental 

health issues among young people within our communities. 

Statistically, one in seven teenagers and one in four people 

age 18 to 25 years suffers from mental illness, with episodes 

of depression, severe anxiety or worse. Mental health 

problems can, and have, cause devastation to individuals and 

families within our communities. 

We, the undersigned, ask the House to call upon the Federal 

Government to provide additional services in the Western 

Riverina to assist young people from our communities that 

are suffering with mental health and wellbeing problems. 

Specifically, we request that funding be provided to establish 

a Headspace Centre in Griffith (a one-stop-shop that focuses 

on 12-25 year olds) to reduce some of the gaps that currently 

exist in youth mental health service provision and assist 

those young people to live full and active lives within our 

communities. 

from 2,359 citizens 

Petition received. 

Adelaide: Traffic Congestion 

Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (22:29): In the 

remaining time, I would like to speak on one of my 

favourite topics, which is traffic congestion on South 

Road. Three weeks ago residents of Adelaide woke up 

to the announcement splashed on the front page of the 

Advertiser that the state government had come up with 

a new South Road plan. Now, less than three weeks 

after that was released, we see that the numbers do not 

stack up. Only $20 million has been put by the federal 

government towards that, with $5 million from the 

state government, and nothing will really get going 

until 2017. This is a fraud on the South Australian 

public. 

The SPEAKER: Order! It being 10:30 pm the 

debate is interrupted. 

The House adjourned at 23:30 

CHAMBER 

NOTICES 

The following notices were given: 

Mr Albanese: To move: 


suspended as would prevent the six private Members’ 

business notices by the Member for Calare, relating to the 

disallowance of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves 

Network Management Plans made under section 370 of the 

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 

1999 on 5 March 2013, being called on immediately and 

dealt with together, with separate questions being put on 

each. 

Mr Cobb: To move: 

That the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserves 

Network Management Plan 2014-2024, made under section 

370 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity 

Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed. 


That the North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves 





That the North Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network 

Management Plan 2014-2024, made under section 370 of the 

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 

1999 on 5 March 2013, be disallowed. 


That the South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves 





That the South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves 





That the Temperate East Commonwealth Marine 

Reserves Network Management Plan 2014-2024, made 

under section 370 of the Environment Protection and 

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 on 5 March 2013, be 

disallowed. 

Mr Hayes: To move: 



(a) on 16 May 2013 two young activists, Nguyen Phuong 

Uyen, age 21, and Dinh Nguyen Kha, age 25, were 

sentenced to six and eight years, respectively, in jail by the 

People’s Court of Long An province in the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam; 

(b) the two activists were arrested for distributing 

literature protesting against China’s claims to the Paracel and 

Spratly Islands in the South China Sea; and 

(c) there are credible reports from various international 

agencies of continuing human rights violations in Vietnam


which is evidenced by the high number of house detentions 

and imprisonment for people engaged in activities as basic as 

expressing views contrary to the Vietnamese Government’s 

position; and 

(2) calls on the Australian Government to: 

(a) refer the matters of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh 

Nguyen Kha, and other issues concerning human rights in 

Vietnam that have been raised in the Australian Parliament, 

to the next round of the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights 

Dialogue; and 

(b) continue to take appropriate steps to convey to the 

Vietnamese Government that Australia expects Vietnam to 

honour its obligations under the International Covenant on 

Civil and Political Rights. 

Mr L. D. T. Ferguson: To move: 

That this House notes that: 

(1) March 2013 marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the 

genocidal chemical attack by the regime of Iraqi dictator 

Saddam Hussein on Halabja in the Kurdish region of Iraq 

that took at least 4,000 lives within a few minutes and 

displaced many thousands more, as part of his brutal Anfal 

Campaign of the 1980s targeting Kurdish and other 

minorities in Iraq; 

(2) some 4,000 villages, 2,000 schools and 300 hospitals 

were destroyed, including through the use of chemical 

weapons across dozens of Kurdish villages; 

(3) the regime was also responsible for the: 

(a) deportation or forced relocation of tens of thousands 

of Faili Kurds on the basis that they were not considered 

Iraqi; 

(b) abduction and execution of an estimated 8,000 

Barzani Kurds who were subsequently buried in mass graves 

in southern Iraq; and 

(c) arrest, execution and subsequent burial of up to 

100,000 Iraqi Kurds in 1988, including women and children; 

and 

(4) Saddam Hussein and Ali Hassan Majid, known as 

Chemical Ali, were subsequently prosecuted and convicted 

for these and other crimes. 

CHAMBER


Monday, 3 June 2013 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott) took the chair at 10:30. 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 

National Disability Insurance Scheme 

Automotive Industry 

SPC Ardmona 

Dr STONE (Murray) (10:30): We woke up this morning to the news that Geelong is to be the site of the new 

administration headquarters of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I applaud this decision. A regional 

centre should always have been the choice for the location of the new facility, which we are told will eventually 

employ over 300. The announcement of the Geelong location in the very marginal Labor seat of Corio was 

explained this morning, however, as a response to the closure of the Ford car-making plant in October 2016, with 

the expected loss of over 510 jobs in Geelong and 650 jobs at Broadmeadows. The Labor government also just 

announced, on 1 June, a further $15 million to help Ford auto workers find new jobs after the closures. It has also 

already offered a package of $51.9 million in a jobs assistance package. The state has also offered many millions 

of dollars in support of these Ford workers. I applaud the generosity and quick response to these workers and their 

communities. 

What I want to know is when the federal and state governments are going to acknowledge the same but more 

immediate plight of the orchardists, pickers and pruners, packers, transport sector and factory workers who are 

now facing the same extinction of jobs as a result of SPCA being unable to compete domestically or 

internationally with its fruit-preserving business. Workers in the Shepparton factory do not face immediate 

dismissal; only if there is no government response to their urgent request in the first instance for a safeguard 

action. This is a 200-day emergency WTO consistent action, which has been with this government now since 30 

April. Nothing has been done. 

Why is it that workers in a regional inland community, in this case the Goulburn and Murray valleys, are being 

ignored and their plight is being somehow dismissed as just one of those things that happen in country Australia, 

while those who are on the seaboard, in this case in Geelong and then in Broadmeadows, are being treated to 

generous responses to a crisis which will occur in two years time? There are over 2,700 jobs in the Goulburn and 

Murray valleys—I repeat: 2,700—which will go as a result of SPCA being unable to compete with cheap imports. 

These are the same factors that are knocking out the Ford motor industry in Australia. This cannot be tolerated. 

This is not fair. It is un-Australian. 

Tomorrow there will be a delegation in this place with union members and orchardists. I beg this government to 

pay attention to their plight. They will also be meeting with the shadow ministers who have responsibility in those 

same areas. Can they go home tomorrow with some message of hope, with some equality of treatment, compared 

to the Ford auto industry workers? Or are they going to be told, yet again, 'Sorry, you are in the wrong part of 

Australia; we always ignore agriculture in this country; you just make do and try and turn into something else 

when the time comes, after the pushing-in of your trees in the orchards; it's just bad luck for you'? 

Pastorelli, Mr Rocco 

Mr GRAY (Brand—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for 

Tourism) (10:33): I would like to pay tribute to the life and the community contribution of Rocco Pastorelli, a 

proud and parochial Western Australian who died prematurely in Perth on Sunday, 17 March 2013. Rocco battled 

a wretched illness with courage and stoicism. He was a man of many grounded passions: family, friends, social 

justice, the Labor movement and soccer. He adored his wife and family and fiercely protected them as best he 

could from the pending tragedy of his life being cut short. 

It is fair to say that he was loved amongst his Labor colleagues, especially the distinguished former Premier of 

Western Australia Dr Geoff Gallop. Dr Gallop says of Rocco Pastorelli: 

In my time with the Labor Party we tried to be very professional in the way we did things and Rocco was the personification 

of professionalism. 

He also says: 

It was my great privilege to work with him and to get to know Rocco initially as Leader of the Opposition and then as 

Premier. 

Over a decade, Rocco worked very closely with me and he became a very good workmate and friend. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Then he went on to say Rocco was: 

… a great psychologist. He would work out my moods when he met with me in the mornings and would act appropriately. We 

would discuss religion, politics, family; the kids growing up … our families became very close and shared our experiences. 

Rocco Pastorelli was Dr Gallop's driver, but he was much more than that. He was more than that to Dr Gallop and 

the entire community in which he lived. He was an unselfish contributor to his church, the Labor movement and 

community groups. He kept working to the very end, winning the contract to build a church days before he was 

hospitalised with his illness. His support for the Labor Party never waivered and he campaigned while sick for the 

last state election held on March 9 this year. 

Born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, Rocco completed a diploma in architectural drafting and 

served in the regular Army between 1974 and 1983. He served as a draftsman/engineer in the 22nd Construction 

Regiment and travelled to and served in Malaysia for six months. Later he completed his building ticket. 

More recently, he worked for three Labor premiers as their driver, and built a reputation as a committed, 

reliable and supportive friend to many people. He was larger than life, and there are many people who, just like 

me, are deeply saddened by his loss. Maybe it is because he put others' needs first. He was such a generous 

volunteer, helping charities, community groups, schools and his local church. Nothing was too hard, no request 

too difficult, and there was always a smile on his face. 

Foremost, though, was Rocco's dedication and passion for his family—his wife, Paolo, and his children 

Anthony, Marici and Stephen. Rocco's passing deeply saddened a whole community of people with whom he was 

in contact over the years. That was reinforced when many hundreds of people from all works of life gathered on 

23 March this year for Rocco's funeral at St Joseph's Church in Subiaco, his service at Karrakatta Cemetery 

Crematorium and his wake at Hyde Park. There were many people there to pay tribute to a man who gave more 

than he took, who left the world better for having been in it. Rocco Pastorelli was, in every sense of the word, a 

true philanthropist. His passion was people. 

Election Funding 

Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (10:39): What a great story the member for Brand just gave to the parliament. 

Every morning in this place the Speaker of the House of Representatives walks into the House, acknowledges the 

government then the opposition, waits for the mace to be placed on the table, then acknowledges the first 

Australians and reads a prayer. That prayer begins: 

Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations 

to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia. 

I take that last piece, 'the true welfare of the people of Australia', very seriously. It makes me question my 

responses to particular issues that come before the parliament and come before us as politicians. I am coming to 

the point, in a moment, of public funding, which the minister may be interested in. We have a responsibility to our 

constituents, to our parties, to our tribes, to our families, but I do not want to be owned by anybody in this place. I 

want each member of parliament to have the freedom to address themselves to that prayer. So when I spoke out on 

public funding last week, and the controversy that surrounding the public funding, it was not because I disagree 

that there should be a conversation with the Australian people about how we fund election campaigns, what is the 

right amount to fund and how we might go about it. That is not my issue; my issue is that we should never foist 

anything on the Australian people without having a conversation about whatever we do—whatever the 

deliberation is—whether it be the call from the member representing Shepparton and fruit growers about her 

passion for her community and the issues that affect them, or the way we have election campaigns. 

I do not want any member to be owned by a union. I do not want any Liberal to be owned by a funder that 

funds their election campaign. I can tell you: I do not know who funds my election campaign. I write thank-you 

letters to lots of people. I do not know whether they have given me $10 or $10,000. My party knows; I do not 

know. I do not want to know. I want the freedom to move and exist in the place without having to acknowledge 

that I have been funded by a particular group or individual. That is important to our democracy and the way we 

run this country. And we are blessed, under that prayer, that this country has been administered without corruption 

for the whole of the time of this country's existence. I thank the House for allowing me to speak. 

Kingston Electorate: Roads 

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers and Parliamentary 

Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) (10:39): I rise today to talk about an issue that is regularly raised 

with me in my local electorate, and that is the condition of local roads. The seat of Kingston is in an outer 

metropolitan area, and people rely on decent roads to get them around. Being so far, often, from the city, it is 

critically important that we have decent roads in the electorate. That is why I was very pleased that in the 

announcement of this budget there was money for both the Marion council and the City of Onkaparinga under 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Roads to Recovery. That is an important program, and I am pleased that that ongoing funding to the local councils 

will help continue to improve the roads. 

In addition, I was pleased that my electorate received $434,000 in this budget to fix black spots in the south. In 

particular, I was pleased that the projects that have been approved include the intersection of Dyson Road and 

O'Sullivan Beach Road, the intersection of Bains Road and Piggot Range Road, the intersection of Dyson Road 

and Sheriffs Road, the intersection of South Road and Flaxmill Road at Morphett Vale, the intersection of Old 

South Road with Reynella Road and Grant Road at Old Reynella, and the intersection of South Road with Majors 

Road and Black Road at O'Halloran Hill. These are really important projects, because ensuring that our 

intersections are safe is critical, especially when people spend so many hours in their cars. This in fact builds on 

Commonwealth money that was made available by this federal government to the intersection of Main Road and 

Victor Harbor Road in McLaren Vale. This was a significantly dangerous black spot, but an investment of $12 

million has gone towards making that road a lot safer, and that work has just finished. 

But there is always more work that needs to be done, and my constituents have continued to raise a number of 

issues when it comes to roads. That includes the duplication of commercial roads—this is in the growing area of 

Seaford, Seaford Rise and Seaford Meadows, where there are many more cars on the road—and improving the 

bridge at Port Noarlunga, which takes people along the Dyson Road and Lonsdale Highway. The duplication of 

Majors Road is also something that many of my constituents have raised as an issue in ensuring that people in the 

Hallet Cove, Sheidow Park, Trott Park and O'Halloran Hill area can get around more easily. The condition of 

Beach Road and the duplication of Beach Road is something that many retailers as well as local residents have 

been particularly keen on, especially between the Southern Expressway and the main South Road, as well as the 

particular stretch between South Road from Aldinga to Seaford, and Old Coach Road. These are important 

projects and we need to continue to work to ensure they happen. (Time expired) 

Veterans 

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (10:42): This morning I would like to speak about the veterans community on 

the southern Gold Coast. I am very proud to say that we have a very large veterans community. We have four 

RSLs: the Tweed Heads-Coolangatta RSL, with President Joe Russell; the Currumbin-Palm Beach RSL with 

President Ron Workman OAM; the Burleigh Heads RSL, with President Chris Keating; and the Mudgeeraba 

Robina RSL, with President Jim Stathis. 

Each RSL held services to mark Anzac Day, and I was very privileged to attend the dawn service at Currumbin, 

the mid-morning citizens service at Burleigh Heads and the sunset service at Mudgeeraba. This year, I was very 

humbled to be asked to lead the parade for the Currumbin dawn service with the president, Ron Workman, and I 

thank him so very much for that privilege. As always, the services were very moving, and each year the crowds 

are growing, which is excellent to see, particularly the many younger children coming along and participating in 

the parades and in the services. 

Mudgeeraba is also home to the Mudgereeba Light Horse Museum, and I would like to take this opportunity to 

thank President Peter McLaughlin, Secretary Robert Clinch, Treasurer Laurie Wilson, First Vice-President Peter 

Atkinson and Second Vice-President Brian Bertwistle AM, as well as everyone associated with the museum for 

the wonderful work that they do. The museum offers a range of opportunities in line with the national history 

curriculum, and recently students from All Saints Anglican School visited the museum and participated in a range 

of activities including a raising-the-flag ceremony and getting up very close to the horses. 

The Light Horse Museum have already told me that they will be putting in a submission to the Anzac 

Centenary grants program, and I encourage other such groups to put in submissions for grants for their projects to 

commemorate the service and sacrifice of Australian men and women in the First World War. 

The McPherson Centenary of Anzac Committee has been established, and I thank Janelle Manders, the 

managing partner of HLB Mann Judd on the Gold Coast, Phil Roberts, senior lawyer and notary public of Roberts 

Law, Bren Milsom, secretary of Friends of Currumbin and one of our very well-respected community leaders, and 

Councillor Daphne McDonald for agreeing to be part of the committee and for their ongoing support to the 

southern Gold Coast and to our veteran community. Finally, I would like to confirm my ongoing support and 

commitment to deliver fair indexation for military superannuants. On 5 March 2012 and again 14 March 2013 the 

Leader of the Opposition personally recommitted the coalition to developing fair indexation for military 

superannuants. Under our plan the DFRB and DFRDB military superannuants aged 55 and over will have their 

superannuation pensions indexed in the same manner as age and service pensions. 

Food Education 

Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (10:45): On 

Friday I had the great privilege of launching the government's policy Food in the Australian Curriculum, which is 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


part and parcel of the National Food Plan. I was at Queanbeyan High School's agricultural production plot with 

Principal John Clark and representatives from AgriFood Skills Australia, Arthur Blewitt and Ben Stockwin of the 

Primary Industries Education Foundation, Matt Linnegar from the National Farmers Federation, a number of 

schools and associated educational providers. It was a great opportunity to promote what is a fantastic industry— 

the food and fibre industry—and to promote the fantastic and exciting careers that exist inside that industry, a 

most significant industry in our economy. An amount of $1.5 million has been committed at this stage to do 

several things. First and foremost, it is to help enhance and develop new resources for the curriculum, both online 

and hard copy materials. That will be done through DEEWR, and $500,000 has been committed to that process, 

which is designed to help teachers who want to highlight food and fibre in their curriculum and in their 

classrooms and to give them practical support to do that. One million dollars will be administered through DAFF 

and AgriFood Skills Australia, working with PIEF as well, to promote a number things—first of all, to support 

teachers and careers advisors to better understand the importance of food and fibre industries in Australia and the 

exciting careers associated with it. 

There will be a particular campaign to support those teachers in the classroom. There will also be a program to 

support teachers in training. These people, like teachers, significantly affect the decisions of our young people, 

and we will be looking to trainee teachers and supporting them as well. There will also be a major program to 

make in-school presentations to over 8,000 students and 400 teachers. This is a model that we want to see 

replicated particularly throughout urban schools—rural and regional schools do not need to place a lot of 

emphasis on it, except to say that there are exciting careers in a fundamentally important part of our economy, the 

food, fibre and drinks industries. 

Economy 

WYATT ROY (Longman) (10:48): I wish to take this opportunity to speak about opportunity and hope and 

reward. The coalition stakes its reputation and raises its plan for a return to national prosperity on these three 

pillars—hope, reward and opportunity. Together they stand for creativity and ideas and an environment where 

those ideas are able to breathe and thrive free from big government and bureaucratic restraint; and then just 

reward for one's endeavour and hard work. If elected a coalition government will build layer upon layer of policy 

to bind this powerful three-way commitment into reality. We will build a strong, diversified economy with lower 

taxes which will deliver more jobs, higher real incomes and better services for all Australians. How many extra 

jobs? One million new jobs over the next five years and two million jobs within a decade. 

A coalition government will immediately rescind the carbon tax which, by the way, increases on 1 July by five 

per cent. Abolishing the world's biggest carbon tax will remove the upward pressure on power costs that is hurting 

businesses and households alike. At the same time, we will keep the income tax cuts and fortnightly pension and 

benefit increases—retaining tax cuts without a carbon tax. 

The coalition has real solutions for small business, which we know and respect as the engine room of 

Australia's economy. We will usher in a revitalised era of fewer regulations to encourage more productivity and 

greater rewards. We will cut red tape and green tape by a billion dollars every year. 

A coalition government will build more modern infrastructure to get things moving, with a focus on our 

gridlocked roads and highways. We will direct hospital funding to where it is needed most—to front-line patient 

care. We will champion an education system which puts local communities, not bureaucrats, in the position to 

decide the direction of our schools. 

The latest appearance of two vessels carrying 157 people takes the total number of illegal boats which have 

arrived on Labor's watch beyond 700. From day one of a coalition government, we would begin the work of resecuring 

our country's borders—reintroducing temporary protection visas, turning boats around where it is safe to 

do so and ensuring rigorous offshore processing. 

With a return to prudent economic stewardship, we will rein in the federal Labor government's debt of almost 

$300 billion. We would chart a fairer, more responsible society underpinned by the notion of 'a hand-up, not a 

hand-out'. We will see smaller government and bigger citizens. 

Ahmadiyya Muslim Association 

Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh—Second Deputy Speaker) (10:52): I was very pleased to have been invited 

by Manzoor Qadir Khan, the President of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association of South Australia, to attend their 

exhibition of the Koran on Saturday, 27 April—a wonderful exhibition with versions of the Koran in as many 

languages as you can think of. I thank them for inviting me. In attendance on the day were the Lieutenant 

Governor of South Australia, Huei Van Le; members of the West Torrens council; and many people from the 

western suburbs. The exhibition was aimed at teaching people about the many great aspects of the Islamic faith 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


and that peace is at the heart of the Ahmadiyya Muslim faith—it is about the pursuit of peace and knowledge. 

This came across on the day. 

The Ahmadiyya Muslim community has long been persecuted by many authorities across many countries and 

regions around the world. They have made their way here—many as refugees and others as migrants—and to the 

UK, the US and many other places where they can practise their religion peacefully and freely. The main aim of 

the day was to show us that Islam is a religion of peace and a culture of peace and knowledge. 

I was very pleased to hear from the Ahmadiyya Muslim community on this day and to see the great things they 

are doing. Unfortunately, there are those around the world who are persecuted for practising this faith. In some 

cases around the world, violence is deployed against people of this faith. In Australia, we worship freely and as 

we please. It is unfortunate to see that there are still places around the world where people are not free to worship. 

A couple of weeks after this event, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship visited my electorate and I set 

up a meeting between him and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association to talk about the many issues they face in 

different parts of the world. I would like to congratulate them for seeing a role for themselves in trying to educate 

the broader South Australian members of their faith and to increase our knowledge and understanding of one of 

the world's largest and oldest religions. I appreciate that they put on display some wonderful copies of the Koran 

in every possible language that you can think of. (Time expired) 

Flynn Electorate: Medical Workforce 

Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (10:55): Today I rise to talk about the eligibility of doctors in Flynn to be registered for 

Medicare provider numbers, and specifically a situation that has arisen in the historic town of Mt Morgan, which 

is about half an hour west of Rockhampton. 

Mt Morgan is home to what was once one of the world's biggest goldmines. The town currently has around 

2,000 residents and further supports roughly another 2,000 people living in surrounding communities, such as 

Bouldercombe, Dululu, Wowan and other small towns. The town's needs are currently serviced by a new public 

hospital with one doctor and another private clinic; however, obtaining doctors is an ongoing problem. The one 

doctor in the hospital is there by himself and requires the services of the private clinic, which helps him out on 

occasion when he goes on leave. 

My specific concern today is the problems confronting the CQ Family Practice with their efforts to employ a 

second doctor with a Medicare provider number to alleviate pressure on the local health network. Traditionally, 

there have always been two doctors in Mt Morgan registered with Medicare provider numbers. However, since the 

sad passing of one of the town's valued health professionals, the community has been left with only one. The CQ 

Family Practice has since managed to find a suitable doctor willing to work in the town—which is no small feat— 

however, they are unable to overcome what they have been advised are restrictions to Medicare provider numbers 

to overseas trained doctors, despite the fact that the town has always had two such registered doctors in place. 

This is clearly an anomaly which must be rectified as soon as possible. I am reliably informed that the doctor 

applying for a Medicare provider number is currently doing amazing work in the community; working not just at a 

family practice but also at the public hospital and in an aged-care facility in the nearby town of Gracemere. 

I urgently call on the health minister to look into this situation so that the community of Mt Morgan and 

surrounds can be given back the services it has always enjoyed in the past and urgently needs right now. The 2nd 

of July 2013 is D-day for this situation in Mt Morgan. Obtaining adequate services in rural and regional areas is 

hard enough without these sorts of bureaucratic roadblocks that have become typical of a government obsessed 

with red tape. 

Barton Highway 

Dr LEIGH (Fraser—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (10:57): Last week there was a head-on 

crash on the Barton Highway, between Yass and Murrumbateman. The drivers of both cars were hospitalised with 

critical injuries, and the single-carriageway highway was closed in both directions for several hours. 

Thankfully, this incident did not claim any lives; unlike a similar head-on collision in February this year in 

which one of the motorists, an ACT resident, was tragically killed. 

The Barton Highway is a part of the national highway system and a key link between Canberra and the national 

grid, and it is unacceptable that it remains so dangerous. The risks are only going to increase as traffic volumes 

build, because the Yass valley area is one of the fastest growing regions in New South Wales. For example, 

Murrumbateman has grown from having a population of around 350 in 1984 to some 3,000 today. 

Thanks to pressure from my predecessor, Bob McMullan; Labor's 2007 candidate for Hume, David Grant; and 

locals, including Murrumbateman resident John Gelling, Labor devoted $36 million to roadworks to address a 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


notorious danger spot, the Gounyan curves. This 4.5 kilometre section of improvements removed seven bends. It 

was my pleasure to officially open the improved section in November 2011. 

Many locals still believe the Barton Highway should be duplicated. The Commonwealth would be prepared to 

consider a proposal for this, but at present New South Wales has not even listed it as a priority, which is 

disappointing, given that the National Party's member for Burrinjuck serves in Barry O'Farrell's cabinet—yet she 

is unable to get the road onto the New South Wales state government short-list for urgent action. 

A strong campaigner for duplication of the Barton highway is Labor candidate for Hume, Michael Pilbrow. 

Like many people in Hume, Michael regularly travels the Barton Highway to attend meetings in Canberra. He 

sometimes travels the road with his children and he knows the risk it brings. There is no more passionate 

champion of duplicating the Barton than Michael Pilbrow. Tomorrow, he will be meeting with Prime Minister 

Gillard along with Rowena Abbey, the Mayor of Yass; Geoff Ketle, the Mayor of Goulburn; Wendy Tuckerman, 

the Mayor of Booroowa; Chris Manchester, the Mayor of Harden; and John Shaw the Mayor of Upper Lachlan. 

The meeting will further push for the Barton Highway duplication, and a petition calling for duplication, initiated 

by the Mayor of Yass, will be presented to the Prime Minister. 

Every day over 6,000 people commute from the Hume electorate to the ACT. As a Canberran, I applaud 

Michael Pilbrow's activism. He is a candidate who lives in the electorate, who is raising his family there and who 

is working hard to address local issues such as the Barton Highway duplication. He is a candidate who would 

serve the people of Hume well in this parliament. I wish him and the local mayors the best in their efforts for 

improving the safety of the Barton Highway, and I wish Michael Pilbrow my personal best in fighting this 

election. 

BILLS 

Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013 


Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:01): I move: 


To ensure that as many as others as possible can contribute to this debate, I refer to the comments made during my 

introductory speech. 

Mr WILKIE (Denison) (11:01): I second that motion and will take this opportunity to briefly explain my 

support. There is an urgent need for someone or something to oversee animal welfare in Commonwealth regulated 

activities because, as sure as hell, the current Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Joe Ludwig 

and, regrettably, his department do not seem to be up to the job. How else to explain the repeated revelations of 

animal cruelty in Australia's live animal export industry since the ABC Four Corners program blew the whistle 

two years ago on the shocking animal abuse in Indonesian slaughter houses? Revelations are as widespread as at 

least in Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, Pakistan and Turkey and probably in more places given the practical limitations on 

Animal Australia's investigations and the likelihood of much more abuse going on undiscovered and unreported. 

Revelations are as diverse as the cutting of tendons to immobilise animals, the butchering of animals still alive 

because of haste and incompetence, the burying of animals alive because that is one way of disposing of unwanted 

animals—so long as you do not give a toss about extreme cruelty—and the stabbing of eyes seemingly for fun. 

Yes, I know the government reckons all is well now it has implemented that Exporter Supply Chain Assurance 

System. The trouble is all of the cruelty in recent times has occurred despite ESCAS being up and running—the 

implication being that the system does not guarantee anything or in fact do much other than produce theatre for 

the government to hide behind. 

Bizarrely, the more ESCAS is found to be an entirely inadequate animal welfare safeguard, the more the 

government trumpets the system's success on the basis that any breaches highlight the effectiveness of the 

oversight brought to bear by the system. The trouble is, the breaches are not being picked up by ESCAS but in 

almost every case by the brave souls in Animals Australia. 

The current system does not work and there is genuinely an urgent need to put in place something that does. To 

that end, I feel that an independent office of animal welfare would be a good solution, not least because it would 

have an unambiguous mandate to ensure appropriate animal welfare standards are maintained. In other words, the 

office would not be conflicted like the department and its minister, who juggle what they see as the competing 

demands of industry profits and animal welfare—and invariably juggle them badly. 

This matter does not reflect well on the Liberal and Labor parties because the live animal export industry went 

unchecked during the 11 years of the Howard government and next to nothing has been done to clean it up during 

the six years of the Rudd and Gillard governments. In recent years there has been a concerted effort by some in 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


the Labor Party to establish an independent office of animal welfare, which is obviously good thing. But 

apparently it is a move going nowhere fast, and that reflects very poorly on the Labor Party more broadly. I 

simply do not understand why the government and the alternative government are so weak on animal welfare. 

Surely there are enough men and women of good heart populating those parties to ensure animal welfare has a 

higher priority. But they are largely silenced, in another demonstration of how the party system in this country 

quashed independent thought at the expense of the public interest and, in this case, animal welfare. It is also 

another demonstration of the power of big business in this country and its ability to corrupt the development and 

implementation of good public policy. 

Frankly, I believe strongly that the live animal export trade must be stopped and am heartened to know that one 

day it will be, the only question being when. But, so long as it does continue, at least this bill would provide some 

protection for the animals. I am proud to second this bill and I congratulate the Greens on progressing it. I can 

only hope that enough members in this place have the heart and backbone to support it. Those who do not either 

do not care much about animal welfare or care more about their political self-interest. 

Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (11:05): 

Notwithstanding the genuine intentions and concerns behind the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of 

Animal Welfare) Bill 2013 or, in fact, some of the emotive arguments of the member for Denison just now, the 

government will not be supporting this bill. The Gillard government takes animal welfare seriously, contrary to 

the claims of the member for Denison. The government works with state and territory governments and with 

industry and community groups to continue to improve animal welfare outcomes both here and overseas. In the 

area of live animal exports, the government has undertaken the most significant reforms ever made to this 

industry, placing animal welfare at the core of the trade. We made these reforms because it would create a more 

sustainable trade for Australian industry—so important to our economy—and because it was the right thing to do. 

No government has done more to improve animal welfare in this sector than the Gillard government. The 

government has implemented the highest animal welfare standards for exported livestock anywhere in the world. 

The Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, known as ESCAS, puts animal welfare at the centre of the 

livestock export trade. It aims to ensure that Australian livestock are treated in line with international animal 

welfare standards. Internationally, Minister Joe Ludwig continues to actively engage within overseas forums to 

promote Australia's leadership in animal welfare standards. We have been a driving force in strong international 

animal welfare standards through the World Organisation for Animal Health. These standards cover land, sea and 

air transport and cattle production, as well as the slaughter of animals for human consumption. 

Domestically, the Australian government takes a significant leadership role, including contributing to primary 

industry model codes and animal welfare guidelines. The government has already developed a number of policies 

to improve animal welfare standards, including the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines and the 

Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. The welfare strategy, for example, outlines possible future directions in 

animal welfare in Australia. The Australian government has committed funding to this strategy through to 2014 

and appointed a new advisory committee to assist the implementation of the strategy. The strategy is a national 

blueprint for sustainable improvements in animal welfare across all key animal use sectors, all key stakeholders 

and the broader community. 

The Australian Labor Party national conference passed a resolution to establish an office of animal welfare. To 

begin that work, a special Labor caucus working group prepared a report on a model for an office. The working 

group considered what role an office would play in developing and reviewing domestic animal welfare standards, 

harmonising domestic laws, monitoring and reporting on surveillance and enforcement of domestic and live 

animal export regulation, and other appropriate activities. The report has now been finalised, and the government 

is now considering that report. The establishment of an independent office of animal welfare involves 

consideration of complex legal, constitutional and policy issues, and we make no apologies for taking the time to 

get our model right. Also, a final model will likely require broad public consultation, as it canvasses issues that 

will have wide public impact. 

There are significant issues with the Greens' bill—for example, the question of the constitutional power to 

support the bill and, in particular, the functions of the CEO. For example, under the Constitution, the 

Commonwealth has no power to directly legislate for animal welfare. Some functions of the CEO, for example, 

reporting on the Commonwealth's animal welfare policy and considering academic and scientific research relevant 

to animal welfare, would need to be carefully considered to assess whether there was Constitutional power to 

support those functions, short of a referral power from state governments. 

Under issue surrounds the departmental review of the functions of the CEO. The Greens bill before us is silent 

on any provisions as to how a review of department decisions would happen. There are no provisions explaining 

how the CEO and the office would be able to, for instance, receive information from the department, whether the 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


CEO and office could compel the department or departmental officers to produce documents, invite submission 

from other parties, have power to enter and search premises and so on. 

And, again, another question: what is the relationship of proposed review mechanisms in this bill to existing 

review mechanisms? For instance, this bill is silent on how the new review functions of the department would fit 

within existing review mechanisms. Decision of the department can already be reviewed by the Ombudsman and 

the ANAO. Decisions of the department are also subject to freedom of information applications and so on. There 

are numerous issues with the bill before the House, and until we can resolve these issues the government is unable 

to support this bill. 

Mr HAASE (Durack) (11:11): I give my thanks to my learned friend opposite, the member for Braddon, for 

announcing the government's very intelligent view in opposing this bill, the Voice for Animals (Independent 

Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013. We in this place have to ask ourselves what the motivation is behind this 

particular bill being introduced. I am firmly of the view that the single reason for the introduction of this bill is, as 

they confess in part, to stamp out live export. But the stamping out of live export has serious ramifications. 

Anyone in this nation who has any awareness about the Northern aspects of this country understands that, with 

pastoral land, there is only one product that can be produced these days under the pastoral regulation act, and that 

is Bos indicus cattle for live export. 

There are fanciful individuals who believe that we can install an abattoir, or a number of, across Northern 

Australia and slaughter, box and export boxed beef to places like the Middle East and Indonesia, but it is pure 

fantasy. We have a tiny proportion of those end customers, those end consumers, of those product that have 

refrigeration in their homes. Anyone who has seen frozen beef thawed out in a tropical situation without 

refrigeration would realise that the product becomes almost inedible in a very short period of time and that wet 

markets and local slaughter is the only solution. 

So let's get away from this fanciful idea that the motivation might be for humane slaughter in Australian 

abattoirs. Let's get away from the idea that we can convince somebody that they ought to change their culture or 

their eating habits or suddenly install refrigeration across the Middle East and Indonesia. It is not going to happen. 

So, unless we want to certify the shutting down of a third of Australia's land mass and prevent the production of 

cattle, we need to put both feet on the ground and think with level heads about the future of a third of Australia. 

The reality is that we have right now a combination of two dreadful situations. We have the disastrous decision 

two years ago that our relationship with Indonesia would be trashed, that we would take a political move that said 

to our Indonesian neighbours, 'We hold you to siege because we are offended by what has occurred in two of your 

abattoirs.' There was no logic to that kneejerk reaction of shutting down the export. If the motivation was to 

prevent cruelty to animals, what of the thousands of head of cattle that were in yards with no feed? If the idea of 

shutting down live export is to improve the living rate and reduce the death rate of animals, why would you not 

put them on a boat with feed and water and shelter rather than have them starve in paddocks? 

That is what is happening today. We have the situation where the return on a beast in a market in Queensland is 

currently worth less than the freight to get the beast to market—therefore they are being left on country. The 

country is being stripped of available feed. We have a drought situation where we have no hope in the very near 

future of rain and subsequent feed. We have a second year's drop of calves now that ought to be viewing sale 

within eight to 10 months to those middle-eastern markets. That market has been trashed by the unmitigated 

circumstances that we have presented to Indonesia. The market has no hope of recovering in the short term—and 

yet we still have propositions being put forward that say we need another nail in the coffin of beef producers. It is 

inexcusable. 

There is no rational thought behind this except of winning votes in metropolitan areas with a green view and 

appealing to green voters. They are people who probably believe that animals should not be eaten in the first place 

and that somehow, if they are to be eaten, maybe they voluntarily anaesthetise themselves and suicide to give us 

meats for consideration. (Time expired) 

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (11:16): The purpose of this bill is to establish an independent office of animal welfare. 

In doing so it seeks to implement ALP policy adopted at the 2011 ALP National Conference under the guise that 

the government has failed to do it. I therefore welcome the member for Melbourne's support of ALP policy. It is 

encouraging that the Greens are doing that. I note, however, that in his remarks he at no point stated whether this 

matter was debated within the Greens party and whether it was formal Greens policy, although I can only assume 

it must be. 

It begs the question whether the motion before the House is little more than an attempt to capital on extensive 

work ALP members in this place have carried out in driving the establishment of an independent office of animal 

welfare. The member for Melbourne quite rightly points out that the committee of Labor members of parliament, 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


of which I have been a part, has done extensive work on this issue. The ALP caucus has now endorsed the 

proposal for the government to establish an independent office of animal welfare and I welcome the comments of 

the parliamentary secretary earlier on in this debate. 

As is well known, Australian animal welfare is as much a matter for state governments as it is for the federal 

government. There is also in place a complex structure, between the federal and state governments, in overseeing 

animal welfare across Australia. Unravelling those existing arrangements is not simply a matter for the federal 

government. Any proposal by the federal government, if it is to act in isolation, is likely to cause overlap or 

conflict with arrangements and laws that are currently in place. Nor should the role of an independent office of 

animal welfare simply be confined to the export of live animals, albeit that is an area for which the federal 

government does have sole responsibility. However, appropriate standards in the welfare of live animals begins 

while they are still under state jurisdiction and before the animals are loaded onto ships for export. 

Recently I was contacted by a group in Adelaide who have taken an interest in the live-export trade. The group, 

who refer to themselves as the Port Adelaide Monitors, have been closely monitoring the loading and exportation 

of live sheep from Port Adelaide. In a letter to me, the group raised several concerns about the cruel treatment of 

sheep prior to them leaving Australia, whilst they are at the loading docks and still under the jurisdiction of the 

state government. Those concerns clearly relate to matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the state government 

and yet they are part and parcel of the live-export trade. 

It is clear that if an independent office of animal welfare is to be established, it needs to have appropriate 

authority to be effective. If it is going to have appropriate authority then we need to engage in discussions with the 

states and seek their cooperation. Having said that, it is important that this matter be progressed as quickly as 

possible because, as we have seen, cases of cruelty to live animals for export continue to be exposed. What is 

more, all of those cases and all of that cruelty is both unnecessary and avoidable. 

I have previously made the point that once animals leave Australia we lose control of their fate. The 

government's implementation of the export supply chain assurance system, which ensures animals are tracked and 

monitored, is making a difference to export animal welfare because it places responsibility for the care of those 

animals onto the exporter. But it is not foolproof and never will be, as we saw with the sheep that were redirected 

from Bahrain to Pakistan. I note with interest that, whilst the industry claims that the exports are important to the 

livestock industry, the fact is that export numbers of live animals and values have been declining over the last 

decade while simultaneously the export of chilled meats from Australia has been increasing. Cattle and sheep 

growers know that the future lies in the export of chilled meat. It is less risky and easier to manage because the 

processing is all carried out in Australia. Importantly, processing in Australia eliminates the cruelty associated 

with the live export trade. That is what we should be encouraging growers to focus on. 

With respect to this legislation, as the parliamentary secretary has quite rightly pointed out, if it is going to be 

effective we need to get it right. The legislation does not tell me which minister the new office will answer to, nor 

does it tell me specifically what powers it will have to ensure that animal cruelty is in fact stamped out. There is a 

whole range of matters that I know the minister is looking at. It is important that we do that and it is important that 

we get the office right if it is to be effective. (Time expired) 

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (11:21): This policy is typical of the Greens, who love red tape. Moreover, 

they love the green tape. They love bureaucracy, they love regulation, but they do not love farmers. It is designed 

to make farming more costly, and haven't we seen how much more expensive farming is with the carbon tax that 

the Greens also supported. It is designed to shut down the industry of live cattle exports, live animal exports, but it 

does nothing to improve animal welfare. 

With me in the chamber is the shadow minister for agriculture and perhaps more importantly food security. 

North of Australia is Indonesia, 240 or so million people who are going to lack protein, going to lack Australian 

meat, if you shut down our live cattle exports. The shadow minister knows that. I have heard him talking ad 

nauseam about the importance of the live cattle export industry. He and I were in Rockhampton just recently 

where one cattle farmer bemoaned the fact that steers were selling for just $20 a head in Longreach, and that is 

shameful. It is because of the ban brought about by a knee-jerk reaction by Prime Minister more intent on just 

keeping her job than on good public policy. The Four Corners program shut down the entire live cattle export 

industry, and what did we see? We saw so many Aboriginal stockman put out of work. They walked off from their 

jobs. Who knows whether they will ever get their jobs back again? We saw cattle which were then too old and too 

heavy to be exported and in some cases were being shot. Talk about animal welfare. That goes against the whole 

meaning of any sort of animal welfare. Farmers do not want to have to shoot their animals but they want to 

survive. They need livelihoods. The shadow minister knows that. He knows how important it is to keep our live 

cattle export industry going. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Nobody likes animal cruelty, least of all the shadow minister, least of all the Nationals, but we do care for 

regional Australia. We want our farmers to get a fair price for their livestock. We also want to see those livestock 

treated properly. We do not want them to be sent to abattoirs which are going to treat them inhumanely, and that is 

why we have provisions in place. That is why the cattle industry's Alison Penfold, a person who is absolutely 

mindful of the importance of making sure that our exports remain viable, told me only on Friday of the 

importance of Australia making sure that we have good welfare standards. But this bill does nothing for that. As 

John Cobb said to me, this bill is an affront to our live exporters and to our beef industry, which is the only 

industry out of 109 countries which support live exports which invests in animal welfare in destination countries. 

We need to build to provide our meat to those countries, whether it is Indonesia, whether it is the Middle East— 

wherever it is we need to make sure that we keep those markets open. The situation we have at the moment is that 

the price for cattle has gone down right throughout the country, certainly in the Riverina where one of the 

businesses, Byrne Trailers, has lost a lot of money, tens of thousands of dollars, because the orders have stopped 

for their stock crates. This is an affront to farmers. 

I notice that the member for Page was on the speaking list, but I cannot see her in the chamber. She wanted to 

phase out, stop, the live cattle export trade. I am just glad that the Nationals have a candidate in Page, Kevin 

Hogan, who understands the cattle industry—indeed, he is a cattle farmer himself. I am sure that if he is lucky 

enough to be elected as the next member for Page, and I hope that is the case, he will bring common sense and 

reason to this debate. 

This bill is about supporting the extremist element, the people who want to shut down animal production. We 

had a party who failed to ban live exports because it was bad public policy. I heard the member for Melbourne last 

week, in an adjournment debate, talk about the number of helicopters flying over his electorate at night and during 

the day. Talk about a first world problem! We have people in the electorates of Calare and Riverina who do not 

know where their next profit is going to come from, who do not know where their next pay packet is going to 

come from, because the live cattle trade export ban—that absolute fiasco—has caused them much financial stress 

and caused their farm profitability much harm. 

I do not recommend this bill, and I hope it gets rejected as it should. 

Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (11:26): I rise to speak on the Voice for Animals (Independent 

Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013 introduced by the member for Melbourne. Unfortunately, I was not able to 

hear all of the debate prior to rising to speak, apart from hearing the last bit of the member for Riverina's 

contribution. I would not have thought there would be many cattle exported live overseas from Riverina 

electorate, but I hope to stand corrected. I would have thought they would not be viable at all. I know, as a 

Queenslander and someone connected with this topic, that there is only a certain market. 

I want to go on the record early and say that, if I had my way, I would like all cattle from production in 

Australia to be slaughtered in Australian abattoirs. That would be my wish because that would be value-adding 

and protecting Australian jobs, and we would have control over the standards. I recognise the contribution of the 

meat industry, employees and the cattle industry through having great standards. The reality is that it is not 

economically viable for cattle in north-west Australia to be slaughtered in a Melbourne abattoirs or in a 

Queensland abattoirs. Even if there were sufficient labour in north-west Australia there would not be a viable 

industry. If I had my wish, all cattle produced in Australia would be slaughtered in Australia, but the economic 

reality is that that is not viable. 

This bill put forward by the member for Melbourne seeks to establish the Independent Office of Animal 

Welfare with the appointment of a CEO by the minister, and sets out a range of reporting and monitoring 

functions around Commonwealth legislation and standard-setting principally associated with the export of 

livestock. This is a classic opportunity of putting attention on the member for Melbourne's concerns through an 

issue that is already taking place. 

I have a prop here, which I will refer to briefly, Deputy Speaker, and it is the Constitution. The reality is that 

the Constitution does not provide for Minister Ludwig to make such a decision. In terms of authority over what is 

exported we do have a head of power where the minister can have some say. In terms of an Independent Office of 

Animal Welfare, in terms of looking at what goes on in Australia, the reality is that we are a Federation and we 

need the state ministers, the state premiers, to come together to refer powers to any federal department. I 

commend the member for Melbourne for some aspects of this legislation, but it is ignoring the fact that we are a 

Federation and it is also ignoring the economic reality of cattle in north-west Australia, even cattle in some 

northern parts of Queensland and certainly in the Northern Territory. As well, I should particularly mention the 

significant Indigenous population who rely on jobs in this industry. It will never be economically viable to put 

those cattle on a truck and send them to Dinmore, in Brisbane. I am sorry; I wish that were not the case. Those 

days are gone. I know that we are taking steps to establish abattoirs in the Northern Territory, which might 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


facilitate more cattle being slaughtered in Australian abattoirs, but even then we will never be able to slaughter in 

Australia all the cattle being turned off. 

I understand the complex legal, constitutional and policy issues associated with an independent office of animal 

welfare. I think we will soon have an announcement from the Labor government about something that will go 

some way to that. But it would always have to be a cooperative arrangement. The sort of knee-jerk populism of 

saying, 'This should be banned,' whenever one animal is shown to be slaughtered is not realistic. One of my first 

jobs was working in a butcher shop, and we had a little abattoir in my hometown. I have always known that 

occasionally things go wrong, even in abattoirs with the best standards. But this banning would not work in the 

long run at all, because the reality is that cattle in north-west Australia will always need to be exported. (Time 

expired) 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate 

is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 


Christian Assyrians in Iraq 

Debate resumed on the motion by Mr Ruddock: 


(1) recognises that: 

(a) Christian Assyrians, a minority religious and racial group in Iraq, are subject to ongoing violence, intimidation, 

harassment and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds; 

(b) on 31 October 2010, 58 Christian Assyrians were killed in an attack on a church in Baghdad, in an act of violent 

extremism targeting this minority group; 

(c) Christian Assyrians are actively discriminated against by having their land illegally occupied and transferred to 

squatters; 

(d) 600,000 Christian Assyrians have now fled Iraq, including many thousands to Australia; and 

(e) Assyrians remaining in Iraq are denied many basic human rights and subject to ongoing harassment, intimidation and 

discrimination; 

(2) condemns violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds wherever it may be 

found, including in Iraq; and 

(3) calls upon the Australian Government to raise the significant human rights concerns of Christian Assyrians with the Iraqi 

Government. 

Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (11:31): This is not the first occasion on which I have spoken in this chamber on 

the plight of Christians in the Middle East. I said on the last occasion, in May 2011, that for my own purposes I 

have often travelled widely in the Middle East. One of the discussions I had was with the Middle East Council of 

Churches, because already there were numerous Christians who had fled, many from Iraq, and had settled in Syria 

and Jordan seeking sanctuary. Many of course were seeking to move further afield. In my discussions with the 

Middle East Council of Churches it made very strongly the points that Christians have been resident in the Middle 

East for some 2,000 years and that it did not want, essentially, to preside over Christians being driven out of the 

Middle East. 

This motion is designed to focus on those issues. It is not the only motion that will come before the 

parliament—the government seems to have found reason to talk about these issues again—but I think it is very 

important to understand that Christian Assyrians, who are a religious and racial minority group in Iraq, have been 

subjected to ongoing violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination. They have been discriminated against 

in many ways, including by the illegal occupation and transfer of their land. There are reports that some 600,000 

Christian Assyrians have now fled Iraq, and many of those have settled in Australia. The Assyrians remaining are 

subjected to harassment, intimidation and discrimination. This motion condemns that violence, intimidation, 

harassment and discrimination and calls upon the government to raise these issues with the Iraqi government. 

I do not know that these matters are pursued by government but I do know that governments have a 

responsibility to protect their people. When I hear suggestions that we should simply refer to reports that raise 

these matters I think it ignores the responsibility that government itself has to protect its own citizens and to 

ensure that they are not discriminated against. 

I think the plight of the Assyrians, particularly in Iraq—but it is not only in Iraq; it is now occurring in Syria 

with the violence that is occurring there and it is also happening in other areas where there are Kurdish 

populations. The Assyrians face very considerable discrimination . It is not just the illegal occupation of their land 

and the transferring of it to squatters—which is the subject of quite comprehensive reporting, and I do not think 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


can be put aside lightly—it also includes many attacks on Christians that have occurred and continue to occur in 

Iraq now. Iraq has its difficulties, but I think there is a responsibility to ensure that the people are able to get full 

information about what their government is doing and how they are seeking to deal with this issues. 

The point I was making was that the Assyrians are unique. They have been predominantly Christian in the 

regions in which they live. They face discrimination which first started under the regime of Saddam Hussein and 

the details that I mentioned that I would give include in January of 2008, Epiphany Day, five Assyrian churches, 

one Armenian church and monasteries in Mosul and Baghdad were attacked with car bombs in a coordinated 

fashion. On 31 October 2010 at the Sayidat-al-Najat cathedral in Baghdad 58 people were left dead. There were 

eight attacks on churches in 2011 with more than 35 civilians and security forces wounded. These attacks were 

used as a tool to suppress the Christian religion in my view. 

Kidnapping for ransom has been a significant problem with six abductions reported in 2011, largely around 

Kirkuk. Some were freed when ransoms were paid but other stories were not so positive. Ashur Issa Jacob was 

kidnapped by al-Qaida operatives—$61,500 was made in ransom but his body was found later mutilated in 

Kirkuk, including near decapitation, his eyes were gouged out and there were dog bites on his body. 

These are the sorts of experiences that many have seen, and the threats and harassment which are part of daily 

life are very significant . It is my view that the Australian government needs to be actively pursuing these matters 

with the Iraqi government. We do not blame them for what is happening but we expect that they would be using 

all of their efforts to ensure the protection of their people. That is the responsibility of all governments and it is not 

a matter of treating these matters lightly when so many people have fled. The massive movement of the Assyrian 

population has meant that it is now about half what it was, and many of those people who continue to live there 

have been internally displaced. 

When they are internally displaced they face very significant problems. There are hostilities. They find it 

difficult to find work and employment. They find it difficult to get services. They find it difficult to be able to 

practise their religion. These are matters that are well known when they do occur but in Iraq, in particular, they are 

significant and continue to be significant. 

The purpose of the motion I have moved is to bring these matters to notice to ensure that Australians are aware 

of the plight of Assyrians and to know what is being experienced by the families of many of their neighbours who 

live here in Australia. I make the point again that we need to be generous, as we have been over decades, in 

assisting those people who are refugees and who are forced to flee and we ought to be providing for placements in 

our own programs to assist. 

The Special Humanitarian Program has always been one that has been available for that purpose. Previously, 

when I was minister, I was pleased that we were able to accommodate many Assyrian Christians in those 

programs. I regret that today the possibility of being able to assist is so much more limited because of the failure 

to be able to adequately manage our borders. That has meant that the program places are assigned to others who 

come and pay people smugglers and those who have real needs end up being very significantly disadvantaged. 

I make the point, as I did earlier, that there are some who would suggest that the Australian government has 

done all that it should and that we should support their efforts. Let me make it clear: I think there is a lot more 

advocacy to be done. Governments do have a responsibility to protect their own people and I think the Assyrian 

Christians are entitled to that protection, whether they are in Iraq, whether they are in Syria or whether they are in 

Turkey. 

Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports—Parliamentary Secretary for the Arts) (11:41): I would like to make some 

comments about the grave situation faced by the Assyrian Christian minority in Iraq. I genuinely share the 

excellent motion and sentiments of the member for Berowra. 

The Assyrians are an ethnic minority who have lived in Iraq since before the Arab conquest. The Assyrian 

Christians, officially known as the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, are an ancient Christian 

denomination. They trace their origins back to the Apostle Thomas who is believed to have visited Babylon and 

founded a church there. The Assyrian Christians are not affiliated with any other denomination although they do 

have friendly relations with the Vatican, the Greek and Syrian Orthodox churches and the Chaldean Catholics. At 

one time the church had millions of followers in the wide arc from Egypt to China and India. 

The Assyrians, along with the Armenians, suffered greatly at the hands of the Ottoman regime during World 

War I with somewhere between 250,000 and 700,000 killed. Today, the church has been reduced to a following of 

about half a million, concentrated in northern Iraq. It has diaspora churches in many countries, including the 

United States and Australia. During the days of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq, the Assyrians, like other 

Christian minorities, enjoyed a certain amount of protection from the secular state although they suffered from the 

same political repression and restrictions on freedom of speech as other Iraqis. I genuinely share the view of the 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


member for Berowra that it is the duty of the modern state of Iraq to protect its religious minorities. It is 

something that those of us in the rest of the world look at very ominously in the Middle East—the apparent 

driving out of Christians of all denominations from that region. In 1987 there were 1.4 million Christians 

officially recorded in Iraq. Today there are about 400,000. 

The fall of Saddam brought many benefits to Iraq but unfortunately it unleashed the forces of religious hatred, 

particularly between the Shi'a and Sunni aspects of Islam, and also between the Arab majority and the Kurdish 

areas in the north. Iraq's Christians have been amongst the many victims of this sectarian conflict which has been 

deliberately exploited by al-Qaeda and other similar extremists as well as by elements within the Shi'a dominated 

government of Iraq. 

Since 2003, Assyrian Christians in Iraq have been the targets of numerous fatal attacks by Islamist groups. 

Over 65 churches have been bombed and destroyed, hundreds of Christians have been killed and there has been a 

wave of kidnappings targeting Christian children and teenagers. As a result, there has been a huge exodus of 

Christians, including Assyrians from Iraq. The member for Berowra said the figure was something close to 

600,000. 

Generally, we view the Arab Spring uprisings over the last three years as a natural response to repression by the 

dictators and monarchs who have rules these countries for so long. I travelled to Tunisia and met the so-called 

moderate Islamist party, led by Rachid Ghannouchi. I hope those in Tunisia stay true to their word of cleaving to 

democracy. In other places, such as Egypt, the Arab Spring has brought to power Islamist regimes which do not 

seem to protect their Christian minorities. I have spoken out many times previously about the ill-treatment of the 

Coptic church in Egypt. I pay tribute to the former minister for resources, the member for Batman, Mr Ferguson, 

who led a delegation with me that met some of the local Coptic holy fathers, together with Bishop Suriel, in 

Melbourne after some of the particularly egregious attacks on the Christian community in Egypt. 

Sadly, Assyrian Christians seem to be facing persecution in the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq. It has been 

reported that Assyrians in various villages have been illegally forced out of their homes and off their land. They 

are being constantly pressured to convert to Islam in exchange for guarantees of their safety from the Kurdish 

Muslim majority. Islamic militancy in Iraqi Kurdistan is growing and it is the minorities who suffer the most. This 

is particularly sad for democrats across the world who admired Kurdistan as a place slightly independent of Iraq— 

even before the time of Saddam Hussein—and a place where there is economic growth and progress. It is a shame 

that its Christian minority is not being treated better. 

In Baghdad, Mosul and Nineveh, there have been repeated home invasions, beatings and murders of Christians 

by Islamist gunmen. Christian families have been forced to flee for their lives and have been robbed of their 

property. There have been numerous attacks on Assyrian Christians in both northern Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan over 

the past three years. In the disputed city of Kirkuk, where ethnic and religious tensions are very acute, Christians 

were forbidden to celebrate Christmas in 2010—surely that is something that the government of Iraq could have 

taken a stronger stand on—on the grounds that Christmas would be an insult to the Muslim majority. In Kirkuk, in 

2011, so-called insurgents killed and mutilated a Christian construction worker whom they had kidnapped over 

the weekend and had demanded $100,000 in ransom for. Human Rights Watch has warned that northern Iraq's 

minority Christians are the collateral victims of a conflict between Arabs and Kurds over control of disputed oilrich 

provinces in northern Iraq. 

In one of the worst incidents, in October 2010 in Baghdad, Islamist terrorists held about 120 Christians hostage 

for nearly four hours in a church before security forces stormed the building. That is the incident that the member 

for Berowra was referring to, where the shootout left 58 people dead. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians 

have fled the country since 2003. Many of them went to Syria, but, now that civil war has broken out there, they 

are no longer safe. They are not welcome in Turkey, although many have gone there anyway. Many have found 

their way to the West. We know that many of them are already in Jordan before the current wave of Syrian 

refugees. 

In the 1940s and 1950s, a million Jews were expelled from the Arab countries and from Iran. They were 

relatively lucky. They had a place in the Jewish state of Israel ready and willing to take them in. Today there are 

still millions of Christians in the Arab world, with perhaps as many as 15 million in Egypt. Their position is 

increasingly insecure as the wave of Islamist militancy spreads across the region. If they are driven out of the 

countries where they have lived for centuries, who will take them in? 

It is incumbent upon all of us in Western societies who believe in religious freedom to speak up and make their 

voices heard on behalf of the persecuted Christians of the Middle East, whether it is in Egypt or Iraq; whether it is 

Syrian Christians in the north of Iraq, or anywhere. The situation of an ancient religious minority, with their very 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


interesting traditions, their long-held traditions, their centuries-held traditions, is not something that the rest of the 

world should allow to be abandoned. 

When the famous Buddhas of Bamiyan were blown up by the Islamists in Afghanistan, the whole world was 

offended. When France led an expedition in Mali to expel the Islamists from that country, to preserve the Muslim 

shrines and artefacts of Timbuktu, the world cheered the French, and Australia was very strong in France's 

support, giving $10 million in aid. I know the ambassador of Mali flew specially from Tokyo—we do not have a 

resident Malinese ambassador in Australia—to thank Australia for its participation in saving his country. The 

Malinese ambassador was a Muslim and represented the Muslim moderate majority in that country. 

It is incumbent on all of us in Western societies to speak up for religious freedom in the Middle East. Australia 

played a major role in the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. It is therefore our right as a country to ask our 

Iraqi friends, the Iraqi government, to take measures to preserve the safety of the Assyrian Christian minority and 

other Christians in Iraq. 

I particularly express my disappointment to Kurdish friends in the north of Iraq, whom many people in 

democratic movements across the world have held in such high esteem, that this persecution of the Christian 

minority in the north of Iraq continues to take place. I call on the Kurdish political parties and the Kurdish 

autonomous area in the north of Iraq to pay higher attention to and preserve the religious freedom of the Christian 

minority in the north of Iraq. 

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:52): I rise to support this motion moved by the member for Berowra. I 

commend him on his leadership on Assyrian issues over many years in this House. I also acknowledge in the 

gallery today Hermiz Shahen, David David and other members of the Assyrian community. Thank you for being 

here. The motion is: 


(1) recognises that: 

(a) Christian Assyrians, a minority religious and racial group in Iraq, are subject to ongoing violence, intimidation, 

harassment and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds; 

(b) on 31 October 2010, 58 Christian Assyrians were killed in an attack on a church in Baghdad, in an act of violent 

extremism targeting this minority group; 

(c) Christian Assyrians are actively discriminated against by having their land illegally occupied and transferred to 

squatters; 

(d) 600,000 Christian Assyrians have now fled Iraq, including many thousands to Australia; and 

(e) Assyrians remaining in Iraq are denied many basic human rights and subject to ongoing harassment, intimidation and 

discrimination; 

(2) condemns violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds wherever it may be 

found, including in Iraq; and 

(3) calls upon the Australian Government to raise the significant human rights concerns of Christian Assyrians with the Iraqi 

Government. 

Assyrians are the indigenous people of Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. They have a history that spans 

over 7,000 years. Today's Assyrians are the descendants of the ancient Assyrian Empire, which was once our 

earliest civilisation. The majority of the Assyrian population had converted to Christianity by the second century, 

giving them a legitimate claim to being the first Christian nation in history. However, over the centuries, under 

Islamic rule and its attendant repressions, the number of Christians has been significantly reduced in the Middle 

East. In 1900, Christians made up 25 per cent of the population of the Middle East. By 2000, that was down to 

less than five per cent. Then came the Iraq War. 

Undoubtedly, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. He led his people into senseless wars—the Iran-Iraq War, 

the invasion of Kuwait—wars which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. He used chemical weapons 

against his own people. However, I recall a question asked at the time of the Gulf War: was Iraq the way it was 

because of Saddam or was Saddam the way he was because of the Iraq? History now answers that question and it 

seems there is truth in both, for Saddam and his Ba'athist regime did at least keep the genie of Islamic militancy in 

the bottle. However, since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Assyrians in Iraq have been the targets of numerous fatal 

attacks by Islamic terrorist groups and the new Iraq, from time to time in its liberation, has witnessed a huge 

exodus of Christians. In the decade since the Gulf War, more than half of Iraq's Christians have fled to refugee 

camps in Syria or Jordan, reducing Iraq's pre-war population of Assyrians from 1,000,000 to now around 400,000. 

Those remaining are experiencing one of the most pressing humanitarian crises on our planet, suffering systematic 

persecution which largely goes unreported in the mainstream media. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Within the last 12 years, over 65 churches have been bombed and many destroyed, and hundreds of Christians 

have been killed. In 2010, just a few months after the US combat troops left, militants associated with Al Qaeda, 

in a bloody siege of Our Lady of Deliverance Church in Baghdad, killed 58 people, including two priests, and 

wounded 78 more. In the attack, as detailed in the New York Times, one of the priests, Father Sabih, was pushed to 

the ground as he grabbed his crucifix and pleaded with the gunmen to spare his worshippers. He was then killed, 

his body riddled with bullets. 

Today on its ancestral soil all that is left of the world's oldest Christian nation is a desperate minority. A culture 

which has survived centuries of hardship now stands on the verge of disappearing completely. We must use our 

voice on the United Nations Security Council to speak out on these issues. (Time expired) 

Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (11:57): I rise today to support the motion put forward by the member for 

Berowra and to add my voice to the condemnation of the continued persecution of Christian Assyrians, Chaldeans 

and Syriacs in Iraq. I have spoken about this issue in the House on many previous occasions in the past expressing 

my concern at the ongoing human rights abuse of minority groups in Iraq but also in the broader Middle East. On 

this occasion, I would like to mention the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt and to speak of the Christian 

community now facing intense pressure in Syria. As ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq, Assyrians, Chaldeans 

and Syriacs have been doubly targeted during the ethnic and sectarian civil war which has gripped Iraq since the 

March 2003 invasion. Christian Iraqis form a disproportionate part of the millions of Iraqis displaced by the war. 

They have suffered from killings, bombings, kidnappings, torture, harassment, forced conversions and 

dispossessions. I thank the members who have spoken before me and who have detailed the accounts of the 

atrocities. 

My seat of Calwell is home to one of the largest constituencies of Iraqi Christians in Australia. They are among 

the thousands who have fled Iraq as refugees, so acts of violent extremism, and discrimination on religious and 

ethnic grounds are matters that deeply distress members of the Assyrian, Syriac and Chaldean communities in my 

electorate. Their faith is unyielding and freedom to practice without fear of persecution is paramount. In fact, such 

is the pious devotion to their faith and church that this Christian community has already built very strong roots in 

my electorate. 

Calwell is home to the Chaldean Cathedral of Our Lady Guardian of Plants, the St Mary's Ancient Church of 

the East, the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East and the Holy Spirit Syriac Catholic Church. 

Church attendance during mass is the highest of any Christian community in Australia. I have received much 

representation in my electorate from members of the Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac communities. Of the many 

issues we discuss—ranging from immigration, refugees and family reunion to degree and qualification 

recognition—the one issue closest to their hearts and minds is the continued instability in Iraq and the persecution 

of their Christian brothers and sisters. 

The Pope of the Syriac Catholic Church, Pope Joseph, recently visited Melbourne from Lebanon. He led the 

mass at our local Holy Spirit Catholic Church where he ordained five new deacons in a community made up of 

about 100 families. I use this as an example to show the depth of belief and reverence amongst this community. 

On 12 May this year I also had the great privilege of an audience with the patriarch of the Chaldean Church, 

His Beatitude, Mar Louis Raphael I Sako, during his visit to Our Lady Guardian of Plants Chaldean parish in 

Campbellfield. My discussions with His Beatitude were wide ranging and very illuminating. Of course they 

centred on the plight of Christians in Iraq and the broader Middle East, but the patriarch was also keen to discuss 

the experience and integration progress of his flock here in Australia. He noted his delight at their progress and 

stressed his desire that they integrate successfully in their new home. They bring with them a profound faith that 

can be instructive to other Christians, myself included, as I thoroughly enjoy attending their masses. 

His Beatitude also expressed his deep concern about the forced exodus of Christians from Iraq and made 

specific reference to the 'brain drain' effect it would have on Iraq's future development given that Christian Iraqis 

are the most educated of the community and are desperately needed in order to rebuild this broken and tragic 

country. In voicing concern about the overall future presence of Christians in Iraq as numbers dwindle because of 

the instability, persecution and the displacement, a new threat is emerging, one that sees a possible disappearance 

of Christians altogether, a matter that even Muslim Iraqis, according to the patriarch, are very concerned about 

because it could throw Iraq into the hands of extremists, thereby destroying any chance of a safer and stronger 

country. It is for this reason that this motion we are debating here today is very important. 

The irony of the patriarch's observations did not escape me. As the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on 

Migration, I recently tabled a report which noted the difficulty the Iraqi community were having with recognition 

of their skills and qualifications here in Australia, yet His Beatitude was lamenting the loss to Iraq of the highly 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


skilled Christian population, who, subsequently when coming to Australia struggle to use their skills and 

educational qualifications. (Time expired) 

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (12:02): I want to commend the member for Berowra for an excellent motion in 

relation to this matter and, indeed, all members of this place, including the member for Melbourne Ports and the 

member for Hughes, for excellent contributions in recognition of this serious issue and problem. I think it is a 

good idea for us in this place to call for the Australian government to raise the ongoing concern of significant 

human rights abuses of Christian Assyrians with the Iraqi government of today. Given the record of Australia in 

assisting Iraq and the people of Iraq with their needs over the years, it is a good chance for us to represent our 

ongoing concern about the serious situation that minority Christian groups are facing in Iraq today. 

I also want to say that it has been my privilege to work with the Australian Assyrian community and get to 

meet and get to know many of its fantastic members and the contribution that they are making. We certainly see in 

Australia today people entering parliaments in this country like Ninos Khoshaba but also a good friend of mine in 

the New South Wales Liberal Party, Andy Rohan, the member for Smithfield, who is doing a fantastic job as an 

Australian with Assyrian background. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of His Beatitude Mar Meelis 

Zaia, the Archbishop of the Assyrian Church of the East, Australia and New Zealand, who has received the Order 

of Australia medal in recognition of this contribution. 

It is an ongoing concern that even recently, in May this year, we have seen minority Christians amongst those 

suffering. Up to 140 people died in four consecutive days of violence in Iraq. This ongoing concern is added to 

records and reports of up to 1,000 Assyrian Christians having lost their lives in the time since the fall of Saddam 

Hussein. That is a very sobering statistic, indeed. It is sobering to read that if these attacks take place in a 

Christian neighbourhood or a Christian village you can assume that they are targeted especially against the 

Christian populations of the neighbourhoods and villages. That is, these attacks are deliberately targeting 

Christians in Iraq today. 

When you read the Human rights report on Assyrians in Iraq: The exodus from Iraq, put out by the Assyria 

Council of Europe, you find some really sobering information about what is going on and why we need a motion 

such as this today. The member for Berowra has highlighted the 600,000 Christian Assyrians who have now fled 

Iraq in fear of this ongoing persecution and human rights abuses. We have seen saw the huge exodus of minorities 

and continuing threats and violence. While this report notes a general decrease in violence, that is coming from a 

level which is completely unacceptable to any civilised country. 

Assyrians and other minorities are constantly experiencing targeted violence, threats and intimidation. It is 

disturbing to read that, because of the continuing displacement processes, many Assyrians are now not able to 

sustain themselves, lacking a regular source of income, opportunities and education, and neither the central Iraqi 

government nor the Kurdistan regional government is adequately dealing with these problems. 

The purpose of this motion is to highlight the dozens of attacks and the revealed patterns of structural 

discrimination against Assyrians and their organisations during the past few years. We have seen continuing 

violence. We have seen people wounded. We have seen people killed. We have seen people abducted. We have 

seen the bombing of churches and parishioners being killed. All of these things, in the world's eyes, are 

completely unacceptable in any country, particularly in a new state which has been supported by so many 

countries, like Australia. 

We learnt from the report that since 2011 a considerable movement amongst Assyrians has been taking place 

because of the highly dangerous situation. Women have been especially targeted and have been forced to take on 

the garments of a faith they do not support. Assyrian women, in particular, face constant threats of physical 

violence and danger. This is completely unacceptable to the international community and unacceptable to 

Australia. It is unacceptable that the marginalisation of minorities is partly incorporated into the new constitution 

of Iraq. I have to say that we do not want to see institutionalised discrimination in the constitution of any new 

country that is supported by a free society like Australia. 

It is vital that we pass this motion today and recognise that the Christian Assyrian community, a minority 

religious and racial group in Iraq, are subject to ongoing violence and intimidation, that the contribution that they 

are making here in Australia is to be admired and praised and that we need to do more to raise this issue with the 

Iraqi government to ensure that all minorities within Iraq are treated fairly. 

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Government Whip) (12:07): I also join in strongly commending the member for 

Berowra in putting this matter before the parliament today, and I welcome representatives from the Assyrian 

Universal Alliance, Mr David David, Hermiz Shahen and all the members who are here today. As members would 

be aware, I have spoken on this matter many a time in this parliament. I agree with the member for Berowra that 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


there is an urgent need for a compassionate response by the international community to what is truly a 

humanitarian crisis in Iraq. 

The member for Berowra quoted a figure of 600,000 people who have left Iraq since 2003. I would like to 

quote a figure provided to me by the Catholic Church. They say that one million indigenous Assyrians, 

Mandaeans and other Christian minorities have exited Iraq since 2003. They have been forced to flee and have 

been subjected to forced conversions and physical violence. According to the Catholic Church, over a million 

people have left and they will not be returning to Iraq. 

Australia was a willing participant in the military engagement in 2003 that saw a dramatic restructuring of the 

infrastructure and forces that operated to influence the outcomes within Iraq. The invasion resulted in a dramatic 

escalation of disputes between the Sunni and the Shia Iraqis, with the indigenous Assyrians and Christian 

minorities very much caught in the middle. Over the last 10 years, over a million indigenous Assyrians, 

Mandaeans and other Christian minorities have been forced to flee the region—a region which they have called 

home for the last 2,000 years. These Aramaic speakers—the same language that was spoken by Jesus Christ— 

were in that region well before the British and the French decided to put lines on a map and call it Iraq. These 

people were truly indigenous to that region and that has now failed to be accepted. 

Back in 2010 I spoke of the horrific attack at Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad, where 56 Christians 

were murdered. People often go to churches, temples, mosques or whatever place of worship it may be to find 

spirituality, safety and solace. It is pretty heartbreaking to imagine families—young people with children—being 

murdered at what they would have considered to be the most sacred of locations, their place of worship. The 

location of the attacks sends a very strong message about religion being the focal point of violence and 

persecution in the Middle East today. The attack was carried out by members of the Islamic State of Iraq, a group 

aligned to al-Qaeda, who have made it their mission to rid Iraq of Christian minority groups, including Assyrians, 

and therefore Christians in Iraq—men, women and children—have been made legitimate targets by these radical 

organisations. 

The report entitled Incipient genocide: the ethnic cleansing of Assyrians in Iraq outlines the detail of systemic 

and persistent persecution of Assyrians in Iraq, including these gruesome murders, extortion and violence. 

Looking at the images of the victims, including the children, and putting a face to each of these tragic stories is 

truly confronting and sobering. Assyrians and other religious minorities in Iraq face the most dire circumstances 

of any group of people in the modern world. Australia is a nation that is fortunate enough to enjoy political and 

economic stability and, as a leading member of the global community, has a responsibility to do all it can to 

improve these conditions. However, we have an additional moral responsibility to assist in Iraq because we were 

part of the coalition of the willing, which set in motion the chain of events resulting in the persecution of religious 

minorities in Iraq. Once again, I thank the member for Berowra for bringing this matter to the attention of the 

House. (Time expired) 

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (12:12): I rise to add my contribution to the very excellent contributions made both 

across the chamber and on this side of the chamber on this wonderful motion put forward by my good friend and 

colleague the member for Berowra. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: 

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or 

belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in 

teaching, practice, worship and observance. 

Tragically, in some parts of the world this fundamental right is not observed. It is not being observed in the case 

of the Assyrian people in Iraq and Syria. The Assyrian people have a proud and rich history that spans more than 

5,000 years. Their foundations can be found in the Middle East—largely Iraq Syria—and they are a people of 

predominantly Christian faith. There is an estimated population of around three million Assyrians worldwide, with 

one million in Iraq and around 700,000 in Syria. In what can only be described as a cruel twist of fate, it is 

because of their rich culture that the Assyrians have faced violence, intimidation and harassment and 

discrimination. 

Under Saddam Hussein they faced significant persecution. Unfortunately, since the removal of that dictator the 

situation has not markedly improved. On 31 October 2010, 58 Assyrian Christians were killed in a coordinated 

and deliberate attack on a church designed to terrorise and intimidate those Assyrians and their families. They 

were targeted on the basis of their religion. There have been, unfortunately, many other forms of persecution and 

violence. For the record of this House, I place on the record a number of those examples. On Epiphany Day, 6 

January 2008, five Assyrian churches, one Armenian church and monasteries in Mosul and Baghdad were 

attacked with car bombs. In 2011, 35 civilians and members of security forces were wounded in eight separate 

attacks. Kidnapping and ransom have become significant tools of terror, with six abductions reported in 2011, 

largely around Kirkuk. Some were freed by ransom and others were killed. Threats and low-level harassment are 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


expected as part of everyday life, including now threats by text message. Work opportunities and other basic 

human rights are also denied, especially in the Kurdish region. 

The result of this persecution has been the dislocation of around 600,000 Assyrian Christians in Iraq alone. 

Happily for us in Australia, many Assyrians have chosen to make Australia their home and make a very valuable 

and worthwhile contribution. 

The Arab Spring, which promised so much in the way of hope and expectation, already seems to be turning to 

winter, and there is ever-increasing concern in the Middle East that the religious freedoms of the minority 

Christian and Jewish people are being diminished over time. Those of us with a voice must remain ever vigilant to 

ensure that we speak out against violence, harassment and intimidation. We have a duty. We call upon the 

Australian government to raise the significant human rights concerns of the Christian Assyrians with the Iraqi 

government. I commend this excellent motion to the House. 

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (12:16): I have pleasure in joining with the member for Berowra in 

relation to this matter. He has a very consistent record in regard to human rights around the globe. The point I 

want to make is that this is about universality of human rights; it is not about particular religions in particular 

countries. Tonight I and the member for Melbourne Ports will speak on a resolution in regard to Shiah rights in 

Bahrain because of their suppression there. Similarly, around the world, we see the Sri Lankan Buddhist 

community attacking Muslim businesses, and we know about what is happening to the Rohingyas in Burma. 

Similarly, we deplore actions by extremist Islamic forces in Bangladesh in regard to Christian, Buddhist and 

Hindu minorities there. These are matters on which this parliament quite rightly acts, and it is good to see the 

Assyrian Universal Alliance as representatives here lobbying in their country where they live, where they have 

been accepted as refugees, in regard to human rights in Iraq. 

We are talking essentially about the indigenous people of that land. We are talking about people who have been 

there since at least 5,000 BC. In Iraq, they have become the scapegoats for extremist elements in the country 

without much protection from the government authorities and in fact with studied neglect of their rights to 

protection. Often these attacks are contrived around events happening around the world. We see an upsurge of 

attacks on Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriac Orthodox people that respond to some comment by the Pope, then we 

see other attacks because of publications in Danish newspapers et cetera. They become the scapegoats for some of 

these groups' concerns with events around the world. 

We are seeing a very strong flight from Iraq post the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We are talking about half 

or more of Assyrians fleeing to other nations in the Middle East and, of course, to Sweden and Australia. In 

Sweden it is so strong that they have their own first division soccer team there. That is symptomatic of the 

protection in that country. This is, as I say, a series of orchestrated attacks which, in some sense, are basically 

about making the country homogeneous by getting all minorities expelled from the country by systematic 

violence. We see that the community also suffer from unemployment, financial hardship, difficulties in education 

and growing general religious intolerance, shaping the daily life that they suffer. There is no future for their 

children. There are grave doubts about practising religion, about keeping institutions going and about preserving 

language and culture in general. These were things that occurred under the previous Ba'athist regime. There might 

have been some hope with the Western intrusion that things would improve, but, as we have seen, the power of 

militias in the country has been such that this violence has actually escalated. 

Figures in the publication Incipient genocide—the ethnic cleansing of the Assyrians of Iraq, indicate that, in the 

years 1995 to 2002, 19 Assyrians and other Christians were murdered. From 2003 to 2012, that figure escalated to 

over 41 a year. We have seen bombings of religious events and targeted assassinations of religious leaders and 

priests. A two-month-old infant has been kidnapped, beheaded, roasted and returned to his parents. A 14-year-old 

child has been decapitated. 

Regardless of political beliefs across this parliament, members abhor what is occurring. It is important that 

Australia joins the European parliaments that have condemned these actions and that the message is given to the 

government of Iraq. Forces from other countries died in the belief that democracy would be restored and that there 

would be no more attacks on various minorities in the country. An alarming development is that Kurdistan, at one 

stage, appeared to offer more protection. On balance, that is probably true, but the situation has been deteriorating 

there as well. 

I strongly commend this motion to the House. It is important that this country is vocal on human rights and that 

we do stand up for minorities regardless of who they are, particularly those whose language, culture and religion 

face possible extinction if measures are not taken to protect them. 


FEDERATION CHAMBER


Polio Eradication 

Debate resumed on the motion by Ms Parke: 


(1) commends the Government for its four year commitment to provide $50 million to support the global eradication of polio; 

(2) notes: 

(a) that in February 2012, India was removed from the list of countries where polio remains endemic, proving that 

eradication strategies are effective when they are fully implemented and that polio can be eradicated even in the toughest 

circumstances, and there has not been a single reported case of polio in India since January 2011; 

(b) that polio eradication should, wherever possible, be part of routine immunisation efforts to improve population 

immunity for all priority, vaccine preventable childhood illnesses; 

(c) that there are now only three countries in the world where polio has never been stopped, namely Afghanistan, Pakistan 

and Nigeria, and unless the polio program is fully funded and emergency plans are implemented as planned, polio could make 

a comeback in countries that are currently polio-free; 

(d) estimates show that global re-infection over time could result in as many as 200,000 children per year being paralysed; 

(e) that the Global Polio Eradication Initiative currently faces a funding shortfall of US$945 million for the full 

implementation of its 2012 13 Emergency Action Plan, and this has caused immunisation campaigns to be cancelled or scaled 

back in 33 countries in Africa and Asia, leaving more children vulnerable to the disease and increasing the risk of the 

international spread of polio; and 

(f) the recent landmark resolution by the Sixty-fifth World Health Assembly declaring the completion of polio eradication, 

a programmatic emergency for global public health, with member states highlighting the feasibility of eradication in the nearterm, 

while expressing concern at the ongoing funding gap threatening success; and 

(3) encourages the Government to continue to support efforts to deliver a polio-free world and to encourage other countries to 

do likewise. 

Ms HALL (Shortland) (12:22): It gives me great pleasure to rise to support this motion, which was brought 

into the House back in September last year by the member for Fremantle. I would like to put on record her 

commitment to this issue and all other issues that relate to global health, global human rights and making this 

world a better place. 

It is appropriate that we should be revisiting this motion at this particular time, because last week the 

government made a commitment to increase funding to help eradicate polio. As we all know, polio is a very 

debilitating disease. It is currently endemic in only three countries in the world: Afghanistan, Pakistan and 

Nigeria. It is very pleasing that it has been limited to those three countries, but unless we fully fund programs, the 

eradication of polio will not come to fruition. 

In 2012, historic progress was made in eradicating polio. The year ended with the lowest number of new polio 

cases in the fewest places ever. There were fewer than 250 cases reported, compared with 650 cases in 2011 and 

about 350,000 cases in 1985. In 1988, when the Global Polio Eradication Initiative was launched, polio was 

endemic in 125 countries and paralysed about 1,000 children per day. So to go from 125 countries being affected 

in 1988 to three countries in 2012 is an enormous gain. Since that time, the incidence of polio has decreased by 99 

per cent through immunisation efforts that have reached about 2.5 billion children and saved more than 10 billion 

children from paralysis. We have new tools now to eradicate the polio virus. This is something that we as a nation 

are promoting, leading to it being embraced in other countries. Most countries have eradicated polio through 

routine vaccination of children with three doses of oral vaccine. This effectively builds up immunity to all three 

strains of the virus. 

It has been two years since the most recent case of polio was detected in India. Health workers have had 

success vaccinating children in that country, but neighbouring nations such as Afghanistan and Pakistan are 

struggling to deal with the virus, presenting the possibility of the virus being transported back into India. So it is 

really important that polio is eradicated in both Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to maintain the situation in 

India. Polio is resurgent. In Somalia, the first polio case reported since 2007 was the result of several years during 

which al-Shabaab militants forbade children's vaccinations in zones it controlled. Experts say if we choose to 

control polio rather than eradicate it, more than 10 million children under the age of five could be paralysed by the 

disease in the next 40 years. That raises a number of concerns about polio. However, I am going to concentrate on 

Pakistan. 

I visited Pakistan last year and whilst I was there I heard of incidents with health workers. In particular, one 

doctor was beheaded during his time going out to communities and administering polio vaccinations. Pakistan has 

active and widespread transmission of polio, particularly in the tribal areas. It has persistent polio transmission 

which is highly localised in sub-districts. There is a strategic approach to this in Pakistan, but unfortunately 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


politics interfere with the implementation of that plan. Only last week, on 29 May, Pakistani authorities suspended 

a four-day polio vaccination program after gunmen shot a female polio worker and wounded another official. This 

has been a blow to the UN campaign to eradicate this crippling disease. The attacks have made it harder for 

Pakistan to join the majority of other nations and declare Pakistan polio-free. The four-day campaign was 

launched on Tuesday morning but halted for security reasons and to express solidarity with the slain and injured 

female polio workers. As yet, no group has claimed responsibility for this attack. In the past it has been alleged 

that polio workers are US spies. We heard this when the delegation travelled to Pakistan last year. There is even 

talk that the vaccine makes people sterile—so there is a campaign of misinformation within Pakistan. It is very 

important that we not only provide the vaccinations but also engage in an education program. That is very difficult 

in countries like Pakistan. In December, nine polio workers were killed in Pakistan by a gunman. The UN said in 

March that some 240,000 children have missed vaccinations since July last year in parts of Pakistan's tribal 

regions. Mr Deputy Speaker, that really is not good enough. It is important that Pakistan joins together with other 

nations, as should Afghanistan and Nigeria. 

I am really pleased that last week the Prime Minister and the foreign minister announced the funding to 

eradicate polio. This is, as we have already established, a very debilitating disease which strikes and affects the 

most vulnerable people in countries throughout the world—those three countries that I have highlighted, 

especially children. 

Australia will now provide $80 million over the next four years from 2015 to 2018 to help finish the job and 

achieve worldwide polio eradication. This follows the $500 million commitment to the Global Polio Eradication 

Initiative from 2011 to 2014 announced by the Prime Minister at the heads of government in 2011. This fits in 

very nicely with the motion from the member for Fremantle where she called for polio programs to be fully 

funded. Once again, she is focusing on the important issues. 

Bill Gates was here in this parliament last week—and I note that the Prime Minister and the foreign minister 

have applauded the wonderful leadership he has shown in this area. The Gates Foundation has contributed $1.8 

billion for the polio endgame strategy plan—that is a phenomenal commitment. It was Australia's Sir Clem 

Renouf who, as president of Rotary International in 1978 and 1979, led the international campaign to vaccinate 

every child against polio. As a result of that, the global community came together in 1988 to launch the global 

polio eradication campaign. 

I congratulate both the Prime Minister and the foreign minister for the recent announcement. I would also like 

to express my appreciation to Bill Gates and of course the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion to the 

House. 

Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (12:32): I rise to speak on this very important motion by the member for Fremantle 

and I thank her and indeed the member for Shortland for their ongoing support in the global fight to eradicate 

polio. 

Just last week the Global Polio Eradication Initiative reported a confirmed case of wild poliovirus type 1 in a 

refugee camp in the Dadaab area in Kenya—the first of its kind since July 2011 which highlights why we 

continue to discuss this topic and why Australia must continue to do what it can to support the global eradication 

of polio. 

The history of the global effort to eradicate polio is a success story of what countries can achieve when they 

work together. Until a vaccine was successfully developed in the 1950s, the poliomyelitis virus was an endemic 

disease for every country in the world. In 1952, 58,000 cases of polio were reported in the United States alone. 

While between 1930 and 1988, it is estimated that a minimum of 20,000 to 40,000 Australians developed paralytic 

polio, although exact figures are still unknown. 

In many developed countries, the polio vaccine was successfully implemented as a routine immunisation effort 

to eradicate the disease and, soon after, the number of polio cases in the developed world dropped from hundreds 

of thousands every year to just a handful. The last reported case of polio in Australia was in 1978. 

As this motion notes, eradication strategies have proven to be very effective when they are fully implemented, 

which is what occurred in developed countries. In fact many of the medical initiatives that we take for granted in 

the developed world today were implemented out of necessity for fighting the seriousness of polio epidemics. 

Intensive care units had their origins in fighting polio. Before the 1950s, hospitals had little capacity for 

respiratory assistance for patients, and the first respiratory centre opened to treat severe cases of polio leading to 

the first intensive care unit opening in Copenhagen in 1953. 

Additionally, polio endemic countries have been reduced from 125 to just three. As the motion notes, in 

February 2012, India was removed from the list of countries where polio remains endemic and where there has 

not been a single reported case since January 2011. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


This global effort has meant that the incidence of polio has been reduced by 99 per cent since 1988. It is now a 

disease of which young people in developed nations are almost unaware. These changes would not have happened 

if Rotary International and its partners in the Global Polio Eradication Initiative had not taken up the cause. They 

have worked relentlessly for the past 25 years to fight polio and as the figures previously mentioned indicate, they 

are getting very close to achieving their goal. 

Rotary International's 1.2 million volunteers first took up the charge in 1985, spearheading the immunisation 

effort against polio before it became a coordinated campaign in 1988. They understood that this global disease 

would need a global effort if it were to be defeated. With over 33,000 clubs spread across 200 countries, Rotarians 

are well placed to engage with local governments and communities to ensure that polio eradication is at the top of 

everyone's agenda. Financially, Rotary itself has contributed well over $900 million to the polio-eradication effort, 

with its members volunteering their own time and resources to reach over two billion children with the oral polio 

vaccine. 

Rotary's dedication to this cause has been unwavering, as has the dedication from Bill and Melinda Gates 

through their foundation. Last week Bill Gates visited Australia to reaffirm his commitment to polio eradication 

and to commend Australia on its contribution to this effort. In a column published in Australian newspapers on 28 

May, he said: 

Because Australia is increasingly seen as a leader in development, your investments serve as an example and an inspiration to 

other donors. 

And he said: 

Now, with polio cases at the lowest levels in history (the slope of that curve has been steep and downward, from 350,000 in 

1988 to 223 last year), the organisation in charge of eradication activities has released a plan to get rid of the disease by 2018. 

I am looking forward to Australia's continued leadership on this issue, which is my personal priority. 

Eradicating polio is important for so many reasons. It proves we have the tools, like vaccines, to save lives. It proves that 

countries around the world have the systems and will to deliver these tools. And it proves that the world can come together to 

do something extraordinary. 

Australia has been an important part not only of the polio story, but also of the larger development success story. These are 

achievements for which you deserve to feel proud. 

He commended Australia for leading the fight when we hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting 

in 2011 and for pledging more than $50 million for polio eradication. However, more can and must be done, as 

Mr Gates said, to restore polio to priority status on the global agenda. 

Although we can now cross India off the list where polio is endemic, three remain: Afghanistan, Pakistan and 

Nigeria. As I mentioned, there has been a confirmed case of wild polio virus in Kenya and in April one further 

case was confirmed in Somalia. These cases, however isolated, reinforce vigilance is required when dealing with 

polio. 

As Rotary International put it so well: 'As long as polio threatens even one child, anywhere in the world, all 

children, wherever they live, remain at risk.' If just one child remains at risk then polio can very quickly make a 

comeback. Estimates show that global polio reinfection over time could result in as many as 200,000 per year 

being paralysed. It is also true that as we approach the final one per cent of cases of polio, which we hope to 

prevent, the marginal returns on our investment diminish. These final cases are difficult and expensive to prevent 

because of challenges, including geographic isolation, armed conflict and cultural barriers. I am all too well aware 

of how these challenges continue to affect war-torn Afghanistan. It is therefore lamentable that immunisation 

campaigns in 33 countries of Africa and Asia were cancelled or scaled back because there is a shortfall of some 

US$945 billion in the global polio-eradication initiative's implementation of the 2012-13 emergency action plan. 

More recently, I welcomed the decision of the Australian government to provide $80 million over four years 

from 2015 to 2018. This contribution pales into insignificance when considering the US$1.8 billion from the Bill 

& Melinda Gates Foundation for the 2013-18 Polio Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan. That plan arose from 

a directive by the World Health Assembly and involves the Global Polio Eradication Initiative consulting with all 

relevant national health authorities, global health initiatives, scientific experts, donors and other stakeholders to 

finally eradicate and contain all cases of polio virus, 'such that no child ever again suffers paralytic poliomyelitis.' 

I take this opportunity to again voice my concern about the government's decision to defer its promise to 

increase the foreign aid budget, instead raiding it of some $375 million. On the one hand the government 

announces an expansion to support polio eradication—not until 2015—and on the other hand it breaks its 

commitment to our nearest neighbours, who face challenges of equal measure including corruption, violence 

against women and other serious infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Australia has been a leading light in the fight to eradicate polio from the world. The end is in sight. But more 

can be done, and more must be done. I strongly support this private member's motion to further the aim of global 

polio eradication. 

Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (12:40): I congratulate the member for Fremantle, Ms Melissa Parke, for bringing this 

motion on polio before the House. Polio is a crippling and potentially fatal disease. There is no cure, but there are 

safe and effective vaccines. Therefore the strategy of eradicating polio from the world is based on preventing 

infection by immunising every child until transmission of the disease stops and the world is polio free. 

Polio is a highly infectious disease caused by a virus. It invades the nervous system and can cause irreversible 

paralysis in a matter of hours. It can be spread by person-to-person contact, particularly between children and in 

situations of poor hygiene and sanitation. In 90 per cent of people who contract the disease there are no 

symptoms. Other signs of the disease can include fever, fatigue, headache, vomiting, stiffness of the neck and pain 

in limbs. 

Around 40 per cent of people who survive paralysis polio may develop additional symptoms 15 to 40 years 

after the original illness. These symptoms, called post-polio syndrome, include new progressive muscle weakness, 

severe fatigue and pain in muscles and joints. This was only diagnosed in the last century through the concerns of 

survivors and family members who did not understand what was going on with them or their relatives. I remember 

some people who had polio as children, and I have also got to know the Post-Polio Network in Tasmania—I have 

the honour of being their patron—through representations they have made to me on the issue. It is a horrible 

disease, and eliminating it from the world is a necessary goal. Understanding the fear and concern of those with 

post-polio syndrome and being able to have it correctly diagnosed and treated is also vital for our community. 

That, too, needs to be recognised. 

Though there is a worldwide campaign to eradicate polio, there is still more to be done. Polio still turns up from 

time to time and the main areas of the world affected are Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa and 

West Africa. Nationals from some of these areas are coming to Australia and they have the potential to bring the 

disease with them. We are definitely not immune. We must ensure our children are immunised and continue to 

remain immune. I applaud the activities of those who keep bringing this issue to our attention—people like Bill 

Gates, who came to Australia recently to remind us of our obligation to keep funding efforts to eradicate the 

disease. I know we have been providing funds but to ensure that the campaign goes on, to ensure this disease 

remains in the past, we have to be vigilant and continue research. 

Eradication can be complicated by the politics of a country too. In Pakistan and Nigeria 20 vaccinators have 

been killed undertaking the task. It makes you think, when those who are trying to do away with a disease are 

killed, that some people's minds must be very warped if they base their politics on those sorts of activities. In 

some places, the major obstacles to the campaign are insecurity due to armed insurgency and misinformation 

about the vaccination leading parents to refuse to have their children vaccinated—and so ignorance plays a role in 

children getting this disease. But even some of the world's most despised regimes are now recognising that they 

have to fall in with the need to prevent the disease from taking hold. I welcome that news. 

We must ensure that immunisation education is continued, not only in this country but wherever we contribute 

our aid dollar. Hopefully, we will be able to declare sooner rather than later that polio is no longer present in our 

world. I congratulate the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion before the House. 

Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (12:45): I support the motion on polio eradication put 

before the chamber by the member for Fremantle. Polio has been one of the scourges of the human race. To think 

that we are very close to eliminating this disease from the planet is a remarkable thing. But, as this motion 

indicates, there is more to do. 

As a patron of Polio Australia, I take a special interest in this and I acknowledge the words of the member for 

Lyons about post-polio syndrome. Until quite recently, this was largely unrecognised as a problem, but there are 

several hundred thousand sufferers. These are people who had a slight touch of polio—maybe not the full 

paralysis—as children and who are facing difficulties late in life as a result. Members of the Post-Polio Network 

will be in the House in the next couple of weeks. I acknowledge the work they do under John Tierney to keep that 

issue alive. 

I also acknowledge the work of Rotary. Rotary International have, I think, contributed close to a billion dollars 

over the last 15 or 16 years. The members of Rotary are in clubs in towns and cities all over the world and they 

have done a magnificent job. But we still have some way to go. 

Before I go any further, I note that I find it a great irony that in Australia we now have people who are refusing 

to vaccinate their children—when we know what this disease can do. I believe I was one of the first intake of 

children vaccinated. I still very clearly remember lining up in the mid-sixties at Warialda primary school to have 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


the pink vaccine placed on my tongue. Some of my older schoolmates—some of the kids in the high school— 

were already then showing visible signs of paralysis from polio. That is how close my generation came to this 

great scourge. 

I will finish by speaking about the Young Australian of the Year, Akram Azimi. Akram was in Parliament 

House a few months ago and I had the privilege to meet him. He is very passionate about the eradication of polio, 

because he believes the vaccination program—instigated by Rotary—delivered to him as a small child in 

Afghanistan saved his life. His family were forced to flee Afghanistan when the Taliban took over. As a small 

preschooler, he—with his family—escaped to Pakistan. In Pakistan he saw children begging in the streets who 

were badly paralysed from the effects of polio. When he asked his mother what was wrong with them, she told 

him it was polio. 'How come I won't get it too?' he asked. She told him that it was because he had been protected, 

protected by the vaccine provided by Rotary. 

Akram Azimi is coming to my electorate in a couple of weeks time. Over a couple of days, we will be speaking 

to schools and to the Rotary clubs. He is in fact a Paul Harris fellow of Rotary—a great tribute from Rotary for 

someone who is, I think, only 25 years of age. 

I think that this is something that we cannot give up on. We are so close. I believe that India is about to be 

named as being polio free, but we do have some hot spots on the world. I acknowledge the contribution the 

government made recently, and I believe that, as a developed country, we should continue that support for the 

eradication of polio throughout the globe. 

We are privileged to live in the country we live in. So often we take good health for granted. In this day and age 

there are children being born and growing up under threat of this terrible debilitating disease of polio—even 

possible death—when prevention is so easy. It is a shame, and we should be doing more about it. 

Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (12:51): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. We will not mention the 

football on the weekend, obviously! I rise to speak about something very serious, which is the member for 

Fremantle's motion to eradicate polio. Last week in Parliament House we were joined by dozens of polio survivors 

and their friends and families. It was a revelation to learn how far the polio family tree can reach amongst our 

families and the community. 

Polio is transmitted by contaminated water and food supplies, enters through a child's mouth and then 

multiplies in the throat and intestines. In a matter of hours, the polio virus can enter the brain and spinal cord, 

destroying the cells that enable muscles to contract, and causing paralysis. Sadly, in five to 10 per cent of cases, 

the child dies. 

More than 10 million children will be paralysed in the next 40 years if the world fails to capitalize on its US$9 

billion global investment in eradication. Bill Gates came and spoke here in Australia last week with our nation's 

leaders about the work that his foundation is doing to rid the world of polio. He said that we are down to just three 

countries and 300 cases, and he gives himself a good chance of eradicating the disease. 

Last year I went to Pakistan with a delegation and saw the great work being done. It would be nice to achieve 

that goal. During Mr Gates's visit to Australia, Prime Minister Gillard announced an $80 million boost to the polio 

fight. And that will be combined with the US$1.8 billion put in by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to 

eradicate polio. 

For 25 years, on a more local basis, Rotary International has been fighting to eradicate the tenacious disease, 

polio. Rotary International has 1.2 million members worldwide in more than 200 countries. I would particularly 

like to acknowledge some of the local Rotary members in my electorate of Moreton. Now, with the great work 

around the world—by immunising more than two billion children—we have reduced the number of polio cases by 

99 per cent. In fact on Friday I went to the Spinal Injuries Association for a catch-up and I met with David Riley 

the president, who is also a Sunnybank resident, and Bruce Milligan the CEO. They told me—it was something 

that I had not realised—that there is something called post-polio syndrome. The Spinal Injuries Association often 

deals with people who had polio when they were children. They are now ageing and are covered by the Spinal 

Injuries Association because some of the symptoms of the late effects of polio include muscle and joint pain and 

the like, and the Spinal Injuries Association provides support to them. 

I want to go back to the work of some of the Rotary clubs in my electorate and their inspiring fundraising 

efforts such as the efforts of the amazing team at Rocks Riverside Rotary Club in Oxley—Brad Butcher, the 

president; Frank Sauter, the treasurer; Lucinda Coalter, the secretary; and Chris Antoniess, the fundraising 

organiser. They donated iPads to the aged care ward at Canossa Hospital, they donated money to the Brisbane 

Basket Brigade, but they also raised money for the polio campaign. So they have been working locally to raise 

funds locally but then helping the rest of the world. I know that Rocks Riverside Rotary Club are looking for new 

members, so I am putting that out there for people who are interested in supporting a great community group. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


I also want to acknowledge the Rotary Club of Salisbury. I attended their 50-year anniversary dinner earlier this 

year, in January. They do local work but have also raised money to give to the international polio campaign. The 

Rotary Club of Sunnybank Hills also had a fundraising dinner to raise money for the global fight towards 

eradicating polio. 

I will not name all the people in the Rotary Club of Archerfield because I know there are significant players 

from Liberal and National parties there. I was at a function with them yesterday. On election day we stand on 

opposite sides of the ballot box but on the other 364 days of the year they are out there working for their 

community both at the international level—I know that the Dean brothers, who have a connection with Pakistan 

have sent money back to eradicate polio. 

I would also like to mention the Walter Taylor Bridge branch of Rotary, which is only just one-year-old but is 

trying to recruit people. I saw them at the Sherwood State School fete the other day. They had a stall there, 

reaching out to people who can then show the great community spirit involved, be involved on a local level and 

also commit to eradicating polio on a larger scale. 

The good news is that polio is completely preventable since the virus cannot live long outside the human body. 

Immunisation can prevent this disease spreading and can eradicate it. As Bill Gates said, we will be able to 

eradicate it and that would be a good thing to do on our watch. Polio still threatens children around the world so 

every community group should be making an effort to raise funds. 

Mr HUNT (Flinders) (12:56): It was a pleasure to visit your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker McClelland, 

last Friday in the company of Nick Varvaris, the Liberal candidate and the Mayor of Kogarah. I believe, if given a 

chance, he would make an excellent and worthy successor to you. 

This particular motion concerns the issue of polio both globally and within Australia. In Australia I have been 

very close to the polio community. The driving force behind that was Fran Henke, a former journalist who lives in 

my electorate. She lives in Hastings. She was a polio sufferer as a child with significant lifelong challenges as a 

consequence. It was Fran who introduced me to the world of post-polio sufferers and the fact that there are an 

estimated 400,000 polio survivors in Australia and millions around the world. They have not just the direct legacy 

of polio but of post-polio onset. That is in itself a condition in need of recognition. There has been some worthy 

work from governments of both persuasions. However, there remains a gap in health system in terms of specific 

and direct recognition of post-polio syndrome. It is something to which I have committed on a bipartisan basis 

with people from both sides of the House. 

There is a strong and consistent push for bipartisanship, which the member for Moreton referred to previously. 

I think that is a fundamental approach with post-polio syndrome. There are 400,000 polio survivors or those who 

have post-polio syndrome in Australia. In particular, the post-polio syndrome side needs greater recognition. It is 

my belief that we need to have a full and independent inquiry into the scope and extent of the syndrome as well as 

the needs of sufferers of post-polio syndrome, and the steps we can and should take going forward as parliament, 

not as a government of one persuasion or another, but as a parliament to deal with these issues. That includes how 

we deal with post-polio syndrome within the National Disability Insurance Scheme framework—noting that the 

vast majority of sufferers would already be or will soon be over 65 years of age. 

We may recognise their condition but they may still fall through the gaps. That means we need to have a 

specific action plan for post-polio sufferers. People such as John Tierney, Mary-ann Liethof and others involved 

should be commended for their work, but our commitment is to practical action to assist them going forward. 

My specific contribution is to call for and propose the inquiry into post-polio syndrome, its extent, its impact 

and the steps forward which we can take if not in this parliament then in the next parliament. 

On a broader basis around the world, whilst we have made extraordinary steps in eradicating the unbelievably 

damaging and cruel condition and illness that is polio, there is more work to be done. There is more work in 

dealing with the sufferers who have had to, in many cases, deal with lifelong disability and extreme pain. They 

have had to do so where there is little support in parts of the world of extreme poverty or low socioeconomic 

circumstances. In that respect, I commend wholeheartedly the works of groups such as Rotary, which have made 

one of their global commitments to address the eradication of poverty. I also want to acknowledge the work of the 

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This is rightly working towards the total global eradication of polio. There is 

more to be done on that front, although it remains extant in only three countries, to the best of my knowledge. It 

can easily bubble up, so we have to work towards complete eradication and then the period of three years where 

there is no further notification. The Australian government rightly has a role to play. If you think of things where 

our foreign aid is most effectively used, eradication of fundamental diseases must surely be right at the top. 

Ms OWENS: It was interesting to hear the member for Moreton talk about some of the symptoms of polio. 

For a lot of people born in the last 40 years in Australia and in many other countries around the world, their 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


experience of this dreadful disease would be negligible, if non-existent. It was a very prevalent disease all around 

the world, and still remains so in a very small number of countries. In fact, from 1912 to 1972 in Australia there 

were over 30,000 cases of the worst form of paralytic poliomyelitis. A large number of polio survivors in 

Australia still live with the pain and debilitation of that post-polio syndrome. A number have spoken to me lately 

about their increasing difficulty as they age. So the previous speaker is quite right in that we do have a lot of work 

to do to recognise the circumstances of polio survivors in our own country. 

I want to acknowledge the work of Rotary in particular. Rotary International, the office of Australia, is in my 

electorate—it is in Philip Street. They have been very assertive, shall I say, in their calls for Australia to continue 

to fund the eradication of polio and they have been very successful at it. I am pleased that last week the Prime 

Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, announced further funding to help eradicate polio. 

They announced funding of $80 million over four years from 2015 to 2018 to help finish the job. That comes on 

top of a $50 million contribution to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative from 2011 to 2014, which was 

announced by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth in 2011. So there 

is no doubt that Australia is doing its part now, but we also played quite a part in the early years of the Eradicate 

Polio initiative. At some point in the 70s, someone in Rotary thought, 'I've got an idea: we'll eradicate polio'—just 

like that. They managed to convince Rotary clubs all around the world that this was not only doable but it had to 

be done. It was Australia's Sir Clem Renouf, who was President of Rotary International from 1978 to 1979, who 

led the international campaign to vaccinate every child against polio. It was as a result of those early efforts of 

Rotary that the global community came together in 1988 to launch the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. 

Like many people my age, I was vaccinated as a child in primary school, with one of those plastic spoons with 

that bright, nasty, sweet pink stuff on it. You never forget it. I am not sure whether I had it more than once, but 

you only have to have it once to remember it. It was sickly sweet and on a very small plastic spoon—the kind of 

plastic spoon you get with a tub of yogurt now. I remember they were quite unique at the time; they were just the 

polio spoons, as we remember them. It was an extraordinary campaign in Australia to vaccinate Australian 

children. Since that initiative came together in 1988, there has been remarkable success around the world and 

there has been a reduction in the number of polio cases to 99.9 per cent, which is an extraordinary achievement by 

a lot of people all around the world who put their effort and sometimes their life work into eradicating what is a 

dreadful disease. 

As early as 1994 there were 36 countries in the region of America that were declare polio-free. In 2000 the 

Western Pacific region of 37 countries was declares free from the virus, and the European region of 51 countries 

received polio-free status as late as June 2002. By 2009, just a few years ago, there had been more than 361 

million children immunised against the disease, just as I was nearly five decades ago. So, it has taken a while but 

it is an extraordinary achievement. By 2010, the year before we announced the first 50 million for the Global 

Polio Eradication Initiative, there were only four countries in the world that remained polio endemic. They were, 

of course, India, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan. Then in 2012, just last year, India was certified polio-free. 

There are still three countries, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan, where polio is found, so we still have some 

work to do. Even if we eradicate polio in those countries, we still have to stay on guard because it does appear 

from time to time such as in Chad and now in Sudan. We still have work to do. 

I congratulate all of the people around the world who have worked so hard to do such an extraordinary job. 

There is more work to do, but great work has been done so far. 

Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (13:06): I compliment the member for Fremantle for 

the original genesis of this motion, and the members for Ryan and Shortland who have led the debate today. Let 

me say that anyone whose life has been touched by polio will never forget it. That occurred in my family when I 

was a young child when my sister got polio. Fortunately it was a reasonably mild attack and she was nursed at 

home. I still remember the boiling of the kitchen utensils, plates and things, which was a sterilisation method that 

had to be used if you nursed people at home. 

I can remember our family doctor coming around one night and he was very distressed. My mother offered him 

a cup of tea and asked, 'What is wrong?' He said, 'After I leave here I'm going back to the hospital. I've got two 

children to save tonight, but only one iron lung left.' The iron lung, of course, was the way to enable children or 

people, who were paralysed from polio, to breathe. Of course, if you did not have an iron lung, you were in 

trouble, and most hospitals had a bank of these iron lungs. That is an example of how back it was in Warwick 

when I was a kid. 

When I was at boarding school, our class—grade 9 as we call it today—was put into isolation because we had a 

couple of cases of polio in our class. The whole school was given injections of gamma globulin. It was not so 

much a vaccination but was more a preventative that gave you a chance to beat polio if it was around. I have very 

vivid memories of it. I can remember one of my teachers who had transferred from Victoria. It was so bad in 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Victoria at the height of the polio epidemic that the kids, in what you would call a 'dark joke', used to call the 

ambulances that came to pick the kids up 'the meat wagon'. It was a really bad time in Australia's history and we 

are blessed to be rid of the disease. 

I would like to compliment Rotary. I have been a Rotarian for many years, and I am an honorary one at present. 

The Rotary PolioPlus initiative has been a marvellous program. They have taken on about 14 per cent of the world 

effort in eradicating polio. Most of the funding, of course, has come from governments through the United 

Nations' programs, but Rotary have provided 66 per cent of the private funding for polio eradication. 

I well remember in this very building a former world president of Rotary—a Queenslander, in fact—a fellow 

called Glen Kinross. He came to the parliament and called all members of parliament who were Rotarians together 

and asked them assist him to get some more funding because, at that stage, he was trying to eliminate polio from 

the Pacific. John Howard came to the lunch and, if not totally successful, we were certainly partially successful in 

gaining that funding. Rotary must use this money for transportation, vaccine delivery, social mobilisation and the 

training of health workers. It has been a labour of love for 25 years and will, if all our efforts succeed, come to a 

total cost to those clubs of $1.2 billion. 

It is a marvellous initiative. We worry about plants and animals, the flora and fauna, being diseased in this 

country, but we are sometimes very sanguine about the human condition. This is not something that we can be 

sanguine about. The fact that Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan are still gravely at risk means that we must act. Of 

course, if we do not act, we know the figures—we know that we will be looking at 200,000 cases of polio a year, 

and that is something we cannot contemplate. 

Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:11): I rise on this occasion to add my support to the motion moved by the member for 

Fremantle to commend the government on its four-year commitment to provide $50 million to support the global 

eradication of polio. This brings Australia's financial commitment to the eradication of the disease to over $130 

million, including a recent announcement of $80 million from 2015 to 2018. The measures are aimed towards 

stopping the transmission of the disease by the end of next year and seeing the world certified polio free at the 

World Health Assembly in five years time. 

Australia has been a leader in the fight to eradicate polio on a global level since the late 1970s, when Sir Clem 

Renouf, in his role as President of Rotary International, led a campaign to vaccinate every child against this 

disease. This led to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, which was launched in 1988 and has seen a reduction 

in polio cases by 99.9 per cent. Today, the polio endemic remains only in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria. 

Of course, the fight against this disease has not been an easy one. From 1912 to 1972, 30,000 cases in Australia 

were reported and many polio survivors today still live with the pain and debilitation of post-polio syndrome. In 

1937 in my electorate of Bass, a polio epidemic swept through Launceston. Over 1,000 people, mostly children, 

contracted polio. This epidemic was one of the worst per-capita global outbreaks and within a year Tasmania had 

the second highest number of polio cases per capita in the world. The Launceston General Hospital took a leading 

role in the treatment of polio in northern Tasmania following the outbreak in 1937, where sufferers where treated 

at the infectious diseases unit. The number of masseuses and physiotherapists at the Launceston General Hospital 

was increased from one of each to ten of each to cope with the demand for their services in the treatment of polio. 

So great was the need for accommodation that a special grant of £4,000 was obtained to build a new wing at the 

Launceston General Hospital. It was completed in just 35 days by two shifts of workmen. The first obstetric 

delivery of a baby to a mother in an iron lung was carried out at the Launceston General Hospital at this time. A 

local doctor, Dr WK McIntyre, was responsible for the invention of an 'infant iron lung' for use by premature 

babies with polio. 

Also in response to this polio outbreak, the Reverend RW Dobbinson, a Baptist minister, established the St 

Giles home in Launceston. Named after the patron saint of children with disabilities, St Giles operated as an 

institution to provide support for children affected by polio. Today, St Giles is still providing support, respite, and 

adult health services for 6,000 young Tasmanians with disabilities from its campuses in Hobart and Launceston 

via its e-health network. 

Many children affected by polio sought support from St Giles. A close friend of mine and a great contributor to 

Northern Tasmanian business was one of these children. He kindly shared some of his experiences with me. After 

contracting polio in 1941 as an infant, his childhood changed dramatically. He spent almost an entire year in an 

iron lung. Later he would wear callipers on his arms and legs and a brace on his back, although he often felt selfconscious 

about this, especially at not being able to join his school friends on the footy or cricket ground. As a 

nine-year-old he spent 12 months living in Queensland with an uncle who he credits with treating him as an equal 

for the first time and teaching him to be self-sufficient and to do everyday tasks like tying his shoelaces despite 

some limited mobility as a result of the impact of the polio virus. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


As a survivor of polio he is adamant that the goal of global eradication is of the utmost importance and 

Australia should do all it can to assist in achieving this. I quote Keith, who said: 

I cannot believe that in a modern world children are not vaccinated against this virus when a vaccine is so readily available, 

especially as there is no cure once contracted. It is absolutely preventable and we should do all we can. 

I certainly echo these sentiments. Again, I offer my congratulations to the Gillard Labor government for its 

commitment to supporting the global eradication of polio. 

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (13:16): I commend the member for Fremantle and other speakers on this 

important motion about the eradication of polio. Polio is a disabling and potentially fatal disease. Whilst there is 

currently no cure for the disease there are safe and effective vaccinations to ensure its eradication. 

Polio is a highly-infectious disease which invades the nervous system and acts quickly, so quickly it can cause 

irreversible paralysis within a matter of hours. In 1988 the global eradication of polio effort began, led by the 

World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Fund and Rotary International. At this time the wild 

polio virus was endemic in 125 countries and about 350,000 people, mainly young children, were paralysed by 

polio annually. Today, thanks to immunisation efforts, the number of polio cases throughout the world has 

decreased by more than 99 per cent, in turn saving more than 10 million children from paralysis. 

PolioPlus is the volunteer arm of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. It is the most ambitious program in 

Rotary's history. Rotary has been a leader for more than 25 years in the global effort in the private sector to rid the 

world of polio and has contributed more than US$1 billion. I am proud to say that the Rotary clubs in the 

Riverina, and there are many of them, continue to do all they can by way of fundraising in an effort to rid the 

world of this dreadful scourge. 

The global eradication initiative focuses on four key initiatives to stop the transmission of the polio virus. 

Routine immunisation ensures four doses of the oral polio vaccine are administered in the first year of life, a 

critical way to ensure polio-free countries continue to protect children from the threat of imported polio. National 

immunisation days are held, and have been for decades, where Rotarians provide funds through the PolioPlus 

program for millions of drops of vaccine, promoting the campaign in communities, distributing the vaccine to 

health centres as well as serving as monitors and working with local officials to reach every child. Furthermore, 

Rotarians work alongside health professionals and others to find, report and investigate cases of acute flaccid 

paralysis ideally within 48 hours of onset. 

PolioPlus helps fund containers which preserve the integrity of stool samples during their delivery to 

laboratories. The program has also helped to provide equipment for global polio virus laboratories. The final 

strategy is targeted mop-up campaigns, which are similar to National Immunisation Day volunteering but on a 

smaller scale, often going house to house. 

Australia was declared polio free in 2000 and that was widely attributed to high rates of immunisation. I 

appreciate there is a vaccination debate going on at present but certainly the benefits far outweigh the risks. 

Unfortunately, there are still three polio-endemic countries in the world: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria. In 

2012 the total number of wild virus cases reported was 223 with Nigeria reporting 122, Pakistan 58, Afghanistan 

37, Chad five and Niger one. Several other countries also saw outbreaks of vaccine-driven polio which took the 

total number of cases to 291. This is the smallest number on record and is further proof that the eradication 

initiative is working. 

Last year, I was able to meet Isabel Thompson, a constituent of mine from Wagga Wagga, to discuss funding 

needs for those living with polio. Mrs Thompson gave me an insight into the challenges she faces daily and the 

importance of ensuring assistance is available to help those living with polio. 

The success rate of eradicating polio around the world is to be highly commended. In addition to eradicating 

polio from so many countries around the world, the type 2 virus was actually eradicated in 1999, leaving only two 

wild polio viruses still in existence. 

Thankfully, the Taliban has ended its war on polio vaccination workers. Its leadership admitted on 13 May that 

immunisation is the only way to protect children from the disease. This declaration came just weeks after the 

Afghan government launched a new campaign to immunise more than eight million children between six-monthsold 

and five-years-old throughout the country. It said it had trained 46,000 volunteers to conduct the campaign, 

funded by the American aid agency USAID, the World Health Organization and UNICEF. 

Efforts to eradicate the disease have been sabotaged in the past by the Taliban and other Islamic militants, who 

have assassinated immunisation workers in the three countries where polio remains a serious threat. Eleven polio 

workers were killed in Pakistan last year, including five women who were shot dead in Karachi in December. In 

Afghanistan, a 16-year-old girl involved in an antipolio vaccination campaign in Kapisa province was shot six 

times in the stomach outside her home last December and died later in hospital. That is absolutely tragic. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Thankfully the Taliban has now recognised the benefits of immunisation. Thankfully, Rotary is proceeding 

with what they need to do to help eradicate it. I commend the government in a bipartisan way for doing what they 

can too. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams) (13:21): I thank the honourable member and I commend all 

speakers for their contributions to the debate. The time allotted for this debate has now expired. Debate adjourned. 

Sitting suspended from 13:22 to 16:04 

BILLS 

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 

Consideration in Detail 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas) (16:04): The Federation Chamber will now consider the bill in 

detail. In accordance with standing order 149, the Federation Chamber will first consider the schedule of the bill. 

Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, 

Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (16:05): May I suggest 

that it might suit the convenience of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the 

order and groupings shown in the schedule which has been circulated to honourable members. I also take the 

opportunity to indicate to the Federation Chamber that the proposed order for consideration of portfolios estimates 

has been discussed with the opposition and other non-government members and there has been no objection to 

what has been proposed. 

The schedule read as follows— 

Foreign Affairs and Trade 

Treasury 

Human Services 

Health and Ageing 

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 

Finance and Deregulation 

Attorney-General’s 

Immigration and Citizenship 

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 

Defence—Defence 

Defence—Veterans Affairs 

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—Employment and Workplace Relations 

Infrastructure and Transport 

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—School Education, Early Childhood and Youth 

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 

Resources, Energy and Tourism 

Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport 

Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education—Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and 

Research 

Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education—Climate Change, Industry, Innovation 

and Small Business 

Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy 

Prime Minister and Cabinet 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of the proposed 

expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? If there is no objection, it is so ordered. 

Foreign Affairs and Trade 

Proposed expenditure, 6,823,418,000 

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:06): I do have a number of questions of 

the minister which I will put to him. If he is unable to answer them now, I do ask that he take them on notice and 

ensure that they are answered before the parliamentary recess. I refer the minister to the 2013-14 budget for the 

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Can the minister confirm that funding for the department will decline 

by one per cent in real terms? Could he advise how much this in dollar terms? Where will the savings be made? Is 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


the minister aware of reports showing funding for the department declining to 0.31 per cent of total government 

expenditure by 2016-17? Can the minister confirm that this would represent a one third decline in the level of 

funding when compared to the final year of the Howard government? Could the minister also advise the 

implications for the department if funding falls to the level projected? 

On a matter in Budget Paper No. 2, the section marked 'Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Efficiencies', 

when was the decision made to close Australia's embassy in Hungary? Why was Hungary chosen for closure? 

Was a cost benefit analysis carried out? When was the Hungarian ambassador to Australia informed of this 

decision and who informed the ambassador? Can the minister explain how journalist Dan Flitton came to know of 

this decision at a time that I suggest was prior to information being provided to the Hungarian ambassador? Is the 

department investigating how the media came to know of this decision on the morning before I understand the 

ambassador was told? If not, why not? When was the Australian ambassador to Hungary informed of this 

decision? When were locally-engaged staff informed of the decision? How many weeks notice have they been 

given? Will they receive a termination payout and, if so, how much? I ask whether the minister agrees with the 

statement of the then secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Dennis Richardson who said: 

Closing a mission saves very little, the reason being once you have got a mission up and running your running costs are quite 

low. 

It might cost you $25 million over three or four years to open a post, but if, 10 years later, you were to close that post you 

would probably only save about $2 million a year. 

In relation to the proposal to establish an embassy in Senegal, when was the decision taken to postpone the 

establishment of an embassy in Senegal? Had any planning or construction work taken place? Had the department 

entered into any contracts regarding the proposed embassy? Had any funds been spent and, if so, how much? Did 

the department advise the Senegal government that Australia was not going to proceed with the embassy before 

the government announced it publicly? If so, when was this advice given? Has the Senegal government made any 

representations to the department on this issue since the government's announcement? Can or will the minister 

rule out closing other embassies? 

I refer to Budget Paper No. 2 and the section marked 'Efficiencies'. According to the budget paper, the 

government will achieve savings from 'a temporary reduction in Canberra based positions'. How many jobs will 

be cut at the department in 2013-14? Does the department expect to offer any voluntary redundancies? If so, how 

many? Will the department have to make any forced redundancies? If so, how many? 

As a result of the government funding cuts in 2012-13, the then secretary of the department stated that 100 to 150 

jobs would be shed. Can the minister advise how many jobs have been lost at the department this year, how many 

of these were voluntary redundancies and how much money has been spent on voluntary redundancy payments in 

total in 2012-13? How much does the department expect to spend next year as a result of these job losses? 

On the United Nations Security Council, I refer to the section marked 'United Nations Security Council term'. 

How much money has been spent to date to support Australia's role on the United Nations Security Council? How 

many additional positions have been created to support Australia's role on the council? Have all the additional 

positions being filled? 

In relation to the Asian century, I refer the minister to the reference to the implementation of the Australia in 

the Asian Century white paper and DFAT's strategic directions statement. What resources have been provided to 

the department to open a full embassy in Mongolia and consulates in China, Thailand and eastern Indonesia? Has 

the government given any undertakings to the relevant governments about these posts? Why were these locations 

identified as priorities? Why are they being delayed if they are a priority? What percentage of board members— 



Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (16:11): In relation to 

departmental funding, the fact is that the budget for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I am advised, 

has increased since 2007-08 by $70 million. Any government would like to spend more on just about anything, 

but the fact is that the decline in commodity prices operating in conjunction with a very high dollar has meant that 

there have been very substantial write-downs of revenue. When I listened to the opposition leader's budget reply I 

heard him say, or at the very least heard it said subsequently, that the coalition would be waving through the 

various savings measures that have been announced by this government. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition 

has departed from that position, I am sure that at the time of the PEFO 10 days into the election campaign those 

extra expenditures that are being foreshadowed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be booked to account 

against the coalition. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


In relation to Hungary, this is a decision which with a very large amount of money and no limits on money we 

would not have made. But in the end you do need to make decisions to achieve the budget bottom line that we 

have set out in the 2013-14 budget. In that tight fiscal environment the department, like all government agencies, 

has been subject to savings to offset new budget measures. We do not take lightly any decision to close a post. 

Budapest is one of our smallest posts and we will continue to serve the bilateral relationship well from other 

missions nearby. The embassy is scheduled to be closed by the end of September 2013 and savings from the 

closure will be $0.3 million in 2013-14 and around $1.7 million thereafter. In respect of whether the Hungarian 

government was advised of the announcement in advance, no, the Hungarian government became aware of the 

closure before formal advice had been conveyed. The Australian Ambassador to Hungary, His Excellency John 

Griffin, was directed to advise the Hungarian government of the decision on Monday, 13 May immediately ahead 

of the budget announcement on 14 May. DFAT was also scheduled to convey the decision to the Hungarian 

ambassador to Australia, Her Excellency Anna Maria Siko, on 13 May. The closure of the embassy was reported 

in the Age on Monday, 13 May and then confirmed by Senator Carr on ABC radio that morning. 

In relation to Senegal, we are already establishing a presence in Senegal. We will be establishing that as 

promised in 2013. We expect to operate from temporary premises initially. We anticipate it will take a year or two 

until a suitable location or a chancelry is identified and work can commence on establishing a permanent 

presence. These time frames are pretty standard for a post opening. Again, we have committed to a post in 

Senegal. We are going ahead with that commitment. 

In relation to job cuts at the department, obviously it is in the interests of the department and of the government 

to minimise any impact on jobs. We believe that the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are 

highly valued and highly professional people. It is, let us say, a supreme irony that I am getting a question from 

the opposition about job cuts in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade when that political party has 

committed to job cuts of 20,000 people—which would have an enormous impact on Canberra, on the ACT and on 

house prices. To be lectured about job cuts by an opposition that is committed to cutting 20,000 people's jobs is a 

bit rich. 

I will seek to answer the remaining questions by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the UN Security 

Council—to the extent that it is feasible to do so—on notice. In relation to posts more generally, under this 

government the following posts have been opened: the Holy See, Mumbai, Chennai and Addis Ababa, and we are 

opening Chengdu and Senegal. (Time expired) 

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:16): Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that the 

minister has provided rather general answers. I do ask again that the minister take the specific questions on notice 

and provide specific answers to my questions prior to the parliamentary recess. 

I would like to go on in regard to the Australia and the Asian century white paper: what percentage of board 

members and Australian Public Service senior leadership are currently considered by the government to have 

'deep experience in and knowledge of Asia', and how does the government define deep experience as set out in the 

white paper? What has the government done to make it easier for low-risk visitors to come to Australia, as called 

for in the white paper? What steps has the government taken to streamline the visa process? Given the importance 

placed on food security in the white paper, what assurances has the government provided to Indonesia that it will 

not again unilaterally ban live cattle exports, thus threatening Indonesia's food security? What has the government 

done to expand the Work and Holiday visa program to 1,000 places for Indonesia? Could we have an update on 

that? When will this expansion of places take place? 

I also refer the minister to Budget Paper No. 2 and to the section marked Australia in the Asian century: 

business engagement program. How many Australian businesses are currently participating in that engagement 

program? How many grants have been made available under the program, and what is the average size of the 

grants? I point out that the grants are apparently available for amounts from $20,000 to $300,000. 

On the matter of trade, I have a number of questions. I refer the minister to the 2013-14 budget for the 

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and to the fact that funding for the department will be cut by one per 

cent in real terms. Which of Australia's long-running, free trade agreement negotiations currently under way does 

the government expect to conclude before the September election, given the government's latest budget cuts? 

Does the minister stand by his comment that a free trade agreement with China is 'overrated'—despite a joint 

feasibility study finding that a free trade agreement could boost Australia's real GDP by around $24 billion over 

the period 2006 to 2015? What impact are the government's funding cuts having on the department's ability to 

commence new free trade agreement negotiations? When did Hong Kong first approach the government about 

establishing a free trade agreement? What was the government's response to the proposal? If it was in writing, will 

the minister release the letter? When was the government's response officially communicated to the Hong Kong 

government? What reasons were given for this decision? Was the department asked to provide advice on the 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


proposed free trade agreement with Hong Kong? If so, when was that advice provided? Did the department 

undertake any economic modelling to determine the benefits to Australia, should a free trade agreement be signed 

with Hong Kong, and if so, what was the result of that economic modelling? 

If no economic modelling was undertaken, why not? What are the benefits to Australia from closer economic and 

trade ties with Hong Kong? Would the minister describe the potential benefits as significant or does the minister 

believe that a free trade agreement with Hong Kong is overrated as he said in relation to a free trade agreement 

with China? Does the minister agree that Hong Kong is considered an important gateway in and out of the 

Chinese market? Would a free trade agreement with Hong Kong give Australian businesses greater access to 

China? Does the minister agree with that? 

I also refer the minister to the reference to Indonesia in the department's strategic directions statement. What is 

the current state of negotiations on the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement? 

When did the last round of negotiations take place? Has a date been set for next round of talks and, if so, what 

date is that? 

What steps has the Australian embassy in Indonesia taken recently to restore the live cattle trade between 

Australia and Indonesia? What consultations have taken place between the live cattle industry and the 

department? Is the department aware of the campaign by Animals Australia Inc. to end live exports? Does the 

minister agree that this would have a devastating impact on regional Australia? (Time expired) 


Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (16:21): In respect of 

the white paper on Australia in the Asian century, this is a plan for Australia. It is a plan for deeper and broader 

engagement between Australia and the region, which is the fastest growing region on earth. By 2030, it is 

expected that there will be three billion middle-class customers in Asia, and the Australian government is 

overseeing a transition where we broaden that relationship. Minerals and energy will continue to be important, but 

there are whole lot of areas such as premium agricultural products and services where we think Australia has 

potential strengths based on our natural endowments and our acquired attributes—that is the theme of the white 

paper on Australia in the Asian century. 

That white paper is being implemented and an implementation plan, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition 

has indicated, has been released publicly. It has been overseen by an advisory board, and the shadow minister's 

question is: what experience have members of that advisory board had in Asia? I think the shadow minister should 

know that. Ken Henry, as the original chair, of this exercise has consulted extensively and gone through various 

countries of the region in preparing a lot of input into the white paper. John Denton, who is a senior in the 

Business Council of Australia, as a legal professional has had deep experience with Asia and continues to do so, 

and Catherine Livingstone of Telstra, similarly. We have a appointed the chair, Hamish Tyrwhitt , and he through 

Leighton Holdings and his earlier work has had at least 15 years not only experience with Asia but living in Asia. 

I would have thought that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have tried to do enough homework even 

just to check his curriculum vitae. She would have found that. Rebecca Dee-Bradbury is the CEO of Kraft. This is 

an industry which we consider to be a sunrise industry—that is, the production of premium agricultural products 

here in Australia, not only the growing, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, but the manufacturing of those products. 

In your own area, South Australian wines are regarded very highly in the region, and this is an areas of high 

value-added and very high demand. Margaret Gardner from RMIT: again, they have engagement with and some 

campuses in Asia and of course we see one of the future growing industries—and it is more than an industry— 

with Asia as our higher education. This is a way of strengthening the ties between our two countries, earning some 

expert income and creating ambassadors for Australia in Asia and for Asian countries in Australia. 

In respect of streamlining of visa processes, we have moved in that direction. We have been working with 

China to do that, and more work will be done as the Chinese are able to take some further steps with Australia in 

that regard. 

On food security: the issue is a big one in the 21st century. There are seven billion people on earth now. By 

2050 there will be 9.3 billion people on earth, and obviously food security is one of the defining issues of the 21st 

century. 

I hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asking about live cattle exports. Yes, I do talk very regularly with 

my counterpart Indonesian Trade Minister Gita Wirjawan about those matters. You might be aware that just last 

week the Indonesians announced that they are allowing premium beef cuts in duty free and quota free. That is a 

really good development. I must have missed the press release from the coalition congratulating Australia and 

Indonesia on that, but the fact is that the coalition is only interested in bad news and never good news. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


On the business program of $6 million that is contained in the white paper: the fact is that applications have 

been received—there has been an enormous level of interest in that—and final decisions will be announced on the 

successful recipients of this round of applications. 

On free trade agreements, let us just start with China, where I remember the Deputy Leader of the Opposition 

saying that that was a priority, and the day after— (Time expired) 

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:26): In relation to the free trade 

agreement negotiations with South Korea, when did the last round of negotiations take place? Are there any 

remaining sticking points or hurdles in the negotiations and, if so, what are they? Is the minister aware of 

comments by Mr David Farley, Managing Director of the Australian Agricultural Company, that Australia's 

failure to conclude a free trade agreement with Korea is costing the country $3 million per week? Is this figure 

correct? If not, what is the correct figure? 

What has the impact of the Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement been on Australian exports to Korea? 

Specifically, how much beef does Australia currently export to Korea? Has the amount of beef exported to Korea 

declined since the introduction of the Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement, and how much has Australia 

lost in dollar terms? What is the current tariff rate for Australian beef exports to Korea, and how does this 

compare to the tariff imposed on US exports? What is the tariff rate for other agricultural products? What is the 

estimated benefit of a free trade agreement with South Korea for the Australian economy, and what are the 

estimated benefits for Australia's agricultural sector from a free trade agreement with Korea? 

In relation to the Japan free trade agreement, what is the current status of the free trade negotiations with 

Japan? When did the last round of negotiations take place? What are the remaining hurdles or sticking points in 

the negotiations? What are the estimated benefits for Australia's agricultural sector from a free trade agreement 

with Japan? Has the minister's recent comment blaming Japan's central bank for driving down the value of the yen 

had any impact in Japan, and is the minister aware of any coverage in the Japanese media of his comments? Does 

the minister agree that his comments were unhelpful, given the circumstances surrounding current negotiations 

that are underway? 

In relation to the China free trade agreement—the minister made reference to it—could he state what the 

current status of the free trade agreement negotiations with China is? When did the last round of negotiations take 

place, and did the Minister for Trade take part in those negotiations? When does the minister expect negotiations 

to conclude? If there are remaining sticking points or hurdles to concluding an agreement, what are they? Is the 

minister aware that New Zealand's goods exports to China have trebled since the conclusion of their free trade 

agreement in 2008? Is the minister also aware that 90 per cent of New Zealand's goods exports now enter China 

duty free? What is the current tariff rate for Australian agricultural exports to China, and how does this compare to 

New Zealand exports? What has been the impact of the China-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement on Australian 

exports to China in both volume and dollar terms? 

According to the portfolio budget statement, the revised budget figures for both passports and notary acts have 

been lowered due to the closure of the Atlanta office. I would like to ask some questions about the Atlanta office 

that was closed in August 2012. How much consular work was conducted by the Atlanta office? How many 

Australian businesses operating in the United States were engaged with the Atlanta office? Has the government 

received any complaints from Australian businesses regarding the closure of the Atlanta office and, if so, how 

many? Has the workload for other posts increased since the closure of the Atlanta office? 

I have another question on trade. In 2009, as the minister would be aware, the Australia government launched 

Brand Australia and contributed $20 million over four years, yet in the 2013-14 budget the government is 

terminating the program. Does the minister consider the Brand Australia trial to have been a success? If so, why is 

it now being terminated? If it was not a success, what were the specific problems? What is the implication for 

associated projects, including Australia Unlimited and Future Unlimited? How much money was spent promoting 

Brand Australia at the London Olympics and, specifically, what was the money spent on? When was the decision 

made to terminate Brand Australia? Can the minister advise whether this decision to terminate Brand Australia 

was made before or after the London Olympics? 

Finally, on expenditure on diplomatic appointments: what head of mission positions will be appointed between 

now and the September election? What are those positions? Have people already been selected to fill all of the 

positions? Have the names of any current or former Labor Party politicians been raised in regard to these positions 

and will any of them be appointed to these head of mission positions? 


Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (16:31): I will seek to 

complete my answers to the previous set of questions and then move on to the current set. I have been asked about 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


the Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and the impact of the suspension of live cattle 

exports to Indonesia on our broader relations with Indonesia. The fact is that Australia enjoys a very good 

relationship with Indonesia at all levels, especially between the President and the Prime Minister and ministers 

and their counterparts. I repeat that I see trade minister Gita Wirjawan very often. In fact, I discussed with him in 

Surabaya at the APEC trade ministers meeting the issue of beef exports, where he indicated that he was seeking to 

expand beef imports into Indonesia. 

In terms of potential damage to the relationship with Indonesia, there can be no greater damage than seeking to 

verbal ministers in the Indonesian government and, indeed, the Indonesian ambassador— 

Ms Julie Bishop: My point of order is that in the other chamber I made quite clear in a personal explanation 

that the media had got that headline wrong and, in fact, the media have withdrawn it. So the minister should not 

continue to verbal me in this place, because he is on notice— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas): The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. 

The Minister for Trade has the call. 

Dr EMERSON: In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has sought to create an impression that there 

was an understanding between the coalition and the Indonesian government to tow back boats. That is completely 

false. That has been denied by the Indonesian foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, and it has been denied by— 


Dr EMERSON: I said that there was an understanding—and you know that. Of course, the Deputy Leader of 

the Opposition has form, because she said that she had had only one phone conversation with Ralph Blewitt and in 

fact she had two. So she has form in these matters. 

Ms Julie Bishop: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order has to be relevance to this 

set of questions on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He is talking about the AWU slush fund. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister for Trade has the call. I remind 

the Minister for Trade that there was a set of questions. It is entirely up to the minister how he answers but keep it 

relevant. 

Dr EMERSON: Absolutely. Directly relevant to the question about our relations with Indonesia is the 

behaviour of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in seeking to create an impression that there was an 

understanding between the Indonesian government and the coalition about towing back boats. There is no such 

understanding and there was no such understanding. That has been completely denied at all relevant levels of the 

Indonesian government. 

In relation to Korea, I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows that the two remaining issues 

there are in relation to the schedule for reducing the import tariff on beef and, secondly, investor state dispute 

settlement provisions. The Australian government does not agree with the insertion of investor-state dispute 

settlement procedures. I know from the public record that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said that the 

opposition does agree, on a case-by-case basis. That means that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, if the 

coalition ever form government, would be quite willing to constrain the capacity of the Australian government to 

regulate, for example, coal-seam methane projects on farms in Australia. 


Dr EMERSON: So she may like to check with Senator Barnaby Joyce and other National party members 

whether they in fact agree with being constrained in environmental regulation and health regulation, such as the 

plain packaging of cigarettes. The coalition said they supported the government's plain packaging measures, but 

they would implement investor-state dispute settlement provisions that will hobble the Australian government's 

attempts— 


The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease 

interjecting. 

Dr EMERSON: and measures to implement the plain packaging of cigarettes. So let the Australian public 

decide whether it agrees with investor-state dispute settlement provisions, which the coalition support, or whether 

it does not, which is the position of the Labor government. In respect of the impact on Mr Farley's operations, I 

think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would know Mr Farley very well and that she could have that 

conversation with him. 

In relation to Japan, I met their agriculture minister at the OECD just a couple of days ago. We are still talking 

about a couple of the critical agricultural products. We do need a commercially meaningful offer in relation to 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


high-quality beef—so-called chilled beef, alternatively known as grain fed beef—and the government of Japan is 

considering that request. (Time expired) 

Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (16:36): Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, I ask that the minister take the answers 

to our questions on notice and get back to us before the parliamentary recess. Our questions are on foreign aid. In 

December 2012 and now, again, in May 2013, the Gillard government has hijacked two separate amounts of $375 

million from the foreign aid budget, in the process making Australia not only the third largest recipient of 

Australian foreign aid but also the fastest growing recipient of Australian foreign aid, to the tune of the $750 

million announced, within six months. Minister, what criteria were applied in determining that that diverted 

amount would be $375 million? Why was it not $475 million or $275 million? 

On 13 May, Senator Bob Carr undertook to provide information about the impact of the appropriation to DIAC, 

under Australia's aid program, in the financial year 2013-14. When will this information be publicly released? In 

Senate estimates last week, DIAC indicated that it does anticipate that all of the recently re-prioritised $375 

million will in fact be spent. What will happen to that money if it is not spent? Will it be returned to AusAID or 

will it simply be returned to consolidated revenue? 

Minister, can you also confirm whether or not all of the $375 million in re-prioritised money from the financial 

year 2012-13 has in fact been spent by AusAID? I note in your response dated 5 February 2013 to my question on 

notice No. 1337 that DIAC's CFO should have reported and signed off on assistance expenditure for developing 

countries to AusAID via a six-monthly survey, which in turn would have verified this expenditure against 

reporting directives. Could you please confirm for me the following: has AusAID received any signed-off reports 

from the CFO of DIAC verifying assistance expenditure for developing countries; if not, why not? What is 

AusAID's schedule for these recent CFO sign-offs from AusAID and from all other Australian government 

agency assistance expenditure for developing countries? Can you also provide an update on the progress in 

implementing the NGO accreditation reform process. When is it scheduled to be completed? 

Please provide an update on progress in implementing the whole-of-government uniform standards for the 

planning, delivering, monitoring and reporting of official development assistance? When is it scheduled to be 

committed and when will they be implemented? The AusAID Director-General reported to additional Senate 

estimates in February this year that they are due to be completed by the end of the financial year. Is that still on 

track, and will they be used in the coming financial year 2013-14 for all agencies to report their expenditure of 

ODA? 

Could the minister also give an update of the progress of the railway project in Phnom Penh? When is the 

completion date? Is the project on schedule; and what is the total cost? 

I also refer to the Pacific women's solution initiative that was costed at $320 million that Mr Baxter admitted 

was now money for the program in estimates in October 2012. Will the minister detail how the reprioritisation of 

$750 million has impacted on that particular initiative? 

Also, I refer to the recommendation on the Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness, regarding the need to 

focus on medical research. What allocation has been made in the financial year 2013-14 to start this process? 

Can the minister also answer questions on the Public Service efficiency dividend with regard to budget 

measures not resulting in a reduction in the number of investigations carried out by AusAID into the allegations of 

fraud and corruption in the Australian aid program. How many cases of fraud and corruption in the Australian aid 

program have been reported this financial year? How many investigations are currently active; and how many 

reported cases in 2012-13 have been upheld following investigation? Is every case officially investigated? How 

many people currently work in the AusAID risk management and fraud control branch? Is this more or less than 

the previous financial year? Is the branch's current budget more or less than it received in the previous financial 

year? How much money has been lost in the 2013-14 as a result of fraud and corruption; and how many reported 

cases of fraud and corruption were made against aid based staff overseas? Is this more or less (Time expired) 


Science and Research and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy) (16:42): I will 

continue to seek to answer some of the questions raised by the previous member. In relation to Japan there has 

been a 25 per cent depreciation of the Japanese currency against the Australian dollar in the last six months and 

the fact is that such a depreciation does, against the Australian dollar, impose again a very heavy burden on 

Australian manufacturing, including on the automotive industry—and of course we have seen one consequence of 

the high dollar being Ford's decision to leave Australia in October of 2016. 

I note that the coalition has criticised the government over that decision claiming that there is a $400 dollar per 

car impost from the carbon price—that is completely false; it is closer to $50, so we have this misrepresentation of 

the truth by the coalition again. If we are looking at support for Australian manufacturing, next year the coalition 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


has pledged to halve support for the automotive industry in this country, which would lead to the destruction of 

the Australian automotive industry. 

In respect of the question about sticking points in the negotiations with China, there are actually negotiations 

this week. A key sticking point is this: at this stage China is seeking an increase in the Foreign Investment Review 

Board's screening threshold for private companies and state owned enterprises from zero in relation to state owned 

enterprises and $240-odd million in relation to private companies to one billion dollars. The coalition's policy is 

not to increase those thresholds at all but to cut the threshold for private Chinese investment from $240-odd 

million to $15 million. The effect of that, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows, is to kill the 

Australia-China FTA stone dead. And indeed the Leader of the Opposition went to China specifically to tell them 

that there are particular forms of Chinese investment that would not be welcome and would be rarely approved. 

Again, we do not need lectures about foreign investment from China into Australia. We welcome it, subject to 

it being in the national interest. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been unable or unwilling to rein in 

Senator Barnaby Joyce, now the candidate for New England, who has been running around saying the Chinese 

will take over, buy up all our land and send cheap Chinese labour here—all this hysterical economic Hansonism. I 

would have hoped that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have dedicated herself to trying to prevent this 

damage to the relationship between Australia and China through the crazy rhetoric of Senator Barnaby Joyce. 

In relation to the questions asked by the member for Brisbane, I will not commit to getting answers from the 

department to all of those questions between now and when parliament recesses in late June. That would be just 

about all the department ever did. If the member were serious about getting answers to questions then the member 

would have tailored the questions and limited them to the extent that it would be reasonable to expect the 

department to provide answers to them. She has decided not to do that, and therefore I will not give that 

commitment. 

In relation to the overseas development assistance budget, this budget boosts Australia's overseas aid to a 

record $5.7 billion in 2013-14. That is an increase of around $500 million, or 9.6 per cent. This is the highest the 

aid budget has ever been in dollar terms. We remain committed to increasing the aid budget to 0.5 per cent of 

gross national income, but we have moved that target out by one year given the very substantial write-downs in 

revenue. 


Dr EMERSON: I hear interjections complaining about that. Again, we would be happy to have the coalition 

book up, through the PEFO process, any indication that they would bring that forward. The fact is that under the 

coalition the aid budget never reached 0.3 per cent and was usually under 0.25 per cent, and here we are at 0.37 

per cent. 

Again, in relation to questions about refugees, this year—2013-14—we will report up to $375 million for basic 

sustenance for refugees waiting to have their claims heard in Australia. It is legitimate aid delivered in accordance 

with OECD guidelines, consistent with the practice of other OECD countries. By way of example, the following 

expenditure was reported for refugee expenses in 2011. (Time expired) 

Proposed expenditure agreed to. 

Treasury Portfolio 

Proposed expenditure, $4,621,958,000 

Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:47): As we begin on the Treasury portfolio I note, having watched the 

Minister for Trade and Competitiveness deal with his set of estimates in this place, that he took the questions for 

45 minutes and did not seek to have the time taken up by any of his colleagues to come along and waste time. I 

certainly hope that the Assistant Treasurer will be following the practice of the minister for trade. As you know, 

Deputy Speaker, it has been a tradition in this place that these estimates take place so the opposition can ask 

questions of the minister. The Assistant Treasurer has allotted, I think, just 30 minutes of the one hour, and we 

sincerely hope that he is not going to seek to avoid scrutiny by having his own backbenchers waste half of that 

time and provide only 15 minutes. We would commend to him the approach of the minister for trade, who did not 

arrange for any of his colleagues to come in and waste his time. 

I would like to take the Assistant Treasurer to the budget bottom line. He would be well aware, of course, from 

helping put together these budgets, that after posting a budget deficit of nearly $44 billion in the 2011-12 year the 

Treasurer announced that the budget would return to surplus within one year. I would direct the Assistant 

Treasurer to the fact that he went further: when we had these estimates last year, he was in the process of sending 

out a newsletter to his electorate where he said, 'We've delivered a surplus on time as promised.' 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


What I want to know from the Assistant Treasurer is—assuming he knows that was a completely false 

statement, because you cannot say you have delivered anything until the end of the financial year—what action he 

has taken since then and whether he is taking any action in his post-budget newsletter this year on that very issue. 

Within that same newsletter, as well as talking about a number of other budget issues, he talked about increased 

family payments through family tax A. Can I ask whether he has informed his constituents that that promise was 

broken and it has not gone ahead in the budget? But could he firstly answer why he—we assume intentionally— 

put out a false statement, paid for by taxpayers' money, saying that a surplus had been delivered when he knew 

full well that that was not the case? 

Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (16:50): I point out 

to the member in response to his very serious concerns about the availability of time for questions that at least a 

minute was wasted by him talking about concerns he might have about other members having legitimate questions 

that they might want to come into this place and ask. Of course, every member who is elected by their 

constituency to represent them would have an expectation that their member, regardless of political persuasion, 

will take an interest in the budget process and certainly the consideration-in-detail stage of the appropriations 

bills. As to whether others will ask questions, that is a matter for them as they seek to represent their community. I 

know those on the other side sometimes put together a bit of a roster, where they send people into bat. It seems as 

though we have the member for Casey and the member for Higgins today. I welcome that because, having seen 

their contributions in the past, I am not all that concerned about what might be coming our way. 

I am delighted that the member for Casey takes such a keen interest in my newsletters. It has been said to me on 

occasions that people do not read those newsletters. I am refreshed to know that the member for Casey has 

travelled several hundred kilometres in fact in order to make sure that he does not miss the important information 

that is disseminated in my latest correspondence as I send that out to the community. The member for Casey will 

know, of course, that the revenue situation that the government faces is an incredibly challenging one. 

Whilst those opposite seek to minimise the significance of what this country is facing in terms of revenue 

write-downs, the fact remains that we have seen substantial write-downs in revenues. Those opposite will say, 

'No; revenue is higher today than it was last year,' and that is true. But, for an economy growing at the speed that 

our economy is growing and with all of the other indicators being where they are, you would be expecting a 

greater share of revenue to be collected. That is the reality that we confront. Of course, we would like to have 

been able to return the budget to surplus faster than we are going to be able to do. 

Mr Tony Smith: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the minister is now 

halfway through his allotted time and— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Casey will resume his seat. There is no point of order. 

Mr Tony Smith: There is a point of order on relevance. He was asked a specific— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Casey will resume his seat. I cannot direct any member in this 

place to answer a particular question. This is a place where we are debating the appropriation bill and each 

member has five minutes for questions or a statement on their relevant portfolio. The Assistant Treasurer has the 

call. 

Mr BRADBURY: The point I was making—and it goes very much to the question that was asked—goes to 

the issue of revenue write-downs and the impact that that has had on the capacity of the government to return the 

budget to surplus in the timely fashion that we had expected. Of course, this budget sets out forecasts in terms of 

when we hope to return the budget to surplus, and that is a couple of years down the track. But I make this point to 

the member for Casey: our tax to GDP ratio is sitting at about 21.5 per cent of GDP. If the member for Casey 

believes that the opposition would be able to return the budget to surplus any faster than the government is 

seeking to do— 

Mr Tony Smith interjecting— 

Mr BRADBURY: I am happy to talk about newsletters. In fact, I am surprised that those opposite would want 

to talk about the distribution of newsletters in my electorate given the shameful contribution in the past seeking 

not just to mislead people in a very provocative way to do so in a way that was seeking to incite hatred. I am 

talking about the pamphlets that were distributed by your then colleague and various others in relation to the socalled 

Lindsay leaflet scandal. So when it comes to these ridiculous claims about pamphlets, I would have thought 

that you would be the last people that would want to come forward and make those claims. We stand very much 

behind the record of what we have achieved. (Time expired) 

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:55): I have been in the parliament now for nearly nine years and since the Labor 

government came to power in 2007 I have to say I have watched budgets being brought down in some rather 

interesting economic times, particularly globally. I watched budgets in the heart of the global financial crisis, in 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


the threat of a possible breakup of the euro, the US fiscal cliff, whether there would be a double dip—budget after 

budget in really quite volatile global economic circumstances, and we have seen the global economy struggle 

quite a bit in the last few years. Now we have a persistently high dollar which is putting pressure on a lot of 

manufacturers in Australia. We have saving levels for consumers cutting back to normal, which is also 

withdrawing cash from the local economy. One could say we have a fiscal environment that is a little more 

challenging than it was in the precrisis period due to weaker nominal GDP growth, a fall in the tax share of GDP 

and a challenging environment for most of the non-mining sector. The government has a lot of work to do to 

ensure fiscal sustainability and is doing that by achieving budget surpluses on average over the medium term, 

keeping tax as a share of GDP below the 2007-08 average and improving the government net financial worth over 

the medium term. 

On top of those things, which are incredibly important, the government is focusing on supporting jobs and 

growth in the short term. Again this is incredibly important. I point to the success of the government during the 

worst of the global financial crisis in keeping three per cent of my workforce in work on the school halls and 

public housing build alone, an incredible contribution to the families in my electorate. 

In addition to those things, we are also moving ahead on some major enhancements such as the National Plan 

for School Improvement and DisabilityCare and critical infrastructure. We hear debate in the community from 

time to time about whether or not those things should be done at this moment. About a month ago I heard 

representatives from the opposition saying that we should delay some of those things until times were better. That 

is an interesting comment. I am going to ask the Assistant Treasurer to comment on those things. Why is it 

important while maintaining a responsible budget to support jobs and growth in the short term? Why is it also 

important at this time to undertake those important long-term structural decisions to fund initiatives such as 

disability care and school funding reform? 

Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (16:58): I thank the 

member for Parramatta for that question. It is a very insightful one and it goes to the heart of what this budget has 

been about. The member for Parramatta is right to point to the strength of this government's economic record. If 

you compare the Australian economy today to where we were before the GFC, we are now 13 per cent larger. 

There is no advanced economy that has achieved growth levels throughout that period of 13 per cent. I hear those 

opposite regularly try and make the claim that this is a government that is not interested in growing the pie. Well, 

this pie is bigger than anyone else's pie in terms of the way it has grown over the last few years. It has grown and 

grown and is 13 per cent larger. Countries like the UK are not even back to zero, not even back to where they 

were in terms of the size of their economy before the GFC. We are now 13 per cent larger. So I will not be 

lectured by those opposite when it comes to questions of growth and growing the national pie. Our pie is certainly 

growing. 

When it comes to jobs, I make the point that I have heard in recent times the Leader of the Opposition—and I 

know the member for Casey was pretty fixated on this question of pamphlets—and I might take the opportunity to 

reflect upon the Leader of the Opposition's pamphlet that seems to adorn him at every press conference. He stands 

up in front of the camera and brandishes this blue pamphlet— 

Ms O'Dwyer: You should read it. 

Mr BRADBURY: You should read it. 

Ms O'Dwyer: You should read it. 

Mr BRADBURY: In fact, you should read it. I think, when I read it last, it said: 'Interest rates will always be 

low. We will return the budget to surplus so that interest rates can be low.' The only problem with that argument is 

that the shadow Treasurer is out there saying, on the one hand, that interest rates are at emergency levels. 

Ms O'Dwyer: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: this has nothing to do with the question that was put by 

the member for Parramatta. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Symon): There is no point of order. The member for Higgins will resume her 

seat. The Assistant Treasurer. 

Mr BRADBURY: This is relevant to both the member for Parramatta and the member for Casey. Stop 

denying your colleague the opportunity to have his questions answered. I am sure he wants to hear about his 

leader parading around with this ridiculous pamphlet at every opportunity. Somehow it is meant to add some 

credibility to his argument; standing in front of the camera with this pamphlet under his chin. The pamphlet tells 

you that they will return the budget to surplus faster than the government and, in doing that, they will get interest 

rates to be even lower than they are at the moment. Yet, when interest rates were cut on the most recent occasion, 

the shadow Treasurer was out there saying: 'This is terrible. Emergency lows. Interest rates are so low. The 

economy is tanking.' We are growing; we are 13 per cent larger. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


On the question of jobs, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'In six years I will create a million jobs.' We have 

already done that. We have almost created a million jobs, 960,000 jobs in the last five and a half years. We have 

done that at a time when tens of millions of jobs have been lost around the global economy. The reason they do 

not want to talk about this is that when it actually came to the crunch, the global financial crisis, they were not 

prepared to walk up and support the stimulus measures that we put in place. And that will be forever a stain on 

their record when it comes to economic credibility. Without the stimulus that was provided—the sort of 

destruction that would have occurred in our labour market, the sort of destruction to capital that would have 

occurred, the sort that we would not yet have recovered from—there would be wreckage right across this country. 

In fact, as a result of what we managed to do, the economy has continued to grow and jobs have been created. 

In framing this budget, we have taken the view that, whilst we have been able to bring about one of the biggest 

and fastest consolidations of federal finances—and the member opposite referred to what the deficit was in the 

previous year—of the sort that we never, ever saw when they were in office, and at the same time the economy 

continues to grow and we continue to create jobs. That is what we are about: jobs and growth. 

At the same time the member for Parramatta makes the very salient point that it is not enough to just deliver an 

economy that has all of those strong fundamentals; it is about putting in place the long-term investments our 

country needs. She alluded to the fact that some opposite say that now is not the right time to do it. Do you know 

what? When they had what they considered to be the best of times, they never, ever made any of these 

investments. In fact, they squandered those opportunities; they did not invest in education, they did not invest in 

the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They squandered money and at the end of the day— (Time expired) 


The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I go to the member for Higgins, I would like to welcome distinguished 

visitors from the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea to the Federation Chamber. 

Honourable members: Hear! Hear! 

Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (17:04): The Assistant Treasurer will be aware that I have long taken a strong 

interest in the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund, so it will not be a surprise to him that today I wish to draw the 

attention of the Assistant Treasurer to some information that was recently provided in the public sphere as a result 

of the freedom of information documents that were released. 

Firstly, let me remind the Assistant Treasurer that since 2001 the Reserve Bank board has aimed to keep the 

Reserve Bank reserve funds balance to at least 10 per cent of the assets at risk. This was a level that they deemed 

appropriate for being able to absorb losses where required. As the Assistant Treasurer would also be aware, over 

the past two years the balance has fallen well below that target. Now unlike typical banks, the Reserve Bank Act 

provides no recourse for the Reserve Bank to seek a capital injection from its shareholder, which is of course the 

government. This means that the bank can only increase its capital by retained earnings. 

We heard earlier this year at the Standing Committee on Economics hearing that the Governor of the Reserve 

Bank conceded that he had provided advice to the Treasurer that a dividend of half a billion dollars should not be 

paid to the government, but should be instead retained and transferred into the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund, as 

should all of the profit made by the Reserve Bank. The Governor wrote to the Treasurer on 13 July 2012 advising 

that the RBA's 2011-12 accounting profit was estimated at around $1.1 billion. The bank sought approval at that 

time to transfer all of the bank's distributable earnings to the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund. The Treasurer agreed to 

this initially, in the first advice that was provided. In the 201 annual report, the Reserve Bank Governor said: 'the 

prudent course will be to apply future earnings to rebuilding'—the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund—'before the 

resumption of dividend payments.' Advice was provided to the Treasurer by the Treasury and by the Reserve 

Bank Governor on 6 September 2011, 27 October 2011, 20 April 2012, 3 August 2012 and 24 August 2012. The 

Treasurer ignored the advice that was provided by both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank Governor. 

My question to the Assistant Treasurer is this: does he concede that the Treasurer, in ignoring the explicit 

advice from the Reserve Bank Governor, has been highly irresponsible? Or are the Reserve Bank Governor and 

the Treasury wrong? 

Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (17:07): Of course 

the Treasurer has always been responsible in all of his actions, and this is a responsible budget—not only a 

responsible budget that ensures that we are promoting jobs and growth but also a responsible budget that makes 

the necessary investments in the future. That is of critical importance, because when people look at the strength of 

the Australia economy compared to other advanced economies, one of the things that they focus in on is the fact 

that we have been growing. If we want to be able to continue to grow into the future, we need to be investing in 

education. There is no greater productivity-enhancing agenda than to invest in education. That is one of the 

aspects of this budget that we are most proud of. Not only have we made space to invest in education but also we 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


have invested in disability care to ensure that all Australians have access to an insurance scheme of the sort that 

they have not previously had access to when it comes to disability. 

In terms of the questions that the member opposite poses, I find it interesting that in the context of a budget 

where there have been over $40 billion worth of savings, the member opposite has not chosen to ask about any of 

them. The reason why the member opposite has chosen to not ask about any of them is that this was such an 

impressive budget— 


Mr BRADBURY: that those opposite have embraced all of the measures contained within it, certainly in 

relation to the savings measures. And I hear the chortling—and that is something that the members for Casey and 

Higgins do well; they chortle well— 


Mr BRADBURY: To the member for Bradfield: I have never seen you chortle in all the time I have been 

observing you. 


The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Symon): Order! There needs to be less conversation across the chamber. 

Mr BRADBURY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Symon; I think it is important that we keep the members 

opposite on a tight leash. I think it is relevant that those opposite have not sought to talk about the savings 

measures because the Leader of the Opposition said that they were so effective and so impressive that they are 

seeking to— 

Ms O'Dwyer: Mr Deputy Speaker Symon, on a point of order: I asked a very clear, very direct, very simple 

question which perhaps the Assistant Treasurer does not understand— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Higgins will resume her seat. There is no point of order. 

Mr BRADBURY: Not only have the opposition not entertained questions around savings measures; equally, 

they have sought to avoid questions around monetary policy and interest rates. It does not surprise me at all that 

they would avoid these questions. Having run many an election campaign saying that interest rates would always 

be lower under the Liberal Party—we all remember that, the 2004 campaign in particular—we now find ourselves 

with interest rates that are lower than they ever were under the Liberal Party and, all of a sudden, they want to tell 

us that low interest rates are not a good thing; they are a bad thing. I want them to tell that to the families out in 

the community with mortgages of $300,000 who are paying $5½ thousand a year less in interest repayments as a 

result of the cuts to interest rates. Those cuts have ensured that benefits have flowed to families right around our 

community. Those who once proclaimed themselves the party of low interest rates—they even champion them in 

that silly little pamphlet I was talking about earlier—come forward, now that the interest rates are cut, and talk 

about how terrible this is because the economy is tanking. Record-low interest rates are now a bad thing. 

There are those of us who have memories long enough to know we have heard it all before, and we will 

continue to make long-term investments in the economy, because, if we want a stronger economy, a smarter 

nation and a fairer society, these are the sort of things we will need to do. (Time expired) 

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (17:12): I want to ask the Assistant Treasurer about something that has been the 

subject of a bit of commentary lately in technology sector. That is, namely, the expectation almost of some people 

that multinational corporations with deep pockets can and do minimise their tax liability—but at what cost to 

domestic taxpayers? I mention two companies, Apple and Google, simply because they are two of the largest 

technology names around that have been discussed, but it is not exclusively about them. I note there is an issues 

paper, for which submissions just recently closed, called Implications of the modern global economy for the 

taxation of multinational enterprises. I will just go to a few things in that paper before I go to my questions. It 

says: 

International tax reform is increasingly on the agenda of G20 Finance Ministers and Leaders. 

I note that Australia will be chairing the G20 next year, so it is probably an item that Australia will be taking an 

interest in on that basis. It also says that there are a 'range of possible policy approaches' in response to the issue— 

in particular, and I have been seeing this figure a fair bit, the 'double Irish-Dutch sandwich' as one of the 

mechanisms for minimising tax. The question put in the paper— 

Ms O'Dwyer: What's your question? 

Ms ROWLAND: We'll get to it. You are looking silly. Shush. One of the questions in the issues paper is: 

Should Australia care if tax is avoided in another country? 

And there is quite an interesting discussion there about the double Irish-Dutch sandwich. It says: 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


… where a tax treaty partner is not exercising its right to tax this is conceptually equivalent to having a tax treaty with a tax 

haven. 

That is a pretty serious thing. The consultation question for this part of the paper is: 

Views are sought on the extent to which another country not exercising its right to tax should be a matter of concern to 

Australia. 

There are a number of other items addressed here, but I think we can all agree on a couple of general principles in 

our corporate tax system—that we want it to be fair, competitive and sustainable. 

I know that there are a number of mechanisms that were looked at by previous governments, in closing these 

sorts of tax loopholes. I know that the Commissioner of Taxation has identified a number of aggressive taxminimisation 

flaws, where they are exploited to take advantage of our system, and some of them are addressed in 

the paper I just referred to. I do believe, and I think the public share this concern, that profit shifting by MNCs is a 

problem that affects the tax system of all countries. It is not exclusive to Australia, but people are rightly 

concerned about these multibillion- even trillion-dollar entities that are avoiding—perhaps legitimately, if they are 

using effective tax loopholes that are already there—or minimising their tax liability. 

My question is: what is the government doing to protect Australia's corporate tax base from erosion and profit 

shifting, in light of not only multinational corporations but also ones that have been in the media and are of 

particular concern when we talk about some of the largest companies in the world? What are we doing and what 

are our options? I know that the submissions only recently closed on this discussion paper but it is proposed to 

have responses detailed very soon, so I would be interested in that aspect. 


member for Greenway for her contribution. I would inform the House that this budget contains $4.2 billion worth 

of measures to protect the corporate-tax base and to close corporate-tax loopholes. That is a matter that the 

government has been diligently working towards over a period of time. This is not the first package of measures 

that we have brought forward. We have previously introduced measures on transfer pricing: the first phase, which 

has now passed through the parliament; we introduced a bill that contained the second phase of our transferpricing 

reforms; and also changes to part IVA, the general anti-avoidance provisions. 

I make the point that on each occasion, when we have brought forward these measures to close down on 

corporate tax loopholes, those opposite have voted against the measures. It really does beg the question: at a time 

when we are facing what those opposite would have you believe is a budget emergency, why on earth would we 

be allowing some of the most profitable companies operating in our economy to take advantage of these loopholes 

and avoid paying their fair share of tax? It does not make sense. It is not fair. It is not fair to their competitors who 

do not shift profits and pay their fair share of tax. It is not fair to families, pensioners and small businesses around 

this country who pay their fair share of tax—and ultimately end up paying a higher share of tax as a result of the 

lack of contribution of those who should be paying more. 

The member referred to the double-Irish-Dutch sandwich. That is one particular arrangement. But there are 

some complex questions that relate to intangibles and transfer pricing generally that need to be tackled in a 

multilateral way. What we have done through the budget, in addressing some of these matters in a unilateral way, 

is tackle debt-lending practices. To be clear on these practices, one particular scenario that was brought to our 

attention by the Commissioner of Taxation involves a mature company here in Australia that is a subsidiary. Its 

parent is offshore, on another continent. The offshore parent wants to invest in a target company that is in a third 

continent and, rather than the parent acquiring shares directly in the target company, they will loan money to the 

mature Australian operation. The Australian operation will then acquire shares in the third entity and, as a result of 

that, the dividends coming back to the Australian entity will be tax exempt. Then a deduction will be claimed on 

the interest expense incurred by the mature Australian operation and the money will be effectively shifted back to 

the parent company—all along achieving a tax deduction here in Australia but with no tax being paid. 

Silence is what we have heard from those opposite when it comes to these practices. I see the member for 

Casey shifting uncomfortably in his chair, because he was left in the chamber to do the dirty work because the 

member for North Sydney, who had carriage of that bill for the opposition, was out there blogging. As a 

consequence of his blogging he could not be in the chamber and the poor old member for Casey had to come in 

and do the dirty work. He had to get up and vote against these new measures to introduce new reforms for transfer 

pricing and to tackle general anti-avoidance through tightening up part 4A. 

Now the irony of this was that when the member for North Sydney was given the opportunity in his Press Club 

address to indicate whether or not he felt our existing transfer pricing rules were adequate, he said, 'No, they are 

not adequate.' They are not adequate, yet the proposals that we have brought forward to strengthen these rules he 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


has voted against. He did not vote against the last lot because he was blogging, but he voted against the first 

round, and he sent the member for Casey in to do his dirty work on the second round of reforms. 

Now, there is still hope for the opposition, because there is always an opportunity with bills that are now before 

the Senate for the members of the opposition to have a change of heart and to take a tougher line on tax 

avoidance. I encourage them to do that because I think that is what many people within their communities would 

expect. (Time expired) 

Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (17:21): Mr Deputy Speaker Symon, just before I begin my contribution, I have a 

question to you. The time allotted for this section is from 4.45 to 5.45, and it comprises hearing from the Assistant 

Treasurer, as we are doing, and from the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. It is now approach 

25 past five. We have not seen the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. I am wondering what 

recourse you can take or whether, if a minister is so arrogant, they can simply ignore this chamber. 

Mr Bradbury: I will be taking questions on behalf of Minister Shorten. I am happy to proceed; was that your 

contribution? 

Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (17:22): No. You can resume your seat and we will get on with it. It is absolutely 

unbelievable that the Assistant Treasurer reveals now, after more than 40 minutes of questioning, that he is going 

to take questions on behalf of the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. His name is there on the list 

along with every other minister's name, and this arrogant minister decides not to turn up. And you compound it by 

not informing this chamber that you are going to answer questions on his behalf. This is absolutely unbelievable. 

It shows the public the complete lack of respect for the parliament by both of these ministers. 

You could have informed this chamber at the start. Were you aware of that at the start, Assistant Treasurer? 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Symon): The member for Casey will desist from using the word 'you' as it 

reflects on the chair. 

Mr TONY SMITH: I do not want to do that, certainly not when you are in the chair, Deputy Speaker. It is 

absolutely unbelievable, and it just shows the height of arrogance from both the Assistant Treasurer and the 

Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. It is one of two things: the Assistant Treasurer was aware of 

that at the start and deliberately decided to conceal it from members on this side, or he has got some email while 

he has been here to say that he has to cover for the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, who will 

be the only minister listed who decides not to turn up. It is not good enough, and time should be provided for the 

ministers listed. If they do not turn up—if they are so disorganised or if they decide that they simply cannot be 

bothered—time should be allocated. This is not good enough. It has not happened before. Where ministers have 

bee unable to turn up at least the minister at the table does the right thing and informs the chamber. This speaks 

volume not just about the arrogance of these two ministers but about their utter incompetence. 

Given that we now know, at 25 past five, that the member for Lindsay is going to take questions on behalf of 

the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, and my colleague the member for Bradfield is here for 

that purpose, I will end my contribution. If you want to do anything to repair it at least let him get the call. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Assistant Treasurer. No? The question is that the proposed expenditure be 

agreed to. I call the member for Robertson. 

Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (17:24): One of the great things about coming from the part of the world that I do is 

that it is home to considerable innovation, and the NBN rolling into town is providing an enhancement to that 

innovation for local businesses. In my movement around the community I see how seriously they take their role in 

being leaders in employment in our local area. They are particularly interested in making sure that they contribute 

to the country by paying a fair amount of tax and that they manage their pay-as-you-go responsibilities for their 

employees in an ethical and powerful way that contributes to the benefit of this country. My local businesses are 

particularly interested in the advantages that are offered through the most recent budget. There are some very 

important points I would be interested in hearing about from the minister, particularly small business. In the 

regions and areas like mine small business is no doubt the greatest employer of local people. It is very important 

that those businesses continue to grow, because as we grow their capacity in business we grow the number of jobs 

in our area and, indeed, we continue to grow the taxation for the country and from that the benefits that flow 

throughout the community. I am very interested in hearing from the minister on those points. 

I would also like to ask the minister if he could explain a little more about the tax reform road map and the 

principles that underpin that. If he could explain it in a way Australians can understand—almost create a 

metanarrative—so that it is not just about a mechanism or the management of particular types of taxation. It is 

rather about a vision for Australia, something that creates a holistic framework that accounts for the way whole of 

the taxation system is structured. I am particularly interested in the minister's response to the challenges that face 

families as they are looking to manage their jobs in small business and the cost-of-living pressures against their 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


own responsibilities to their families. There has been a significant degree of reform within that framework that I 

hope the minister might speak to. I am certainly interested in the tax cuts that have been delivered over the first 

four years to boost incentives for people in my electorate to work hard and received the benefits of that work. 

We do hear a lot of conversation in public places about red tape being a major concern. I must say as a small 

business owner operator—my husband now largely has those responsibilities—the transformation to our business 

when the GST came in was overwhelming. In fact we had to become tax collectors along with millions of other 

Australians. I understand red tape, Minister, very well as a result of that experience—in terms of the ongoing 

management of that and the additional costs to people. Cutting red tape and making changes to make things more 

efficient for businesses is absolutely vital. I know you have that at the centre of many of your concerns. I would 

like some comment on that if I may. The thing that seems to be of greatest concern to those in my area is the very 

significant difference between the plan that is offered by those opposite and the plan and the projects that are in 

place for superannuation and the tax treatment of low-income earners in particular. In my electorate there are 

some 23,000 workers who are on $37,000 or less. That is a significant number of the 100,000 people I represent. 

Spread across the country, it means two-thirds of these workers are women and one-third are men on low 

incomes. I expect the policy of this side is going to create very different life outcomes not just now but in the 

future. I would like to hear from the minister about that element of the tax reform that we have been able see in 

recent times. 


member for Robertson for her questions and note the wide-ranging nature of her contribution. I will try and 

address as many of the elements of what she has raised there as I can. Obviously, we are very proud of the record 

that we have when it comes to tax reform. It is often said erroneously that we have not picked up the cudgels 

when it comes to the Henry reforms, but it is worth noting that more than 40 of the measures proposed by the 

Henry review have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. 

Of course, when it comes to tax, we think it is important to ensure that, in particular, those large and profitable 

multinationals that are not paying their fair share of tax are required to pay their fair share. That is why I spoke 

earlier about the corporate tax integrity package. But equally we think it is important to lower the tax burden on 

small business. That is why we have put in place the instant asset write-off, which has been a significant 

development for small businesses. In fact, I see the member for Corangamite here in the chamber. I had the 

opportunity to visit his electorate with him and to talk to a cafe owner at a beautiful spot down at— 

Mr Cheeseman: Frontbeach. 

Mr BRADBURY: Frontbeach. It was a fantastic— 

An honourable member: What was it called? 

Mr BRADBURY: These are the big questions coming from those opposite! I am glad you have a full hour for 

this, because when you get down to those sorts of questions as your last line of defence it shows that there is not 

much of a critique of the budget. 

When it comes to small business, we have put in place the instant asset write-off. Those opposite voted against 

it. It should be a source of shame to them that they voted against a tax break for small business. They say they are 

the party for small business, but, as the member for Robertson pointed out, they were the party that introduced the 

GST, with all of the administrative burden that that slugged small business with. In fact, I still get all the letters 

from small businesses struggling to handle all of the extra red tape and regulation that they were strangled with. I 

thought they were going to 'unchain people's hearts', but instead they ended up chaining them to a desk to do the 

paperwork involved in their business activity statements. 

Anyway, the No. 1 concern that I hear from small business is actually concern about paperwork, and at the top 

of that list is the business activity statement. In putting in place the instant asset write-off, we have eliminated the 

need for some paperwork, because, for those assets below the value of $6½ thousand, there is no need to keep 

depreciation schedules. You can write it off in the first year. Of course, that delivers a cash flow benefit to the 

business, but it also eliminates red tape. That is something this government has been working towards. 

You might ask the question: why on earth would an opposition that say that they support small business want to 

come into office and rip away a tax concession for small business and in the process load them up with more red 

tape and more paperwork? It is a good question, and I have not heard a decent answer to it. Of course, those 

opposite have been parading themselves around as the party of lower taxes. The tax-to-GDP ratio is 21.5 per cent 

of GDP at the moment; it was 23.7 per cent of GDP when they left office, when the member for Higgins was 

working for the Treasurer. Indeed, I should make the point about those corporate tax loopholes that many of them 

were put in place with the consolidation regime and the thin capitalisation regime that were put in place by her 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


boss when he was around. We are now left to clean it up and to try and tidy these arrangements up to make sure 

that these companies are paying their fair share. 

But the opposition came into the parliament and they voted against the tax break for small business. They now 

say they are going to repeal it. At the same time they say, 'We're for lower taxes,' but they have a proposal for a 

monster tax for business: a paid parental leave tax. I know that both members opposite have been very quiet on 

this issue, because down in their heart of hearts they do not agree with this. They know it is an unfair impost on 

employers, and, if they look into their iPads and look down into their books to avoid making eye contact because 

of the shame that they are presently feeling about this horrendous policy— 

An honourable member interjecting— 

Mr BRADBURY: At least the member for Mitchell—he does not speak up much, but, when he does, he 

crystallises the thought of many on the back bench on that side. So much for the modest members, so modest that 

they have been missing in action on this vital policy debate, missing in action when it comes to this $20 billion tax 

that business will be— (Time expired) 

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (17:34): I would like to ask the Minister Representing the minister for Minister 

for Financial Services and Superannuation—as we are now told that he is—some questions about the Trio fraud in 

which $176 million was defrauded from over 6,000 investors, including a significant number of my constituents. 

In fact, my constituents who invested in the ARP Growth Fund—together with others from elsewhere in Australia 

who invested in that fund—lost, on average, $700,000. Only one local foot soldier, Mr Shawn Richard, has been 

jailed in this regrettable episode. The international mastermind is widely believed to be Mr Jack Flader, and there 

are others involved but it seems they have not been pursued by the Australian regulatory authorities. 

A parliamentary committee investigation and report made a series of unanimous recommendations, I am 

pleased to say, including that there ought to be an investigation into likely criminal activity in association with the 

Trio matter. In responding recently to this report the minister released, amongst other things, a review conducted 

by Treasury, which put a whitewash over what had happened. The Treasury review says that ASIC took 

regulatory reaction in relation to Trio capital within a short period of time but, similarly, once sufficient evidence 

was available, APRA acted quickly to freeze Trio capital assets. 

APRA carried out four prudential reviews of Trio between 2005 and 2009. None of those reviews led it to 

taking any action, a point which APRA officials conceded to me in questioning, when they appeared before the 

Corporations and Financial Services Committee. The Treasury's report concludes: 'A key finding of this review is 

that APRA and ASIC carried out their roles and responsibilities appropriately.' Isn't that splendid? That is very 

good news for all those Australians who lost their retirement savings in the collapse of Trio. 

In that regard, I have the following questions: (1) Why did it take you from May 2012, when the parliamentary 

committee reported, to March 2013 before you provided a response? (2) Why did you describe my constituents 

and others who invested via self-managed superannuation funds as 'swimming outside the flags' when they were, 

in fact, investing via product-disclosure statements in managed investment scheme disclosure statements that had 

been lodged with ASIC, and do you stand by that characterisation? (3) Do you agree with the glowing assessment 

given by Treasury of the performance of APRA and ASIC, who managed to notice that absolutely nothing was 

going wrong, for six years, in the period between an existing small, reputable funds manager being taken over by 

an international criminal syndicate and the whistle finally being blown not by the regulators but by an alert 

industry participant, who happened to have such sufficient connections within the bureaucracy that he was able 

finally to get some attention on this matter? (4) Are you satisfied that continuing efforts are being made by ASIC, 

APRA, the Australian Federal Police and other agencies to investigate the Trio fraud, consistent with the 

unanimous recommendations of the parliamentary committee? (5) Are you comfortable that we have a situation in 

which sophisticated international criminals evidently are able to target the retirement savings of Australians and 

do so with impunity, and if you are not comfortable with it, what are you doing about it? 

Mr Fletcher: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. This is consideration in detail. It is not question time. 

Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (17:38): I rise to ask the minister— 


The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bradfield will give me a chance to speak. He is rising on a point 

of order, but I will tell the member for Bradfield that this is not question time. This is consideration in detail. 

Mr Fletcher: Yes, and the point of order goes to the very purpose of this exercise. The purpose of this 

exercise is for the government through its executive members to report. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bradfield has no point of order and will resume his seat. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (17:39): I rise tonight— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite will resume his seat. The member for Higgins on a 

point of order. 

Ms O'Dwyer: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it is a farce to have consideration in detail when 

questions cannot be— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member for Higgins will resume her seat. I call the 

member for Corangamite. 

Mr CHEESEMAN: Thank you. I rise to ask the minister why it is important to lift superannuation savings of 

ordinary Australians from nine to 12 per cent. I represent an electorate where many people invest in 

superannuation through their industry superannuation arrangements and I know within my community that people 

very much— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite will resume his seat. The member for Bradfield on 

a point of order. 

Mr Fletcher: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: will the minister commit that he will answer the 

questions I asked— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bradfield does not have a point of order. He will resume his seat. 

The member for Corangamite has the call. 

Mr CHEESEMAN: Thank you. I know from my electorate when I get out and streetstall, doorknock and talk 

to my constituency that Australians very much support having their own superannuation that is in place to provide 

a quality of life when they get to retirement. I also know that the government, which of course I am a member of, 

has very substantial plans with respect to superannuation, particularly lifting super savings from nine to 12 per 

cent. When I get out and talk to my constituency, they inform me that they like the approach that the government 

has adopted, particularly because most Australians like to have really strong superannuation laws in place, laws 

that they can feel comfortable about and confident in that if they invest in superannuation that the government will 

support them through very strong legislation. 

I also note the government has put in place the MySuper arrangements to ensure that superannuation costs are 

kept to an absolute minimum, because Australians want to see the money that they invest in superannuation 

actually going to their retirements, not going towards excessive fees and charges to superannuation schemes, 

funds in the private sector and the like. 

My question is: what are the alternative approaches that may have been raised or suggested in the course of the 

budget debate, whether it be our budgets or by the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply. Australians want to 

have very strong superannuation arrangements, and I ask the minister if he could shed further light on some of the 

plans and processes coming out of the budget around having really strong superannuation so that Australian 

workers can have dignity when they get to retirement. I think that is a reasonable question and I am deeply 

disappointed by the tone that the coalition has taken to this debate— (Time expired) 

Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (17:44): I thank 

both the member for Bradfield and the member for Corangamite for their contributions. I thank the member for 

Bradfield and I know that he has had an ongoing interest in. I make the point that the questions that he asks go to a 

range of considerations, some of which relate to the prosecution and enforcement activities of some of our key 

regulators. They not just matters of interest to government but also are matters that can be scrutinised through 

other parliamentary committees. I know that the member does take advantage of those opportunities to press the 

respective regulators about their approaches to these matters. I would like to make the point that the government 

continues to remain sympathetic to those who have lost money as part of this process. It has been a regrettable 

situation, obviously—and that would perhaps be an understatement in relation to the Trio collapse. We have 

listened very carefully to the victims, and as a result of that listening we have also been acting, not only in terms 

of approaches to compensation but also in relation to regulatory reform that is required. In this budget, just to 

reinforce this point, an additional $15.1 million has been made available to the Australian Securities and 

Investments Commission. We recognise the complex nature of investigations of the nature involved here; these 

are not simple or straightforward matters, but there is a degree of independence and autonomy that our regulators 

are afforded in order to ensure that our laws are pursued in a robust fashion but also in a fashion that can be said to 

be above the day-to-day politics of whatever might be occurring for any particular government. So I encourage the 

member to continue doing what he has done in the past, and that is to raise these matters with the respective 

regulators. I know that that is a matter which he has certainly been very active in pursuing in the past. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


In relation to the member for Corangamite, I thank him for his question, because he points to the strong record 

of this government in relation to superannuation but also to the horrifying prospect of what we might face if there 

were to be a change of government. This government—Labor—created superannuation, and at the time the 

Leader of the Opposition said it was the biggest con job ever foisted on the Australian people. I know he has had a 

change of heart on a whole range of things in recent times; in fact, I saw an article that he wrote in the paper 

recently where he was sort of airbrushing out some things that he had said in his most recent tome, which is the 

Battlelines book. But when it comes to superannuation, nothing has changed. In the same way as when the 

coalition came into office in 1996—and the member for Mayo will remember this well—after making repeated 

commitments about how they would proceed with the Keating government's commitments to increase compulsory 

superannuation, they got in and they chopped it off and they halted it where it was. The member for Mayo might 

want to contribute to the debate by advising the House of how many increases in compulsory superannuation there 

were throughout the 11½ years of the Howard government. In fact, to save him the trouble, I will answer the 

question and make the point that there were none. The coalition have always opposed increases in superannuation. 

For all the rhetoric that we have heard in recent times about the coalition's concern about the government raiding 

superannuation, the member for Mayo might like to point out whether or not the reforms that we have proposed 

will be abandoned if the opposition were to get into office. 

Mr Briggs interjecting— 

Mr BRADBURY: No, no, the reforms in relation to— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Symon): The Assistant Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Mayo 

on a point of order. 

Mr Briggs: I would like to use the opportunity to intervene in the debate, as the same standing orders apply in 

this chamber. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. 

Mr BRADBURY: In the same way as the coalition did not go ahead with the increases in superannuation in 

1996, this so-called deferral by two years is an abandonment. We know that that is what will happen. The 

coalition will find some excuse in the same way as they found excuses in 1996—because when it comes to the 

Liberal party, there is always an excuse for why it would take away the opportunity for hard-working 

Australians—(Time expired) 


Human Services 

Proposed expenditure, $4,025,894,000 

Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (17:49): I rise to speak on this consideration of detail stage in relation to the Human 

Services portfolio. I begin my questions, Parliamentary Secretary, by giving a short preamble to them. 

This is obviously an extremely important arm of government. It includes agencies such as Centrelink, 

Medicare, Child Support Agency, Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Australia and Australian Hearing. It is 

expected to make over $157 billion worth of payments in the next financial year that this budget concerns itself 

with. In that respect, it is an extremely important agency of government to Australians who rely on receiving their 

pension, Newstart allowances and Medicare rebates. Whatever the payment relates to, it is very important that this 

agency be managed properly and not cause too much inconvenience for people if they have interaction with the 

government payment system. 

The former government was committed to some reform and I note the current government has introduced some 

additional reform in this area to ensure that payments are more effective and more efficient in their delivery. 

Times have changed since the Commonwealth government first involved itself in making payments. Technologies 

have changed quite substantially and we now have a range of ways, particularly electronically, of making 

payments. There will be efficiencies in the future where we can improve the way we make payments and ensure 

that the Australian taxpayer is not paying more than they need to make. In that sense, this is a very important area. 

It is for this reason I was concerned this morning to see that the latest minister Senator McLucas, has not yet 

received her charter letter. I note she is the sixth minister in six years in this portfolio—we have had four since 

Prime Minister Gillard came to office. I would have thought that for a minister to not yet have her riding 

instructions for a portfolio that makes payments worth $157 billion in this budget is a pretty substantial issue. 

Parliamentary Secretary, can you confirm that each of the previous ministers received a charter letter and can 

you advise when the Prime Minister will be delivering the charter letter to the current minister, and will it be any 

time soon, given that we are 102 days away from an election and a shorter period, some 80 days, away from 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


entering the caretaker period? Is this just another example of a government that is in chaos and has no idea what 

one hand of government is doing compared with the other? 

Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the 

Attorney-General) (17:53): It is not always that I agree with the member of Mayo, but I do agree with him about 

the Department of Human Services. The department touches the lives of nearly every Australian, one way or 

another. One of the great strengths of the department, as the member talked mentioned, is the fact that it has great 

flexibility to deal with all manner of situations—from distribution of family tax benefits, to child support and to 

crisis management. The member for Mayo raised what the department does, which I will talk about, and I will 

deal with the charter issue in a minute. 

One of the great achievements of the Department of Human Services is its capacity to make about $144.7 

billion in payments in a year. The shadow parliamentary secretary, the member for Mayo, talked about the amount 

that is in this year's budget. In last year's, it is extraordinary for a department to have had the capacity to make 

$3.2 billion in payments for child support or family tax benefit payments. The parliament takes 56 million calls 

from people and sends out about 145 million letters every year. 

The member for Mayo talked about the achievements and capabilities of the department, and I think he is 

correct when he talks about those. For example, one of the things that the member for Mayo probably would not 

be happy about was the capacity of the Department of Human Services to make the clean energy advance 

payments of over $1.3 billion to more than six million Australian families, pensioners and other recipients. The 

member for Mayo's side of politics actually voted against those payments and opposed those payments every step 

of the way, whereas Australians received those payments through the Department of Human Services to assist 

them with their cost-of-living pressures and to assist them to meet the challenge in participating in our pricing of 

carbon—a policy which has proved significantly effective in the reduction of carbon pollution in the atmosphere, 

on the latest figures. 

The member for Mayo is correct that the department is using smarter and faster tools in the 21st century. New 

ways to deal with Australians' online services are particularly important. He actually mentioned that in his 

question. There are about 3.8 million Australians currently registered for Centrelink online services, and he raised 

that point in his question and his comments. About 2.7 million are registered for Medicare online services, and 

there are about 143,000 registered for child support online services, so that is particularly important. I am glad he 

raised that in his comments, because that is a particularly important point to make. 

The department is also using a number of particularly important things—and the member for Mayo raised that 

in his questions to us—introducing four new Express Plus smartphone applications. They are aimed at students, 

job seekers, families and seniors, enabling them to complete many of their most common transactions quickly and 

easily. I thank him for his dorothy dixer, because it was particularly helpful in relation to that. These apps have 

been well received. There have been over 563,000 downloads and over 11 million transactions already via the 

apps. This includes a lot of older Australians. One of the things that I have been so pleased about is the way that 

older Australians have embraced the seniors app, having completed about 11,000 downloads and about 51,000 

transactions. 

The member raised issues in relation to a charter, and I noticed that he got very excited about that today in a 

press release he sent off. I think the responsibilities of the Minister of Human Services are very clear. The member 

for Mayo talked about the department that the minister has responsibilities for and what it actually does. I think 

most people know, when they deal with the department, about the range of services and are pleased with the range 

of services that are there. She is getting on with the job of making sure that Australians get access to the kinds of 

payments that the member for Mayo mentioned—ensuring that Australians get access to those payments they 

need to meet their cost-of-living pressures. 

I think the member for Mayo and the shadow minister should stop playing politics in relation to this and come 

clean about their plans to take away jobs, like Campbell Newman and the LNP in Queensland. They should come 

clean. What public servants in the Department of Human Services do they intend to sack if they get onto the 

treasury bench? Let us not forget that we have somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000 jobs in the gun if the 

shadow parliamentary secretary loses the 'shadow' before his name. (Time expired) 

Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (17:58): It is a pleasure to be able to ask some questions of the Parliamentary 

Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General this evening. At the outset I 

should like to congratulate him on his elevation to the roles. I know that he has obviously been a very committed 

local member, and I think he will do extremely well. Indeed, he is doing extremely well in the roles. 

The questions I would like to inquire about this evening relate to the circumstances of older Australians. I note 

that the parliamentary secretary has made reference to some of the initiatives already being rolled out for the 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


benefit of senior Australians right across the country, and I am particularly interested in my electorate. I should 

note for the benefit of members here this evening that there are some 17,600 pensioners and around 1,400 selffunded 

retirees in the electorate of La Trobe who are already benefiting from a boost to their incomes through 

pension increases, through tax cuts and through the seniors supplement, so there are very practical ways in which 

this government is delivering financial support to senior Australians right across the country and certainly in my 

electorate. 

I know that this government has been focused across a range of portfolios—not just Human Services but a 

range of portfolios—in delivering not only financial independence but actual independence in terms of the choices 

for retirement living and access to modern communications through the NBN and Broadband for Seniors. All of 

these things are part of a holistic package of measures which are aimed at ensuring that senior Australians—and 

with an ageing population, we certainly need to pay increasing regard to the demographic of senior Australians— 

continue to have a very good quality of life; the kind of quality of life that they deserve; the kind of financial 

support that they deserve; and the capacity to continue to have a very productive and active life into their senior 

years. 

In my electorate I have been able to speak to many representatives and organisations such as the Emerald 

U3A—the University of the Third Age—which is all about ensuring that senior Australians continue to take up 

the opportunities for education that are available to them and continue to be active in our community. I had the 

opportunity to be with one of our ministers talking about the historic pension increases that this government has 

delivered and the additional financial support that has been given to senior Australians and self-funded retirees 

with the Commonwealth healthcare card through the packages of measures that we have advanced over the last 

five years. 

I have also had the opportunity to hear firsthand from pensioners and other seniors in my own electorate 

through the Knox U3A, as we discussed things like retirement options and aged-care options. It is certainly of 

interest to them that this government continues to provide such support financially and through other means to 

that group. Accordingly, this evening I am very pleased to be able to ask the parliamentary secretary to provide a 

bit more information about the means by which the government—particularly through the Department of Human 

Services—is supporting older Australians to live a better and smarter in a stronger and fairer future. 


Attorney-General) (18:01): I thank the member for her question in relation to older Australians. We know that 

each year over one million older Australians receive aged-care services and by 2050 over 3.5 million Australians 

are expected to receive aged-care services each year. The Department of Human Services is well and truly 

involved in that process. This government has actually been a reformist government in the area of aged care. Our 

Living Longer Living Better package is a $3.7 billion package over five years, and I am pleased to say that 

legislation introduced into the House is going to make a big difference. The Department of Human Services is 

involved in that process. 

I will talk about the Living Longer Living Better package and what the budget actually does for older 

Australians. But, in terms of the department's involvement, the Department of Human Services received $322,000 

over two years from 2012-13 to implement the changes. That is an important assistance to the department. This 

package of reforms is about making sure that people have greater control and choice over the aged-care services 

they need. The single aged-care gateway will be important. The emphasis on home-care packages and a 

recalibration of aged care towards that bias is important. The funding towards dementia is really important as 

well. The number of Australians with dementia is forecast to grow from 269,000 to almost a million by 2050. At 

present 1,500 Australians are diagnosed with dementia every week. The budget provides some significant 

assistance in that regard by rolling out that package across the country. 

There are other areas in which we are making a difference in aged care. One of the initiatives in support of aged 

care is the idea of supporting seniors who downsize their homes. This is a $112.4 million pilot program to assist 

age pensioners and other pensioners over pension age who want to downsize their home. It is common for people 

as they get older to not want a three-, four- or five-bedroom home and to want to downsize because their physical 

capacity to maintain that home wanes as they get older, particularly in retirement years. This is good initiative 

which we think will make a difference. What this particular benefit means in the budget is that for pensioners of 

pension age, who have lived in their home for more than 25 years and want to downsize to a lesser home or 

benefit, this is probably the transition before they go into what we used to call high care in a residential aged-care 

facility. Pensioners will be able to put at least 80 per cent of the excess proceeds from the sale of their former 

home up to a cap of $200,000 into a special account and have it exempt from the pensioner income and assets test. 

It is expected that about 30,000 Australians will benefit from this trial by receiving a higher pension than would 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


otherwise be the case if the excess sale proceeds were means tested. Of course, the Department of Human 

Services would take that into consideration. 

The member for La Trobe is right when she talks about the federal Labor government's commitment to 

pensions. Since 2009, and she mentioned this in her question, the maximum rate of pension has gone up by $207 a 

fortnight for singles and $236 a fortnight for couples combined because of this federal Labor government. I cannot 

say that those opposite have always supported pension rises. They have on occasions in fairness to them, but on 

other occasions they have not. One of the other ways that I think we are helping seniors is keeping them 

connected. I am sure the member has the Broadband for Seniors program in her electorate, as I do in mine. The 

budget has provided funds here and this is assisted through the department. The 2013-14 budget delivers the 

Keeping Senior Connected an extra $9.9 million over four years for new technology and training grants for 

Broadband for Seniors kiosks. These kiosks have been particularly helpful—and you can find them in libraries, 

aged-care facilities and council chambers. There is even one at the University of Queensland, which is hosting 

SeniorNet in my electorate. There are about 2,000 internet kiosks for seniors around the country. I am pleased to 

say that older Australians have made use of that technology. (Time expired) 

Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (18:07): I go back to the original line of questioning that I was pursuing in relation to the 

small matter of a charter letter or what is better known as a job description from the Prime Minister to the 

minister. I was not suggesting to correct the parliamentary secretary that it was somehow Senator McLucas' fault 

that she had not received her own charter letter. She might draft it for herself and send it to herself, but really it 

does need to come from the Prime Minister. That has been the tradition of the Westminster system. However, the 

Deputy Speaker will be aware that, when Senator McLucas took this portfolio, things were a little chaotic on the 

government side, and we wonder whether part of that chaos and dysfunction was the oversight of a charter letter 

not being sent. We remember the time in March when we had the minister for immigration resign, the minister for 

resources resign, the minister for regional development resign, the parliamentary secretary for Pacific islands, who 

is with us in the chamber, resign. Quite a few people resigned and one of those ministers who resigned was 

Minister Senator Kim Carr. We understand that Senator Carr had received a charter letter; Senator McLucas has 

not received a charter letter. Through the chair, Parliamentary Secretary, it does seem that you thought it was a 

laughing matter or an irrelevancy that the minister would just know what her responsibilities were and would 

know what pieces of legislation she was responsible for. The purpose of the charter letter is for the Prime Minister 

to explain to the minister: 'These are the areas that you have responsibility for.' It is a very significant document in 

a ministry. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary through you, Deputy Speaker: can he assure the House that the 

Minister for Human Services is aware of the responsibilities that the Prime Minister has given to her in her 

capacity as the Minister for Human Services? If so, how is she aware of them if she does not have her charter 

letter? Another point that the parliamentary secretary may answer is: have you received from your Cabinet 

minister you charter letter? 

The process used to be in a normal working, functioning government was that a junior minister, as the Minister 

for Human Services is, or an outer ministry minister, would receive a letter from the Prime Minister. In this case, 

that has not occurred for whatever reasons. We suspect the chaos and dysfunction of the Gillard government is the 

reason in this case. 

In the formally normal sort of the government, where the adults are in charge, the cabinet minister would send 

the parliamentary secretary a charter letter too. I am not sure if that was the case with the parliamentary secretary 

for Pacific Islands or not, but in a normal functioning government that was the case. In a functioning government 

after September 14, we suspect that will be the case again. 

I say to the parliamentary secretary with the five minutes he has got left to answer this question: Parliamentary 

Secretary, is the Minister for Human Services likely to receive some correspondence from the Prime Minister at 

any stage in this term of government just to outline what she is responsible for with $157 billion worth of 

payments to make; and indeed have you received a letter from your cabinet minister advising you what your 

responsibilities are too? 


Attorney-General) (18:11): I am happy to answer the question in relation to: does the minister know what her 

ministerial responsibilities are? I would think that the member for Mayo—I wonder what his job was at one stage. 

I think he worked for a number of cabinet ministers. I think he actually worked for the Prime Minister at some 

stage—that is right. He was actually aware of his responsibilities, and wasn't he the architect and author of Work 

Choices? I have a feeling he might have been at one stage. 

The minister is very well aware. I mentioned the shadow parliamentary secretary's previous roles, because I am 

sure at some stage he would have seen something like a brief of their portfolio responsibilities that would have 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


been delivered to his office. I am sure when he was working—I think it was for Alexander Downer, the former 

foreign minister— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! the member for Mayo, you had a good go. Everyone has one go at a time. 

Mr NEUMANN: He was working for a number of ministers in the Howard government, and I think he was in 

IR. He would have received a number of ministerial briefs. He would have received a number of incoming 

parliamentary secretary or ministerial briefs which would have set out clearly the responsibilities. If you think that 

the minister, an experienced senator who has been in the Senate for such a long time, does not understand her 

portfolio responsibilities, then you are kidding yourself, member for Mayo. Of course someone as experienced a 

politician as Senator McLucas, the Minister for Human Services, knows very well her responsibilities. 

It is interesting the fixation and obsession with a letter; nothing about the $157 billion he referred to in relation 

to the money that goes into the pay packets into the accounts of Australians—no questions about that; questions 

only about one piece of paper. He asked me the question: does Senator McLucas know about her responsibilities? 

Of course she does. She knows, and he should stop playing politics about this, because Senator McLucas is 

getting on with her role as Minister for Human Services. 

I think it is important that we focus on what those roles are. I mentioned before in relation to—and he raised a 

question about her responsibilities; I am happy to talk about them. It is about administering a department that 

provides assistance to Australians each and every day. 

The shadow parliamentary secretary mentioned the things they do: supporting over four million Centrelink and 

Medicare child support program customers is important in Australian government services online in a year. He 

wanted to know about her responsibilities. It is about doing that: administering a department that does that. It is 

about administering a department that manages some two million online transactions from Centrelink every 

week—that is what her responsibilities are: administrating a department that does that. It is about new services. 

He mentioned before in one of his questions the kind of technologies that are applying. The new service myGov 

became operational on 26 May 2013, enabling people to set up their own unique user account to subscribe to 

various services across the portfolio—that is what her role is: administering that department that does those sorts 

of things. And she knows very well her responsibilities in that regard. 

There is also the work that is being done in relation to crisis management. If you had been around the country, 

member for Mayo, you would have seen where there are fires, floods and cyclones. You would have seen people 

in dark green T-shirts with Centrelink writing across it. And they would be administering things like disaster 

income recovery payments, payments that help people in their crisis, people whose homes have been flooded or 

burnt down. That is what the department does. And the minister is administering the type of department that 

provides that disaster relief. 

And it has not been an easy year. You would think that the member for Mayo would realise that 2013 has been 

a tough year across Australia. You would think that he might ask questions in relation to what the department does 

in relation to disaster management. But, no, he is fixated with one particular letter. The member for Mayo should 

think clearly in relation to that. He should be focusing on helping families. That is what the department does and 

that is what the minister does; helps families through the department but there are no questions about that 

whatsoever. 

Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (18:16): While this debate has been going on, I have opened the very first page of a 

google search for what is going on with family and Department of Human Services. You see all these faces on this 

webpage looking out, and the titles of the things that are looked after by Department of Human Services are things 

that are substantive. I think this is the point that the parliamentary secretary has been making. The question that is 

asked at the top of the website is: 'How can we help you?' That is a question that we ask every single day. 

The obsession with process that we have seen in the type of question we have received from those on the 

opposite side reveals that they see what happens in this place so much as a play thing for point scoring. The 

substantive nature of what the department does is extremely significant; it matters to families; to separated 

parents; to job seekers; to older Australians; to migrants; refugees; visitors; students and trainees; to people with 

disabilities; to people who are concerned with issues about their health and what care and assistance they can get 

from family services; for carers; and for people in rural and remote Australia. 

I know that I share with the parliamentary secretary that sense of being in a regional area. For us, the 

Department of Human Services is no small thing. It is a critical part of enabling our community. The Department 

of Human Services organised the Peninsula Link Day, which was an incredible innovation about how we can get 

efficient connections going on between programs and across our community; that is part of what has been going 

on in my regional area. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


People are interested in family tax and the benefits that they can receive. People are interested in getting the 

support they need when they are in crisis—and crisis management is delivered by Department of Human Services. 

People are interested in looking after their children and the important delivery of child support. 

So for the parliamentary secretary I have two questions. Firstly, what is the government doing to improve its 

capacity to support the current and changing needs of these Australians that I have been speaking about? And 

what are they doing to ensure that it continues to support and deliver government programs efficiently and 

effectively And, if there is time, I would also like the parliamentary secretary to tell us what the government is 

doing to better meet call demand and improve the telephony systems—and not only the idea of the electronic 

medium and the new apps he has commented on this afternoon—because people still do make phone calls. 


Attorney-General) (18:18): I note that the coalition did not ask one question about the Department of Human 

services. They fixated on one document; not a question at all that relates to the department that deals with 

probably more Australians each and every day than any other department. It goes to show how little they think of 

Australian families, individuals, pensioners and seniors. 

I thank the member for her question. The department is spending about $16.2 million over two years to develop 

a business case for an upgrade or replacement of the income security integration system known as ISIS. She raised 

that issue in relation to improving capacity to support current and changing needs of Australians. That is important 

because the ISIS upgrade or replacement is crucial to supporting the social welfare system we have in this 

country. You have to have a decent system in place; otherwise those payments that I referred to earlier in my 

answers cannot be made. ISIS is a major IT system for Centrelink programs. The business case will inform a 

future decision about upgrading or replacing the system, and it is important that we do that. I will be brief in 

relation to this issue, because I know another member needs to speak quickly about another issue. We put 

enormous trust in this department, and Australians do as well. We need to enhance the capacity and capabilities of 

this department, because this is crucial. We need to have those systems in place so that Australians can have 

confidence that those payments will get into their accounts. 

The member also asked questions in relation to older technologies. One of the things that are important is the 

need for a call centre. I mentioned before the number of phone calls that go to the department. It is enormous— 

tens and tens of millions, as I said before. So we are providing $30 million to help the department reduce the call 

waiting times, which of course has been a problem in the past. None of us like to wait on the phone, and we are 

trying to reduce the waiting times that people sometimes experience. There is funding of $10 million in the 2012- 

13 budget and $20 million in the 2013-14 budget, and that will allow the department to put in additional call 

centre staff. 

I mentioned before the number of calls that take place: 44 million Centrelink-related calls in 2011-12—about 

160,000 calls a day. So those public servants who answer those phone calls are important. It is sad to see that 

those opposite want to sack public servants—the kind of people that will answer those phone calls from 

Australians across the country. It is sad to see that those opposite cannot even bring themselves to ask one 

question, and it is interesting to note that the shadow minister did not ask a question of me at all tonight. 



BUSINESS 

Rearrangement 

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (18:23): I move: 

That orders of the day Nos 2 and 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. 


CONDOLENCES 

Hawke, Mrs Hazel, AO 


That the House expresses its deep regret at the death on 23 May 2013, of Hazel Hawke AO, place on record its 

appreciation of her long and meritorious service, and tender its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement. 

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (18:23): It is a great pleasure to speak tonight on the great Hazel Hawke. 

When we heard of her passing just recently, my mother got on the phone to me and said to me: 'You have to get 

on the record about this brilliant Australian woman. She did so much for women in the suburbs of Melbourne. She 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


did so much for women in country areas of Australia. She was a great role model for Australian women.' So it is at 

my mother's behest, but also my own desire, that I speak about Hazel Hawke tonight. 

I was not fortunate enough to know Hazel Hawke, but, like my mother and so many Australian women, I 

admired her from a distance. I regard Hazel Hawke as a classic Australian woman. Over many years I have had 

several overseas friends who have come to Australia and met Australian women. They have described us as being 

quite unique—that we have a set of qualities that women in other nations throughout the world do not share. 

My overseas friends have said to me that Australian women have particular characteristics. They are strong. 

They are independent. They are intelligent. They are self-sufficient and they are resilient. They are tough and they 

are plain-speaking. 

I think we have had to be like this as a result of the trials and tribulations of our history since settlement. Also, 

Indigenous women did extraordinary things, living in great hardship throughout hundreds and hundreds of years. I 

do not know whether my overseas friends have it exactly right, because I do not think you can stereotype a whole 

nation of women with those particular characteristics—I believe we are quite diverse—but there is a thread of 

those characteristics running through most Australian women. And for me Hazel Hawke embodied all of those 

characteristics, and more. She was a strong woman. She was an independent woman. She was a self-sufficient 

woman. She was a tenacious woman. 

I think the reason so many Australian woman identify with Hazel Hawke is that, like so many Australian 

women, she faced many hardships and sadnesses, and, as it is for so many Australian women, these hardships and 

sadnesses were as a result of the man in her life. Like so many Australian women she just go on with it. She licked 

her wounds, picked herself up and faced the world with a smile on her face and with great dignity, self-assurance 

and self-esteem. I think this is why so many Australian women could connect with her. 

Hazel Hawke was a woman that other Australian women, including me, identified with. She was authentic in 

her public and personal personas. She dealt with the challenges in life with grace and great courage. In particular, 

she was a woman who brought to the attention of the nation the issue of Alzheimer's and the challenges of dealing 

with that disease—or, as she referred to it, 'the big A'. She truly changed the discussion around Alzheimer's 

disease and ageing in Australia, and this is a significant legacy of hers and her family's. Her family can be rightly 

proud of the work that she did in that and so many other areas. 

Hazel Hawke made a significant contribution to our nation at a very personal and professional level. She will 

be greatly missed. Vale Hazel Hawke, a great Australian woman; a classic Australian woman; a great Australian. 


The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their 

respect and sympathy by rising in their places. 

Honourable members having stood in their places— 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the Federation Chamber and thank the final speaker on the condolence 

motion. 

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (18:28): I move: 

That further proceedings be conducted in the House. 



Bahrain: Human Rights 

Debate resumed on the motion by Mr L Ferguson: 



(a) 14 February marked two years since the outbreak of the 2011 period of major unrest in the Kingdom of Bahrain; 

(b) the 2011 unrest in Bahrain has been characterised by a mass protest movement calling for constitutional, political and 

election reform; 

(c) since the beginning of the protest movement in Bahrain, there have been reports of ongoing human rights violations 

against opposition figures, demonstrators and medical practitioners at the hands of the authorities, including fatalities and 

arbitrary political arrests; and 

(d) there have been reports of acts of violence against the State, resulting in injury and, in some cases, fatalities; 

(2) welcomes the resumption of Bahrain's National Dialogue on 10 February 2013 as a positive step towards political and 

related reform and reconciliation, and urges all parties to commit fully to the process and to reject violence; and 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


(3) calls on the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain to: 

(a) follow through on its commitment to full implementation of the recommendations of the November 2011 report of the 

Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry on human rights violations during the 2011 unrest; 

(b) release political prisoners who were arrested arbitrarily, investigate new reports of human rights abuses and bring the 

perpetrators to justice; 

(c) respect the human rights of its people including the right to freely protest and the right of medical staff to give 

unhindered treatment to those injured while protesting; and 

(d) commit to genuine reform that addresses the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the people of Bahrain. 

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (18:29): The main ingredient of this resolution seeks that the Bahraini 

regime follows the full implementation of recommendations in its own November 2011 report of the Bahrain 

Independent Commission of Inquiry on human rights violations. One cannot be very confident that this will occur. 

In April of this year, amongst other events since the outbreak in 2011, there was the cancellation of a UN visit, 

after which Amnesty International concluded that the Bahrain regime was not serious about human rights. That 

followed the second cancellation of a planned visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Mr Juan Mendez, the 

other having been in February 2012. Mr Mendez himself went on to say: 

'This is the second time my visit has been postponed at very short notice. The authorities seem to view my visit as an obstacle 

rather than a positive factor to the reform process …' 

Now, we know that events in Bahrain in 2011, including an upsurge in resident action, was followed by Saudi 

Arabian intervention in the internal affairs of Bahrain in protection of the current regime. There has been wide 

coverage by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the US State Department in regard to events there. 

A disturbing development was the contract signed between Prince Charles, with one of his operations, and the 

Bahrain regime for the architectural oversight of a 4,000-home development in the southern part of Bahrain, 

where there are discriminatory housing policies against Shia residents of the country. They remain on waiting lists 

while priority is given to migrant workers who join the police and security forces, from countries including India, 

Pakistan and Syria. What we have in a sense is an attempt by the regime to change the population balance in the 

country and to utilise outside bodies to enforce their measures. Amongst their other activities over the last little 

period were dawn raids and incarcerations of people in demonstrations, legitimate though they are. With regard to 

the Formula 1 Grand Prix in April 2013, it was said: 

'This latest crackdown and the way it’s being carried out raises new questions about the Bahraini authorities' commitment to 

reform,' said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. These raids and detentions suggest that 

officials are more concerned with getting activists out of circulation for the Formula 1 race than with addressing the legitimate 

grievances that have led so many Bahrainis to take to the streets.' 

On 6 April, security forces shot 16-year-old Hussain Khadem in the head with a teargas canister during a protest 

in the town of Sitra; the incident was filmed and posted on the internet. Khadem was reported to be in stable 

condition in a hospital awaiting surgery. 

In an article from Amnesty International entitled 'Bahrain's dark side—empty promises while repression goes 

unabated', there is significant coverage of the government's failure to agree with the public perception that their 

forces had been especially repressive. A commission set up in November 2011 by the regime released a report 

about abuses carried out during the initial protests. The authorities conceded abuses were committed and said they 

were reforming. However, in the interim, we have seen their complete failure to act on their commitments; we 

have seen them fail to engage with outside human rights bodies and NGOs around the world; and we have seen 

the cancellation of the visit by the UN special rapporteur. We have seen the US State Department report on the 

Bahraini government repeatedly refusing entry to representatives of international human rights organisations, 

stating: 

The law provides criminal penalties for official corruption; however, the government did not always implement the law 

effectively, and some officials reportedly engaged in corrupt practices with impunity. 

The US State Department report further concluded: 

The government owned and operated all radio and television stations … 

The report also talks of the arrest of a 13-year-old boy, Yassin Shebar, on 29 April 2012: 

… according to local and international media, he was beaten by security officials when arrested. On May 3, he was charged 

with illegal gathering (participating in an illegal protest or demonstration), rioting, and tearing a policeman's shirt. 

The State Department also noted: 

… in many such situations, the law prevents citizens from filing civil suits against security agencies. 

It is a regime that, by any international standard, is suppressing the majority of its people, denying democratic 

rights and suppressing political opposition. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (18:34): I second the motion and rise in support of it. If you look at the full motion 

you will see that, yes, it is very critical of the government of Bahrain but it also attempts to give an outline, 

guidance and some way forward that might be adopted by the government of the Kingdom of Bahrain so that we 

do not have to have recurring debates like this in the Australian parliament that reflect the concerns of not only the 

wider Australian community but also, in particular, those who have made their home in Australia from Bahrain. I 

supported a previous motion in May last year. So we might end up having to do this every year, unless the 

government of Bahrain actually takes concrete action. 

Some commentators might say—and they would have every right to do so—that the human rights situation 

over the last 12 months has deteriorated. According to the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, a culture of impunity 

reigns, with human rights violations and arrests occurring on a weekly basis. We welcomed the 2011 Independent 

Commission of Inquiry, appointed by King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Its recommendations have yet to be fully 

implemented. You often see that it is the case that the easy part is to have the inquiry and to have independent 

suggestions about the way forward, but the difficult part is to then be genuine in your response to what you are 

told., and this has to be in a true sense of reconciliation and reflection on the deed that have been done. 

This commission of inquiry found that security forces had used excessive force against peaceful protestors 

during demonstrations and had arbitrarily arrested, detained, tortured, ill treated and denied them fair trials. 

Unfortunately, according to Human Rights Watch, protest leaders remain behind bars and no high-ranking 

officials have been held responsible for the abuses. Indeed, Human Rights Watch goes on to say: 

Security forces used excessive force in 2012 to disperse anti-government protests. Authorities jailed human rights 

defenders and people who participated in peaceful demonstrations or criticized officials. The government dissolved an Islamic 

opposition party. 

More recent examples include that, on 15 May, last month, Bahrain state media reported that six people were 

jailed for a year for insulting the king in a messages on Twitter. 

On 25 April 2013, the United Nations expert Juan Méndez said that the Bahrain government had effectively 

cancelled his scheduled visit to Bahrain. So they would not allow the UN expert to visit. He was going to 

investigate reports that authorities abused and tortured protestors in detention. On 15 March this year, dozens of 

people were injured when protestors clashed riot police on the second anniversary of the Saudi-led military 

intervention in Bahrain. 

On a positive note, I acknowledge that on 29 March 2013 a court in Bahrain cleared 21 medics of charges 

linked to antigovernment protests in 2011. If I remember rightly, that was the basis of our motion in May 2012. 

Arrests of dozens of medical workers were part of a crackdown by the Bahrain's Sunni rulers after the Arrests of 

dozens of medical workers were part of the crackdown by Bahrain’s Sunni rulers after an uprising began in 2011 

by majority Shiites seeking a greater political voice. I acknowledge that on 13 March this year two police officers 

were sentenced to 10 years in prison for the fatal beating of an antigovernment protestor at the beginning of 

Bahrain's political crisis in 2011. The sentences are amongst the harshest against security forces for abuses in 

Bahrain. 

I join with the member for Werriwa in welcoming the resumption of Bahrain's national dialogue, which has 

been held twice a week since 10 February 2013. However, I note that on 22 May the majority Shiite groups 

announced that they would boycott these meetings for two weeks due to a crackdown by authorities that has seen 

hundreds of citizens arrested and the home of a prominent Shiite cleric raided. I hope that the Bahrain government 

take the discussion here in the spirit that it is meant. Something must be done to show that Bahrain is going 

forward, not further backwards. 

Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports—Parliamentary Secretary for the Arts) (18:39): I am glad to have this 

opportunity to speak about the situation in Bahrain, as we did this morning about the situation of Assyrian 

Christians, particularly in northern Iraq. When the Arab Spring swept across the Middle East in 2011, there were 

high hopes that this would lead to a new age of freedom and democracy in the Arab world. In Tunisia last year, I 

met Rashid Ghannushi, the head of the moderate Islamist party Ennahda. His comments disassociating himself 

and his party from Hamas were most encouraging, but unfortunately there has been much unwelcome backsliding 

of democracy in Tunisia. I trust the words of Mr Ghannushi, and I call upon him to address the situation there. 

In Bahrain, however, the Arab Spring produced a deadlock between the king and his government, dominated by 

the Sunni Muslim minority, and the Shiah majority of the population. Since 2011, there have been a series of mass 

demonstrations in Bahrain against the government, demanding free elections and an end to Sunni domination. The 

government has met these demonstrations with violent repression and highly political trials. Over 100 people have 

been killed and many have suffered torture while in detention. The government went so far as to prosecute and 

imprison doctors and nurses who gave medical aid to demonstrators who had been injured by police gunfire or 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


affected by tear gas. Over 50 medical professionals were convicted of sedition, and about a dozen are still in 

prison. This is a disgraceful proceeding. Doctors who are undertaking the requirements of the Hippocratic oath 

should not be treated like this and have rightly brought Bahrain international condemnation. All of this is 

deplorable, and I join with the members for Werriwa and Scullin in demanding that the government of Bahrain 

cease violent repression of peaceful demonstrations and release all who have been arrested for taking part in such 

demonstrations, particularly the doctors and nurses, who are doing no more than their medical duty. 

At the same time, however, we need to be cautious in our approach to this situation. From 1602 to 1783, 

Bahrain was under the control of the Persian Empire. The Islamist regime in Tehran has not forgotten this and 

regards Bahrain as part of its sphere of influence. Since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, the ayatollahs, 

particularly Ayatollah Khamenei, have continued to seek to extend Iran's power to the Gulf region and have 

consistently interfered in the internal affairs of Bahrain and other Gulf States. 

It is clearly not in the interests of peace in the Middle East that the Iranian regime gain control of the Gulf 

States. The King of Bahrain postulates himself as a friend of the West, and Bahrain provides basing facilities for 

the US Fifth Fleet. I make no apology for the fact that it would be against peace in the Middle East, against 

democratic interests and against Australia's interests for the government of Bahrain to be overthrown and replaced 

by an Islamist regime controlled by Iran. 

But there are other ways out of this dilemma. If the government of Bahrain wishes to stay in power and retain 

the support of the democratic world and of other people in the Middle East, it needs to win the confidence of its 

own subjects. As the member for Scullin suggested, the people of Bahrain should be allowed to enter into a 

dialogue with their government. The king should release all political prisoners and allow free elections within a 

constitutional framework that guarantees the rights and freedoms of all Bahrainis. Then Bahrain would be a 

worthy recipient of the support of the democratic world against Iranian expansionism, amongst other things. 

I commend the member for Werriwa and the member for Scullin for their participation in this debate—and 

indeed the member for Werriwa's initiation of it—and join them in calling for a national peaceful dialogue in 

Bahrain, which has recently commenced and recently been suspended. I call on the government of Bahrain to 

recommence those peaceful negotiations as soon as possible in the interests of all of its subjects and peace in that 

part of the world. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Symon): Before adjourning the debate, I certainly acknowledge the gallery 

following this debate and obviously following the debate on human rights in Bahrain with some interest. With no 

further speakers on this topic, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of 

the day for the next meeting. 

Sugar Industry 

Debate resumed on motion by Mr Christensen: 



(a) the Australian sugar industry is one of the world's most efficient and innovative producers and exporters of sugar and 

the leader in the adoption of sustainable farming practices; 

(b) Australia is the third largest exporter of sugar in the world; 

(c) there are some 6000 cane growers in Australia with more than 4000 farms growing sugar that operate along Australia's 

eastern seaboard; and 

(d) the sugar industry directly and indirectly supports 40,000 jobs in Australia, underpinning the economic stability of 

many coastal communities, and is the social fabric that has woven itself through the development of coastal townships up and 

down the coast; and 

(2) expresses concern about claims that sugar is 'toxic'; and 

(3) rejects calls for a tax based on the content of sugar in a particular food product. 

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (18:44): Sugar is one of the backbone agricultural industries of Queensland 

and the nation. The Australian sugar industry is one of the world's most efficient producers and exporters of sugar 

and is the leader in the adoption of sustainable farming practices. Indeed, as a nation we are the third-largest 

exporter of sugar in the world. We have some 6,000 sugarcane growers in Australia, some 4,000 mainly-family 

farms growing sugar along Australia's eastern seaboard, and there are more on the west coast, near the Ord. The 

sugar industry directly and indirectly employs and supports 40,000 jobs throughout Australia and underpins the 

economic stability of many coastal communities, particularly in Queensland. In that state, sugar is the social fabric 

that has woven itself through the development of towns up and down that state's coastline. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


The sugar industry has seen its fair share of challenges. Canegrowers have battled on amid floods and bad 

weather, the deregulation of their industry, a corrupt world market, the recent forward-pricing debacle and also 

cane disease, such as smut, orange rust and now yellow leaf. These have all been the enemies from within for the 

sugar industry. But in recent times the sugar industry has also faced attacks from enemies without. Those enemies 

take the form of the nanny-state brigade, who would seek to regulate and control the consumption of sugar—as if 

we, the consumers, were all children who needed to be told what to do. The end result has been a contraction of 

the sugar industry, putting those 40,000 direct and indirect jobs associated with the industry at risk, putting the 

livelihoods of those 6,000 canegrowers—and in Queensland the near-4,000 farming families—at risk, right 

around this nation. 

When I was a child there was a television commercial that was done, I believe, by the canegrowers 

organisation. It told us that sugar was a natural part of life. Today, we are told by this chorus of dietetic dictators 

that sugar is a poison, that sugar is toxic and that sugar is addictive—akin to drugs like heroin. The self-styled 

experts who use these words preach selective and mostly anecdotal information about sugar and health, which 

basically seeks to undermine consumer confidence in the safety of sugar. They demonise sugar, not based on 

sound evidence but on opinion and conjecture. 

The nanny-state brigade claim that sugar is one of the key nutrients that are instrumental in the development of 

obesity. The reality is, there have been a number of major expert committees around the world that have looked 

into these exact claims, and all of them have concluded that there is no evidence of harm that can be attributed to 

current sugar consumption levels. Indeed, in this country, the National Health and Medical Research Council did a 

recent scientific review of the Australian Dietary Guidelines. They found in that review no conclusive link 

between sugar intake and obesity. In fact, they gave the papers that tried to peddle the story about a link between 

sugar and obesity a grade of D, which is akin to the D that you get on a report card at school—in other words, a 

fail. They noted that the evidence base for the claims—that there was a link between sugar and obesity—was 

poor, that the studies were inconsistent and that it was difficult to separate changes in total energy consumption 

from changes in sugar consumption. 

I just wish the NHMRC had listened to their own advice, because they also went the way of the nanny-state dogooders, 

by changing the Australian Dietary Guidelines from recommending that people should 'consume only 

moderate amounts of sugars and foods containing added sugars' to recommending that people 'limit intake of food 

and drinks containing added sugar, and particularly limit sugar-sweetened drinks'. That change could now be used 

to influence Food Standards Australia New Zealand to set standards for food production in this country. 

The World Health Organisation no less has found that the fundamental cause of obesity and being overweight 

is an energy imbalance between the calories consumed and the calories expended, so it is more complex than just 

removing sugar from the equation. There are calories outside of sugar—and there is the question of exercise. I am 

no poster boy for public health but I have to say that I cannot and do not blame sugar for my physique. It did not 

come about by putting too much sugar in my cups of tea. It did not come about because I selected only products 

with added sugar in them. It came about because of poor decisions to do with dieting, consuming foods high in 

fats and calories, and a lack of exercise, so I blame myself, not sugar, for my weight gain. 

The facts speak volumes when it comes to sugar and obesity. The Green Pool Commodity Specialist compiled 

a report last year entitled Sugar consumption in Australia: a statistical update. The report found that sugar 

consumption in Australia had actually fallen by 9.3 per cent over the past eight years from 46.26 kilograms per 

person per year in 2004 to 41.97 kilograms in 2011. 

The report also found that over the past 60 years consumption of sugar in Australia had fallen by 15 kilograms 

per person per year—that is a 26.4 per cent drop from the peak of 57 kilograms per person per year in 1951. Noone 

can say in those same time frames that obesity has declined in this country. This was found in a paper entitled 

The Australian paradox: a substantial decline in sugars intake over the same timeframe that overweight and 

obesity have increased. The name of the report says exactly what the report found. One of the authors of that 

report was Professor Jennie Brand-Miller who holds a personal chair in human nutrition in the Boden Institute of 

Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise and Eating Disorders at the School of Molecular Bioscience at the University of 

Sydney. The other author was Dr Alan Barclay, the Chief Scientific Officer, at the Glycemic Index Foundation 

and a spokesman for the Dieticians Association of Australia. 

The Dieticians Association of Australia have also come out saying that this attempt to demonise sugar and link 

sugar directly to obesity is not helpful. The same view is shared by the Australian Diabetes Foundation. Dr Alan 

Barclay, who I have just talked about, is quoted as saying: 

‘Sugar’ is not the issue—it is far more complicated than that. 

He goes on to say: 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


… casting sugar as the ultimate villain and calling for regulation is misleading, unfounded and unnecessary. 

Despite the facts that are on the table, this demonisation of sugar continues to be peddled in the press, almost 

unchallenged, and now it is leading the nanny-state brigade to call for attacks based on the content of sugar in 

food—in other words, a sugar tax. Other countries have introduced such a tax, including France, Finland, Norway, 

Hungary and Denmark, with little or no impact on obesity levels. I note Denmark actually repealed its sugar tax, 

because it has an impact on industry and jobs. 

It is no surprise when you find a failed policy with industry collapse and job losses that you also find the Greens. 

Last week the Greens in Tasmania—their Tasmanian health spokesman—publicly called for the introduction of a 

sugar tax. He said: 

The proposal for a federal sugar tax has merit as the obesity epidemic means that all options must be seriously considered … 

This is not just some thought-bubble by a lone Greens MP; it is Greens policy that was announced by their former 

leader Bob Brown at the tax summit in 2011. Bob Brown said that a sugar tax should be introduced. As we have 

seen with so many other issues, including the carbon tax, that where the Greens push, Labor often follows. But it 

will not take much of a push because, back in 2009, my immediate predecessor as the member for Dawson, James 

Bidgood, called for a tax on food with a high sugar content. That is a disgrace for a person who was the 

representative of a sugar seat. 

Now we have a chance to unit in this parliament: Labor, Liberal, National, Katter Australia Party and maybe even 

the Greens—I do dream, I know. Now is the chance to unit behind this motion and rule out a sugar tax from ever 

happening in Australia. The industry needs to be supported. It needs to be strengthened. It needs to be assisted 

through the removal of red and green tape and the opening up of new markets. What it does not need or ever 

needs is the demonisation of its product, sugar, and a great big new tax on sugar. I ask the House to support the 

sugar industry, to support cane-farming families and to support this motion. Thank you very much. 

Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (18:54): I rise to talk on this motion of Mr Christensen, the member for Dawson. It 

proposes that there be no tax based on the sugar content in food. The motion states that the sugar industry is one 

of the world's most efficient and innovative producers and exporters of sugar and a leader in the adoption of 

sustainable farming practices. That is quite true. I think it is pretty efficient and getting more so. I can remember 

when I was first elected to the parliament over 20 years ago that the Labor government in those days was 

endeavouring to focus on the efficiency of the industry, as well as the difficulties of run-off from cane farming 

onto the Great Barrier Reef. The Minister for Primary Industries in those days was very active in setting it up and 

putting a lot of money into the industry. It is also about becoming more productive, using less fertiliser but getting 

more from the production side. That is what it has to be all about. Australia is the third largest exporter of sugar in 

the world. That is a fact. We have some six thousand cane growers in Australia and more than 4,000 farms 

growing sugar along the eastern seaboard. They are another couple of facts. The sugar industry directly and 

indirectly supports 40,000 jobs in Australia, underpinning the economic stability and social fabric of many coastal 

communities. 

The motion expresses concerns about claims that sugar is toxic. That is probably an extreme view that is put 

around. The motion rejects calls for a tax based on the sugar content of particular food products. Australia is the 

third biggest exporter of sugar. The industry has undergone a lot of changes. It tackled and got rid of tariffs. It 

survived all of that. It did a pretty good job coming through that one. We use granulated sugars every day in our 

food and drinks. We know icing sugar is great on raspberries and strawberries from the great Tasmanian state. The 

Australian Dietary Guidelines for the intake of foods and drinks containing added sugar, like soft drinks and 

confectionery, have recently been revised to strengthen the advice for the consumption of sugar from moderate to 

limited. It is like anything that is taken in excess. If you see a mother putting soft drinks into a baby's bottle you 

would start to get concerned. 

Those are the things we have to face up to and we need to make sure that we talk in reality. I was reading that 

our bodies need the right balance of sugar to function normally, as they do with everything else. I will not 

comment on the intake of rum and sugar for the sake of the member for Hinkler, who has just arrived in the 

chamber. I would like to refer to the good old Tasmanian apple, which is said to be both a killer and a cure, 

meaning that the natural sugars in the apples are high but they are balanced by the fibre in the apple so that it 

becomes a very good thing to eat. The old saying is: 'An apple a day will keep that doctor away.' The honourable 

member was talking about reaching the stage where sugar was banned not only in soft drink production. 

I saw on Friday last in the Hobart Mercury 'Bring in a sugar tax', following the release of the state public health 

report by Dr Taylor, who is the Director of Public Health in Tasmania. He said Australia needed to seriously 

consider a tax on unhealthy food. I suppose it is pretty easy to pass it over from the state to the Commonwealth 

but I think Dr Taylor was genuine. He was talking about statistics that showed people from low-socioeconomic 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


backgrounds have more health problems linked in part to the culture of consuming cheap fast foods, which, 

according to the statistics, is true. 

The state Minister for Health, Michelle O'Byrne, said that putting in place a tax is a pretty serious matter and 

would require significant scrutiny to ensure that it would achieve an outcome. I think that is where it comes to a 

dead end. I think it is pretty difficult to put a tax on sugar or a tax on fat or anything else and then say 'this is the 

outcome'. We need to deal with issues but we need to deal with them in a proper way through education, 

knowledge and good labelling so people understand what they are taking in. 

I also think the sugar industry needs to deal with many issues. I saw just recently that this Labor government 

has certainly been doing a fair bit. The Prime Minister was in the seat of Dawson in April. The government 

promised another $200 million over the next five years for the next stage of the Reef Rescue program. The 

program already has stopped 92,000 tonnes of nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment going on to the Great Barrier 

Reef. 

Looking at new ways of doing things and what you use sugar for, I am reminded of the amount of ethanol that 

comes from sugar in places like Brazil, which seems to get on very well. I think about 25 per cent of what drives 

cars in Brazil comes from sugar cane. They have an enormous bio ethanol industry. It all comes from sugar cane. 

There is a lot of opportunity to do that. This present government has contributed over $9 million from the Clean 

Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program to McKay Sugar Limited. I am sure the member put out a 

press release praising the government for putting money into his electorate. That company is investing over $120 

million to reduce carbon emissions across its operations by 70 per cent for every unit of production, which is a 

credit to it. I congratulate it on achieving that. 

We have an industry which plays a very important role, especially in those areas where the member for 

Dawson, who moved this motion in the House, comes from. We do have to confront the issues the industry is 

dealing with in growing sugar cane—the run-off effect and the health of the Great Barrier Reef, which the 

industry is dealing with in a very constructive way—and also improving productivity at the same time. 

We need to deal with in a proper and constructive manner the issues we confront of sugars in our food and in 

our diets. We need to do that basing it on science. We should not just be blaming sugar. That seems to be an easy 

cop out to me. It is about education, better labelling, knowledge of our foods. I think of all the good programs like 

the Stephanie Alexander program, which will convince kids in schools to understand nutrition and food. That is 

one of the ways forward. 

Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (19:04): I support the excellent motion of the member 

for Dawson on the sugar industry. Since Louis Hope grew the first sugar cane at Ormiston near Brisbane in 1864 

we have seen the sugar industry grow from Far North Queensland, north of Mossman, all the way to Coffs 

Harbour. It has condensed over recent years from Mossman down to the Northern Rivers, but it is a major crop 

and certainly a major crop in Queensland. There are a few statistics to confirm that. Australia is the third largest 

raw sugar supplier in the world. Sugar is the seventh largest agricultural export from Australia, and 80 per cent of 

the product from the crop is exported. Its value to Australia is up to $2 billion a year. We crush 30 to 35 million 

tonnes of cane for four to 4½ million tonnes of raw sugar, and that supports 4,000 farmers, 24 sugar mills and six 

bulk sugar shipping terminals. In addition to that we have distilleries, including for the famous Bundaberg Rum, 

referred to earlier, which the girls drink as well as the boys, and we also have various refineries at Bundaberg, 

Mackay and elsewhere. 

The sugar industry is part of the fabric of all those cities and towns along the coast. It has been the basis of 

irrigation schemes that the Bjelke-Petersen government set up in many places during its term in office. There was 

a dam being built every 18 months. In my area we have the Paradise Dam and the Monduran Dam. Bundaberg has 

not the biggest irrigation scheme in Australia but the most intensive. It supports sugar cane and small crop farms. 

You can see what the value of that would be from the figures I have just provided. However, we find now, with 

this abundant amount of water, with these canals and pipes, this intricate system of irrigation, that the price of 

electricity has got to a point where, for example, spray irrigation is no longer sustainable. The farmers cannot 

afford to irrigate their crops. What a nonsense. Australia has built all these marvellous dams, and now we have 

lifted our power costs so high that people cannot afford to use the water. 

Power has gone up 250 per cent in Queensland since 2000—12½ per cent a year. What is worse is that it is 

going to go up 17½ per cent a year for the next seven years. That is going to put irrigation out of the range of most 

farmers. They have come to members of parliament and asked that irrigation tariffs 62, 65 and 66 have the 

network component removed to bring the price of those three tariffs down to something more reasonable. Instead 

of 17½ per cent and 12½ per cent per year, power prices would go up by the increase in the consumer price index. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


It is crazy to think that we have allowed such a marvellous industry to be brought to its knees because of the price 

of power in this country. It is a blot on the previous state government that it has got to this. 

The member for Lyons in his presentation made a very good point: sugar used properly and in moderation is 

good. It is important for the canning industry, the food industry, the confectionary industry and the liquor 

industry. All of them require sugar. We need to make sure that these products are consumed properly. CSR is 

making LoGiCane, which is a product with a low glycaemic index, and it releases its energy slowly so it lessens 

hunger cravings and so on. The Isis Central mill has a product called Queensland high pol sugar, which is a semiraw 

sugar that is very popular and very healthy. So let us have an end to this denigration of sugar as a food 

product and let us support the farmers who are having a tough time. (Time expired) 

Ms SAFFIN (Page) (19:09): I am going to talk about the importance of the sugar industry to the Northern 

Rivers and its importance in my seat of Page. The sugar industry has been a part of life in northern New South 

Wales for more than 100 years. The New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative is a major employer on the 

North Coast and employs more than 400 people across major sites and accounts for $230 million of regional 

economic output. Total and indirect employment in the region is estimated at 2,200. This includes 450 mill and 

refinery employees and 550 cane farmers. 

The New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative was formed when canegrowers purchased the three New 

South Wales sugar mills in 1978. These three mills are located at Condong on the Tweed River, in the seat of my 

colleague the honourable member for Richmond, and in my seat of Page at Broadwater on the Richmond River 

and Harwood on the Clarence River. In addition, the cooperative now operates a sugar refinery located alongside 

the Harwood mill. The New South Wales sugar industry occupies approximately 34,000 hectares of the Northern 

Rivers region and extends from near the Queensland border in the north to Grafton in the south. Some of this is on 

the cooperative's website and, from there, you start to get the picture that the sugar industry is an important 

industry in the Northern Rivers region on the North Coast. 

I have listened to the contributions and have read the motion of the member for Dawson. I completely 

understand the member for Dawson's motivation of wanting to protect the sugar industry. I have also heard the 

contributions about food, nutrition and science. All things in moderation—that is always the key, but so many 

people are so aware now. They read so much and there is so much information on the internet that it can be hard 

to see the wood for the trees and to work out what is the good science about nutrition and all those things. It is 

incumbent on us to be involved in that debate. 

I will say a couple of other things about defending the sugar industry in the Northern Rivers. One is about the 

Clean Technology Investment Program, which helps local manufacturers improve energy efficiency, reduce 

power bills—the member for Hinkler was talking about power bills, but it is not just the cost of power which has 

impacted on the industry; there have been a lot of other things—improve competitiveness and cut carbon 

pollution. The New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative at Harwood applied for and were awarded a grant 

under the program. The grant, for over a million dollars, was put towards a $3 million project—the cooperative is 

investing more than $2 million. The project will improve the efficiency of the sugar mill boiler and will cut carbon 

emissions by 53 per cent. But the great thing is that it will result in savings of $660,000 per year in energy costs. 

That big saving is being achieved while the project delivers good environmental outcomes at the same time. 

The project involves installing an economiser at the Harwood sugar mill boiler. It will transfer energy from the 

exhaust gases to the boiler feedwater, heating the feedwater from 105 degrees Celsius to approximately 160 

degrees Celsius. That improves the boiler's thermal efficiency and reduces energy consumption. These sorts of 

things are happening all over the Northern Rivers and are helping us move to a clean energy future there. We have 

one of the highest take-ups of renewables in our area—and it is really pleasing to see the New South Wales Sugar 

Milling Co-operative Ltd and the Harwood sugar mill coming on board with that. 

I would like to make one other comment, very quickly: that the Regional Development Australia - Northern 

Rivers partnered with NSW Sugar and the Australian government to fill farm labour shortages with the 

introduction of a labour pool. It talks to the sugar industry because it helps sugar, macadamia and tea-tree farmers 

fill short-term and seasonal worker shortages in the Northern Rivers region. 

Mr LAMING (Bowman) (19:15): I rise to support my Queensland colleague on this very important motion 

that certainly from our point of view absolutely repudiates any possibility of a sugar tax in this nation. This side of 

politics is very firmly committed to making sure that we do not head down a path where we continue to raise taxes 

on hardworking Australian families, particularly in an area like diet. I have no problem with a government that 

make dietary recommendations or publishes dietary guidelines—I might even brook the notion of a CSIRO 

cookbook! But we certainly should not be in the game of having the government taxing particular items of food 

according to what the government feels is or is not something that is suitable to be consumed. There are plenty of 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


ways to evaluate both what is a healthy food, by a nutrient analysis, and a safe food, under the food standards 

currently in place between Australia and New Zealand. It is quite another step, as has been proposed by the head 

of public health in Tasmania, to propose a sugar tax—either for that state or nationwide—as he did two days ago. 

That should not be supported and will not be supported by this side of the chamber. 

I would like to devote my remaining time to what obviously underpins the great sugar industry of this nation, 

which indirectly or directly employs 40,000 Australians, which has 6,000 growers and which is the No. 1 exporter 

of sugar in the world. I also want to point out that, under the surface, there is quite an active debate between 

academics, groups that are supported by the food industry, and those that are supporting a range of different 

interests—even, lest I say, the author of Sweet Poison, David Gillespie—to try and shed some light on one 

constituent of the sugar molecule called fructose. We know that the body has hypothalamic regulation of protein 

intake and of fat intake, and that there are a few people that do not have good regulation of that intake. But we 

also know that sugar, broken down, is fundamentally fructose, glucose or galactose. Increasingly, light is shining 

on increased fructose consumption—which historically over the last few decades has increased—despite the 

findings of the 'Australian paradox' paper presented by Sim and Barclay, findings which have since been 

significantly attacked but are yet to be repudiated by the university that supported that research. 

In essence, we are talking about what we are going to do for Australians whose consumption of high-energy 

food, particularly fast food, is inordinately large—consumption that in my part of the world, in regional Australia, 

leads to nearly three out of four adults being obese or overweight. Something has to be done. In this generation it 

will be the governments—both state and territory governments, and this federal government—that must find a 

solution. The solution is not blanket sugar taxes—I want to say that right now. The solution is more open 

dialogue. The debate around nutrition and dietary consumption should never become the tobacco debate, where 

we all hold firm and say that until the evidence is absolutely irrefutable we must do nothing. It is time that we 

negotiate, that we engage and that we speak to everyone—from the supermarkets to the retailers, from the food 

manufacturers to the growers—about identifying what is a healthy, balanced diet, and about encouraging 

Australians to stick to that. 

The other major player in this space that has already spoken on this topic is the Dietitians Association of 

Australia. I am disappointed that the dietitians did not come to a federal, bipartisan forum held in this place in 

October of last year. The forum was attended by FSANZ and by the NHMRC, but amongst the 5,100 members of 

the DAA, they could not find one person to come and present at that forum and that discussion on sugar—a forum 

that had senior academics and other lay writers present. It is a debate that has to be had, not one that should be 

suppressed. When it comes to working out whether we need stronger guidelines, as we saw published earlier this 

year after significant delays, that move from moderating to restricting is a significant recommendation which does 

not need to affect the sugar price at all. It does not need to affect our overall consumption; it is just a reminder to 

those that have significant overconsumption of sugar—and that can be potentially 100 kilograms or more per 

year—that that the recommendations suggest half of that, at best. The average Australian consumes 50 kilograms 

of sugar plus another 10 per year consumed in juices. The debate is not about the national consumption. The 

debate is about excessive and wanton consumption in small numbers of Australians. That is a health issue that 

every one of us needs to commit to. Nut-net is another group that has worked very hard to combat some of the 

contributions by Gillespie and, by giving both of them an equal say, I am simply saying that we need to stick to 

the big picture. We need to admit that diabetes may not be a disease of sugar but it is certainly a disease of overconsumption 

of food and a disease of overweight. It is patently obvious that sugar is part of that formula and must 

remain in that national debate. 

Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (19:20): I rise to speak on and to support this motion. I was going to start my 

contribution by saying how pleased I was to see the news today that Paul Schembri has been elected unopposed to 

be the new chair of Canegrowers Queensland. He would be very well known to the member for Dawson and 

plenty of other people in the House. He has been the vice chairman of Canegrowers Queensland for many years 

and the chair of the organisation in Mackay. He has a wealth of experience as a grower and a very effective 

advocate for the industry in all its dimensions. I wish Paul all the best in his new role and he will welcome the 

opportunity to steer the organisation at a time when the industry faces the usual challenges of an export oriented 

product and plenty of opportunities for the future. 

It has been great to sit in on the debate so far. The motion tells us why it is very important for the parliament to 

spend time considering the status and outlook for the sugar industry. It is an important industry for my electorate 

and of course an absolutely vital one for the member for Dawson. I believe all members should know that the 

sugar industry is a significant part of the Queensland economy and, indeed, the Australian economy because it 

ranks as the seventh largest of all Australia's agricultural exports with a value of around $2 billion per year. I can 

understand why the member for Dawson want s to use this motion to promote the industry and to defend it from 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


perceived threats, but we should not let the debate paint a picture of an industry in some kind of crisis or without a 

strong future. That would be misleading. I would acknowledge, as I am sure others in this debate have done, that 

the industry has come off some highs in recent years. There was a five per cent drop in earnings from sugar in the 

year just gone. ABARES, in its most recent commodities outlook for the March quarter, shows us, however, that 

the international price in 2013, while lower than they were getting off the highs in 2011-12, is still higher than the 

average over the last 10 years. Looking ahead, ABARES is projecting prices to hold up in the years out to 2017- 

18 and, very importantly for this debate, its data is showing very strong growth in sugar consumption in the 

international sphere. We can expect continued growth of around three per cent in the next few years in line with 

the growing world population and rising incomes. Those factors, of course, led the Labor Party to develop the 

National Food Plan. 

I would like to take a quick look at the claims of whether sugar is toxic and then at what action the government 

is called on to take. The whole question of sugar's effect on health and its contribution to obesity is very hotly 

debated, as it has been here tonight with this motion. There are calls for the government to act in various ways. 

The government is acting on the question of food, nutrition and its contribution to good health and wellbeing, but 

it is doing that through a very science based and evidence based approach through the review of food labelling 

and the Australian Dietary Guidelines, an update of which was released in February. The Australian Dietary 

Guidelines are all about dealing with the evidence and with scientific research to make these decisions. They have 

taken the step, looking at all the scientific research, to recommend that people limit the intake of foods and drinks 

containing added sugars. But, beyond that, the government is looking at things like the Food and Health 

Dialogue—which the member for Bowman was sort of advocating without, I think, really knowing the detail of it. 

The Food and Health Dialogue involves government, science and the medical fraternity and industry looking at 

how products can be reformulated to reduce things like salt and sugar to get those health outcomes without having 

the kind of king-hit on an industry that the member for Dawson is concerned about. 


Reform Agenda for Older Australians 

Debate resumed on the motion by Ms Hall: 


(1) acknowledges that the Government has a positive reform agenda for older Australians and is delivering enormous 

commitment and investment in aged care and promoting positive aged care issues by: 

(a) increasing the aged pension; 

(b) reforming the aged care system; and 

(c) helping older Australians stay at work longer; and 

(2) calls on all Members to support the reforms and guarantee support for older Australians. 

Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Government Whip) (19:25): I rise to speak on the motion of put forward by the 

member for Shortland for aged-care reform for older Australians. The motion asks of the House that it 

acknowledges that the Gillard government: 

… has a positive reform agenda for older Australians and is delivering enormous commitment and investment in aged care 

and promoting positive aged-care issues by: 

(a) increasing the aged pension; 

(b) reforming the aged care system; and 

(c) helping older Australians stay at work longer; 

That is certainly something that I have encountered much feedback on in my electorate of Moreton. I have had a 

lot of seniors morning teas over the years. I have every four or six months or so and have had positive feedback 

and difficult questions about the Gillard government's aged-care agenda. In my electorate of Moreton there are 

over 17,000 constituents over the age of 65 and, of those 17,000, almost 11,500 were on the aged pension as of 

December 2012. 

The Gillard government has implemented historic changes to aged-care reform with the Living Longer, Living 

Better reforms. The reform involves a comprehensive 10-year plan to reshape aged care, providing $3.7 billion 

over five years to build a better, fairer and more nationally consistent aged-care system. 

Moreton is home to a number of wonderful aged care facilities with great staff and superb community 

atmosphere. I recently took the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon. Mark Butler, to Cazna Gardens 

Retirement Community in Sunnybank Hills to show him the new dementia wing. The environment was warm and 

friendly but I know that the facility staff do a difficult job. Minister Butler was very impressed by the quality of 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


life the staff at Cazna Gardens provide to the people in that facility. Sadly, the number of applicants is getting 

longer and longer. 

Aged care has recently implemented a number of initiatives in aged-care reform and this motion put forward by 

the member for Shortland is about taking the extra step towards reform for our older generations. As I mentioned 

earlier, I regularly hold seniors morning teas in my electorate, and I have had presentations from representatives 

of Centrelink, Medicare, the local police, aged-care service providers and other local community organisations. 

Every time I meet with the local groups from my electorate I learn from the experience, but particularly from 

these seniors morning teas. That collected wisdom of our elders is something that has to be experienced to be 

believed. These discussions with hundreds of older Australian's from my electorate has taught me that we 

obviously need to do more for older Australians, particularly those in aged care. 

The Labor government was responsible for delivering the biggest ever increase to the pension. We have 

reformed the indexation system so that the pension keeps better pace with the cost of living. We have also 

introduced a new seniors work bonus, to make sure pensioners can keep more of their pension while working, if 

that is what they so choose. We have also delivered another pension increase as part of the household assistance 

package. My understanding is that that is something that would be cut away by those opposite. 

The government is also continuing the full implementation of the Living Longer, Living Better aged-care 

reforms. Under the reforms, older Australians, their families and their carers will get the right sort of care and 

support, either in their own home if they so choose and are able to do so or in the appropriate aged-care facility. 

The aged-care system under Labor will be better and fairer and will provide greater choice and control for older 

Australians. As I know from my mother's experience and my father's experience, having choice and control is 

most important. It delivers most dignity and is the fairest approach. 

The recent budget builds on the government's work to support Australians in retirement, and I would like to 

particularly mention a few organisations in my electorate. One that has shown great initiative in the aged-care 

sector is the Evergreen Community located in Sunnybank. 

Evergreen Community is a non-profit organisation dedicated to providing aged-care services for the Chinese 

Australian senior citizens and people with disabilities in the Brisbane area. Tyrone Kam and his team of 25 at 

Evergreen Community offer a range of learning, social and health services for their members. 

Due to the language barrier and cultural differences, most of these elderly people would find it hard to 

communicate with the outside world if they were left at home. Their children may not be able to attend to their 

needs due to work commitments or other reasons, resulting in a group of elders who would be living a life of 

loneliness and helplessness. 

The establishment of the Evergreen Community will help the Chinese seniors in Brisbane to settle into society 

and make Australia their second home. their motto is: with care dedication, we are able to make the lives of the 

elderly richer and more meaningful—and they certainly do so. 

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:31): I am pleased to rise and speak on this motion moved by the member 

for Shortland. I welcome this motion being brought on as it also provides an opportunity to touch on a package of 

legislation that recently passed through the House but fell well short of expectations, certainly for those in our 

aged-care sector. 

As we have seen, this government's record on aged care has been patchy to say the least. For five years this 

government has ummed and ahhed in response to this most critical industry, an industry in crisis. It is known that 

up to 60 per cent of facilities currently in the aged-care sector are running at a loss. We have seen providers 

leaving the industry aghast and sick of waiting for the government to respond to inquiry after inquiry and report 

after report. 

Providers in the aged-care sector offer a service absolutely critical to our nation's older citizens and this service 

is becoming more and more important with our ageing population. At the moment, unfortunately, we are seeing 

less investment in new facilities simply due to the uncertain environment that this government has provided. 

However, despite this, there are some fine examples of wonderful facilities coming online and I have 

mentioned in this House previously the example of Barden Lodge, a facility in the electorate of Hughes which 

was opened earlier this year. It typifies the quality of service that on the whole is provided by the sector, dedicated 

to supporting and caring for older Australians. 

But turning back to the contents of the motion before the House, it talks about a so-called positive agenda, an 

investment in aged care before highlighting three areas—namely, the aged pension, aged-care reform and support 

for older Australians to stay in the workforce. There is certainly nothing contentious in the motion but, when you 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


cut through there flowery rhetoric, you see this as little more than typical of a government big on announcements 

and light on delivery. 

Take increasing the age pension: we know that the current Prime Minister opposed this in cabinet with those 

famous words: 'Old people never vote for us.' Turn to Labor's so-called reforms—here we are speaking of the 

living longer, living better suite of legislation that we saw go through the House in the previous sitting week. The 

legislation came in response to the Productivity Commission's review, Caring for older Australians, that was 

handed down almost two years ago back in August 2011, which followed two other Productivity Commission 

reports in recent years. 

But after sitting on this report for almost 12 months, what did this government come up with? Simply cherrypicking 

a couple of the 58 recommendations in the report and ripping $1.6 billion out of the aged-care funding 

instrument to pay for a $1.2 billion union recruitment strategy. he workforce supplement has been widely panned 

by industry stakeholders under the Senate estimates committee process, so it was no surprise that the Minister for 

Ageing was unable to find an aged-care centre to make this announcement. 

While I could continue to describe the humorous scene of the minister announcing this policy outside a church, 

rather than an aged-care centre, just to the north of my electorate, I will instead take the remaining time to outline 

the positive plans the coalition has for older Australians in my own electorate and across the country. 

The aged sector in this country is desperately in need of certainty, stability and support. That is why a coalition 

government, should we be elected in September, will introduce the first ever four-year aged-care provider 

agreement. This agreement will deliver better and more affordable aged care by reducing red tape and cutting time 

spent on reports and paperwork, allowing nurses to get back to providing care for clients, delivering value for 

money through revised subsidy arrangements and providing certainty for the aged-care workforce. 

The coalition will also extend this certainty and stability to superannuation by making no unexpected adverse 

changes to superannuation, so that those planning for their retirement can do so with confidence, as well as 

supporting savings by getting the economy firing on all cylinders. We will support mature age workers with 

employment and support pensioners and self-funded retirees by tackling the cost-of-living pressures and providing 

pension increases and benefits without a carbon tax. And, importantly to my community, we will deliver fair 

indexation for DFRB and DFRDB pensions, where this government has spectacularly failed. We are going to see 

a terrible situation in the months to come, where many elderly Australians who have worked all their lives will be 

unable to afford to pay their electricity prices because of this government's carbon tax. 

Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh—Second Deputy Speaker) (19:36): It gives me great pleasure to rise tonight 

in support of this motion before the House. I do so because—and I know I have said it many times in this place— 

the electorate that I represent is one of the oldest electorates in terms of demographics in the country, with 20 per 

cent of the residents of Hindmarsh being over the age of 65. As I have said before and will say again, I like to call 

it the wisest electorate in the country, not so much the oldest electorate, because with age and with all those years 

of experience comes wisdom. So it gives me great pleasure to rise tonight and to speak in support of this motion. 

This Labor government has demonstrated a very positive reform agenda for older Australians across our 

community and across our nation. Our reforms to the pension, for example, are the most significant changes since 

its introduction more than 100 years ago. The improvements to the indexation system mean that, when the cost of 

living goes up for pensioners, the pension goes up with it. Under Labor, the pension will keep going up. Since 

2009, the maximum rate of the pension has increased by $207 a fortnight for singles and $236 a fortnight for 

couples combined. Annually, this means that Labor has delivered $5,380 more each year for single pensioners on 

the maximum rate of the age pension and more than $6,130 each year for pensioner couples on the maximum rate. 

We also know that, as people get older and their lives or circumstances change, they may want to downsize 

their home to something that better suits their needs, but many have been very concerned that they will lose some 

of their pension, if not all of their pension, with the extra money left aside if they do downsize and sell their 

family home. For pensioners downsizing their home, it may mean that they have, as I said, excess sale proceeds 

which may affect that level of pension that they receive after it is counted under the pensions income assets test, 

which many will know as the pensions means test. For some, the potential loss of that pension may force them to 

reconsider, and many have reconsidered a move to a smaller home that would have been more suited to their 

needs. 

But there was a trial announcement by the government in the budget which will ensure that pensioners who 

wish to downsize the family home to a less expensive home can do so now without their pension being affected by 

the sale proceeds of their home. This is a very, very good thing which will allow older Australians to downsize as 

their needs change. This is all about giving our senior citizens and older Australians more choices and better 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


options as they make important decisions about their lives, and I am very proud, as those of us on this side of the 

House are, to support these very good reforms. 

Yet another substantial program supporting older Australians is the very successful Broadband for Seniors 

program. Under this program, the government has established around 2,000 internet kiosks for seniors around the 

country and I have had the pleasure of going to the openings of a few of them in my electorate. These kiosks 

provide free access to broadband internet and more vital access to training that will enable seniors to learn new 

computer skills and feel confident online and be connected to the world—and, most importantly, to their 

grandchildren who sometimes might not live close by and the only way they have access to them is through 

emails and the internet. More than 250,000 seniors have already benefited from this seniors broadband program. 

Thanks to the new Keeping Seniors Connected budget measure, each kiosk will be able to receive a new 

computer terminal with a touchscreen as well as the latest software, and a $2,000 grant to boost training and 

information sessions. These information and training sessions will be particularly focused on cybersecurity and 

personal online safety. All of these reforms, including indexation of pensions, are under threat from an Abbott-led 

opposition. It is the same opposition that supports cuts to superannuation and the same opposition that wants to rip 

the GST revenue out of the hands of South Australians, for example, while simultaneously increasing the rate and 

base of the GST. And we heard that Mr Abbott will finish the job of the Henry review, and we know that many of 

the recommendations, including using the family home as part of the assets test for the pension, were in that 

Henry review. 

Mr FLETCHER: I am very pleased to speak on this motion regarding the government's reform agenda for 

older Australians. Aged care is an issue that affects all of us. We may have parents or other older relatives and 

friends needing aged care, either now or prospectively, or we may ourselves be at a stage of life where we need 

such care, either in our own home or in an aged-care facility. 

I want to speak for a moment about the many fine retirement villages and aged-care facilities in my electorate 

of Bradfield. Just in the last few months I have had the opportunity of visiting Fernbank Retirement Village in St 

Ives, Christophorous House retirement village in Hornsby, the BUPA retirement village in Roseville, KOPWA 

aged care in Roseville, which stands for the Ku-ring-gai Old People's Welfare Association but now is just 

KOPWA, the Presbyterian Aged Care Northern Sydney Community Care Service, the Adventist Retirement 

Village in Normanhurst, the Southern Cross Residential Care Retirement Village in North Turramurra and the 

Rohini retirement village in Turramurra. 

I regularly find myself very impressed by the quality of the facilities I visit—the caring staff, the cleanliness, 

the high physical standards and the facilities—but achieving this outcome is not easy. I regularly hear from those 

who operate aged-care facilities in my electorate about the difficulties they are facing in maintaining the economic 

viability of those facilities. 

This motion before the House this evening speaks in glowing terms about the current government's enormous 

investment in aged care, an investment that was purportedly manifested in the Living Longer Living Better 

package announced in April 2012. But it very soon became clear, after that package was announced, that its 

immediate effect was in fact to reduce funding to many aged-care facilities; indeed, there was a total reduction of 

$1.6 billion in the aged-care funding instrument. I received many complaints—as did many other coalition 

members—about the fact that the government sought to achieve savings of $500 million from this instrument in 

one year, starting from 1 July 2012. One local aged-care provider had this to say, in response to the statement in 

the minister's press release of April last year that the new package would 'set stricter standards, with greater 

oversight of aged care' in a letter he wrote to me: 

The aged-care industry is one of the most highly regulated industries in Australia. The requirement to meet the four 

accreditation standards and 44 outcomes, with two annual audits and a major one every three years, and with numerous 

regulations and requirements of all kinds, begs the question: why even more scrutiny? What is prompting these kinds of 

statements? 

The frustration which is evident in that letter speaks volumes for the mismatch between the approach that this 

government has taken and what is likely to be required to solve the difficulties that, we all agree, are facing the 

aged-care sector. There is a significant constraint on the availability of places in aged-care facilities where 

Australians of older years can go, to receive the care that they rightly expect and that we would all want them to 

have and that we would all want for ourselves when we come to that stage of life. 

Let me quote from a letter I received from the major aged-care provider Bupa, which has a number of facilities 

around Australia including a facility at Roseville in my electorate, which I visited last year. Bupa had this to say: 

In our view the Living Longer Living Better reform package ... largely ignored the Productivity Commission's 

recommendation for a personalised care entitlement system that would enable improved customer choice and flexibility. We 

believe our Older Australians and their families should be able to pick and choose where they receive their care. We therefore 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


urge the Government to proceed with a single entitlement based funding system and to start this process of reform now; not 5 

years hence as suggested. 

The reality is despite the glowing assessment of this current government's approach to aged care, which is implicit 

in the words of the motion before the House this evening, the reality is that in this area as in so many others this 

Rudd-Gillard government has made sweeping promises in relation to reform of aged care. But in fact, the reality 

has fallen troublingly short of those bold promises. By contrast, the coalition has a clear plan for the aged-care 

sector, which has been well articulated by our spokesperson, Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells. We intend to 

establish a four-year aged-care provider agreement to deliver vital certainty in this sector. 

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (19:46): Tonight I want to speak about the importance of seniors, their 

contribution to our community and the need for policies which meet the needs of the seniors' community. I believe 

the House should acknowledge that the government has a positive reform agenda for older Australians and is 

delivering enormous commitments and investments in aged care and promoting positive aged-care issues. For 

example, the increase in the age pension, which I will talk about; reforming the aged-care system; and helping 

older Australians stay at work longer. 

Australia has one of the longest life expectancies in the world—something that we should be celebrating as a 

nation. With a growing population, over-65-year-olds will represent one in four Australians by 2047. There are 

great opportunities for our community and for our economy if we encourage healthy ageing, the lifelong 

development of skills and capitalise on the extensive experience of older Australians. 

Labor has a strong record of delivering for older Australians. For example, we have delivered the biggest ever 

increase to the pension and reformed the indexation system so that the pension better keeps pace with the cost of 

living. This was a claim that was tested recently by PolitiFact Australia. They consulted with Prof. Peter 

Whiteford at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University and he had this to say: 

There is no doubt in my mind that the real value of the pension is much higher now than at any time previously. 

PolitiFact Australia went on to say that after calculating the real value of the aged pension over the years, the 2009 

pension increase was the biggest rise in real terms after adjusting for inflation. Prof. Whiteford's calculation 

showed that, adjusting to 2012 dollar values, the rise in 2009 was to $18,522 from $16,010.41 or nearly $2,500 

per year. This is an historic reform delivered by this Labor government. 

We have also introduced a new seniors work bonus to make sure pensioners can keep more of the pension 

while remaining in the workforce. We delivered another pension increase as part of the Household Assistance 

Package to ensure that pensioners' budgets can keep pace with increasing utility costs. 

Since 2009 the maximum rate of the pension has gone up by $2007 a fortnight for singles and $236 a fortnight 

for couples combined. The government is also continuing the full implementation of the Living Longer Living 

Better aged-care reforms. Under the reforms, older Australians, their families and carers will get the right care and 

support either in their own home or in an aged-care facility. The aged-care system under Labor will be better, 

fairer and provide greater choice and greater control for older Australians. The 2013-14 budget builds on the 

government's work to support Australians in retirement. Amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 are a part of a 

10-year plan to build a better, fairer, sustainable and nationally consistent aged-care system to meet the challenges 

of the nation's ageing population. The government's aged-care reform plan will deliver more choice, easier access 

and better care for older Australians, their families and carers. We are replacing an aged-care system designed a 

quarter of a century ago and which is now ill-equipped to the needs of retiring baby boomers and their parents, 

who are living longer and healthier lives. The government is supporting senior Australians with a number of 

initiatives in the 2013-14 budget, including a $112.4 million pilot for a program to support age pensioners and 

other pensioners of age pension who want to downsize their home without immediately affecting their pension. 

I think there are great opportunities for my electorate with what I would like to describe as the seniors 

economy. It is much more than aged-care facilities, it is about ensuring that we have the sorts of services for 

people who like to move to a region like the Illawarra and the Southern Highlands for their retirement to live and 

enjoy. Services such as leisure, sport, culture, accommodation, care and health services provide a booming service 

and a booming opportunity for regions like mine. The Illawarra is an attractive and affordable destination for 

retirees and our potential is poised to develop a vibrant seniors economy well into the future. I commend the 

motion to the House. 

Mr WYATT: I rise to speak on this motion because the care of senior Australians is of vital importance to our 

nation's future and equally to the aspect of reform being real and meaningful. Elements of a reform that does not 

encompass what is included in the Productivity Commission report are problematic. I have met some of the 

providers and people who access healthcare and all of them have raised issues with me. We know that every 71 

minutes another older Australians is denied access to the care that they need, and care for aged varies according to 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


geographic location, access to services that are viable, access to services that provide for the context of living in 

care or living within their homes. If the workforce is not supported, 279,000 Australians will be denied care by 

2050. So reform has to be forward-thinking and project into the future as to the level of need that is required. 

I notice that the member for Shortland's motion talks about the positive reform agenda for older Australians and 

that the government is delivering on this commitment. But sometimes commitment has to be tangible and real in 

all facets of what is needed by those who are reaching the age of retirement or whose health needs force them into 

aged-care facilities. In talking with people within the service delivery sector there is a view that we will be $90 

million short between income and the real cost of care for those in residential facilities and that 83,000 new beds 

are needed to be built within the next nine years, at an estimated $17 billion. So there are some challenges in 

claiming that the reform has gone sufficiently far enough to address the needs of our elderly Australians and those 

who work in the area as well. 

It was interesting looking at the leading aged services. What they indicated in one of their publications is that 

there are three million Australians aged 65 and over, there are close to 1,000,000 Australians receiving Home and 

Community Care, there are around 170,000 Australians living in residential aged-care facilities, there are 1.3 

million family carers of older Australians and there are 300,000 people who are aged-care workers. 

If that is not meeting our needs this year, and we have not done sufficient reform based on the Productivity 

Commission report, then the matter will be exacerbated over the forthcoming years, particularly when you 

consider that the tax base will go from six workers for every retiree, to 3.2 workers for every retiree by 2047, 

which will leave us with an incredible shortfall. 

When reforming we have to think outside the square. We have to consider a range of options and 

considerations in the delivery of services. Sometimes we stay with models of reform processes that are 

comfortable instead of looking at how we can become much more creative and innovative. How do we empower 

the elderly and give them some options that are tangible and which meet their needs? 

Within my own electorate if you are in the area of Kalamunda-Lesmurdie and you require aged care services 

you either have to go to Joondalup or to Gosnells, which are significantly far enough away to be problematic for 

those who use public transport. Reform has to be real and we have to consider seriously how we do that with a 

bipartisan approach as opposed to taking a political approach that meets short-term agendas that sound as though 

they are achieving the results that are sought—the information and approach taken by the current government. 

I think it is important that any future reform around aged care services is real and includes the industry. 

Certainly the guidelines, as espoused in the recent debate on aged care services, need to be transparent so that the 

industry can respond. The issues in aged care services in Australia are real and challenging, and there is work to 

be done. 

Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Government Whip) (19:56): I rise to strongly support this motion. We on this 

side of the House have a proud record of achievement in supporting our seniors. Since being elected in 2007, the 

federal Labor government has added an extra 25,849 residential places, 13,052 community care or home care 

places, and 2,000 transition care places nationally. I have visited, right across my electorate of McEwen, many of 

the aged care homes to talk to the residents about our changes and, most importantly, to hear first-hand their 

thoughts. 

The government have also provided more than $52.2 billion for aged care services, and we will provide nearly 

$13.6 billion for aged care in 2012-13, compared to the $7.8 billion of 2006-07. Over the next four years more 

than $59 billion will be invested in aged care services. Since 2007, the Labor government has increased its 

funding to the sector by over 60 per cent. Just last week, this House passed the Gillard government legislation for 

the $23.7 billion Living Longer Living Better aged care reforms. This will be of great benefit for the more than 

19,000 seniors who I represent in the seat of McEwen. 

Since Labor has delivered historic reforms to the aged care system and the pension, we have been investing in 

services and supporting older Australians to continue to work. We on this side of the House are giving seniors the 

choice, the support and the certainty that they deserve. Australians now live longer, have healthier lives and are 

more active in retirement. Changes to the Aged Care Act of 1997 were part of the 10-year plan to build a better, 

fairer, sustainable and nationally consistent aged care system to meet the challenges of the nation's ageing 

population. Our aged care reform plan will deliver more choice, easier access and better care for older Australians 

and their families and carers. As the member for Throsby pointed out, the current aged care system was designed 

a quarter of a century ago, and it is now ill-equipped to meet the needs of retiring baby boomers. 

Key aspects of the reform include the consumer directed care packages rolled out nationwide, providing people 

with more control over the services they receive, and almost $1 billion in new funding for home care, which will 

see the number of home support packages almost double from 60,000 to 100,000. We also have the tailored care 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


packages for people with dementia receiving home care; a new funding boost for dementia care; increased funding 

for residential aged care, with 30,000 new places over the next five years; and $480 million for aged care homes 

to significantly upgrade their facilities. 

And, of course, there is the $1.2 billion to deliver higher wages, better conditions and more rewarding careers 

for the nation's 350,000 aged care workers. This has been something that has been a huge point at every aged-care 

facility that I have visited. Every one of the residents who are they all say just how great the staff are—just how 

dedicated and passionate they are to their industry and to their workplace. But one thing that has been holding 

aged-care workers that has been their wages and conditions. That is why it is important that we invest this money, 

to give higher wages and to make sure that people who want to be working in that industry are able to do so and to 

get a decent wage for the work that they do. In essence, we have created a single gateway to all aged care services, 

to make them easy to access and to navigate. 

I would also like to note that the Gillard government has also delivered for pensioners, because we know that 

pensioners have limited room to move in their budgets. That is why we have delivered the single biggest boost to 

the pension in more than 100 years. That is why we changed the indexation system so that the pension goes up 

annually, to better reflect changes to pensioners' costs of living. Since our historic pension reforms in 2009, the 

maximum rate of the pension has increased by $207 a fortnight for singles and $236 a fortnight for couples 

combined. Following the latest increases, total pension payments for people on the maximum rate, including the 

base rate pension supplement, are $808.40 a fortnight for singles and $1,218.80 for couples combined. 

And the pension will keep going up under Labor. Both my parents are pensioners and they have told me, as 

have many pensioners across McEwen when I meet them, just how much these positive changes have meant to 

their lives. It is something very important to ensure that we continue to look after older Australians and make sure 

that we give them the opportunity to enjoy their retirement to their best advantage, and enjoy everything that we 

have to offer. 

Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (20:01): I rise to speak on an issue that is extremely important to the people 

of Kooyong, namely, the future of aged care. Be under no illusions: there is a crisis in aged care. Only 40 per cent 

of residential aged-care providers are operating in the black. Under its reforms the government has cut $1.6 billion 

from the Aged Care Funding Instrument, with leading aged-care services, LASA, saying that there will be a 

revenue black hole of more than $750 million over the next 2½ years. 

There is insufficient support for people to remain in their homes. For example, in 2011 there were 24,000 

applicants for the 1,698 community care places advertised. Attracting high-quality nursing staff is difficult, with 

aged-care nurses receiving in some cases up to 30 per cent less than their colleagues working in acute care. And 

the sector is suffocating under increased red tape and regulation, with aged-care nurses reporting that up to onethird 

of their time is spent on paperwork. Add to this mix that through its new workforce supplement the 

government is seeking to unionise all those who work in the aged-care sector, and one could not imagine it getting 

any worse. 

But it will, as Australia is facing a demographic time bomb—not unlike many other countries in the world, but 

we are simply ill-prepared. Today 13 per cent of our population is over the age of 65, a number which will reach 

26 per cent by 2050. Today, 2,700 people are over the age of 100, rising to 78,000 by 2050. Today, the ratio of 

working Australians to every person in retirement is just over five to one, but by 2050 it will nearly be 2.7 to one. 

These numbers will create huge funding problems in the aged-care sector, as the number of users continues to 

grow: some 3½ million people each year by 2050, with governments expected to meet the costs of funding 

concessional and assisted aged-care residents. Indeed, by the Department of Health and Ageing's own numbers, by 

2050 five per cent of the Australian workforce—over 827,000 people—will be engaged in the provision of aged 

care. So, given this tsunami of demand that is coming our way, what is the Gillard government doing to prepare us 

for the future? The answer is 'very little'. 

Back in August 2011 the Productivity Commission released an important report, Caring for older Australians. 

It is one of 20 reviews and three Productivity Commission reports undertaken by this government. But rather than 

respond quickly to the report's recommendations, which included shifting the ration system of licences and 

packages currently place to an entitlement system where aged care would be part of the health system, the 

government took 250 days to announce its response—which in the end was contrary to the recommendations of 

the Productivity Commission, as it introduced new regulations to pricing. 

What this government clearly does not understand is that accommodation bonds as refundable deposits play a 

critical role in the aged-care funding model, building the capacity for investors to construct new facilities and 

open up more beds. The government's proposed legislation, which is being hastily rushed through this 

parliament—including by truncating the reporting dates for an important Senate inquiry—will see the creation of 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


a new bureaucracy, the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner, which will make a discretionary determination 

regarding the pricing of bonds. This has created huge uncertainty and a disincentive to invest. 

In addition, the aged-care workforce supplement I referred to previously will require aged-care operators with 

50 or more beds to enter into enterprise bargaining agreements as a condition of receiving additional funding. 

Those operators with under 50 beds will have to abide by the conditions of the supplement nonetheless. Like the 

government's tactics in the childcare sector, this is a brazen attempt to increase the membership of the depleted 

and scandal-ridden HSU, as well as boosting the stocks of Minister Mark Butler's old union, United Voice. This 

reform is going ahead despite being roundly rejected by the peak provider bodies. 

Enough is enough. This government has to be called to account for its failure to prepare for a better future for 

aged care. Its policies have been more than disappointing; they have been detrimental in the extreme. It is with 

that in mind that I oppose the member for Shortland's motion today. 


Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 




Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (20:07): I rise tonight to reiterate my position on marriage equality, which I 

have spoken about before in this parliament. After much thought over many years, I am convinced the debate 

around marriage equality is fundamentally an argument about justice and that all people should be equal before 

the law. So, in good conscience, I have had no other choice than to support marriage equality. 

Over the years I have honestly tried to weigh all the arguments in this debate. Many people try to convince me 

not to support marriage equality. In doing so, they have urged me to consider the children of same-sex unions. It 

caused me to reflect on my own family. I would have preferred that my father had not left my mother when I was 

11. It was not my choice, it was not the choice of my sisters and it was certainly not the choice of my mother. It 

was the choice of my father. I bitterly resent and take deep offence at the suggestion that I was not raised in a 

family or that I am damaged or dysfunctional because I was raised by a single mother, because families come in 

many forms. Over the ages, children have been raised by aunts, by uncles, by grandparents, by siblings, by 

cousins, by friends, by benefactors, by the church, by the court, by nannies and by boarding schools. What is 

critical is that children in all circumstances are loved, respected, nurtured and safe. The construct of a family did 

not matter to me. The only thing I needed to know when I got home from school was that I had someone there to 

reassure me, to nurture me and to tell me that I was okay and that life was okay. 

Then there is the experience of my wider family. I am the proud godmother of Alice Rose Uhlmann-Foy. She is 

a precocious young girl with an unbridled passion for potato chips, and she is a girl well on her way to being 

Prime Minister. I find it impossible to believe that she could have more devoted parents than Elizabeth Uhlmann 

and Kate Foy. Both know that nothing is more nurturing than the love of family, and the world is a better place 

because Liz and Kate have two beautiful daughters, Alice Rose and Emma Kathleen. I cannot deny to them 

anything that I would wish for myself, and the best thing in my life is my marriage. My marriage stabilises me, 

energises me and constantly encourages me to be better than I am. Liz and Kate know that their life has not been 

an easy thing for some in our family to reconcile, but we all know that and we understand that, and we love them 

for it. 

I have met with many, many constituents on this issue, and I have been struck by the strength and passion of 

both sides of the argument. For the most part, both sides have been deeply respectful. However, I have also been 

struck by the intolerance of a handful of people around this debate calling for tolerance. I have also been offended 

by the suggestion that those who do not support same-sex marriage are necessarily homophobic. The constituents 

I have met who are opposed to same-sex marriage are not homophobic. Like those who support it, they are driven 

by a deep faith and deep morality, and I respect that. But I respectfully disagree. 

I call on all of my parliamentary colleagues and activists on both sides to maintain a respectful tone in this 

debate on this very important issue. It is, after all, a debate that is so deeply personal to so many. I am also firmly 

of the belief that no church should ever be forced to marry same-sex couples, and I will never support that. But the 

state already recognises unions like de facto couples that churches do not. Before the law of this Commonwealth, 

all women and men should be equal, no matter their colour, no matter their creed, no matter their sexual 

orientation, because people have the right to choose the individual they love, and, if they choose to marry, the 

state should not stand in their way. Strong relationships are the foundation on which we build a strong community. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Mr WILKIE (Denison) (20:11): I have spoken on this issue many times in this chamber and in the main 

chamber, so I do not think I need to talk in detail about my views on marriage equality other than to summarise 

and to make a few points very quickly. I respect the fact that within my electorate there are a broad range of views 

on this issue, and I certainly respect the views of my constituents who might have a view different to my own. But 

as I have gone about my work—and I have met many people—it has merely served to confirm in my own mind 

that it would be the right thing to do to amend the Marriage Act to allow people of the same sex to marry. In 

saying that, I emphasise that I respect the views of those who disagree with me, and I have sought to represent 

them within my electorate and in this place, but I am firmly of the view that the Marriage Act should be 

changed—in fact, it will be changed one day; the only question is exactly when it will be changed. 

I believe it must be changed for a number of reasons. For a start, you cannot outlaw love. I believe that two 

people, whether they be a man and a woman or two men or two women, if they love each other, are entitled to the 

same right to marry as any other couple. I also believe that the Marriage Act as it is currently worded and as it was 

amended by the Howard government is nothing short of legislated discrimination. This parliament has virtually 

ended legislated discrimination in a broad range of other acts of parliament, but it is remarkable that in this act the 

legislated discrimination remains, and I believe that that should be done away with. The way to do away with it is 

to do away with the requirement that a marriage be between a man and a woman. It should merely be between two 

people, and that includes two men or two women. 

But, having said that, of course churches are private institutions, and they must be allowed to choose who they 

marry. I think it has been a very important component of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and of 

previous attempts to bring about marriage equality in this place that, when we do change the Marriage Act—and 

we will one day—it must be explicit that the churches retain the right to choose who they marry. 

This is an issue where I think people should be allowed to follow their hearts, which means that it needs to be a 

conscience vote. It should be a conscience vote, and I remain very disappointed that the opposition is continuing 

to refuse to allow a conscience vote. I note that the tradition and the public statements from the Liberal Party 

make it quite explicit that it is a party that allows its members to follow their conscience on each and every vote. 

So it is remarkable that, on this matter, the opposition continues to refuse to allow the members of the Liberal 

Party to do what the Liberal Party has allowed in the past for many other issues, what the Liberal Party says that it 

is quite proud of, and that is to allow members to follow their conscience. One day they will be allowed to follow 

their conscience, and I think that will significantly alter the outcome of that vote at that time. 

This is not a personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition, but I do worry that, although it was famously said 

that he 'gets' women, I am not sure that he yet 'gets' gay people and their fundamental right to be able to choose 

who they love and to formalise that with a marriage under the Marriage Act. I call again on the opposition leader 

to do what his party says it allows and allow his members to follow their conscience and vote accordingly. Then 

we will know for sure what the genuine will of this parliament is on this issue. 

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Government Whip) (20:16): In rising to speak to the Marriage Equality 

Amendment Bill 2012, I start by acknowledging that there are very strong views on either side of this argument 

and also within the community. This is the third time that I have spoken on the issue of same-sex marriage. The 

first was on the member for Melbourne's notice of motion back in 2011 where we were called upon as members of 

parliament to consult with our communities. The second was on the member for Throsby's private members bill. 

Each time that I have spoken on this matter it has triggered an avalanche of correspondence in my electorate 

office. 

I take up the point that the member for Denison just made with respect to a conscience vote. I think it is 

appropriate for members to have a conscience vote on this matter. In saying that, I must declare that I am coming 

into this debate with a strongly held personal view. My personal view is, and has always been, that marriage is 

between a man and a woman. I have been told that I am out of step with society and I have been accused of 

imposing my personal views on the community. It has also been said of me that I have been doing the bidding of 

the Catholic Church. I, like everybody else, can be influenced by my upbringing, but I have gone to some great 

length to ensure that I do not impose my personal views on my community. 

At one of the ALP conferences, as you would recall, Madam Speaker, where I think you and I both spoke, I got 

written up for having a view which was not necessarily popular. I got written up then as a vile, rotten politician. 

This is an issue of conscience and it should not be subject to politicking. It should not be subject to focus groups 

and surveys or influenced by external negotiations. It is your own personal position. If your views can be so easily 

affected by external forces, I think that says more about the person than anything about the subject matter that we 

are discussing. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Recently I was in a discussion with a very good friend of mine, Jim Marsden, a prominent solicitor in 

Campbelltown. Clearly he has a very strong view about marriage equality and is concerned that my view is out of 

step with the community. His late brother, John, was a leading solicitor, a champion of civil rights and a person 

associated with the contemporary developments of Campbelltown. He was a good friend of mine, like his brother, 

but John was gay. But that in no way affected my relationship with him or diminished my respect for him, his 

professionalism or the friendship that we shared. But I just cannot find it in me to apologise for the personal views 

that I hold. 

In this debate, I am challenged to put the community view ahead of my own beliefs. In accordance with the 

motion moved by the member for Melbourne back in 2011, I consulted with my electorate. I actually went to great 

lengths to do so. I received vast amounts of correspondence. I received four petitions; three of them had over 400 

signatures each and the fourth had, from memory, 150 signatures. I conducted an online survey, as I know many 

other members did, and the feedback I received was overwhelming. I undertook the survey using the same basis 

that others members used; as a matter of fact, I think we all used the words that were in The Sydney Morning 

Herald to assess it. However, I got a vastly different result. There were 395 participants in the survey, and the 

responses demonstrated that in excess of 92 per cent of my electorate were opposed to same-sex marriage. 

Because I reported it that way, the view was that my survey must have been doctored somehow, but I have no 

reason to do things like that. 

My electorate is very multicultural, it is certainly socioeconomically challenged, and people with disabilities 

are overrepresented. But it also has a very strong and active, vibrant religious enclave. As I said, I will not come 

into this place and apologise for my own personal views, but I certainly will not come in here and apologise for 

the overwhelming view taken by my community. 

Mr SCHULTZ (Hume) (20:21): I rise for the fifth time to speak on a bill to amend the Marriage Act. At the 

outset, I would like to dispel the myth that members of the Liberal Party are unable to use their conscience vote. 

Unlike the Labor Party, we are, and I have used it on a number of occasions against my own party. We have the 

ability to vote with the other side of the parliament or abstain from voting. That is still available to people. 

Having said that, I make the point once again: you have to admit that advocates for same-sex marriage are 

persistent. The member for Melbourne is certainly committed to the process of social engineering. The dogma to 

destroy the definition of marriage as defined in the Marriage Act is well and truly alive, and it will continue. He 

and his ilk arrogantly and continually ignore the wishes of the majority of Australians who, through their elected 

representatives, have emphatically said no to the recognition of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates 

like the member for Melbourne have placed new meaning on the Fabian Society's process of gradualism, or the 

drip, drip, drip process of social brainwashing. 

I quote from a succinct editorial on page 18 of The Weekend Australian of 29 May 2004, following the debate 

on the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 which resulted in significant recognition of the rights of 

homosexuals and reinforces the relentless self-indulgence of the homosexual movement's push for same-sex 

marriage, despite those generous reforms. The editorial began: 

HOMOSEXUAL Australians had a big practical win and a small symbolic defeat this week The Government announced 

legislation to allow superannuation to pass to a same sex partner without penalty tax. It means that gay and lesbian partners 

will have the same rights as married couples and heterosexuals in de facto relationships. This is a long overdue and sensible 

decision that will put an end to a ridiculous restriction on the rights of homosexual couples. 

And I agree with that. It went on: 

The Government was accused of playing politics, seeking to shore up conservative support. But if this was the Prime 

Minister's motive it was one Labor was quick to share, saying it would support the legislation restricting marriage to 

heterosexuals. While gay activists might not like it, the major parties are convinced the community will not wear the idea of 

same sex marriage. 

And nothing has changed. The editorial also said: 

Without this legislation, social engineers on the bench and at the bar would likely soon find some contrivance under 

international law that would bind Australia to acknowledge overseas same sex marriages and adoption rights. Mr Howard is 

quite right to say that if the definition of marriage is to change it should be done by the people’s elected representatives, not 

the courts. 

Gays who argue this is demeaning and unjust should get over it. There is nothing that prevents priests and celebrants 

conducting ceremonies for gay couples affirming their decision to live as couples. They may not be married under the law but 

surely how they, and the people in their lives, perceive their relationship is what matters most. 

Fifty-one years ago, I married a wonderful woman in a marriage ceremony which was and is applicable to 

every Australian resident, without exception, today. The question needs to be asked: how are homosexuals 

discriminated against when no homosexual is denied marriage under Australian law and marital requirements are, 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


without exception, applicable equally to every Australian resident? Isn't declining to accept marital rules a selfdiscriminating 

free choice and not a social or legal discrimination? De facto heterosexual couples are not 

discriminated against for choosing to refuse marriage, so what is the special obligation or need for homosexuals to 

marry? 

I close off by saying this: I think it is abominable that gay activists continue to focus on and manipulate civil 

rights strategies to justify claims for same-sex marriage and keep using accusations of discrimination, inequality 

and homophobia to intimidate politicians and the general public. I represent the majority of my constituents, who 

know and adhere to the reality that marriage is an accepted bond between a man and a woman. Marriage is a 

bedrock institution worthy of protection under law. There should be no doubt about what the word 'marriage' 

means. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that the commonly accepted definition of 'a union of a man 

and a woman to the exclusion of all others' is again under threat. In response to that, I say this: those who 

represent that threat will be out of this place in the next couple of months, but my views and the views of my 

family will not change in relation to the definition of marriage. 

Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013 




Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (20:26): The Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill put forward by the member 

for Denison is about skills and training. How appropriate it is that we are debating it tonight, because today is 

National TAFE Day. I joined many of my colleagues earlier tonight to celebrate what our TAFE institutions 

around the country do in developing skills and training and to send a signal to the New South Wales government 

in particular and to state governments generally that we do not want them with their hands all over our TAFE 

institutions. Those institutions play too vital a role in our communities and in our economy, particularly in 

supporting productivity. We say that we want our TAFE funding retained. The Commonwealth government has 

been putting significant additional funding into TAFE. Indeed in my own electorate, through the Regional 

Development Australia grants, money is going into TAFE institutes such as the one at Muswellbrook, where the 

grant will help it do more in mining skills training in particular. But at the same time Barry O'Farrell is taking 

money out of TAFE in New South Wales, which is very disappointing. 

I am speaking in continuation on this bill. In the other chamber, last sitting week, I made various points about 

the objectives of this bill and about the real concern of the Australian Institute of Marine Engineers about what 

this bill could mean for the standard of training accepted for those who work in our shipping industry. I have been 

an apprentice. I do understand the concept of accelerated training and, in some instances and in some 

circumstances, it can be a good thing. But we must put sufficient weight on maintaining standards and safety in 

industry, particularly the marine industry. I was pointing out the objectives of the bill and the views of the 

minister, but what I was about to say when time expired is that the Australian Institute of Marine Engineers and 

those whom they represent have some very legitimate concerns. I urge the minister to take those concerns into 

account and I urge the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to take those concerns into account. I suggest that 

they put aside any preconceived views and ideas about this issue and that they put aside plans to make the 

changes—changes including reducing the training requirements for a marine engineer from three years to one 

year, which to most people in the community would seem rather extraordinary. 

We need to get everyone back to the table, to speak about these concerns and see whether we cannot find a way 

forward. We do not want a Mexican stand-off, we do not want the government digging in, we do not want AMSA 

digging in and we do not want the institute digging in either. We want people back at the table. They are all 

sensible people, and the minister is certainly a sensible person. I have great regard for his department and those 

who advise him; I have great respect for those who work in the industry; and I certainly have great respect for 

those who represent engineers and others. 

There seems to be an impasse here. I know there is goodwill on the part of the institute, and we need 

determination on their part to address this problem. They do have legitimate concerns; they have been in this 

industry a long-time. As I said when speaking in the House, surely there is no more important role for government 

to ensure that we have an efficient and effective shipping industry in this country. Safety should always be 

paramount and of course going hand-in-hand with safety are standards amongst those who work in the industry, 

particularly those who maintain and repair our shipping fleets. I urge the minister to take a step back, have a listen 

to what the institute is having to say, get back to the negotiating table and see whether we cannot get an outcome 

that satisfies all the parties. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (20:31): I fully support the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013, 

introduced by the member for Denison, and I support the comments made by each speaker. The bill is intended to 

prevent a reduction in standards that would apply to the engagement of marine and power engineers. We only 

have to think of the consequences of that reduction in terms of the safety of vessels, in terms of the impact on our 

environment and in terms of the health and safety of the other crew members of the vessels upon which marine 

and power engineers work. We should remember that Australian marine and power engineers are some of the 

most highly qualified and highly trained engineers in the world. 

I have spend a considerable part of my professional life looking at working standards, including occupational 

health and safety standards. It has been a fundamental tenet of all the principles I have worked for—as it has been 

for all those I have been involved with in the sector, including on the employee side and on the employer side— 

that we are about raising standards and not reducing standards. The trouble with the proposals put forward by the 

department and by the minister, if I might say so with respect, is that it is adopting international standards that are 

less than Australian standards. What we are about in Australia is lifting standards—particularly in respect of 

occupational health and safety rather than having a race to the bottom. It is vital for Australian shipping and for 

the Australian environment that these standards be raised. 

Let us reflect on the Exxon Valdez situation and what impact such an incident would have on the Great Barrier 

Reef. Should a similar accident occur, it would destroy for ever and a day that pristine environment that has 

international recognition—one of the natural numbers of the world. Think of ships coming through there and, 

because of a breakdown in machinery, a breakdown in navigational capability as the result of a breakdown in 

machinery, having an accident on the barrier reef. Again, if we are not working internationally to raise standards, 

that must be recognised as a possibility. But what we need to do is focus on maintaining Australian standards and, 

in maintaining Australian standards, lifting its national standards. 

It has been a real concern of mine that we have not put enough attention into the security benefits that we 

obtain from having an efficient and safe functioning Australian maritime capability. We have again, through 

lowering of standards, through allowing the importation of labour that is not as qualified as we would expect in 

Australia, diminished the status. You cannot beat in a national security situation having Australian eyes and ears 

around your coastline. More than that, you cannot benefit from having vessels that are able to not only navigate 

safely but also to assist those who may become in distress in circumstances where they require Australian 

assistance. 

We are an island continent. We are very much dependent on our sea lanes. To even suggest in this day and age 

that we reduce rather than lift standards, I think, is complete and utter folly. I commend the honourable member 

for Denison for moving this bill. I, with my colleague the member for Hunter, fully support it and we again call 

upon the minister and the minister's department to have regard to its substance. 


GRIEVANCE DEBATE 

Papua New Guinea 

Question proposed: 

That grievances be noted. 

Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (20:36): Papua New Guinea is a good friend of Australia's. They always have been, 

particularly from World War II to today. When we have asked for support and help, Papua New Guinea has been 

there. From the 'fuzzy wuzzy angels' to Manus Island, Papua New Guinea has been a steadfast friend. For that 

reason I was delighted to take up the opportunity to visit PNG again as part of a joint party parliamentary 

delegation. Over the six-day journey we travelled from the capital of Port Moresby to the buzzing resource hub of 

Lae. We met with a wide cross-section of people ranging from the Treasurer of PNG the Hon.Don Polye, the new 

Australian High Commissioner's Ms Deborah Stokes and her team to local businessmen, the Australian expatriate 

community and a collection of dedicated workers from various non-government organisations and, importantly, 

Papua New Guinea citizens. 

PNG's political and economic progress is of critical importance to Australia as it is to the citizens of Papua New 

Guinea. Our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea is facing all the challenges of a developing country. It is 

essential that we provide our ongoing support as PNG builds on its vigorous democracy to fight the challenges 

that beset developing countries across the globe—challenges of corruption, continuing violence against women, 

unequal economic development, effective delivery of government decisions as well as successful completion of 

the peace process in Bougainville. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


The O'Neill government's policy of rebuilding infrastructure within PNG and the boost in spending on health 

and free education is offering real hope and opportunity. What stood out compared to previous visits was the 

renewed sense of optimism in New Guinea. We spoke with Treasurer Don Polye about his 2012 budget and about 

the O'Neill government's plans for PNG's future. Their budget provides for a 41 per cent increase in education 

spending, a 64 per cent increase in health and a 69 per cent increase for infrastructure. 

These policies together with a renewed focus on financial transparency and proprietary are starting to deliver 

economic benefits for the people of Papua New Guinea, who have often felt alienated from any tangible outcomes 

of their unprecedented mineral and gas wealth over the last 40 years since independence. It must be said that 

implementation is and always remains an ongoing challenge for PNG and management of debt will be critical. Mr 

Polye explained how this O'Neill government budget is the largest ever—one of the 13 billion kina with the 

economy growing this year by 7.2 per cent, up from a budget estimate of four per cent. He views this as 'the 

people's budget' to ensure the benefits of strong economic growth are shared more equitably. Importantly, the 

Treasurer's economic plan, unlike his Australian counterpart, is to lower the cost of living for the PNG people. Mr 

Polye confirmed that with the first gas expected to be exported in 2014 from the PNG LNG project and the 

proposed second LNG project, the government will continue with its implementation of the PNG sovereign wealth 

fund to manage these revenues to underpin long-term social and economic development needs of the country. 

Undoubtedly PNG's mining industry, like Australia's, faces the challenges of an uncertain world economy and 

questions about the rate of growth in China. These challenges are particularly relevant to the potential of notable 

projects like Freida River, Woodlark, Nautilus and Marengo Mining's Yandera project. The PNG LNG project is 

of particular interest to Australia with Oilsearch and Santos being key partners in the project. We met with Peter 

Graham, the managing director of Esso Highlands, the lead company of the PNG LNG project. The first LNG 

deliveries are scheduled to begin in 2014. So far 80 per cent of the project construction is delivered. There are 

currently over 19,000 people working on the project. As Mr Graham points out, for many of the PNG workers on 

the project this was their first foray into work, particularly in the resources sector. To support these workers, over 

1.6 million hours and 280 million kina was provided for training to help them develop the skills needed for the 

project. Significantly, the total direct cash flow to the PNG government and landowners from the LNG project is 

estimated at $US31.7 billion, or 114 billion kina, over the 30-year life of the project. We also had the opportunity 

to visit Mick Curtain's remarkable Motukea project, which will be a great asset for the whole region. 

During our time in Port Moresby we met with various local community groups. Two organisations that stood 

out were the Australian funded Australia-Pacific Technical College and Ginigoada Bisnis Development 

Foundation. APTC, a Howard government initiative, is part of an AusAID funded Pacific program that provides 

high-quality technical training. The Ginigoada Bisnis Development Foundation conducts five programs aimed at 

empowering youth through developing skills such as basic literacy, financial literacy, pre-employment skills and 

development programs. This is critical in PNG as there is a massive shortfall in job opportunities for high school 

graduates, with over 60 per cent having no further education or training. These programs highlight the opportunity 

for the Australian government to support simple but effective opportunities for people in developing countries to 

help themselves. 

When I visited PNG previously, I saw first-hand the dire need for better maternal and child healthcare. 

Currently, PNG has the highest mortality rate in childbirth in the Asia-Pacific, where less than 40 per cent of 

women deliver their babies under skilled supervision. The recent budget increases in health are an important step 

forward. I am also proud that AusAID is providing more than $100 million in the 2012-13 financial year. This 

contributes to the essential training of midwives, community health workers and nurses, the distribution of 

essential medical supplies and the immunisation of children. I again visited the Port Moresby General Hospital, 

where Australia is converting our aid money into important health outcomes for the community—words easily 

said but actions that save lives, change lives and give families genuine support. I take this opportunity to 

congratulate the new chairman, Sir Theo (George) Constantinou, and his hospital board members, Kathy 

Johnston, deputy chairman, John Mangos of Digicel and Peter Graham, among others, on their work to upgrade 

Port Moresby Hospital. 

WaterAid, a non-government organisation that improves access to water, sanitation and hygiene in the 

Highlands, is also having a positive impact. Their country convenor, Rick Steele, described in great detail their 

project in the Sepik, where they have completed work on a water supply and sanitation system for eight remote 

villages. So far they have built more than 1,000 toilets in addition to showers and rainwater tanks in eight primary 

schools. In conjunction with both local government and church groups, WaterAid is providing a fundamental 

service in PNG, where only 40 per cent of the population have healthy water supplies and sanitation. Currently 

Australia only spends one per cent of its aid program on sanitation and this figure needs to be lifted. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


We also had the opportunity to visit Lae in the Highlands and speak with Governor of Morobe Kelly Naru to 

see the amazing progress occurring in the region. One of the most interesting organisations we inspected was the 

Lae City Mission's Suambu Plantation, a 150-acre fruit plantation that has become the home for up to 150 

homeless and underprivileged youth who come to Suambu seeking a second chance in life and looking for 

vocational and agricultural training and employment opportunities. The mission feeds, clothes and provides 

accommodation and medical treatment for these youth free of charge. They are then assisted to find permanent 

employment with their new skills, which are in high demand currently in Lae. 

Our week-long tour of Papua New Guinea this year has given me a greater sense of optimism. The new world 

of possibilities provided by the large development projects funded by the resources boom and the new focus of 

Prime Minister Peter O'Neill's government as they continue to tackle transparency in government, infrastructure 

projects and education and health in the country are highlighting the way forward for one of our youngest and 

most exciting regional neighbours. It was also great to meet up with Rimbink Pato, the Minister for Foreign 

Affairs and Immigration, who spoke to us about progress with dual citizenship in Papua New Guinea and the 

current situation on Manus Island and reiterated Prime Minister O'Neill's strong views about the need for 

Australia to offer PNG citizens the same ETA visa rights as we do for some 40 other countries around the world. 

Finally, I would be remiss not to mention the recent visit to Papua New Guinea by Queensland Premier 

Campbell Newman. States can play an important role in supporting our near neighbours, and it is clear that 

Campbell and Prime Minister O'Neill were able to quickly agree on some key areas of support, with policing and 

health at the forefront. The proposed hospital at Daru, together with Queensland's support, will allow the highest 

calibre in-country treatment in the fight against drug-resistant tuberculosis, an outcome important for both the 

people of PNG and the Torres Strait. 

Australia has important obligations in assisting our regional friends and neighbours, not in a patronising way 

but as a genuine friend. I am honoured as an Australian that we have such good friends—indeed, such steadfast 

friends—as Papua New Guinea. 

Newcastle: Economy 

Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (20:46): It is an interesting time in my city, the city of Newcastle, a time of 

ongoing economic diversification and transition. With another regional city, Geelong, facing a significant threat to 

their local economy with the recent announcement by Ford, it is worth comparing our two cities and revisiting the 

way Newcastle responded to the closure of its then major employer, the BHP steelworks, in 1999. Just like the car 

industry, the steel industry received considerable investment and subsidies from the federal government over 

many years, and, just like the car industry, those subsidies sustained the operation of our steel industry for some 

time. But, while governments can invest, it is companies that make the commercial decisions about how these 

subsidies are applied, and it is my view that in both these industries too little was done too late. Innovating, 

driving new markets and supply chain integration are key outcomes of business decisions, and in both cases these 

companies could have done more earlier to avoid the final closures. 

Just like the future closure of Ford's operation in three years time, we in Newcastle had prior knowledge of the 

intended closure of BHP. With government, we had time to plan for this major event, an event many 

commentators said would be a catastrophe for our region, but we used that time wisely. We planned for the 

reskilling of our workforce and ensured that support services were provided to the BHP workforce facing 

termination, just as the Gillard government is doing now. And, as the Gillard government and the Victorian 

government have announced assistance funds, we at the time received structural adjustment funding of $20 

million each from the state and federal governments. 

While the federal allocation under Howard went to individual enterprises, the New South Wales contribution 

under Bob Carr was directed at the relocation and establishment of the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle. Of 

the individual enterprise approach, two stand out: the development of the marina in Newcastle and the 

development of the Stuart piano. The former was a key example of low-risk, long-term diversification. It 

complemented well the activities of the Port of Newcastle and the activities of the Honeysuckle Development 

Corporation, which, under federal Labor's Building Better Cities program, was redeveloping former industrial 

harbourside lands. The marina has added great vibrancy to our city and continues today to sustain employment 

and leisure related activities, particularly tourism. 

The piano was a somewhat high-risk enterprise but highly innovative. The Stuart piano is now world renowned 

and continues its niche manufacturing—just. The global downturn and the high Australian dollar have had an 

impact, but the Stuart piano has achieved well-deserved acclaim and hopefully will receive the commercial 

support it deserves in future. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


But investment into the CSIRO Energy Centre is where the real diversification and economic future success 

came for Newcastle. Last week, CSIRO Newcastle announced a $13 million Future Grid Cluster research 

collaboration with four universities, including the University of Newcastle. That will provide a framework to 

assist the electricity sector to make an estimated $240 million worth of decisions in the next two decades, 

decisions that CSIRO predicts could involve 20 different energy sources and technologies and require sector 

capacity across the nation to plan and design the most efficient low-emissions electricity grid for Australia. Add 

that to the work of Ausgrid, federal Labor's Smart Grid Smart City program, and add to that too under the federal 

government's ARENA the work of CSIRO to improve the best possible solar forecasting for the electricity system 

to boost levels of solar power on the grid and you are starting to understand the potential this has developed for 

our city. Add to that the bid by local industry in partnership with local research institutes for Newcastle to be an 

energy industry innovation precinct and the real long-term value of that $20 million by Bob Carr's Labor 

government makes amazing economic sense. 

I note the Prime Minister today announced the location of the administration headquarters for DisabilityCare 

Australia would be located in Geelong. This decision by the Gillard Labor government provides for the city of 

Geelong and its people an embedded federal function to anchor services and to grow the disability service sector, 

related expertise and research and product development and innovation. 

Key to our region's success has been the ability of Newcastle to collaborate and pursue innovation in 

manufacturing and research. Forging strong partnerships is central. In that way the role of the University of 

Newcastle and the Hunter Institute of TAFE cannot be underestimated. I note it was a New South Wales Labor 

government that granted autonomy to our regional university back in 1965 and our current Labor government has 

invested $22 million to provide new facilities to our TAFE. I have no doubt that the highly regarded Deakin 

University and the Gordon Institute of TAFE in Geelong will be key partners in Geelong's future prosperity, 

especially if Labor governments are there to keep investing. 

We had another weapon in our structural adjustment armoury and that was the Hunter Valley Research 

Foundation, founded in 1956 after the devastating Maitland floods of 1955. The Hunter Valley Research 

Foundation, originally funded by community donations and given major annual sponsorship from the then NSW 

Labor government, has been integral to informing decisions regarding the regional economy. The economic and 

social research findings of this foundation have guided the development of the Hunter region for decades. The 

foundation has become the standard bearer for regional research, playing an indispensable role in data collection 

and research relevant to our unique regional needs. It has also produced a wellbeing survey—the first in this 

nation. For regions such as the Hunter, an understanding of our local economy, our population, our health, our 

manufacturing, our education and our wellbeing is pivotal to achieving growth and prosperity. They therefore play 

an important part in guiding future investments and strategies. No other institute, including the ABS, provides this 

information or resource. To the people of Geelong, I encourage them to consider how they might set up an 

equivalent organisation for their region. 

Another key factor to our resilience was industrial harmony. That industrial harmony can be attributed to the 

leadership of our unions and the leadership provided by the NSW Industrial Relations Commission in Newcastle 

post the Hawke-Keating accord, a harmony which has continued under Fair Work Australia, which has an office 

in Newcastle thanks to Julia Gillard and a federal Labor government. This industrial harmony and regional 

approach has underpinned the resilience of our manufacturers, particularly the coal mining industry, adding 

further insulation to our economy. 

The port of Newcastle is indeed the largest exporter of coal in the world, reaching 121.9 million tonnes last 

year—a record which it will eclipse this year. But the port now handles more than 40 commodities, including 

alumina, wheat, steel, cement and fertiliser. That sort of diversification has been part of our success story. Imports 

of mining related heavy equipment, fuels and other bulk liquids have increased with the port of Newcastle now 

handling over $20 billion in trade annually and still growing. 

So what have these factors had in common? Great leaders is a big part of the answer in many cases. While I 

will always be grateful for the leadership provided by the previous Vice-Chancellor of the University of 

Newcastle Professor Nick Saunders and for his contribution to our region's success and to the incumbent Vice- 

Chancellor Caroline McMillen for the way she too has embraced the potential and aspirations of our region, I also 

acknowledge the contribution and vision of TAFE Directors Gaye Hart and Phil Cox. Also, tonight I pay 

particular tribute to three wonderful leaders who are all retiring in 2013—Gary Webb, CEO of the Port of 

Newcastle; Dr Wej Paradise, CEO of Hunter Valley Research Foundation; and, Deputy President of Fair Work 

Australia, Rod Harrison. Each of you leaves a marvellous legacy to the people of Newcastle and the Hunter 

region. For the past 12 years I have had the great pleasure of working with all three of you. Your professionalism 

and dedication, your absolute commitment to Newcastle and your deep understanding of the part your 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


organisation played in the growth of the local economy and the future welfare of the people was in each case 

exceptional. Gentlemen, I salute you, and I wish you all great personal satisfaction and happiness in your 

retirement. You each made Newcastle a better place. Thank you. 

Finally, the other common denominator in the ongoing resilience and diversification of our regional economy 

was the timely and enduring support extended to Newcastle and the Hunter by both federal and state Labor 

governments. In fact, the greatest threats to our ongoing prosperity are Liberal governments. In New South Wales, 

the Liberal government has denied the Port of Newcastle the opportunity to further diversify through the 

development of a container terminal. This decision is a slap in the face to Newcastle and to our future economic 

growth. It also denies the people of New South Wales the development of new markets and new supply chains, 

particularly in the agriculture and food production sectors, and the economic and employment growth that this 

would produce. At the federal level, the continuation of industrial harmony in my region is threatened by any 

prospect that a Tony Abbott-led government would gain power in the September elections. And if a climatechange 

denier—as Mr Abbott is—became PM, our clean energy future would be severely hampered too. Under 

the Howard government, investment into regional Australia meant the regional rorts that saw obscene pork 

barrelling while seats like mine were missed out entirely. So my message to the good people of Geelong from the 

Newcastle experience is: put your faith in Labor governments, who genuinely put their faith in you and in your 

economic success. And be very afraid of a future in your region under a Liberal government, particularly one led 

by Tony Abbott. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms O'Neill): The question is: 

That grievances be noted. 

Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (20:56): I rise tonight to talk about our agricultural industries and to ask the trade 

minister to ensure that any decisions he makes between now and election time are very much in the national 

interest and especially in the interests of our agriculture producers. Our agricultural producers are doing it tough. 

There are a number of things—adverse weather conditions, the dollar, the carbon tax, the re-regulation of the 

workplace—which are working against producers at this time. I will give you a couple of examples of the types of 

issues that they are confronting. We have dairy farmers in the south-west of Victoria in my electorate who, due to 

late rainfall, are now facing having to feed their dairy herds for the next three or four months, paying feed bills of 

$15,000 to $20,000 a month additional to what they would be normally paying at this time of year and putting 

extra costs on their business. And obviously with the dollar where it is, demand for our agricultural commodities 

is soft and prices are soft, making it harder and harder for farmers to operate in the current climate. On top of this 

they are facing additional costs of anywhere between $5,000 and $10,000 because of the carbon tax. There is also 

a carbon tax cost on the processors they are selling their milk to—for instance, Murray Goulburn is facing a 

carbon tax bill of up to $15 million. When you look at what has happened in Europe under the emissions trading 

scheme there, the dairy processors in Europe have been given access to free permits: they are allocated free 

permits for up to 93 per cent of their emissions. So not only do the European farmers get subsidies, but their ETS 

is also subsidised in their favour—whereas our farmers at home get no subsidies and face a carbon tax which 

gives them no relief whatsoever. The carbon tax is also having a significant impact on our beef industry. One of 

the abattoirs in my electorate, Midfield Meats, is now sending carcases by air to the Middle East to have them 

processed over there because the carbon tax has added additional costs to doing that business here in Australia. So 

they are now airfreighting the carcases to the Middle East because it is cheaper to process them over there. When 

you combine that with what has happened in the north of Australia as a result of the live export ban and the fact 

that that is still washing through Australia's beef industry, prices are obviously down and the dollar has impacted 

on that and we have seen a real decline in the profitability of our beef farmers. 

Why do I mention this and also refer to the trade minister having to act in the national interest? I do this 

because there is a chance that we could see a free trade agreement concluded with Japan before the election on 14 

September and there is a remote, outside chance that we could see one concluded with South Korea. If the Japan 

one is concluded, the trade minister has to make sure that it is not one that is done for the sake of expediency. 

Japan is our largest dairy market. We have to ensure that, if we are to conclude a free trade agreement with Japan, 

our dairy farmers and our dairy processors get proper access into that market. It has to be proper access that 

reduces tariffs and means that we get into that market at a lower cost than what we are now. 

I call on the government to make sure that they liaise closely with the Australian dairy industry in finalising any 

deal when it comes to dairy in that Japan free trade agreement. I would ask that they do the same with our beef 

sector. Obviously when it comes to our beef sector, the free trade agreement that the government should look at is 

the one that South Korea has negotiated with the US. That has given improved access to US beef producers into 

the South Korean market and, over time, the tariffs reduce down to zero per cent. We have to ensure that, when it 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


comes to Japan and, in the future, when it comes to South Korea, we get access to those markets similar to what 

the US has into the South Korean market. 

We cannot say, 'Sorry, we are not prepared to negotiate on auto,' or 'Sorry, we are not prepared to give any 

ground on investor-state dispute resolution,' as we will give up seeking proper access to those markets for our 

farmers. We absolutely have to ensure that when we negotiate on behalf of our farmers with Japan and with South 

Korean, we do what is in the national interest, that we do not do what might be the case and think, 'Wouldn't it be 

good to get a signature on an agreement before an election,' because this would make the government look good 

but it would not be in the interest of the country as a whole. So I call on the trade minister to ensure that he does 

negotiate in good faith. 

There are real outcomes that can be achieved. If you look at, for instance, what New Zealand has achieved in 

their negotiations with China—and this is another agreement that we need to get on the table—you see that the 

New Zealand dairy industry now has a tariff advantage over Australia of over eight per cent when it comes to 

getting access for their dairy product into the Chinese market. We have to put the China free trade agreement back 

on the table as well and we have to make sure that we can get access there. But that is something that will have to 

wait until after the election. 

The one which might occur—and there is a real chance that it could occur before the election—is with Japan. 

What we have to ensure there is that the trade minister does the right thing by the nation. I would like to put the 

trade minister on notice: we will be watching if you do look to conclude an agreement before the election and we 

will be making sure that you are liaising properly with the NFF, with the beef industry and with the dairy industry 

and ensuring that they are comfortable with any agreement that is finalised. If they are not comfortable with that 

and if they are excluded in an endgame, which is all about getting a political outcome, then we will make sure that 

the Australian people know what that agreement is about—it is about political expediency and it is not about what 

is in the best interests of our nation. 

At a time like this, our dairy producers, our beef producers and all of our agricultural sector need a government 

which is fully committed to reducing the cost of exporting just as they need a government which is fully 

committed to reducing the cost of production domestically. 

Sadly, I think what are going to need is a change of government to see that occur domestically and what we 

have to make sure of between now and election day is that we do not have a government which comes and makes 

the cost of exporting remain the same because they think it is in their political interest to get an outcome on a deal. 

In summary, what we have to make sure of is that this government between now and the election day does not 

do anything, because once a deal is signed, they cannot be unravelled and it is almost impossible to go back to the 

table and push for extra access to push for new sectors to be put on the table. That will all have to be postponed 

until the Trans-Pacific partnership negotiations take place seriously. Once you have set a precedent in bilateral 

FTAs in the region, it is going to make it harder for us to negotiate meaningful access through that regional 

process, so, Mr Trade Minister, be careful; we are watching. 

Gas Reserves 

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (21:06): Tonight I want to talk about Australia's natural gas reserves and 

how they can be best used to generate Australian jobs and provide energy to Australian homes. In a few short 

weeks, parliament will be over and we will return to our electorates. The campaign for the 2013 election will 

begin in earnest and debate will be joined on the issues around which the next government will be formed. 

Elections are always a crowded place for discussing detailed policy, but one issue that is worthy of an important 

national debate is how we best use our bountiful reserves of natural gas to advance the national interest. 

Australia is a leader in the supply of natural gas to world markets. Growth in Australian gas and LNG 

development is set to continue for many years. The Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics reports that our 

LNG exports reach 20 million tonnes, worth $12.4 billion in 2011-12. We will be the third largest exporter in the 

Asia-Pacific region and the fourth largest in the world. Exports are forecast to exceed 23 million tonnes this year 

as Western Australia's Pluto facility reaches its full capacity. 

Seven major LNG projects are under construction representing more than 60 million tonnes of additional 

capacity and investment in access of $175 billion. When these projects reach capacity, Australia could be the 

world's No. 1 LNG exporter by around 2017. Yet more gas projects are in the planning, including the Equus 

project off Western Australia and the Arrow and Browse projects in Queensland. 

Australia's rapid rise in the global LNG production is due to a number of factors: strong demand from our Asia- 

Pacific trading partners has seen new projects underwritten by some of the world's largest supplier agreements 

with customers in Japan, China, Korea and India. 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


The International Energy Agency projects strong global demand for natural gas to 2035. The proportion of 

Australia's natural gas that has been sold for exports has increased rapidly since 1990. By 2034-35, gas exports are 

predicted to be more than double Australia's domestic consumption level. In the meantime, New South Wales 

long-term gas contracts will be expiring at the end of 2016-17. This means that New South Wales must now 

negotiate new supply contracts at a time when demand for gas on the eastern market will be increasing, largely 

due to export. 

Heavy demand for natural gas is placing pressure on the price we pay. Manufacturing Australia have raised the 

concern that 'the tight demand and export focus are rapidly driving local prices towards the Japanese net-back 

levels. 

Over the last three years, ACIL Tasman and others have consistently raised price forecasts as domestic users 

struggle to extend contracts in this very tight environment. Some forecast a rapid doubling of prices, which would 

make Australia one of the most expensive major gas export markets. This is no small issue for industry, and no 

small issue for households. Manufacturers consume around 32 per cent of our domestic gas. Electricity generation 

accounts for another 29 per cent, and mining for 23 per cent. Meanwhile, we have been encouraging households 

to move to less-carbon-intensive energy sources, including natural gas. 

An increase in gas prices will have a dramatic impact on these sectors. Manufacturing Australia says: 

If not managed will, substantial sections of Australian manufacturing will be negatively impacted by this near term gas 

crisis, to the point of reduced production, investment and jobs. 

We estimate that 40% of our domestic chemicals industry, 25% of our non-ferrous metals industry and 10% of our other 

manufacturers (including building products) and 2% of our wood paper and printing industries are at risk. 

This is why there is a call for governments to rethink their approach to our gas supply. In an address to the 

National Press Club recently the head of Dow Chemicals, Andrew Liveris, observed that giving primacy to the 

export of our raw materials over other considerations is leading to an imbalance in the Australian economy. We 

use a shorthand: the mining boom. 

He drew a contrast with the United States, where the discovery and exploitation of shale gas is being used to 

restart their manufacturing industry. Indeed, over 500,000 new manufacturing jobs have been created as a result, 

and millions and millions of dollars are being reinvested in new manufacturing capacity. He makes the point that 

Australia has to potential to value-add our raw materials, particularly our gas, to increase jobs and national wealth. 

He says: 

It gives us what may be once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a manufacturing renaissance. But only if we make the best 

use of this vital resource. 

Unfortunately, this is not a given. 

Some still believe the best thing you can do with a cubic foot of gas is burn it as a fuel, whether for transportation or 

electricity. 

But do that and you get power out of it only once. A one-time value add. 

Others want you to export it. 

Well, I am all for exporting natural gas—in the solid form, not the liquid. 

Here is what I mean by "solid form": 

If you do not bum that cubic foot of gas, export it, or sell it immediately... 

If you instead take it and use it in advanced chemical processes... 

If you use modern technology and convert it into high-value chemicals, plastics, composites, materials, and other high-tech 

products... 

Then you do not just get a one-time value add. 

You get, on average, an eight-times value add across the entire economy. This is the work we do at Dow, every day. 

There are many within the Australian business community who are calling for a rethink of policy. They are calling 

for an introduction, for example, of a national interest test for the granting of export licences for gas. Others say 

that we should be ensuring that there is a secure supply of reasonably priced natural gas for domestic and 

industrial purposes. They say, further, that reserving a percentage of gas for national use is in the national interest. 

The DomGas Alliance, a group formed to push for such change, suggests that a 15 per cent domestic gas 

reservation policy is in the national interest. 

These are not fanciful suggestions. They deserve serious consideration. Indeed, in Canada a national interest 

test has been introduced. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the United States, as I have already mentioned, have 

domestic reservations and, closer to home, Western Australia has a 15 per cent reservation for gas from new fields 

coming on line. These are the sorts of debates that we should be having. These are the sorts of debates that I will 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


be having with my Labor colleagues. These are the sorts of debates that I will be raising in my electorate in the 

lead-up to the 2013 September election. 

As I said at the outset, elections are always crowded places for discussing detailed policy, but this issue is 

worthy of an important national debate. When we look across the Pacific and we see countries such as the United 

States—once seen as a basket case for manufacturing and manufacturing jobs—seeing over 500 million jobs 

being created and billions of dollars being invested in new manufacturing capacity, we say that there is a way 

forward powered by our bountiful supply of natural gas. As Mr Liveris said in his National Press Club speech: 

'You burn it, you use it once; you export it, you get the export value once; but if you look at our natural gas supply 

not only as a source of energy but as a feedstock for complex petrochemical and other manufacturing industries 

then the world is our oyster.' 

Elections are crowded places for discussing detailed policy, and I have no doubt that we will have a heated 

debate around the pricing of other energy sources, but I wager that, when we look down the track and we think of 

the policy considerations that we can have that will have a lasting impact and the right impact on the way that we 

use our domestic resources, this will be a lot more important than debates, for example, around carbon pricing. 

How we use our bountiful supplies of natural gas to advance the national interest, to create good sustainable jobs 

now and into the future—jobs not just for now but jobs into the future—and how we use our bountiful supply of 

natural gas to transform our domestic use and our industrial use to a cleaner energy future are the sorts of debates 

that we need to be having in the course of this federal election. These are the issues that I will be raising, as I said, 

in my party room and in my electorate, because they are too important and this is too important an opportunity to 

let this issue be put aside. 

Electorate of Hasluck: Aircraft Noise 

Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (21:16): My electorate is located in the eastern suburbs of Perth, an area that is in 

close proximity to the Perth airport. Whilst my community has been fortunate to benefit from both tourism and the 

mining boom, particularly through employment for many residents in my electorate and the many small 

businesses that have been created as a result, the mining boom has also brought a significant increase in the 

number of aircraft flying in and out of the Perth airport. This and the changes to the flight paths in 2008 have had 

a substantial impact on residents of several suburbs of my electorate. I want to clarify that this is not a concern 

that has emerged recently; in fact, it is an issue that residents in my community have been contending with since 

2008 or earlier. 

I want to commend my colleagues, the member for Swan and the member for Pearce, who have been fighting 

tirelessly for not only their residents but also all Perth residents affected by aircraft noise. Over the last seven 

years they have been strong advocates for noise amelioration for residents affected by aircraft noise. Although this 

is not a new issue, that certainly does not detract or lessen the noise pollution that the residents of my community 

are experiencing. Residents of South Guildford, Guildford, Caversham, High Wycombe, Maddington, 

Woodbridge and the Hills are all experiencing loud aircraft noise, and, by all reports, the noise continues to 

worsen as the capacity of the airport grows and the number of flights each day increases. 

I would like to share what aircraft noise actually means for the residents of these suburbs, many of whom have 

lived in their homes before the flight paths were altered and this issue emerged. Aircraft noise is not a background 

rumble like that of a radio providing friendly commentary; rather, the noise the residents of my community are 

experiencing is so loud that it is keeping them awake at night and is making it impossible to conduct 

conversations over the noise. 

I can attest to just how loud this can be. In the last couple of weeks I have been out in my electorate doorknocking 

in the suburb or Woodbridge. Whilst I was speaking to some residents I was forced on several occasions 

to pause the conversation mid-sentence for half a minute while a flight passed by overhead. It would simply have 

been impossible to be heard above the roar of the aircraft. This experience is so renown that it is known as the 

'Guildford pause'. Recently I was at one of my local schools for a service, where the service had to be stopped 

during the space of a few minutes to ensure that the guest speaker was heard above the thunderous roar of the 

aircraft flying directly overhead. 

Unfortunately for those it affects, aircraft noise is a significant concern. It has a genuine impact on the lives of 

those living or working under flight paths. It is disappointing that unfortunately, historically, this is a concern that 

federal government has been reluctant to become involved with, particularly when it comes to Perth airport. 

Despite considerable community support for public consultation around the changes that would ameliorate aircraft 

noise, aircraft noise is treated differently in Perth to other capital cities. Perth residents have been denied the 

opportunity to have changes implemented that would offer benefits, such as aircraft noise insulation schemes or, 

at worst, curfews. Residents in Sydney and Adelaide benefit from aircraft noise insulation schemes and other 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


noise amelioration measures, but Perth continues to receive no such schemes or curfews. Residents are currently 

forced to foot the bill for any efforts that they have made to reduce aircraft noise, unlike residents in Sydney and 

Adelaide, who receive government assistance. 

One resident of mine living in High Wycombe recently wrote to me in disbelief. He and his wife are desperate 

to reduce the amount of noise they are experiencing while inside their house. They have investigated the option of 

having insulation put into their roof but have been quoted nearly $6,000 to do so. I cannot imagine that this 

gentleman and his wife, like many residents in my community, have a mere $6,000 easily accessible to have such 

a measure installed. 

This government has rebuffed Perth residents' efforts to have their experiences recognised in a way that would 

provide them with some relief. In fact, it was only a few months ago in this place that a private members' bill, the 

Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill, was presented by the member for Pearce and the member for Swan 

and was voted down by this Labor government. It is disappointing that this Labor government ignored the pleas of 

residents not only in my electorate but also in the electorates of Swan and Pearce, to vote with the Independents. 

It would seem that there has been little public consultation on or consideration of this important issue, and 

unfortunately the residents who are most affected by these changes do not feel that they are able to contribute to 

the decision-making process. This is attested to by the fact that, since the flight path changes in 2008, residents 

have not been successful in achieving any kind of noise amelioration. 

As a community, we need to come together and have a serious and practical conversation about how best to 

manage concerns around the aircraft noise. I know that some of my residents are calling for a curfew to allow 

them to have a reprieve in the evenings from the constant roar of the flights, which are sometimes only minutes 

apart. But, rather than jumping to an all-or-nothing approach, it is important that we consider every available 

option to manage this issue while providing assistance to those affected by aircraft noise. It is for this reason that I 

sit on the Perth Airport Aircraft Noise Management Consultative Committee and the Community Aviation 

Consultation Group. I want to ensure that the residents of my community have every possibility of having their 

voices heard and to thoroughly investigate every option available. 

I recently wrote to the Perth Airport Aircraft Noise Management Consultative Committee and the Community 

Aviation Consultation Group, asking them to consider placing a temporary noise monitor in High Wycombe to 

determine the full impact of the aircraft noise on those residents living in High Wycombe. I would also like to add 

that, while working with these groups, I have encountered some passionate locals and community organisations, 

including the Guildford Association, who have been community champions for this issue. Members of the 

Guildford Association have undertaken extensive research into this issue and have been invaluable in the fight to 

achieve a positive outcome for our region. 

Currently, there is a review of the noise monitors for 2014, and as part of this process I have submitted a 

recommendation for one to be placed in High Wycombe. I am aware that Guildford has a permanent noise 

monitor and should continue to have a permanent noise monitor, due to the large impact that aircraft noise has on 

residents. But Guildford is not the only suburb that is affected by aircraft noise, and often it is different flight 

paths causing concerns to different areas of my electorate. It is important that we also monitor those impacts in 

other areas such as High Wycombe, which is in close proximity to the airport. 

I want to emphasise that aircraft noise is treated differently in Perth to other capital cities. Residents in Sydney 

and Adelaide benefit from aircraft noise insulation schemes and other amelioration measures, but Perth receives 

nothing. 

In fact, I note that in this year's budget was a $5-million amount set aside for noise insulation measures for a 

church building. Unfortunately, there has been no such recognition for anywhere in Perth. Due to the mining 

Western Australians enjoy and the opportunity of flexible employment—many within my electorate are part of the 

fly-in fly-out community—these individuals and families benefit from increased flight opportunities out of Perth. 

As long as we have a strong mining industry and a healthy population, there will be a high demand for air 

travel in Western Australia. But in no way should this mean that the people on the ground living in our 

community are forced to ensure unbearable noise levels. I believe there should be a noise insulation scheme in 

Perth protecting residents most affected by aircraft noise. Residents of my local communities deserve the benefits 

of the same measures in other places such as Sydney and Adelaide. 


Federation Chamber adjourned at 27:21 

FEDERATION CHAMBER


QUESTIONS IN WRITING 

Resources, Energy and Tourism: Staffing 

(Question No. 1443) 

Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 20 March 2013: 

In respect of Program 3 of his department, 

(a) what total number of staff are currently employed, and how many are (i) full time, (ii) part time, and (iii) casual, 

(b) what is the current number of salary bands available, including Senior Executive Service, and the salary range for each, 

(c) what was the total cost of staffing for (i) 2011-12, and (ii) 2012-13 (to date), and 

(d) what proportion (in dollars and as a percentage) of program support funding was/is allocated to the implementation of the 

National Long-Term Tourism Strategy for (i) 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13, (iii) 2013-14, (iv) 2014-15, and (v) 2015-16. 

Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 

(a) As at 20 March 2013, a total of 80 staff were employed by the Tourism Division, comprising: 

(i) 63 full-time staff. 

(ii) 9 part-time staff. 

(iii) 8 casual staff (of these, 7 were full-time and 1 was part-time). 

(b) Tourism Division can employ staff ranging from APS2 to SES Band 2. Salary ranges for these classifications are outlined 

below. 

Classification Salary Range 

APS2 $46,680 - $52,467 

APS3 $53,166 - $58,204 

APS4 $59,256 - $65,098 

APS5 $66,092 - $70,744 

APS6 $72,729 - $83,106 

Executive Level 1 $92,117 - $100,814 


SES Band 1 $150,000 - $212,000 

SES Band 2 $213,000 - $265,000 

(c) (i) Employee expenses for Tourism Division in 2011-12 were $9.16 million. 

(ii) Employee expenses for Tourism Division in 2012-13 (as at 28 February 2013) were $5.97 million. 

(d) Consistent with broader Australian Public Service practice, the Tourism Division's operating budget is applied flexibly to 

meet ongoing and emerging priorities. Implementation of the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy underpins much of the 

work undertaken within the Division. 

Resources, Energy and Tourism: Staffing 



In respect of Tourism Research Australia, 

(a) what was/is the total operating budget for (i) 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13, (iii) 2013-14, (iv) 2014-15, and (v) 2015-16, 

(b) of that, what is the (i) Commonwealth contribution, (ii) state tourism organisation contribution, and (iii) other external 

revenue, for each of the same periods, 

(c) what total number of staff are currently employed, and how many are (i) full time, (ii) part time, and (iii) casual, 

(d) what is the current number of salary bands available, including Senior Executive Service, and the salary range for each, 

and 

(e) what was/is the total cost of staffing for (i) 2011-12, and (ii) 2012-13 (to date). 


(a) (i) TRA operating budget in 2011-12 - $8.37 million. 

(ii) TRA operating budget in 2012-13 - $9.87 million. 

TRA operating budgets beyond 2012-13 have not been determined at this stage. 

(b) A breakdown of TRA operating budgets for 2011-12 and 2012-13 is provided below. 

2011-12 

Commonwealth Appropriation $5.37 m 

States and Territories $2.88 m 

QUESTIONS IN WRITING


2011-12 

Other External Revenue $0.12 m 

Total $8.37 m 

2012-13 

Commonwealth Appropriation $6.97 m 

States and Territories $2.77 m 

Other External Revenue $0.13 m 

Total $9.87 m 

(c) As at 20 March 2013, a total of 24 staff were employed by TRA. A staffing break down is provided below. 

(i) 20 full-time staff. 

(ii) 2 part-time staff. 

(iii) 2 casual staff (both working full time). 

(d) Tourism Research Australia can employ staff ranging from APS2 to SES Band 1. Salary ranges for these classifications 

are outlined below. 

Classification Salary Range 

APS2 $46,680 - $52,467 

APS3 $53,166 - $58,204 

APS4 $59,256 - $65,098 

APS5 $66,092 - $70,744 

APS6 $72,729 - $83,106 



SES Band 1 $150,000 - $212,000 

(e) Employee expenses for Tourism Research Australia in 2011-12 were $2.73 million. 

Employee expenses for Tourism Research Australia in 2012-13 (as at February 2013) were $1.90 million. 

National Long-Term Tourism Strategy 



In respect of the Government's $6 million election commitment for the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy, (a) what 

sum was/will be allocated in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12, (iii) 2012-13, (iv) 2013-14, (v) 2014-15, (vi) 2015-16, and (vii) outside 

the forward estimates, and (b) how will it be allocated to each working group. 


(a) (i) 2010-11 $nil. 

(ii) 2011-12 $1.4 million. 

(iii) 2012-13 $1.4 million. 

(iv) 2013-14 $1.4 million. 

(v) 2014-15 $1.8 million. 

(vi) 2015-16 $nil. 

(vii) No funding has been allocated outside the forward estimates. 

(b) The allocation of funds to the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy working groups under Tourism 2020 is determined 

by Tourism Ministers, with some funds retained by the Department to support the implementation of the Strategy. 

An outline of funding provided to Working Groups since the inception of the Strategy is provided in the response to 

Parliamentary Question 1446. 

Tourism 



In respect of his department's commitment to deliver the provision of accurate, timely and effective policy advice to the 

Minister and Government on tourism related issues, (a) what number of speeches has his department drafted for (i) his use, 

and (ii) the use of other Government Members of Parliament or staff, (b) which Government Members of Parliament have had 

his department draft speeches for them, (c) what number of media releases has his department drafted for (i) his use, and (ii) 

the use of other Government Members of Parliament or staff, which Government Members of Parliament have had his 



department draft media releases for them, and (d) what total number of briefing notes were sent to his office from the Tourism 

Division in (i) 2008-09, (ii) 2009-10, (iii) 2010-11, (iv) 2011-12, and (v) 2012-13 (to date). 


(a) (i), (ii) & b) For the 2012-13 financial year to date the department has drafted 49 Speeches. The Department does not 

record who delivers each speech but is aware that some of these are delivered by other members of Parliament representing 

the Minister 

(c) (i) & (ii) For the 2012-13 financial year to date the department has drafted 145 Media Releases. The Department does not 

record who the media release is for but is aware that some of these are provided to other members of Parliament for 

distribution. 

(d) (i) 444 (ii) 528 (iii) 523 (iv) 564 (v) 446 

Tourism Australia: Staffing 



In respect of Tourism Australia, (a) what total number of staff are currently employed, and how many are (i) full time, (ii) 

part time, and (iii) casual, (b) what is the current number of salary bands available, including Senior Executive Service, and 

the salary range for each, and (c) what was the total cost of staffing for (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12, and (iii) 2012-13 (to date). 


(a) There were a total of 210 staff employed at Tourism Australia as at 20 March 2013: 

(i) full time – 182 

(ii) part time – 28 

(iii) casual – 0 

(b) There are seven bands with a salary range of: 

Band Minimum Maximum 

7 $309,000 $355,000 

6 $170,000 $270,000 

5 $90,000 $245,000 

4 $62,000 $195,000 

3 $20,000* $141,000 

2 $15,000* $110,000 

1 $0.00 $75,000 

* please note that these are junior staff members in India and China where salary levels and the strong Australian dollar 

impact. 

(c) Total cost of staffing as at 20 March 2013: 

(i) 2010-11 – $26.3 million 

(ii) 2011-12 – $26.4 million 

(iii) 2012-13 (as at 20 March 2013) – $19.5 million 

Tourism Australia 



In respect of Tourism Australia's corporate cost savings measures, in (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011-12, and (d) 2012- 

13 (to date), (i) what number was implemented, (ii) was each measure ongoing or non-ongoing, (iii) what sum did each 

measure save, and (iv) what was the total cost of the measures. 


(a) to (c) Tourism Australia had no formal budget savings measures in 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 

(d) (i) In 2012-13 Tourism Australia reduced support costs through four measures: 

(1) Reduction in contractors and consultants costs 

(ii) Ongoing 

(iii) Over $1 million in savings are forecast in 2012-13. 

(iv) Nil cost to implement 

(2) Implementation of reduced budgets and tighter restrictions on staff travel 

(ii) Ongoing 

(iii) Tourism Australia reduced its staff travel budget by 21% or $722,000 for 2012-13. 




(3) Implementation of a managed print service for onsite printing minimising costs for paper, toners and equipment. 

(ii) Ongoing 

(iii) $100,000 to date (at 20 March 2013. 


Tourism Australia: Staffing 



In respect of Tourism Australia, in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, and (c) 2012-13 (to date), what number of staff have left 

through (i) resignation, (ii) redundancy, and (iii) other, and what total sum was spent on recruitment. 


Year Resignation Redundancy Other Total Recruitment spend 

2010-11 27 2 7 36 $ 448,955 

2011-12 29 5 14 48 $ 215,685 

2012- 2013 (as at 21 

March 2013) 

26 1 5 32 $ 181,780 

Tourism Australia 



What number of premises is leased by Tourism Australia, and (a) what is the (i) per square metre, and (ii) total rental, cost 

per financial year for each premises, and (iii) address of each premises, and (b) in instances where the premises joins another 

agency, what financial contribution is made by that agency. 

Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable Member's question is as follows: 

Copies of the attachments can be obtained from the House of Representatives Table Office. 

Tourism Australia: Events 



In respect of each trade event that Tourism Australia organised or participated in during (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011- 

12, and (d) 2012-13 (to date), (i) what was the name of each event, (ii) where was each event held (country, state, city), and 

(iii) what was the financial cost incurred by Tourism Australia, and (iv) what profit was returned to Tourism Australia. 


a) (i)-(ii) 2009-10 Global Trade Events 

Event Date Country 

OzTalk North America 07/08/09–09/08/09 United States 

India Mega Famil and Workshop (IMFW) 10/08/09–14/08/09 Australia (Gold Coast) 

Corroboree – The Americas 11/09/09–14/09/09 Australia (Adelaide) 

International French Travel Market (IFTM – formerly Top Resa) 22/09/09–25/09/09 France 

Otdykh Leisure Show Moscow 22/09/09–25/09/09 Russia 

Dreamtime 12/10/09–6/10/09 Australia (Sydney) 

Greater China Travel Mission (GCTM) 08/11/09–2/11/09 China 

World Travel Market (WTM) 09/11/09–12/11/09 United Kingdom 

China International Travel Mart (CITM) 19/11/09–22/11/09 China 

The European Incentive, Business Travel & Meetings Exhibition 01/12/09–03/12/09 Spain 

(EIBTM) 

International Luxury Travel Market (ILTM) 07/12/09–10/12/09 France 

Vakantiebeurs (VAK) 12/01/10–17/01/10 Netherlands 

G'Day USA (Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York) 13/01/10–27/01/10 United States 

FITUR 2010 20/01/10–24/01/10 Spain 

FESPO 28/01/10–31/01/10 Switzerland 

Borsa Internazionale del Turismo (BIT) 18/02/10–21/02/10 Italy 

Confex 23/02/10–25/02/10 United Kingdom 

Japan Australia Mission (JAM) 24/02/1025/02/10 Japan 

Korea Travel Mission (KTM) 26/02/10 Japan 

South Africa Workshop 01/03/10–05/03/10 South Africa 




Asia Pacific Incentives & Meetings Expo (AIME) 02/03/10–03/03/10 Australia (Melbourne) 

Internationale Tourismus Börse (ITB) 10/03/10–14/03/10 Germany 

Team Australia Business Events Educational (TABEE) 15/03/10–17/03/10 China 

European New Product Workshop 16/03/10–18/03/10 United Kingdom 

OZTalk New Zealand 19/03/10–21/03/10 New Zealand 

New Product Workshop USA 25/03/10–26/03/10 United States 

'See Australia' Latin Famil Workshop 30/04/10 Australia (Sydney) 

Corroboree Europe 06/05/10–08/05/10 Australia (Melbourne) 

The Worldwide Exhibition for Incentive Travel, Meetings & 

Events (IMEX) 

25/05/10–27/05/10 Germany 

Australian Tourism Exchange (ATE) 29/05/10–04/06/10 Australia (Adelaide) 

b) (i)-(ii) 2010-11 Global Trade Events 


India Travel Mission (ITM) 30/08/10–01/09/10 India 

Japan Australia Mission Down Under (JAM) 06/09/10–08/09/10 Australia 

(Gold Coast) 

Corroboree – The Americas 10/09/10–13/09/10 Australia (Hamilton 

Island) 

PATA Travel Mart 14/09/10–17/09/10 China 

Pacific Area Incentives and Conferences Expo (PAICE) 15/09/10–15/09/10 New Zealand 

South East Asia Mission (SEAM) 20/09/10–22/09/10 Vietnam 

International French Travel Market (IFTM) 21/09/10–24/09/10 France 

Otdykh Leisure Show Moscow 21/09/10–24/09/10 Russia 

Greater China Travel Mission (GCTM) 31/10/10–03/11/10 China 

World Travel Market (WTM) 08/11/10–11/11/10 United Kingdom 

China International Travel Mart (CITM) 18/11/10–21/11/10 China 

The European Incentive, Business Travel & Meetings Exhibition 30/11/10–02/12/10 Spain 

(EIBTM) 

ATEC Meeting Place 02/12/10–02/12/10 Australia (Sydney) 

International Luxury Travel Market (ILTM) 06/12/10–09/12/10 France 

Vakantiebeurs (VAK) 11/01/11–16/01/11 Netherlands 

G'Day USA 15/01/11–29/01/11 United States 

FITUR 19/01/11–23/01/11 Spain 

FESPO 27/01/11–30/01/11 Switzerland 

European New Product Workshop 08/02/11–10/02/11 United Kingdom 

Asia Pacific Incentives & Meetings Expo (AIME) 15/02/11–16/02/11 Australia (Melbourne) 

Borsa Internazionale del Turismo (BIT) 17/02/11–20/02/11 Italy 

Confex 01/03/11–03/03/11 United Kingdom 

Internationale Tourismus Börse (ITB) 09/03/11–13/03/11 Germany 

Australian Tourism Exchange (ATE) 04/04/11–08/04/11 Australia (Sydney) 

Latin Famil Workshop 04/05/11-04/05/11 Australia (Sydney) 

Korea Workshop and Famil 10/05/11-10/05/11 Australia (Melbourne) 

Australia Asia Road Show 12/05/11–26/05/11 Asia 

ATEC Symposium 18/05/11–18/05/11 Australia (Hamilton 

Island) 

The Worldwide Exhibition for Incentive Travel, Meetings & 24/05/11–26/05/11 Germany 

Events (IMEX) 

Corroboree Europe 02/06/11–05/06/11 Australia (Darwin) 

The Americas Meeting & Events Exhibitions (AIBTM) 21/06/11–23/06/11 United States 

c) (i)-(ii) 2011-12 Global Trade Events 

Event Held Country 

India Travel Mission (ITM) 25–28 August 2011 India 

China Incentive, Business Travel & Meetings Exhibition 

(CIBTM) 

30 August – 1 September 2011 China 

Japan Australia Mission (JAM) 31 August – 2 September 2011 Japan 

International French Travel Market (IFTM) 20–23 September 2011 France 

TTG Incontri 6–8 October 2011 Italy 

IMEX America 11–12 October 2011 USA 

European Meetings & Incentive Travel Exchange 17–19 October 2011 UK 



Event Held Country 

Corroboree 2011 – The Americas 29–31 October 2011 Australia 

Korea Travel Mission 3–4 November 2011 South Korea 

Greater China Travel Mission (GCTM) 6–9 November 2011 China 

World Travel Market (WTM) 7–10 November 2011 UK 

Pacific Area Incentives and Conferences Expo (PAICE) 9 November 2011 New Zealand 

Dreamtime 13–18 November 2011 Australia 

European Incentive, Business Travel & Meetings Exhibition 29 November – 1 December Spain 

(EIBTM) 

International Luxury Travel Market (ILTM) 5–8 December 2011 France 

ATEC Meeting Place 8 December 2011 Australia 

G'Day USA 12–15 January 2012 USA 

CONFEC Red 2–5 February 2012 Spain 

Asia Pacific Incentives and Meetings Expo (AIME) 21–22 February 2012 Australia 

Internationale Tourismus Borse (ITB) 7–11 March 2012 Germany 

European New Product Workshop 19–21 March 2012 UK 

Indonesia Sales Mission 18–21 April 2012 Indonesia 

cruise3sixty 25–30 April 2012 USA 

ATEC Symposium 2 May 2012 Australia 

Australia Asia Roadshow 12–26 May 2012 Asia 

Worldwide Exhibition of Incentive Travel, Meetings & Events 22–24 May 2012 Germany 

(IMEX) 

International Luxury Travel Market Asia 4–7 June 2012 China 

Australian Tourism Exchange 15–21 June 2012 Australia 

Americas Meeting and Events Exhibition (AIBTM) 19–21 June 2012 USA 

d) (i)-(ii) 2012-13 Global Trade Events (to date): 


Association Congress 15-17 July 2012 United Kingdom 

India Mega Famil and Workshop (IMFW) 2012 1-6 September 2012 Australia 

China, Incentive Travel and Business Meetings 

12-14 September 2012 China 

Exhibition(CIBTM) 

Australia's National Landscapes Forum 2012 18-20 September 2012 Australia 

Brazilian Tour Operators Association Tradeshow (BRAZTOA) 21-22 September Brazil 

South East Asia Mission (SEAM) 2012 23-25 September 2012 Malaysia 

Nature Adventure / New Product Workshop October USA 

IMEX America 9-11 October 2012 USA 

TTG Incontri 2012 18-20 October 2012 Italy 

World Travel Market (WTM) 2012 5-8 November 2012 United Kingdom 

PAICE 13 November 2012 New Zealand 

Greater China Travel Mission (GCTM) 2012 13-16 November 2012 China 

EIBTM 2012 27-29 November 2012 Spain 

ATEC Meeting Place 2012 28 November 2012 Australia 

International Luxury Travel Market (ILTM) 2012 3-6 December 2012 France 

G'Day USA Australia Week 11-22 January 2013 USA 

European New Product Workshop (NPW) 2013 5-7 February 2013 United Kingdom 

AIME 26-27 February 2013 Australia 

Internationale Tourismus Borse (ITB) 6-10 March 2013 Germany 

North Asia Business Events Australia Showcase 8-12 April 2013 China & Korea 

Association Congress 21 – 23 April 2013 Portugal 

World Travel Mart Latin America 23-25 April Brazil 

Australian Tourism Exchange 26-30 April 2013 Australia 

South East Asia Business Events Showcase 9-16 May 2013 Singapore, 

Indonesia, 

Malaysia 

Corroboree Europe 17-19 May 2013 Australia 

IMEX Europe 21-23 May 2013 Germany 

International Luxury Travel Market Asia 3-6 June 2013 China 

AIBTM 11-13 June 2013 USA 

(iii) 2009-10: $6, 912,547 

2010-11: $7,595,579 

2011 



2011-12: $6,106,717 

2012-13: $5,868, 603 (year to date as at 21 March 2013) 

(iv) Tourism Australia does not make a profit on events. Costs recovered are the same as the operative costs provided at 

(iii): 

2009-10: $6, 912,547 

2010-11: $7,595,579 

2011-12: $6,106,717 

2012-13: $5,868, 603 (year to date as at 21 March 2013)

House of Representatives

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?