In the News
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (9:21 PM) —Tonight I want to put on the record a compelling case within my electorate of the success of the group of parents who took on the education system in New South Wales and won. This is a story of six families who have kids with special needs. In our society today I think their story is so relevant because we pay so much tax and we are prepared to put so much into government because we believe government will do the right thing by those who have a desperate need and a special need. When government does not do that, when it does fail, I think we all have the right as taxpayers and citizens to question why we send so much money into government. It is a story of great community enterprise and initiative in the face of bureaucratic inaction.
The What About Me Foundation was formed by a group of parents I want to name today to record their important achievement: Robert Addie, Rachael Addie, Darren Dietz, Natalie Dietz, Jenny Craig, Rob Craig, Jae Eun Kim, Scott Berry, Julia Berry, Tanya Brennan, Michael Brennan and Munesh Khan. The premise of this organisation was simple: children who require a place in either autism or IO classes should be given the opportunity they deserve for access to quality education in their local school community.
Their children were the initial special needs class at Sherwood Ridge Primary School in my electorate of Mitchell. It is a great school. It is a great development from education departments that we now cater for all kids with special needs, including autism and other disabilities, and that they are catered for through school. But, of course, when they start in kindergarten and advance towards high school years you would expect that the army of bureaucrats we pay for and fund within state bureaucracies would think, ‘Here is a class of kids going through from K to 6, so we now need to think about their transition from 6 to 7.’ To the shock of these parents, to the shock of these kids, to the shock of my community and to my shock as a local member, nobody had catered for these children to transition to their local high school, which does have special needs places available. Instead, the department of education in New South Wales suggested that these parents and these kids, this community of children, break themselves up and spread themselves across Sydney in a way that would be completely unsatisfactory for the needs of those kids, the families and my community.
The value of keeping a class of kids with special needs together cannot be overestimated or overstated, nor can the value of having places in local schools. I want to record here again, as I have so many times, that I have the highest number of couples with dependent children of any electorate in this country. I have the highest concentration of kids and families in any electorate in Australia. It is so important to recognise that local schooling of kids with special needs makes a great difference to the community and the parents.
To the great credit of this group of parents, What About Me was formed to fight the state government and to take them on where it counted. They went and saw the minister. With great initiative and enterprise they got a legal team and put up a great set of arguments. They actually read the Principals Handbook. They went through all the department paperwork, all of the bureaucracy, all of the red tape, and they ended up knowing more about the department’s policies than the department’s own officers. They were able to say to the department, ‘This is your policy, that you must plan and provide for the transition of these children.’ Again I question why we fund so much bureaucracy and so many people in government today at all levels. Why do we do that if we do not look after kids with special needs? Why do we have such a high taxation burden on the ordinary Australian if we are not there to look after the most vulnerable in our society today? That is the justification for the entire foundation of our taxation system. If we do not do those things well then, in my book, we are not doing anything well. The initiative and enterprise of these parents in forming this group was able to achieve a commonsense outcome, and I praise them for it. But it had nothing to do with government. It was a forced outcome—forced by the determination of a group of parents to understand and explain to the education department in New South Wales that their kids had needs and that they deserved local schooling.
I want to highlight this case today in the House because one of the parents, Jenny Craig, unfortunately, passed away during this period. She was a very courageous woman. I had the privilege of knowing her for some time. She fought very hard for these kids. It was such a wonderful thing to attend the celebration party for the awarding of their positions at their local school. Unfortunately, Jenny was unable to be with us but the materials that she put together were there. The initiative that she put into those children and this group to ensure that they got the right outcome from the department in New South Wales was something amazing to watch and something that I was privileged to be involved in. I want to highlight this case to the House today because this is a model for students and parents across New South Wales. We do have to seek better for kids with special needs in our society, and it ought to be the prime function of government to look after those who cannot look after themselves. (Time expired)
The Gillard Government’s Flood Levy is an insult to the tremendous spirit we have seen during and following the recent flood crises around Australia, said the Federal Member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke.
“The Gillard Government must reduce its gross and excessive spending and should look to itself first before slugging all Australians with this new tax,” Mr Hawke said.
“We must and will help our fellow Australians in need. But as the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, stated in the Parliament this week, ‘mates help each other, they don’t tax each other.’”
“This levy, this tax, it will fall on volunteers, it will fall on the donors—people who have already given and sacrificed so much in perspiration and out of their own pockets. It will also in some instances fall on flood victims.”
Mr Hawke questioned why it was that the Opposition, the Federal Coalition, and not the Gillard Government who were willing to seek savings measures rather than immediately resorting to a new tax.
“The Government has a vital role in rebuilding infrastructure, but it shouldn’t discourage our volunteering ethos,” Mr Hawke said. “The Gillard Government is positioning Government as an autocratic institution that will tell us how, when, and how much we are obligated to give when there is a natural disaster.
“I have received much feedback from upset residents in our local community. People who have pitched-in, who have given more than they really could afford to give, and who are now questioning why they should have donated in the first place if the Government was just going to tax them afterward.
“We must not blunt the instinct to help in times of need. The incalculable contributions, from the heavy equipment company lending their machinery and donating the cost of their employees’ labour, to the volunteer turning up with a shovel, cannot be matched by Government.
“The Gillard Government should look to make savings itself before resorting to this new tax,” Mr Hawke said.
The Gillard Government’s National Broadband Network (NBN) is an expensive, short-sighted project that will be outdated before it even completed, said the Federal Member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke.
“The Government through the NBN is dictating what internet technology people should use rather than what they want,” Mr Hawke said.
“Many local residents have told me they don’t need the NBN – they prefer their own wireless internet connection to meet their online needs.
“Why is the Gillard Government determined to impose this limited technology on Australia? “Why is the Government setting up an enormous monopoly to do so?
“Ten years ago many people in the community had no knowledge of the online environment, let alone broadband. The dynamic nature of the online environment means new technologies are emerging all of the time. Yet the Gillard Government is locking us into an expensive program that many people in the community don’t want.
“As I told Parliament last week, President Obama made it clear that innovative wireless solutions are the United States way forward. The Gillard Government should be more open to new technologies and not the blinkered thinking that has produced this NBN.”
Mr Hawke said the NBN involved enormous sums of taxpayers’ and borrowed money, at present around $37 billion.
“Since 2007 we have seen the Gillard and Rudd Governments throw billions of our dollars at projects and schemes that had been poorly planned and not thought through,” Mr Hawke said.
“Following on from the failed Home Insulation (pink batts) program, the waste under the Building the Education (school halls) program, and the Green Loans scheme, we now have the National Broadband Network,” Mr Hawke said.
“Instead of learning from their mistakes, the Gillard Government is determined to keep on spending away our future. The NBN has the potential to be Labor’s greatest white elephant of all.
“Once again taxpayers in the Hills will be slugged to fund an ill-thought out and rushed scheme. Once again, future generations are being encumbered with the consequences of Labor’s haste to spend billions of borrowed dollars,” Mr Hawke said.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (6:25 PM) —I rise to endorse the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 as a long overdue measure this parliament ought to take in implementing what I regard as a vital piece of our national infrastructure. I reject the proposed amendment by the Greens, and I will get to that in a moment. I endorse the comments of the member for Lyons. It is a brave man inside the Labor Party who stands up and calls for the use of nuclear power, and I encourage him to pursue that line. We have seen in recent times union leaders coming forward and saying that they feel that nuclear power is a good way for this country to proceed. We have seen more and more Labor members realising—after decades of inaction—that nuclear is a viable and long-term strategic option in Australia’s interests.
However, I do want to correct the member for Lyons on a couple of points that he made. He contended that the coalition had done nothing in government and that somehow we are here today because of coalition inaction. We are standing here today after 11½ years of coalition policy stating that we need a centralised waste management system because of the intransigence of the Labor Party in opposition. They opposed us in that endeavour. Why did they oppose us? They opposed the centralisation of waste management in Australia because they could not resolve their own internal political tensions. Labor, the Greens and the left of centre in Australian politics have always sought to create fear out of the nuclear issue. That is why I think the comments of the member for Lyons were radically different here today. I endorse his comments, because it is long overdue that the left of centre of Australian politics came to grips with technology and with the realities of the world in 2011.
I say to the member for Lyons that it is not that we are only now learning about the use of nuclear power and how valuable it could be. It has been in operation for decades. Australia has been mining uranium for decades. We have been using the benefits of nuclear medicine for decades. These benefits have been obvious to those people following and interested in the debates on nuclear power, nuclear energy generation and the use of nuclear technology in this country. These benefits have of course escaped the notice of the Labor Party.
In the 2007 election campaign the Labor Party sought to run a series of fear campaigns around this country on the siting of nuclear power plants. The front page of local papers in my electorate of Mitchell carried a big picture of a reactor tower and the words ‘Nuclear plant coming to Mitchell’. That might have been a plan proposed by the member for Werriwa—who I notice is here in the chamber—because that was certainly replicated right across this country, particularly in marginal electorates. I thought that was a shallow and defeatist set of campaign tactics. We have to seriously consider these very important technologies for the future, not cynically campaign politically on such an important and vital part of this country’s future.
We have one of the world’s largest reserves of uranium. We were held back for decades by Labor’s three mines policy. People talk about trade cartels. Labor had a three mines policy for so long in ignorance of the opportunities that we are provided by this fortunate land that we live in. The coalition’s longstanding position has been one of support for this concept, and we support this bill. We are behaving responsibly in opposition. We are behaving in the national interest. For 11½ years we sought to act in the national interest and construct a repository in a suitable location. I note that the member for Solomon is here in the chamber today. She is here in defence of her constituents—and I think she is doing a great job in that regard.
Years ago there was a proposal for a suitable site in northern South Australia. The only reason that facility did not go ahead was Labor Party intransigence by the Rann government. That is what we have seen from state Labor governments around the country: a lack of leadership and a lack of vision for their state and for their country. We have seen short-term temporary politics overtaking long-term national interest and decision making. People in this country are sick of it. No wonder every Labor state Premier is as unpopular as Captain Bligh in the rebellion. No wonder every state wants to reject them. We would have had a centralised waste management facility in a suitable location—which was identified in the report—in northern South Australia many years ago, and everything would have proceeded in a much safer way for ordinary Australians. Labor has been content to allow the storing of radioactive waste containers in car parks, hospitals and inner city areas all around the country—totally unsuitable arrangements. That is why this bill is important. It is why a centralised facility in a suitable location is important to all Australians. We do have to handle the waste that is generated by nuclear activity, and it is something that Labor has opposed.
I want to endorse the remarks of the member for Groom. I think he has a great understanding, as a former Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, of what this issue represents. In listening to what the member for Lyons had to say, it is interesting to note that, yes, we are a signatory to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, and we do have obligations in this country. Yet it seems to me that the Labor Party and the Greens, in particular, are always talking about meeting our international obligations in relation to so many things. We have international obligations for the safe handling of nuclear waste and yet that has not figured in their policies nor in their campaigning for so long. That is why this parliament has to override by necessity—using its powers under section 51—state and territory laws in relation to waste handling. It has to do that. The member for Lyons’s comments, while welcome, are long overdue in this case. The irrationality that has pervaded this debate from members of the Labor Party has been extraordinary.
When you look at the benefits that nuclear technology has brought to us, nuclear medicine today enables doctors to produce quick and accurate diagnoses of a wide range of conditions and diseases in persons of any age. When we look at the provisions of this bill, in Australia we have to recognise that we do not deal with high-level waste. We deal with low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste. It makes sense to centralise, in a safe way, the waste and to have a facility for dealing with it. I think it is odd to hear the remarks in this place, especially by the member for Melbourne, about the benefits of nuclear medicine to increase the standard of health care for all of our citizens and about the benefits of nuclear technology in an advanced and modern society.
The position of the member for Melbourne is that the location in the Northern Territory would be the wrong one, but he has no proposal for where to centralise waste management in this country. It is absolutely unsatisfactory to come into this chamber and say, ‘It’s the wrong place,’ and to have no alternative. I think it is absolutely the wrong position to come in here and say, ‘I really want the benefits of nuclear medicine; I want the advances that come from nuclear technology’—we live in a society where people do enjoy the benefits of it—and then say, ‘We don’t like the waste.’ Radioactive waste is a very unfortunate by-product of this technology. It is the level of technology that we have reached at this time in human development. We have to deal with it in the best way we can and in the most advanced way we can. We cannot be half pregnant on this issue. We cannot have nuclear generating facilities like Lucas Heights in Sydney and hospitals that use nuclear technology and not deal with the waste in the most intelligent fashion that we can. We must.
It is vital that this bill is supported as quickly as possible, and that is why the opposition is moving to do so. I think that the Greens have not just missed the practical and common-sense arguments about the importance of this technology to our country’s health and other benefits; they have also missed their own arguments on climate change. It is no accident that countries like France have so many nuclear power plants and have no problems with nuclear power. With the advances in technology, with fourth and fifth generation plants, and the way it is moving and progressing all around the world, we can move down this path in a very safe fashion. It is not an accident that other countries have lowered their emissions. Australia is one of the highest emitters of carbon, per capita, in the entire world and it is primarily because of our power generation. Everything this government has attempted to do around the edges that has not dealt with power generation is a waste of our time. We have wasted so much time. We can tackle carbon emissions through the use of nuclear power, and we can do so intelligently, in a forward-thinking fashion that provides energy generation for Australians for a long time to come.
It would not be a surprise to those opposite that I am a supporter of nuclear power plants. It would not surprise the member for Werriwa—who may or may not have been the architect of the scare campaign all around Australia about nuclear power plants—that I was not a supporter of the one that was reported on the front page of my newspapers in Mitchell. Mitchell is an unsuitable site for a nuclear power plant, just by virtue of it being in a metropolitan area, and it was wrong of the Labor Party to try to scare my constituents into thinking that there was ever a plan to put a nuclear power plant in Mitchell. It was wrong of them to scare communities across this country that they may have had a nuclear plant coming towards them. That was a wrong thing to do. But I am a supporter of nuclear power. I think there are appropriate sites in a country so large and a population so small.
I think that many of the provisions of this bill are improvements. While it does call for the repeal of the coalition’s previous act, I do think that there have been some improvements made in this bill. However, I also note that much of the original legislation is replicated in the bill before us today. They have not reinvented the wheel. They have fulfilled their promise of repealing the previous act and they have used large sections of the act and added new provisions. So it is a little bit cute of the Labor Party to come in here today and say that the coalition did nothing for 11½ years when, at every turn, the coalition proposed to deal with radioactive waste in the very manner prescribed in this bill. The reason it never came to fruition is that Labor at federal level and state levels across this country opposed it, at every step of the way, for pure political interest. That is why we are here as an opposition behaving differently. We support this bill because it is the right thing to do. We support this bill because we do need a centralised waste management facility in this country to ensure the safety and security of Australians in our metropolitan areas and to ensure that waste is properly handled, sensitively handled, in the right way and the best way that we know how. That is why I support this bill.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:44 AM) —I rise today to support the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Bill 2010 [2011]. I am happy to report to the House also in my capacity as Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety. In that committee we have been hearing from witnesses about the problem of identity theft and identity fraud across a wide spectrum of businesses, individuals, families and, in particular, children—which is the focus of our inquiry at the moment.
Having heard witness after witness speak about the problem of identity crime in Australia, it does make a very compelling case for legislation of this nature to ensure that we have a modern and relevant framework of laws in place to deal with the emergence of new technologies and crimes using the medium of those new technologies. I do commend the government for good legislation which sets up a legal framework to deal with the challenges of a new era. In this place we should support the use of law, especially criminal law, to set a benchmark for what we regard as right and wrong in our society and to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to go after criminals, to prevent crime and to deal with the consequences of online crime. Hearing from different Federal Police authorities and representatives from other agencies about the nature of the problems they face, I think it is the case that the law is not adequate at the moment to meet these challenges, and the improvements that have been well covered by many previous speakers are very much needed.
Identity crime is a serious crime. We have heard many different statistics. I think it is telling that we heard that the AFP reports that $4 billion a year is lost in identity fraud and identity crime. We have heard from members and senators of their own experiences and anecdotes in relation identity fraud. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that, in 2007 alone, 800,000 people, or five per cent of the population aged 15 and over, fell victim to at least one instance of fraud. Of course, I would assume that is only set to grow.
I do not intend to speak for long today, except to say a few things. In my own electorate I have been approached by constituents, especially parents of younger constituents, who have been victims of identity theft and crime. As I said, children are the particular focus of our inquiry in the joint committee on cybersafety. This is a growing area of concern where we face children having their identity stolen, whether it be by so-called friends or acquaintances or whether it be by people unknown to them, and then the perpetrators either embarrass those children or engage in cyberbullying, cyberstalking or other abusive forms of behaviour online.
I find that all the attempts by government and other agencies to deal with these problems tend to be a little inelegant. Whether it be internet filtering or other proposals which tend to be reactive, they do not tend to address the problem at its cause—and we have heard much evidence that this is a behavioural and educational problem rather than a technological or legal one. What is very important to understand about the nature of this crime is that the law is not in place at the moment to help us to adequately address crimes against children online. So this bill in particular, which improves the ability of our enforcement agencies to deal with identity crime, is very important in making progress on this issue. I have had dealings with all the major social networkers and the big internet providers, both through the committee and also as a representative of my electorate, and they often have very good enforcement regimes in place but they go only to a certain point. While they tend to deal with an immediate problem inside their own network or space, they do not then take the further step of adequately dealing with the perpetrator of a crime—and stealing a person’s identity and using it for whatever purpose is a serious offence. We have had laws in the Criminal Code for some time which deal with fraud, and I think it is very important that we keep pace with the technologies that we see today and continue to legislate in this area to ensure that the criminal law is adequate for our agencies.
I do think it is important to record that the varying nature of criminal activity and organised crime is moving very swiftly. They do keep up with technology. We have seen in the past week reports of criminal agencies using BlackBerries with their secure networks to engage in crime in this country. That is why I think it is important to support good legislation in this place, and I think the government ought to be commended for continuing the previous government’s push to ensure that our legislation is sufficient. I support the bill.