Andrew Leigh

Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2011
28 February 2012

It is my pleasure to rise to address the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2011, a piece of trade legislation that sits proudly in a Labor legacy of trade reform. The opening up of Australian markets which has been so much to the benefit of Australia's workers and consumers is fundamentally a Labor story. It was Gough Whitlam in 1973 who first cut tariffs, and then Bob Hawke and Paul Keating who continued through the tariff cuts. They did so with a view that open markets would be good for Australia, but that that process of dropping the tariff walls would entail transition costs. So they put in place a car industry plan and TCF plan, recognising that industry would need time to adjust. Those changes have been enormously beneficial for Australian families. They have put on average $3,900 per annum into the pockets of Australian households according to a report by the Centre for International Economics. Open markets have also meant that Australian industry has become more competitive. That has meant more export jobs. It has meant more opportunities for Australian workers.

But it is also important that the government ensure that Australian companies are protected from unfair trade practices by other countries. This legislation is making the most important improvements to Australia's antidumping regime for more than a decade. The improvements will include an increase in Customs staff working on antidumping by 45 per cent. It will include increased funding to hire experts and to assist Australian manufacturers in lodging applications for remedies against injurious dumping or subsidisation. The government has established an International Trade Remedies Forum that will provide advice to the government on the effectiveness of the improvements to the antidumping system and will report on options for further improvements. That forum has met a number of times, considered various discussion papers and worked in cooperation to develop an anti-circumvention framework.

Underlying all of this is our compliance with Australia's World Trade Organisation obligations. It is absolutely critical that we comply with WTO laws, because those WTO deals underpin our future prosperity. I am proud to say that I worked for 18 months for the late Senator Peter Cook, who for Australia negotiated the last WTO round of tariff cuts, the Uruguay round. I am equally proud to say that it was my predecessor as the member for Fraser, Bob McMullan, who stepped into Peter Cook's shoes at the very end and whose signature appears for Australia on the Uruguay round agreement. Trade talks can sometimes seem a little arcane, but underpinning them is the notion that we are taking rocks out of harbours. It is good for us to take the rocks out of our own harbours; it is better yet if we can get the rocks out of the harbours of other countries.

But the opposition seem not to recognise this. They have announced that they intend to reverse the onus of proof in antidumping cases, in clear breach of Australia's international obligations. The sharper knives in their drawer know that this cannot be done without risking other countries taking us to the WTO for retaliatory action. They know that they would involve punitive tariffs on Australia's agricultural or manufacturing exports. When you are allowed to impose punitive tariffs, countries think pretty hard about how to hit their neighbours. There is a famous World Trade Organisation case in which the European Union was allowed to impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States for a breach of WTO rules. It was an election year, so the Europeans decided to impose their retaliatory tariffs on exports from key swing states like Florida orange juice concentrate. It did not take long before the Americans capitulated and complied with WTO obligations.

Much the same would happen if Australia were targeted with retaliatory tariffs. In a public submission to the Senate committee looking at this issue in May last year, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was unequivocal in its advice. It said:

'Australia cannot impose an onus on the importer to prove the goods have not been dumped ...'

The opposition claims that, from two months into an investigation, Preliminary Affirmative Determinations can create a shift in the balance of an investigation requiring the foreign producer, rather than the Australian company that believes it has been damaged by the dumping, to prove its conduct has not hurt Australian industry. That is not correct. PADs are already used in accordance with Australia's WTO obligations, but these obligations make it clear that it is still necessary to make a preliminary finding that there is dumping and consequent injury to a domestic industry.

The opposition have a desire to ride roughshod over our international obligations when it comes to antidumping. It is just one of a series of incidents in which the opposition have threatened to tear up the international trading rulebook—the rulebook which has done so much to bring prosperity to Australia; the rulebook which has ensured that Australia could export almost $300 billion worth of goods and services to the world last year.

Last August, the coalition supported an anti-trade private member's bill on compulsory palm oil labelling. That would have breached Australia's obligations under the World Trade Organisation. It would have slugged Australian businesses with compliance costs of $150 million. Just before that, the shadow agriculture minister drafted a bill which sought to overturn a World Trade Organisation ruling that New Zealand apples be allowed into Australia, subject to scientifically based quarantine conditions. Had that private member's bill gone ahead, as the opposition well knows, it would have put Australian trade in jeopardy. It is just another piece of the puzzle as to how the Leader of the Opposition has consistently taken the antimarket view. He has taken the antimarket view on climate change, the use of voluntary water buybacks to alleviate desalination of the Murray-Darling Basin, the use of countercyclical fiscal policy to save Australia from recession when the global financial crisis hit, and the use of good economics that tell you that when you go to an election you should have an independent parliamentary budget office look at your costings rather than a team of accountants that has been fined or a catering company. Each day it is more and more clear that the opposition have lost all economic credibility and are willing to put at risk Australia's trading relations for simple pointscoring.

I turn to some observations which have been made on the issue of antidumping by the Chairman of the Productivity Commission, Gary Banks, when he spoke at the annual dinner of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry on 23 November last year. I have to say that Mr Banks is not particularly complimentary about antidumping, but it is important to look to his statements to see where he regards the real problem lies. He said:

'In its recent report on anti-dumping, the Commission nevertheless recognised that notions of unfairness had become so entrenched that retaining some form of anti-dumping system was inevitable, and on balance may serve to prevent something worse (as is sometimes said of FIRB). We therefore opted simply to moderate its potential to impose costs on Australian industry and consumers ...'

Mr Banks goes on to talk about some of those costs. He then goes on to say:

'However, no such ambiguity is to be found in the Opposition’s recently announced policy, which pushes the boundaries of allowable restrictions. Getting the right balance in anti-dumping policy between addressing perceptions of fairness and avoiding actions that would be costly domestically—and harmful to our bilateral relationships (including with China)—is a very difficult challenge for policy makers and always has been. Unfortunately the Opposition’s policy falls well short of the balance required, and has now made harder the Government’s own efforts to hold the line.'

Mr Banks has highlighted the real problem with the coalition's economic populism in the area of trade—that is, it not only threatens our economic prosperity but threatens our diplomatic relations. In this century, the Asian century, we are—

Mr Craig Kelly:  Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. This is about antidumping. I do not know what the speaker is talking about, referring to the coalition's policy.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:  There is no point of order. I have been listening to the member for Fraser. He has been talking about customs tariff. I have noted the first reading speech and the member for Fraser is in order.

Dr LEIGH:  I refer again to the speech on antidumping by the Chairman of the Productivity Commission. That speech highlighted the very real risks of the opposition's strategy—the opposition's growing economic populism. Getting the balance right on antidumping is critical in this century, the Asian century. It is absolutely vital that we preserve strong economic and diplomatic relationships with the countries in our region. We are enormously fortunate that growth moves in the world from Europe and North America to Asia, to be concentrated in the fastest growing region of the world. The Asian century presents challenges to Australia, to be sure, but the opportunities are far greater—the opportunities to engage in strong trading relationships with countries of our region. We have great potential in services exports, education, finance, law and architecture—all of these sectors will benefit greatly from our strong trading relationships with the countries of our region. Getting the balance right on issues such as antidumping is absolutely critical. Australia's trading relationships are critical to our economic prosperity.

In 2011, our exports to North Asia rose 18 per cent, with shipments to China rising 24 per cent, to Japan rising 16 per cent and to ASEAN countries rising 23 per cent. Australia's trade is projected to more than double by 2025. This strong trade performance is only made possible in a rules based trading system.

Australia is a founding member of the global trading system, and we play by those rules. Just as we may not like it when we lose the Ashes, but we still play by the rules of cricket, so too do we not always like every decision which is made by the World Trade Organisation. But, if we take our bat and ball and go home, we hurt the jobs and the prosperity of many Australians.

There are now over 150 members of the World Trade Organisation, and many more are joining up. It is a rare country in the world that wants to thumb its nose at the World Trade Organisation, but that what those opposite want to do. They have chosen the low road, the economic populist road, at every possible turn. Australia's alternative Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Nationals, condemned the Trans Pacific Partnership as a 'thought bubble'. Well, Deputy Speaker Scott, I can tell you it is a thought bubble that is being advocated by President Obama and something that should seriously be considered for the welfare of Australia. The day after the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said the government should accelerate negotiations on a trade deal with China, the Leader of the Opposition repudiated her and said it should be put on the backburner. It really reflects the fact that those opposite are not that interested in economics or the fundamental reforms which will raise the prosperity of our nation.

Estimates by the Centre for International Economics found in 2009 that one worker in seven in Australia was involved in the production of exports and one in 10 in import related activity. That makes one in five workers involved in trade related activity—exports, imports or both. Just imagine a set of policies that would lose one in five workers their job, that would shut off Australia's trade with the world and that would jeopardise our international trading relationships. That is what we face with the economic populism from those opposite. They are willing to say anything in order to win a vote but not willing to have the long-term conversation with Australians about the great benefits that will come to this nation in the Asian century. I commend the bill to the House.

Private Members' Business: Sovereign Wealth Fund
28 February 2012

It is always a pleasure to follow one of the modest members in this place! Opened in 1880, the Melbourne Royal Exhibition Building is widely considered a national treasure. It was the first building in Australia to achieve World Heritage listing. It was made possible by the discovery of gold in the 19th century. If you want to see the legacy of the first Australian mining boom, you just need to look around central Melbourne. The question we are facing today is effectively this: would Victoria now be better off if the Victorian government of the 19th century had saved the money rather than building infrastructure? That is basically the argument made by those who argue that the right policy response to today's mining boom is a sovereign wealth fund. One of those sovereign wealth funds has various advocates. I have certainly heard the members for Wentworth (Malcolm Turnbull) and Kooyong (Josh Frydenberg) in the popular press making strong arguments in favour of sovereign wealth funds.

There are typically three arguments made by proponents of sovereign wealth funds and it is worth going through those in turn.

First of all, some say that with the Australian dollar at historic highs we ought to amass greenbacks as a form of insurance against a currency slump. It is certainly true that a currency slump would be a shock to the economy, but it is not the only one we have to guard against. Governments have to anticipate and react to natural disasters, fiscal shocks and even unexpected technological change. We have already got substantial foreign holdings. The Future Fund has $75 billion, of which about a quarter is in overseas equities, and Australians have $1.3 trillion in superannuation, of which about a fifth is overseas assets.

The second argument made for a sovereign wealth fund is that it would cure Dutch Disease, which occurs when a mining-induced currency rise hurts other export industries such as manufacturing, tourism or higher education. Most likely it is true that saving a greater share of mining tax revenues would lead to an easing in monetary policy and therefore a lower exchange rate, but the effect would be modest, particularly under current mining tax rates. If your top priority is to cure Dutch Disease, a sovereign wealth fund is more of a bandaid than a vaccine.

The third argument for a sovereign wealth fund is that we need to boost national savings. It has got a virtuous ring about it, but it misses the fact that Australians already save a great deal. In 2010 our gross national savings rate was 25 per cent - higher than Japan's. The current federal government's fiscal consolidation is one of the fastest on record and a significant share of government investment is a down payment on future productivity. That is what we are doing with the National Broadband Network, education and transport. If you believe that Australia needs to save more, you need to say which taxes you would increase or which spending you would cut. A sovereign wealth fund without deposits has all the usefulness of a pub without beer. To put it another way, a sovereign wealth fund is in simple terms a piggy bank that contains foreign currency. It is not much use if it is empty.

At its core the debate over a sovereign wealth fund comes down to intergenerational equity. Most economists and philosophers believe our generation has an obligation to hand on to our children at least as much wealth as we inherited. We do not need to preserve every hill and rock, but if we use up an asset we should replace it with one at least as valuable. That affects how we think about the climate change debate. The Great Barrier Reef has extremely high value, so it merits urgent action by our generation to preserve it. But intergenerational equity also reminds us that future generations will be richer than us and not necessarily any more public spirited, so there is no philosophical obligation to leave our children an overstuffed piggy bank rather than, say, a good education and a well-functioning rail network. Indeed, if we were to slash spending on skills and infrastructure and save the proceeds, future generations might well condemn us as short-sighted scrooges.

This is not to say that there is not a strong case for a sovereign wealth fund sometime in the future. Maybe in the future we might be able to think about a Norwegian-style fund to build a stock of assets to the future or a Chilean-style fund to implement counter-cyclical fiscal policy, which was so sorely missing for much of the Howard years. But in the current economic environment it is hardly a high priority. If you are concerned about future generations, let us focus on the top priorities: a price on carbon pollution, shifting from the outdated mineral royalties scheme to a profits-based mining tax, and investing in skills. These are the sorts of long-term investments that future generations will thank us for. In my view, the notion of a sovereign wealth fund can go in the safety deposit box for now.

Marie Colvin and Syria
Adjournment Debate
27 February 2012

Last week, renowned war correspondent Marie Colvin was killed in the Syrian city of Homs. She was killed covering the attacks of the Assad regime on its own people. Throughout her career, Marie Colvin had covered conflicts in the Balkans, Chechnya and Zimbabwe. She had covered the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. In 2001, covering the conflict between government forces and the rebel Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Marie Colvin was struck by shrapnel and lost her left eye. She wore a black eye patch, which became her trademark. After the loss of her eye she wrote about why she covered wars, putting herself in danger. She said that it is important to tell people what is really happening and about humanity in extremes, pushed to the unendurable. She said:

'My job is to bear witness. I have never been interested in knowing what make of plane had just bombed a village or whether the artillery that fired at it was 120 mm or 155 mm.'

In November 2010 she said at a service for war journalists:

'Covering a war means going to places torn by chaos, destruction, and death , and trying to bear witness. It means trying to find the truth in a sandstorm of propaganda when armies, tribes or terrorists clash. And yes, it means taking risks, not just for yourself but often for the people who work closely with you. … We always have to ask ourselves whether the level of risk is worth the story. What is bravery, and what is bravado?'

In 1999 in East Timor, Marie Colvin was credited with saving the lives of hundreds of women and children when she stayed in a UN compound in Dili besieged by Indonesian-backed forces. Refusing to leave, reporting their plight almost hourly to the world, she managed to secure the safety of the East Timorese and was publicly rewarded when they were evacuated safely four days later.

Colleague and Guardian journalist Roy Greenslade said, 'She was the bravest woman I have ever known.' Anthony Loyd of the Times, reflecting on the kind of person Marie Colvin was, wrote:

'Driven? Certainly. Eccentric? Very. But conceited? Never. Her humility made her a rare bird in an aviary renowned for its preening.'

He wrote on her death, 'She was the undisputed standard bearer of our values, a woman whose courage and endeavour singularly advanced the capability of others by providing the benchmark for what we should aspire to.'

He noted that her humour survived intact. Before leaving for Sri Lanka two years ago she said to him: 'If you see a bit of eye lying in the jungle then pick it up. It could be mine!' In response to an erroneous comment on a website congratulating her for returning from Homs safely she wrote, 'I think reports of my survival may be exaggerated.'

One of Marie Colvin's last correspondent reports was this:

'In Baba Amr. Sickening, cannot understand how the world can stand by. Watched a baby die today. Shrapnel, doctors could do nothing. His little tummy just heaved and heaved until he stopped. Feeling helpless … Will keep trying to get out the information'

I spoke in the adjournment debate last June on the issue of Syria. The member for North Sydney spoke in the same debate. I do not think either of us expected we would be here this year still speaking about the bloodshed in Syria. More than 5,000 people have now lost their lives. About 18,000 are estimated to be held in arbitrary detention. Despite the fact that the UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly supported a resolution on the situation in Syria, such a resolution has been blocked in the Security Council. Those states who oppose the resolution—Russia and China—now have a responsibility to make plain what their alternative plans are for ending the bloodshed in Homs, Hama, Damascus and across Syria.

Mr Assad has lost all legitimacy. It is critical that we support the Arab League plan, that we galvanise and coordinate international support for the people of Syria and that we strengthen the voice of the international community for an end to the bloodshed. Australia strongly supports the efforts of the Arab League. We have imposed financial sanctions designed to hold those who have engaged in human rights abuses accountable. We now urge the UN Security Council to support the people of Syria. This cannot go on. We must have a global effort to get rid of the Assad regime, which lost all legitimacy when it began deploying arms against its own people.

Party values must rise to the challenge, National Times, 28 February 2012

When they’re in progress, political leadership challenges are like cyclones: throwing policies into disarray, snapping friendships in an instant, and hurling participants off into the distance.

Yet as history shows us, the morning after a leadership challenge often dawns clear. Gough Whitlam saw off two leadership challenges from Jim Cairns before gaining a large swing in the 1969 election, and going on to win in 1972. After the Coalition’s loss in the 1993 election, some worried that leadership infighting would doom them to irrelevance. Three years later, united around Howard, the Coalition won a crushing victory and 11½ years in office.

Today, the challenge Labor representatives like myself is to quickly move the conversation from personalities and powerplays to inspiration and ideas. Getting caught talking about individuals is bad for any political party – but it’s particularly harmful for the progressive side of politics. Whenever people perceive that we’re only interested in our own jobs, they naturally start to lose trust in politicians. And the less people trust politicians, the less likely they are to believe that government can make the world a better place.

This is why political distrust has a partisan dimension. As Republican President Ronald Reagan famously said, conservatives believe that ‘government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem’. Like Reagan, Tony Abbott has sought to denigrate government at every turn. For Abbott, criticising the National Broadband Network, Trade Training Centres, and the school building program feeds into a larger narrative: that government can’t be trusted to help Australians.

The big ideological contest in Australian politics is not the minor policy differences between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, but the yawning chasm that separates Labor from the Coalition. On economics, the Coalition has rejected not only the counter-cyclical fiscal policy of John Maynard Keynes, but also the market-based reforms of free-market economists like Milton Friedman.

Much to my surprise, Labor is now the only party committed to harnessing the power of emissions markets to reduce carbon pollution, and water markets to save the Murray-Darling. Under Mr Abbott, National Party protectionists have become dominant, threatening what was once a bipartisan commitment to open trade, and a bipartisan support of foreign investment as a means to create jobs and raise wages. Perhaps this should not be so surprising, given that Mr Abbott once described the late BA Santamaria as ‘the greatest living Australian’.

When it comes to the size of government, a Coalition government would make 12,000 public servants redundant – around 7 percent of the total. This falls short of US libertarian Ron Paul’s commitment to slash 10 percent of the public service, but not by much. Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey has flagged the Departments of Climate Change and Health as the first two on the chopping board.

On tax, a Coalition government would raise income taxes rise on ordinary Australians, but cut them for big miners. This isn’t just inequitable; it’s inefficient. Under a profits-based mining tax, the tax bill rises when mineral prices are high, and falls when they’re low.

The Opposition has also given us a clear indication of their priorities. If you’re in the top 1 percent, a Coalition Government would reinstate your private health insurance rebate immediately. But if you’re born with a disability, the Opposition tell us they would only commit to a National Disability Insurance Scheme when fiscal circumstances permit.

With election campaigns increasingly focused around the leader rather than the party, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that individuals matter much less than the party in power. The best evidence of this is a study of unexpected leadership transitions carried out by US economists Ben Jones and Ben Olken. They conclude that in a democracy, there is no economic impact of an unexpected change in leadership. As Tolstoy famously wrote in War and Peace: ‘great men – so called – are but labels serving to give a name to the event’.

As the rapid leadership turnover in NSW Labor’s final term of office demonstrated, progressive parties are poorly served by a frantic search for a Messiah who will lead them out of the wilderness. Each leadership challenge represents a lost chance to talk about jobs, health and education, and acts to sap the public’s confidence in government. That’s why I believe that those of us who are progressive on policy issues should be conservative about leadership changes. And it’s why I’m looking forward to getting the national conversation back to the opportunities of the future.

Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser, and the co-editor (with David Burchell) of The Prince’s New Clothes: Why do Australians Dislike their Politicians? His website is www.andrewleigh.com.

SENATOR THE HON CHRIS EVANS
Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research
Leader of the Government in the Senate

DR ANDREW LEIGH
Federal Member for Fraser

MEDIA RELEASE

23 February 2012



New centre to boost management careers in the ACT



ACT students looking for a career in management will be able to access the latest training and technology after the Australian Institute of Management opened the doors to its new campus today.

Member for Fraser, Dr Andrew Leigh, today opened the premises on behalf of Minister for Skills, Senator Chris Evans.

Dr Leigh said with large, customised training rooms, the ACT campus will almost double its annual training capacity, from 2000 to 3800 student days.

“The ACT Campus will make best practice training more accessible to students seeking management careers in business, marketing, human resources and government,” Dr Leigh said.

“The learning experiences and outcomes for students and staff will be greatly improved by state-of-the-art technology, including meeting rooms with digital displays, Wi-Fi, operable walls and hearing assistance.

“The proximity of the new campus to the Australian National University will also help foster close links between the two institutions."

The Australian Government has invested $470,896 in the ACT campus.

“Skilling our population is a major priority for the Gillard Government – we are working closely with industry and training providers like the Australian Institute of Management to ensure we achieve this goal,” Minister for Skills, Senator Chris Evans, said.

“That’s also why we made our $3 billion skills and training package the centrepiece of the 2011–12 Budget.

“Through the package’s National Workforce Development Fund we are investing $558 million over four years in training and workforce development in areas of current and future skills need.

“This is all part of the Government’s commitment to provide highly skilled workers, keep Australians in well-paid jobs and ensure the economy remains strong.”

For more information on the National Workforce Development Fund, please go to www.deewr.gov.au/nwdf.

• Wednesday 14 November, Gungahlin Lakes Golf Club, 6-7.30pm

• Saturday 24 November: Gungahlin (Hibberson St, outside Big W) 10-11am, then Dickson (outside Woolworths) 11:15am-12.15pm

• Welcoming the Babies, 10.30-12.30 on Sunday 4 March, Stage 88, Commonwealth Park.

• Multicultural Festival, City Centre, Saturday 11 February


• Civic Bus Interchange 8:00am Wednesday 22 February


• Canberra Show, Exhibition Park, Saturday 25 February


• Welcoming the Babies, Stage 88, Commonwealth Park, Sunday 4 March


• Canberra Day , Stage 88, Commonwealth Park, Monday 12 March


• Charnwood 10:00am/Kippax 11:15am Saturday 12 May


• Saturday 30 June: Gungahlin (Hibberson St, outside Big W) 10-11am, then Dickson (outside Woolworths) 11:15am-12.15pm

• Tuesday 27 March 12:30pm, Community Forum at  Belconnen Community Theatre


• Tuesday 15 May 6:00pm, Community Forum at Dickson Quality Hotel (Trevor Scott Room)


• Saturday 11 August 10:30 Ginninderra Labor Club

Drop-in session to showcase proposed design of Majura Parkway

ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher and Federal Member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh, have invited Canberrans to attend a drop-in information session next week to view the proposed design and alignment of Majura Parkway.

"Drop-in information sessions will be held from 4:00pm to 7:00pm on Thursday 23 and Friday 24 February 2012 at the Ainslie Football Club," Mr Leigh said.

"Project consultant SMEC Australia Pty Ltd, who has been engaged to develop the Forward Design, will present the proposed design plans for Majura Parkway and answer any questions from the community.

"The information session will showcase the road layout, intersection arrangements and locations of the bridges and underpasses along the route.

"Information will also be provided on some of the measures incorporated in the design to help mitigate flooding of the surrounding area as well as decrease traffic noise and the visual impact of the road through the use of bridge screens."

The Chief Minister said feedback provided at the drop-in sessions would be incorporated where possible into the final design.

"The two drop-in information sessions complement a series of stakeholder consultation meetings that have been held in recent months with rural leaseholders, businesses and other users of this part of Majura Valley," the Chief Minister said.

"Completion of the final design will result in a formal Development Application being lodged with the ACT Planning and Land Authority in March. A construction contract is planned to be let mid-year with construction works commencing late-2012.

"Jointly funded in 2011-12 by the Commonwealth and ACT governments, the Majura Parkway is a $288 million investment in our regional transport network and is the single largest road infrastructure investment ever made in the ACT.

"I encourage all interested people to drop in to one of the public information sessions on Thursday or Friday to learn more about this exciting transport infrastructure project," the Chief Minister concluded.

For more information about the Majura Parkway project visit http://www.majuraparkway.act.gov.au/