2006-02-27
41
1
5
REPS
0
0
2006-02-27
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
1
Committees
Treaties Committee
1
Report
1
1
12:31:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
1
0
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee’s report entitled Report 71—Treaty tabled on 29 November 2005: agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China concerning transfer of sentenced persons.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—Report 71 contains the findings and recommendations of the committee’s review of the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China concerning transfer of sentenced persons.
This agreement, tabled in parliament on 29 November 2005, will allow for the repatriation of Australian or Hong Kong prisoners who are serving out their sentences in reciprocal countries and have community ties in their country of origin.
As you would be aware, Mr Speaker, the period of review of proposed category 2 treaty actions by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is 15 sitting days. The period of review for this treaty expires on 27 March, when the committee expects to report on other proposed treaty actions which were tabled on 29 November 2005.
However, the committee has decided to table this report today because of its regard for 18 Australians who have the potential to improve their chances of rehabilitation by serving out their sentence in Australia, where they would have no language and cultural barriers to overcome. This includes five Australians sentenced to imprisonment in Hong Kong, another four who are in jail awaiting trial or sentence and a further nine who have been arrested and are currently on bail.
Under the agreement, the transfer of prisoners between Australia and Hong Kong would be voluntary, with the terms of the transfer negotiated between parties and agreed to by the transferring prisoner. Transferring countries would retain jurisdiction for the revision, modification or cancellation of convictions and sentences imposed.
As the agreement provides for the continued enforcement of a transferred prisoner’s sentence, the sentences imposed by the transferring party would not change; however, a sentence may be adapted in accordance with the domestic law of the receiving party if it is incompatible with the law of the transferring party. Where this is the case, the receiving party cannot impose a more severe sentence than that imposed by the transferring party.
The committee found that the agreement is worth while, considering the high number of sentenced Australians in Hong Kong. In particular, the agreement will help to relieve the financial and social burdens imposed on prisoners’ relatives, improving the potential for prisoner rehabilitation and reducing the burden on Australian consular officials in Hong Kong.
The parliament passed the International Transfer of Prisoners Bill in 1997. We currently have three international agreements to facilitate the international transfer of prisoners. We have a convention with the Council of Europe which facilitates the transfer of prisoners between Australia and 56 other countries. Currently 16 prisoners have been transferred from Australia to five other jurisdictions. We have another bilateral one with Thailand. Under this agreement, three prisoners have been transferred to Thailand. The committee was also informed that Australia is currently negotiating a transfer of prisoner agreement with China, although the details of these negotiations are not publicly available. It should be obvious that there is a number of other countries in South-East Asia where a transfer of prisoners agreement should be a priority. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties expects that we may see some further arrangements of this type in the future.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the committee believes it is in Australia’s interest for the treaty considered in Report 71 to be ratified. I commend the report to the House.
2
12:35:00
Wilkie, Kim, MP
84G
Swan
ALP
0
0
Mr WILKIE
—As the chair of the committee has already stated, this Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 71 contains the review of Australia’s agreement with Hong Kong concerning the transfer of sentenced persons. This treaty action is one of three such agreements that Australia has entered into that allows for the transfer of prisoners between Australia and 58 other countries. Entering into the agreement has humanitarian, rehabilitative, social and financial benefits for Australia, some of which have already been mentioned by the chair. As the majority of prisoners who would apply for transfer under the agreement have been sentenced for state or territory offences, negotiation with state and territory governments is required to facilitate prisoner transfers. With the exception of South Australia, the Australian government currently has administrative arrangements in place with all Australian jurisdictions that have prison facilities. The committee received information that not having administrative arrangements in place with South Australia does not, however, prevent the transfer of prisoners to South Australia.
The cost of transferring Australians from Hong Kong would be divided between the Australian government and the respective state or territory government receiving a prisoner. The Australian government would meet administrative costs involved in the transfer, with the relevant state or territory government meeting transport and maintenance costs. The transfer of a prisoner under this agreement would represent a saving of approximately $60,000 per annum. This amount differs greatly between jurisdictions and, I imagine, would also vary greatly depending on whether someone was incarcerated in a maximum security setting as opposed to an open or minimum security setting.
I would also like to thank the secretariat yet again for their outstanding work. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by the chair that we needed to bring this treaty forward so that we could get negotiations under way for the prisoners currently held in Hong Kong.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
2
Private Members' Business
Gender Equality
2
2
12:38:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
1
0
Mr JOHNSON
—I move:
That this House:
-
recognises that:
-
a report from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of World Population 2005 - the Promise of Equality: Gender Equity, Reproductive Health and Millennium Development Goals was released on 12 October and that the theme of the report is that gender equality reduces poverty, and saves and improves lives;
-
a major platform for achieving sustainable development is gender equality and the empowerment of women; and
-
gender inequities in all countries limit the economic and social participation of women in the building of healthy and dynamic nations;
-
encourages:
-
the UNFPA to continue to work towards achieving gender equality; and
-
the Government to continue to support the Millennium Development Goals because they have led to significant improvements in women’s health, safety and economic participation and increased their share in the benefits of strengthened economic growth; and
-
recognises that these improvements have been achieved through culturally and religiously appropriate activities and has resulted in a reduction in the incidence of fistula, maternal and child mortality.
The United Nations Population Fund released its State of World Population report for 2005 in October. The title of the report, Gender Equality, Reproductive Health and the Millennium Development Goals, really sums up what this report advocates and the way forward. The theme of the report is that gender equality reduces poverty, saves lives and improves lives. I put this on the Notice Paper last year following the release of the report and I am delighted to be able to speak on it in this new year.
As Thoraya Obaid, Executive Director of the UNFPA, said at the launch of this report, our world cannot make poverty history until we make gender discrimination history—they are very much linked together. This significant report looks at the progress the world has made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals and it specifically links the achievement of these goals with gender equality.
As a government, as a parliament and as a people we must all work together. We must encourage the work of the UNFPA towards achieving gender equality. We must also continue to support the achievement of the MDGs. While not all countries have done well on the indicators, many have made genuine efforts and they should be applauded for doing so. I have an interest in this topic as Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development and as someone who grew up in a developing country—namely, our closest neighbour: Papua New Guinea.
The eight goals established by the MDG in 2000 by the United Nations and by 191 supporting member nations were to: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV-AIDS and other major diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a global partnership for development by the year 2015. These are high goals; they are worthy goals. As the parliament of a developed country we must play our part to ensure, as much as humanly possible, that those goals are achieved.
Gender equality and reproductive health are central and vital among these goals. Without gender equality and the right to reproductive health, the goals of universal primary education, improving maternal health, reducing childhood mortality, combating HIV-AIDS and eradicating poverty are truly impossible. As Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development, these goals continue to be important to me.
The central theme of this report is that gender equality saves lives and has the potential to transform lives. In our part of the world perhaps we do take gender equality for granted. While there is still gender discrimination in the Australian community today, we recognise that we have come a long way. We have minimised this as much as possible both as a culture and through the laws of this parliament. There are strong protections in place through our laws, and where once perhaps our society was not receptive to gender equality, I would like to think very much that we have moved a very long way on this point.
Some Australians might question how gender equality can save lives. Maybe we cannot see it very clearly here in Australia today, as our standard of living is amongst the best in the world. General social protections and the rule of law mean that gender equality is not a life or death question here but, in the developing world, a person’s gender has an enormous bearing on the outcomes they can expect. Opportunities for schooling; access to medicines; opportunities to make the right choices in the very first place about things like marriage and reproduction, the likelihood of violence or assault in their lives or contracting disease, or even the prospects of living in poverty or not; and the protection of law—all these aspects can be subject to a person’s gender in the developing world, more so than they are in this country. One’s gender is literally a matter of life and death in much of the developing world. There is no question that poverty, gender equality, human rights, violence against women and reproductive health are inextricably linked.
In the parliament today I want to reiterate my strong personal support for the achievement of this goal and to also commend AusAID for the wonderful work that it does in our part of the world. We know that the World Bank plays a very significant role at a global level. But it must not go unnoticed that our very own AusAID, as part of an agency of the Australian government, equally plays a very strong role in the achievement of these goals. (Time expired)
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
83B
May, Margaret, MP
Mrs May
—I second the motion.
4
12:43:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I support this motion. Jeffrey Sachs is one of the world’s foremost experts on development issues. His book The End of Poverty is a powerful case for the need for the world to tackle the scourge of poverty. It is worth quoting Mr Sachs at some length. In that book, he wrote:
Traditional societies tend to be strongly differentiated in gender roles, with women almost always getting the short end of the deal.
In settings where the total fertility rate—the average number of children per woman—is typically at least five, and often much higher, women spend most of their adult lives rearing children. Traditionally home bound, women live lives of back breaking labour on the farm, with endless walking to collect fuel wood and water.
Modern economic growth changes this dynamic. Women can avail themselves of urban based employment, leading them ultimately toward social and political empowerment.
One of the stories from The End of Poverty which has stayed with me since I read it last year is the story of the women of Bangladesh. Professor Sachs recounts the story of very long lines of women walking each day to work in the sweatshops of Dhaka, sewing garments for export to the developed world. He points out that, as poor as these working conditions are, they are an improvement on where they have come from. Again, it is useful to quote Professor Sachs. He writes:
These sweatshop jobs are the target of public protests in developed countries. Those protests have helped improve the safety and quality of working conditions. The rich world protesters should support the increased number of jobs albeit under safer working conditions by protesting trade protectionism in their own countries that keeps out garment exports from countries such as Bangladesh.
Of course, each of the Millennium Development Goals is designed to improve the lives of men and women throughout the world. Two Millennium Development Goals apply to women specifically: to eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of public education no later than 2015; and to reduce the maternal mortality rate by three-quarters between 1990 and 2015. Of course, the most high-profile Millennium Development Goals are to halve between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day and to halve between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.
The principles enunciated in the motion moved by the honourable member for Ryan are laudatory. I would, however, sound two notes of caution. The first one is that, I believe, the motion is perhaps overoptimistic. To read this motion you would perhaps think that the Millennium Development Goals have already been achieved or are well on the way to being achieved. They are not. Progress has been made, but the jury is still very much out on whether the MDGs will be achieved by 2015. It is not too late for them to be achieved but, in my view, if we continue with the current rate of progress they will not be achieved by 2015. This leads to my second criticism of the motion. The MDGs will not be achieved unless both developed and undeveloped countries lift their game. The goals will not be achieved unless developed countries increase their aid budgets.
In 1996 Australia’s rate of foreign aid was 0.32 per cent of gross national income. This was not high enough. But in 2006 it is estimated that our foreign aid will come out at 0.28 per cent of gross national income. We are now rated 13th out of 22 nations in the OECD. It is worth noting that in 1966 Australia’s foreign aid was 0.56 per cent of national income. Over the last 40 years, we have come close to halving our foreign aid as a percentage of our national income.
To achieve the Millennium Development Goals, every developed nation will need to increase its rate of foreign aid. Let me return to Professor Sachs, who is the head of the United Nations Millennium Project. Recently he has had something to say about Australia’s foreign aid level. On 23 September 2005, the Australian Financial Review reported his remarks as follows:
Along with the United States, Professor Sachs suggested ‘the Howard government is not very keen on [the millennium goals] it seems ... I find it regrettable as both governments signed on to them quite clearly.’
He went on to say that Australia is one of the few nations in the world not to have outlined a specific plan about Australia’s contribution to achieving the Millennium Development Goals and increasing our foreign aid budgets. (Time expired)
5
12:48:00
May, Margaret, MP
83B
McPherson
LP
1
0
Mrs MAY
—The United Nations Population Fund State of World Population 2005 report is an important reference tool for all developed countries. It is a tool that lays before us the huge challenges we have in bringing about gender equality in the world—the importance of education programs directed at reproductive health in developing countries and the enormous challenge the world has in meeting the benchmarks of the Millennium Development Goals.
I commend the member for Ryan for bringing forward this important motion. The motion highlights once again the plight of the poor, and in particular the plight of women. The report points out that the considerable and largely preventible burden of poor reproductive health falls most heavily on the poorest women and their families. It goes on to say:
The ability to make free and informed choices in reproductive life, including those involving childbearing, underpins self-determination in all other areas of women’s lives. Because these issues affect women so profoundly, reproductive health cannot—
and should not—
be separated from the wider goal of gender equality.
Gender equality is a human right—a right we have fought for and on occasions still fight for in our own country. But many women around the world have no rights. Investing in gender equality and the education of women and girls pays enormous dividends in social and economic progress. There is strong evidence that gender equality has a lasting impact on future generations. Gender discrimination squanders human capital by making inefficient use of individual abilities, thus limiting the contribution of women to build strong and vibrant communities.
Education is the key to poverty reduction. It is a powerful tool that should be used to overcome discrimination and gender inequality. Young women and girls should have the right, and be encouraged, to undertake some form of schooling. The report indicates that the gender gap in education has left nearly twice as many women as men illiterate.
Education increases the ability of women to earn a living—to make an economic contribution to their communities, to assist with the support of their families. Knowledge is power. Armed with knowledge, women can take control of their own destinies. Educated girls are more likely to delay marriage and child-bearing. They tend to have fewer children. There are multiple benefits from the education of young women—better health outcomes and skills that improve their economic prospects, which in turn reduce poverty. They are very strong reasons to educate young women.
Without education, the human rights of young women and girls around the globe will continue to be abused. Young girls—and I mean very young girls, girls who should be enjoying their childhood—are married against their will. In some cultures, violence against women and girls is tolerated, rapists are exonerated and women are denied equal rights within the family or within the community.
One of the most telling statistics is the lack of women in decision-making roles around the world. Women are highly underrepresented in national parliaments where the decisions are made. In other words, women in developing countries in particular do not have a voice at the table. In fact, only 14 countries around the world have reached the United Nations benchmark of having 30 per cent of parliamentarians being women. We need to support bodies like UNFPA in their work to empower women. We need to be active around the globe in giving women the opportunities to undertake education programs and encouraging them to take leadership roles in their communities. Investing in women, in their education, will pay enormous dividends in social and economic growth and poverty reduction. Kofi Annan has said:
The continuing marginalization of women in decision-making has been both a cause and effect of slow progress in many areas of development.
The Millennium Development Goals provide a road map for the future and I would encourage the Howard government to continue its support of these goals. Investing in and empowering young people through the benchmarks set by the MDGs, particularly in the areas of gender equality and reproductive health, will free impoverished families and countries from poverty. Most reproductive health problems are preventible through proven interventions, achieved through culturally and religiously appropriate activities, which have resulted in a reduction in the incidence of fistula and in maternal and child mortality.
In closing today, I encourage all members of this House to take note of the report and spend some time reading it. It is important to know and understand what is happening in the world around us. We are a very rich country; we can and should support our aid programs and continue to do so in the future. The Millennium Project Task Force on Education and Gender Equality has stated:
Development policies and actions that fail to take gender inequality into account or that fail to enable women to be actors in those policies and actions will have limited effectiveness and serious costs to societies.
(Time expired)
7
12:53:00
McMullan, Bob, MP
5I4
Fraser
ALP
0
0
Mr McMULLAN
—I support the motion moved by the member for Ryan and congratulate him on moving it. I also thank the member for Reid for changing the speaking order so that I could participate in this debate.
It is well established that gender equality is very important in development assistance debates for two reasons: one, which is clearly obvious, is that gender equality is a fundamental right; another is that there is clear evidence that gender equality is essential for successful economic and social development. Within the Millennium Development Goals, there are specific gender equality goals, which in themselves are very important, but underlying them is the reality that fundamental to the achievement of almost all the Millennium Development Goals is the issue of gender equality; it is fundamental to the achievement of all the others.
I want to refer particularly—and it picks up part of what is properly reflected in the member for Ryan’s motion—to the importance of population and reproductive health issues to gender equality. Without dealing with the issues of assistance for enhancing the population and reproductive health of women in developing countries, there is no prospect of gender equality being achieved, whatever the laws in countries might be. Even in countries that do not discriminate explicitly, if they cannot provide effective assistance in population and reproductive health issues there will be gross and continuing inequalities, which will undermine economic development efforts.
I am very concerned that the latest edition of Population Action International—I think it is the latest edition; it is certainly the latest edition that I can find—rates Australia’s performance in this area at only grade C. Not surprisingly, there are classifications A, B and C and, in one case, A minus. There is also a grade D, so I suppose we should be grateful that we have not been included in that category. But I am concerned, having checked on the website, that as of today that categorisation still remains. I think Australia needs to lift its effort in this area.
I want to qualify that. One aspect of this area of policy in which Australia is lifting its effort, and where I greatly welcome it, is in dealing with the issue of HIV-AIDS. In my view, Australia was a little slow in recognising the importance of HIV-AIDS as both a development issue and an equity issue and its importance to Australia because of its growing prevalence in the region. In recent years Australia has lifted its contribution to the struggle against HIV-AIDS, particularly in our area—and I welcome that—but, in the broader issues of women’s population and reproductive health, Australia lags well behind. On the last assessment, we contributed less in dollar terms—not proportionally—than New Zealand.
It is unequivocal that there are enormous issues facing women in developing countries around the world: 99 per cent of pregnancy related deaths still take place in developing countries; more than 200 million women still have an unmet need for effective contraceptive methods and the need continues to grow; and the gap between demand and donor support for contraceptives, condoms for HIV-AIDS prevention and other reproductive health supplies is growing. In just those three indicators of the north-south gap, we see the crying human need for enhanced effort in this area and I think Australia needs to lift its performance. If we are genuine in our commitment to the elimination of poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, we need to lift our efforts and broaden the focus of our overseas aid as it relates to gender equity and reproductive health. Once again, I congratulate the member for Ryan on his initiative in bringing this matter forward and I am pleased to join the debate and to support the motion that he has moved.
8
12:58:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
1
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—I thank the member for Ryan, who chairs the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development, for bringing this motion to the House and for providing me with an opportunity to speak on the matters contained therein. The UN State of World Population 2005: The Promise of Equality: Gender Equity, Reproductive Health and the Millennium Development Goals again reminds the world that there is a long way to go before we can put to rest gender apartheid. The report highlights that, worldwide, almost double the number of women remain illiterate compared to men; that there is a direct correlation between the education of girls and women and the mortality rate of children under five years of age; and that there is abundant evidence that nations who do not value and include women in decision making and economic activity suffer socially and economically. There is no doubt that gender equality can directly improve the economic prospects of women and their families and can contribute to the overall economic prosperity of their country. Women must be given a chance.
I was pleased to see a snippet of the program on SBS last night that highlighted the very positive work that has been taking place in Pakistan and the improvement in women’s reproductive health, child mortality rates and economic wellbeing. Moves to empower women through access to information about reproductive health and microcredit facilities to assist them to contribute to their communities and their families show extremely positive results. The training of local women to attend to the health and economic needs of their communities in Pakistan is paying handsome dividends. Stepping up these programs will be the key to meeting the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to halve extreme poverty by 2015. It is a bold and ambitious goal, yet there are excellent examples that demonstrate the benefit of the commitment of many individuals and, indeed, organisations. It is a great demonstration that miracles can happen if enough people are committed to the cause.
I recently heard on the radio about another group that was started by retired businesspeople committed to meeting the millennium goals by providing microcredit facilities to women in underdeveloped countries. There seem to be a number of these. I remember the first contact I had—I think it was in relation to Bangladesh—when I attended the UN conference for women in Beijing in 1995. This, along with greater access to information regarding reproductive health, shows great potential. At the core of improving the quality of life for women and their families is the willingness of governments to include women in the decision-making processes. The difficulties faced by women in developing countries in having a real voice in government policy making are still acute. These difficulties were heard by our IPU delegation to Geneva last October, where discussion was had on the progress in meeting the CEDAW goals developed during the United Nations conference for women in Beijing in 1995. Hearing women speak at this conference, it is clear that they still struggle for a voice in public life.
I note that only 14 countries around the world have reached the United Nations benchmark of 30 per cent of parliamentarians being women. The sad fact is that on the African continent, although there are many more women elected to parliament, the difficulties in them having their voices heard and being more than a token presence are immense—this was highlighted, as I said, by this conference and by the voices of women from that continent. To squander the wealth of experience and wisdom of women in politics and administration denies nations the use of the best talent and the broadest representation at the highest level. We all need to recommit to eliminating gender discrimination in all its forms and to make violence towards women a thing of the past. I applaud the work of AusAID to improve gender equality through health and education programs and the government for funding the work. I understand that Australia will have invested more than $750 million in the Asia-Pacific region alone over 2005-06. I wholeheartedly support this motion and acknowledge the work of the former parliamentary secretary, the member for Dunkley—who is at the table—for his direct involvement in this work. (Time expired)
9
13:03:00
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
0
0
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—I certainly join the congratulations for the member for Ryan in initiating this motion. He has a track record in work, not just in rhetoric, and has taken a leadership role in these matters. However, as with the member for Prospect, I cannot be as optimistic about the future. Recently we have seen in Kenya the resignation of three ministers over corruption following an investigation into the theft of $1 billion in an IT scam on the one hand and the sad deterioration of Australia’s rate of foreign aid on the other. That combination suggests there are tremendous challenges.
People have spoken about Oceania. It is worth noting that, whilst we have certainly devoted foreign aid in that area, the problem is immense. Timor Leste at eight children per woman has the highest total fertility rate in the world, and three other nations in this region have total fertility rates of over four children per woman—Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. It is also indicated that, in our region, rates of teenage pregnancy are high. Factors which contribute to this are low levels of basic education, limited access to health clinics and family-planning services, contraceptive supplies often being restricted to married women, and young people being concerned about discrimination and privacy aspects.
On the broader front, we understand that, if you improve women’s education levels, it does offer to the economies of the world greater potential in the workforce, more safety for women during pregnancy and for their children, and improvement in people’s lifestyles. The challenges are immense. I will outline a few statistics from a feature article in the Guardian Weekly of 16 September to 22 September 2005 that relates to this issue. It noted:
According to Unesco, women comprise almost two-thirds of the world’s 800 million illiterate people.
Out of the 550 million working poor in the world, an estimated 330 million (60%) are women.
Only 71 girls to every 100 boys are enrolled in primary education and 62 at secondary level in Ethiopia.
Women in southern Asia, western Asia and north Africa hold about 20% of paying jobs in sectors outside of agriculture.
So the pressures are tremendous. It is worth noting with our aim to succeed with the Millennium Development Goals that Oceania is one of those areas where there has been a failure to meet the goal of more access to primary education for females. The document that has been spoken about today, State of world population 2005, is trenchant in its points. It says:
In 2003, donor governments spent $69 billion on development aid. That same year, global military spending totaled approximately one trillion dollars. Given this disparity, it is clear that the cost of meeting the MDGs is more a matter of political will and commitment than scarce resources. Considering what it will accomplish, the cost—$135 billion in 2006 and rising to $195 billion by 2015—is modest and feasible.
Indeed it is. Those outcomes are very clearly important to the world.
The demands are also to be accompanied by the right to freely and responsibly determine the number, timing and spacing of one’s children and to have the means to do so and the right to the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. The clear indication unilaterally in the world is that, the more education women receive, the more control they have in regard to those issues of timing and spacing of children. It has been estimated in that same document that every year of a mother’s education corresponds to five to 10 per cent lower mortality rates in children under the age of five. Indeed, there is a clear correlation, as we are well aware, between lack of women’s education and economic deprivation in regard to child death rates.
The situation noted by the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance is that from the Cairo conference of 1994 onwards there has indeed been a greater international emphasis on reproductive rights. Milestones have been accomplished in population policy, rather than focusing on the technicalities of demographic targets and family planning to reduce fertility rates. I commend the motion. It is obviously crucial that women have more empowerment through education. In Africa, tribal and ethnic decisions, supposedly hidden by religious—(Time expired)
10
13:08:00
Panopoulos, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
1
0
Ms PANOPOULOS
—I am pleased to be making a contribution to this debate on the motion moved by the member for Ryan which recognises the importance of the UN Population Fund’s report titled State of the world population 2005: the promise of equality, gender equity, reproductive health and millennium development goals that was released last October. This motion is well worth debating, but from the outset we should avoid getting too sentimental about solving global poverty with a wristband or expecting the ills of Africa—be it HIV-AIDS or hunger—to simply be solved through increasing the pressure of the global aid water fountain. It is pleasing to see the Prime Minister commit to a doubling of Australia’s foreign aid by 2010. This announcement came with some important qualifiers—firstly, that recipients demonstrate a commitment to improved governance and, secondly, that they do more to weed out corruption.
Australia is a proud and realistic contributor to the fight against global poverty. We have doubled our support for the UN Population Fund to $4 million, and we are investing $600 million in the decade to 2010 to fight HIV-AIDS. We should all have as a goal, as this motion does, gender equality and the work of the Millennium Development Goals. The Australian government has consistently advocated this. At the Millennium Summit in 2000, Australia unanimously adopted the Millennium Declaration, which includes eight goals that address the challenges faced by developing countries up to 2015. We do as a nation have a proud record of helping those in need, both in the region around us and more widely throughout the global village, and I am sure this will continue well into the future.
An important aspect of this motion is the need to confront gender inequity. The UN, when launching this report, used the term ‘gender apartheid’. I personally think this is a gross misuse of the language and of the reality of the situation. Of particular interest is the report’s focus on what it calls ‘sustainable development though gender equality’. We can look at our own political situation here in the Australian parliament, and the significant steps forward in political representation taken by women in this place. We have come a long way. Just over 10 years ago, in the Australian parliament, women made up 9.5 per cent of the numbers in both houses. Now that figure is about 25 per cent. On my side of politics I am proud to say that this has occurred without the imposition of offensive and absurd quotas. To use some Australian rules football parlance, it is the Labor Party who looks to give women an easy free kick, whereas it is the Liberal Party who rewards a ‘hard ball get’.
If we were to get serious about gender equality, or the ‘gender apartheid’ that the United Nations mischievously speaks of, we would get serious about some of the harder issues of entrenched inequality that run against women in some parts of the world today. For instance, we would not have women being stoned to death in Nigeria for committing adultery. We would not have Northern Territory judges defending Aboriginal elders who admit to having sex with a 15-year-old girl who had been supposedly promised to him at birth. This is child abuse, not customary law. We would not have union leaders claiming, ‘It’s a sad day when Labor selects a bit of petticoat over a union boss’—an experience that Joan Kirner famously recounts.
But back to the essence of this motion being debated. We need to confront the unfashionable reality that Africa and the Third World’s ills will not be solved by simply talking about Africa’s debt and not its politics. Whilst falsehoods often hurt, the truth usually hurts more. This is particularly so in the debate on this very important motion. So the fight is not just in platitudes about empowerment and sustainable development; it is about righting the entrenched wrongs that exist in today’s societies, as uncomfortable and unpalatable as some of these are.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—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.
Pacific Highway
11
11
13.12
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
1
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—I move:
That this House:
-
notes:
-
that the Pacific Highway is a State road designed, built, owned, and maintained by the New South Wales State Government;
-
that there have been unacceptable delays and substantial cost over-runs in the upgrade of the Pacific Highway to dual carriageway standard from Hexham to the Queensland border;
-
notwithstanding that the Pacific Highway is a state road, the Australian Government has made a substantial commitment to the upgrade under the Pacific Highway Reconstruction Program Agreement and Auslink;
-
that there have been unacceptable delays to the commencement of work on by-passing population centres along the highway;
-
tenders have been received for the construction of the Bonville Deviation and the State Minister for Roads, Mr Tripodi, plans to delay commencement of works until mid 2006; and
-
the public consultation process has failed to achieve route outcomes which are acceptable to communities along the highway; and
-
calls on the New South Wales Labor Government to:
-
exercise more stringent cost and project management control over the highway upgrade; and
-
accelerate progress on this upgrade with a view to completing a dual carriageway between Hexham and the Queensland border by 2016.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House on the very important issue of the Pacific Highway. It is a road which has great importance to the constituents in my electorate. It is also important to many Australians living on the eastern seaboard, given the role the highway plays in the national transport task. It is a road designed, built, owned and maintained by the New South Wales state government, but due to its national importance it receives substantial funding from the federal government despite its status as a state road. Over the three years ending 30 June 2009 the federal government will contribute $480 million to the upgrade, which aims to have the highway improved to dual carriageway standard by 2016.
Sadly, despite a 10-year plan to upgrade the highway to dual carriageway standard ending this year, there is still much work to be done to complete the task. It is estimated that by 30 June 2006 there will be 252.9 kilometres duplicated, with a further 51.3km under construction. This represents approximately 44 per cent of the total task.
The story of the Pacific Highway under the management of the New South Wales state government has been one of cost overruns, endless delays and endless broken promises. The people of New South Wales deserve better. We have seen four New South Wales roads ministers in the last 18 months. Whilst the history of the three previous state roads ministers does not fill one with confidence that this dismal track record will improve, I hope that new Minister Roozendaal will be an effective agent for change. I welcome his comments that the Pacific Highway debate has become too political and that he is keen to develop better relations with the federal government. The Bonville deviation will provide new Minister Roozendaal with an opportunity to demonstrate whether he speaks with genuine concern or his words are merely empty rhetoric. He has the opportunity to accept the federal government’s offer of $30 million this financial year to fast-track the highway, to get work on the Bonville deviation started immediately, to save time on the completion of the project and, in doing so, potentially save lives.
His predecessor, Mr Tripodi, was the subject of ridicule for failing to take up this offer and allowing the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority some six months to assess two tenders for the Bonville deviation, with the companies preparing those tenders being given only 13 weeks to prepare their bids. New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma has finally done something right. By sacking Joe Tripodi he has left the door open for a new approach to the Pacific Highway—an approach which should involve rigorous cost control, a commitment to stringent project management and delivering projects to the public on time and on budget and a focus on selecting routes which are in line with community expectations. It is generally accepted that there are three factors which contribute disproportionately to motor vehicle accidents—namely, speed, fatigue and alcohol. The people of New South Wales, particularly those who regularly travel the stretch which will be bypassed by the Bonville deviation, know there is a fourth factor—that is, inaction by former New South Wales roads minister Joe Tripodi.
New Minister Roozendaal has the opportunity to drive this project forward in a manner his predecessors were unable to achieve. The completion of the duplication of the highway in a timely manner will yield huge benefits to the state of New South Wales and the nation. A completed dual carriageway will yield increased transport efficiency and a reduction in the horrific cost of road trauma. The construction of bypasses will provide improved environmental outcomes for many communities along the route and will achieve a separation of local and through traffic. In 2006 I hope we will see the New South Wales government approach the Pacific Highway upgrade with renewed vigour. I hope they take a leaf out of the book of the federal Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, Mr Jim Lloyd, and show total commitment to the Pacific Highway, not just empty rhetoric, by starting the Bonville deviation now and taking up the offer of $30 million to fast-track these works. Time will tell whether Mr Roozendaal’s words are meaningful or nothing more than empty rhetoric.
10000
Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Lindsay)—Is the motion seconded?
4K6
Causley, Ian, MP
Mr Causley
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
13
13:17:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—That was a most disappointing contribution from the member for Cowper. When I read this motion before the House today I thought he intended to come in here and have a serious debate about a serious issue—that is, the road fatality history of the Pacific Highway and the need for all levels of government to work cooperatively to address those problems which remain outstanding on that highway. When I saw the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads in the chamber, I assumed he was here to support such a responsible and proactive debate. But we have all been disappointed. All we get from the member for Cowper is political rhetoric. We now know that this motion is about one thing and one thing only: an opportunity to bash up on the New South Wales government not all that far out from an election in an attempt to shift the blame from the Commonwealth—where the real responsibility lies—to the New South Wales government.
I welcome the appointment of Minister Roozendaal to the roads portfolio in New South Wales, because he is a can-do man. I know he will take a responsible approach to the development of the Pacific Highway and will not spiral down to cheap political stunts like those we are seeing in this House today. There was not a serious proposition from the member for Cowper. There were no solutions from the member for Cowper. There was just an exercise in pushing the blame onto the New South Wales Labor government. I should not be surprised because I am old enough—surprisingly!—to remember all the way back to when Labor was last in government in Canberra. I recall National Party members and candidates running around the North Coast of New South Wales with petitions insisting that the Commonwealth government should have the sole responsibility for funding of the Pacific Highway. Now that they are in government, and now that they have been in government for 10 years, they want to push the responsibility back onto the New South Wales government.
I checked my facts this morning, and it seems that in the 10 years the Howard government has been in office the New South Wales government has spent some $1.6 billion on the Pacific Highway. What do members of the House think the federal government has spent on the Pacific Highway in that same time period? Some $660 million. We can see clearly who is pulling their weight on what is now a shared responsibility.
IK6
Lloyd, Jim, MP
Mr Lloyd
—On a shared road.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I thank the minister for his interjection. He just told the House that this is a road of state responsibility. I thought only a year or so ago they brought down an AusLink document which abolished this concept of a national highway and therefore abolished the idea that the Commonwealth was only responsible for the national highway network. That is an issue I want to get onto. It should not be a surprise to anyone that as the member for Hunter I should be seeking an opportunity to talk on this motion, because I have many constituents who use the Pacific Highway on a regular basis and many more who use it on a not so regular basis each Christmas when they travel up to the North Coast of New South Wales. I also have another interest—that is, an interest in something called the F3 link. That is the other reason I am very pleased to see the minister at the table. That link should have been built 10 years ago and would have been built 10 years ago if it had not been for a change in government and the funding cuts which the Howard government first imposed in 1996 and has continued to impose ever since.
There is a lot we can do on the Pacific Highway to improve the safety and efficiency of that network, but there are some other things we can do to encourage traffic movement away from the Pacific Highway—that is, to improve what was the national highway network; in other words, to improve the New England Highway and to finally get on and construct the link between the F3 Freeway at Seahampton and the New England Highway north of Branxton. That project, some 10 years ago, was worth about $180 million, but because of delays imposed by this government it is now approaching $800 million. So what does Minister Lloyd tell us now? He hasn’t got the money to pay for it. He hasn’t got the money to fund the F3 link. But, if he thought more seriously about it, we would have the F3 link, we would be taking the pressure off the Pacific Highway and we would have fewer fatalities on the Pacific Highway. All the members of this place believe that we have to strive for a greater standard on the Pacific Highway, but there are other roads begging for funding as well, like the F3 link. The New South Wales government has made a commitment. It is now up to the federal government under Minister Lloyd to come forward with some money for the F3 link and to just get on with it. (Time expired)
14
13:23:00
Causley, Ian, MP
4K6
Page
NATS
1
0
Mr CAUSLEY
—I am very pleased to address the House following the member for Hunter, because I believe that, when members of the Labor Party stand up and try to protect a state government simply because it is Labor, it is not much of a debate at all. When the opposition are prepared to admit that just because you are a Labor government does not mean you do not make mistakes, then we will believe that the debate is reasonable. Most people would remember that I was for seven years a minister in the Greiner and Fahey governments in New South Wales—and guess what? In those days, the Pacific Highway was a state highway, and it still is.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr Brendan O’Connor
—You should have done it then!
4K6
Causley, Ian, MP
Mr CAUSLEY
—If you listen, you will hear. If you are patient, you will hear. I recall very clearly that when we took over from the Unsworth government—and, of course, the Wran government before it was a longstanding Labor government in New South Wales—the budget for the Pacific Highway from Port Macquarie to the Queensland border was $25 million.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—How much?
4K6
Causley, Ian, MP
Mr CAUSLEY
—$25 million. That is what was being spent on the Pacific Highway in those days. It was the Greiner government that decided to put money back into roads. Before that, it was considered that it was not very vote catching to put money into roads. In fact, it was the Greiner government that brought in the three-by-three tax, which still stands in New South Wales as a way of getting funds for roads. I say to the member for Hunter that I do remember the former member for Cowper, Garry Nehl, I think it was, pushing very hard for some money to be spent on the Pacific Highway. Why? Because, in those days, it was pretty much a goat track from Sydney to Brisbane. And we were very pleased in the New South Wales government that the federal opposition in those days came forward and said that they were prepared to put some money into the Pacific Highway, but I do believe, to be fair, that in the dying days of the Labor government there was a commitment made from that side as well to put some money into the Pacific Highway.
One of the problems here has always been the overruns that have occurred on many of these projects, and I think this is something that the new agreements are trying to address. It is a great piece of road between Chinderah and Billinudgel, but in fact there was a 20 to 30 per cent overrun on that particular project. We have been trying to rein in these overruns to make sure we get more for the dollars that are being spent.
In that first 10-year program, which was a commitment of over $600 million from the federal government, there was a promise for the Ballina bypass. It was part of the agreement that we would have a Ballina bypass where there is a huge bottleneck on the Pacific Highway at the present time. But of course we did not get very far with that because there were no funds available, so the New South Wales government said, even though they had committed to the Ballina bypass.
I often muse over this, because, in the last budget we had in New South Wales in 1995, $25 billion was available from the taxes that were collected in New South Wales. In the last NSW budget, 10 years down the track, New South Wales had $44 billion available, yet there is no money for health, no money for schools and no money for roads. Is it any wonder that people are asking: where is the management in New South Wales and where is the money going to? We do not seem to be getting any value at all from the extra money that has been collected.
I have often been critical of some of the planning processes because I think that they waste a lot of money, quite frankly. I dare say that, in fact, a good example of that is in my electorate and the member for Cowper’s electorate, from Dirty Creek Range through to the Harwood Bridge. In the planning process, they have done a lot of survey work, a lot of costing—they have three or four different options—and then they have gone out to the public for comment. I would have thought that the RTA would have a pretty good idea of where they thought the route should go. Instead of wasting all this money, they could have identified the route, then let us have the discussion later. But I think it is a divide and conquer process, quite frankly, and they do not care how much money they spend with it. Naturally, people do not like to see their properties divided. They should be well compensated, because it is in the national interest, but there are a lot of things that need to be tidied up.
I congratulate the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, Mr Lloyd, on eventually getting an agreement with New South Wales on this highway. We just hope that there are some better results in the years ahead, to see that this great highway is upgraded. Let me remind you that it was the Greiner government that had Motorway Pacific. If the Carr government had taken that option, we would have a tollway from Brisbane to Sydney now.
16
13:28:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—I rise to speak on the motion that has been moved by the member opposite. Clearly there are some different views as to who should be funding particular transport routes, but it is not surprising that members of The Nationals here today would be focusing upon complaints they have against the New South Wales government, because, in this place, they are not really defending their constituents on federal matters. There is no doubt in my mind—and, indeed, in the minds of many constituents of their electorates—that when it comes to things that really matter that are within their purview, within their federal jurisdiction, they are letting down their constituents. We saw that with the failure by The Nationals to oppose the sale of Telstra. We saw that indeed, I think, with the awful scandal of the regional rorts that were clearly directing Commonwealth money for the wrong purposes and the wrong motives. So I rise today to talk about this particular motion, but also to remind members that there is no point trying to defend your local constituents by becoming the quasi opposition of New South Wales. Your job here is to defend and advance the interests of your constituents by supporting Commonwealth initiatives that matter—and I say to the mover of this motion that selling Telstra was not one of them. Your role in voting for the sale of Telstra was not something that your constituents will be proud of.
The Pacific Highway is of course a strategic interstate route. It is an essential route for the transportation of many goods between Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. In the last 10 years the New South Wales government has invested $1,660 million in the highway, while the federal government has put in only $660 million. That is $160 million a year from New South Wales compared with $60 million from the federal government. That means that the New South Wales government is contributing 72 per cent of the funding for the Pacific Highway between Hexham and the Queensland border. The Pacific Highway is a full member of the federal government’s AusLink National Network. Under the AusLink funding agreement, the federal government’s funding falls woefully short of the $8 billion that is needed to complete a high-standard dual-carriage motorway between Hexham and the Queensland border.
IK6
Lloyd, Jim, MP
Mr Lloyd interjecting—
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—I notice that the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads who is responsible for these decisions at the federal level is here in the chamber. I welcome his attendance in the debate. Clearly it is important for him to know of members’ concerns.
It is wrong for the mover of this motion, the member for Cowper, and the seconder, the member for Page, to sheet home the blame to the New South Wales government. I am quite happy to criticise state governments, Labor or governments of any other colour, if I think they have done the wrong thing. But it is critically important, Minister Lloyd, that you attend to your needs—you attend to the responsibilities that the Commonwealth has invested in you as a minister of the Crown. I have to say, Minister, that as for your incapacity to properly fund this road, people in the New South Wales are quite rightly disappointed.
IK6
Lloyd, Jim, MP
Mr Lloyd
—Get your facts right!
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—As a Victorian member of this place, Minister, can I say that your will record is woeful when it comes to funding the Calder Highway. The member for Bendigo and others have noted that the only reason why some of those funding areas have been sorted is the focus put on that issue by the member for Bendigo and others. Between the area of Sunbury and Tullamarine intersection fatalities occur on a monthly basis. I hate to use such examples to underline the point, but these deaths should not be occurring. They are happening because there are three at-ground intersections with the freeway. The Victorian government minister has said that Victoria will provide half the funding, even though it is purely the responsibility of the Commonwealth, if you match it with the other half. If you match it with the other half, it would mean that we would have fewer fatalities and certainly less congestion on the Calder Highway and we would see more of the money being provided to the Victorian areas that are deficient in funding.
There is no doubt that Victoria does not get its fair share of the transport funding cake of the Commonwealth. In terms of the Calder Highway, it is a disgrace that so close to the CBD we have at-ground intersections onto a freeway, with fatalities occurring as a result. I ask you, Minister, to think about that when you are listening to the motion being debated here today. (Time expired)
17
13:33:00
Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP
00ANF
Dobell
LP
1
0
Mr TICEHURST
—It is a great pleasure to rise to support my coalition colleagues in such an important motion on the Pacific Highway. The Pacific Highway runs through my electorate of Dobell from Wyoming in the south to Bluehaven in the north. It is a very important arterial feeder for the many commuters who live in my electorate and work in Sydney. The state government has been well aware of the importance of this road for many years, yet the only significant improvement in this important area was a dual carriageway in the Wyoming area funded by the Howard government’s Roads to Recovery program—the program specifically created to address the state’s long-term negligence of our roads.
Despite the member for Hunter raising the issue of the F3, last August the state government promised to increase the speed limit in the area of the Hawkesbury River from 90 kilometres to 100 kilometres per hour. I wrote to the minister at the time and he said, ‘Well, we were going to do that, but we need some electricity there to power some signs.’ The real truth is that they have not got the speed camera working and until it is working it appears they will not change the speed limit.
The only mentionable contribution to this road by the New South Wales government has been the costly installation of concrete medium strips, which has been detrimental to the passing trade of many local small businesses in that area. Many have contacted my office to express their dismay. Notwithstanding that the Pacific Highway is a state road, built, owned and managed by the state government, the Australian government has made a substantial commitment to upgrading it under the Pacific Highway Reconstruction Program Agreement and AusLink.
The Australian government entered a 10-year agreement with New South Wales in 1996 to fund the Pacific Highway upgrading program. Under the program, the Australian government has contributed $60 million per annum—indexed—while the New South Wales government matched this funding and provided a further $100 million per annum—not indexed—for upgrading and maintenance of the highway. As the member for Gorton mentioned, the New South Wales government has indeed contributed $1.6 billion and the Australian government $656 million. But this is their road to maintain and upgrade.
This followed previous Australian government funding for such projects as the Tweed Heads and Raymond Terrace bypasses. At that time, nine per cent or 64.6 kilometres of the 658 kilometre length of the highway had been duplicated. We will have duplicated 44 per cent once we finish the projects that are under construction at the moment. The Australian government is making significant progress. We will have delivered an estimated travel time saving of 80 minutes on this trip.
The Australian government is committed to better and safer roads. Unfortunately, in my electorate, the Central Coast’s roads are not keeping pace with the region’s needs. The Central Coast has lagged behind in the future planning for roads and faces a huge influx in population over the next few years. Provision has to be made. This is not a testament to the Australian government, but it has contributed over and above what it should on our local roads programs like Roads to Recovery and the Black Spot program. The Black Spot program, which was scrapped under Labor, has invested $3.9 million to fix 22 Dobell black spots. This includes $230,000 for traffic lights at the corner of The Entrance Road and Tuggerah Parade, Long Jetty; $150,000 for signs and an island at the intersection of Maidens Brush Road and Jarrett Street, Wyoming; and $200,000 for traffic lights at the corner of Bay Village Road and Eastern Road, Bateau Bay. This is just to name a few.
Our local community will also benefit from $2.5 million in funding towards the construction of a two-lane link off the Pacific Highway from Britannia Drive at Watanobbi to Sparks Road at Warnervale and around $80 million to widen the F3 Freeway between Calga and the Hawkesbury River. The Howard government has committed a further $50 million to commence widening the freeway to six lanes between Mount Colah and Cowan. Central Coast roads also benefit from around $14 million allocated to Gosford and Wyong councils every year under Roads to Recovery.
The Pacific Highway is probably one of the most high-profile roads in Australia, and far too many people have died on this road. With Central Coast traffic expected to increase by around 63,000 vehicles a day by 2026, according to an NRMA audit, the urgent upgrading of this road is paramount. The NRMA audit of Central Coast roads found major congestion points around Ourimbah Primary School, the Wyong Road-SH 10 roundabout and the Church Street intersection at Wyong. The NRMA recommended Ourimbah road upgrades to reduce the crossing distance and time required for the pedestrian cycle and allow more time for through vehicles. (Time expired)
18
13:38:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I rise to speak to this motion on the Pacific Highway and, in doing so, reject the proposition by the member for Cowper. The facts are that from 1996 to June 2006 the New South Wales government will have invested $1.6 billion in the Pacific Highway, while the federal government, of which he is a member, has invested only $660 million. That is a $160 million a year commitment by the New South Wales government, compared with a $60 million a year commitment by the federal government. This means that the New South Wales government is contributing 72 per cent of the funding for the Pacific Highway between Hexham and the Queensland border.
In terms of responsibility, the Pacific Highway has now changed as a result of the federal government’s AusLink national network. Under the AusLink funding agreement, the federal government’s funding falls woefully short of the $8 billion that is now needed to complete a high-standard, dual-carriageway motorway between Hexham and the Queensland border. Under the approach used by the Australian government for other roads in the national AusLink network, the federal government should either fully fund projects or contribute at least 80 per cent of the cost. Too much of the federal government’s AusLink agreement is about robbing Peter to pay Paul, a sleight of hand designed to make it look as though the federal government is contributing more in some areas. But it is taking away funding in other areas.
The good news for all of us—and this is what the debate ought to be about—is that the job is now getting done, even if the federal government is underfunding New South Wales roads. Since 1996 a total of 44 projects have opened to traffic, with motorists now benefiting from 229 kilometres of four-lane dual carriageway, and people should not forget that this joint approach was initiated prior to the 1996 election by the then federal minister for transport Laurie Brereton, a Labor minister for transport. A further eight projects are under construction or have been approved and are awaiting the start of construction. A further 17 upgrading projects are in the planning stage.
By the end of this financial year—let us deal with the facts—approximately 44 per cent of the 677-kilometre highway, the length from Hexham to the Queensland border, will either be completed dual carriageway or under construction. It could have been better if the federal government had put more in over the last decade. The travel time for both light and heavy vehicles on the Pacific Highway has also decreased by more than one hour over the last 10 years.
On 23 December last year, the New South Wales government signed a memorandum of understanding—the original proposition came from the opposition in the lead-up to the federal election, and the government followed—which requires the government to explore funding options to accelerate the completion of the Pacific Highway to dual carriageway. The Bonville bypass is included as part of this program.
Work is proceeding on a new stretch of the Pacific Highway at Bonville. Tenders to design, build and maintain the bypass closed on 23 December 2005. The Roads and Traffic Authority expects to award the contract before June 2006, with construction to commence soon after. To date, $12 million has been spent on the upgrade, including project development, geotechnical investigations, an environmental impact statement and property acquisition.
On the same day, both the New South Wales and federal governments announced they had signed a memorandum of understanding for a program of around $960 million to upgrade a further 64 kilometres of highway to dual carriageway by mid-2009. In the interim, safety improvement works involving installation of a central median barrier through Pine Creek and shoulder widening will be completed by June 2006—and it goes on. Since December 2005, two speed cameras have been in operation to cover both directions of the highway in Bonville, and the speed limits have been reduced.
The New South Wales government remains committed to completing the upgrade of the Pacific Highway as quickly as possible. It is about time the Howard government recognised this and, in essence, pulled its finger out and put more money on the table so that we can overcome road safety problems on this highway. The Pacific Highway agreement between the federal government and the New South Wales government was a Labor initiative when Labor was in government, prior to 1996. The New South Wales government is looking to the federal government to do more, because, for example, the Pacific Highway between here and the Albury border is a deathtrap because of the failure of the federal government to do its job. The federal government has been more concerned about cherry-picking projects for short-term political advantage, with no regard to the safety of Australian motorists. (Time expired)
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being nearly 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
20
Statements by Members
Battle of Long Tan
20
20
13:43:00
Edwards, Graham, MP
83R
Cowan
ALP
0
0
Mr EDWARDS
—Mr Speaker, you will be aware that this year marks the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan in Vietnam. On 18 August last year I wrote to the previous Minister for Veterans’ Affairs requesting that the government initiate an inquiry into the awarding of medals following that battle. In view of the fact that I have had no reply to that letter, I again raise the matter in the House and request the current Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Bruce Billson, to ensure some justice for those veterans of the Battle of Long Tan who had their bravery awards downgraded. I call on him to launch an independent review of the fairness and justness of the awards process following that battle.
I also request that the minister make available funding to allow each federal electorate an opportunity to recognise the contribution made by Vietnam veterans and their families to Australia and to honour their contribution to our nation. Similar recognition has occurred for veterans of previous wars, and I believe this is an appropriate year to recognise Vietnam veterans and their families. I note that the minister is sitting at the table, and I personally ask him to look at these issues I have raised.
La Trobe University
20
20
13:44:00
Gibbons, Steve, MP
83X
Bendigo
ALP
0
0
Mr GIBBONS
—La Trobe University have announced that they are seeking federal government support to establish a regional and rural medical school at their campus in Bendigo. The four-year graduate entry program would be introduced in 2008, with an initial annual intake of 50 students. It is anticipated that by 2011 there would be a full student load of 200 students at the Bendigo campus.
This program is designed to assist in solving the critical shortage of medical practitioners in rural and regional Victoria. The four-year graduate entry program will ensure strong collaborative relationships with other medical programs in the region. It will maximise the rural and regional orientation of graduates in order to maintain their commitment to regional Victoria following their graduation.
La Trobe University has committed $29 million to the program and will allocate 200 new fully funded student places to the program in Bendigo, a major commitment to the Bendigo campus of the university. The medical program will complement the existing pharmacy, physiotherapy, psychology, public health, nursing and social work programs currently offered at Bendigo. I urge the new Minister for Education, Science and Training to give serious and favourable consideration to this exciting proposal.
La Trobe Bendigo will develop partnerships with all relevant medical providers, including the Bendigo Health Care Group, the private hospital sector, Bendigo community health services, the Division of General Practitioners, and regional and rural general practitioners. The La Trobe regional medical school in Bendigo will not only assist in addressing the rural GP shortage but also bring enormous economic benefits to Central Victoria. This is a very worthwhile project for regional and rural Victoria and offers a unique partnership opportunity for La Trobe and many other health related organisations. There is a shared sense of commitment not only to regional Victoria but also to tackling the serious shortage of doctors in regional Victoria and beyond. (Time expired)
Oxley Electorate: Camira Scouts Group
21
21
13:46:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
0
0
Mr RIPOLL
—Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending the 30th anniversary celebrations of the Camira Scout Group in my electorate of Oxley. As you can see, I am actually wearing the honorary scarf and woggle today in the House. I would like to place on the public record my admiration for the work of the local people involved with this group and with the scouting movement generally. The scouts aim to:
... encourage the physical, intellectual, social, emotional and spiritual development of young people so that they take a constructive place in society as responsible citizens, and as a member of their local, national and international communities.
This is very much an admirable aim, and I am very supportive of the work that these people do.
In particular, I want to acknowledge the hard work of the people in the Camira Scout Group: Mr Ken Miller, who is the District Commissioner; Mr Greg Broad, who is the Regional Commissioner; Ms Donna Harris, who is the Camira Scout Group Leader—and I congratulate her on her elevation to that position; and Ms Bonney Degen, who is the Treasurer.
The Camira Scout Group is a great organisation. It is doing a great job in our local community. That is why I am so very proud to be wearing this scarf and woggle today. I was presented with these on Friday night and made an honorary scout, and I will be proud to remain that for the rest of my life. The scouts make a great contribution to our local community, shaping the development of young boys and girls. There is no gender difference in scouts anymore; it is just boys and girls all together. They work very hard to make sure that Camira is a great place to live.
Make Poverty History Campaign
21
21
13:48:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
0
Mr GARRETT
—Last year this parliament was visited by many individuals and groups who urged the government and MPs in this House to take up the great campaign that has transformed the world’s approach to alleviating poverty, the Make Poverty History campaign. The government and MPs were urged to ensure that the Millennium Development Goals were incorporated into the aid and development framework of Australia. These goals were agreed by the United Nations at the close of 2005. Amongst those groups was the Oaktree Foundation, a group of young people committed to helping break the poverty cycle by focusing on sustainable education. They visited here during their ‘road trip’.
The government has been too slow in recognising the importance of the Millennium Development Goals in building an integrated approach to development assistance in our region and too quiet in speaking out on the issue of poverty in our region. These young Australians who visited the parliament last year expect some action this year and will be watching closely to see positive steps taken by the Australian government.
I do know that a white paper is imminent and that the issue of Millennium Development Goals will be considered. But today AidWatch, an NGO dedicated to aid transparency, released a major report called Post Tsunami Aid in Aceh. Regrettably, it finds that AusAID and the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development are the least transparent donor agencies. (Time expired)
International Mother Language Day
22
22
13:49:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
0
0
Ms OWENS
—Tuesday, 21 February was International Mother Language Day, a date chosen by UNESCO in recognition of the young Bengalis who died on 21 February 1952 while protesting for the right to speak their own language. There are over 6,700 languages spoken in the world today—each language mirroring the society in which it was born and reflecting the small differences in the way we each view the world that are beyond price. It reminds us that for us in Australia the languages of the world are now part of our own heritage, carried within our own population—an extraordinary wealth to be appreciated and nurtured, not just with within each language group but by the nation as a whole.
On the previous Sunday, I attended the unveiling of an International Mother Language Day monument in Ashfield Park, the first one erected outside Bangladesh. The monument carries the message ‘Conserve your mother language’ along with the alphabets from 12 languages. It was erected thanks to the dedication of the Ekushe Academy. It stands to remind us how special it is for children to grow up knowing the language of their country—this one, but also the language of their parents within their own cultural context.
Mr David Hicks
22
22
13:50:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
0
Mr MURPHY
—Last year I asked the Attorney-General about the case of Mr David Hicks. He replied to my question on notice of 5 December that Mr Hicks was captured in early December 2001, was charged on 10 June 2004 and was transferred to Guantanamo Bay in January 2002. It is now more than four years since Mr Hicks was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, and the government of the United States of America is doing nothing to resolve this case expeditiously and give this man natural justice. Justice delayed is justice denied. It is appalling that this man is kept in Guantanamo Bay and no resolution is made in relation to his case. Quite obviously, our Australian government is not doing enough to pressure the United States to bring this matter to finality. I call on the Prime Minister of this country to ring Mr Bush and ask that Mr Hicks be brought to trial immediately or that he be released.
World Lifesaving Championships
22
22
13:52:00
McArthur, Stewart, MP
VH4
Corangamite
LP
1
0
Mr McARTHUR
—I would like to acknowledge on the public record the World Lifesaving Championships that were held at Lorne and at Geelong over the last two weeks. These championships demonstrate the skills of lifesavers both in the ocean and in flat water. I particularly was surprised at the number of Europeans, Americans and other world nations that participated in the flat water lifesaving activities. Those of us in the electorate of Corangamite are dominated by surf lifesaving. There has been a long tradition of saving Australians from deepwater undercurrents and those types of difficulties. However, these world championships were very successful. I attended a luncheon yesterday at the conclusion. Competitors from something in the vicinity of 25 nations have been competing in the last two weeks.
I put on the public record the contribution of Mr Harry Windmill, who was a major contributor over the last 30 years to the development of these championships. Unfortunately he passed away just five weeks ago, on the eve of these championships which were going to be held in Australia. That is a showpiece for the Australiana in surf lifesaving, surfboat rowing, ski rowing and that very important concept. (Time expired)
International Mother Language Day
23
23
13:53:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I rise to acknowledge the fact that 21 February last week was International Mother Language Day. It is particularly pertinent, for it was on 21 February in 1952 that the Bengali-speaking people of Dacca, now the capital of Bangladesh, went out onto the streets to protest against the suppression of language by the government. Many of the protestors were injured, and some lost their lives in the fight to defend their mother language. The Bengalis ultimately won their fight to secure their mother language in 1971, with independence. In recognition of the Bengalis’ dedication to defending their mother language and their culture, the UN declared 21 February International Mother Language Day, following the decision taken by the 30th session of UNESCO in 1999.
The Sunday before last I was pleased to attend the unveiling of the first monument to International Mother Language Day in Ashfield Park in my electorate, along with the member for Parramatta, Julie Owens; the state member for Strathfield, Virginia Judge; and the Mayor of Ashfield, Rae Jones. It was also attended by His Excellency Ashraf-Ud-Doula, High Commissioner of Bangladesh; and Mr Nirmal Paul, the President of the Ekushe Academy of Australia.
Our mother language is the medium which unites the ideas, experiences and performances of individuals, families and communities. Mother language makes our cultures resilient and strong, serving as the backbone of our cultural identities. It is particularly important that this be acknowledged, and I commend all those who were involved in last Sunday’s event. (Time expired)
Chisholm Electorate: Box Hill
23
23
13:55:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
0
Ms BURKE
—Sadly, in my electorate on Friday there was a rather tragic incident: 28-year-old Darren Jones was stabbed to death at the Box Hill Railway Station. While Darren was not a constituent, I do want to pass on to his partner and small child our sympathies. I also want to call upon our state local government, Connex and Centro to do more to upgrade our transport hub at Box Hill. Sadly, for many years we have been suffering pressure from individuals thinking that Box Hill is not a safe place to visit, that the trains and the bus interchange are not safe. We have done much with the police and local communities to bring up the impression and to tell people, particularly parents, that their children can travel through Box Hill, that it is a safe place to use the transport and that it is a safe place to shop. This tragedy, whilst not connected really to the incidents, has unfortunately added to the concerns of parents. I really do believe that it is time that the transport hub be upgraded so that people no longer feel insecure using that service or sending their schoolchildren through there.
Tibet
23
23
13:56:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
0
Mr DANBY
—Last Saturday I had the opportunity of giving a thankyou to His Excellency Mr Samdhong Rinpoche, the Prime Minister of the Tibetan government in exile, in the presence of about 500 people in Sydney who gathered to express their support for Tibetan cultural autonomy within a Chinese federation. This program of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the Middle Way, is a very moderate program of reconciliation which seeks Tibetan cultural autonomy within the Chinese federation. I would note at this point that the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity has recently organised a letter from 37 Nobel laureates to China’s President Hu Jintao, supporting cultural autonomy for Tibet. This is a very important issue. The fifth round of Tibetan-Chinese discussions has just been held in Beijing at the moment. At this time, before the Olympics, China should very seriously consider the issue of the Tibetan people and giving them cultural autonomy within a Chinese federation. As I said, the Tibetan proposal to the Chinese is a very moderate program that could easily be granted without influencing the sovereignty of China.
Oxley Electorate: Pooh Corner
24
24
13:58:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
0
0
Mr RIPOLL
—Today I want to renew my pleas for the Howard government to release funding for the full clean-up of Pooh Corner before it is handed over to the Brisbane City Council for management and conservation. Pooh Corner is an endangered woodland ecosystem and a natural habitat for Brisbane’s remaining population of eastern grey kangaroos located in the south-western suburbs of Brisbane. Pooh Corner was at the centre of a controversy last year when it was revealed that the Howard government wanted to sell off this environmentally significant land to the highest bidder. But, after intense community lobbying, it was gifted to the Brisbane City Council.
I have written to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, who has been a very vocal supporter of saving Pooh Corner, urging him to lobby the Howard government also. All previous requests of mine for this to happen have been denied. But with the new parliamentary secretary, Sandy Macdonald, handling the disposal of defence land, there might be a different view taken.
In addition to being a dumping ground for old cars and all sorts of rubbish, there has been unexploded ordnance on the site in the past. If this is the case then it should be immediately cleared or verified to be cleared by the Department of Defence before any handover to the Brisbane City Council occurs. Simply saying, ‘She’ll be right, mate,’ and that their job is done because of the handing over of the land to the Brisbane City Council is not good enough. The land should be handed over in a condition such that it is ready and able to be used and is safe for the people that use the land on a weekly basis. This is a very important piece of land. (Time expired)
Workplace Relations
24
24
13:59:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
1
0
Mr LINDSAY
—Last week Labor’s industrial relations task force came to my electorate. Six members turned up to listen to complaints. Six members of the public actually came along—all members of the Labor Party probably. They were trying to do an inquiry into something that has not yet started. My electorate welcome the new Howard industrial relations laws, because they know that they will all do better as working families.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
24
Miscellaneous
24
14:00:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. He has been in Iraq for trade talks on wheat and is travelling to the UAE for further bilateral trade meetings. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services will answer questions on his behalf today and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf tomorrow.
I also advise the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today. He is in Indonesia to address a seminar on counter-terrorism and for bilateral meetings. The Attorney-General will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
25
14:01:00
Questions Without Notice
Wheat Exports
25
14:01:00
25
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that Australia has lost the opportunity to bid for the current Iraqi tender for the importation of 500,000 tonnes of wheat, worth about $100 million to Australian wheat farmers?
25
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I will not confirm that.
Wheat Exports
25
25
14:01:00
Forrest, John, MP
NV5
Mallee
NATS
1
Mr FORREST
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House of the outcome of the discussions of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade with the Iraqi government on the future of wheat sales to that country?
25
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the member for Forrest—
Honourable members interjecting—
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—The Mallee, I am sorry. I have done it again! I apologise to my esteemed colleague the member for the Mallee for that mistake. Can I say that the member for the Mallee is one of many members—all on this side of the House—who actually know something about the Australian wheat industry. There are a couple on the other side who do, but we may not have them much longer—and I think that will be a great shame.
I want to very warmly welcome the announcement made yesterday by the Iraqi government that it will continue to buy Australian wheat. This excellent outcome is due to the visit to Iraq by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. I want to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, very ably supported by Senator Jeannie Ferris, the chairman of the government members’ committee on these matters, for the excellent work they have done in very difficult circumstances over the weekend. They should be commended by all Australians who are interested in the future of the wheat industry.
In a joint statement released yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chalabi, the two governments ‘reaffirmed their strong desire for the longstanding ... wheat trade to continue into the future’. The statement also said:
In this context, the Iraqi Government will continue to welcome offers to supply high-quality Australian wheat through participating in competitive tendering in Iraq.
The government will now consider how best to achieve this and we will continue to do all we can to assist Australian wheat farmers to supply wheat to Iraq. This outcome reflects the strong relationship between the two countries, including a very long and fruitful economic relationship, a wheat trade that stretches over half a century, our shared commitment to bringing democracy to this troubled country and Australia’s generous contribution of aid and reconstruction following the fall of the former regime.
The Deputy Prime Minister went to Iraq with the sole purpose of protecting the interests of Australian wheat growers. I believe that he has risen to that occasion in a very effective way. I thank him and I congratulate him on a very successful mission.
Wheat Exports
25
25
14:04:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister and follows the question he was just asked. I refer to reports published in the national media last week that Iraqi Grains Board chief Khalil Assi had confirmed publicly that Iraq had no problems buying Australian wheat in the future so long as it was not from the AWB while the Cole inquiry was running. Prime Minister, what is the difference between the position articulated by the Iraqi Grains Board last week, before the Deputy Prime Minister’s visit to Iraq, and the position articulated by the Iraqi Grains Board this week, after the Deputy Prime Minister’s visit to Iraq?
26
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s careful attention to the answer I gave to the first question.
Taxation
26
26
14:06:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
1
Mr CIOBO
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House steps the government is taking to benchmark the Australian tax system against international practice?
26
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Moncrieff for his question. I acknowledge his deep interest in this area and his assistance. The Australian government has commissioned Dick Warburton, Chairman of the Board of Taxation, and Mr Peter Hendy, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, to lead a study that will benchmark the Australian taxation system against other developed economies.
The benchmarking will look at the overall level of taxes, the tax mix and the base and rates within each type of tax. It will cover personal, business, indirect property and transaction taxes. It will provide a definitive set of facts which will show those areas where Australia meets international practice and those areas where Australia lags behind international practice. Armed with those facts, we will be able to direct our attention to those areas where Australia lags and, in response to that, be able to ensure that the Australian taxation system meets international practice.
All of the areas where Australia wants to be at the forefront of economic practice can take advantage from international benchmarking. That is why it is important that we do this in the taxation area just as we have done it in so many other areas—such as the conduct of monetary policy, fiscal policy, competition policy, debt policy and balance sheet management—to add to the reforms which this government has already put in place—
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner
—This is called the Malcolm Turnbull smokescreen.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—reforms which the member for Melbourne, so voluble in his interjection, opposed. Every single major reform of the Australian economy was opposed by the member for Melbourne, an old socialist leftie who is trying to get back into this argument. He is not old, sorry; I withdraw that.
What is the position of the Australian Labor Party? Blow me down if the Australian Labor Party does not oppose benchmarking the Australian taxation system. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lilley were out yesterday whingeing and whining, opposing again, trying to hold back reform—as they have every other reform of the Australian economy. Need I remind members of the government that this was the man who promised the Australian public the roll-back of the GST. There is a word we do not hear much around here any more. It is the word that begins with ‘r’. It is the roll-back policy.
Also out there opposing yesterday was the member for Lilley. In the last election it was the member for Lilley who thought up the brilliant campaign of taking $600 off every Australian family. When the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Latham, discovered the night before the policy release—I read from Mr Latham’s diaries:
The night before the policy release I asked Swan how we deal with the $600 annual payment. He replied, “Just say it’s not real money.”
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We need to have standing orders upheld.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Treasurer will come back to the question.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—That was the last tax policy which the member for Lilley put forward—to take $600 off each family in Australia. ‘Just tell them it’s not real money.’ Just tell them he’s not a real shadow Treasurer either.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
27
Distinguished Visitors
27
14:11:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Dr Hermann Scheer of the German Bundesrat. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
27
14:11:00
Questions Without Notice
Wheat Exports
27
14:11:00
27
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his claim in this place on 16 February 2006 that AWB had to be included in the delegation sent to Iraq because it was legally necessary to do so. Given that the Australian delegation does not include the AWB, did the Prime Minister mislead the House when he claimed this legal obligation or is the Deputy Prime Minister now acting illegally by negotiating access to Iraq in the absence of the AWB?
27
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—The Deputy Prime Minister is not acting illegally, I am not acting illegally, and I think the Leader of the Opposition has run out of real questions.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
27
27
14:12:00
Markus, Louise, MP
E07
Greenway
LP
1
Mrs MARKUS
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House of new medicines the government has listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? How will affordable access to these medicines improve Australia’s health?
27
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr ABBOTT
—I do thank very much the member for Greenway for her question and I remind her and all other members that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is an essential part of the overall Medicare system delivering lifesaving and life-enhancing drugs to Australians at affordable prices. But the cost of the PBS—currently more than $6 billion a year—has been growing strongly because new medicines have been able to pass rigorous cost effectiveness scrutiny. That is to say that the health benefits they confer or the extra quality of life they deliver more than justify the taxpayer subsidy.
Since October 2003 there have been more than 300 new listings, adding some $1 billion to the PBS forward estimates. For instance, in December Arimidex was listed on the PBS for the treatment of breast cancer. This is expected to help up to 24,000 people at a cost of $75 million to 2010. This month Vytorin was listed on the PBS to treat people with serious cardiovascular disease. This is expected to help up to 300,000 Australians at a cost of $156 million by 2010. In April Raptiva will list on the PBS to treat people with severe chronic psoriasis, which is a horribly disfiguring skin disease. This is expected to help up to 17,000 Australians at a cost of $228 million by 2010.
With expenses at this level, obviously the government is always looking at ways to get better value from the PBS, but we certainly will not stint on the drugs that Australians need. The government remains determined to preserve a very strong PBS and to be, as always, the best friend that Medicare has ever had.
Taxation
27
27
14:14:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
Mr SWAN
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his announcement yesterday of a tax inquiry. As part of the inquiry, will the Treasurer direct Mr Hendy and Mr Warburton to investigate why the Howard government allowed Australian taxpayers to subsidise kickbacks that funded Saddam Hussein while the Treasurer and his colleagues turned a blind eye?
28
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—What a pathetic question. If one wanted evidence that those opposite had run out of questions on the AWB, exhibit A would be the member for Lilley. He would also be exhibit A for a whole lot of other failings of the Labor frontbench—although having people like that behind him does make the Leader of the Opposition look quite reliable. This is an international benchmark of taxation rates. Mr Hendy will do his duty in accordance with the terms of reference.
Queensland: Roads
28
28
14:16:00
May, Margaret, MP
83B
McPherson
LP
1
Mrs MAY
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister advise the House of measures that the government has taken to improve Queensland’s road network?
28
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr TRUSS
—I know that the honourable member for McPherson and, for that matter, the honourable member for Moncrieff will be delighted with the news that at long last the Tugun bypass will be built. The Tugun bypass project has been in the waiting for years. It is a significant and, I acknowledge, a difficult construction project, which crosses state borders and passes through airport land and significant environmental areas, but, when completed, it will unite around half a million people across the New South Wales-Queensland border in the fast-growing areas around the Gold Coast and the northern parts of New South Wales. Even though this particular project is not a part of the national highway network, the Australian government will provide $120 million towards this 7.5-kilometre project and will help to ensure that the project is able to achieve its objectives of providing much better traffic through those fast-growing areas on the Gold Coast.
Last week the Australian government approved the environmental impact statement and the major development plan for the Gold Coast airport, which clears the way for the project to commence. The road will pass under the extension of the Gold Coast airport, and significant work will be required to ameliorate environmental issues. It is one of the most complex assessments that the Department of the Environment and Heritage has undertaken for a very long time, but it now gives the opportunity for this really important project to proceed and to get rid of some of those appalling bottlenecks that travellers through the Gold Coast have had to endure for quite some time.
The Queensland government has complained that it does not get enough money from the Australian government for roads. It is overlooking the fact that an 81 per cent increase in construction funding has been provided to Queensland under AusLink and that AusLink funding has enabled projects like the Tugan bypass to proceed. Queensland will receive $1,864 million for road funding under AusLink in the period 2004 to 2008-09, including $1½ billion for construction. This is an important example of the government getting on with the job of delivering the road network that the fast-growing parts of south-east Queensland so urgently need.
Taxation
28
28
14:18:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—My question is addressed to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Revenue and I warmly welcome him to the portfolio. I refer him to recent admissions in the Cole inquiry that AWB claimed tax deductions for kickbacks paid to the former Saddam Hussein regime. Minister, would the government now support Labor’s proposal to remove the loophole in the tax law—a proposal that, I should say, is consistent with OECD recommendations—so that large AWB type bribes could no longer be claimed as tax deductible facilitation payments?
29
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
Mr DUTTON
—I thank the member opposite for his question and for his warm welcome. I say in response, though, that there was no need to follow on from such a stupid question as the member for Lilley put before. This smacks of desperation by a desperate leader and a desperate opposition in relation to the Cole inquiry.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He was asked a very specific question: whether he would change the tax loophole related to bribes. We want a bit of relevance around here from this minister. If he does not have an answer—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister has only just begun his answer. I call the minister.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—The member opposite is aware that the Commissioner of Taxation is an independent person. He has the capacity to undertake investigations in relation to deductions that may or may not have been claimed by a private company. They are matters that quite rightly remain within his domain. Currently it is not within the law—
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr Fitzgibbon
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I have asked the tax commissioner to do nothing. I have asked the government to support Labor’s amendments to close the loophole in the—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Hunter will resume his seat. The minister is entirely in order. I call the minister.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—I would conclude by saying that there is no capacity under Australian law for a company to claim a deduction for a payment that is considered to be a bribe in another country. The opposition knows that and the member opposite knows that. The fact is that they are running around on this issue desperate, because the Labor Party under Kim Beazley is going nowhere.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Before calling the next member, I would remind the Minister for Revenue that he should refer to members by their title or their seat.
National Security
29
29
14:22:00
Panopoulos, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
1
Ms PANOPOULOS
—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General update the House on the outcome of the trial of Joseph Terrence Thomas? Did the counter-terrorism offences passed by this House play a role in that trial?
29
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr RUDDOCK
—I thank the member for Indi for her question. The person mentioned, Joseph ‘Jack’ Thomas, is the first person to be charged with and convicted for specific offences under the counter-terrorism laws passed by this parliament in 2002. He is yet to be sentenced and it would be inappropriate to go into the details of the case.
I might say that there have been a number of comments on this matter by his representatives which, in the context of their role as officers of the court, I thought quite surprising. An awareness of the fact that we have a conviction for a serious terrorism offence—and that is the case—and a conviction for another offence relating to altering aspects of a passport document, an awareness of the fact that a magistrate saw fit to ensure that a person was put to his trial when the matter was brought before the magistrate and where, at the trial, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt that applies to criminal standards applied and an awareness of the fact that Mr Thomas was found not guilty in relation to those two separate offences does not in any way detract from the fact that there was a conviction for a serious criminal offence. To suggest that this was some form of trophy trial is quite inappropriate. To suggest that this case demonstrates that people of Muslim faith should not cooperate with authorities is, I think, quite inappropriate for an officer of the court.
What this case demonstrates very clearly is that, if you get involved with terrorists and their activities, you do so at your own peril. There are laws that deal with these issues and the government is committed to ensuring that we do everything in our power, both domestically and internationally, to counter the terrorist threat to our people. We want to ensure their safety and their security, and I am pleased that this matter has been resolved properly in accordance with the law. There was no basis upon which his legal representatives should have brought that process into question.
Mr Trevor Flugge
30
30
14:25:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the question I asked the Prime Minister when parliament last sat on the salary paid to the former National Party candidate and Australian government representative in Iraq, Mr Trevor Flugge. I also refer to the written answer the Prime Minister delivered to my office five minutes before question time began, in which he confirmed that Mr Flugge’s package was not the $700,000 as stated in Senate estimates but, in fact, a total of $978,776.50. Prime Minister, beyond this million-dollar package to Mr Flugge paid for from the Australian aid budget, did Mr Flugge have access to any other Australian government money to support his activities in Iraq?
30
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I am not aware of it, but will I check and, if there was something else, I will let the public know.
Afghanistan
30
30
14:26:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
1
Mr LINDSAY
—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Would the Minister advise the House of the government’s decision to deploy a reconstruction task force led by the Australian Defence Force to Afghanistan?
30
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr NELSON
—I thank the member for Herbert for his question. Last Tuesday the Prime Minister and I announced that the Australian government will be deploying another 200 troops to Afghanistan. This will be under the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force phase III. The Australian troops will be working in team with Dutch troops. The Dutch have advised that they will be making available up to 1,400 troops for this task. The Vice Chief of the Australian Defence Force has just returned from London and the Netherlands to commence the negotiations for the precise detail of the deployment.
About half of the 200 troops that we will send will be, specifically, engineers and tradespeople who will be working in the Oruzgan province of Afghanistan. This is a highly dangerous activity. About half of the deployment will be security forces and logistics support, and we envisage that the deployment will be for a two-year period. These will add to the 200 special forces troops that we already have in Afghanistan and the 110 currently being deployed along with two Chinook helicopters, into which has been invested an additional $25 million to improve their antiballistic capabilities. I know the member for Herbert, along with all Australians, will wish them every success in this.
The reason the government is committed to deploying these troops is that terrorism is a global activity. It is likely for the foreseeable future that free men and women in governments throughout the world will be fighting terrorism. It needs to be fought in distant parts of the world no less than it needs to be fought in our region or, indeed, within Australia.
On Saturday we welcomed home the special forces task operation group, which has returned from Afghanistan. In the presence of the Prime Minister, the representative of the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chris Evans, and other MPs, including the member for Cowan, the troops were recognised and honoured for their action, their leadership and their bravery on our behalf. Two in particular, a sergeant and a warrant officer class 2, were awarded the Medal for Gallantry, which is the third highest honour that can be bestowed upon an Australian soldier for bravery. In honour of those men and their families, I table an edited precis of what they have achieved.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
31
Distinguished Visitors
31
14:29:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the Sri Lankan parliament. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
31
14:30:00
Questions Without Notice
Oil for Food Program
31
31
14:30:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question again is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the question I asked the Prime Minister when parliament last met on the role played by Mr Flugge and Mr Long as Howard government representatives in Iraq. I refer also to the Prime Minister’s reply to that question, again delivered five minutes before question time today, that states for the first time that Mr Flugge’s responsibilities as a Howard government representative included ‘providing advice on the management of contracts under the oil for food program’. Prime Minister, what advice did Mr Flugge provide in relation to the June 2003 memorandum of instruction issued some 16 months before the end of the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal? In the provision of that advice, did Mr Flugge provide information concerning what action should be taken on a list to be compiled of contracts which had a 10 per cent kickback attached to them?
31
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the member for Griffith for the question. I will take it on notice and give him a reply before question time tomorrow.
Avian Influenza
31
31
14:31:00
McArthur, Stewart, MP
VH4
Corangamite
LP
1
Mr McARTHUR
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister update the House on recent developments in Europe with regard to avian influenza? What action has the government taken to address these issues?
31
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGAURAN
—I thank the honourable member for Corangamite for his question. Weekend reports of an outbreak of the highly pathogenic avian influenza, H5N1, on a poultry farm in France are alarming because it is the first case of the deadly disease in domestic fowl in the European Union. This is in addition to 17 other European countries that have reported the H5N1 virus. The Director-General of the World Organisation for Animal Health, Dr Bernard Vallat, has stated that the H5N1 virus is now so endemic in migratory wildfowl that it is certain to spread to almost every country in the world. The only possible exceptions, he said, were Australia and New Zealand.
Late last year the Australian government coordinated Exercise Eleusis, to test Australia’s ability to respond to a simulated outbreak of the avian influenza in poultry. Our response arrangements proved to be effective and sound. A detailed report is currently being prepared and will include a number of recommendations to further strengthen our preparation. Australia recognises the risk posed by migratory birds. However, the vast majority of birds coming to Australia are shore birds and not waterfowl, which have been responsible for the spread of H5N1 in other parts of the world. Nevertheless, surveillance of migratory birds is vital to Australia’s protection from a bird flu outbreak. To date, more than 10,000 samples have been collected from wild birds but show no signs of the virus. In addition, the quarantine service has completed further surveys specifically for that pathogenic avian influenza as part of a surveillance program across Australia’s north. At the same time, surveys are undertaken throughout Australia’s south. Farmers, wildlife networks and agricultural departments across Australia are also alert to report any suspicious deaths.
In summary, although naturally we can never guarantee immunity from H5N1, all Australians will be confident that research, surveillance, monitoring and planning currently in place are providing Australia with the best possible chance of protection.
Oil for Food Program
32
32
14:33:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question again is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the June 2003 memorandum of instruction sent to your government which directed that a list of all oil for food contracts be prepared which involved 10 per cent kickbacks in Iraq. Apart from Mr Trevor Flugge and Michael Long, Howard government representatives on the Coalition Provisional Authority, which of the government’s other 30 representatives on the CPA at that time had knowledge of this memorandum of instruction that a comprehensive list of corrupt contracts be prepared? Prime Minister, given that government officials have been reviewing the files on this matter since the beginning of the Volcker inquiry some two years ago, and given that files have been reviewed again since the commencement of the Cole inquiry, some three months ago, and given that documents have again been searched out by the Cole inquiry last week, could you please attempt to answer this question, unlike the non-answer you have delivered to the two previous questions?
32
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I have to confess a failing. I do not have the memory and mental capacity of the member for Griffith. I really do not. I do not carry—and this is a failing of mine; I know it must disappoint the member for Griffith—around in my head a photographic reproduction of every document I have read, so I beg the forgiveness of the member for Griffith. I regret that I fall short of his high standards. I will take the question on notice, and I will endeavour, however inadequately, to answer it as soon as possible.
Employment
32
32
14:35:00
Laming, Andrew, MP
E0H
Bowman
LP
1
Mr LAMING
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister update the House on recent reports on future demand for labour in the Australian workforce?
32
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
Mr ANDREWS
—I thank the member for Bowman for his question. I can indicate to him that last week the Prime Minister and I launched a series of seminars which will be held throughout Australia which highlight, particularly for the business community in Australia, the publication Workforce tomorrow. This publication summarises research which shows that in the space of just five years Australia could face a workforce shortage of up to 195,000 people because of the ageing of the population. The ageing of the population, the health of the economy and the government’s previous workforce relations reforms have contributed to a 30-year low in unemployment and a demand for labour which in many regions exceeds supply. We see this in particular in regional areas of Australia. As part of the response, the government has also met this demand through skilled migration.
I note in this regard that yesterday on the Sunday program the Leader of the Opposition criticised the government for importing ‘270,000 skilled migrants’ since 1996. I ask: what is the Leader of the Opposition’s policy to deal with skill shortages? Does he oppose skilled migration to this country or is this merely an attempt on the part of the Australian Labor Party to engage in some sort of xenophobic sentiments about skilled migrants? This is significant because in November last year, in the discussion of a matter of public importance in this chamber, the Leader of the Opposition said that Australian children would:
... find themselves dispensed with as apprentices, as foreigners are brought into this country, prepared to work for virtually nothing as apprentices ...
That was what the Leader of the Opposition said last November. Last week the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Combet, warned that the immigration department was planning to ‘bring in Chinese workers who will work at whatever wages the company really dictates’. This sounds disturbingly like the rhetoric of the union campaigns in Australia in the 1890s. Let us look at the facts around the trade skills training visas for apprentices, because they do not take apprenticeships from Australian workers. Firstly, they are only available in regional areas where there is a skills shortage. Secondly, there must be a relevant regional certification body to certify that a vacancy cannot be filled locally and that there is a skills shortage in that particular occupation in the region. On top of that, the regional certification bodies in most cases are actually state government bodies. We happen to have Labor state governments in Australia.
Here we have a response to an issue identified by Labor state governments wanting to do something responsible about ensuring that there are actually jobs and businesses that continue to thrive, particularly in regional areas of Australia. The government is getting on with the job of creating employment opportunities and continuing to develop the Australian economy. What we hear from the Leader of the Opposition is simply xenophobic dog whistling to his mates in the union movement—that is, the same union movement that gave us the White Australia Policy.
Iraq
33
33
14:40:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the government know about the plan to preserve certain senior Saddam Hussein Baath Party officials from being purged as part of the Coalition Provisional Authority policy of ‘de-Baathification’ after the Iraq war?
33
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I knew of a scheme to preserve them all. That was the policy of the Australian Labor Party.
Domestic Violence
33
33
14:41:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
1
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General inform the House of new government initiatives to reduce domestic violence? Are there any alternative policies?
33
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr RUDDOCK
—Yesterday, I can inform the member for Boothby, I launched the government’s Family Law Violence Strategy. This strategy will increase the understanding of how the family law system handles allegations of violence, through new research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Under the strategy the government will work, as we should, closely with states and territories to achieve a faster investigation of allegations of violence and abuse. I am concerned that allegations raised in the family law proceedings are not receiving the priority they deserve from many of the state Labor governments and territory agencies that are responsible for investigating them. An allegation being raised in a separation does not make it any less of a priority to be investigated. The strategy also involves working with the courts to improve court processes for handling allegations. The government’s family law reforms will make protection from violence one of two primary factors to consider in a court in separation cases.
Despite the public attacks on the government’s handling of domestic violence issues, I must say I am very disappointed that the honourable member for Gellibrand is trying to undo this change in some of her proposed amendments. I noticed yesterday that the member for Gellibrand claimed credit for the fact that this strategy is now being announced. She seems to think gestation takes only a matter of weeks! The fact is that preparation of the strategy does involve a good deal more cooperation and discussion than the honourable member seems to suggest. I notice also that she seems to be reminiscing. She reminisces over the Labor Party’s family law amendments of 1995. I would like to know where the Labor Party stands in relation to these matters in 2006, not 1995. The fact is that the member for Gellibrand, who seems to be obsessed with the past, needs to bring before this parliament a detailed statement of where the Labor Party stands on these matters or to get out of the road and let the government get on with the job.
Iraq
34
34
14:44:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. When did the Prime Minister and his ministers first become aware of the plan to prevent former senior Saddam Hussein Baath Party official Yusef Abdul Rahman from being purged?
34
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I do not know; I will have to check that. But let me tackle the very foundation of the question. I would have thought that, as a student of history, the Leader of the Opposition would see as absolutely absurd the proposition that, when a dictatorial regime is removed, no single official who was a member of the ruling party of the time should ever be left in a position of authority. It never happened in Germany. To my knowledge, it never happened in Japan. The Leader of the Opposition, equally as a student of history, will know that it was a condition of having a job in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq that you were a member of the Baath Party. The whole basis of this question is absurd. Of course, I will find out precisely when some notice in relation to this matter was communicated to the government and who it was. I will endeavour to help the Leader of the Opposition. But can I say, with the very greatest of respect, to the Leader of the Opposition: the question is based on an absurd proposition.
Doctor Numbers
34
34
14:45:00
Somlyay, Alex, MP
ZT4
Fairfax
LP
1
Mr SOMLYAY
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister update the House on the measures the government is taking to increase the number of doctors in Australia? Are there any alternative policies?
34
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I thank the member for Fairfax for his question and note his deep interest in this matter. Members will recall that recently the Prime Minister announced that we would lift the cap on full fee paying places for medicine from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. This meant, effectively, that up to 400 more students would have the opportunity to study medicine each year. Members will also recall that COAG embraced this initiative most enthusiastically. All Labor state premiers supported this, particularly Queensland Premier Beattie.
The ink was barely dry on the COAG minutes before the member for Jagajaga rushed out and said that Labor would oppose the lifting of the cap, thereby denying up to 400 more students the opportunity to study medicine, and that she would move to disallow the instrument once it reached parliament. The matter came as a great surprise to many in the Labor Party, not the least being the Premier of Queensland, who was stunned to find that his initiative was going to be rolled by the member for Jagajaga. But it seems that there were others who were equally surprised, particularly the Labor frontbench. In an article—and I thank the Australian for this—published on 22 February, entitled ‘Macklin set to be rolled on fees’, it seems that the member for Lalor was not very happy with the member for Jagajaga. She said in no uncertain terms that the member for Jagajaga had to be put in her place. She said:
“The only body that can determine this is federal caucus ...
“Currently there is not a federal Labor Party position on this matter.”
Apparently, it has emerged that the member for Jagajaga did not consult the frontbench—she did not consult caucus—before signalling that she would oppose Premier Beattie’s plan.
We have to ask: who is going to win on this one—the member for Jagajaga, who is opposing the opportunity for up to 400 students to study medicine, or the member for Lalor, who says she had no right to say that in the first place? While Labor caucus squabbles over this one, I will assist them. I now table the instrument to lift the cap from 10 to 25 per cent. The clock starts ticking now.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
35
Questions to the Speaker
Question Time
35
35
14:49:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
—Mr Speaker, I refer you to pages 505 and—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is this a question to me?
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—It is a question to you, Mr Speaker; I am sorry for not making that clear. I refer you to pages 505 and 506 of House of Representatives Practice, which deal, as you would be aware, with the sub judice convention. I am sure you are aware that, in respect of criminal proceedings, the sub judice convention in this place is at its strictest. I refer you to the paragraph at the top of page 506 which says:
-
As a general rule, matters before the criminal courts should not be referred to from the time a person is charged until a sentence, if any, has been announced; and the restrictions should again apply if an appeal is lodged and remain until the appeal is decided.
Of course, this is a general rule, and you always have discretion in the matter, but can I ask you to reflect on whether or not the question to the Attorney-General today in respect of a criminal matter where sentencing has not yet been conducted, let alone the question of any appeal decided, was properly within standing orders. Whilst of course that question has been and gone, I suspect we are seeing the start of a theme in this place, and consequently your rulings on this matter will be required in the future.
35
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for her question. I will look at the matters again, but, as I heard the question, I believe it referred to comments by a lawyer. But I will look at it further.
Questions in Writing
35
35
14:51:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr MURPHY
—Mr Speaker, I seek your assistance under standing order 105(b). On 8 December 2005, question No. 2826 to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations first appeared on the Notice Paper in my name. It is more than 60 days since that question first appeared, and I would be grateful if you would write to the minister and ask for reasons for the delay in answering that question.
36
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Lowe, and I will follow up his request.
PETITIONS
36
Petitions
10000
The Clerk
The Clerk
—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:
Workplace Relations
LS4
Mr Martin Ferguson
1190
36
To the Honourable Speaker of the House and Members of the House assembled in Parliament:
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that Australian employees will be worse off as a result of the Howard Government’s proposed changes to the industrial relations system.
The petitioners call upon the Howard Government to adopt a plan to produce a fair industrial relations system based on fairness and the fundamental principles of minimum standards, wages and conditions; safety nets; an independent umpire; the right to associate; and the right to collectively bargain.
The Petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Howard Government:
-
Guarantees that no individual Australian employee will be worse off under proposed changes to the industrial relation system.
-
Allows the National Minimum Wage to continue to be set annually by the independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
-
Guarantees that unfair dismissal law changes will not enable employers to unfairly sack employees.
-
Ensures that workers have the right to reject individual contracts and bargain for decent wages and conditions collectively.
-
Keeps in place safety nets for minimum wages and conditions.
-
Adopt Federal Labor’s principles to produce a fair system based on the fundamental principles on minimum standards, wages and conditions; safety nets; an independent umpire; the right to associate; and the right to collectively bargain.
1190
LS4
Mr Martin Ferguson
Mr Martin Ferguson (from 1,190 citizens)
Shortland Electorate: General Practitioners
83N
Ms Hall
146
36
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
Request the House take immediate action to guarantee replacement of General Practitioners in the Shortland electorate which includes Lake Macquarie and the northern part of the Central Coast.
Dr Gurcharan Singh Thind who has been practising for more than 20 years in the Lake Macquarie area and has surgeries in Blacksmiths and Marks Point, is retiring on 31 January 2006. Dr Thind’s replacement is proving to be extremely difficult due to the failure of the Government to issue provider numbers.
Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that the greatest effort is made, as soon as possible, to issue provider numbers for proposed replacements of General Practitioners in the Shortland electorate.
146
83N
Ms Hall
Ms Hall (from 146 citizens)
Shortland Electorate: General Practitioners
83N
Ms Hall
79
36
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
Request that the House take immediate action to address the chronic shortage of doctors in the Lake Macquarie and Hunter areas.
Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that the greatest effort is made, as soon as possible, to address the chronic shortage of doctors in the Lake Macquarie and Hunter areas.
79
83N
Ms Hall
Ms Hall (from 79 citizens)
Workplace Relations
4T4
Mr Melham
8
36
To the Honourable members of the House in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned transport workers draws the attention of the House to the following matters concerning the proposed Independent Contractors Act and recent legislation that alters existing NSW workplace arrangements.
That the House recognises that the introduction of the proposed Independent Contractors Act will be to the detriment of small business.
The impact of the proposed independent Contractors Act for owner drivers will be:
-
No access to the Industrial Relations Commission to settle disputes;
-
No contract determination to set rates and conditions;
-
No contract or carriage tribunal to hear claims of goodwill;
-
No ability to review unfair contracts; and
-
No ability to reinstate unfairly terminated contracts.
This petition calls on members of the House to support a fair industrial relations system.
8
4T4
Mr Melham
Mr Melham (from 8 citizens)
Child Care
83M
Ms Plibersek
86
37
To the honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives:
The petition of citizens of Chifley draws the attention of the House
to the increasing shortage and unaffordability of child care in Australia. Your petitioners ask the House to:
-
note that the cost of child care across Australia has increased by 12% in the last year, which is 5 times the rate of all other goods and services;
-
address the increasing disparity between the demand for and supply of child care in Australia;
-
recognise that the excessive cost and unavailability of child care is a drain on the Australian economy, and requires immediate action by the Federal Government;
-
acknowledge that an untold number of Australian parents would like to participate or increase their participation in the paid workforce, but cannot, because child care is either not available or too expensive.
Petitioners also note that the Prime Minister has had nothing to say about the massive increase in child care costs under his government, and has expressed no interest or concern about the fact that some parents have no child care in their area.
Petitioners ask the House to support a National Summit on Child Care, to discuss the crisis in affordable child care in Australia and what should be done to solve the structural problems producing the crisis.
86
83M
Ms Plibersek
Ms Plibersek (from 86 citizens)
Christmas Island
IJ4
Mr Snowdon
418
37
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:
The petition of certain residents of the Australian Territory of Christmas Island, former community members and supporters of the Island community draws to the attention of the House:
-
That through the efforts of the community and the Island company Phosphate Resources Limited, Christmas Island has become a significant player flying the Australian flag in SE Asian phosphate markets;
-
That the economic future of the unique Australian community of Christmas Island is dependent in the medium term on the continuation of phosphate mining, the community’s main employer;
-
That Christmas Islanders wish to continue to make a contribution to the Australian economy now and in Christmas Island’s post-mining future;
-
If mining ceases in the short term many residents will be forced to seek income support from the Government and the community will be irreparably damaged;
-
That the Island company Phosphate Resources Limited has developed a proposal for additional mining life that is currently being assessed under Commonwealth environmental protection legislation.
Your petitioners therefore pray that the House:
-
Recognises the unique nature and circumstances of the Christmas Island community;
-
Recognises the vulnerability of the community if mining does not continue in the medium term;
-
Recognises the level of support for the new mining project in the Christmas Island and mainland communities; and
-
Recommends to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage that he approves additional mining at Christmas Island subject to appropriate environmental safeguards.
418
IJ4
Mr Snowdon
Mr Snowdon (from 418 citizens)
Petitions received.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
38
Private Members' Business
Child Care
38
38
14:53:00
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
0
0
Ms PLIBERSEK
—I move:
That this House:
-
notes:
-
the spiralling cost of child care in many parts of Australia;
-
that a large number of families cannot either find or afford high quality, local child care;
-
the low labour force participation rates of women with dependent children in Australia, relative to many other OECD nations; and
-
that families cannot claim the child care tax offset until after the end of the financial year following the year when child care fees had been paid, even though the Government has all the details necessary to process the offset earlier; and
-
calls on the Government to:
-
develop policies to create more places for children in high quality care in areas where more places are needed;
-
recognise that planning is needed in the long day care market to correct market failures, and make it possible for parents with young children to participate in the workforce; and
-
implement Labor’s proposals to allow families to benefit from the child care tax offset at least a year earlier than the Government’s scheme allows.
There has been a lot of coverage in recent weeks and months about what is happening in child care in Australia. This motion is designed to give members on both sides, because there has been constructive comment from both sides, an opportunity to speak a little about the dramatic and difficult situation in child care. We have a situation where across most of the country parents have extreme difficulty finding child care for their children and, when they do find it, it is extremely difficult to afford that care. Child care is rising at a rate between four and five times that of all other goods and services. It is rising at over four times the rate of the consumer price index. In cold, hard dollar terms that means that every family with one child in full-time care is spending well over $200 a week on child care for just that child. It is pretty unusual to have just one child in care, so you might be talking of two children in care at $200 a head or you might be talking about one preschool aged child and perhaps another child in out-of-school-hours care that might cost $60 a week or so. It is an enormous slab out of the family budget.
Annual reports from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that long-day-care fees on average have increased by over 45 per cent in the last 10 years from a weekly average of about $145 in 1996 to $210 in 2004. Of course, that average relies on some parts of the country where fees are still quite low. Conversely, of course, there are many parts of the country where child-care fees are extremely high. We are hearing regularly now of child-care centres charging $110 or $115 per day for child care. You can imagine what $550 per week coming out of an average family budget does to that family’s budget.
Since 2000 the cost of child care as a proportion of disposable income has increased for all family types except for families with very high incomes. The government’s own figures show that child-care centres and family day care are becoming less affordable over time—that is, they are using up a higher proportion of a family’s income than they did 10 years ago. In 2005—just last year—the cost of child care increased by 10.2 per cent on very high figures. Petrol and vegetables were the only two items where the prices increased at a greater rate—and we all know the reasons we have seen extraordinary spikes in the price of petrol and vegetables.
One of the problems in child care is that until very recently we found it very difficult to get the government, first of all, to admit that there is a problem. I was thrilled when some government members admitted that there is a problem in this area. The former minister, Senator Patterson, said at first that there was no unmet demand in long day care. That is plainly not true. It was very obvious when parents started coming out all over the country saying, ‘Wait a second. I have been waiting for three years for child care and I still haven’t got any.’ She was then forced to admit that there were ‘hot spots’ around the country. But when we asked questions on notice about where these hot spots were and what planning measures the government was taking to address these hot spots, the government ran a mile. The then minister was saying that it was everybody’s problem but hers—that local government should be doing this and state government should be doing that.
Just recently we still had bureaucrats on behalf of the government in Senate estimates saying that planning in long day care is just not the responsibility of the federal government—that it was somebody else’s problem. I do not think that is good enough and I do not think Australian parents think that is good enough. We are yet to hear whether the new minister has other views. I look forward to him putting on the record, firstly, whether he admits that there are shortages in long day care and, secondly, what he intends to do about them. I hope we will see a more sensible approach from the new minister. He might admit what parents have been telling him the whole way along and start to work constructively with the child-care industry and with parents to work out what can be done about these shortages.
The main reason for the very high price of child care in city areas in particular is the shortages. You have a situation where the Commonwealth government subsidises child care and there is a very restricted marketplace. It is very difficult to open a new child-care centre in a built-up area, so it is very difficult for new entrants to enter the marketplace. You have subsidies on the one hand and restricted supply on the other. Of course the price is going to go up. You do not need to be a genius economist to work out that, if you put more money into the system but you do not increase supply, the cost will go up.
The number of parents out there who require child care is a contested figure, as the government do not want to keep statistics on it. They are not interested in keeping statistics. However, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare showed in 2005 that over 61,000 children were turned away from child-care services because there were no vacancies, an additional 30,000 children are not in child care because the fees are too high and 22,000 children could not access child care because no service was available in their area. That is one study which shows that there are at least 110,000 kids who cannot access child care.
Previous figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics suggested that the figure is much higher—178,000. More recently, close to one-quarter of a million parents were saying that they are not in the workforce because of child care or related issues. That gives you some notion of the magnitude of the problem. At the same time, we know that the magnitude of the problem is not just an idle problem for the parents. It is a drain on the Australian economy, because, for every one of those parents who are not in the workforce, we are missing out on their skills, their commitment to the Australian workforce and the knowledge they have. If they want to be working and we are stopping them, it is a terrible shame.
Today I want to table a suggestion that would make the issue of child care availability much easier. The government has already announced a 30 per cent rebate, which, unfortunately, is not payable for two years after the original costs of the child care are incurred. That is a real problem for Australian parents—to be forking out in 2004 hundreds of dollars a week for child care and not being able to claim any of that money until 2006. You pay the money in 2004 and get it back in 2006. Labor has previously spoken of three ways to make this 30 per cent rebate payable much sooner for Australian parents. I seek leave to table the three proposals for the 30 per cent rebate.
Leave granted.
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms PLIBERSEK
—I hope that we will have some bipartisan support for helping parents now with the very high cost and poor availability of child care in this country.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Before calling for a seconder, I remind members that a government minister should be at the table at all times. There have been occasions in the past when the chair has suspended proceedings until one is there. Is the motion seconded?
83S
Burke, Anna, MP
Ms Burke
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
40
15:03:00
Kelly, Jackie, MP
GK6
Lindsay
LP
1
0
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—The shadow minister has by this debate illustrated federal Labor’s unreadiness and inadequacy to govern. This is basically a picking apart of government policies, with no solutions. It is not a debate of the issues at the heart of the matter for mainstream mums and does not acknowledge that long day care is not for every mum. Every mother is different and will make different choices based on her life. Let me point out early that there are not two mothers in this debate—the working mums and the non-working mums—and that the debate is about the best way of raising children, because it is not. It is about every woman who works until she is 30 before having her first child, then returns to her job full time until she has her second child and then returns to work part time until she has her third child and stops work all together. It is about every woman’s life experiences and dealing for every woman in all circumstances in which she may find herself parenting.
A woman’s work and life choices are very different from those of the postwar feminist era the shadow minister is trying to replicate. That type of feminism has no appeal to the vast majority of young women, who are viewed as exceptionally ungrateful by the feminists of that era. Today, they enter the workforce at 20, unaware of chauvinistic limits, and they do not think about children until they have acquired an array of valuable skills that make them highly sought after as employees. When children arrive—and the average age in Australia today for the mother of a firstborn child is 30 and rising—for a multitude of reasons women continue to work. We often regret it later in life and we wish we had spent more time at home, but at the time it seems like forever and we think we have forever—it is for only a year here and a few years there. Time passes.
This issue, contrary to what the shadow minister is saying, is not about the right to work and the state taking care of children in high-quality care a la long day care centres; it is about an inevitable social trend where more and more mothers are working, for whatever reason. Despite the shadow minister’s bleating that we should send in the bureaucrats and spend more dollars finding statistics that we already know, the employment rate of Australian women is higher than in earlier decades.
In 1985, 45 per cent of mothers with dependent children were employed, compared with 60 per cent in 2003. Relative to comparable countries, Australian women currently have a low level of workforce involvement. In 2000, of Australian women with two or more children, 43 per cent were in the workforce, compared with 81 per cent in Sweden, 64 per cent in the United States and 62 per cent in the United Kingdom. Ireland, Italy and Spain have similarly low rates of women’s participation, with two or more children, at 40.8 per cent, 42.4 per cent and 43.3 per cent respectively.
I believe that, with our employment rate for females, Australia is on the way to the US, UK and Swedish levels. This means that we have a job to do in government to make work and mothering easier. For the mums who are not working we provide 24 hours of respite each week, but we need to do better for the mums who are working, especially those on low wages. The medium weekly family income in the electorate of Lindsay is about $58,000 a year. In the shadow minister’s electorate of Sydney it is nearly $80,000 a year. So those from inner city, high-income areas, where Labor councils have consistently failed to provide planning for child-care centres and free up issues and regulations for other types of child care, are now bleating at the federal government to do more.
We have doubled the spending on child care for the next four years. When Labor was in office we saw child-care costs rise by 19 per cent in real terms.
Opposition members interjecting—
GK6
Kelly, Jackie, MP
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—That was per year. In real terms over the last five years child-care costs have risen by eight per cent. Let us get a comparison going: eight per cent, from 19 per cent under Labor. Child care is definitely more affordable and more plentiful under this government, but we have more to do.
Opposition members interjecting—
GK6
Kelly, Jackie, MP
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—What the members opposite are contributing is exceptionally limited compared with what we could be doing. They come up with negative gearing on child care. Give me a break: at least under the current system Centrelink works out how much CCB has to be paid. Admittedly, it is in November, but if the shadow minister proposes to change it she should let me know. Your centre tells you how much in child-care costs you actually paid—again, it is at the end of the year. If you have a suggestion to change that, let me know. The ATO tells you how much you earned last year. If you are going to change that, let me know. By working all those figures out, you can come to your CCTR. Under the federal opposition’s proposal you risk having a debt, the same way you do with the Centrelink family tax payments.
Opposition members interjecting—
GK6
Kelly, Jackie, MP
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—And this is coming from an opposition who says that our $600 is not real money. On one hand they are saying that $600 is not real money, and on the other hand they are saying: ‘Let’s go negative gearing on child care to fix the problem. If we put in some new bureaucrats to get more statistics, we will fix the problem.’
Since the year 2000, when the ATO started giving private rulings on fringe benefits tax, we have seen an explosion in corporate provided child-care places. We have seen a number of tax rulings coming to a general ruling by the ATO that, where the child-care centre is largely controlled by the employer, as in the Esso case, fringe benefits tax will not be payable on the child care provided to employees. There has been such an explosion of corporate child care that I understand even Woolies and Coles—two of my biggest scratching posts for child care—are looking to take advantage of this state of affairs within the ATO and provide child-care options for their employees, especially now that 24-hour trading is demanded by customers.
Corporate child care is just one potential option. And who introduced FBT? The members opposite. They never put anything forward to say, ‘Let’s remove some of the roadblocks to employers being involved in child-care solutions.’ Of the females that I know, the most successful ones to have managed the balance between work and family life have done so with a cooperative, understanding and fair dinkum employer. Let us remove the roadblocks for employers and lay down some incentives to get employers involved in child-care solutions—not more bureaucrats and not more institutionalised long day care centres—if there is a need. There is a multitude of options that come to bear on this.
Mothers also choose an extraordinary number of options to deal with child care for their children during the years that they need it. One of the most popular these days for the women in my electorate who earn less than $40,000 is the grandparents. They work part time and they use grandparents on a free basis.
We need to look at incentives for employers to get involved in those solutions that are acceptable to parents. We need to look at employers taking advantage of the state regulations so that if the parent is on the premises there are fewer regulations for operating a child-care centre. Those opposite have failed to address that much can be done by the state governments and by the labor councils.
A lot of child-care centres in the inner city area of the electorate of Sydney are going the way of squash courts. Squash is no longer a great sport in Australia, simply because the privately run squash courts got squeezed for space and eventually all of those premises could be used for more profitable means. So, if you are complaining about $100 a place, you have to do something about zoning areas, restricting those zonings and keeping them confined to child-care spaces or putting in a ruling that, when you free up areas for commercial space in the CBD, developers need to provide so many square metres for a child-care centre. That is the only way to make the cost of child care stay within the reach of inner city users. The simple fact is that using premises commercially will far outweigh their use as a child-care centre.
This government is doing an enormous amount in terms of child care and we will continue to do more, despite the fringe picking done by the shadow minister. (Time expired)
42
15:13:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
0
Ms BURKE
—I rise to speak on the motion by the member for Sydney and thank her for moving it. I was also going to thank the government for joining in this debate, but I am a bit mortified by what I have just heard from the member for Lindsay, who was previously on the record as saying that the child-care situation was in a state of shambles. Looking around and seeing some beautiful schoolchildren here today whose mums might be at work wondering who is going to be supporting and helping them, I think they would be quite horrified by the member for Lindsay’s rambling statement today, which did nothing to address the issues to help those working mothers. To talk about 30-year-olds et cetera does nothing to recognise the people in her own electorate who are not the ones who had the ability to wait and develop careers. She even mentioned that they earned less money. What is she on about? Where is her solution? Her ginger group was meant to be meeting to do things about it. She has come in here and rambled. Instead of doing something bipartisan and good in this place for once, she has abused a motion we could have all spoken well to. It is quite a tragedy.
All working mums suffer enough. Every week there is a new report saying: ‘Don’t send them to long day care. Don’t leave them with someone else. You’re going to be causing them tragedies. You’re going to be hurting them.’ Then there is another report that says they should be going to child care because it benefits their social skills. We agonise about all this, Jackie, and, if you do not, I do not know how you can stand in this place having previously been on the tellie, holding up your son, saying that child care was in disarray.
A young family in my electorate recently called my office. They were quite distressed because mum had to go back to full-time work to support her family. She needed a place but could not find one. She had rung every centre within my electorate and was desperate. So my staff got on the phone and rang around again to every centre in my electorate and in the electorate of Deakin. We managed to find that woman two places. She now has to send her child to two centres because she could not get full-time care at one centre. She has a half-day at each centre. It is not a great outcome, but she came to the office with a large box of chocolates to say thank you to me and my staff. There is not a way around finding places. They are out there, but it is very difficult to navigate.
Also, as the member for Sydney has said—and as the member for Lindsay has also said—we do not actually know what the shortages are. There is no planning in place. The federal government has a system of planning for aged care but no system of planning for child care. So, if you are going to talk about zoning, maybe you should know what your own legislation does.
GK6
Kelly, Jackie, MP
Miss Jackie Kelly interjecting—
83S
Burke, Anna, MP
Ms BURKE
—So how about ringing around your centres and asking what the situation is? A quick survey of 23 centres in my electorate shows that 14 of them have extensive lists. One of them says it has a waiting list for all of its rooms. It has around 50 families waiting for the babies room, 50 families for the toddlers room and 10 to 12 families for the three-year-olds room. Another centre at the other end of the electorate has a waiting list for all ages. It has 66 families waiting for babies, 22 for toddlers and about 50 families for three-year-olds. So go and ask what is going on in your electorate. What is happening out there? It is the federal government that allocate the places. Maybe we should ask about how they do that.
And these are not necessarily all full-time places. What can a woman do when she wants to return to full-time work and can only get a place on a Wednesday or Thursday? What can she do if she is in my electorate and is one of the individuals who does not have a family member available because she is a first-generation migrant and cannot get a visa for her parents to visit? Not everybody has the family networks available. That just does not exist. It is a fantasy to live in that world. Not everybody has, as I do, a husband who can work part time so that my child is not in full-time care. Not everybody has the luxury of being able to afford to pay, as I do, $55 a day for child care.
Not everybody wants to send their children to large centres. This is the other thing that is becoming a problem. Large centres are the only ones that now seem to be profitable. Most of the people in my electorate say: ‘I went in and had a look and just could not leave my child there. I want to go to a smaller, community based centre.’ That is what they are asking for. There is nothing that does anything to assist those smaller, community based centres. And the actions of this government over time have reduced their ability to operate. You only need to look at your friends who are currently on the ABC board to see where the issue of child care is going and where people want it to be.
This is a diabolical situation. The government will not collect stats. The Victorian government has a great pilot program. I really think people should look at what is going on at Darebin and Port Phillip councils. Things can be done and this government is not doing any of them. (Time expired)
44
15:18:00
Laming, Andrew, MP
E0H
Bowman
LP
1
0
Mr LAMING
—The member for Chisholm has informed the House that it is the government that allocates the places for child care. I suspect that her adviser may have handed her her aged care speech on her way down here, because nothing could be further from the truth. We make child care affordable for Australians—no matter how much anecdotal evidence is rolled out today from making a phone call here and there. One can close one’s eyes to family day care completely and focus purely on long day care places. One can phone one’s community sector and almost ignore the entire private sector in day care. The member who preceded me is welcome to do that, but that does not do this debate any service whatsoever.
There can be no escape from the simple facts of affordability. While a rise of about nine per cent in the cost of child care for one single year has been quoted, the 30 per cent child care tax rebate has been completely excluded. There has been a child-care benefit that has made Australians $2,000 a year better off in terms of affording child care, particularly those with the lowest incomes. People in my electorate of Bowman hear what is said by the member for Sydney, who obviously exists in a rarefied atmosphere between the Opera House and the mardi gras route, but she cannot put an articulate argument that the situation for child care around Australia is reflected in what we see somewhere down near Chinatown or George Street in Sydney. It is patently different, and it is an incendiary comment to say that those problems exist right across the country.
In reality, child care has become more affordable over time. The places created have far exceeded the number of women who have gone back to the workforce. I do not think anyone in this chamber would apologise for one moment that women are able to return to the workforce. As I remember it, the fundamental right of every woman was to be able to return to the workforce. And never has that goal been more successfully achieved than over the last decade. We have seen the female participation rate go from 59 per cent to 65 per cent. We have seen a 25 per cent increase in the number of women aged between 19 and 64 who are re-entering the workforce. The figures are staggering—to the point where, I am sure, even those on the other side do not believe them. We are talking about 909,000 new jobs being created for women since this government came to power—380,000 full-time jobs and 529,000 part-time jobs. I point out to everyone listening that these figures were completely incomprehensible 10 years ago and could not even have entered the wildest imaginations of the government that preceded ours.
The content of this motion really speaks to just how out of touch are some of the views from within the central couple of kilometres of Sydney with those of the other 19 million Australians, who live in completely different circumstances. I am sure that anecdotally there would be a temptation to ignore the 72,000 family day care places that have been created. There could be no better timing than the press release from Andrea Ferris of my own local council, who congratulates—and this is today, not yesterday; it is not some sort of concocted arrangement whereby this press release was dropped out to suit today’s debate—people like Lone Robson of Birkdale and Kim McIlwain and Cheryl Gould from the Redlands area, who have given family day care services for over a decade. These are services about which we can hold our heads up high and say that these are options for parents the other side simply ignores.
The claim that fees are increasing is a reflection that in certain areas there is a demand for child care. In other areas there are additional places that are unmet. Let us imagine for a moment, as I close, what would happen if we transferred the responsibility for laying out child-care centres around the country to nothing better than the government—or, worse still, to those on the other side of the chamber. Can I for a moment imagine that there has not been at one stage on the other side of the chamber a discussion between the member for Sydney, who has moved this motion, and the member for Lalor? I am talking about pharmacy geographic laws and the policy of government trying to decide where pharmacies go. Or worse still, can we do any better than aged care? Does the policy of having aged care committees determining where aged care places go make aged care any less of a challenge than child care? The simple answer to that question is that it is no better done than by the sectors themselves. The child-care sector know where child-care centres belong, and they do that job far better than one could ever hope to do on the other side.
This motion today—well meaning as I am sure it is—speaks of the lack of a big picture on the other side when it comes to child care. And it speaks of the great disservice to quality debate in this place when those opposite take isolated examples from specific communities, in particular Sydney, without a greater view and an understanding that, for the great majority of Australians, child care is available like never before. (Time expired)
45
15:23:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
0
Mr DANBY
—We have just heard another mad free marketeer view of another area of social policy—leave it all to the market, nothing else can be done. This government is so hypocritical in the area of child care. The government obviously collects data in aged care; why can it not have some understanding of what the problems are in all parts of Australia? To make the remarks about the member for Sydney, in the divisive kind of way that the two previous speakers on the government side have, is quite unnecessary on what should be a matter of non-partisan concern. The kinds of problems identified by the member for Chisholm and the member for Sydney exist all across Australia. These problems exist because of the non-integration by this government of its policies on child care.
For instance, as the member for Chisholm said, Australia has a very large non-partisan immigration policy. We have thousands of people here who are first generation immigrants—they do not have their grandparents coming in with them. You have this problem all over the country of first generation immigrants, which the government do not seem to know anything about. When grandparents who want to come in to help with their children’s businesses are being kept out under all circumstances, from all kinds of ethnic groups, how can these grandparents possibly assist with child care?
The reason we are having this debate is that the government’s policy in this area is a shambles. We do not have to take my word for it. The member for Lindsay is leaving the chamber, but only last month the member for Lindsay, a former minister and a protege of the Prime Minister, gave an honest assessment of the mess that this government’s policy is in. What did she say? To quote from the Age of 15 January, she said that the Treasurer should spend the government’s surplus by fixing the child-care crisis rather than spending it on tax cuts. She said:
Ministers should also stop doing their own thing and work together to respond to the escalating problem.
It is interesting that, despite her unnecessary and divisive attack on the member for Sydney, the member for Lindsay says we have a child-care crisis and an ‘escalating problem’ with child care. Only last year the former Minister for Human Services told us that we had no problem at all. She told us that in my electorate. The honourable member for Lindsay also said:
We shouldn’t have the Treasurer with a 30 per cent rebate solution, the Employment Minister saying women should negotiate for child care in their workplaces and Senator Patterson saying other things.
She also said it was time that the education minister should start taking an interest in preschools. I think we all agree with that. The honourable member for Lindsay also said that the only way to fix the growing problem of a national child-care waiting list of 175,000 and skyrocketing prices was to dismantle the current system and take a totally fresh look. This is addressed partly by what the honourable member for Sydney has proposed with her three ways of dealing with the rebate for out-of-pocket expenses so that mothers—and fathers, I might point out to the member for Lindsay—would be able to get the rebate back rather than having to wait two years.
I commend the members for Lindsay, Chisholm and Sydney for their honesty in acknowledging that, after 10 years of the Howard government, child-care policy is a disaster. It is a disaster in my electorate. I have said here several times that child-care services in our capital cities are hopelessly inadequate. Inner city areas like my electorate, which runs from Port Melbourne to Caulfield, are now experiencing rapid growth as families with young children are moving back into these areas. These families are servicing mortgages in an area where the cost of land and housing is high. The City of Port Phillip has a waiting list of nearly 2,000 children who cannot find places, and parents are therefore unable to participate in the workforce. What is the economic cost of that, I ask, to all the free marketeers and economic rationalists on the other side?
In child care, as in other areas, this government has a blind faith in market forces and the private sector. That may be because some of the big participants in this sector are big donors to this government. But in my electorate the private sector has not met the demand for child care. I do not think that the people on the other side have ever heard of community child care. This opposition proposed at the last election that there should be some capital subsidies given to community child care all across Australia to subsidise the many honest and honourable people who give their time not-for-profit to work in this area.
I am in favour of the private sector providing services which it is well equipped to provide. I do not argue that the state should do everything. But there is clear evidence of market failure in child-care provision in inner urban areas—not just in Sydney but all over the country. The member for Chisholm’s electorate is not inner city; she is in Box Hill. It appears that it is simply not profitable for private sector providers to offer quality child care to working families at an affordable price in some areas. This is certainly what people in my electorate are telling me. In these circumstances community owned services are the best way to solve the waiting list issue. Increased capital funding for community owned child-care services will increase places in the areas where they are most needed. Of course, all levels of government should fund the establishment of community owned services. In my electorate local government is carrying most of the burden. It is being assisted by the state government, as the member for Chisholm said, with this pilot program for identifying child-care needs. This is the kind of cooperation we need, not just one-sided rhetoric from the government. (Time expired)
47
15:29:00
Markus, Louise, MP
E07
Greenway
LP
1
0
Mrs MARKUS
—Child care is an issue of great importance to hundreds of thousands of families across the whole nation, and particularly in my electorate of Greenway, a young electorate with the number of families growing significantly every day. I thank the member for Sydney for continuing the dialogue on the issue and thank members who spoke before me, especially the members for Lindsay and Bowman, for their contributions to the discussion of this issue.
For many families, life is a balancing act between work and home commitments. As a member of the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, I have seen first-hand how delicate that balance can be to achieve and maintain. These are sentiments that are echoed in my electorate when I am out and about speaking to Greenway residents. Child care, as we all know, is an integral part of that mix and of critical importance to many parents. As a mother of two, I understand this on a personal level as well.
Part of the reason for the new challenges facing families is the employment opportunities that have opened up to women. Under the Howard government, employment opportunities have increased dramatically. There was a 25 per cent increase in paid employment for women from March 1996 to December 2005. This has been an important achievement for this government. We recognise the talents and contributions of women and believe that women should not be excluded from or limited in their workforce participation.
The discussions relating to child care and family balance are necessarily complex and challenging. It is not easy to synthesise the issues that face families and simply call for additional places. No two families are the same and the challenges facing each family are distinct from those of the family next door in their totality. However, there are common challenges that thread through the families of this nation and, as a parliament, it is important that we note them, listen to them and, where possible, act to ease the burden.
Because families are so vastly different, I want to recognise that there should be a number of options open to parents when choosing their child-care needs. Some have already been mentioned. Some will need long day care places, others will require in-home care, there is family day care, and still others may need a hybrid system that acknowledges the different working and living patterns of Australians in the 21st century. In an electorate like mine, Greenway, there are a high number of people who are working shiftwork; often two parents in the home are working shiftwork. What are their options for child care?
We need to continually assess the rigidity of the child-care system in this country and we need to adapt. But this readiness to adapt and the willingness to adjust where necessary is not a responsibility that is solely shared with this government or indeed this parliament. It is an issue that requires input and flexibility on behalf of all levels of government and by the community as a whole.
It is important to note at this point that, while vacancy rates have been mentioned throughout this debate, the figures will vary from electorate to electorate and across this nation. In the northern part of my electorate, there are a number of new centres and they do indeed have vacancies. The members opposite talk about their electorates having unique characteristics, but we need to look at the whole picture here. Anecdotal evidence has been given by members opposite, but it is also important to acknowledge that there is a family in my electorate earning around $34,000; there is a child-care centre that has just opened in Quakers Hill; and, after government assistance, that family only needs to pay $13 a day per child. Here is a business that is working with government to ensure that there is flexibility and affordability for families.
This government has invested significant resources in assisting Australian families. Spending on child care has doubled when compared to the Australian Labor Party’s last efforts. Over the four-year period to 2008-09, this government will spend $9.5 billion assisting families. Good initiatives such as the child-care benefit and the child-care tax rebate have been introduced over the past decade. The child-care benefit sees families receiving over $2,000 per year in real assistance. This is real money. Similarly, the child-care tax rebate provides up to $4,000 per child per year additional assistance for working families. For low-income families, the government assists them with nearly two-thirds of their child-care costs. (Time expired)
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Inter-Parliamentary Union
48
48
15:34:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
0
0
Mrs IRWIN
—I move:
That this House:
-
notes that the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU):
-
is the focal point for global parliamentary dialogue and, as the primary vehicle for strengthening parliaments world-wide, works globally for the establishment of representative democracy, providing an unparalleled parliamentary dimension to international cooperation;
-
at its Assemblies, initiates debates on issues of international interest and concern in order to raise awareness and action by parliaments and parliamentarians;
-
defends and promotes human rights, particularly through the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians;
-
stresses the representation of both genders within the ranks of parliamentarians, facilitating the participation of women parliamentarians in its forums;
-
encourages good governance and democratic capacity building through its programs and work with regional inter-parliamentary organisations, international inter-governmental and non-government organisations; and
-
supports the efforts of the United Nations (at which it has observer status), works in close co-operation with the UN and is seeking a closer strategic partnership with the UN so as to promote more substantive interaction and coordination between the IPU and the UN;
-
welcomes recent reforms of the IPU that were strongly supported by Australian delegations, and which have resulted in improved reporting mechanisms, including detailed and comprehensive financial statements; and
-
commends past and present Australian delegations for their contribution to the IPU, as reflected in the leading role taken in the work of standing committees, drafting committees, geopolitical groups and the meeting of women parliamentarians.
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Is the motion seconded?
83O
Hull, Kay, MP
Mrs Hull
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
83Z
Irwin, Julia, MP
Mrs IRWIN
—The Inter-Parliamentary Union was established in 1889. It is one of the world’s oldest international institutions and, with over 140 national parliaments as members, it is the most prominent organisation of parliaments of sovereign states. The objectives of the IPU are that it:
Fosters contacts, co-ordination, and the exchange of experience among parliaments and parliamentarians of all countries;
Considers questions of international interest and concern and expresses its views on such issues in order to bring about action by parliaments and parliamentarians;
Contributes to the defence and promotion of human rights—an essential factor of parliamentary democracy and development;
Contributes to better knowledge of the working of representative institutions and to the strengthening and development of their means of action.
The IPU ‘supports the efforts of the United Nations, whose objectives it shares, and works in close cooperation with it’. The IPU meets twice each year, once at its headquarters in Geneva and once in a host member nation. Australia hosted the IPU conference in 1993. This year Kenya will be the host country.
If you asked the so-called man in the street what the IPU is, the answer would probably be ‘a brand of baked beans’. That lack of awareness of the IPU is not limited to Australia. The IPU commissioned communication company Saatchi and Saatchi Geneva to prepare a strategic analysis with proposals on how to make the IPU better known and its missions and work better understood. The report was presented to the IPU conference in Manila last year. The findings were that the IPU is not well known outside its own members and direct contacts; its mission and purpose are not immediately clear; there is no strategic plan that embraces branding and communications; and the structure of the organisation does not favour effective communication. The report recommended casting a new purpose and position for the IPU, which would become the international voice of democracy, and suggests that the role of the IPU should be that ‘we help ensure that over 40,000 parliamentarians around the world can do the job they were elected to do, freely, safely and effectively, and that their voice is heard in international affairs’.
The report acknowledges two threats to this approach. Firstly, in marginal democracies, parliamentarians’ freedom to speak and act on behalf of the people they represent is often at risk. Secondly, in both marginal and developed democracies, parliamentarians’ ability to influence their constituents’ national, regional and local interests is increasingly comprised by the growing power of executive government and international decision-making institutions. For parliamentarians, the IPU should be their voice and channel to the wider world, their enabler and their protector. In so being would rest the strength and legitimacy of the IPU. I strongly support the report’s proposals.
I also note the election last October of Mr Pierre Fernando Cassini as President of the IPU. Mr Cassini is also the Speaker of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. He brings with him the status of his position as well as great capability and personal charm to the challenging role of reforming the IPU. There is much work to be done in reforming the procedures relating to the standing committees of the IPU and the general debate that takes place at each meeting. An important focus should remain on the Meeting of Women Parliamentarians and its work in increasing the number of women representatives.
So too should there be a greater focus on the human rights of parliamentarians. In Australia, where many people see parliamentarians as having a privileged status, we should not overlook the fact that, in many parts of the world, parliamentarians speaking out on behalf of the people they represent often put their own safety at risk. I commend the many members of this parliament who have served as delegates to the IPU and who have demonstrated their commitment to the ideals and practice of representing parliamentary democracy.
50
15:39:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
1
0
Mrs HULL
—I rise today to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Fowler regarding the Inter-Parliamentary Union and I welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the IPU and its work. Following the Saatchi and Saatchi strategic report on how to make the IPU better known and its mission and work better understood, the members of the IPU in the Australian parliament are very keen to promote the work of this important forum. As the report has outlined, the IPU organisation is about democracy—something that the Australian parliament does not take for granted and which it respects dearly.
Many national, regional and international institutions exist, but it is important that we, as members of the IPU, discuss and promote the many positive outcomes of the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s activities and the important issues that are debated within its assemblies. After all, the IPU is the international representative of a constituency of over 40,000 parliamentarians, both men and women, from around the world; it represents more than 140 parliaments across the globe. It is unfortunate that the IPU’s activities are not well known outside of its membership, and we of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the IPU are determined to change this.
I also look forward to new direction and leadership from the newly elected President of the IPU, Mr Cassini. Mr Cassini is the Speaker of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and is a most impressive and eloquent man. He was elected in Geneva, after giving a dynamic and powerfully motivating address. We look forward to Mr Cassini’s dynamism flowing through the IPU in a direction that will make us important in a whole host of forums.
During the IPU assembly, the level of debate varies; however, with little exception, speakers are able to inform delegates extensively, through their debate, about many issues of political, economic, social and cultural importance, which are of relevance to both Australia and the entire international community. We have discussed and debated a range of issues including peace and international security; sustainable development, finance and trade; democracy and human rights; violence against women and children in conflict situations; and strategies to prevent, manage and treat HIV-AIDS.
This international forum is a valuable process that enables members of parliament to gain extensive understanding of many global issues. It is a process that has to become more widely recognised and valued. Some parliamentary processes across the world are very fragile. Saatchi and Saatchi has rightly determined that there is a strong need to develop and sustain fragile parliaments in a way that consistently reinforces the underlying principles of democracy. We are reminded that parliaments are the assemblies of people—the global foot soldiers of democracy, as pointed out by the Saatchi and Saatchi report. We must be ever-vigilant about the possibilities of paid bureaucrats undermining and usurping the role of the people-elected parliamentarians within the IPU. After all, the 40,000 strong membership of the IPU has been elected by millions and millions of people to represent their interests. Surely this means that most of these elected representatives have the trust of the people.
I am very proud of the extremely strong debating skills of the Australian delegation. Each delegate prepares extensively for their area of responsibility. In the team that I led to Manila, in the absence of our delegate leader, we were complimented highly on our contributions; certainly, the members of parliament in the Australian delegation received offers to address other organisations.
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation
51
15:44:00
Quick, Harry, MP
AV5
Franklin
ALP
0
0
Mr QUICK
—I move:
That this House:
-
acknowledges the fact that alcohol misuse remains the number one health and social issue confronting the Australian community;
-
expresses its appreciation to the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation for its outstanding efforts to date in raising public awareness of the dangers of alcohol and licit substance misuse and the importance of responsible consumption of alcohol;
-
notes the effectiveness of the grants program administered by the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation over the past four years;
-
notes in particular the work of the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation in addressing the scourge of inhalant abuse among young indigenous Australians; and
-
calls on the Government to provide sufficient funding to the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation’s Public Fund in the 2006-2007 Budget to enable the Foundation to continue its work in addressing the causes of, and harms arising from, alcohol and licit substance misuse.
I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue in the House today but regret that we only have time for two speakers. The issue raised in my motion is the No. 1 health and social issue facing our nation and yet is often overlooked when we as parliamentarians debate legislation and, more importantly, the allocation of finances for health. I have a particular interest in the issue because of my long involvement with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. The committee’s excellent report Roads to recovery, which reported on substance abuse in Australian communities, vividly documented the impact of alcohol misuse on our society. I urge all members of this place to read this report, examine the 128 recommendations and reflect on what action they might take to ensure that this vital issue is raised for discussion time and time again. It is sad to note that, despite this government’s fixation with the war on drugs, this excellent and somewhat provocative report has not yet seen a response from the government even though it was tabled in this House in August 2003.
The statistics on alcohol’s impact on Australia’s health are alarming: 30 per cent of road traffic deaths, 23 per cent of suicides, 51 per cent of assaults causing death, 44 per cent of fire injury deaths, 34 per cent of drownings, 15 to 20 per cent of head and neck cancers, 16 per cent of child abuse deaths, 23 per cent of mental disorder deaths, 35 per cent of industrial accidents—and the list goes on and on.
Many members in this place are probably not aware of the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation with its key role in raising public awareness of the dangers of alcohol and the importance of responsible consumption of alcohol. Nor are they likely to be aware of the excellent grant program that it has been administering for the past four years. I would like to place on the public record my admiration and deep respect for the foundation’s wonderful work, carried out under its chairman, Professor Ian Webster, and its chief executive officer, Daryl Smeaton.
The foundation was set up in 2001 by the government with an initial grant of $115 million—money raised from the indexation of the excise on draught beer sales once the GST was brought into practice. The foundation was required to spend 80 per cent of the grant money by 30 June 2005. I am pleased to say this has been done. I would also urge all members to examine the foundation’s website, read at length the four annual reports and see at first hand just how effectively and widely the foundation has allocated and distributed its grant moneys.
These allocations range from funding for Mothers Crying Out for Help, a group which received $5,464 to enable 28 youths and 12 adults to attend a cultural event that demonstrated healthy alternatives to alcohol and other substances, through to the University of Queensland receiving $58,432 to examine the relationship between a range of family related influences and drink-driving behaviour in young adults and the YMCA at Katherine receiving $975,000 to develop strategies and programs for a whole-of-community approach to the problems of alcohol and licit substance misuse.
The foundation now has a budget submission before the government for continued funding of $20 million a year to enable it to continue this vital work across our nation. Some might argue that this is a huge amount to be asking for. I would counter this by saying that this amount is just 10 per cent of the excise raised from alcohol consumed by under-age drinkers. I call on the government to look favourably on the foundation’s budget submission so that it can continue its work in addressing the causes of, and harm arising from, alcohol and licit substance misuse.
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Is the motion seconded?
52
15:49:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
1
0
Mr JOHNSON
—I am pleased and honoured to second this motion. I want to commend my colleague the member for Franklin for moving this motion and recognise his reputation and integrity. Alcohol and licit substance misuse not only is a personal problem but also has enormous consequences for our wider society. Road accidents, criminal behaviour, domestic violence, health care costs, costs to businesses across this country, mental disorders, suicide and, as the member for Franklin mentioned, drownings are the absolutely catastrophic social consequences of the misuse and abuse of alcohol.
Research has estimated the financial cost of alcohol and licit substance abuse in Australia at around $7½ billion a year. To put this into context, the annual Australian budget is $220 billion. Our defence budget, which the new Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, has stewardship over, is some $18½ billion. So almost one-third of the expenditure of the defence budget can be said to be the cost of the abuse of alcohol and licit substances—an enormous amount. This is something which all of us must try to address in our own ways and as a parliament.
Between 1992 and 2001, over 30,000 Australians lost their lives from drinking. High-risk alcohol consumption is estimated to cause about 3,000 deaths and 65,000 cases of hospitalisation each year. Alcohol is estimated to be responsible for almost five per cent of the disease burden in this country. Globally, we know that alcohol is estimated to be responsible for some two million deaths per annum. Excessive alcohol consumption is a major factor in 30 per cent of all road deaths, 50 per cent of cases of domestic and sexual violence, 47 per cent of assaults, 70 to 80 per cent of night-time assaults and 10 per cent of suicides. Every year alcohol misuse costs Australian businesses and productivity an enormous amount: $5 billion in alcohol related absenteeism, $1.9 billion in the loss of workplace productivity and more than 10 per cent of preventable injury and death in the workplace.
I refer the parliament to a quote from the Age of 9 January this year. It is interesting and revealing about where the trend in the liquor market in this country is going:
The liquor market is booming. A prosperous economy and buoyed consumer confidence have seen products at the top end of the market making significant gains.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that our fellow Australians have increased their spending on alcohol substantially in the past decade. The average household spent almost $1,200 a year on alcohol in 2003-04—up from $884 in 1993-94. These figures are worrying. It is important that I draw the attention of the House to that matter. One of my concerns is that consumers have easier access to alcohol than I think is healthy for this country. Woolworths’s annual liquor revenue is absolutely astounding. I understand that it exceeded $3.1 billion in 2005, an amazing figure. After last year’s $1.3 billion acquisition of Australian Leisure and Hospitality, Woolworths was a logical buyer of the Taverner business, which is only going to continue to expand its revenue sources. This is a substantial concern.
I conclude by paying tribute to Alcoholics Anonymous, which is a fine organisation. (Time expired)
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—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.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
53
Grievance Debate
Question proposed:
That grievances be noted.
Water
53
53
15:54:00
Sawford, Rod, MP
3J4
Port Adelaide
ALP
0
0
Mr SAWFORD
—My grievance is water or, more to the point, the lack of it. We live in the driest continent on earth. I live in South Australia, the driest state in the driest continent on earth. You cannot build a strong house without a strong foundation. You cannot have a civil society without the rule of law. You cannot grow an economy if there are limits on the use of water. Yet over the last 30 years lack of effort by governments—federal, state and local—to plan for the conservation of water coupled with irresponsible urban development and doubtful agricultural practices have led us to the sorry state we are in today. Our premier city, Sydney, is an appalling example. For the last 30 years as far as water conservation is concerned state governments of both persuasions have been negligent. Local government authorities choosing revenue and remuneration for their executives have relinquished responsibility for future citizens’ rights by their capitulation to ruthless developers.
The consequence of this evasion of responsibility is that Sydneysiders have been reduced to the appalling situation of having to hand water gardens twice a week. The consequence of this evasion of responsibility is the reality, despite its temporary shelving, that Sydney will have a major desalination plant with all its associated problems. The consequence of this evasion of responsibility is the loss of billions of litres of stormwater to the sea and rivers with little or no open space to build stormwater retention schemes or set up wetlands and little ability to make use of deep-well technology. The consequence of this evasion of responsibility will be an over-reliance on underground water in normal rather than drought years without the benefit of replenishment of water other than from natural sources.
The situation is replicated in Melbourne, Canberra, Perth and Adelaide and in many regional areas. There is an answer, and that answer is stormwater and wastewater conservation and retention, the setting up of wetlands to feed the aquifer and the use of deep-well technology. The fact that in parts of provincial Australia we produce rice and cotton in the wasteful way we do is unforgivable. However, I will deal with that debate at another time. My state of South Australia is probably the national leader in stormwater retention and deep-well technology. The example set by world expert Colin Pitman and the City of Salisbury, which is partly in my electorate, is outstanding. However, other examples do not go far enough and there are few converts in other local municipalities. Some municipalities could be described as just negligent and a poor copy of their Sydney peers, choosing the rate revenue and remuneration of CEOs option at the expense of the future.
The Sydney style developers are moving into Adelaide and its metropolitan areas, which is extremely worrying. That it could be further exacerbated by state and federal governments turning a blind eye to those happenings, as New South Wales governments and other state governments have done during the last 30 years, should be a great worry. In particular, I speak of the last piece of open space in the western suburbs of Adelaide, other than the Adelaide airport—and that is the Cheltenham Racecourse, the old Actil site, the St Clair Centre and the surrounding parklands. This major area, of 46 hectares, includes the Cheltenham Racecourse, which has accommodated horseracing for well over 100 years. It is without doubt the best wet-weather horseracing track in Australia. Until the late 1970s and early 1980s horseracing was conducted very successfully by the Port Adelaide Racing Club, largely under the chairmanship of a great South Australian, Wyndham Hill Smith. The Port Adelaide Racing Club at the time and through the leadership of Wyndham Hill Smith had a very healthy relationship with the then local municipality, the Woodville Council. In return for subsidised rates, the council and the racing club agreed to preserve the open space that was Cheltenham and its surrounds.
For 1961 that was an extremely far-sighted and enlightened decision. Since European settlement the area surrounding the racecourse has been extremely susceptible to flooding. However, wisely, the council had acknowledged that the area was far more important than just a race club. It helped reduce urban pollution. It would, at some time in the future when money became available, be a space where flood avoidance measures and stormwater retention could be carried out.
As I said, for 1961 those decisions were extremely wise and enlightened. They remain wise today. However, there is no doubt that they are currently seriously under attack. The South Australian Jockey Club, which administers Cheltenham, seems to be one of the most poorly managed organisations in South Australia. Nothing whatsoever appears to sustain them. Huge tracts of land at Cheltenham and Morphettville—that is, the other main course—have been sold. The state’s TAB was sold. The club has a licence for 80 poker machines. Nothing seems to work. The club now wants to sell one of its two major assets to—wait for it—Sydney style developers for a most unneeded housing and retail development in order to invest in another racetrack, Victoria Park, which it will never own. At the same time as this is being planned, a $1 billion urban regeneration project is taking place in Port Adelaide. How welcome that is. But a housing and retail development being built concurrently five or six kilometres down the road at Cheltenham-Woodville cannot be sustained. Recently, the state government in South Australia put in an administrator to run the poorly managed sport of basketball in South Australia. It was a good decision. It was a good thing to do. It ought to do the same thing with the South Australian Jockey Club.
But it is not just horseracing that is at stake. The flood risk is extremely high and even small rainfall floods roads, businesses and houses on a regular basis. A big flood is regarded as inevitable. It would affect 7,400 individuals, 6,000 homes and hundreds of businesses and it would put the Queen Elizabeth Hospital—that is, the major public hospital in the west—at risk and out of action. These statistics were not made up. They were published in an article in the Adelaide Advertiser in December last year. Were they disputed? No. In exactly the same article those facts were also acknowledged by the current CEO of the Charles Sturt council, Peter Lockett, and the current mayor, Harold Anderson. ‘So far so good,’ one might think. In addition, on the books of the Charles Sturt council is a motion opposing the sale of the Cheltenham racecourse. ‘Even better,’ one might add.
Yet not everything is as it appears. At the same time as all of this is happening, there are some very smart and clever brochures going out proposing development of the whole area under the imprimatur of the council, which seems to suggest very strong support for the sale. The following, you would simply say, also supports that contention. My branch members were so worried that the secretary of my branch, Pat Perry, wrote to all the Charles Sturt councillors asking them if they would publicly oppose the sale of Cheltenham racecourse. Not a big ask, you would have thought, with a motion opposing the sale already on the books. Surprise, surprise! Only one councillor out of 21 responded and that was the councillor for Cheltenham, Robert Grant. Everyone else appears to have run for cover. The obvious question to ask is: why? Is there something they are not telling anyone? Is there something they know that residents do not? That is certainly looking a very strong possibility indeed.
The sale of Cheltenham and its surrounding area is an environmental disaster just waiting to happen. There is agreement that the inevitable big flood will occur, and when it does it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in future compensation at the very least. In fact, damage could exceed $1 billion. The state government and the Charles Sturt council must be aware of this huge risk. Ignorance could not and would not be an excuse. They have to know the risk. Replicating the negligence of their peers in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Canberra to flood avoidance and stormwater retention is not acceptable in Adelaide when all the facts to be known are in fact known. There will be no excuse whatsoever. As with the lack of due diligence with the State Bank of South Australia, there will be a huge cost unnecessarily burdened on the citizens of South Australia. The credibility of the participants in their projected folly will be permanently trashed, just as occurred with the State Bank. That is a future scenario that should not be foisted upon the people of South Australia. That, in conclusion, is a future scenario that should be rigorously avoided by the state government and the Charles Sturt council. Time will tell, but I think that time is fast running out.
Cronulla Riots
56
56
16:05:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
1
0
Mr JOHNSON
—Last December Australians across the country witnessed acts of appalling violence and brutality that were committed by their fellow Australians. These, of course, took place in Sydney, New South Wales, and the acts of violence and brutality that I refer to have come to be known as the Cronulla riots. At the very outset I want to condemn those who committed those acts of shocking violence and brutality. They are abhorrent and have absolutely no place in this country. Any of those who have been caught should receive the full force of the law.
This event last year stirred up great debate and great interest in our country. It stirred up all kinds of questions: questions of citizenship and identity, questions regarding immigration and multiculturalism. Why did it do this? It did this because all of us, the overwhelming number of our 20 million, did not like what we saw on our television sets. We did not like the image of Australians committing violence against other Australians. It raised the fundamental question about whether our country might still be clutching at remnants of the White Australia Policy. It raised the fundamental question about whether there might still be racial overtones in the DNA of Australians. Given the sensitivity of this topic and this question, it is little wonder, I would suggest, that there is in our communities and our suburbs enormous interest and perhaps concern and anxiety. I should say that my office has been overwhelmed in recent days and weeks on this subject.
I welcome this debate very much. I think it is an important debate. I think it is a healthy debate. I think we need this debate, and I encourage all Australians to engage in this important conversation with each other, with their neighbours, with colleagues in their places of work and throughout the community. The Treasurer gave a presentation last week to the Sydney Institute, and I will speak on the Treasurer’s comments in a moment. I also refer to two state Labor members of parliament who are calling for a review of the place of multiculturalism in our country. I read with interest their presentations in the Courier-Mail.
In terms of the Treasurer’s comments, I want to say at the outset that I completely and entirely support his presentation and his speech. I think that I am well qualified to speak on this topic, this theme, that was raised by him about identity, values and citizenship. I consider myself to be an Australian. I have a deep love for this country. I think I am well qualified to speak on this subject because I live this subject. I am the embodiment of the themes that have come out from the Treasurer’s speech and from conversations similar to it. I am a migrant to this country—I was not born in Australia. My mother is Chinese; my father is British. My brother was also not born in this country. However, my sister was, and she is certainly an Australian. I am married to a wonderful woman: my wife, Huyen. She is of Vietnamese ethnicity and background. So we are a kind of salad bowl, if you like. I prefer the term ‘salad bowl’ because I think it describes the colour of my family.
I reiterate that I fully support the Treasurer’s remarks. I endorse his sentiments. I think there is nothing really remarkable about what he said. If one looks very closely at his speech, one sees that there is nothing that is contentious or controversial. He talked about the supremacy of the role of parliament, about the Constitution being the pinnacle of this country, about the importance of the rule of law—enacted by this and other parliaments in this country. He talked about representation by elected members, about the separation of church and state. We are a secular state; we are not a theocracy, and this must be accepted and respected by those who seek to make this country their home. He talked about a dominant culture, just as there is a dominant language.
English is our dominant language. It is a product of history that our language is English and that our culture is grounded in a Judeo-Christian heritage. There is no other reason for it. It might well have been Chinese or Spanish had those empires sent sailors to this part of the world centuries ahead of the British. But the fact is that, in the last millennium, it was the British who settled this land. Surely there is nothing sinister about this. Surely there is nothing contentious.
With respect to the pledge of loyalty, I go to citizenship ceremonies myself. I have had the great honour of presiding over them in my nearly five years of representing my constituency of Ryan in this wonderful, democratic chamber of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia.
The Treasurer talked about the belief in freedoms—freedoms to publish, to associate and to believe, and to live by our beliefs in equal opportunity. Men and women are equal. One gender is not superior to the other. So I fully support the Treasurer’s remarks.
But what was interesting, I think, was what the Treasurer did not say. I would like to expand on this slightly. This is a very complex and challenging topic. Is someone an Australian only because they are born in this country? Is someone an Australian because they can prove they have a citizenship certificate or because they have that little booklet with the Australian crest on it—the passport? I would hope that none of us in this place would believe that that defines who is an Australian. This is an important question for us.
Let me start with an indisputable fact. Australia is an immigrant nation. We are of the new world. We are a product of historical activity and circumstance. Some of us here are descendants of those who came here by boat in the 18th and 19th centuries. Some of us here are descendants of those who came here by boat in the great wave of migration after World War II, escaping the conflicts of the old world to find opportunity in the new world. Some of us here are descendants of those who came here by boat after the Vietnam War. Some of us who have become Australians are so because we have been genuine political refugees. We have travelled thousands of nautical miles ourselves by boat, escaping the persecutions in other, less fortunate places than this wonderful country. Others, like me and my family, are migrants who came here by jumbo jet.
One in five Australians were not born in this country, but let it never be said of them that they are any less Australian and have any less love for or commitment to this country than that of any Australian-born prime minister, who would have a love of this land, any Australian-born soldier who would put his life on the line for this country or any Australian-born lifesaver, any medical practitioner or indeed any Indigenous Australian born in the central lands of this country. Let it never be said that this is not an immigrant country. Let it never be said that this is not a generous and tolerant land. Let it never be said that this is not a welcoming and warm country at its heart and soul.
But I think this debate can be expanded somewhat in its particular focus on any group in our community. Recent debate has focused on the Muslim community. Whilst a handful of Muslims would call for an overhaul of our fabric of life, recrafted and remade in their image, all of us know that an overwhelming number of Muslim Australians are as committed to their future in this country as any one of us sitting in this parliament.
I think the debate should be widened. I think the focus should be widened to any individual, any person, any group who would seek to hijack the future of our country and all it stands for. Let us be brutally honest in this debate and acknowledge that any group in our community or any individual can do things or advocate things which stand against the spirit of our country and the values we strongly cherish and must defend. This is not the exclusive domain of a Muslim, a Christian, a Chinese, a Vietnamese or a Greek; it is the domain of anyone. We must not focus on faith; we must focus on the individual and the group. A lot has been said and written about the place of multiculturalism in recent times. At another time I would like to engage in that debate. (Time expired)
Mental Health
58
58
16:15:00
Quick, Harry, MP
AV5
Franklin
ALP
0
0
Mr QUICK
—Sadly, another victim shot by the police; sadly, another mental health statistic; sadly, another family grieving for a family member who is a casualty of the hopelessly inadequate mental health system operating here in Australia. This latest case will be front-page news for a couple of days and will then disappear from view until it comes before the state coroner for mention and determination. Occasionally we as members in this place have to deal with the fallout of mental illness striking constituents and their families as we go about our work in our electorate offices. Trying to deal with the immediate crisis is traumatic enough, but even more frustrating is endeavouring to get some answers and immediate results for the client from supportive mental health practitioners and, just as importantly, ongoing support for the client’s close family members.
It is disturbing to note that every family in Australia is at risk of experiencing mental illness. Some of the more common mental illnesses include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The facts speak for themselves. About 14 per cent of children and 18 per cent of adults will be directly affected by a mental illness each year—or approximately one in every five people. There are 150 of us in this House. Statistically, what does this say about our chances of suffering from any of these illnesses, and how are we coping in this hothouse environment? Just as importantly, how is our immediate family coping? These statistics alone cannot convey the distress caused to individuals, the impact on family and friends, and the loss of function and quality of life. It is a sad statistic that mental illnesses account for about 30 per cent of the total burden of non-fatal diseases in Australia.
What is the real impact of mental illness? Mental illness impairs a person’s ability to function as a normal citizen—one who can contribute to the fabric of the society in which they live. By this I mean that mental illness impairs one’s ability to learn and to work, to love, to maintain physical health, to earn a living, to enjoy leisure and to obtain such basic things as adequate housing and transport.
Experts in the field measure the effects of a mental illness in something they call ‘days out of role’. According to the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, these are the statistics, and they are frightening: anxiety disorders account for 2.7 million person days out of role every month; depressive disorders account for 2.1 million person days out of role every month; and substance abuse disorders account for 1.1 million person days out of role every month. Multiply those by 12 and you will see an alarming and stupefying statistic. Here is an even more disturbing fact: 75 per cent of mental illnesses first occur in people aged 15 to 24—the vulnerable years—and two-thirds of all disability in people aged 15 to 30 years is caused by mental illness.
I would like to pay tribute to and acknowledge the wonderful work done by all those in the field of mental illness, especially the Mental Health Council of Australia and the Australian Foundation for Mental Health Research, who I acknowledge for the many statistics that I am quoting here today.
As I said earlier, mental illness is no respecter of race, religion or wealth. It strikes at will along the continuum of life. In childhood and adolescence it can manifest itself in depression, anxiety, conduct disorder, substance abuse, aggression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In young adults, depression, anxiety and substance abuse are joined by schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and eating disorders. In later adult life to those just mentioned we sadly must add dementia. Along this continuum one sees its effect on function and quality of life. This is evidenced through failure at school, TAFE and university; trouble at home; family and relationship problems; social isolation; unemployment and poverty; legal problems; drug and alcohol abuse; poor physical health; early death from physical illnesses; and, sadly, suicide in large numbers.
At the start of my speech I used the word ‘sadly’. I did this because I wanted to convey to those in this place, those listening to this speech and, more importantly, those affected by mental illness and their families my deep and sincere concern for this issue. In Australia, with 500,000 children and 2.6 million adults experiencing mental illness each year, we as legislators and leaders must ensure that the stigma of mental illness is not shoved as an issue behind closed doors.
I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and Ageing, and the state and territory ministers for their recent initiatives in increasing funding to address this crucial issue. As someone who is involved on the board of a wonderful organisation in Hobart, the Eureka Club, which deals at first hand with the complexities of mental illness, I witness at first hand the stigma and hassles faced by these people. I know, by regularly sharing meals or a cup of coffee with them, just how disadvantaged they are as they attempt to live from day to day. I also know, by having close friends who have experienced mental illness on a daily basis, just how frustrating it is to deal with workers in a hospital system that does not have the resources at the coalface as these sufferers present themselves at the emergency section of the Royal Hobart Hospital.
I raise this issue because it is one of the large social issues facing our country. With the statistics I have quoted here today, we must take up the challenge. Mental illness is not a fashionable cause, but, as I said, almost one in five Australian families is hit by mental illness. I give my commitment here today to bother both our shadow minister for health here in the House and the Minister for Health and Ageing on the other side to ensure that we politicians here in this place and our state colleagues work tirelessly to ensure that the sufferers and, just as importantly, the families of the sufferers get the very best treatment and the very best resources to ensure that they have real quality of life.
Victoria: January Bushfires
60
60
16:24:00
McArthur, Stewart, MP
VH4
Corangamite
LP
1
0
Mr McARTHUR
—I rise to grieve the losses experienced through the recent January bushfires in Victoria. The weekend of 21 and 22 January experienced extreme weather conditions which sparked some 276 fires across Victoria. Of these fires, the ones that got out of control were started on public land and then went on to burn private land, threatening towns and private property. These fires, which started in national parks, were a re-run of the 2003 fires in north-east Victoria, East Gippsland and here in Canberra. The authorities have learnt nothing. Minimal fuel reduction burning in these parks provided the ideal set of conditions for the devastation that ensued. Parks and DSE firefighters were reluctant to vigorously extinguish the first lightning strikes. The state public land managers have not learnt the lessons of the 2003 bushfires. They have continued to lock up and neglect public parks and allowed fire access tracks to become barricaded and blocked, and they have not attacked lightning strikes.
There have been major fire events at Mount Lubra in the Grampians, the Brisbane Ranges in Anakie and Kinglake and Moondarra near Erica in Gippsland. The fire in the Brisbane Ranges occurred on the north-eastern boundary of the Corangamite electorate, near the town of Anakie. I have spoken to farmers, landowners and volunteer firefighters who were involved in the effort to put out this fire and protect lives, livestock, property and homes. The fire burnt almost 7,000 hectares and destroyed at least four homes. The experiences of volunteer firefighters and landowners seeking to put out these fires have been heart-wrenching. The Mount Lubra bushfires in the Grampians burnt an area of 130,000 hectares, with a perimeter around the fire of 360 kilometres. The losses from the Grampians fires reported to date have been 40 dwellings; 62,000 sheep; 160 cattle; 73 wool, hay and machinery sheds; 36,000 hectares of pasture; 10,000 tonnes of hay; 1,923 kilometres of fencing; 315 hectares of plantations; and 3,052 beehives. Some other major fires over the same period were the Moondarra fires near Erica in Gippsland, where 15,000 hectares were burnt; the Burgan Track fire at Kinglake, where 1,700 hectares were burnt; the Heywood fire in the electorate of Wannon, where 1,300 hectares were burnt; and the nearby Bessiebelle fire, where 1,400 hectares were burnt.
The Mount Lubra fire, started by a lightning strike, was not attacked aggressively and controlled early. That is exactly the same experience as in 2003 when Canberra suburbs were burnt, as related by Val Jeffrey, a former chairman of the ACT Bushfire Council and an experienced firefighter, to the House of Representatives inquiry into the 2003 bushfires, of which I was a very vigorous participant, as you were, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams. Mr Jeffrey said:
When those fires started with lightning strikes on 8 January, they should have been attacked immediately, hard and heavily with everything we could have thrown at them. That is the way we would have done it in the past. We never lost a lightning strike in my experience since the 1939 fire, so why did we lose them on 8 January? We did not try, frankly, as sad as it seems, to put those fires out. They could have been put out. Those fires were virtually all accessible by vehicle. They were not like some of the lightning strikes that I have fought over the years where you would have to walk for two or three hours to get to them, carrying knapsacks, chainsaws and everything you could get there or be dropped in by a helicopter onto a flat granite rock or ride a horse for a couple of hours ...
Part of bushfire fighting culture is that you control lightning strikes by 10 o’clock the next morning or you are in trouble. We have done that over the years and we have done it successfully. We had not lost them before. But nobody seemed to want to put these out. I do not know why. I keep asking myself why, in the middle of January, in the middle of a drought and with the highest fuel loads ever, nobody seemed to want to put those fires out. It is just sickening.
Last Thursday the Stretton Group hosted a public forum on the bushfires, in Melbourne, under the theme ‘National parks: lock ’em up and let ’em burn’. The Stretton Group is an apolitical, not-for-profit group, established in December 2003 following the disastrous south-east Australian bushfire crisis in 2002-03. The Stretton Group comprises volunteers experienced in botany, forestry and fire management, and farmers who support the protection of the natural environment through greater transparency of the public sector agencies involved. I am honoured to act as convenor of the group—first among equals. This eminent group comprises Athol Hodgson, forester; Peter Attiwill, botanist; Simon Paton, farmer; Bill Middleton, forester; and David Packham, bushfire researcher. The Stretton Group was named after the respected royal commissioner into the 1939 bushfires, Justice Leonard Stretton. The group proposes that government managed parks and forests should be provided with a balance sheet value which encapsulates the environmental, cultural and economic value of these assets.
Last week the forum featured four speakers who were intimately involved in the recent fires. They were invited to share their experiences and put them on the public record. Jeremy Upton, the manager of Yarram Park, near the Grampians, recounted the poor management and conduct of the firefighting effort in the Grampians National Park, coordinated by the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment. Yarram Park lost one-third of the farm and 80 kilometres of fencing to the fires. CFA officer Simon Armitage discussed the regulatory and bureaucratic impediments and barriers put in front of knowledgeable and experienced local firefighters who had to risk breaking rules and regulations to put out the fires.
In a similar vein, Durdidwarrah farmer Daryl Ferry, who is a neighbour to the Brisbane Ranges National Park near Anakie, told how having a poorly managed park allowed fuel loads to increase and access tracks to be closed. The DSE wanted to fight the fire on private land instead of attacking the fire in the park. Mr Ferry ultimately had to take bulldozers into the park, outside the direction from officials, to construct a western firebreak to protect his own farm and his farming neighbours. And CFA volunteer and Meredith farmer Robert Cooke reported on the efforts of volunteers using clapped-out old trucks for private units in successfully fighting off the fire and protecting the town of Anakie while the ‘Department of Scorched Earth’, as he put it, proved ineffective in combating the blaze.
The public land managers have failed to reduce the extreme fuel loads that turn small fires into uncontrollable hot blazes. Park officials have stood in the way of volunteer efforts to put out the fires, through a misguided sense of environmental protection. As Robert Cooke put it, the protection of parks has been taken over by ‘tree-huggers’, and there is a need for a return to practical policies of forest management.
If the community is to be serious about minimising the risk of bushfire in country Australia, there is a simple proposition that should be adopted in policy: if state government lock up a park to protect the environmental values then they must accept responsibility to manage that park; and, if a fire breaks out of the park then the state should accept responsibility for any damage caused. This is the same principle which applies to private landholders. We have seen too often in recent times that governments are quick to lock up parks to win the environmental vote, but they are lacking when it comes to allocating the necessary resources to protect the environmental values in the park or to protect neighbouring communities.
The 2003 fires demonstrated there is no environmental value to be protected after a major bushfire has gone through, leaving total destruction and death, wiping out birds, bees, reptiles, wild flowers, protected species and trees. Some key activities that public land managers need to embrace to protect parks and forests, and neighbouring rural communities, from fires include an active regime of fuel reduction burns—or green burning, as some people like to call it—to keep fuel loads down; the retention and maintenance of fire access tracks; and park firefighting services to aggressively attack all fires in the first instance, particularly lightning strikes.
There were two lives lost in the Victorian fires. This was a needless tragedy. The worst thing about these disasters is knowing that more could have been done to prevent the damage, the loss of environmental assets and the loss of private property, livestock and human life. Over recent weeks I have encouraged bushfire affected landowners and CFA volunteers to document carefully their experiences of the fires—what went wrong and what was done successfully to control the fires.
The Stretton Group will use the experiences of volunteer firefighters and landowners to push for reforms to forest management to encourage fuel reduction burns, the re-opening of fire access tracks and the adoption of firefighting protocols which place a premium on aggressively fighting fires in the first instance instead of merely waiting for them to burn their way out of the parks and into the open country of private land.
This is an important issue to me and to my constituents in Corangamite who live amongst the new Otway National Park. The Otways have not burnt for 25 years, since Ash Wednesday, and a fire disaster is waiting to happen. The Victorian Bracks government has recently locked up more areas of park but has failed to allocate adequate resources to protect from future fires. This summer’s fire season is not yet over, but we hope not to see a major fire in the Otways. The Victorian government must urgently learn the lessons from 2003 that have not been learnt in the Grampians and Brisbane Ranges and must apply improved practices to the management of the Otways and other parks in Victoria. There should be a national commitment to better management and accountability over public land control which has been locked up by state and federal governments.
Community Development Employment Projects
62
62
16:34:00
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
0
0
Mr SNOWDON
—Today I want to talk about an issue which has received a fair bit of public prominence over the last week or so, especially after the publication by the Australian of an article by Shirley McPherson, who is the Chairperson of the Indigenous Land Corporation. In the article headed ‘Business in bush means an end to welfare trap’, Ms McPherson canvasses a range of questions in relation to the Community Development Employment Projects scheme.
Firstly, I welcome her contribution—not that I agree with a lot of it—because I think we need a public debate about this important question. I note that it spurred others to make comment and produced a number of headlines which I found rather distressing. I know that many Indigenous people certainly in my own electorate found them distressing and that Indigenous people elsewhere in Australia would have found them equally distressing. The headline ‘Aborigines could lose the dole’ was in the West Australian on Thursday, 23 February, and the headline ‘Purge on Aboriginal work-for-dole’ was in the Weekend Australian. Then an article about Indigenous bodies not being able to hire Aborigines was in the West Australian on 22 February, the same day that Ms McPherson published her article in the Australian. In that article in the Australian on 22 February, Ms McPherson mentions a number of the operations which are run by the ILC. She says:
In a letter to the minister, I pointed out that many of the properties owned by the ILC are not exactly hardship posts. Home Valley Station, 120km west of Kununurra, is a tourist resort, near the famed El Questro homestead of the Kimberley. Mimosa Station is near Gayndah in Queensland, Roelands Village Orchard is 20km east of Bunbury, WA, Roebuck Plains Station is 20km east of Broome ...
On the very day that Ms McPherson put this article in the newspaper, a person whom I know and respect and trust rang Roebuck Plains from Broome and inquired as to whether there were any jobs, because they had three young people looking for work. Not only were they told there were no jobs; they were also told there were no traineeships. This person advises me that he is not aware that Roebuck Plains actually advertised vacancies at the Job Network providers in Broome. If that is the case, that is a major worry.
There is no doubt that there is a need for a debate about the CDEP program. There is no doubt that people need to understand that this issue of Indigenous employment is one which we need to confront as a community. But we need to understand some facts: the history of the scheme and what it was designed to do in the first instance. I want to make an observation in passing about a comment made on the ABC by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mr Brough. He said:
It has been something that has been repeated to me by various elderly Indigenous communities throughout the NT. So far be it from wanting sit-down money. More and more Indigenous leaders are telling me that that is what has destroyed their society.
I have been working with Aboriginal communities since the early 1970s. Those very statements were made to me at the time CDEP was developed. Why was it developed? Because Aboriginal people said they were sick of getting sit-down money. So what did they get as a replacement for the dole? They voluntarily contracted with the Commonwealth to have a work for the dole scheme. That is what they did because they were sick of communities getting sit-down money.
As John Altman pointed out recently, the CDEP scheme was not originally established to provide a stepping stone to permanent employment. He refers to research that he undertook in 1977 when the scheme was first introduced, in which he indicates:
... it was established to diminish the potential negative social impacts of unemployment benefits (passive welfare) as social security payments were extended to remote indigenous communities. The community control scheme sought to do this by providing flexible and part-time work to meet the participants’ diverse aspirations.
That is what we need to understand. The CDEP may well be an issue to do with passive welfare; but understand its origins. Its origins were an attempt by Indigenous Australians to move off passive welfare and go to work. That is what it was about.
What we need also to comprehend is the way in which this program has grown. Research again undertaken by Professor Altman indicates:
Between 1981 and 2001 the proportion of the Indigenous population employed in the CDEP scheme increased from 0.8—
in 1981—
to 10.9 per cent—
in 2001. He continues:
In 2002 the CDEP scheme accounted for over one-quarter of the total employment of Indigenous Australians, with 13 per cent of the working-age population being employed in the CDEP scheme.
The debate about CDEP and its appropriateness or otherwise is something we need to have, but we also need to understand that CDEP has been used by successive governments as a warehouse because they were not able to provide adequate and appropriate labour market programs for Indigenous people who were otherwise unemployed. That is what has happened: they have been shifted from the unemployment queue to CDEP. Once you are on CDEP you are counted as being at work. It is a nifty scheme. You move people off the unemployment queue and put them on CDEP, and then you do not count them as being unemployed.
The fact is that successive governments, particularly successive governments since 1996, have dropped the ball. They should have been doing what the Labor government was doing: providing transparent access from CDEP into labour market programs, so that you had traineeships for Indigenous people on CDEP and you had people being taken out of CDEP, put into traineeships and hopefully put into work. But we have seen the burgeoning of CDEP as a way of putting people into boxes. We need to revisit what this is all about and say that we need to provide access for people who are on CDEP to proper training and proper employment opportunities.
We know that there is high dependency on CDEP in very remote communities. Why is this? Simply because jobs are not available. It is also because, as we know from other sectors, people appreciate that the skill base of communities is low. Why is it low? Because they do not have access to basic educational services. So we see poor performance in numeracy and literacy.
This morning I had the good fortune to be at a hearing of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs when we had a submission from the Minerals Council of Australia about employment issues. The mining industry have taken—one of the things I commend to Ms McPherson and the cattle industry—a proactive approach to their community obligations in the communities in which they work, understanding that there are differences across Australia and that what might be appropriate for Western Sydney may not be appropriate for the north-east Arnhem Land or the Kimberley. We need to also appreciate that the skill levels will be different. The mining industry have said: ‘Hang on. The old rhetoric’s gone. We’re no longer throwing bombs at one another. We want to see a partnership. We want to take a lead in that partnership. We want to provide real work opportunities for Indigenous Australians.’ They are to be commended for it. We do not see the same in other industries. We certainly do not see the same in the pastoral industry.
I commend to the House the fact that we know there are young Aboriginal Australians who are working their darndest to try and get employment in the pastoral industry. I note there was a report about some young Territorians who have been working at Katherine rural college to gain skills that will get them employment in the pastoral industry. They have done that because they see the need to get those skills so they can access the work that is available on pastoral properties.
The best way to proceed on this issue is not through these hurtful headlines but to sit down and talk reasonably with people and get reasonable outcomes from those discussions. That will happen when you adopt the view that this is about change and when you accept responsibility as a government. It is not about blame but about accepting responsibility. Accepting your responsibility as a government means accepting your deficiencies in not providing appropriate resources for the social determinants of health: housing, education, employment opportunities and those sorts of basic infrastructure requirements that go towards giving people a better standard of living. When you do that—when you provide people access to work opportunities, whether they are in north-east Arnhem Land, the Kimberley, Central Australia or Sydney—you will find people will take up those opportunities. They will not be put off attempting to do so.
I note the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation, a CDEP organisation, have put a proposal to the government for it to fund Aboriginal rangers to work to help solve this issue of illegal fishermen coming to Australia’s shores. What has the government done? Senator Macdonald has rebuked them. Why were they rebuked? He said they did not have the skills and he was not prepared to fund them. Of course that is an insult and it should be seen as an insult. (Time expired)
Australian Flag
65
65
16:44:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
1
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—I rise on the grievance debate this afternoon to speak about recent media reports that have shocked me—in fact, they have appalled me and many of my constituents in my electorate of Maranoa. These are hardworking Australians, decent people. The issue I want to talk about is the Australian flag.
An Australia wide socialist youth group called Resistance has developed a flag-burning kit that is to be sold during university orientation weeks across Australia. These kits include an Australian flag, matches and material to assist in the burning of the flag. They are going to be sold for $5.
00AMO
Farmer, Patrick, MP
Mr Farmer
—How stupid are they?
YT4
Scott, Bruce, MP
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—As the parliamentary secretary at the table says: how stupid is that? Not only is it irresponsible but it absolutely appals me—and I think it appals 99.99 per cent of Australians, all but those who belong to this socialist group of young people, who think that they know all about life and the fight that was had by so many Australians to defend our freedoms and give us the lucky country that we have today. This Resistance group says that burning the flag will send a message to the federal government. Its press release states:
The Flag Burning kit displays the sentiment that many young people today feel, given the Australian government’s—
listen to this!—
racist refugee policy; its treatment of Indigenous people; its use of violence against protesters; its support of US foreign policy; and its oppressive military role in the Asia-Pacific.
These people just do not live in the real world. If they want to live in socialist countries, perhaps they ought to try to migrate and see what it is really like to live in some countries that are certainly less fortunate than we are here in Australia.
We all have the right to freedom of speech in this country; it is a democratic principle by which we all live—it is one that is valued, and we must cherish it and protect it. But not only is the act of burning the national flag appalling; it is disrespectful to the nation and to all our people. The Australian flag symbolises many things for many people. For our returned men and women of the Australian Defence Force it symbolises their mates whose lives were tragically cut short while fighting for their county, for our freedom, for a better way of life, for the right to speak out in this country. For athletes—and we have seen them at the Winter Olympics in Turin—it symbolises their honour and pride in representing their country on an international level. For someone migrating to Australia and taking out Australian citizenship it symbolises a new start in life. For actors, musicians, dancers and artists who are on the international stage and living abroad, it symbolises home. For the everyday Aussie it symbolises freedom, democracy, mateship, the have-a-go attitude and all our country’s values and traditions. In essence, the Australian flag is the one symbol that unites all Australians, regardless of their religious, political or ethnic background or belief. Over time, appreciation for the flag and what it symbolises has developed as the nation has matured.
Over the past two weeks we have seen the Australian flag flying high in Turin, Italy, at the 2006 Winter Olympics. I saw the opening ceremony. I saw Alisa Camplin, who was a gold medallist at the Winter Olympics at Salt Lake City, leading the Australian team into the arena carrying the Australian flag. She won the bronze medal for the women’s aerials at this Winter Olympics. I know that when she marched in there she felt a great sense of pride and a great sense of honour because she was representing Australia. The symbol for all the world to see that led them into the arena was the Australian flag. Early this morning on television here in Australia Dale Begg-Smith, aged 21, the gold medallist in the men’s moguls, led the Australian team into the arena carrying the Australian flag. I am sure that all who saw that felt a great sense of pride in what it is to be Australian—a great sense of pride that, when the flag came into the arena at Turin, that was the Australian team. The symbol was there; the flag was there. Those young Australians, our team, who followed those leaders—Dale Begg-Smith and Alisa Camplin—were following because they were Australian and representing Australia abroad.
In a few weeks time the Commonwealth Games will be held in Melbourne. Commonwealth countries from around the world will gather. Sportsmen and women will be there competing against each other. And the spirit under which they will compete is that spirit of sportsmanship, of being able to compete against each other openly and freely. They too, and I am sure all Australians, will feel a sense of pride when Australians are successful at the Commonwealth Games. When the Australian flag is raised at medal ceremonies they will feel a great sense of honour that our Australian athletes have done well against other Commonwealth countries in competition.
Only last week I attended an official flag raising ceremony at St John’s school in my home town of Roma in my electorate. The flagpole that we were dedicating and raising the flag up was a condition of funding from the Commonwealth to all schools in Australia. If those schools do not have a flagpole, the Commonwealth will fund those flagpoles. It is a great program. In watching those young students of St John’s school in Roma, I felt a great sense of pride—as I have at other schools in my electorate—as they carried the flag out. They felt the sense of ownership of this flag. They treated it with dignity and respect. They were proud children as they raised that flag. As it was raised to the top, we played the national anthem.
The Australian flag represents many things. One of them is one of those eternal values that will help children and support parents and teachers at schools like St John’s to ensure that children grow up with a sense of value of what it is to be Australian and what is symbolised in the Australian flag.
Australians are proud of their heritage and they are proud to fly the Australian flag. Almost every day around this nation, wherever you see the flag flying, you see that there is a pride in Australia. It is the flag that does it for me, and I believe it does it for thousands and thousands of Australians. I would like to think we could see the flag on every street corner.
I have visited America and had the privilege of spending time there. If ever there is a country that is patriotic and supports its flag, it is America. Perhaps we have taken our Australian flag for granted in a way. Perhaps we have taken the values that epitomise the Australian flag for granted. I believe we have to reinvigorate that sense of pride in all Australians. We have to encourage more flying of the Australian flag.
Burning the flag is a lazy, coward’s way of voicing an opinion. In my mind, it is tantamount to treason. The young socialists who want to sell flag kits during orientation week are, as one of my constituents said, like naughty little kids wanting attention. I say to those young people: don’t go ahead with your protests and try and sell these kits during university orientation week; heed the call of millions of Australians, support the Australian flag and learn from their actions. (Time expired)
Higher Education
67
67
16:54:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
0
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—That was a very patriotic speech by my neighbour the member for Maranoa, and I want to make an equally patriotic speech: today I wish to lament the Americanisation of our higher education system in this country. It is a system that our country was once very proud of, because it put a university education within the reach of all Australians regardless of their socioeconomic status. Entry to higher education was on the basis of ability, not ability to pay. It was also a system that, together with the vocational education sector, was seen by former Labor governments as an essential driver of a successful and productive economy. We in the Labor Party understand that access to post-secondary education and training is the key to building a skilled, creative and innovative workforce.
This appears to have been overlooked by the Howard government, as evidenced by the skills shortage we are now experiencing, thanks to its failure to properly support all types of education and training over the past 10 years. Even now it seems that the government does not get it. Instead of investing in the education and upskilling of Australians, it prefers to rely on the quick fix of importing skilled labour from overseas.
In a global environment where most countries are growing their public investment in higher education, the policy emptiness of this government on education is astounding and increasingly counterproductive. In a sector where we need leadership and vision there is only neglect and damaging ideology. The $5 billion that this government has ripped out of higher education since coming to power has created an American system of higher education where entry to university is increasingly tied to your ability to pay. This government has failed to adequately fund universities, forcing them to become heavily reliant on full fee paying international students for much of their income. The remainder of the shortfall is being picked up by students themselves. Australian students and their families are paying more in fees and debt to obtain a degree. The students can only carry the burden of the government’s failings in higher education for so long. We are now seeing the results of the government’s policies.
Domestic enrolments are falling in this country at the same time as communities in my electorate—and, I am sure, right around the country—are crying out for qualified workers. Students are being scared away from a university education, and it is no wonder. Just yesterday the Sunday Mail illustrated very clearly why this is happening. There was an article in that Queensland newspaper which ran through the soaring HECS debts that students are facing on the completion of their degrees. For example, medical students now have a HECS debt of $49,000, compared to $18,000 10 years ago; law students are paying $33,000 in HECS; and engineering students are paying $28,000 in HECS, which is an increase of $16,000.
The response of students to this is not surprising. The article quotes a young man, a University of Queensland second-year student, Jon Piccini, who is 19. It quotes him as saying that the growing HECS debt casts a shadow over his studies and that:
It is definitely a worry for me and all my friends.
The article quotes him as saying that he ‘knew of people who were choosing not to go to university because they didn’t feel they could afford it’. Students have clearly heard the message from the Howard government—that education is out of reach for the average Australian.
I do not know how members opposite feel, but we on this side believe that education is vitally important—and not just to enable individuals to realise their potential: a properly funded university sector will ensure that Australia is producing the world-class graduates we need to fill the positions that underpin our competitiveness and provide important services to our communities. In the current system, where is the support for students wanting to obtain those qualifications? First of all, they see cash strapped universities accepting full fee paying students into the same degree as a Commonwealth supported student but with a lower OP score. The very thought of a full fee paying student being accepted into a university place with an OP score of up to 18 points less than a HECS student is totally contrary to the Australian idea of a fair go and raises legitimate questions about standards in our universities.
Students today can expect to finish university with a huge debt, whether it is incurred through HECS or FEE HELP. They are expected to start work, buy a house and raise a family with this massive debt over their heads. Why does the government think that it is acceptable for a young Australian to start their working life with a debt of $30,000 and upwards, and why would anyone be surprised when they opt out altogether?
This brings me to Central Queensland University, which is the university based in my electorate of Capricornia. It has campuses right up the east coast from Melbourne to Mackay. The Central Queensland University was one of those unis that initially decided not to increase the HECS fees it could charge until it became apparent that, if it did not, there would be serious financial implications. Like many universities, it was in a no-win situation, thanks to the government’s policy of underfunding the sector, and it now finds itself battling to maintain enrolments. Late last year the Central Queensland University was forced to hand back 490 places to the Commonwealth government as a result of a decline in applications for 2006. This hand-back of places was partnered with a subsequent return of some $5 million in funding to the Commonwealth government.
This was obviously a blow for CQU, as it would be for any regional uni to lose funding at a time when they are so strapped for cash. The Vice-Chancellor of CQU, Professor John Rickard, is worried that a continuation in the decline of applications may see future staff reductions at CQU. This is a concern shared by many students, especially those in the smaller, regional campuses outside Rockhampton. The National Tertiary Education Union also has concerns that the quality of students that CQU admits to its programs may drop in order for CQU to make up the numbers. This would be a disastrous move for the university’s standing and reputation and one which I am sure that CQU will be desperately trying to avoid. CQU has attempted to reverse this downtrend in applications through large-scale, localised advertising campaigns as well as offering students reimbursement of late application and change-of-preference fees from QTAC for redirecting their studies to CQU.
There are a number of factors behind the decline in enrolments, which is stated to be around 20 per cent at CQU. No doubt one of these factors is the current commodities boom. Coalmines in Central Queensland are forging ahead, implementing multimillion dollar expansion projects to keep up with the demand for our resources. This means that there are more and more jobs available in the industry and many young Central Queenslanders are taking the option of employment in the mines over tertiary education. Of course, one of the appealing factors contributing to this decision is the high incomes that are on offer in the coalmines. But, as the Sunday Mail article illustrated, another factor is undoubtedly the increasing cost of a university degree. Young students do not want to finish university with a massive debt over their heads, and mature age students, who form a large cohort at CQU, are even more wary of taking on such a burden when they have so many other financial commitments between themselves and their families.
Central Queensland University was not the only regional uni to see a reduction in applications this year, and you can draw a direct link between the fee increases and declining applications at these places. Universities such as James Cook University, the University of Western Sydney, Southern Cross University and Charles Sturt University are just a handful of institutions that have suffered drops in enrolments this year. It is not just this side of politics that can see the link between higher fees and the drop in enrolments. Professor Richard James of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne had this to say in an article in the Australian newspaper in early November last year.
Obviously there’s more concern about the cost of going to university, and all the talk we’ve had in the last year or so about increases in fees and the overall cost of higher education is starting to have a big impact on the community perception of going to university.
That really reinforces the quote I cited earlier from the young student at the University of Queensland in the Sunday Mail. The message is clear: students or potential students are, under this government, seeing education as unaffordable and therefore an untenable prospect. The best way to reverse the trend of lower numbers applying for university places is for the government to start adequately funding these institutions and properly supporting students.
The downwards trend in applications hits regional universities much harder than others. It is not just the university itself that feels the pinch in that situation but the entire community. For example, in Rockhampton, which is the base for CQU, the university is actually the largest employer in town, so any drop in staff members will have a direct impact on Rockhampton’s economy. CQU is also the source of qualified graduates, who provide important services in the Central Queensland University. It is also the centre for research that drives innovation and competition in our local industries. It cannot be allowed to suffer from the government’s policies. (Time expired)
Great Barrier Reef
70
70
17:05:00
Entsch, Warren, MP
7K6
Leichhardt
LP
1
0
Mr ENTSCH
—On 2 June 2003, the then Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr Kemp, announced with some fanfare in a press release the Great Barrier Reef protection plan in which he referred to the commencement of a Representative Areas Program up the eastern seaboard of the Great Barrier Reef. In that press release he made the statement that only 4.5 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef is protected to date from extractive practices such as fishing. His words were that they were looking at closing about 30 per cent of the reef in an effort to protect it. Those figures started the lies that have caused a huge amount of problems and grief for the fishing and business community in my region and further down along the eastern seaboard.
The reality is that he was starting with a false premise. The figure was not in fact 4.5 per cent. That figure was obviously passed on to him by the bureaucrats within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. It was done to raise concern and support for what they were intending to do not from the resident region but more from the metropolitan areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane—from people who had no real idea of what was happening.
There was a question raised by one of the senior members of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—a gentleman by the name of Randall Owens, a project manager for the fisheries issues group—challenging him on those figures. His comment was: ‘I accept your criticism with the emphasis on reef that it could be misleading, particularly to Joe Public who is only involved from a distance and not with the detail. And, yes, it could have been said that 22.5 per cent of the reef was protected, but overall five per cent of the marine park was protected in green zones. However, my personal opinion is that you may be flogging a dead horse for little gain. I don’t think it can win you much apart from some personal satisfaction. The number of people who want greater protection is substantial and certainly there is strong support for increased protection.’
By the very expensive ads taken out by GBRMPA and supported by the Wilderness Society and the ACF, pushing this lie into metropolitan areas, they were actually encouraging people to come out and support this and at the same time telling the minister that there was going to be minimum impact in the community. At the time I expressed concerns and said that, provided the basis of this was science, nobody would argue that you had to protect these areas, but the idea was not to push agendas such as that of the Wilderness Society, which is looking for a total removal of these people’s businesses along the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. At the time we were assured by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority that there would be very little impact on businesses. In fact, when the first draft was presented it looked as though what they were saying was correct and the fishing industry, which came in behind this and supported its concept, said that they were quite satisfied with the first draft.
However, at that point the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority encouraged the fishing industry to indicate the areas that they could not afford to lose. The industry did this in an effort to work through and support the process. Unfortunately, by giving freely of this information, when the second draft came out all those areas highlighted by the commercial fishing interests as areas that they could not afford to lose had been zoned either green as a conservation zone or yellow as a new zone for recreational fishing, which in effect shut down many of the fishing areas. The Northern Prawn Fishery, for example, had a seven-year plan of working towards ecological sustainability which had in fact been signed off as achieving that ecological sustainability by Environment Australia, the EPA and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority itself and was waiting on certification to come back from overseas through the IUCN. The changing of these zones made it totally unviable and unsustainable—with devastating impacts. I might add that the advice of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to the minister at the time was that the impact would be no more than $1.5 million to the fishing industry.
By July 2004, when the Representative Areas Program came into effect, we realised that there were major problems. In introducing the legislation I think $10 million compensation was allocated for those impacted by it, even though the minister was assured that it was $1.5 million. To date, we have spent close to $90 million in compensation. The new Minister for the Environment and Heritage has had to try and unscramble a very messy omelette. I give him full points for the work that he has done in lifting the cap from $200,000 per business to, with cabinet approval, an unlimited amount. There are still a lot of issues there that have to be worked through with the minister and we are trying to do that.
In the short time that I have here, I will just go through some of the horror stories. The owner of North Queensland Seafoods, Kevin Dempster, used to be a wholesale supplier of seafood, sourced from vessels operating out of the port of Cairns. Now the fleet is much smaller because of the RAP process and Kevin and another small operator have had to dispose of assets in order to meet financial obligations. Kevin is having to sell his family home to be able to stay in business. Rod Lacco was the owner of Opal Marine. Over the last 12 months his business has shut down completely, his family has broken up and his marriage is on the rocks. At this stage there is no restructuring for him. He had been working in the business for many years, and now the business is totally destroyed. Aqua-Cat Charters owned by Peter Todd was another very successful business that had been built up over 20 years. His business is down by over 40 per cent. Graham Gaerth of Cairns Marine Maintenance carried out maintenance work on engines, refits, trawlers et cetera and at the height of his business he employed 10 people. That has folded as a direct result of RAP. Maurie Stevens, a qualified motor mechanic, operated Stevens Outboard Services for 25 years. He employed two workers as apprentices, but his business has folded as a direct result of RAP. There are other people like Lyle Squires Sr and Cairns Marine Aquarium Fish that are taking tremendous risks by trying to go out further into the Coral Sea to maintain their businesses but struggling desperately. And the list goes on.
The way these people have been treated is an absolute disgrace. It is a disgrace that this decision, in relation to the Representative Areas Program, was based on false and deliberately inaccurate information provided by the bureaucracy, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and it is my view that those officers who provided this information should be held accountable for their actions. I also believe that, as the five-year review comes around, we need to look seriously at how we can get these people back to work. (Time expired)
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question:
That grievances be noted.
Question agreed to.
MAIN COMMITTEE
71
Miscellaneous
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Tuesday, 28 February at 4 pm as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.
72
17:15:00
Bartlett, Kerry, MP
0K6
Macquarie
LP
1
0
Mr BARTLETT
—by leave—I move:
That, unless otherwise ordered for the Main Committee meeting on Tuesday, 28 February 2006, the first item of business shall be Members’ statements, each for no longer than 3 minutes, with the item of business continuing for 30 minutes irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House.
Question agreed to.
BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ANTI-AVOIDANCE) BILL 2005
72
Bills
R2482
MARITIME LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2005
72
Bills
R2392
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (NO. 2) 2005
72
Bills
R2475
Referred to Main Committee
72
Mr BARTLETT
(Macquarie)
17:16:00
—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
72
Business
Rearrangement
72
Mr FARMER
(Macarthur
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training)
17:16:00
—I move:
That notice No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2005 MEASURES NO. 6) BILL 2005
72
Bills
R2483
Second Reading
72
Debate resumed from 7 December 2005, on motion by Mr Brough:
That this bill be now read a second time.
72
17:17:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—It is appropriate that we are discussing a tax bill just the day after the Treasurer announced his tax inquiry to be headed by Mr Hendy and Mr Warburton. The Treasurer says this is an essential benchmarking study to determine how we should go forward on tax reform in this country. I do not believe such a study is necessary. Labor will welcome any findings which come forward from the inquiry which assist us in our policy development processes, but what needs to be done on tax reform in this country is clear. We believe the Treasurer knows what has to be done; it is only about having the political will, both internally and externally, to implement that reform. We have to have greater simplification, we have to restore incentive to our tax system, we have to reduce the compliance cost burden and we have to improve our international competitiveness. Like most people in this place, I would like to see much of this funded through a broadening of the tax base and some tidying up of some looseness in a range of arrangements, including the great blow-out in work related tax deductions—and the list goes on and on.
If we are going to have this international benchmarking study of Australia’s taxation regime, I appeal to Mr Hendy and Mr Warburton to ensure that it reaches out to and includes the impact of our taxation arrangements on lower income Australians and its interaction with the social security and family tax benefit systems. Just as importantly, the study should benchmark Australian small businesses and the burden they face in both the payment of taxation and the costs of collecting GST receipts and remitting them to the government. This is an important test. Small business faces significant tax and compliance burdens. It is time for us to assess how small business in Australia is faring in that regard in comparison to small business in other nation states. I appeal to the Treasurer and to Mr Hendy and Mr Warburton to have a look at the extended issues I have proposed this evening.
I turn to the schedules of the Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 6) Bill 2005. Schedule 1 of the bill recognises the losses from merging companies based on the proportion of a company’s market value. When companies merge, the issue of carrying forward a loss is vital. If the new company is worth less than half a per cent of the total group value, then the losses cannot be recouped. This provision allows for losses of less than half a per cent by permitting another decimal point to be added to the calculation process, with a floor level of 0.1 per cent. This will provide for losses to be recouped when the joining entity represents less than 0.49 per cent of the total market value of the group. This is the 12th amendment to the consolidation rules in just two years. The government has, in my view, created a degree of uncertainty by failing to deal with the consolidation measures in a single comprehensive bill, but Labor supports the proposal.
Schedule 2 is vital to the survival of the registered clubs industry. It retrospectively restores the tax-free status of clubs and other not-for-profit groups, which was taken away by a recent court decision. Up until the Federal Court decision, known as the Coleambally case, the proportion of a club’s income—poker machine receipts, bar takings and dining room takings—which related to members was considered to be tax free. But the decision in the Coleambally case ruled that this should apply only where the members’ funds are distributed to members when the entity is being wound up and where the articles of association, or the charter of the club, indicate that to be the case.
This bill clarifies that, since the decision on 1 July 2000, the tax-free status is not determined by the restriction on winding-up. This bill must be supported by the government because the future viability of the club sector requires it, and Labor will be supporting the change. Clubs are more than just a place for family gatherings. They play a vital role in the community by providing people with a place to meet and by providing significant charitable contributions to a number of worthwhile organisations. On that basis, Labor is more than happy to support the correction of the implications coming out of this unfortunate decision by the Federal Court.
The third schedule ensures that the new activity test for the child-care benefit does not restrict eligibility for the new child-care tax offset. The government has made changes to the activity test requiring a work test or study/training test of 15 hours a week. Labor pointed out at the time that this would restrict eligibility for the new child-care tax offset, which the government has now accepted. On that basis we will be supporting this schedule of the bill.
The bill also amends the medical expenses offset so that purely cosmetic and dental expenses are ineligible medical expenses and cannot be claimed under the MEO. Therefore, expenses which are cosmetic in nature and do not attract a Medicare benefit are considered ‘ineligible medical expenses’ and are excluded from the medical expenses offset. Labor supports the clarification.
Schedule 5 of the bill proposes that new organisations be added to the lists of deductible gift recipients and also extends the time for which deductions are allowed for gifts to a fund that has time-limited DGR status. Organisations to benefit from this amendment include the CEW Bean Foundation, which wants to build a memorial and develop an honour roll in tribute to war correspondents killed in conflicts since 1885, the Australian Red Cross and the Salvation Army, which set up the Hurricane Katrina appeal to help in the disaster relief effort in the aftermath of Katrina, which has left southern areas of the United States devastated, as members would know. This amendment will also see the Xanana Vocational Education Trust added to the deductible gifts register. The trust develops vocational education and training in East Timor by subsidising education and awarding scholarships to young people. On the basis of all that I have just outlined as to those extensions, Labor is more than happy to be supporting the proposed changes.
At this stage I would like to move the second reading amendment standing in my name, which I hope has been distributed. It relates to the very important current issue before the House: our concern about the tax deductibility of so-called facilitation payments and how those are related to the controversy that has taken place over the AWB kickbacks scandal. Those payments, as we now know, were used to fund the various activities of the former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, and are now potentially funding the activities of those insurgents operating in that country. I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: calls on the Government to align the definitions of facilitation payments under the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration for urgent inquiry”.
This second reading amendment, which we will be forcing to a vote, so giving the government an opportunity to support it, seeks to encourage the government to give a reference to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and to look at more generally the idea of aligning the Criminal Code with the Income Tax Assessment Act as it relates to facilitation payments. We have this extraordinary situation in Australia right now where under our Criminal Code we have a definition of what constitutes a facilitation payment but under our tax act we have no such definition, so I am proposing that the House and the government align these two pieces of legislation. This is not a radical move by any stretch of the imagination. I think it is a sensible move and one which should be supported by every member of this House and members of the other place. I have considered moving this as a detailed amendment giving effect to this change, but I do not want it to become a political hot potato in this place. I want to give the government an opportunity to embrace the idea of making the change and to bring us in line with the OECD’s view that the Australian government has failed to do all that is possible to reduce the proliferation of these facilitation payments and of course their tax deductibility.
If you were looking at this in an ethical sense, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would not be allowing tax deductibility for facilitation payments. What is a facilitation payment? A facilitation payment is a payment to what could be and probably is a corrupt official in another nation state to do something that he would not ordinarily do in a particular space of time if a payment were not made. There is probably a case to be made that such payments should not be tax deductible, because what we are doing is perpetuating a corrupt regime or those processes in other nation states. But Labor understands that we are not living in utopia, that these methods are required in some nation states and that Australian companies looking to invest and grow their business, for the benefit of their shareholders, in some nation states do find it necessary to make these facilitation payments from time to time. So Labor is not suggesting that facilitation payments be ruled out as tax deductions. We are saying that we must rein these in, as recommended by the OECD, to ensure that they are not being used any more than is necessary for us to operate in those nation states.
Surely no-one would suggest for a moment that a $300 million kickback payment in the wheat scandal is a facilitation payment. We have had admissions in the Cole inquiry that that $300 million payment was claimed as a tax deduction. We do not know at this stage how it was claimed as a tax deduction. It is likely that it was claimed as a transport expense—I accept that is a possibility—but it is just as likely to have been claimed as a facilitation payment; we do not really yet know. But what we do know that there is a disparity between the Crimes Act and the tax act. The tax act makes no attempt to give a definition of a facilitation payment. On that basis, as a legislative body or as a wider, broader community, we cannot have any confidence that, if AWB had sought to claim it as a facilitation payment, that claim would not have been successful. I am not suggesting that the Criminal Code is perfect. It talks about measuring the size of the facilitation payment and deeming it to be minor. That is not totally acceptable, but you would have to say that defining it as minor is a lot better than not defining it at all. So I think the opposition is being responsible in not moving a detailed amendment, thereby giving the government an opportunity to embrace what Labor is putting forward and to accept a very reasonable proposition.
I asked the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Revenue, Mr Dutton, during question time today whether he would support this measure. Obviously, he did not understand the question. It was a pretty simple question: will you support the alignment of the two acts or not? Minister Dutton responded by saying there is no need to make any legislative change and then went on to suggest I was suggesting asking the Commissioner of Taxation to intervene in some way. We know that is not appropriate. We know the tax commissioner acts independently—and so he should. We are suggesting changing the law so that in future—forget AWB for a moment, as important as that is—large payments, potentially corrupt payments, are not made under the guise of what are known as facilitation payments.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—I know that you are debating the second reading amendment, but I understand that members have not seen the amendment. Would you read it into the Hansard so that members know what you are debating?
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I am happy to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to the clerks for the confusion. The amendment reads as follows:
... “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: calls on the Government to align the definitions of facilitation payments under the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act 1997 and to refer this matter to Standing Committee on Economics, Finances and Public Administration for urgent inquiry”.
The tail end of that motion underscores Labor’s reasonable and responsible approach to this issue. As concerned as we are about AWB, I do not want to necessarily make this an AWB issue. The Cole commission will deal with that, and we will find out in good time on what basis AWB made the deduction. Of course it made the deduction. But it would be even more extraordinary if it had made the payments off the books and the directors had failed in their fiduciary duty to claim what they were obviously claiming was a legitimate expense. That would be even more extraordinary. We know that it was claimed. There has been an admission now to the inquiry that a claim was made, but we do not yet know what form the writing off of the expense took. We are very hopeful that the Cole commission will unearth the details of just how that took place.
We can deal with that as we come to it. It has to be said that it appears that everyone in the world knew that this had been happening over the last five or more years. You would have thought that someone in the government would have been alert to the fact that there was a possibility not only that it was happening but also that a deduction was being claimed, which meant that the Australian taxpayer was subsidising these kickbacks to Saddam’s regime to the tune of about $90 million. These are pretty extraordinary circumstances. But, again, let us separate AWB out for the moment. Let us instead use question time to tease out these issues with the government. Let the Cole commission delve further into the tax arrangements and let us see what comes from that.
This amendment is about looking forward, not backward. On that basis I do not think the government can claim that this is a stunt on the part of the opposition or a means of further embarrassing the government, because it is not. This is not about AWB. This is about making sure that in future the facilitation payments provision of the tax act is not preserved. I do not understand for a moment why the government would not support that, particularly given that the OECD has expressed real concern about our failure to live up to our international agreement and wind back the extent to which these facilitation payments are claimed.
I invite the government to support Labor’s second reading amendment. We will be sending it to a division to test the government’s will on this issue. If they are not prepared to support the second reading amendment I will have no choice but to go back to the original intention—the one I was tempted to use when first considering this amendment—of a second, in-detail amendment putting forward exactly what we propose in the alignment of the two acts and to give the government, on reflection, another opportunity to support that proposal.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Is the amendment seconded?
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr Garrett
—I second the amendment.
76
17:34:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
0
Mr SLIPPER
—This is an omnibus bill that covers a range of taxation changes. I suppose that, given the difficulty of getting matters before the parliament, it is quite natural that the government from time to time would seek to make a number of relatively minor changes together in the one omnibus bill. The second reading amendment moved by the honourable member, the shadow minister, opposite is obviously a bit of a stunt. He certainly raises an interesting point that is worthy of consideration. But if he were serious about having the government consider this he should have not done it in a such a grandstanding manner. It would have been better for him to privately contact the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer to point out the problem as he sees it rather than come in here and try to hijack the debate on this very important Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 6) Bill 2005.
The Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 6) Bill 2005 has a number of purposes that are designed to modify and update the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. When one looks at the bill and the explanatory memorandum it is obvious that a number of different areas are being covered. In fact, there are five chapters, including consolidation, available action for lost utilisation purposes, extension of the mutuality principle, child-care tax offset, medical expenses offset and exclusion of solely cosmetic procedures, and there is a chapter on deductible gift recipients.
With respect to child care, the bill enables changes that allow those who are eligible for the child-care tax rebate to continue to receive the rebate if, at some time during the week, they work, train or study. It is admirable that many of those mothers who stay at home to care for their young children have made, or are planning to make, the extra effort to go to work, train or study once their youngest children are of school age. It is important that children are given the opportunity to spend as much quality time as possible with their parents as they grow up.
While child-care centres are important institutions that provide a vital service in Australia, no-one can deny the value of personal contact between a young child and his or her parents. The bill maintains the work, training and study requirements for eligibility for the child-care tax offset at the level they were at before the introduction last year of the Welfare to Work legislation. This legislation will not affect eligibility for the child-care tax offset.
I mentioned before that there were some changes with respect to the medical expenses offset and cosmetic surgery. The bill also will make some very important reform changes with respect to not-for-profit organisations. The bill ensures that not-for-profit organisations will not be hit with income tax bills as a result of a decision in the Federal Court in September 2004. On 27 May last year—that is, 2005—the High Court of Australia rejected a request by Coleambally Irrigation Mutual Cooperative Ltd to appeal a decision that the principle of mutuality cannot apply where the members of an organisation are prevented from obtaining the value of the assets on its winding up. The Federal Court decision would have potentially affected some 300,000 Australian organisations. That is clearly not a particularly desirable situation. This bill, though, ensures that membership subscriptions and receipts received from members of the organisations are not subject to tax, and it will give legislative backing to the tax office practice that applied to distribution clauses prior to the judicial decisions.
The various parts of this bill, quite understandably, come into effect at different times. This reflects when announcements were made and also when the government considers it appropriate that individual changes included in the Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 6) Bill 2005 ought to apply. The second reading amendment is a matter which has been raised by the honourable member for Hunter. I believe he has done so in a way that is designed to play politics, instead of with a view to bringing about what the member for Hunter no doubt considers ought to be a change in the definitions. I commend the Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 6) Bill 2005 to the House.
77
17:39:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
0
0
Dr EMERSON
—Labor supports the Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 6) Bill 2005 but does so while moving a second reading amendment relating to the disgraceful actions of the Australian Wheat Board in paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein and the willing conscription of an unwitting Australian public to subsidise those payments to the tune of 30 per cent, which works out at around $90 million. I am sure the Australian people would have been both astonished and appalled if they had known that through the tax system they had been called upon without their knowledge to subsidise those payments to Saddam Hussein’s regime at the very time that the Howard government had taken Australia to war against Iraq. More of those sorts of details are coming out every day. The last thing that the Australian people would have expected is that without their knowledge they too were participants in this sordid exercise. It is par for the course for the Howard government to behave in such a way.
My colleague the member for Hunter has wisely moved a second reading amendment to ensure that such facilitation payments are not tax deductible in the future, in accordance with OECD recommendations that have been rejected by the Howard government. The Howard government, in rejecting those recommendations, is condoning the paying of facilitation payments to foreign governments, officials and non-officials. This cannot be in the Australian national interest; yet that is what the government is doing. It cannot be condoned; it cannot be supported.
That is why the member for Hunter has put forward this second reading amendment. We hope that upon reflection the government will see the wisdom of that second reading amendment and that it will in the final analysis be shamed—although it is very difficult to shame this government—into agreeing that it is beyond the pale for the Australian public to have subsidised payments to Saddam Hussein and his regime for the conduct of military operations and possibly for the funding of suicide bombers in the Middle East.
I want to speak very briefly about a number of the provisions of the bill and I want to expand on a couple of the others. The first schedule will mean that losses will be carried forward in a merger where the merging entity is very small compared with the market value of the group as a whole. This is a sensible measure. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Labor supports sensible measures and we are supporting this one.
The second schedule is a good one. It ensures that clubs which have enjoyed tax-free status continue to enjoy that following recent court decisions. It clarifies the law in relation to clubs. Clubs play a vital role in our community. Generally, they are not-for-profit organisations, and on that basis they should not be expected to pay tax. Greenbank RSL is a large club in my own electorate which provides a focal point where the community can come together to enjoy a whole range of entertaining activities. On top of that, Greenbank RSL performs a very socially valuable function in supporting local charities and sporting teams. Any move in this parliament that supports Greenbank RSL is a move that I warmly welcome, and this is one of those.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the executive of Greenbank RSL and Mr John Limbrick, who does such a fantastic job. In addition, I pay tribute to the executive of the Greenbank RSL subbranch. A lot of hardworking veterans provide great service to the community and great service to other veterans and their families. It is a great opportunity and honour for me in the Australian parliament to be able to pay tribute to them during this debate.
Schedule 3 relates to the child tax offset work test. That sounds pretty much like techo talk to me. It really is the child-care rebate that was announced by the Howard government in the 2004 election and that has been introduced into this parliament. It ensures that the new activity test for the child-care benefit does not restrict eligibility for the new child-care tax offset. I want to speak about the child-care rebate. It is a measure that, on the whole, is not a fair piece of tax policy for this country. Let me explain what I mean. In the year 2000 the Howard government introduced the child-care benefit. It did radically overhaul the child-care services in Australia.
We know that the member for Lindsay has been very critical of the child-care system in this country, and I share in that criticism, but at least the child-care rebate was progressive in its intent, its design and its effect. Basically it provided a benefit, the child-care benefit, which was bigger for lower income earners and smaller—in fact, phasing out—for higher income earners. Overall, that was pretty sensible policy. Indeed, the OECD has pointed out that Australia’s child-care subsidies are very low in relation to the OECD average and to leading countries, such as Denmark. The OECD has said that, if child-care subsidies were larger, we could expect a bigger workforce participation from mothers who are considering returning to work after having a baby and also from those mothers who perhaps have to make decisions about how much work they do. Importantly, the OECD found that the responsiveness of lower income families to subsidies was greater. This is commonsense, but plenty of modelling and testing has been done to verify that assertion.
The wise policy response would be to provide the greatest benefits to lower income earners, and that is what the child-care benefit does. However, there is a good case for increasing the size of the child-care benefit for lower income earners. Did the Howard government do that in the 2004 election campaign? No, because it wanted to give benefits to higher income earners. It would have done its polling of so-called doctors’ wives who were considering voting Labor in seats such as Kingsford Smith and Wentworth in Sydney. They were considering voting Labor on other grounds: Australia’s folly in attacking Iraq and the ‘children overboard’ scandal. They were pretty disillusioned with the Howard government, which obviously did its polling and said: ‘How do we get them back? We’ll give them a child-care rebate.’ So it specifically targeted higher income earners. The way it works is that it provides a rebate of 30 per cent of the out-of-pocket expenses paid on child care after taking account of the child-care benefit. Given that the child-care benefit provides the greatest benefit for lower income earners, the child-care rebate by definition must provide the greatest benefit for higher income earners. So here we are yet again with the Howard government providing benefits for some of the higher income earners of Australia to secure its re-election—not on the basis of good policy, not on the basis of equity, but just on a straight calculation that this is a group—the so-called doctors’ wives—that it needed to get onside to win the election. So we have a botched child-care rebate, now called the child tax offset.
We know that the member for Sydney has been telling everyone, quite correctly, that the whole system is flawed and that payments can be delayed for up to two years. It is a complete dog’s breakfast, but at least this piece of legislation clarifies something that Labor has called upon the government to clarify. That gives me the opportunity to expand on the government’s program of providing great benefits for the wealthiest people in Australia. For example, family tax benefit part B is a payment to stay-at-home mothers that is income tested only on the income of the mother. So the mother can be in a millionaire family—an absolutely fabulously wealthy family—and receive government welfare payments. The Prime Minister designed family tax benefit part B because it is his view that mothers, and particularly very wealthy mothers, should stay home. And, if they agree to stay home, he will give them somewhere in the vicinity of $3,000 a year from the Australian taxpayer. This is welfare for the wealthy.
Of course Labor does not object to providing family payments for lower and middle income earners; indeed, Labor introduced the system of family payments for lower and middle income earners. Professor Ann Harding of NATSEM found, unsurprisingly, that overall the system of government payments and the tax system is progressive. It should be. If you are going to collect $100 billion in income tax and soon pay out $100 billion in social security and welfare payments, which is what it will be in the next couple of years, you would want to be assured that overall it is progressive. What the government does not say is that that is the system that it inherited from the previous Labor government: a needs based or means tested system of income support payments. But, since the election of the Howard government, it has extended welfare payments right through middle Australia and on to the very wealthy. For example, it is giving welfare payments to many families in suburbs like Bellevue Hill, Double Bay, Killara, Vaucluse, Northbridge, Mosman and The Spit in Sydney and Kooyong, Kew, Toorak and Camberwell in Melbourne.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—In Woodridge, Kingston, Kuraby, Underwood.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—Of course here we have the minister at the table defending payments of welfare to some of Australia’s wealthiest families—
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—To people in Woodridge, Kingston, Underwood and Marsden. You know, your electorate, when you visit it occasionally?
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—such is the Liberal philosophy. I do recall the Liberal Party saying in the past that it stands for self-reliance. In fact, it has created a big, fat nanny state. It has done that by extending welfare right through middle Australia to the wealthiest people in this country. We might just see some stories on the Channel 7 news tonight about the government having done that. I imagine it will be a very revealing story to see the people from Vaucluse and Double Bay—these sorts of suburbs—receiving welfare payments from this government.
Just yesterday the Treasurer announced a review to compare Australia’s tax system with other countries’. I do not know how many other countries make welfare payments to their wealthiest citizens. Tax reform must begin with restraining extravagant, unnecessary spending. It is very difficult to justify giving such big benefits to the highest income earners in this country. In fact, documents that I obtained under freedom of information legislation show that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet estimates the savings from limiting such family payments to families earning less than $125,000 a year. It is a very substantial limit. If families earning more than $125,000 a year did not receive welfare payments, the savings would be in the order of $100 million. A $100 million saving is quite a large amount of money. So, in speaking about tax reform, perhaps the Treasurer could have a talk to the Prime Minister about why the Prime Minister insists on paying $100 million in welfare payments to families who earn more than $125,000 a year—advice provided by his own department.
The member for Moreton, who is sitting at the table, said that the people of Woodridge, Kingston and Underwood received such payments—and so they should under a needs based, means tested system. But I can inform the member for Moreton that the people of Woodridge, Kingston and Underwood are not millionaires.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—What about Kuraby? What about Browns Plains?
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—Obviously the member for Moreton does not travel into Logan City. He is wondering whether people in Browns Plains are millionaires. I can set his mind at ease. Member for Moreton: there are no millionaires in Browns Plains, but there are hardworking Australians. There are people who are receiving family payments and there are people who are on forms of welfare—and many of them would like to move from welfare to work. When the Treasurer is examining and benchmarking Australia’s tax system against those of other countries, he could have a look at the massive disincentives in the Australian tax and welfare systems for people moving from welfare to work.
The Prime Minister gives welfare payments to millionaire couples while expecting poor single mothers to go out and work for as little as $3 an hour, after taking into account taxes paid, benefits lost, the cost of travel to and from work, and other work costs. That does not even take into account the child-care costs. If they are taken into account, under the government’s so-called welfare reform, a single mother is expected to go out and work for as little as $2 an hour. That is a scandal, that is a disgrace and that is unfair while the wealthiest women in this country—the wealthiest families in this country—are receiving payments of around $3,000 so long as they agree to stay home. Such is this government’s definition and understanding of fairness. The government knows that it is unfair. It thinks single mothers will not vote for it but wealthy doctors’ wives will, so it gives the welfare payments to high-income earners and to single mothers it says: ‘Here’s a kick up the bum for you. You go out and work for $2 or $3 an hour.’ It is a disgrace.
When the Treasurer does his international benchmarking, he can look at the punitive disincentives for people on welfare to move from welfare to work. He can look at the disincentives for people in middle Australia who earn between $70,000 and $125,000 a year and who are on a 42c marginal rate. They jump from 30c to 42c. That is a big jump in an income tax rate, yet there are a million Australian taxpayers in that 42c bracket. If the government, through its insidious bracket creep over the next three years, does not drop that rate or change the threshold, another 400,000 will join those taxpayers and, by 2008, 1.4 million Australians will be confronted with the 42c marginal rate of income tax. They will be in that tax bracket. I urge the Treasurer to have a good hard look at the 42c rate when he is going through his tax reform proposals and look at what people who are in those income ranges pay overseas and whether they are in fact facing a 42c rate.
Reducing the 47c rate over time is affordable. It would be affordable within the sorts of budget surpluses that are being projected—up to $15 billion by private sector forecasters for the year 2006-07. Two Fridays ago, I asked the Governor of the Reserve Bank: ‘Is tax reform affordable?’ I did that because ringing in my ears was the Treasurer saying, ‘It may not be possible to provide tax reform and substantial tax relief, because to do so might stimulate the economy too much and trigger a Reserve Bank decision to increase interest rates.’ The Governor of the Reserve Bank said: ‘Tax reform is affordable.’ That pulled the rug from under the Treasurer. He is running out of excuses as to why he is so opposed to tax reform. He has now embarked on a process, when all of the evidence is there through OECD comparisons. Everyone, apart from the Treasurer, knows what the problems are with our tax system. It is time for genuine reform. It is time to remove those incentive-crushing barriers and to give people genuine reward for effort in this country.
81
18:00:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
1
0
Mrs HULL
—It is with great joy that I rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 6) Bill 2005. I want to focus on one area in particular. I have not been so relieved to see a piece of legislation in a long time. I think the last time was when we moved to restore the tax treatment for irrigators such as Murrumbidgee Irrigation in my electorate. I was very proud and pleased when we were able to resolve in this House those taxation issues that were the unintended consequences of privatisation.
Today I rise to speak about the same area, because this bill is incredibly important for the one particular group that I was so concerned about, and that is Coleambally Irrigation in my electorate. Much of the bill is centred on Coleambally Irrigation. We have heard the case of how the taxation treatment may have impacted on the not-for-profit organisations, but there was one company only that was responsible for running the court cases. One company only bore the incredible costs of court cases, and that was Coleambally Irrigation Mutual Cooperative Ltd.
Let me give the House a bit of background: in January 2000 Coleambally Irrigation was established and registered as a non-trading cooperative under the Co-operatives Act 1992 (NSW). The purpose of Coleambally Irrigation is to construct, own and maintain all new irrigation infrastructure assets in the Coleambally district for the benefit of their community. It is financed by a sinking fund levy made up of contributions by irrigator members.
In 2000 Coleambally Irrigation applied to the Australian Taxation Office for a private binding ruling in order to have their sinking fund contributions recognised as non-assessable income. In February 2002, the application was rejected by the ATO on the basis that the mutuality principle did not apply to Coleambally Irrigation for a number of reasons. This is a major issue for Coleambally Irrigation, but it went on to include many more people.
Coleambally is the fourth largest irrigation region in Australia. It is twice as big as the Ord River. There are 503 farms owned by 400 separate farming enterprises in the region. Coleambally Irrigation provides community owned infrastructure that the state government is no longer willing to fund but is essential to the viability of our Coleambally community and to the region that it serves. The irrigation activity underpins the whole community and the community is involved at all levels.
The implications of the court decision for Coleambally Irrigation and the Coleambally community were substantial in terms of their annual financial liability but, not only that, this tax ruling had implications for non-profit mutuals generally over a long period. This created a significant hurdle for thousands of clubs and not-for-profit organisations. We had a large number—well over 100,000—of these not-for-profit organisations and mutual organisations around Australia in a wide range of sectors that had similar non-profit winding up clauses and that did not have an exemption under section 23 of the income tax act. These clubs included registered clubs; leagues clubs aligned with National Rugby League teams; RSL and workers clubs; a range of cooperatives, agricultural and non-agricultural; rural financial counselling services; motoring associations; business associations; environmental groups; some child-care centres; the housing cooperatives; some community libraries and other local services; and many incorporated associations, non-trading cooperatives and companies which were limited by guarantee.
Then came the lobbying. I was absolutely determined to restore the balance of not-for-profit and mutuals. I could not understand the case against Coleambally because it fitted the mutuality principle in every way, shape and form. However, here was Coleambally Irrigation being subject to court case after court case at their cost and basically leading to the demolishment of Coleambally as a community, but having implications right across Australia for every not-for-profit organisation simply because they have a winding up rule.
As I said, this bill is incredibly important to not-for-profit organisations. I am focusing on the amendment to ensure that certain not-for-profit organisations are not subject to tax on their mutual receipts as a result of the Coleambally Federal Court decision handed down on 7 September 2004. We lobbied hard and have had discussions with the minister since 2000 basically. A major amount of money has been spent by Coleambally Irrigation to prove what I thought was a no brainer. Thankfully, when this case was presented to the minister, and in particular the former minister Mal Brough, he could see the common sense of the determination and argument that we were putting forward. This situation was the result of major court decisions that effectively reversed the tax office’s longstanding practice of allowing not-for-profit community organisations to rely on the mutuality principle to exclude certain receipts from assessable income even though members were precluded from receiving any surplus funds on their winding up.
This amendment will provide legislative backing for the tax office practice. Had the government not made this change, the mutual receipts of 200,000 to 300,000 not-for-profit bodies—including clubs, motoring organisations, associations and a whole host of friendly societies—would potentially become liable for income tax. And not only that, it would be retrospective. So this was a major issue to deal with. It took up an enormous amount of time and effort both in my office and certainly in Coleambally Irrigation’s office.
Under the mutuality principle, a long established principle in tax law, membership subscriptions and receipts from other mutual dealings with members are not usually included in taxable income. The number of not-for-profit entities that benefit from the mutuality principle is enormous—it is across the board. The amendments that we have ensure that not-for-profit entities are not subject to income tax on their ordinary income from their members solely because they are prohibited from distributing surplus funds to members.
When I was having this discussion, it seemed as though Coleambally were in an absolutely invidious no-win situation. The New South Wales government insisted that they have this winding up rule, yet the ATO were penalising them for having that rule. It did not matter which way they went—they could not establish their mutuality without this winding up rule because the New South Wales government insisted that it be in there, and then they found themselves penalised for having the rule. So they were in a catch-22, an absolute no-win situation. So I am very thrilled to have these amendments.
On Monday, 30 May 2005, when the former Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, Mal Brough, announced that the mutuality principle would be restored, there was jubilation right across my electorate of Riverina and beyond, simply because this was justice being done. This was where you finally saw what it was like in a democratic process to be able to come in as a backbencher, to present a cogent case and argument and to convince the minister that these continual court cases were not assisting anybody. They were draining Coleambally of funds and, ultimately, this really needed a political fix rather than a legal fix. When Mal Brough came out and announced that the mutuality principle would be restored and that the government would amend the income tax law to ensure that certain not-for-profit organisations were not subject to tax on income as a result of the High Court decision on Coleambally, I was, as I said, thrilled to pieces, and so were Coleambally Irrigation. It was an action that restored, as the bill before the House will restore, the longstanding benefits of this mutuality principle.
The announcement honoured the government’s commitment made during the 2004 election, when Coleambally Irrigation were in what I believed to be a dire situation. It addressed the concerns that Coly were raising about the impact of the judicial decision arising from litigation. Even the former Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer recognised this in his press release. He said:
It addresses the concerns raised about the impact of judicial decisions arising from litigation between Coleambally Irrigation Mutual Co-operative Ltd and the Commissioner of Taxation …
I was very pleased that the former minister had recognised this situation. When the High Court decided not to grant Coleambally Irrigation Mutual Cooperative leave to appeal the decision that the principle of mutuality cannot apply where the members of an organisation are prevented from obtaining the value of the assets on its winding up, the process did not just go on and on and then allow so many people to be impacted upon.
What we have here are amendments that have no adverse effect on taxpayers. We are simply reinstating the previously accepted treatment that applied prior to the Coleambally court decision that income received by not-for-profit entities, such as the membership subscriptions, is to be treated as mutual receipts and not as assessable income. Again, I feel suitably relieved and quite thrilled for Coleambally Irrigation. I know that each of the board members and each of the members of Coleambally Irrigation, including their CEO, is sitting here waiting for this bill to move through the House at a rate of knots. I feel only when the bill is passed by this House and approved by the Senate will they breathe a sigh of relief and recognise that they will be able to move forward as an organisation. Another very strong point I have here is that this bill is retrospective from 1 July 2000 to ensure that the taxation status of those organisations that I listed is not adversely affected by that Federal Court decision.
In conclusion, the decision by the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer is a major victory. Over a number of years I have gone through this issue with a few assistant treasurers, and I am pretty proud that we have finally seen the light and have put in a political fix, as was required from the very beginning, to restore the intention of the mutuality principle. Again, I would like to thank the former Assistant Treasurer, Mal Brough, for his assistance with this. I would like to thank Phil Lindsay in the former Assistant Treasurer’s office for being so diligent and so patient with me over a long period of time and all of the staff members that have been involved with me since 2000 on these issues. They have committed an enormous amount of time and energy on my behalf, for and on behalf of Coleambally Irrigation.
This is a good result. This is democracy and justice for a fantastic organisation that sets about building communities and making them strong. It is with great pleasure that I stand in the House today not only to support this bill but to urge everybody to progress the bill rapidly through the House and through the Senate in order that the appropriate work can be done to restore the original intent, thereby giving Coleambally Irrigation surety and security for their future. They are one of the best irrigators in the nation. I have just had the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is responsible for water, the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull—
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson
—Gumboots Turnbull!
83O
Hull, Kay, MP
Mrs HULL
—Exactly—out in Coleambally. And just before then, the former parliamentary secretary, the Hon. Gary Nairn, came out to Coleambally. Each were suitably impressed with the proactive, positive and innovative way that Coleambally is dealing with water, with its super computer system. It has taken a little bit of ironing out, but it is certainly leading Australia with a very simple system of delivery of water by adopting the most efficient and effective measures to reduce wastage. I congratulate Coleambally on all it has achieved in that area, but particularly on its resolve to sort this out in order that it could continue to deliver to its members the benefits of being a mutual cooperative. I commend the bill to the House.
85
18:15:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
0
Mr HAYES
—I support the second reading amendment moved by the opposition. The Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 6) Bill 2005 before us reflects, in my opinion, some habitual problems experienced by this government, particularly with respect to delays, mismanagement, recognising problems caused by clumsy drafting and failing to meet and recognise international obligations. This bill is the government’s attempt to clean up a few things. It is a bill that is necessary, because the government over the last 10 years in office has been getting tired and lazy. It is particularly timely that today we are debating a bill about the cleaning up aspects of the Australian tax system, certainly hot on the heels of the Treasurer’s announcement yesterday that he has decided it is time to internationally benchmark the Australian taxation system.
After 10 years of looking after the Australian tax system, the Treasurer has now decided it is time to have a look at what the rest of the world is doing. What I find most interesting about this review are the two people the Treasurer has chosen who will put together and examine the international position. I am particularly interested in what Mr Peter Hendy, Chief Executive Officer of the ACCI, will bring to this matter. Mr Hendy, quite frankly, is not known for being absolutely independent. In fact, I recall him making comments at the time the WorkChoices legislation was being debated in the Senate that there should be absolutely no amendments made to that piece of legislation.
I will be particularly interested to see the product of the review as it seems to me that, once again, the government has come up with relatively short-sighted terms of reference, coupled with an absolute lack of representation from groups such as small business, who have probably become the largest group of tax collectors, thanks to this government, and groups consisting of ordinary taxpayers. Those people are just not represented in this review. So it will be interesting to see what Mr Hendy and others come up with as they focus on prioritising our tax system to meet the competing needs of various groups. It remains to be seen, but that is not what this bill is about.
Probably the most single important aspect of this bill is the section that deals with the restoration of mutuality or the principles of mutuality. The restoration of this principle is significant to the ongoing financial viability of clubs and other organisations. People fulfil very responsible community positions which are so important to communities in our respective electorates. This bill clarifies, for instance, the tax-free status of clubs that has technically been claimed illegally since the Federal Court decision on the Coleambally case. Taxation, as we all know, is based on income received from external sources. This has been a longstanding and long established principle, certainly in common law. But for 120 years, under the principle of mutuality, revenue derived from members was exempt from corporate income tax, while revenue from nonmembers was fully taxable under the corporate tax system. When it came to clubs, members’ income was not classed as external and, accordingly, under the principle was tax exempt. However, this principle has now been deemed to apply only when members’ funds are distributed upon the winding up of the entity. In most cases, it is not provided for in the articles of association of clubs; therefore, for some time clubs have been illegally claiming tax-free status.
Actually reversing the tax-free status when it comes to members’ income places most, if not all, clubs in a rather precarious financial position. The value of the mutuality principle is difficult to quantify precisely but there is no doubt that, given the concerns raised by the clubs’ industry about the Coleambally case, it is significant enough to place a number of clubs in financial distress should the principle not be restored. It is for this reason that I support these provisions of the bill so that clubs in my electorate are not placed in financial jeopardy.
There are a number of fantastic clubs and community assets operating in my electorate, including the Liverpool Catholic Club, the Ingleburn RSL Club, the Ingleburn Bowling and Recreation Club and the Western Suburbs Leagues Club. Just outside my electorate but just as significant as community organisations are the Campbelltown Catholic club and the Campbelltown RSL club—and the Mounties Club; let’s not forget them.
All these fine organisations make a significant contribution to the community and are certainly very strong supporters of events and activities. You only need to visit a local club in my electorate to get a good understanding of the character of the area and the diverse nature of the people who live there. While these clubs provide excellent facilities and play an important role as a social outlet for local residents, they also give back to the communities they belong to. That is why the retrospective aspects of the changes contained in this bill are so important.
The significance of one club in my electorate was brought home to me when I was discussing the tax issue recently with one of the club’s chief executive officers. The Western Suburbs Leagues Club in Leumeah has a long history of involvement in the community in the south-west of Sydney. In one form or another it has been involved in just about every community event that I can remember. It was certainly the focal point of our community last year when the Wests Tigers, as everyone will remember, took out the National Rugby League premiership. While it is often a focal point for social activity, it is also contributes directly back into the local community. Last year Wests contributed $1.1 million to local sporting groups in my area. Some of this was as a requirement of New South Wales legislation that provides for a proportion of poker machine revenue to be donated back to the local community, but the contribution that Wests made was $800,000 more than the statutory requirement. When it comes to community sport, $800,000 certainly goes a heck of a long way and is deeply appreciated by those groups in my electorate that receive it.
However, as a result of the Federal Court decision that this bill seeks to correct, Wests has incurred a tax liability of half a million dollars. Next year, their liability is estimated to be $1.5 million. So the club faces a $2 million tax liability unless this bill is implemented. Naturally, a tax liability of that magnitude would prompt a review of all the local involvement by a club the size of Wests, and that would have an absolutely deleterious effect on local sporting and community organisations. That would hardly be a great outcome for anyone involved. I am pleased to see that, as a result of this bill, levels of support by clubs like Wests and others in my electorate can continue—of course, subject to the other financial constraints placed on clubs. The passage of this bill will mean that Wests will continue to support the various groups within the area.
You can see that I am a one-eyed Wests supporter, but, since I was at the annual general meeting yesterday, I would like to mention that the efforts of Mike Semchyshyn were recognised and life membership was awarded to him by the club. Originally, Mike worked on the Snowy Mountains Scheme at Jindabyne. He went to Campbelltown in 1971, where he became involved with the local Rugby League club, which at the time was known as the Kangaroos Football Club and subsequently became Wests Campbelltown. Over a long period he has served the club in many capacities and has always had the club’s interests at heart. He has been on the board for all but approximately two years since 1971. Mike has also been instrumental in expanding Wests’ assistance to local sporting organisations. When he took on the role of sports secretary, 12 associated bodies came under the banner of Wests in my electorate. This has now grown to 39, which shows the extent of growth in local clubs and the important role played by a major club such as Wests.
This is yet another reason why the amendment to support the clubs industry needs to be supported. Earlier I referred to this legislation being the result of lazy and clumsy drafting by the government which, in my opinion, has come to characterise various aspects of the Howard government of late. In driving through its ideological agenda last year there was some very clumsy drafting, and it seems the prevailing view is almost to get it through and sort the mess out of later. We saw it with the WorkChoices legislation, to which more than 300 amendments had to be made to tidy it up before it was passed into law.
In my view the WorkChoices legislation should never have been introduced—but, then again, my views are pretty well documented in that regard. That legislation, like the bill before us, was put forward with incomplete drafting and, as a consequence, contained serious flaws which had to be amended, not to satisfy my position or that of Labor but simply to satisfy the government itself. That is only one example. It seems that now the government has worked out that Labor got it right when it pointed out problems with the new activity test. It has worked out that Labor correctly identified that there were problems between the interaction of the activity test for the child-care benefit and the child-care tax offset.
Under changes to the activity test, eligibility for child-care benefit is now based on a test of 15 hours per week of work, study or training. When the new test was introduced Labor pointed out that the change would restrict eligibility for the child-care tax offsets. While I am pleased to see that this bill corrects the problem, it is a problem that, quite frankly, should have been avoided in the first place.
The bill before us also includes changes to the Medicare safety net. I cannot in good conscience stand in this place and comment on more changes to the Medicare safety net without pointing out the fact that under this government one million Australians miss out under the extended Medicare safety net despite all the ironclad guarantees that we were given leading up to the last election. Access to high quality health services is absolutely essential to modern life.
My electorate of Werriwa is one of the fastest growing areas in Western Sydney, and its residents are struggling to access GP services in a number of the new and expanding suburbs. Under these changes, cosmetic, medical and dental services are being removed from the safety net. I agree that paying for purely cosmetic procedures is not necessarily the most effective use of taxpayers’ money, but it is not the first set of reductions in the types of services paid for under this government’s changes to the health system either. Although it has not received a great deal of publicity through the media, one of the biggest problems with our health system people are facing today is as a direct result of the changes to the PBS that were introduced in October last year. Under those changes the safety net threshold increased and a new 20-day rule was introduced which excluded the resupply of medications within a 20-day period from the calculation of the safety net entitlement.
The purpose of the bill before us today is not to change these arrangements further—and I am sure that sick people and their families are breathing a collective sigh of relief about that—but they do point to a gradual erosion by this government of the coverage under Medicare. While the Minister for Health and Ageing is more than willing to get his rubber stamp out and approve more increases in private health insurance premiums, as we saw on Friday, he remains absolutely unwilling to tackle the fundamental problems of our health system. He is unwilling to consider the value for money aspects of private health insurance and he is certainly unwilling to take on the $3 billion a year Australian taxpayer subsidy of the private health insurance industry.
I read that, in an effort to smooth the path for Friday’s further premium increases, a number of health funds are going to offer cheap consumer goods as a benefit of membership. One such fund that I looked at last week offered the consumer benefit to its members of a kid’s Barbie suitcase, amongst other things. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this tells me one thing: that the private health insurance industry has absolutely no desire in the short or medium term to address the problems of value for money. I do not know if the demand among people with private health insurance is for Barbie suitcases for their kids, but I would have thought that consumers would have preferred getting more value for their dollar than cheap, gimmicky, consumer items.
The government has to act, and it has to act now, so that value for money in this industry can be restored. It seems to me that the Minister for Health and Ageing has two rubber stamps when it comes to our health care system: one is to give the go-ahead to price increases for the private sector and the other is to deny public benefits to those who most need it. This government has failed to deliver the most affordable and attractive health scheme that it promised during the course of the last election. It has delivered a massive subsidy to the private health insurance industry, it has delivered increases in the cost of health care to the taxpayer, but it has not delivered for health consumers.
It is about time this government set about focusing on the health system and health consumers. Despite the fact that for the rest of this week we will hear from members opposite singing the praises of a decade of the Howard government, some should stop and consider why we are debating a bill like this today. This bill is the manifestation of the arrogance of this government. It is a bill that has only been introduced to clean up a mess that the government has created and to overcome problems that it has created for itself by not acting earlier on things like mutuality, industry compliance with tax rules—(Time expired)
88
18:36:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—I rise in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 6) Bill 2005 and, in particular, in support of the amendment put forward by the member for Hunter to deny tax deductibility for facilitation payments. The amendment of the member for Hunter calls on the government to align the definitions of facilitation payments under the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act 1997 and to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration for urgent inquiry.
The reason we are moving this way is in order to close the loophole that currently allows deductions for fuzzy payments used to facilitate deals. Currently, facilitation payments are loosely defined and exempt from the normal bribery provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. In the light of the burden currently being shouldered by Australian wheat farmers due to the many payments made by AWB to Saddam Hussein to facilitate trade, it is a pity this loophole was not closed some years ago. Had it been closed, the AWB would not have been able to describe up to $300 million as ‘facilitation payments’ and thus be entitled to multimillion dollar rebates courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.
Just as the government has received many international warnings about kickbacks made to Saddam Hussein, so has the government received international warnings about this particular loophole in our tax law. As recently as January 2006, the OECD Report on the application of the convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions found that Australia’s defence of facilitation payments was also identified for further monitoring because of concerns such as the practical effectiveness of the record-keeping requirement. Indeed, I feel it is likely that Commissioner Cole would agree that the practical effectiveness of AWB’s record keeping in relation to their facilitation payments leaves much to be desired. It seems to me that Commissioner Cole may well not have had a job if this proposed amendment had been in place several years ago.
Labor’s proposed amendment would prohibit AWB style deductions. I think that many Australians were astonished to learn a week and a half ago, back on February 16, just as this parliament was rising, of evidence before the Cole inquiry into $300 million in illicit payments to Saddam Hussein’s government by AWB revealing that AWB had claimed these kickbacks as a tax deduction. We learned a week and a half ago that the Australian Taxation Office is now investigating that revelation, but this was after AWB’s chief financial officer, Paul Ingleby, revealed to the commission that the company had claimed the Iraq kickbacks as a tax write-off. Under questioning by the Cole commission’s senior counsel, John Agius, he agreed that the payment of trucking fees, the kickbacks demanded by Saddam’s regime, was treated by AWB as an expense and therefore as a tax deduction. I think Commissioner Cole certainly needs to force AWB to throw open their books so that we can understand exactly what has gone on here, but ordinary Australians who pay their taxes and do not seek tax deductions for anything of this character would be astonished and appalled to discover what has gone on.
As recently as today, a senior AWB manager has admitted to having organised a string of illicit payments from the wheat exporter to Saddam Hussein’s government up to seven years ago. The former chartering manager, Michael Watson, became the fourth whistleblower at the Cole inquiry. His lawyers submitted a last-minute statement about his involvement in the $300 million kickbacks which AWB had paid to Iraq. Mr Watson said he had organised money to be paid to the Iraqi dictator’s regime between June 1999 and December 2000 despite knowing such payments breached United Nations sanctions which were in place against Iraq at the time. He also said his immediate bosses at AWB knew about and ordered the payments being made. Mr Watson told the commission today that he was in charge of paying the trucking fees to Alia. He said:
Once I was advised of the amount of the ‘trucking fee’, as chartering manager, I organised for the payment of the trucking fee to be made through third parties such as shipowners or Ronly to the nominee of the Iraq Grain Board.
I understood that by the payment of ‘trucking fees’ to Alia that the AWB was making a payment to the IGB or to the Iraqi government. Alia did provide a protective agency service at Uum Qasr port, but AWB was invoiced separately for that.
Mr Watson also said:
I also understood that the payment of the trucking fee could not be made directly or openly to Iraq because of the UN sanctions.
At all times I believed that the payment of trucking fees was made with the knowledge and consent of AWB senior management.
Here we have the outrageous situation that Mr Watson knew that these things were in breach of the UN sanctions, he knew that AWB senior management knew about and consented to these arrangements; yet AWB has apparently claimed these payments as tax deductions.
Today the Cole commission also heard from Mr Trevor Flugge, the former National Party candidate who chaired the AWB from 1999 and 2002. After the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government, the Howard government sent Mr Flugge to Baghdad and paid him, we heard today, $978,000 from our aid budget for eight months work because he was such a great communicator. Now he tells the Cole commission he is pretty much deaf—a virtually ineffective left ear and a right ear which was somewhat impaired. We sent this deaf, gun-toting cowboy to clean up Iraq. Good grief! Of course, Mr Flugge’s hardness of hearing came in relation to the subject of Iraq or trucking fees being raised at a 1999 dinner where AWB executives were present and Mr Flugge’s endeavours to take issue with AWB whistleblowers who claimed the fees paid to the Jordanian trucking company, Alia, were a means of paying kickbacks. The whistleblowers have said that Mr Flugge had approved the use of the London based trader Ronly Holdings, where his daughter worked as a junior administrator, as a middleman to pay the bribes. Given this, I find it absolutely unbelievable that the government should have paid Mr Flugge $978,000 from our aid budget for an eight-month consultancy job in Iraq.
Another example came earlier with the General Manager for International Sales and Marketing of AWB, Michael Long, telling the Cole commission he was happy to use sham wheat sales contracts to circumvent United Nations sanctions because it was the wish of Saddam’s government. This is outrageous behaviour, yet there are people around who are prepared to defend it. For example, last Tuesday, 21 February, the Herald Sun published a letter from former Victorian Liberal MP Richard de Fegely about the Wheat Board scandal which made a claim that was absolutely about the issue of facilitation payments. It said:
… it is well nigh impossible to do business—
throughout Asia and the Middle East—
without some greasing of palms and it is very clear that the AWB would not have won its very significant contracts had some compromise not been made in that extremely competitive environment.
This sleazy defence that corruption is simply a way of life in the Middle East and this talk of compromise cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. Firstly, it is illegal to bribe foreign officials; it is an express breach of Australian law. Secondly, the AWB kickbacks were an express breach of UN sanctions. The whole idea of the oil for food program was to stop money going into Saddam’s pocket. AWB did more than any other company in the world to circumvent the UN sanctions. Thirdly, we expressly denied we were doing it. We lied to anyone who asked. We lied to the Canadians, to the UN and to the US senators. We looked them in the eye and said, ‘We are not paying any kickbacks to Iraq.’ The Canadians had asked whether we were paying kickbacks, because their government refused to let their wheat board pay any. So much for the idea that everybody was doing it. Mr de Fegely also made a disgraceful attempt at shooting the messenger when he blamed the Iraqi decision to stop buying our wheat on ‘strident attacks on the Howard government’. He could do much worse than listen to his Liberal colleague in this place the member for O’Connor, who said:
And who can blame the Iraqis, given AWB money was flowing into Hussein’s coffers while he was putting down the Shiites, who are the ones in power now.
You’d think they might just bear a grudge.
Indeed! If they are not bribes, they can stand the light of day, they can withstand public disclosure and public discussion; yet all along we have come across this culture of cover-up and denial. Mr Watson, whom I referred to earlier, was not the only one engaged in cover-up. The Cole commission has heard evidence from Mr Tim Snowball—perhaps aptly named in view of the way this scandal is going—that, before a meeting he attended with Mr McConville and Mr Trevor Flugge, AWB’s former head of the Middle East desk, Mark Emons, sent a fax to Yousif Abdel Rahman at the Iraqi Grain Board on 15 March 2000 asking for information to remain confidential. Mr Emons wrote:
We are very concerned to learn from the UN that the Canadian government has taken action within the UN to discover the manner of AWB payments. We ask your assistance … that no information of a confidential nature is released.
Mr Snowball admitted that he was aware, even before the Austrade meeting, that the Canadian government had stopped a wheat shipment from the Canadian Wheat Board because of trucking fees. As I said earlier, so much for the idea of everyone doing it. In fact, we have been in a situation of cover-up all along. As recently as Saturday, the Weekend Australian reported:
AWB has erased a potentially embarrassing section of its code of conduct policy that provided guidelines for employees paying so-called facilitation payments.
When you see what happened here you will see why we believe it is time to get rid of the tax deductibility of these facilitation payments and why we have moved in this direction. The Weekend Australian reported that it had obtained a 2004 version of AWB’s policy, which outlined instructions for AWB representatives dealing with agency, facilitation and related payments. It reported:
The section was deleted in the updated AWB Corporate Ethics and Code of Conduct Policy available on the company website this week—the only substantial change made to the 17-page policy statement in two years. However, the missing section was reinserted later in the week following questioning by the Weekend Australian.
An AWB spokesman said the deletion of the section—a series of questions and answers for employees faced with facilitation payments—was an accident and that the full document was now publicly available. “I still can’t find out how it happened or why it happened,” he said.
We think it is time that facilitation payments ceased to enjoy tax deductibility. It is time the Howard government recognised that as soon as you support facilitation payments you are entering into the culture of bribery and kickbacks which has done this nation’s trading reputation so much damage in recent times. We have had numerous warnings given to the government about what was going on at the Wheat Board. You can go back to December 1999, when the Canadian Permanent Mission to the UN asked about these issues because they understood that the Australian Wheat Board had entered into this kind of arrangement. In January 2000 we had the UN raising concerns with the Australian Permanent Mission to the UN in New York. According to the Volcker report, Felicity Johnston spoke to the Australian Permanent Mission on the issue of irregular payments to the Iraqi regime and asked the Australians to ask AWB whether it had agreed to any financial arrangements with the Iraqi regime outside the UN escrow account. We had a warning in March 2000 when the UN was still asking questions of Austrade’s representative in Washington and requesting further information about AWB’s contracts with Iraq. AWB discussed this with Bronte Moules, the counsellor at the Australian Permanent Mission to the UN in New York. She reported it back to DFAT in Canberra by cable.
We had a fourth warning in October 2000 when the Chairman of AWB, Trevor Flugge, wrote to the Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, regarding AWB’s recent visit to Baghdad. AWB then had discussions with DFAT about its proposal to engage Jordanian trucking companies and wrote to DFAT in October 2000 seeking the department’s approval for this arrangement. In May 2002 we had yet another warning when the US General Accounting Office presented its report on weapons of mass destruction. That report set out in detail Saddam Hussein’s misuse of the oil for food program, including the imposition of a 10 per cent levy on commodity contracts. There was a further warning in August 2002 when the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was warned by a prominent Victorian grain merchant, Ray Brooks, that AWB was paying bribes to Saddam Hussein’s regime. He was warned at one of the Mallee machinery field days in north-western Victoria. Mr Brooks was told by the agriculture minister to stop peddling stories like that around. He was told: ‘The Wheat Board is run by farmers of great integrity and honesty, they wouldn’t do that sort of thing.’ It is a shame that the agriculture minister failed to carry out that which the community is entitled to expect of him as agriculture minister and to take these sorts of warnings seriously.
There was a further warning in June 2003 when an Australian representative on the CPA, Michael Long, received a memorandum of instruction from the CPA which asked ministry advisers to identify any contracts which had:
... a kickback or surcharge of (often) 10 per cent.
Mr Long forwarded this memorandum of instruction to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They forwarded it to the AWB in June 2003. There was a further warning in June 2003 when US Wheat Associates wrote to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, expressing concern that some of the money paid under AWB contracts may have gone into accounts of Saddam Hussein’s family. Again we had the trade minister reject these allegations from the US out of hand. He described them as ‘ludicrous’ and ‘insulting’.
I will run out of time to list all the other warnings, but they happened in August 2003, September 2003, October 2003 and September 2004. All these warnings were ignored. It is disgraceful that the government ignored warnings from the United Nations, warnings from Canada and warnings from wheat farmers in Victoria. It has taken until now, with the loss of this wheat contract potentially worth up to $800 million to Australian wheat farmers, for the Prime Minister to finally get involved in this issue.
This is a shameful situation. We get told that the Middle East and Asia are such corrupt places that we have to do this in order to do business there. No, we don’t. It is not that they are corrupting us; it is that we are corrupting them. It is time to stop. No more getting around the United Nations sanctions, no ignoring the OECD and no looking the Canadians and Americans in the face and telling them barefaced lies. And here is a good place to start. We should start by getting rid of tax deductibility for facilitation payments and getting Australia’s trading reputation back on the course that it needs to be on.
93
18:56:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr DUTTON
—I would like to start by firstly thanking all those members who have taken part in the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 6) Bill 2005. The first measure in this bill modifies the consolidation loss rules. Industry has expressed concerns to government that, where a joining entity with a relatively small market value joins a much larger consolidated group, the current rounding rules in the consolidation regime could cause the joining entity’s available fraction to be nil. The available fraction is used to regulate the rate that a consolidated group can use for losses of a joining entity. This meant for consolidating groups an available fraction of nil, effectively cancelling the losses of that joining entity. This amendment allows consolidated groups to round the available fraction for a bundle of losses to the first non-zero digit if rounding to three decimal places would result in an available fraction of nil. This is a positive initiative for industry in that it ensures the method for calculating the rate at which the head company of a consolidated group can recoup a joining entity’s losses operates as intended.
On 30 May 2005 in a press release by the previous Minister for Revenue, it was announced that the government would amend income tax law to ensure certain not-for-profit organisations would not be subject to tax on mutual receipts as a result of the Coleambally Federal Court decision. The court’s decision potentially affected between 200,000 and 300,000 not-for-profit entities, including clubs, professional organisations and some friendly societies. The second measure in this bill gives effect to the government’s commitment. By way of background, under the mutuality principle, membership subscriptions and receipts from other mutual dealings with members are not liable for income tax. The court’s decision held that the principle of mutuality could not apply where an organisation is prevented from distributing to members. The government’s amendment today restores the longstanding benefits of the mutuality principle that applied prior to the court’s decision.
The third measure in the bill ensures that the changes made to the child-care benefit work/training/study test announced as part of the government’s Welfare to Work package will not result in taxpayers who work part time losing their eligibility for the child-care tax rebate. To be eligible for the rebate, families must receive the child-care benefit for approved care and meet the child-care benefit work/training/study test. The Welfare to Work package introduces a requirement that a taxpayer must work, train or study for at least 15 hours a week or for 30 hours over two weeks to meet the child-care benefit work/training/study test. Taxpayers will not need to satisfy the new hourly requirements to achieve the child-care tax rebate. Taxpayers will continue to be eligible for the rebate if they receive the child-care benefit for approved care and work, train or study at some time in the week.
The fourth measure in this bill amends the definition of ‘eligible medical expenses’ to exclude solely cosmetic procedures from the medical expenses offset. Specifically, solely cosmetic procedures are excluded from the medical expenses offset under two broad categories—that is, general medical expenses and general dental expenses. The government considers that the medical expenses offset should cater to those taxpayers with significant medical expenses arising out of legitimate medical need. Taxpayers claiming the medical expenses offset in respect of procedures for legitimate medical need—for example, reconstructive surgery or laser vision corrective surgery—will not be affected by this measure. The final measure in the bill amends the list of deductible gift recipients in the Income Tax Assessment 1997. Deductible gift recipient status will assist the listed organisations to attract public support for their activities.
In closing I want to address some of the issues raised in the House earlier tonight by the member for Hunter in relation to his amendment to the motion that the bill be read a second time. I want to address what has, really, become a political stunt for those opposite. I want to put it into perspective and recall some of the detail from Senate estimates hearings at which Senator Sherry was undertaking questioning of Mr Monaghan, from the Serious Compliance Section within the Australian Taxation Office, and Mr D’Ascenzo, the Commissioner of Taxation. This goes to the core of how true the motivation of the Labor Party purports to be but in fact is not. Senator Sherry asked:
... from the ATO’s perspective do the slightly different definitions contained in the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Assessment Act present any practical problems?
Mr Monaghan—We do not believe so. Our view is that the policy intent is reflected in the wording. In terms of our legislation, it is about a tax deduction and whether or not that is allowable. The Crimes Act is about a criminal matter. You might expect there to be more precision in that wording. So we do not believe there is any particular issue in that.
It is important as part of this debate to expose what the Labor Party is about in moving this amendment and to say that a bribe to a foreign official is not a deduction under our taxation laws. Equally, a bribe to a local official is not deductible.
Opposition members interjecting—
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr DUTTON
—It is not appropriate for me to comment on the commercial activities of the AWB or its taxation treatment. If those opposite really want the government to be interfering in what is quite rightly the independence of the taxation commissioner, then they should make that very clear. In reality that is what they are drawing into this debate. It is quite inappropriate and it is quite improper, and we reject it out of hand.
Can I assure the House tonight that any suggestion that the AWB has received or will receive favourable treatment from the tax office is clearly wrong. The tax office has in place a number of rigorous systems to ensure that taxpayers are treated equally under the law. The commissioner administers the law in our self-assessment tax system on the basis of risk management. Risks to the tax system are continually assessed by the ATO and published by the commissioner annually in his compliance program. Taxpayers are selected for audit or compliance action based on those processes.
I note the claims that the tax office has not done enough in this area, and some of those opposite would criticise the ATO for that. But I do not think anyone should ever accuse the tax office of a lack of commitment to collecting the right amount of tax. It is quite unfair that, as part of this debate, the Labor Party should try to run a political stunt in what is a very serious issue before the House tonight.
The government is committed to this bill. The government is very serious in trying to provide certainty to taxpayers in relation to tax laws, and it does not support the stunts put forward by the Labor Party. If we need any greater recognition of the Labor Party being all over the place on this issue we can turn to the comments by the final speaker in this debate, the member for Wills, who went to the point in relation to facilitation payments. He suggested, and the Hansard will show this—the Hansard should also record the smiling face of the member for Hunter, because he knows what I am going to say; he knows what the member for Wills said in this place only a few moments ago, in complete contradiction to the shadow minister—that the ALP should abolish facilitation payments.
That is in stark contrast to the words uttered by the member for Hunter earlier today. In this debate the Labor Party are divided on this issue. If anybody needs recognition of the fact that this is a political stunt, that the Labor Party have not got their act together and that they are each running in different directions, all they need to do is view in Hansard the comments of the member for Hunter, the member responsible in the Labor Party for this matter, and the comments made by the member for Wills. They really do expose that this is a political stunt. It is shameful for the Labor Party to be embarking on this course in such a serious matter. As part of that, I commend the bill to the House.
10000
Quick, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Quick)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr Fitzgibbon
—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understood that there was an arrangement—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—No. I ask the question again that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until 8 pm.
Debate adjourned.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
95
Personal Explanations
95
19:07:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
— Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
Quick, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Quick)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—Yes.
10000
Quick, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—The Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in the course of his summary of the Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 6) Bill 2005, which has just been deferred for a later division, misrepresented me on two bases. First, the Minister for Revenue suggested that I was bringing into question the independence of the tax commissioner or suggesting that less independence was required. That is a total misrepresentation of the matters which I put during the second reading debate. The request I made to the minister was to support our proposal to change the legislation, not to undermine the independence of the tax commissioner.
Secondly, the Minister for Revenue suggested that I was accusing the tax office of raising more revenue than it is required to raise under the tax act. That again is a total misrepresentation of what I said during my speech in the second reading debate.
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr Burke
—Apologise.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr FITZGIBBON
—As the member for Watson has suggested, the minister should apologise.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
96
Private Members' Business
Mr ROBB
(Goldstein
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs)
19:08:00
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson’s private Members’ business notice relating to the disallowance of item 2 of Schedule 7 of Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 240, Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 9), Division 1.4E—Sponsorship: trade skills training (incorporating Subdivisions 1.4E1 to 1.4E4) and made under the
Migration Act 1958
, being called on immediately.
Question agreed to.
MIGRATION ADMENDMENT REGULATIONS
96
Motions
Motion
96
96
19:08:00
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
0
0
Mr BURKE
—I move:
Item 2 of Schedule 7 of Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 240,
Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 9)
, Division 1.4E—Sponsorship: trade skills training (incorporating Subdivisions 1.4E1 to 1.4E4) and made under the
Migration Act 1958
, be disallowed.
This motion seeks to abolish the trade skills training visa. The disallowance motion before the parliament is put forward on the grounds that the trade skills training visa is bad policy and was poorly thought out. We are left in a situation where the government will be doing two things with this visa: they will be taking opportunities away from young Australians and they will be driving wages down.
It is important to acknowledge what this visa is not, because it is different from two things it has been characterisedas being in some of the commentary. Firstly, it is different from a visa under the skilled migration scheme; secondly, it is different from a visa for overseas students studying at university. It is different from a visa under the skilled migration scheme because new apprentices are not skilled migrants. The whole concept of starting an apprenticeship is to acquire a skill. What we have here is vastly different from the skilled migration scheme which operates in so many other areas. While we have many objections to the lack of planning and the way in which this government has run its skilled migration scheme, and we think it could be done much better, we would never think of trying to disallow it.
The apprenticeship visa was a bad idea from the start, and it is different from a visa granted to an overseas student to study at university. In question time today in the other place the minister, in what I would regard as a rather extraordinary answer to a question—not the least because, if the pink is accurate, she referred to Belfast as a city of England—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—That is dangerous.
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr BURKE
—That is right. I had strong opinions about that part of her answer as well, and she has also done it in doorstops today. The minister wants to equate overseas students on the apprenticeship visa with overseas students coming in to study at universities. They are completely different. When overseas students come in you can make extra places available for them. We take issue with the extent to which places have been cut and the fact that not enough places have been made available to Australians, but you can provide overseas students with opportunities at university without cutting opportunities for Australians—it is possible to do that. But you cannot just add on extra places at TAFE, because every apprenticeship demands two things: a TAFE position and an employer able to take on an apprentice, and there will always be a finite number of employers able to do that. What that means is that in every instance with this visa we are going to see an opportunity that could have been taken by a young Australian being denied to them. That is a completely different scenario to just adding on places at university. Yet we have a minister for immigration who says that you can equate the two and it is the same sort of system.
The minister responsible can only have reached that conclusion for one reason: she does not understand the difference between university places and apprenticeships. That has been made clear in her media comments today. Therefore, because of a complete lack of understanding, we end up in a situation where we have the bad policy which is before us today and which Labor is seeking to have abolished. The visa will have two impacts, and I referred to them earlier. It will take opportunities away from young Australians and it will drive wages down. As far as taking opportunities away from young Australians is concerned, this is all in the context of some 300,000 people having been turned away from TAFE since 1998. We have the problem of young Australians, wanting precisely the opportunities that are being afforded to others through this visa, being turned away and missing out on those opportunities.
Today the minister made the comment that the trade skills training visa was designed to boost the viability of the regional apprenticeship training providers in the same way that universities have benefited from overseas students. That shows the absolute misunderstanding of what is before us. But there have been two other occasions, once in this House and once in the other place, where information has been given which was patently wrong. On 3 November last year, the then Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs said this:
This visa will not—I repeat: will not—disadvantage any young Australian wishing to become an apprentice.
He went on to say:
Employers are bound and have to make every attempt to get an apprenticeship locally—in fact, they have to prove that they are unable to get an apprentice locally.
Not true—simply not true. In the same way, Minister Vanstone misled the Senate today. She misled the Senate with these words:
... the regional certifying bodies, the people in the local area, will have to certify that an Australian was not available to take up the position.
Have a look at the forms they have to fill out. There are 50 questions that an employer has to answer, and not one of them even asks whether they advertised the position locally. Yet the minister today said that they have to certify that an Australian was not available to take up the position.
What they do have to certify at the end of form 1267—and think about the definition of the word ‘reasonably’ in this—is that ‘the apprenticeship vacancy cannot reasonably be filled locally’, with no proof having to be supplied, without having any reference to whether or not it was actually advertised, without having any reference to the extent to which checking was done—and then also having to certify things like whether or not it was on the skills shortage list. The skills shortage list deals with people at the end of an apprenticeship. This does nothing to fix that, because you have every likelihood at the end of an apprenticeship that the people who have taken these on will return to the country from which they came. So we as a nation provide an apprenticeship position, have it occupied for the life of the apprenticeship and at the end of it in many cases the skills crisis is no better off at all because that skill then goes back offshore.
So what we have are these regional certifying bodies being asked to make an assessment without having to check whether or not an apprenticeship was advertised locally. Mind you, I do not think advertising locally is enough in itself. I said this morning and I will say again: if you cannot fill a position locally, if you are having trouble filling a position in Ballarat, you ought to check in Bendigo, in Brisbane, in Blacktown, in Bankstown as to whether or not people want to take that opportunity. The minister has this bizarre concept in her head that it is completely reasonable that, to get an apprenticeship, people will be willing to travel halfway across the world but people will not be willing to travel from one town in Australia to another, so we do not need to check with them and we do not even need to check with the locality in which the position is being made available. The minister says that they have to certify that an Australian was not available to take the position but, if she wants that to be the rule, I say this: put it on the form. Put it on the form if that is what you believe, but do not get out there and say to the parliament that is what they have to check and then produce forms, available on the internet for everyone to see, where that question is not even asked. We will see young Australians being denied opportunities from this.
By the way, who are the bodies that have to certify whether or not they had trouble filling this position? You go on the web to the list of regional certifying bodies and some of them, occupying this completely independent role, are the local chambers of commerce. The local chamber of commerce is being asked to certify for one of their own members whether or not they are going to have trouble filling the vacancy! We can see exactly how this will unfold on the ground.
We also see that the areas where youth unemployment is at its highest are the areas this visa applies to. We all know from the regional members of this parliament that in regional Australia youth unemployment is at its worst, and they are the exact areas where this government is proposing to take opportunities away from young Australians. All of Tasmania is counted as part of regional Australia and yet, in the greater Hobart area, you have 26.5 per cent youth unemployment. In the Richmond-Tweed area, there is 36.8 per cent youth unemployment—yet these are the areas they decide to focus on to allow young Australians to miss out on apprenticeship opportunities. In the Loddon Mallee statistical region, there is 32.2 per cent youth unemployment; in Gippsland, 27.8 per cent; in Queensland’s south and east Moreton, 25 per cent; in north Adelaide, 27.5 per cent; and in southern Adelaide, 31 per cent. The areas they are targeting are where young people are already doing it toughest. They are the areas where young people want these sorts of opportunities. Yet, instead of saying, ‘Let’s put a bit of effort into matching the young people to the opportunities that are there,’ they say, ‘Well, let’s just send these positions offshore.’
It is also going to drive down wages, and let us not forget the context of the industrial relations laws of last year. The Treasurer said in an interview on 17 November last year on 4BC:
This is, I think, an important point to bear in mind. In an economy which is performing well, where unemployment is low, whatever you happen to be working as you have got more bargaining power and more strength than you have in an economy which is performing badly and unemployment is high …
Well, guess what? The moment you are competing with a global market for apprenticeship wages, the issue of what the local employment and unemployment levels are becomes utterly irrelevant—because you do not have the bargaining power that at the end of last year the government wanted to guarantee would be available to people, because they decided to globalise the work market at the same time. I do not think it is any accident that this visa was introduced at the same time that those industrial relations laws came in. And we are going to see the very simple situation where a young person being offered a job under this visa scheme does not just face the horrible situation that young Australians face when they are offered an AWA. It is not just a case of ‘Accept the contract or reject the job’; it is a case of ‘Accept the contract or reject the job and miss out on the visa.’ There is no negotiating power in this. These employees are going to find themselves completely vulnerable, and that has an effect on every other Australian who is lucky enough to get an apprenticeship because they then have to compete with the new low base rate for wages. That is how this is going to unfold.
Labor has a very simple policy on this: train Australians first and train Australians now. That is actually the government’s job. It is not the government’s job to take away opportunities; it is the government’s job to create opportunities and make them available for young Australians. They are being denied opportunities through this visa. It is bad policy. It has not been well thought out. Even today, with the comments she has made, the minister has made it clear she does not understand how it works. Labor says simply, ‘Don’t just amend the visa: this one ought to go.’
10000
Quick, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Quick)—Is the motion seconded?
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
99
19:21:00
Robb, Andrew, MP
FU4
Goldstein
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
1
0
Mr ROBB
—I rise to speak against this disallowance motion, and in doing so I cannot help but wonder why you would want to oppose this training visa. I have looked at this from every angle. I have listened to the specious arguments of the opposition, I have read the transcript from the other house and, for the life of me, I cannot find one sound reason for the opposition to seek to disallow this regional apprenticeship visa—not one sound reason. It is as though Labor has no sense of what has been going on in the last five to 10 years in the labour market and certainly no sense of what is in the interests of regional Australia. That is no surprise.
There can be only one reason, and we have seen it all through the workplace relations debate. It is all to do with the relationship between the ALP and the three most vociferous unions on this matter. I refer to the metal workers, the AMWU; the meat workers, the AMIEU; and the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, the LHMU. Let us look at their campaign contributions to the ALP since 1995-96—the last 10 years.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—Is this relevant?
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—This is very relevant. This goes to motive.
Opposition members interjecting—
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—You are playing grubby politics at the expense of regional Australia. That is what you are on about.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley interjecting—
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—Yes, you want to shut them up because they are losing it. The AMWU has given $5.2 million to the Labor Party; the AMIEU, $634,000; and the LHMU, $5.9 million. In the last 10 years, $12 million—nearly one quarter of all union contributions—has been given to the Labor Party. So, surprise, surprise that we see the opposition going into bat with implausible, baseless arguments, even resorting to xenophobia, to support their case. The grubby reason for opposition members doing the bidding of their union masters is the unions’ quest to regain some relevance and to increase their membership. That has been the pattern of activity since May or April last year, when the workplace relations bills were introduced. It is politics plain and simple. The Labor members know they have no case, but they persist because their union masters have demanded it.
Let us look at why the regional apprenticeship visa was introduced and at the important role it can play. This is lost on the opposition. We have a strong economy. We have had one now for a long time. The government takes full blame for having a strong economy. One of the consequences of high, continuing economic growth is very low unemployment. With unemployment at 30-year lows, you find skills shortages.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—Unlike what we saw in your era, we find skills shortages. This has been compounded by a rapidly ageing population. A study last December estimated that, in five years time, there will be 200,000 more jobs in Australia than we have people to fill them. What are you doing in considering that? Nothing! This is a dilemma, a challenge for Australia, borne out of strong economic growth and an ageing population. We need plans to deal with this. When you put these two things together, you get pressure on skills. There is no silver bullet to address the skills shortage. It requires a coordinated and wide-ranging program of policies.
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr Burke
—Why don’t you have one?
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—We have got one, thanks. Come right in, spinner! What have you got? You have not got a spent cartridge to deal with this problem, much less a silver bullet.
10000
Quick, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Quick)—I remind the parliamentary secretary to address his remarks through the chair.
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. This emerging skills challenge requires action on multiple fronts, and that is what it is getting. Workplace relations—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—Yes, absolutely—Welfare to Work, independent contractor legislation, superannuation and taxation reforms.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Jagajaga will have her opportunity to speak.
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—You have not thought of those things. Superannuation and taxation reform will enable older Australians to work longer. There is a huge investment in skills training. The government has increased funding for vocational education and training by 88 per cent in real terms since 1996—the member for Jagajaga can shake her head but that is a fact—to a record $2.5 billion this financial year. The member opposite is embarrassed, but these are the facts.
The number of new apprentices in training has increased by 172 per cent, from 143,700 when Labor had control to 391,000 now. The number of students enrolled in vocational education and training has increased by 26 per cent, from 1.268 million to nearly 1.6 million. Not only that, but we will have 24 new technical colleges around Australia in the next four years. We are providing an additional 20,000 places in the next four years in the New Apprenticeships Access Program, specifically targeting industries and regions experiencing skills shortages and supplying tool kits to the value of $800 to around 34,000 new apprentices each year who are entering a skills shortage task.
Of course, immigration can and will play a big part in a range of programs across many portfolios. The regional apprenticeship training visa is all about this. It is adding one other plank to dealing with this skills shortage, this skills challenge, driven by a strong economy and an ageing population. It is part of a wider government policy program across many portfolios.
Claims that the new apprenticeship visa ignores a pool of young people in the cities who Labor claims would readily take up an apprenticeship are totally misleading and mischievous. This is a two-stage process ensuring that this does not occur. Firstly, an apprenticeship vacancy which an employer seeks to fill using a trade skills training visa recipient must be placed on the Australian Jobsearch database. Secondly, and much more importantly, the new visa requires certification from regional certification bodies that no Australian apprentices can be found to fill the vacancies.
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr Burke interjecting—
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—We can say this again and again, but you will not accept that regional certification bodies, state, territory or local government agencies, local development boards and local chambers of commerce are exceptionally well placed to judge whether an apprenticeship can or cannot be filled by an Australian citizen. If they need to advertise to satisfy themselves no Australian is available, they will. They are competent to do this. They are competent to know what measures they need to take to satisfy themselves.
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr Burke interjecting—
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—Who are you to judge whether they are competent? This is typical Labor wanting to dictate to local authorities how they will do their task.
Moreover, this government offers a great deal of assistance to young Australians under the New Apprenticeships scheme, particularly in the form of a living away from home allowance which encourages people to move to where apprenticeships are available. We have developed this visa very carefully, ensuring that overseas apprentices will not be exploited. Within three months of arrival, the overseas apprentice must sign a training contract under the Australian government’s New Apprenticeships scheme, which is then registered with the relevant state or territory government authority. As a result, overseas apprentices will have the same core protections as local apprentices and will work under relevant awards and conditions in accordance with the Australian government’s New Apprenticeships scheme. This is the opposite of the scaremongering and nonsense that we have heard from the other side of the House.
As with other temporary employment visas, monitoring activities will be undertaken in cooperation with the relevant state and territory government authorities responsible for apprenticeship training. This is a tried and true scheme. This is an arrangement that we have confidence in. This is an arrangement where, if those opposite were in power, they would have confidence in the Labor governments in the states conducting this program. This will ensure employers and sponsors are abiding by their obligations, including Australian awards and conditions. To suggest that apprentices from overseas will be exploited is a nonsense, and Labor knows it.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—You know it. I am also surprised at the rather odd assertion that the introduction of the trade skills training visa will take skills away from regional Australia in the longer term. To ensure regional employers and their communities continue to benefit from the investment in the training of overseas apprentices, the government has ensured that there is a range of visa options for the apprentice to settle in regional areas. Once an overseas apprentice has successfully completed their apprenticeship, they will be able to apply for one of the existing regional migration visas without having to go offshore—for example, the skilled independent regional visa or the temporary business long stay visa. These measures ensure that these skills remain in the areas where they are most needed.
If we are to sustain regional Australia and if we are to sustain apprenticeship programs in regional Australia, we need to fill the gaps. Where there are gaps we need to fill them. If there are people from overseas eager to fill those gaps, we should invite them in the same way that we invite university students to come and be trained at their expense. The trade skills training visa was developed in response to representations from regional industry which is unable to fill apprenticeship vacancies.
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr Burke
—How many companies asked for it?
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—In response to requests from regional industries. I want to acknowledge the initiative of Golden West Employment Solutions—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—We have heard of them. Who else?
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—There is a whole swag of applications for apprenticeships coming in. You can see the list, go and look for yourself. This is going to be a very popular scheme.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—You do not know, in other words.
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—I do not have off the top of my head the names of the 15 or 20 companies—no, I am sorry—but those opposite can have access to the list.
I want to acknowledge the initiative of Golden West Employment Solutions, a group training organisation from western Queensland, in highlighting the issues. Golden West has advised the government that it currently employs over 400 local trade apprentices and that it has around 188 apprenticeship vacancies waiting to be filled. They know their business. They are employing 400 local trade apprentices and they need another 188 to sustain apprenticeship programs in regional areas. The formula, the approach and the opposition by the opposition to this visa will close down apprenticeship schemes in rural areas. It will deny young Australians in rural areas the opportunity to obtain an apprenticeship at a local TAFE because there will not be the numbers. That is what is happening. This is head in the sand stuff by the opposition. The big problem out in regional Australia is that there are not enough students in courses.
With this visa we have a great opportunity to ensure they can undertake apprenticeships in regional Australia. It will be good for young Australians who live in regional areas. We believe very strongly that these regional certifying bodies will ensure that we can certify that an Australian was not available to take up that position. It will be a full fee paying arrangement. It is just grubby politics that we have seen from the other side. The opposition is prepared to put at risk—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—You can laugh—you are prepared to put at risk the opportunity for regional Australia to share in the growth and prosperity of the rest of the country.
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting.
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—Regional Australians deserve to share in the growth and prosperity of the rest of this country. Those opposite are seeking to deny that. They are prepared to put at risk apprenticeship courses for young Australians in regional areas because there will not be enough people taking up apprenticeships if Labor succeeds in blocking this visas. It is pathetic; it is union grovelling—that is what it is in response to. We expect better from the opposition, and I urge that this disallowance motion be defeated.
103
19:35:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—I agree very strongly with the action of my colleague the member for Watson in moving to disallow these migration amendment regulations. I want to assure the government that we will campaign on this between now and the next election. I can assure them that after the next election we will remove this blot on the Australian training agenda.
We had a lecture from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on the fact that the Labor Party is supported by the trade union movement and receives funds from the trade union movement. I suppose if I want to be as cheap as him I could point out that he has been an official of the Liberal Party for many years and he has been scooping up loot from the business community. Therefore, I would suspect that his views are in some way or another formed by a desire to suppress trade unions not on behalf of the nation but on behalf of the business community—but I would not make that point because that would devalue this debate and bring me down to the very low level at which the parliamentary secretary operates. Nor would I make the point that, while he lectured the Labor Party for having received the odd contribution from the trade union movement, he and his colleagues on that side of the House connived recently, taking $55 million from the Australian taxpayer to advertise their industrial relations legislation, and that took the government to $1 billion being spent on advertising since it has been in office.
I do not think any other political party in this country has a record of having taken $1 billion from the Australian taxpayer to give to advertisers—but I would not make that point either. I simply mention these points because the whole tone of the debate was so grossly lowered by the parliamentary secretary.
Therefore, I will now get on to the more serious argument related to where this stands in the record of the Howard government, which has after 10 years in office presided over the development of a chronic skills crisis in this country. It is not a crisis that has arisen today or that arose yesterday; it is a crisis which has in fact been in place over this decade. We have seen every single area of traditional trade over that 10-year period report a shortage in at least eight of those 10 years, some of them in 10 out of those 10 years. This has been because it has covered with its novelties its so-called modern apprenticeship training system. Many of those novelties, as the studies of this modern apprenticeship training system show as the consumers of it are consulted, basically hide an absence of training behind a wage subsidy for a variety of businesses. The government has used the numbers in that—and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was doing the same thing again here today—to conceal the collapse of traditional trades beneath that facade.
It is like so much of what the Howard government do. Wherever you want to be, there is the spin out there—the magnificent spin, the bright, shining arguments—but, underneath it, the reality of a drossy administrative and policy outcome performance. In no area has this been more glaring than in the area of skills. So what do they do to cover it? They decide that what they will do is not to train young Australians, even though the areas where they are going to run these apprenticeships are chronic in their youth unemployment. They are not going to train young Australians—they do not want to pay them the money. They believe the apprentices are paid too much. They do not want to pay them the money, but they want the work out of them, so there is one way to get the work out of them, and that is to get workers in from somewhere else.
The opportunity arises now. This is why it is in here now. It was not here nine years ago, eight years ago, seven years ago, six years ago or five years ago. Why is it here now? There has been a trade shortage right through that period of time. It is here now because it dovetails with your industrial relations legislation. That is why. You are placing yourself in a position now where you can effectively deny ordinary Australian workers—in this case, young Australians—a capacity to effectively deal with you because you are at last able to bring in a counterpart who will work for nothing or who will work for what are very low apprenticeship wages but which, compared with what they would get in their country of origin, look quite generous. That is just cynicism—sheer, blatant, naked cynicism. You have the opportunity arising now.
There are biblical stories that deal with this. Young people who ask for bread and are given by their fathers a stone. That is what you represent. There are biblical stories especially for you. You have spent your entire life, Parliamentary Secretary, in politics, wandering around this country acting on behalf of a narrow elite to whom you have reported and for whom you have been a faithful servant. As far as we are concerned, we know you and we know how to deal with you.
In this period of time, 300,000 young Australians have been turned away from TAFE. The minister gets up here and says: ‘There’re out there and we’ve been advertising like blazes and there are just no Australians who want to take advantage—none of them. That’s why we’ve got to do something about it now.’ There were 300,000 young Australians turned away from TAFE. In the same time, they have imported 270,000 extra skilled migrants. So they do have form in this regard. They have turned away 300,000. I will tell you why they have turned them away, Mr Deputy Speaker. I negotiated, when I was Minister for Employment, Education and Training, with John Fahey, who was then the counterpart in the New South Wales state government, the creation of the Australian National Training Authority. I promised on behalf of the Commonwealth 10 years of a one per cent per annum real betterment—that is on top of the adjustments you normally make to deal with the rate of inflation—in return for which the states would maintain real effort, with a hardline set of measures to ensure that they did.
What this government did when it came to office was to collapse it, three years into operation. Of course, when you collapse it at the national level and no longer keep your promises, you liberate the states from keeping theirs. This was a scheme which, if it had been implemented fully—and by now it would have gone about three years past its 10 years—we would not be standing here talking about skills shortages in this country.
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr Robb interjecting—
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr BEAZLEY
—If you want me to debate the facts, I am giving you some facts that I strongly suspect you have never thought of. You have never thought of the consequences of what you did. When you collapsed the National Training Authority, you created a set of circumstances whereby we started to experience massive skills shortages. Then what they are starting to do to try to deal with this—in part try to deal with it: they have another agenda here that is closely bound up with this, and that is youth wages—is to make up for the consequences of 10 years worth of utterly massive neglect. Skilled migration should never be the primary source to deliver adequate skilled labour. Skilled migration is important. It is a valuable component of Australia’s cultural and economic development, but community support for it is a pretty tender reed. When this government starts to do things like this, it worries ordinary Australian parents, worries ordinary Australian youngsters. It suppresses and makes difficult in life the opportunities that are there for young Australians to get themselves proper training.
Nothing could be more calculated than to bring the skilled migration program into utter discredit. The objective of this of course is that, when an employer comes forward—and by heavens, they will be encouraged not to get young Australians out of this one—if the youngster does not agree, and I am talking about an overseas youngster here, to what are no longer controlled apprenticeship wages as awards collapse, they do not get their visa. That is all there is to it. So they are under even more of your signature or your brains on the contract than the average Australian worker, and they are in a not much better position as a result of the industrial relations legislation being put in place. The utter cynicism of this worthless, wretched government.
Fortunately, we have about 18 months between now and the next election, when the impact of that industrial relations legislation will slowly start to flow through. We will not really experience any substantial impact of it until about the middle of next year. But that will be time enough for these matters to be deliberated on by the Australian people when the next election comes round and this proposition will be part of it, because it will be used by your people and by your supporters in regional Australia. It will be obvious to many young Australians whom you have turned your backs on that you are exploiting them and you will be dealt with in those situations. I have absolute confidence in that.
This visa, as I said, goes hand in hand with the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations changes—low wages, no benefits, cheap imported labour to take Australian TAFE places and Australian jobs. Let us see how it has started already. Look at the young Ballarat apprentices who lost their chance of an apprenticeship when, instead, transport company MaxiTRANS imported welders from China. This is not a matter of theory; it is an outcome that will be seen by people in regional Australia as related to this particular proposition that you are now putting forward. You do not give a damn about the young apprentices at MaxiTRANS—you knock them off and import labour to replace them. What about Brumby’s Bakery, who hired 20 bakers from Vietnam because, even after a two-year local recruitment drive, they said they could not find locals? As a last resort, they went overseas. Yet apprentice bakers do not even qualify for federal government assistance—like the $800 tool kit allowance—because John Howard says that their skills are not in demand. They do not even qualify for this great assistance you talk about in the propositions you put forward. They do not even qualify for your assistance, then you go out and say, ‘But there’s a shortage of these people.’ Overseas workers have been flown into Adelaide to build a car-painting plant for Holden. South African boilermakers have been imported into Western Australia—
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr Robb interjecting—
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr BEAZLEY
—and welders from China, employed by a trucking company in Dandenong. And 20 meatworkers have been locked—
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr Burke
—Throw him out!
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr BEAZLEY
—Don’t worry about him, he’s on autogibber. Twenty meatworkers have been locked out of their workplace for wanting an EBA over an AWA, and their employer is allowed to bring in Chinese workers because he says he cannot get skilled labour. You are all so arrogant, aren’t you? You are so arrogant—you just think that the world owes you a living, that you have no problems at all. This is the most arrogant out-of-touch government, and we have two of the worst culprits in it at the table. You will learn your lesson in time, my friends. You will find that you will be learning your lesson when meatworkers, for example, are locked out of their workplace for wanting an EBA over an AWA and then you permit an employer to bring in Chinese workers—after he has locked his people out, who want an EBA, which you said was voluntary—and he then says, ‘You can have an EBA, if you want.’ What an unmitigated lie! You lock them out and you bring in overseas workers to replace them.
How many of these people do you reckon you can sustain and sustain politically because you can get a lot of them? There are going to be a lot of these events—I have so far cited six of these events in the course of the last few minutes. They are now starting to snowball; they are occurring at an increasing rate. But they all have the same source. Some of them are related to these sorts of issues that we are discussing in this debate; some of them are related to other things. All of them relate to your Industrial Relations Act. I am so looking forward to this debate. Over the next 18 months, I am so looking forward to the opportunity to take on the Prime Minister. Even my supporters here are anxious to get into it now, so I am going to permit them to do so.
106
19:50:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—This week, as we see our government members dust off their tuxedos and get into their ball gowns as they prepare to revel in 10 years of office, the Howard government’s true legacy is here today, going to be seen by everyone. This true legacy will start to be felt in all homes and businesses right across Australia. It is the case that this government’s legacy of skills shortages is hurting this country. This past decade has seen a systematic failure by the Howard government to provide the skills that this country needs. The Treasurer says that economic management is the hallmark of this government’s success. There is no doubt that he is trying to meekly stake his claim, to be remembered as the ‘almost could have been’ during this week’s marathon of gala dinners. Instead, of course, he should be telling the true story. He should know—and the two ministers at the table should know—that Australia’s current economic prosperity is built on an unprecedented commodity boom. That is what it is built on, but it is thinly papering over the real structural cracks in our economy.
We are receiving record prices for our resources, but at the same time our national trade deficit is at record levels. Our foreign debt is hurtling towards $500 billion. That is what this government has created, and at the same time Australia is in the midst of a burgeoning skills crisis that is preventing Australia from paying its way in the world. Instead of investing in Australia’s skills, the government’s only solution to the crisis is to import more skilled labour. Here is a fact for you: in 1996, when this government was elected, skilled migration comprised just 27,500 visas. This year the government will increase that figure to 97,500. Since 1996 the program has been cumulatively increased by 270,000 extra skilled migrants. Two hundred and seventy thousand extra skilled migrants have been brought into Australia since the government was elected and, at the same time, 300,000 Australians have been turned away from TAFE. Now, as a result of the measure that it is trying to put in place today, the government is opening a new door for imported apprentices to come into our workshops, our factories and our businesses.
This visa is fundamentally flawed, and I certainly am very pleased to be able to support the motion moved by the member for Watson, because these measures will not fix our skills crisis. In fact, the structure of the visa will only make it worse. This new visa has the potential to deny opportunities for apprenticeships. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs while he was speaking what the level of teenage unemployment was. Of course, he had no idea because the government do not care about Australian teenagers who want a full-time job or an apprenticeship. It is over 20 per cent and has been for a long time—and it is a lot worse in regional areas. What is the unemployment rate for teenagers in the Richmond-Tweed? It is nearly 37 per cent. Are you proud of that? In the Illawarra, where last week I visited the members for Throsby and Cunningham, it is 35.7 per cent. That is the disgrace of the Howard government.
We have 193,000 young people who are not in full-time education and not fully engaged in the labour market. They are our young people, they are our sons and daughters, who cannot get a job or an apprenticeship. And what is your answer? Bring them in from overseas. That is 193,000 15- to 19-year-olds who could be in an apprenticeship. Instead of trying to get these young Australians into limited training opportunities, this government is just opening the door to recruit apprentices overseas.
Of course we support skilled migration—we know how important it is to build Australia—but importing skills from overseas imposes a mutual obligation to train Australians, especially our young people. The Leader of the Opposition talked about Brumby’s Bakery in Queensland importing bakers from Vietnam because they could not get local workers. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the problem is that the Howard government does not think that these bakers’ skills are in demand. It not only refuses to provide the tool kit but also refuses to provide these young apprentice bakers with the Commonwealth Trade Learning Scholarship. So it is not the case that our young Australians are getting the support they need to be bakers. There are jobs going to people from overseas because this government will not help our kids get these apprenticeships. We are seeing this government turn its back on young Australians and on those apprentices who need that extra support to help them through. At the same time, of course, companies are being allowed to import skilled workers to replace them.
We know that this new visa will hurt the Australian apprenticeship system. As both the member for Watson and the Leader of the Opposition have said, that is what this is all about. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has tried to justify this scheme by saying it is just like international students studying at universities, but that is a false comparison. The characteristic which makes apprenticeships fundamentally different—and it seems to have escaped the ministers engaged in this debate—is that apprenticeships are employment based training contracts. You actually have to have an apprentice, a TAFE and, most importantly, an employer. Unlike our university places or other non-apprenticeship TAFE places, the ability to train our own in the trades depends on businesses’ capacity to take on apprentices. With no employer there is no apprentice—no apprenticeship available for our young people.
If companies are able to satisfy their training intake with apprentices from overseas, then of course it will be the case that opportunities for Australians will be lost. These new apprentice visa holders will not be in a teacher-student relationship with their local TAFE; they will be contractually beholden to their employers and to the jobs that they do. An apprentice has to accept the pay, conditions and work offered by the employer. They complete their training on the job or off the job with a TAFE or other registered training provider.
As others have said already in this debate—and the government likes to ignore the fact—it is no coincidence that this visa is being introduced at the same time as this government’s extreme industrial relations changes, because this apprenticeship visa invites employers to offer low-wage apprenticeships. Just imagine: a local kid in rural New South Wales refuses a mechanic’s apprenticeship on an AWA because the employer wants to pay less than the award rate, which is only $6.20 an hour—though, of course, under its extreme industrial relations policy, this government can just come along and offer them less. If the apprentice refuses, then the employer can fill that apprenticeship with someone from overseas.
Of course, that is if the apprenticeship position is even advertised. As the member for Watson says, nowhere amongst the 50 questions on the employer’s visa application does it require them to say where they advertised the job. These imported apprentices will be forced to accept whatever pay, working conditions and treatment that the boss decides to dish out or risk being deported. That is the reality. We know that these visas, as a result, will drive down wages for our local apprentices. Our local apprentices are already getting paid rock-bottom wages and these visas will drive those wages even lower, forcing our young people either to accept lower than award pay or to run the risk of having their apprenticeship taken by someone from overseas.
Another flaw we know of in the regulations that we are seeking to disallow tonight is the sham requirement that the company have ‘a satisfactory record of training Australians’. Where is that defined? Nobody knows. It is not defined in any of the documentation and the government’s Department of Education, Science and Training has no role whatsoever in advising the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on whether a company has even trained one apprentice. There is no way that the government will check whether the company that is going to be importing these apprentices actually trains anyone. There is no satisfactory record that will be checked.
We must have a government that does better than this; otherwise, we are going to see as a result of this visa the undercutting of pay and conditions for our local apprentices because employers are not required to show what they have done when it comes to their own training commitment. We have not seen a government in this country committed to training Australians for 10 long years. We have seen a government that has taken a quick fix and brought in 270,000 extra skilled migrants while turning away 300,000 Australians from TAFE. It could start by pinching some of Labor’s policies which we have put forward in the last year: our commitment to getting rid of up-front TAFE fees or our proposal to pay $2,000 as a trade completion bonus to halve the current drop-out rate. These two measures alone would see 13,000 extra qualified Australian tradespeople. That is what we want to see. Unlike the Howard government, Labor’s priority is all about training Australians. We want to train Australians first and we want to train them now. I strongly support this disallowance motion because we want to give our kids a chance and make sure that when they get an apprenticeship they are properly paid.
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! I took the view that the deferred division should not be proceeded with until the member speaking at 8 pm had completed her speech, so I did not interrupt the member.
Debate adjourned.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2005 MEASURES NO. 6) BILL 2005
109
Bills
R2483
Second Reading
109
Debate resumed.
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Hunter, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing orders. No further debate is allowed.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Fitzgibbon’s amendment) stand part of the question.
20:08:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. AM Somlyay)
75
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Dutton, P.C.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Hunt, G.A.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Panopoulos, S.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Robb, A.
Ruddock, P.M.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
56
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Katter, R.C.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Quick, H.V.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Mr DUTTON
(Dickson
—Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer)
20:14:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
MIGRATION AMENDMENT REGULATIONS
110
Motions
Disallowance Motion
110
Debate resumed.
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr ROBB
(Goldstein
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs)
20:15:00
—I move:
That the question be now put.
Question put.
20:19:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. AM Somlyay)
75
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Dutton, P.C.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Hunt, G.A.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Panopoulos, S.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Robb, A.
Ruddock, P.M.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
57
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Katter, R.C.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Quick, H.V.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Burke’s) be agreed to.
20:26:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. AM Somlyay)
56
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Katter, R.C.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Quick, H.V.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
74
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Dutton, P.C.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Hunt, G.A.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Panopoulos, S.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Robb, A.
Ruddock, P.M.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
MINISTERS OF STATE AMENDMENT BILL 2005
112
Bills
R2486
Second Reading
112
Debate resumed from 16 February, on motion by Dr Stone:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Kelvin Thomson moved by way of amendment:
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 condemns the Government for allowing Ministerial standards and accountability to decline at the same time as Ministerial salaries are increasing”.
112
20:33:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
0
0
Ms BIRD
—In resuming this debate on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 I acknowledge the speaker before me, the member for Ryan. In speaking to the bill the member for Ryan outlined the pay scales of certain people and compared them with those of members of parliament and ministers. Indeed, he outlined a number of sportspeople, actors, comedians and models and the quite generous packages they earn on an annual basis. I have to say to him that, whilst the pay packet in this place may not entice the fastest, the wittiest or the most beautiful, I certainly hope it does attract the best and brightest.
The reason the Labor Party have put forward a second reading amendment to this bill is that we are concerned that this place does not always attract the most responsible. I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate and I more than happily support the amendment proposed by my colleague the shadow minister for public accountability. The amendment quite appropriately seeks to emphasise the important requirements of accountability in the performance of ministers.
In less than a month, in fact within a few days, the Howard government will celebrate its 10th long year in office. It approaches this anniversary mired in breathtaking scandal, amid daily revelations and exposures at the Cole inquiry into the AWB ‘wheat for weapons’ saga. It does this in the context of a defection from the National Party to the Liberal Party, surrounded by internal sniping and the public verbal biffing of a coalition senator by another coalition senator. The Australian columnist George Megalogenis, in a column entitled ‘Sheeting the blame’ on 28 January 2006, told his readers:
It is almost eight years since a Coalition minister was forced to resign for dereliction of duty. This is a run of squeaky-cleanness that simply defies human nature.
In fact, the last resignation was by a parliamentary secretary to cabinet in March 2003 for a slanderous speech against a serving High Court justice, under the privilege of the parliament in the other place. Over the last decade this government has grown tired, arrogant and complacent, and it has tuned out to the role of ministerial responsibility and accountability in our parliamentary system. It relies instead on spin and diversion. It takes pride in fast footwork rather than in effective performance. It hopes that the Australian people will not really tune into the debate on the various scandals that have plagued its administration. It believes that scandal after scandal will simply be forgiven and forgotten. The government hopes that, in this age of distractions, serious scandal and administrative incompetence will simply go away. The Prime Minister operates on an assumption. As George Megalogenis said further in his column:
The cycle of crisis has taught him that he doesn’t need to dismiss or demote—regardless of how poorly a minister or official has dispensed his public duties—because voters and the media eventually switch off.
The government’s arrogance has recently grown even fatter on its control of the Senate. In the last 12 months, four administrative scandals have hit the government across a range of portfolios: the regional rorts affair, the detention of Australian citizens in immigration detention centres and the forced expulsion of another Australian citizen, the appointment of a Liberal Party donor to the Reserve Bank and, finally, the ongoing saga of the AWB wheat for weapons scandal. Each of these scandals has been presided over by a minister and defended by the Prime Minister, and each has one common element.
0V5
Slipper, Peter, MP
Mr Slipper
—Who cares?
DZP
Bird, Sharon, MP
Ms BIRD
—I suggest to the member that there is a great deal of care out there. That attitude is exactly the one that I am referring to, and I would suggest that it is probably not a good line to interject with, as it will go down on the record. None of the ministers has taken any responsibility. Each of them trot out the line that no-one told them anything. None of them see any evil, hear any evil or dare speak of any evil they may encounter.
The government has so effectively trained the Public Service over the last 10 years in the methods of handling controversial issues that it appears nothing is ever written on such matters and nothing is ever processed through any channel or in any form that makes an accountability trail. Everything is designed to allow plausible ministerial denial. No minister takes responsibility for anything. They are never told; they never see documents. It appears that they also never speak to anyone, nor allow anyone to speak outside school. Public servants are even gagged from answering questions to the Senate.
Ministers rely on legal speak to provide information in question time which, while perhaps strictly accurate, is purposefully designed to not allow the truth of the matter to be exposed. National papers have to resort to FOI applications to simply access advice provided to ministers about matters of general public interest and importance, such as broad policy advice on the impact of various options in industrial relations. It appears that ministers climb out of their cars in the morning, stomp into the office, shut the door and put on the headphones and blinkers. Administration and decisions just happen by chance, apparently not only in the absence of ministerial oversight but also in the absence of ministerial direction.
The Australian editorial a couple of weeks ago said:
This Government has crippled the concept of ministerial accountability.
Day after day this week and in previous weeks media reports, editorialists and cartoonists identify the truth: that plausible deniability is going to be exposed to the light of day and that this government will be increasingly held to answer for its tricky tactics designed to avoid scrutiny, avoid responsibility and avoid difficult decisions. The only thing it is not worried about avoiding is incompetence, regardless of how this could have a devastating effect on Australian lives.
When some form of scrutiny cannot be avoided, it is conducted in as limited a way as the government can contrive. In the Melbourne Age this week, Michelle Grattan wrote of the gagging of public servants in Senate estimates:
This is just one more strike in the Government’s poleaxing of the Senate committees’ investigative process. Since the Coalition got the numbers in the upper house, the Opposition and minor parties obviously cannot set up embarrassing full-scale investigations. Even the inquiries into legislation (such as the industrial relations bill last year) are quick and dirty.
Quick and dirty indeed. The article goes on to describe the government’s excuse as ‘lame’, and its arrogance as ‘palpable’. It also describes it attempts to create an attitude in bureaucrats and independent authorities to do ‘whatever it takes’ to meet government wishes.
Michelle Grattan is far from alone in these observations. Another senior journalist with years of experience in observing governments, Laurie Oakes, had an article in the Bulletin this week titled ‘Serial contempt’ which says in part:
The government says it has nothing to hide in the AWB kickbacks-to-Saddam affair, and that may be true. But the way it is attempting to block parliamentary scrutiny hardly bolsters the claim. John Howard dismisses the Opposition’s concerns as ‘gratuitous criticism’ and argues that the Labor Party should shut up and wait for Terence Cole, QC, to complete his inquiry and deliver his report. But that is not the way the Westminster system is supposed to work. Ministers are answerable to parliament. The establishment of a commission of inquiry under a retired judge does not change that. Yet in this affair—as is increasingly common the longer the government is in office—parliament is being treated with contempt.
I would add that this means that the Australian public is being treated with contempt. Australians cannot rely on lack of knowledge to avoid complying with the laws of the land. For them, ignorance is no defence.
The article goes on to identify a pattern of behaviours it identifies as stonewalling replies, excuses, glib evasions and fudging. Mr Oakes concludes:
If the intelligence agencies really did nothing after receiving a tip-off like that, the PM should be demanding to know why, not making excuses.
Whilst this assessment is applied by Mr Oakes to the AWB scandal currently under investigation, it could equally apply to so many of the other scandals that this government has faced.
The truth is that if the government does not rein in its arrogance and its intimidation of free and frank public service advice it will continue to blunder into scandal after scandal, and its excuses will become less credible each time. It is terminal behaviour for a government. We are far away from the days in 1995 when the then Leader of the Opposition told Australians that he would establish new standards of accountability and trust in government. The Prime Minister in one of his first acts tabled in this place a document establishing these new standards. It has since never been looked at again. It is certainly never enforced.
One need only go back to scandals such as the MRI scandal involving the former minister for health, where confidential budget information was provided to radiologist businesses. There was never an admission that the then minister was loose with his mouth, which compromised public policy. There was certainly no apology or resignation. Then there was the scandal involving the former minister for Aboriginal affairs, who revealed that he still continued practising surgery while a minister of the Crown. He was quickly shunted off to a comfortable diplomatic posting in Ireland.
Then there was the telecard scandal involving the former Minister for Defence, who later went on to promote—quite disgracefully—the dishonest impression that children were thrown into the seas by their asylum seeker parents. The former minister blatantly lied to the parliament and the media—infamously on ABC radio while the television cameras were focused on the sweat of his brow.
Then we have the public bullying of the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, who in answering a question on the Sunday program sensibly said that Australian involvement in the Iraq conflict had made us an increased terrorist risk. So ruthlessly public was the bullying of the commissioner that he, it was reported, considered resigning. Then we had the disclosure of secret national security documents deliberately made available to a Herald Sun journalist to discredit an officer from the Office of National Assessments over Iraq. Currently there are court proceedings under way against two journalists for publishing the details of a cabinet submission on veterans’ affairs issues, and a public servant has also been charged. But there has never been a resolution to the disclosure of a secret briefing on national security to the Herald Sun journalist. This government, in its ruthless arrogance, will use any means to discredit and slander any person who seeks to hold it accountable. But none of its ministers has any courage in walking the plank when incompetence or scandal engulfs them.
The Prime Minister in waiting appears to be enjoying question time these days. He sits there with that infamous smirk as the AWB Cole inquiry revelations roll out day after day, pinging this minister and that minister. Naturally, he will not forget his own incompetence and humiliation of last year over the Gerard affair. But, again, that old standard line was put about that he knew nothing. Nobody bothered to tell him that his appointment to the Reserve Bank board was compromised and unsuitable.
This endless list of scandal and incompetence might appear to be a joy to the media and perhaps it could be argued to the opposition, but there are very serious consequences to this soap opera of scandal. Already public trust in all politicians is extremely low. I saw a Roy Morgan opinion poll late last year which ranked professions on the basis of trust. It is always the case that politicians score very poorly in these polls, but journalists and the media generally are these days taking a substantial caning too. The Australian editorial shortly after made the point:
Once ... people have good reason to assume the powerful think they are above the law, or can act independently of community standards to suit themselves, the trust that ensures people willingly pay their taxes and obey the law inevitably unravel.
The continued erosion in public trust will inevitably continue to crack the foundation of our institutions and decision-making processes. We will all pay a substantial price in the long term.
This government is not a conservative government: it refuses to take action to conserve the traditions of our parliamentary democracy. Indeed, many of its own party members have expressed grave concerns about these developments. If we are to continue to argue for economic and social reforms, Australians have to be able to trust what all politicians are saying in these debates. With that trust it inevitably follows that we must take responsibility for decisions, processes or events that go wrong. Ministers are charged with that high standard; the Prime Minister of the day is charged with custody of enforcing that high standard.
The Howard government has failed to live up to the standards it established for itself back in 1995. The vacuum in accountability and enforcement of standards will, whether the government realises it or not, be filled at some stage as frustration grows in the handling of this government’s incompetence. There is actually a gentle threat contained in the same Australian editorial:
... if ministers refuse to accept responsibility, or even to explain the actions of their departments, The Australian will have no option but to ask, and investigate, the public servants who actually administer the country. And the same standard will ... apply to ministerial advisers ...
I suggest that, if the Australian comes good on this threat, it should start investigating right now because, as it knows, the government puts controversial public servants out to pasture, usually overseas, with haste. The latest example arose following the release of the Palmer report. Extensive changes were announced to the department of immigration. The head of the department conveniently resigned and was appointed to a diplomatic post.
This government claims to be ‘in touch’ with the electorate. If that were so, ministers would accept that Australians are mature enough to know that mistakes are made, stuff-ups occur, scandals erupt and administration has unintended consequences. They should accept that, if any of these incidents or events occur, Australians expect the truth and that the problem should be fixed and responsibility taken. Australians do not accept being taken for mugs, and they do not accept being lied to. They do not accept that, along with the car, the office, the staff and the perks, ministers are not told anything and do not receive briefings, correspondence or departmental files. They do not accept that somehow, when a scandal erupts, a problem is exposed or incompetence arises, ministers magically disappear into a bubble. Australians want the person with whom the buck stops to front up, disclose and cop it on the chin.
The AWB wheat-for-weapons scandal is the latest episode in the soap opera that is the Howard government. It is simply inconceivable that the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade and present and former ministers for agriculture did not know that something compellingly smelly was taking place. The government says that, because it established an inquiry into this scandal, it should be congratulated for a display of accountability. Why, if it wishes this commendation, has it not included in the terms of reference scrutiny and examination of its own conduct?
I conclude by quoting a letter to the editor by a South Australian, published in the Australian, which sums up what I think many Australians feel:
I want to know who’s running the country because based on what John Howard and his ministers know, it isn’t them.
116
20:51:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
0
Mr SLIPPER
—I was one of those who sat in the House between 1993 and 1996, during the dying days of the Hawke and Keating governments. I can recall ministerial scandal after ministerial scandal. I can remember very well how ministers were called to the dispatch box. I can also remember how those on the back bench and those on the middle bench of the then government rejoiced in the difficulties their ministers were experiencing, knowing of course that, if a ministerial vacancy occurred—given the fact that hope springs eternal—there was a prospect of promotion. I am not suggesting for a moment that even on our side, if a minister were in trouble—during the period the minister is in trouble we all support the minister totally—those who were not in the ministry would not relish the opportunity of a ministerial vacancy and the possibility of a promotion.
When one listens to what the honourable member for Cunningham said in her contribution on the bill, one could somehow think that this government is without ministerial standards. I do not think anyone could realistically suggest that to be the case. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer, as the leaders of the Liberal Party, have ensured that there has been a very high level of scrupulous behaviour on the part of ministers and those who are entrusted to that high office. Similarly, the National Party has also ensured that its ministers act in a very responsible way. I think it is totally inappropriate for the member opposite to suggest in some way, shape or form that this government has thrown ministerial standards out the window. I am not saying that those of us who are not presently in the ministry would not rejoice if the opportunity to enter the ministry were to occur, but I do think that it is wrong to suggest in some way that our current ministers have performed in a less than appropriate manner.
The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 is an important bill. In many respects it is a machinery bill, but it is important notwithstanding. I note in the second reading amendment to the bill moved by the honourable member for Wills that the opposition does not want to decline the bill a second reading but ‘condemns the government for allowing ministerial standards and accountability to decline at the same time as ministerial salaries are increasing’. I think ministerial salaries in Australia are appallingly low. When one compares what the Prime Minister of this country is paid with what the Prime Minister of Singapore and the ministers and parliamentary secretaries in Singapore are paid, it is pretty clear that our Prime Minister works virtually for nothing. Given the heavy responsibilities of ministers and parliamentary secretaries—who in this country, under the Ministers of State Act, are also ministers—they are paid only a pittance of what their counterparts are paid in other countries. So I think it is wrong to suggest, as the member for Wills does, that in some way ministerial salaries are inappropriately high.
One also ought to recognise that the opposition in this country currently comprise members of the Australian Labor Party. Some of those members would be well aware of the situation that occurred in the state of New South Wales. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, I understand that you were a former distinguished minister in the New South Wales parliament, and I suspect that you, like me, would be looking very carefully at the ministerial scandals that almost on a daily basis unfold in that jurisdiction not very far away from Canberra. The opposition might well complain about accountability. However, one ought to look at Labor in government. One ought not to listen to what people say; one ought to look at how their party acts when entrusted with the keys of government.
It is a tragic situation to see what is happening in New South Wales. The ministers of that state do not even front the media on crises in their portfolios. They send out the head of their department. When the opposition in the Australian parliament criticises Australian ministers, could you imagine what would happen if we were to send out not the minister himself, which is what we do, but the head of the department—the unelected, unaccountable person who probably gets paid two or three times what the minister does—to respond to queries about departmental and ministerial behaviour? I find that to be quite a bizarre situation. For the member for Cunningham to come into the House and suggest that somehow this government is without standards is just breathtaking hypocrisy on the part of the opposition.
When you look at the Labor Party in government in New South Wales and at the Labor Party in government in Canberra between 1993 and 1996, you see that ministerial standards were non-existent in the government in Canberra and they are currently non-existent at Macquarie Street in Sydney. The member for Cunningham had a straight face. To be honest, you have to give it to her; I do not know how she managed to muster it all together—but she did. She went through a 20-minute diatribe, criticising the current government for our ministerial standards when, in reality, she comes from a party which historically has not had any standards in government at all.
Mr Speaker—and I welcome you to the chair—this bill aims to ensure that the Ministers of State Act 1952 has the capacity to meet the tasks that it was designed to do—in particular, to facilitate the remuneration increments to which government ministers are entitled. As the entitlements of ministers are tied to those of members and senators, which were subject to an inflationary increment last year, the ministerial entitlements have also been subject to an increment. In consequence, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 provides the mechanism that allows for the allocation of the extra remuneration required to meet those inflationary increases. This is not a controversial bill. I recall in my prior manifestation as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration that I regularly used to have to introduce similar bills to the House to make the necessary adjustments to meet changed financial situations.
The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2005 initiates an increase from $2.8 million to $3.2 million to be used for the purpose of ministerial remuneration. This is a special appropriation of consolidated revenue funds that are administered by the Department of Finance and Administration. The provisions of the bill enable the modification of the act to enable the increment and to allow that increment to commence from 1 July last year—that is, 1 July 2005.
As all members are aware, as each year goes by the workload of elected representatives of parliament increases and, of course, the workload of ministers is no different. Ministers have very heavy responsibilities and, as I said earlier in my contribution, I am of the view that this parliament does not adequately remunerate members of the executive and that sooner or later some government is going to be prepared to grasp the nettle and make the necessary changes to ensure that those people who have a very heavy responsibility—a responsibility that in many cases exceeds that of CEOs—are adequately remunerated. This bill, though, is a mechanism bill, a machinery bill, which just seeks to remedy certain necessary changes, given the impact of inflation and flow-on of increases of ministerial salary.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
118
Adjournment
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9.00 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Taxation
118
118
21:00:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—The Treasurer recently appointed leading businessmen Dick Warburton and Peter Hendy to investigate how Australia’s tax system compares to other developed countries. We have been told that the two men have just one month to provide the report to the Treasurer ahead of the 9 May budget—they have been asked to report on 3 April. The Treasurer told ABC television:
I think it’s important that we internationally benchmark the Australian taxation system. ... We need to get the full-rounded picture on the plate.
The study will produce a public document that compares Australian taxes to those in other countries, identifying where Australia leads comparable countries and where it lags. We do not need an inquiry set up by the Treasurer to tell us that we have problems with our tax system; we do not need an inquiry set up by the Treasurer to tell us that this is the highest taxing government in Australia’s history—we already know those facts. The Treasurer, who has been in place for 10 years—certainly more years than he would prefer as Treasurer—should know by now that it is his obligation and the department’s obligation to examine those particular matters.
To set up an inquiry with two mates of the Liberal Party is a ridiculous waste of public money. It will not do any more than what we know, which is that the tax system is burdened with complexity. In fact, if you were to measure the depth of the tax act, it has doubled in height since the election of this government. There are more complexities as a result and therefore more confusion for businesses and individual taxpayers in this country. We ask the Treasurer to stop messing around with the system, to stop deferring the decision to properly fix those problems and to stop giving jobs to his mates.
We know that Mr Peter Hendy was the former chief of staff of the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations back during the waterfront dispute. We are aware of Peter Hendy’s behaviour and conduct in that dispute, a dispute that was filled with balaclavas and iron bars and with threats against ordinary workers. We are aware of Peter Hendy’s activities there.
We are also aware that Peter Hendy followed the minister to the Department of Defence. We are aware that Peter Hendy, as an adviser to former Minister Reith during the kids overboard affair, was complicit in a cover-up—in fact, in a lie—to suggest that the kids were thrown overboard. We know Minister Reith then clearly knew that the kids were not thrown overboard but was happy to lie to the Australian public. You cannot tell me that Peter Hendy was not aware of that.
To pretend that this man Peter Hendy is an impartial, independent observer and an expert with impeccable qualifications of course is not true. This is jobs for the boys. This is a Liberal Party stooge, a person who will come to the rescue every time Peter Costello is in trouble. When there were allegations made in this place that the Treasurer misled the parliament about whether the department had studied whether there were needs to reduce the minimum wage, it was Peter Hendy who was the first man out of the box to say, ‘That could not be the case. The Treasurer would not do that.’ This man Mr Hendy has been an apologist for this government since 1996. We all know why: he was on the payroll for most of that time and he was involved in some of the most nefarious behaviour and activities this government has undertaken during its 10 years in office.
Can I ask the Treasurer not to set up an inquiry to tell us what we already know, which is that this government is the highest taxing government in Australia’s history and not to defer the decisions to properly fix those problems. Instead I ask the Treasurer to come into this place and announce how he will fix those problems—not just for the top end of town but how he will ensure there will be proper economic relief for middle income earners in this country, for those ordinary working families doing it tough because of the extra burdens that this government has placed upon them. We do not need a two-person committee; we need a Treasurer with guts, a Treasurer who actually wants to do his job. Instead of dreaming about someone else’s job he should be attending to the job that he was elected to do. That is, he should look after the Australian people and relieve them of the tax burden that is clearly upon them. (Time expired)
Father Laurie Cusack
119
119
21:05:00
Broadbent, Russell, MP
MT4
McMillan
LP
1
0
Mr BROADBENT
—The headline in my local paper reads ‘Father Laurie Cusack, 78, dies after long illness’ and the article states:
A Sale Diocese priest who will be best remembered for his prolific letter writing to the secular and religious media died last month.
Fr Laurence Leo Cusack died at Nazareth House, Camberwell, on January 20 after a long illness which included many strokes.
Requiem Mass was concelebrated at St Mary’s Church, Cowes, on January 25 after which he was buried at Cowes.
Fr Cusack was born at Traralgon in 1927 and was educated at St Joseph’s Convent, Cowwarr, and St Patrick’s College, Sale.
He is remembered as a gifted student who was dux of his class and in 1944 worked for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories for a year studying bio-chemistry before entering Corpus Christi Seminary, Werribee, to study for the priesthood.
He was ordained by Bishop Richard Ryan at St Mary’s Cathedral, Sale, in 1952 alongside the late Bishop Noel Daly.
Fr Cusack served in Warragul, Sale, Morwell, Lakes Entrance, Neerim South, Newborough, Trafalgar, Bairnsdale and San Remo.
His appointment as parish priest at Newborough was a satisfying one as it was a new town with a migrant population nearing 80 per cent, many of them poor and facing hardships settling into their new country.
Always a passionate writer of letters to the editor in whatever parish he was serving, it was while he was at his last appointment at San Remo that his letter writing workload rapidly increased.
He waged a passionate battle against communism, euthanasia, pornography, abortion, homosexuality, compulsive gambling and the breakdown of community values.
It was while he was at San Remo that his health began to fade, suffering the first of many strokes. He was forced to step down as parish priest in 1995 but continued to live on in the former presbytery while his successor Fr John Phelan—
a good friend of mine—
went to live in a new presbytery at the new parish centre in Cowes.
Fr Cusack continued his incessant letter writing to the media, but as usual was always to the point, and never too long to render letters unlikely to be published.
In 1999 he moved into nursing care at Nazareth House and had been bed-ridden for the past few years. Fr Cusack celebrated the Golden Jubilee of his ordination to the priesthood in 2002.
In a short statement, following his death, Fr Cusack’s family expressed their gratitude to Bishop Coffey, the priests of the diocese and all who were part of the tapestry of his life.
“In each person with whom he had contact, he appreciated the unique, God-given gift of life in that person, so each one was important to him.
Grateful thanks to all especially for the masses and prayers offered.”
Mr Speaker, I draw this very special man to your attention because for the whole of my political activity, federally since 1984, this man has been letter writing and letter writing and letter writing in his cause. I was especially impressed with a letter from a constituent to the local paper only recently where he told the story of Father Cusack. Father Cusack was a passionate anti-abortionist. You could not pick up a local paper anywhere in Gippsland where there was no letter from Father Cusack on abortion in that newspaper. The story was told in last week’s Pakenham-Berwick Gazette—or that is where I read it; it was probably in a lot of papers—about Father Cusack’s mother, who had a choice given to her by her doctors: ‘You can abort your son or you’re going to die,’ and she chose the risk of death to produce a son. That son was Father Cusack.
Taxation
120
120
21:09:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
0
0
Ms KING
—The tax inquiry announced yesterday by the perpetual bridesmaid Peter Costello has got to be one of the best cases of bridal envy I have seen since Muriel’s Wedding. The Treasurer, after 10 long years in the job, was prancing around last week saying and doing anything to make sure that he is not overshadowed or forgotten in the Howard nostalgia week. So desperately worried is he in this week when every media outlet is talking with sycophantic rapture about Howard’s 10 years in office that people will somehow forget about poor old Pete, he is out there trying on multiple wedding dresses. One minute he is out there to shock with the plunging back and front wedding dress as he becomes a commentator about what is wrong with multiculturalism. The next minute, he is the doyen of the Melbourne social set—the genial host Pete wearing the traditional silk and pearls with Melbourne’s glitterati on the banks of the Yarra. By Sunday he is frothy Pete, in the full meringue wedding dress mode—overblown, overdressed and out there desperately trying to snatch the bouquet off the Prime Minister, upstaging him with the tax inquiry.
The Treasurer has been in charge of the tax system for 10 years. He has had 10 years to genuinely reform it, and what does he do? He bags anyone who has any ideas—and that is just his own colleagues—and then announces an inquiry—an inquiry into what he has failed to do! The people in my district do not need an inquiry to tell them that this is the highest taxing government in our history. They know it every time they go to buy shoes for their kids, get the washing machine fixed, pay their electricity bill or go to the doctor. This government is now taking $100 billion more out of the pockets of ordinary Australians compared to 10 years ago. What we have seen so far from the Treasurer is an increasing tax burden on middle-income earners. Taxes for that group have increased substantially since this Treasurer was elected in 1996. Households are on average paying $10,000 more in tax than they were paying in 1996.
This government could not care less about families on middle incomes. It failed in the last budget to give them meaningful tax cuts and now, instead of genuinely looking at reform of the tax system, the Treasurer has set up an inquiry with a Liberal Party flunkey in charge to push the interests of big business. He has put Peter Hendy, former adviser to Peter Reith, of the waterfront dispute, dogs and balaclava fame, in charge of this inquiry. Peter Hendy, as a former Liberal party staffer—and not just any staffer; he is a very loyal Liberal Party staffer—is now Peter Costello’s No. 1 man on tax. Peter Hendy is not an independent business commentator. He is not even a tax expert. He is a Liberal Party flunkey. Having served the government well on the waterfront dispute, Peter Hendy went on to further distinguish himself by being one of the people at the centre of the children overboard scandal.
The Liberal Party created Peter Hendy. The Liberal Party looks after Peter Hendy, and Peter Hendy looks after the Liberal Party—he looks after the Liberal Party very well indeed. As the CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, he has represented the big end of town, consistently lobbying for tax cuts for wealthy Australians with no regard to middle- and low-income Australians. ACCI’s recent submissions on taxation clearly show this bias. He is not an independent expert commentator; he is beholden to the Liberal Party and he is at one with the Liberal Party. He has of recent times become an avid third-party commentator and an endorser of all things Liberal, slavering over the government’s workplace relations agenda and failing in opinion pieces in newspapers to disclose his Liberal Party background and continued connections. Peter Hendy is no more an independent commentator on taxation matters than the Treasurer is on John Howard’s retirement.
If the government were genuine about tax reform, it would be involving a far broader cross-section of the Australian community in this inquiry, including people from small business who have been struggling under the burden of this government’s last set of reforms, church and welfare groups whose emergency relief budgets are stretched to breaking point as they try to help the working poor, academics who have been doing comparative analyses of Australia’s tax system for over 20 years—people who might actually know something. By rolling out one of his Liberal mates, someone who blindly pursued tax cuts for the top end of town, the Treasurer has shown nothing but contempt for Middle Australia. He has shown that this inquiry is all show and very little about reform. Australian families have had to wait 10 years for the Treasurer to wake up to fact that we need tax reform, and what have they got? An inquiry. Rather than preparing the way for his leadership aspirations, the Treasurer should be preparing our economy for the challenges and opportunities ahead and introducing real tax reform. Instead, the perpetual bridesmaid has given us an inquiry with a predetermined outcome headed up by a Liberal Party flunkey.
Hasluck Electorate: North East Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
122
122
21:14:00
Henry, Stuart, MP
E0L
Hasluck
LP
1
0
Mr HENRY
—Tonight I rise to offer my congratulations and to commend the North East Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and its eight chamber members, including the Kalamunda and Districts Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Swan Chamber of Commerce. On Saturday, 11 February they conducted this wonderful employment expo, Jobs Galore. There were over 500 jobs available for those people who attended.
I am pleased to say that the patron for the event was the Hon. Kevin Andrews, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and I had the great privilege to deputise for him. Major sponsors included the federal Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, along with Hanssen Pty Ltd, Midland Brick, Boral, Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council, Construct Contractor Solutions, Midland Redevelopment Authority, BCITF—Building Construction Industry Training Fund—BGC Blokpave, Jobs Australia and the Department of Education, Science and Training. These sponsoring organisations were supported by some 40 other exhibitors and included group training and skills organisations such as MPA Skills and the West Australian Group Training Scheme Inc.
It was a fantastic day. By 11 o’clock over 4,000 people had attended Midland railway workshops to talk to all of these employers who were offering employment to people in a range of areas, including the long-term unemployed, people with disabilities, mature age people looking for work, single mothers and of course school leavers. It was fantastic to see the exchange and the opportunity that these employers provided to these people who were looking for jobs. By the end of the day, some 8,000 people had attended. This is the sort of opportunity that the government supports and provides encouragement and sponsorship for to ensure that we maximise employment participation, employment and training opportunities in Australia.
This initiative of the North East Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce is fantastic and is a model for other community based organisations. I congratulate Alan Stirling, Chief Executive Officer of the North East Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and, in particular, Allison Oldfield-Hoisan who was the project manager organising this event. It was a huge success in anyone’s language. I also mention Gerry Hanssen of the Hanssen Project management who was a major sponsor and who made a huge contribution to this event.
We had an incredible response. One organisation who was in attendance, the West Australian Group Training Scheme Inc. received over 103 applications for employment on that one day—82 for building apprenticeships and 21 for hairdressing apprenticeships, which I think for one employer is a great opportunity. They saw this as an opportunity to increase business potential, increase their attraction as an employer of choice, provide greater exposure for available and potential job opportunities and to meet potential applicants face to face and demonstrate who and what they were and what opportunities they provided. In a letter to the organisers, the North East Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, the chief executive officer said:
In conclusion I can say well done to all the organizers and participants, this was the type of expo that was long over due, which brought the people who were looking for employment to the people who were offering employment.
As I say, it was a great initiative. This organisation must receive the highest commendation for the great work that it did in that community, harnessing those energies and resources to ensure that people who were seeking employment had the opportunity to see what employment was available and could achieve a positive outcome. I understand there will be another Jobs Galore expo in September-October this year. I am very much looking forward to it and wish them all the very best.
Taxation
123
123
21:18:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—On the weekend, the Treasurer announced that he was appointing a review of the Australian taxation system which would be charged with the responsibility of benchmarking Australia’s tax system and comparing it with international best practice. This review is a joke. It is the most blatant public relations exercise we have seen for some time. It is all about the Treasurer regaining the political momentum on the tax debate—which he lost last year to the member for Wentworth—and the government’s so-called tax ginger group.
There are a few pointers which bell the cat and show what a ridiculous public relations stunt this really is. This review will have a short time to do its work. We are now about to go into March; it will report in April. The review consists of Mr Dick Warburton and Mr Peter Hendy. Mr Hendy was Chief of Staff to former Minister Reith from 1998 to 2002. I do not have anything against former chiefs of staff. I am a former chief of staff, but I do not pretend to be independent.
If the New South Wales government, in which I was a chief of staff, asked me to conduct an independent review into a matter I would tell them they were dreaming. I would tell them, ‘I’m not independent, and I can’t be independent after being a chief of staff in your government for four years.’ The member for Perth, who is in the chamber, was a chief of staff in the Western Australian government. If he were asked to be part of a review by the Western Australian government, I do not think he would claim to be an independent umpire in a review. But, of course, the Treasurer does not want an independent review. He has chosen Mr Hendy because his views are well known.
Mr Hendy was Chief of Staff to former Minister Reith during the Patrick dispute, one of the most outrageous episodes in Australian history—an episode where the government of this nation was a lead conspirator in a scheme to break a trade union and drive down wages. Mr Hendy is a lead warrior in the Liberal Party’s partisan battles. That is his right; he is not independent. He regularly comes out as an independent third party to support government policies, but he is not independent. So I would suggest that we do not need to die wondering what Mr Hendy’s views are about the needs of working Australians and where the priorities for tax reform should lie. Of course, if we need more evidence, we have it.
Mr Hendy is now Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. ACCI is entitled to its views, as is Mr Hendy. But even ACCI and Mr Hendy do not pretend to have an independent role. In November 2004, ACCI released a taxation reform blueprint. In the introduction to the blueprint, ACCI writes:
The role of ACCI is to represent the interests of business at a national level as well as internationally.
It goes on to say:
ACCI operates at a national and international level, making sure the concerns of business are represented to government at the federal level, and to the community at large.
Finally, ACCI describes its activities as including:
… representation and advocacy to governments, parliaments and policy makers both domestically and internationally—
All this comes as no surprise. Of course ACCI represents the needs of business. That is their job. They do it quite well. That is why in the tax reform blueprint, for example, they call for the fringe benefits tax to be transferred from employers to employees. If this government wants to conduct an inquiry into the tax system, it has a choice. It can appoint an independent review: for example, a review of academics or commentators—people who do not have a particular barrel to push.
Does the Treasurer really expect us to believe that there is no independent commentator suitably qualified to conduct this review and that he must rely on a Liberal Party partisan and representative of big business to tell him what needs to happen to the taxation system? But if the Treasurer does want to have a review by a group of individuals who represent certain segments of society and the economy then a wide range of views must be represented. Where is the representation from small business? ACCI primarily represents big business. Small business should have a say at the table. The government claims to be a friend of small business, but small business has no say in this review.
Where are the representatives of PAYE taxpayers? They have no voice at the table. There is no voice for the community sector and no voice for those who could give some advice on the simplification of the tax system—tax professionals and accountants. There is no voice for pensioners or superannuants and no voice for the community generally. The only voice to be heard at this review is a Liberal Party partisan. Mr Hendy does his job very well. I am sure he is a very good chief executive of ACCI, but he is not independent. He should not be called upon to give this government taxation advice which affects every working Australian.
It astounds me that, after 10 years in office, this government needs to appoint a review to tell it what needs to happen to the tax system. But it outrages me that it has appointed to conduct that review a former chief of staff, Liberal Party partisan and representative of big business—a small segment of society—and there is no representation for small business, PAYE taxpayers and others in the community. (Time expired)
Taxation
Mr Alan Lawley
Mr Hendrick Drent
124
124
21:23:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
0
Mr SLIPPER
—I have to say I have been absolutely appalled at the contributions by the honourable member for Ballarat and the honourable member for Prospect in criticising the appointment of Mr Warburton and Mr Hendy to look after this inquiry by the Treasurer into the Australian tax system. The suggestion is that we have waited in government for 10 years before looking at possible changes and improvements to the tax system. The simple fact is that we have been in office for 10 years and the government, led by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Leader of the National Party, has done an outstanding job. However, the job is never finished; it is always important to look at ongoing improvements and at changed circumstances.
I could not think of two more suitable people than Mr Hendy and Mr Warburton to lead this inquiry. I am pleased that it is not one of these ‘never never’ inquiries. It has a very finite period for reporting. It indicates that the Treasurer and the government have a real vision for the future. These two people, who have broad experience in government and in industry, will be able to look very closely at what we are doing well and what we are not doing well. They will be able to bring forward advice which will be considered by the government for possible implementation to improve a tax system which is much better than the tax system this government inherited in 1996. I did not intend to rise to talk about this subject, but I was motivated by the quite appalling contributions by the two previous Labor speakers.
It gives me pleasure to draw attention in the House tonight to two residents of my electorate who are proving that age is no barrier to fundraising. The two men are Alan Lawley, aged a sprightly 83, and Hendrick ‘Hank’ Drent, a young 69. Alan struggles to put pen to paper due to arthritis and his eyesight, unfortunately, is not as good as it used to be. But there is no way he will let those minor problems slow him down. Meanwhile, his best mate, Hank, admits he is a bit hard of hearing—a legacy of years labouring in the mines of Mount Isa. However, he has also resolved not to allow any such niggles get in the way of a busy life helping his community.
Alan and Hank have become somewhat famous on the Sunshine Coast hinterland for their clever idea of visiting local orchards and collecting avocado seconds—those that are deemed too small for market—and then selling them in Maleny. The money they make goes towards helping the local Erowal retirement village. Despite the personal difficulties they face, the two have risen to become living treasures in the region. The best friends have raised approximately $17,000 for their local community, and they have no plans yet for retirement. Their achievements were recognised at the Australia Day Fisher community awards ceremony for services to their community. These two men are living examples of what it means to be Australian—they are dedicated to their fellow citizens and they have made a huge effort to contribute significant portions of their time to help their local community.
Fundraising, as we all know, is always a difficult pursuit. It involves putting in a lot of effort and long hours for very little reward. But these two mates have persevered and are making a real difference. They are truly an inspiration to us all. Despite the proud accolade, Alan and Hank remain modest. ‘Hank does all the hard work,’ Alan says. ‘He takes the avocados home, washes them, sorts them out and puts them into bags. He calls me his technical adviser. I do all the organising, make the phone calls and put things in the local newspaper—that sort of thing.’
Whatever the demarcation of tasks, the duo’s special bond and unique teamwork are making an impact. Their efforts so far have paid for two televisions and a DVD player for special care residents at the retirement village; their earnings also funded the restoration of a donated piano and the installation of two airconditioning units, valued at over $4,600, at the nursing home. They are currently raising funds for another two airconditioning units. The fundraising efforts paid for a war memorial that is located near the front door of the nursing home, and they have also contributed $7,500 towards a hydrotherapy pool soon to be built in Maleny.
Hank and Alan met about five years ago through their involvement with the Freemasons. With Alan growing frail with old age, Hank started visiting him every morning to check on his welfare. That thoughtful deed developed into a strong bond of friendship. ‘We’ve become good mates,’ Hank says proudly. ‘I go there every morning. I never miss a day and I will keep on looking out for him.’ The pair also sells raffle tickets at Maleny, but as a fundraising method it is a little too competitive. Avocado seconds will remain their ‘bread and butter’—this season they hope to raise more than $1,000.
They get their support from avocado growers Mr and Mrs Ken Webb of Woombye and Mr and Mrs Ian Goodall of Curramore. The avocado seconds are growing in popularity. Hank says, ‘People love them. They always ask when we will get more. It started five years ago. It went well, so we’re still doing it.’ This special partnership has proved that age and disability are no hurdles for those who genuinely desire to give something back to their community. In the House I want to honour to Alan and Hank. What they are doing is extraordinary. (Time expired)
Australian Flag
126
126
21:28:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
1
0
Mr JOHNSON
—I want to condemn in the parliament those young Australians who, on the St Lucia campus of the University of Queensland last week during orientation week, sought to burn the Australian flag and offered other students flag-burning kits for $5 to join in the act of burning the Australian flag. This is an appalling gesture. It ought to be condemned absolutely and unequivocally and, as the federal member for Ryan representing the wonderful western suburbs of Brisbane, I do so here.
The Australian flag is a very powerful symbol for all of us. It has a special place in our community, our society and our nation. It is a symbol of national unity; it is a symbol of all the great things about our country—it defines our nationhood, our history and our Federation. I call upon all those in my community who support this view to contact my office and join with me in expressing absolute outrage at those young Australians who have taken this very important symbol of our country and desecrated it. In war, in sport and in the everyday life of our nation the flag has its place and its memory ought to be maintained in every possible way. Last week I had the great pleasure of visiting the Mount Crosby State School and saw the flag there.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
126
21:30:00
House adjourned at 9.30 pm
NOTICES
126
Notices
The following notices were given:
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
to present a bill for an act to amend the Copyright Act 1968, to provide for resale royalties for visual artists. (Artist’s Resale Rights Bill 2006)
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
to present a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995; to prevent the destruction or desecration of the Australian National Flag. (Protection of the Australian National Flag (Desecration of the Flag) Bill 2006)
MP6
Baird, Bruce, MP
Mr Baird
to move:
That this Parliament:
-
note with concern:
-
the increasing use of the death penalty as a criminal sanction in our region;
-
the execution of Mr Van Tuong Nguyen in the Republic of Singapore; and
-
the plight of all Australians who are currently on death row;
-
congratulate the Governor-General, the Prime Minister and the Australian Government and Opposition for their recent efforts on behalf of Australians on death row; and
-
call on the Australian Government to:
-
advocate with our regional neighbours the abolition of the death penalty or, as an interim measure, the establishment of a moratorium on executions; and
-
encourage our regional neighbours to ratify the United Nations International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Second Optional Protocol.
BV5
Adams, Dick, MP
Mr Adams
to move:
That this House:
-
congratulate the farmers of Tasmania on their bid to bring the plight of all farmers to the attention of the community and the Premier of Tasmania for supporting them;
-
condemn the Federal Government for:
-
the lack of labelling laws to allow the community to make their own decisions on the purchase of fresh food;
-
the fact that farmers in Tasmania and the rest of Australia are suffering from the unlevel playing field that exists in the import and export of fresh foods;
-
the fact the Federal Government is not achieving enough gains for farmers in their negotiations on free trade agreements with many countries, including the US and China; and
-
the lack of leverage for farmers trying to negotiate fair and just contracting rates for their produce; and
-
call on the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to introduce legislation to ensure that labelling of farm products is unambiguous and works for the benefit of all Australian primary producers.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
to present a bill for an act to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol Ratification) Bill 2006)
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson
to move:
That this House recognise:
-
that 21 April 2006 marks the 150th anniversary of the eight hour day;
-
the achievement of stonemasons and building workers who marched through the city of Melbourne 150 years ago, gathering supporters on the way to Parliament to demand work life balance;
-
the rationale behind the eight hour day was to strengthen family and community by giving workers time for recreation, self-improvement and full participation in civil society; and
-
that dividing work and family time remains the biggest challenge facing workers, with working parents finding it difficult to fit in picking up children from school, shopping, housework and childcare into their demanding lives.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
128
Questions in Writing
Domestic and Overseas Air Travel
128
128
332
128
Quick, Harry, MP
AV5
Franklin
ALP
0
Mr Quick
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 6 December 2004:
-
For the year 2003-2004, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on (a) domestic, and (b) overseas air travel.
-
For the year 2003-2004, what proportion of domestic air travel by employees of the Minister’s department was provided by (a) Qantas, (b) Regional Express, and (c) Virgin Blue.
-
For the year 2003-2004, what was the actual expenditure by the Minister’s department on domestic air travel provided by (a) Qantas, (b) Regional Express, and (c) Virgin Blue.
-
For the year 2003-2004, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on business class travel on (a) domestic routes, and (b) overseas routes.
-
For the year 2003-2004, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on economy class travel on (a) domestic routes, and (b) overseas routes.
-
For the year 2003-2004, what proportion of the expenditure on air travel by the Minister’s department was on the domestic routes (a) Sydney to Canberra, (b) Melbourne to Canberra, (c) Sydney to Melbourne, (d) Sydney to Brisbane, (e) Melbourne to Hobart or Launceston, and (f) Sydney to Perth.
-
For the year 2003-2004, how many employees of the Minister’s department had membership of the (a) Qantas Chairman’s Lounge, (b) Qantas Club, (c) Regional Express Membership Lounge, and (e) Virgin Blue’s Blue Room paid for by the department.
128
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The following tables provide details of travel undertaken by the Department of Health and Ageing, including Therapeutic Goods Administration and CRS Australia for the financial year 2003-2004
-
2003-2004 Departmental Air Travel Expenses
Travel
$
Domestic
10,277,253
Overseas
1,665,764
Total
11,943,017
-
2003-2004 Estimated Domestic Proportions for Departmental Employees only
Carrier
%
(a) Qantas and subsidiaries
94
(b) Regional Express
3
(c) Virgin Blue
1
Other
2
Total
100.0
Note: Travel sector information has been used to estimate individual airline percentages.
-
2003-2004 Estimated Domestic Air Travel Expenses by Airline
Carrier
$
(a) Qantas and subsidiaries
9,640,063
(b) Regional Express
339,149
(c) Virgin Blue
102,772
Other
195,269
Total
10,277,253
Note: Travel sector information has been used to estimate individual airline expenses.
-
and (5) 2003-2004 Estimated Domestic and International, Economy and Business Class Travel Expenses
(4) Business
(5) Economy
Other
Total
$
$
$
$
(a) Domestic
2,569,313
7,296,849
411,091
10,277,253
(b) Overseas
1,665,764
0
0
1,665,764
Total
4,235,077
7,296,849
411,091
11,943,017
Note: Travel sector information has been used to estimate expenditure for classes of travel.
-
2003-2004 Departmental Air Travel by Route
Routes
%
(a) Sydney to Canberra and Canberra to Sydney
15.3
(b) Melbourne to Canberra and Canberra to Melbourne
20.6
(c) Sydney to Melbourne and Melbourne to Sydney
6.2
(d) Sydney to Brisbane and Brisbane to Sydney
4.7
(e) Melbourne to Hobart/Launceston and Hobart/Launceston to Melbourne
2.4
(f) Sydney to Perth and Perth to Sydney
5.1
Other
45.7
Total
100.0
-
2003-2004 Airline Lounge Membership
-
Qantas Airways has advised that access to the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge is by invitation only and no departmental membership statistics are available.
-
There were 46 Qantas Club memberships paid by the department (excluding CRS Australia) in 2003-04.
-
All departmental travellers using Regional Express flights have access to the Regional Express Lounge for no membership cost.
-
There were no lounge memberships paid by the department for Virgin Blue’s Blue Room.
Opinion Polls
129
129
1073
129
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 10 May 2005:
-
Did the department or any agency under the Minister’s portfolio conduct or commission an opinion poll, focus group or market research in 2004; if so, what was the (a) purpose and (b) cost of each opinion poll, focus group or market research survey conducted.
-
What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to conduct the poll, focus group or research.
129
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (b) Details of opinion polls, focus groups or market research conducted or commissioned in 2004 are provided at Attachment A.
-
Names and postal addresses of each company engaged are also provided at Attachment A.
Attachment A
Department engagements
Company Name
Company Postal Address
Purpose
Cost (Incl GST)
ACNielsen Research Pty
ACNielsen Centre
11 Talavera Road
MACQUARIE PARK
NSW 2113
An annual syndicated survey assessing the impact of the Internet on health consumers, medical practitioners and pharmacists
$77,000
Blue Moon Research & Planning Pty Ltd
Level 2,
71-73 Chandos Street
ST LEONARDS
NSW 2065
Development of Private Health Insurance Consumer Materials
$65,780
Blue Moon Research & Planning Pty Ltd
Level 2
71-73 Chandos Street
ST LEONARDS
NSW 2065
National Illicit Drugs Youth Campaign Concept Testing Research
$498,487
Blue Moon Research & Planning Pty Ltd
Level 2
71-73 Chandos Street
ST LEONARDS
NSW 2065
Qualitative Research for the National Pneumococcal Vaccination Campaign
$85,635
Blue Moon Research & Planning Pty Ltd
Level 2
71-73 Chandos Street
ST LEONARDS
NSW 2065
Explore consumer information needs and response to existing consumer documentation on private health insurance
$65,780
Cultural Perspectives Pty Ltd
Level 1
93 Norton Street
LEICHHARDT
NSW 2040
Evaluation of 2004 Croc Festival
$136,143
Eureka Strategic Research
PO Box 767
NEWTOWN
NSW 2042
Evaluation of the initiative “Informing consumers of the Real Cost of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) Medicines”
$71,368
Inside Story Unit Trust
Level 5
2 Barrack Street
SYDNEY
NSW 2000
Market research, analysis and definition of requirements of target audience for the Seniors Portal to allow understanding of dynamics driving consumer web behaviours in target audience of Australians over 50.
$71,618
Inside Story Unit Trust
Level 5
2 Barrack Street
SYDNEY
NSW 2000
Market research, useability and accessibility testing for Seniors Portal, allowing department to build audience relevance, usefulness and attractiveness into portal’s development.
$29,645
Inside Story Unit Trust
Level 5
2 Barrack Street
SYDNEY
NSW 2000
Market research, design testing of requirements of target audience for Seniors Portal; allowing department to test portal look and feel to confirm its personality is warm, welcoming, friendly and credible.
$138,773
Market Access Consulting & Research Pty Ltd
225 Park Street
SOUTH MELBOURNE
VIC 3205
Research to obtain from key stakeholders information necessary to determine types of strategies and resources that will work well to support the implementation of lifestyle prescriptions through general practices, and how these could be incorporated into a resource kit.
$160,930
New Focus Research Pty Ltd
Melbourne Central Executive Suites
2nd Floor 222 Latrobe St
MELBOURNE
VIC 3000
Market research conducted to confirm sustainability of employment outcomes and clients’ satisfaction in relation to quality and range of services provided by CRS Australia, gaps between expectations and performance and priorities for service improvement.
$83,084
Newton Wayman Chong & Associates
Skipping Girl Place
651 Victoria Street
ABBOTSFORD
VIC 3067
General Practice Communications Research
$220,000
Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd
411 Collins Street
MELBOURNE
VIC 3000
National Alcohol Campaign youth survey February 2004
$162,250
Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd
411 Collins Street
MELBOURNE
VIC 3000
National Pneumococcal Vaccination Campaign evaluation
$264,000
Taylor Nelson Sofres
48 Pyrmont Bridge Road
PYRMONT
NSW 2009
To identify how consumers go about seeking healthcare and health information
$40,500
The Social Research Centre Pty Ltd
Level 1
262 Victoria Street
NORTH MELBOURNE
VIC 3051
Evaluation of the National Illicit Drugs Youth Campaign
$496,910
The Social Research Centre Pty Ltd
Level 1
262 Victoria Street
NORTH MELBOURNE
VIC 3051
Evaluation of the National Tobacco Campaign – November 2004 survey (wave 9) with adults aged 18-69 years
$180,604
The Social Research Centre Pty Ltd
Level 1
262 Victoria Street
NORTH MELBOURNE
VIC 3051
Conduct an Annual Evaluation of the National Tobacco Campaign
$66,605
TNS Social Research
65 Canberra Avenue
GRIFFITH
ACT 2603
Quantitative ad-testing research to support the Review of the Alcohol Beverage Advertising Code
$119,460
TQA Research Pty Ltd
28-30 Station Street
SANDRINGHAM
VIC 3191
Qualitative research to explore consumer attitudes towards consent, electronic health records and use of health data for research purposes
$82,430
UrbisJHD Pty Ltd
Level 18
60 Castlereagh Street
SYDNEY
NSW 2000
Review of residential aged care standard application form and information package, in consultation with industry and consumers, and report on effectiveness
$69,638
Wallis Consulting Pty Ltd
25 King Street
MELBOURNE
VIC 3000
Quantitative research with adults to support the Review of the Alcohol Beverage Advertising Code
$60,280
Woolcott Research Pty Ltd
40 Gloucester Street
THE ROCKS
NSW 2000
Building A Healthy Active Australia – Physical Activity & Nutrition Information Programs – Concept Testing & Baseline Evaluation Research
$284,801
Woolcott Research Pty Ltd
40 Gloucester Street
THE ROCKS
NSW 2000
Healthy living concept testing research
$70,532
Woolcott Research Pty Ltd
40 Gloucester Street
THE ROCKS
NSW 2000
Physical Activity Guideline Materials Pre-testing
$77,055
Woolcott Research Pty Ltd
40 Gloucester Street
THE ROCKS
NSW 2000
Omnibus Research to Assess Consumer Response to Health Warnings Proposal
$10,510
Woolcott Research Pty Ltd
40 Gloucester Street
THE ROCKS
NSW 2000
Focus test consumer resources developed to promote Australia’s Physical Activity Guidelines for Children and Young People
$77,055
Woolcott Research Pty Ltd
40 Gloucester Street
THE ROCKS
NSW 2000
National Alcohol Campaign parent omnibus survey February 2004 with approx. 444 parents of 13-16 year olds
$25,304
Woolcott Research Pty Ltd
40 Gloucester Street
THE ROCKS
NSW 2000
Evaluate the World AIDS Day 2004 campaign through national representative telephone omnibus research conducted with the general population, with age and gender quotas applied in regional and capital cities, prior and after the launch of World AIDS Day on 1 December 2004.
$13,662
Woolcott Research Pty Ltd
40 Gloucester Street
THE ROCKS
NSW 2000
Assess attitudes, opinions and behaviours that influenced participation and non-participation in the Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot. The Study also evaluated reactions to pilot materials including the invitation letter, participation form and test kits.
$178,409
Note: This list does not include internally conducted staff surveys.
Agency engagements
Company Name
Address
Purpose
Cost (Incl GST)
NFO Donovan Research
65 Canberra Avenue
GRIFFITH
ACT 2603
Survey to assess the understanding and use of food label information in food selection decisions made by the main grocery buyer in a household when shopping for foods for consumption by those who are ‘at risk’ of adverse or allergic reactions to food. (FSANZ)
$17,015
Roy Morgan Research
GPO Box 2282U
MELBOURNE
VIC 3001
As part of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) Evaluation Strategy 2001-2003, research to assess the impact of implementing the Code (FSANZ 2001) through a study using the 1994 research as baseline data on Australians dietary exposure to intense sweeteners.
$63,140
TNS Social Research
65 Canberra Avenue
GRIFFITH
ACT 2603
Qualitative research undertaken in conjunction with the development of Proposal P293 (nutrition, health and related claims) and the representative sample of adults aged 18 years and over selected based on responsibility for food purchase, and varying levels of health consciousness. (FSANZ)
$94,424
TNS Social Research
(formerly NFO Donovan Research)
65 Canberra Avenue
GRIFFITH
ACT 2603
Survey to assess the understanding and use of food label information in food selection decisions made by the main grocery buyer in a household when shopping for foods for consumption by those at risk of adverse or allergic reactions to food. (FSANZ)
$44,708
Westwood Spice
65 Darling Street
EAST BALMAIN
NSW 2041
Focus groups and surveys conducted as part of independent review of Aged Care Standards & Accreditation Agency (ACSAA) performance during Round 2 accreditation
$68,722
Asylum Seekers
133
133
1246
133
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
0
Mr Laurie Ferguson
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 10 May 2005:
-
What is the Minister’s response to the report Language Policy by five Australian linguists (D. Eades, H. Fraser, J. Siegel, T. McNamara, and B. Baker) published in 2003 which casts serious doubt on the assumptions and methods used by the companies, Eqvator and Sprakab, which are contracted by the Government to produce language analysis reports to assist with the determination of claims for refugee status.
-
What is the Minister’s response to the set of guidelines for the use of language analysis in relation to questions of national origin issued by an international group of linguists – Language and National Origin Group (2004) – and published in the International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law in 2004.
-
How does the Government justify the continued use of Eqvator and Sprakab in the investigation of the nationality claims of asylum seekers.
-
What is the cost of a language analysis report from (a) Eqvator and (b) Sprakab.
-
What sum has DIMIA spent on these reports in the last 12 months.
-
What investigations have been undertaken by the Department to ascertain more reliable means of verifying nationality claims of asylum seekers.
133
Cobb, John, MP
00AN1
Parkes
NATS
Minister for Community Services
1
Mr John Cobb
—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
The agencies used by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) for language analysis are amongst a small group of specialised agencies in the world which provide this service to countries conducting refugee status assessments.
In Australia, language analysis results are not determinative of nationality and decision makers have to weigh up all available information when reaching their conclusions about the origins of visa applicants.
The weight which decision makers give to language analysis results will depend on the circumstances of each individual case. Historically the overwhelming majority of language analysis results has helped to substantiate the claims made by visa applicants about their origins in circumstances where there is usually no other independent information to support their claims. In this regard the claimed Afghan boat arrival caseload was the overwhelming focus of language analysis in protection visa processing by the Department. Some 85% of that caseload was granted protection visas by the Department in the first instance.
The two agencies currently used by DIMIA for language analysis are amongst a small group of specialised agencies in the world which provide a relevant service.
-
The ideas set out in the document, where these are relevant to Australia, appear to be broadly consistent with the approach followed by the Department and review tribunals in relation to visa processing. The document places emphasis on the analysts holding particular personal academic qualifications. The language analysis agencies used by Australia in relation to protection visa processing place importance on formal qualifications but also apply broader institutional methodologies in relation to skill and competency maintenance and, importantly, quality assurance and empirical testing of analysts.
-
See answer to part (1).
-
The average costs of a language analysis report from:
-
Eqvator – $1133.
-
Sprakab – $686.
-
The total cost of language analysis checks commissioned in the 12 months to 31 October 2005 was $24,363.
-
DIMIA is always open to opportunities to obtain information which might assist in visa decision making.
Media Monitoring and Clipping Services
134
134
1278
134
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 11 May 2005:
-
What sum was spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the Minister’s office in (a) 2002-2003, (b) 2003-2004, and (c) 2004-2005.
-
What was the name and postal addresses of each media monitoring company engaged by the Minister’s office.
134
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr Truss
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
I am advised that the follow amounts were spent on media monitoring and clipping services by the former Minister for Transport and Regional Services:
Year
2002 - 2003
2003 - 2004
2004 – 2005
$
$20,252.43
$15,345.82
$21,590.25
-
The name and address of each media company engaged to provide media monitoring and clipping services are:
Media Monitors Australia Pty Limited
PO Box 2110
STRAWBERRY HILLS NSW 2012
Rehame Australia Monitoring Services Pty Limited
PO Box 537
PORT MELBOURNE VIC 3207
Media Monitoring and Clipping Services
135
135
1303
135
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 11 May 2005:
-
What sum was spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio in (a) 2002-2003, (b) 2003-2004, and (c) 2004-2005 to date.
-
Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio order newspaper clippings, television appearance transcripts or videos, radio transcripts or tapes on behalf of the Minister’s office in:
-
2004 and (b) 2005; if so, what sum was spent by the department or agency on providing this service.
135
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr Truss
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Refer to table below.
Year
Amount
2002-2003
$684,612*
2003-2004
$930,230*
2004-2005
$1,127,084*
* These amounts include the Department of Transport and Regional Services and the portfolio agencies: Civil Aviation Safety Authority, National Capital Authority, Airservices Australia and Australian Maritime Safety Authority.
Note: Daily clips are provided to the following Government Members and Senators; Mr Warren Truss, Mr Jim Lloyd, Mr John Anderson and Mr Paul Neville, and the following Opposition Members and Senators; Mr Simon Crean, Mr Arch Bevis and Senator Kerry O’Brien.
-
and (b) The Department paid the following media surveillance cost for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.
Year
Amount
2003-2004
$15,346
2004-2005
$21,590
Advertising Agencies
135
135
1787
135
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 23 June 2005:
-
Will the Minister provide a list of advertising agencies which are used by the department and the agencies in the Minister’s portfolio.
-
What sum was paid to each advertising agency used by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005.
135
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:
Australian Bureau of Statistics
-
and (2) Nil
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
-
and (2) Nil
Australian Office of Financial Management
During the financial years 2003-04 and 2004-05 the AOFM did not use any advertising agencies apart from HMA Blaze, in their role as the government non-campaign media placement agency.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
Advertising agencies used by APRA in 2003-2004 and/or 2004‑2005, together with the amounts paid, are detailed below:
Amount paid in $
Name of agency
2003-04
2004-05
Hobsons Australia Pty
10,100
Hudson Global Resource
22,996
375
Seek Communications Ltd
19,000
27,700
TMP Worldwide
176,025
553,125
Total
218,021
591,300
Australian Securities & Investments Commission
-
and (2) Nil
Australian Taxation Office
-
and (2) I refer you to the Commissioner of Taxation’s 2003-04 annual report, Appendix 5, page 317.
Required details for financial year 2004-05 will be tabled in Appendix 5 of the 2004-05 Commissioner of Taxation Annual Report on or before 31 Oct 05.
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee
-
and (2) Nil
Inspector-General of Taxation
-
and (2) Nil
National Competition Council
-
and (2) Nil
Productivity Commission
-
and (2) Nil
Treasury
Advertising agencies used by the Department of the Treasury in 2003-2004 and/or 2004‑2005, together with the amounts paid, are detailed below:
Advertising Agency
2003-2004 ($)
2004-2005 ($)
Hobsons Australia
6,545
6,200
Starcom Worldwide (Australia) Pty Limited
4,712
-
Whybin TBWA Pty Limited
68,200
-
Worthington Dimarzio
9,680
-
Total
89,137
6,200
Advertising Agencies
137
137
1795
137
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 23 June 2005:
-
Will the Minister provide a list of advertising agencies which are used by the department and the agencies in the Minister’s portfolio.
-
What sum was paid to each advertising agency used by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005.
137
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
and (2)
Advertising Company
$
Financial Year
Coo’ee Brisbane
LEBA Advertising (Aust) Pty Ltd
Avviso Pty Ltd
Initiative Media Advertising Australia Pty Ltd
LEBA Advertising (Aust) Pty Ltd
129,000
21,290
1,750
88,149
43,175
2003-2004
2003-2004
2003-2004
2004-2005
2004-2005
Advertising Agencies
137
137
1798
137
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 23 June 2005:
-
Will the Minister provide a list of advertising agencies which are used by the department and the agencies in the Minister’s portfolio.
-
What sum was paid to each advertising agency used by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005.
137
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (2) Yes, the list of advertising agencies used by the Department and Tourism Australia in 2003-04 and 2004-05, and the amounts paid to each are listed below. No advertising agencies were used by Geoscience Australia, IP Australia and the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority. (This list does not include media placement agencies, central placement agencies and associated costs.)
Department of Industry Tourism and Resources
Year
Name
$ Amount (excl GST)
2003-04
Radiowise Media Networks Pty Ltd
3,800.00
2004-05
Zzarg Advertising
5,626.36
2004-05
Clarity Communications
39,015.00
Tourism Australia
Year
Name
$ Amount (excl GST)
2003-04
Whybin Lawrence TBWA (Australia)
780,684.54
2003-04
Brand Architecture (Australia)
36,448.27
2003-04
TBWA Hong Kong Ltd (Asia)
532,539.89
2003-04
Yomiko Advertising Inc (Japan)
9,925.46
2003-04
Dailey & Associates (USA)
652,560.40
2003-04
Blackwood King & Partners (New Zealand)
79,399.70
2003-04
Delaney Lund Knox Warren and Partners (Europe)
1,364,194.59
2004-05
Brand Architecture (Australia)
74,500.00
2004-05
George Patterson Partners (Australia)
484,201.02
2004-05
Colenso BBDO Limited (New Zealand)
212,014.13
2004-05
TBWA Hong Kong Ltd (Asia)
579,358.49
2004-05
DAIKO Advertising Inc (Japan)
461,861.29
2004-05
Dailey & Associates (Americas)
646,868.56
2004-05
Grey Advertising Ltd (Europe)
1,059,522.18
Advertising Agencies
138
138
1800
138
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 23 June 2005:
-
Will the Minister provide a list of advertising agencies which are used by the department and the agencies in the Minister’s portfolio.
-
What sum was paid to each advertising agency used by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005.
138
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGauran
—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Department - Regional Telecommunications Campaign
-
M&C Saatchi
-
-
$749,825.89
-
$76,039.10
NetAlert
-
Clemenger Tasmania
-
-
Nil
-
$40,988.77
Telstra
-
Boiler Room
Belgiovanne Willaims Mackay
Clemenger BBDO
Foot Cone & Belding
Nitro Group
Singleton Ogilvy & Mather
Young & Rubicam
Clemenger Proximity
George Patterson Partners
Publicis Mojo
Singleton Ogilvy One
Simon Richards Group
Ethnic Communications
The Next Group
The Paragon Design Group & Linc Inc
Spark Brand Communications
The White Agency
That Works
Edit Media
Regional Reach
Trademark DM
-
and (b) The amounts that Telstra spends on advertising and promoting its products and services, even at aggregate levels, are commercially sensitive. It would be of potentially significant commercial value to Telstra’s competitors if they could access this information. For example, access to this information would allow competitors to revise their own level of spending on advertising so that they could match or exceed Telstra’s expenditure. Also by providing an aggregate amount of Telstra’s promotional spend, Telstra’s competitors could obtain a reasonably good understanding of the split between Telstra’s advertising spend (which has been estimated by external organisations) relative to Telstra’s spend on direct mail and telemarketing. Such knowledge could put those competitors in a position to compete unfairly with Telstra in circumstances where they are not obliged to make reciprocal disclosure of the amounts they spend for the same purpose. Exposing Telstra to such inequitable detriment would prejudice Telstra’s commercial interests and thereby the interests of its stakeholder owners, whether private shareholders or, through the Commonwealth’s shareholding, Australian taxpayers.
Australia Post
-
Singleton Ogilvy & Mather
Peach Advertising
Mercer Bell
Boomerang
Publicis Dialogue (Publicis Mojo)
Cartwright and Williams (iLeo)
Singleton Ogilvy One
Lavender
Communicado
Clemenger Harvie Edge
Simon Richards Group
Rapp Collins Australia
Draft (Low Hunt)
-
-
$5.2m
-
$4.1m The amount paid to individual advertising agencies is considered commercial‑in‑confidence.
National Museum of Australia
-
Zoo Creative
Jack Watts Currie
The Couch
Young and Rubicam
-
Zoo Creative, $177,632
Jack Watts Currie, $224,863
The Couch, $88,079
Australia Council
-
Lowe Hunt
Initiative Media
Jack Watts Currie
-
Lowe Hunt, $392,845
Initiative Media, $44,000
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
-
Mitchell Media
HOST
Glue Society (via HOST)
Kastner and Partners
Lowe Hunt Lintas
-
Mitchell Media, $12,367
HOST, $36,370
Glue Society, $56,800
Kastner and Partners, $8,130
Special Broadcasting Service
-
Brown Melhuish Fishlock
Razor Connection
-
-
Brown Melhuish Fishlock $490,871
-
Razor Connection Pty Ltd $403,171
Brown Melhuish Fishlock $194,096
Advertising Agencies
141
141
1801
141
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 23 June 2005:
-
Will the Minister provide a list of advertising agencies which are used by the department and the agencies in the Minister’s portfolio.
-
What sum was paid to each advertising agency used by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005.
141
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr Truss
—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
There are no panel arrangements for advertising agencies in my portfolio and such agencies are rarely used.
-
-
Zoo Communications: $139,546
-
Singleton, Ogilvy and Mather: $137,656.09
KWP Pty Ltd: $280,000.00
Minister for Justice and Customs
141
141
2177
141
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 18 August 2005:
-
Has the Minister received any training, coaching or assistance in public speaking or voice projection at public expense since the Minister took office; if so, what was the cost of this training.
-
What is the name and postal address of the individual or organisation(s) which provided the training.
141
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Commonwealth Funded Programs
141
141
2253
141
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
Ms Grierson
asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 6 September 2005:
-
Does the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle can apply for funding; if so, what are the details.
-
Are the programs identified in part (1) advertised; if so, in respect of each program (a) what print and other media outlets have been used to advertise it and (b) were these paid advertisements.
-
In respect of each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), (a) what is its purpose and (b) who is responsible for allocating funds.
-
With respect to each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) businesses and (c) individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle received funding in (i) 2003-2004 and (ii) 2004-2005.
-
What sum of Commonwealth funding did each recipient receive in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005 and what are their names and addresses.
142
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr Truss
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (3) Yes. Details of programs administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Services are available in the Department’s Portfolio Budget Statements, its Annual Reports and their website http://www.dotars.gov.au.
-
Yes. Programs are promoted via the Department’s website http://www.dotars.gov.au, and Grantslink http://www.grantslink.gov.au. Programs available to regional Australia are also promoted via the Australian Government Regional Information Service (AGRIS). The AGRIS provides a call centre service and information directories that provide Australians living in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia with information on over 650 Australian government programs, services and initiatives. Details of the services AGRIS provides can be found on the AGRIS website http://www.regionalaustralia.gov.au.
The Regional Partnerships program is also promoted through the Area Consultative Committee (ACC) network. ACCs promote the Regional Partnerships program and their own activities in a variety of forms through their local media, some of which are paid advertisements. Information on ACCs is available on the ACC website http://www.acc.gov.au.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) Aviation Research Grant program is advertised in selected major newspapers, industry and campus magazines and on the ATSB website http://www.atsb.gov.au. All external advertisements are paid advertisements.
The ATSB Road Safety Research Grant program is advertised in selected major newspapers and on the ATSB website. All external advertisements are paid advertisements.
-
and (5) For the electorate of Newcastle, the following funding was approved under the Regional Partnerships Program during 2003-04 and 2004-05:
HunterNet Co-operative Limited
$71,500 approved in 2003/2004
Model for Action Stage II
Shortland Wetlands Centre
$10,709 approved in 2003/2004
Gateway Plan for the Wetlands Centre
Royal Blind Society
$21,663 approved in 2004/2005
Children’s Services Centre, Sensory Play Area & Hearing Loop
The Wetlands Centre
$87,940 approved in 2004/2005
Gateway Marketing Concept for Lower Hunter Estuary
Domestic and Overseas Air Travel
143
143
2436
143
Quick, Harry, MP
AV5
Franklin
ALP
0
Mr Quick
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 11 October 2005:
-
For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on domestic and international air travel.
-
For 2004-2005, what proportion of domestic air travel by employees of the Minister’s department was provided by (a) Qantas, (b) Regional Express, and (c) Virgin Blue.
-
For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on domestic air travel provided by (i) Qantas, (ii) Regional Express, and (iii) Virgin Blue.
-
For 2004-2005, what sum was spent by the Minister’s department on (a) economy and (b) business class travel on (i) domestic routes and (ii) international routes.
-
For 2004-2005, what proportion of the expenditure on air travel by the Minister’s department was on the domestic route (a) Sydney to Canberra, (b) Melbourne to Canberra, (c) Sydney to Melbourne, (d) Sydney to Brisbane, (e) Melbourne to Hobart or Launceston, and (f) Sydney to Perth.
-
For 2004-2005, how many employees of the Minister’s department had membership of the (a) Qantas Chairman’s Lounge, (b) Qantas Club, (c) Regional Express Membership Lounge, and (d) Virgin Blue’s Blue Room paid for by the department.
-
Which company provides travel management services to the Minister’s department.
143
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
2004-05 Departmental Air Travel Expenses
Travel
$
Domestic
10,476,421
Overseas
1,887,839
Total
12,364,260
Note: The above table provides details of travel undertaken by the Department of Health and Ageing including Therapeutic Goods Administration and CRS Australia (to 26 October 2004).
-
2004-05 Domestic Air Carrier Usage.
Carrier
%
(a) Qantas and subsidiaries
92.3
(b) Regional Express
2.0
(c) Virgin Blue
3.2
Other
2.5
Total
100.0
Note: Travel sector information has been used to calculate percentages.
The above table includes travel for employees, committee members and others.
-
2004-05 Domestic Air Travel Expenses by Airline
Carrier
$
(i) Qantas and subsidiaries
9,932,353
(ii) Regional Express
150,444
(iii) Virgin Blue
219,936
Total
10,302,733
Note: The above table includes travel for employees, committee members and others.
-
Domestic, International, Economy and Business Class Travel Expenses
Class
(i) Domestic
$
(ii) Overseas
$
Total
$
(a) Economy class airfares
7,983,610
329,832
8,313,442
(b) Business class airfares
2,492,811
1,544,071
4,036,882
Total
10,476,421
1,873,903
12,350,324
-
2004-05 Departmental Air Travel by Route
Route
2004-05
%
(a) Sydney to Canberra and Canberra to Sydney
15.3
(b) Melbourne to Canberra and Canberra to Melbourne
17.4
(c) Sydney to Melbourne and Melbourne to Sydney
5.3
(d) Sydney to Brisbane and Brisbane to Sydney
3.4
(e) Melbourne to Hobart and Hobart to Melbourne
1.4
(f) Sydney to Perth and Perth to Sydney
3.7
Other
53.5
Total
100.0
Note: Without diverting significant resources, the department is unable to answer one way sector travel for the destinations shown above.
-
2004-05 Airline Lounge Membership
-
There were no Qantas Chairman’s Lounge memberships paid by the Department in 2004-05.
-
There were 45 Qantas Club memberships paid by the Department (excluding CRS Australia) in 2004-05.
-
There were no lounge memberships paid by the Department for the Regional Express Lounge during 2004-05.
-
There were no lounge memberships paid by the Department for Virgin Blue’s Blue Room during 2004-05.
-
Qantas Business Travel provides travel management services to the Department of Health and Ageing.
Anti-Vehicle Land Mines
144
144
2640
144
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 28 November 2005:
-
In respect of anti-vehicle mines, would he update the answer to question No. 442 (Hansard, 15 March 2005, page 90).
144
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
None.
-
There are no international measures involving states currently under development to ban anti-vehicle mines (AVMs). The majority of countries do not support such a ban. Australia strongly supports efforts by states parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) to address the humanitarian concerns caused by AVMs which persist after the cessation of conflict. Discussion continues on negotiation of a protocol restricting the use of AVMs by requiring all AVMs to be detectable and all remotely-delivered AVMs to be engineered to self-destruct, self-neutralise and self-deactivate within a set timeframe.
National Security: Terrorism
145
145
2641
145
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 28 November 2005:
Would he update the answers to question Nos 2443 and 2444 (Hansard, 6 November 2003, page 22447).
145
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
There have been no new cases in which assets have been frozen under the Charter of the United Nations (Terrorism and Dealings with Assets) Regulations 2002 since I answered Mr McClelland’s question Nos 2443 and 2444, nor have there been any assets unfrozen during that period.
Iran
145
145
2680
145
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
Mr Danby
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 28 November 2005:
-
Has he seen the reported comments by Brigadier-General Mohammad Kossari, head of the Security Bureau of the Iranian Armed Forces, that Iran has ready martyrdom-seeking individuals who are ready to strike at Iran’s enemies.
-
Is it the Government’s assessment that this statement is confirmation that the Iranian regime is supporting suicide bombing as a political tactic.
-
Does he have information on Iranian involvement in suicide bombing attacks.
-
Has he seen further comments by Brigadier-General Kossari that enemies of a nuclear Iran could not do a damn thing to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.
-
What part is Australia taking in international efforts to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.
-
What was the value of Australian trade with Iran in the most recent year for which statistics are available.
-
What is the Government’s response to the view that Australia should apply trade sanctions to Iran if it proceeds with the development of nuclear weapons.
145
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (4) Yes.
-
and (3) The Government has not seen any information suggesting that such operations have been carried out. Statements such as those made by Brigadier-General Kossari appear to be intended as a tactic by some in Iran to threaten retaliation if international pressure on the nuclear issue increases.
-
As a member of the IAEA Board of Governors, Australia has played an important part in international efforts aimed at preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. Since September 2003, Australia has supported and helped secure a series of IAEA Board resolutions on Iran. These resolutions have included calls for Iran both to cooperate with the IAEA in its investigations to determine the nature of Iran’s nuclear activities, and to maintain and re-establish full suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as Iran committed to do in the context of negotiations with the EU3 (UK, France, Germany) on a long-term agreement. Most recently, Resolution GOV/2005/77 of 24 September 2005 found Iran in non-compliance of its NPT Safeguards Agreement and foreshadowed reporting Iran to the UN Security Council.
I (Mr Downer) have taken regular opportunities to impress on Iran Australia’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities and our expectations that Iran cooperate fully and immediately with the IAEA.
-
Australia’s total merchandise trade with Iran (exports + imports) in 2004-05 was A$193 million, which comprised exports to Iran of A$169 million and imports from Iran of A$24 million.
-
Australia is working with its partners on the IAEA Board of Governors, including the EU3 (UK, France and Germany) to encourage Iran to cooperate fully and immediately with the IAEA and to provide assurances that its nuclear activities are for exclusively peaceful purposes.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
146
146
2682
146
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
Mr Melham
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 28 November 2005:
-
Further to the answer to question No. 2099 (Hansard, 10 October 2005, page 112), did the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enter into force on 23 March 1976.
-
Did Australia ratify the Covenant on 13 August 1980.
-
When, where and with what result has Australia held discussions with Singapore concerning Singapore becoming a party to the Covenant.
-
Did the 1966 Optional Protocol to the Covenant also enter into force on 23 March 1976.
-
Did Australia accede to the Optional Protocol on 25 September 1991.
-
When, where and with what result has Australia held discussions with Singapore concerning Singapore becoming a party to the Optional Protocol.
-
Did the 1989 Second Optional Protocol on the Covenant Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty enter into force on 11 July 1991.
-
Had Australia acceded to the Second Optional Protocol on 2 October 1990.
-
When, where and with what result has Australia held discussions with Singapore concerning Singapore becoming a party to the Second Optional Protocol.
-
Did Australia on 28 January 1993 declare acceptance of Article 41 of the Covenant.
-
When, where and with what result has Australia held discussions with Singapore about Article 41 of the Covenant.
146
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes, except for Article 41 which entered into force on 28 March 1979.
-
Yes.
-
Australia co-sponsors relevant resolutions at the Commission on Human Rights and in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly that strongly appeal to all states that have not yet done so to become parties to the International Covenants on Human Rights, including the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
-
As the only states which can become a party to the Optional Protocol are those which are a party to the Covenant, the question of raising the Optional Protocol with Singapore does not arise.
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
-
As the only states which can become a party to the Optional Protocol are those which are a party to the Covenant, the question of raising the Optional Protocol with Singapore does not arise. Australia’s long-standing opposition to the death penalty is well known. Singapore maintains a position of support for capital punishment. Australia has traditionally co-sponsored resolutions at the Commission on Human Rights that call upon states that have not yet done so to abolish the death penalty and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions. Australia has also co-sponsored related resolutions in the Third Committee of the General Assembly.
-
On 28 January 1993, the Government of Australia declared that it recognised the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications under Article 41 of the Covenant.
-
As only States Parties to the Covenant may make declarations under Article 41, the question of raising Article 41 with Singapore does not arise.
Western Sahara
147
147
2683
147
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
Mr Albanese
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 28 November 2005:
Does Australia recognise the sovereignty of Morocco over the non-self-governing territory of Western Sahara.
147
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Australia is aware of the competing claims over the territory of Western Sahara. Australia supports an early and durable political settlement on the Western Sahara that is acceptable to all directly interested parties and supports the earliest possible holding of a referendum to allow the population of the Western Sahara to exercise its right to self determination, so long as that remains the only process fully endorsed by the United Nations for resolving the dispute. A UN-sponsored referendum would provide a clear indication of the wishes of the population of Western Sahara.
National Security: Terrorism
147
147
2746
147
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
0
Mr Tanner
asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 30 November 2005:
-
When did any of the police or security services (ASIO, ASIS, ONA, AFP, State police services) first request the Government to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 along the lines of amendments put to the Parliament on 2 November 2005 in the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005.
-
On what date was the most recent request of this kind made to the Government by any of the police forces or security agencies.
-
Prior to the Prime Minister’s announcement of these amendments, did the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General or any other Minister conduct a meeting with the heads of all security agencies to co-ordinate the approach to be taken in respect of the announcement.
-
Is it normal practice to convene a meeting of the heads of all security agencies when a government announcement is being made that may affect a security operation.
-
Was the timing of the raids which led to the arrest of numerous terrorism suspects in Melbourne and Sydney brought forward as a result of the Prime Minister’s announcement.
147
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The answer to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:
-
to (4) The issue of the specificity of the terrorist offences in the Criminal Code had been raised in various contexts for some months prior to the legislative amendments. The Government commissioned a review of counter-terrorism laws after the London bombing which included whether amendments were needed to the terrorist act offences. This work was progressed through normal Government processes, including the involvement of intelligence and law enforcement agencies, over July – November 2005.
Setting legislative priorities is a balancing act which can be rapidly modified by changing events. The London bombing on 7 July 2005 was such an event. After the bombing there was an opportunity to bring the amendments forward as part of the Anti-Terrorism Bill after the Government received specific intelligence and police information about a potential terrorist threat. The Government was satisfied on the advice provided to it that the immediate passage of the bill would strengthen the capacity of law enforcement agencies to effectively respond to the threat.
The Prime Minister and other relevant Ministers have ongoing dialogues on law enforcement and national security issues with the relevant agencies.
-
No.
BHP Billiton
148
148
2758
148
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
0
Ms Bird
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 1 December 2005:
-
Has the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) been approached by Mr John Edwin Pink regarding BHP Billiton and concerns about the company’s share price.
-
What action has ASIC taken on Mr Pink’s concerns.
-
Is it a requirement that questions put by a shareholder at a company annual general meeting must be answered by the relevant company executive.
148
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
ASIC advises that Mr Pink first approached ASIC in May 2001 raising his concerns about a fall in the BHP share price in 1997. ASIC advises that Mr Pink’s concerns were also referred to it by the NSW Attorney General’s Department in November 2001.
-
ASIC advises that it assessed Mr Pink’s concerns, both at the time of his initial complaint and following the referral from the NSW Attorney General’s Department. ASIC concluded that the facts identified by Mr Pink did not support his allegations of wrongdoing. Accordingly, ASIC did not take any further action in regard to Mr Pink’s allegations.
-
Section 250S of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Corporations Act) requires the chair of an annual general meeting (AGM) to allow reasonable opportunity for the members as a whole at the meeting to ask questions about, or make comments on, the management of the company.
Under section 250T of the Corporations Act, the chair must also allow reasonable opportunity for members as a whole at the meeting to ask the auditor questions relevant to the audit and the preparation and content of the auditor’s report. Further, section 250PA allows a member of a listed company who is entitled to vote at the AGM to submit a written question to the auditor prior to the AGM.
Universities
148
148
2783
148
Gibbons, Steve, MP
83X
Bendigo
ALP
0
Mr Gibbons
asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 5 December 2005:
-
Are universities required to follow rules on the use of funds provided (a) for Commonwealth Supported Places and (b) from Student Contributions; if so, (i) do the rules preclude the use of the funds for teaching or recruiting international or full fee students and (ii) how does his department (DEST) monitor compliance.
-
In respect of overseas trips made by the Vice-Chancellor of La Trobe University in (a) 2002, (b) 2003, (c) 2004, and (d) the period 1 January to 30 June 2005, what was the (i) duration of each trip, (ii) duration of each leg of each overseas trip, and (iii) principal purpose of each leg of each overseas trip.
-
In respect of overseas trips made by the Vice-Chancellor of La Trobe University in (a) 2002, (b) 2003, (c) 2004, and (d) the period 1 January to 30 June 2005, (a) what sum was spent on each overseas trip including air fares, accommodation, and entertainment, and (b) was the Vice-Chancellor accompanied by any other University employee; if so, (i) did any other employee pay any costs of any function at which the Vice-Chancellor was present and for any accommodation; if so, what sum or sums were paid.
-
Did the University assign the costs identified in part (3) to funds sourced from DEST and other funds; if so, what amount and proportion of the sum spent on each trip was paid from each source.
-
Does the University pay the Vice-Chancellor’s salary from funds sourced exclusively from DEST; if not, from what source or sources was the Vice-Chancellor’s salary funded for (a) 2002, (b) 2003, (c) 2004, and (d) the period 1 January to 30 June 2005.
149
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
Ms Julie Bishop
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Universities may use the funds they receive for Commonwealth supported places through the Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS) and from student contributions for their general operations subject to compliance with the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) and guidelines made under the Act.
Guidelines made under HESA require higher education providers to charge fee-paying overseas students a tuition fee that is sufficient to recover the full cost of delivering a course.
My Department monitors compliance with the legislative provisions in HESA, including through the data submitted by providers as part of the Student Data Collection, the Audited Financial Statements and the Institutional Assessment Framework.
-
, (4), (5) La Trobe University, like all Australian universities, is an autonomous institution; as such it is not required to provide the information referred to in Questions (2) and (3) to the Australian Government. According to La Trobe University accounts for 2004/05, the university received 61.5 per cent of its total operating revenue from Australian Government sources (including HECS). The costs referred to by the Member are not sourced in the University’s accounts to individual lines of income.
The manner in which each university utilises Commonwealth funding is conditional on each university complying with the quality and accountability requirements, in accordance with Section 19 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The quality and accountability measures require all higher education providers, including La Trobe University, to present a financial statement annually to my Department, verifying that they are, and are likely to remain, financially viable. These financial statements do not require individual expenditure items to be matched to sources of revenue. Universities’ financial statements are audited by the relevant State Government under whose legislation the University is constituted and governed.
My Department is not supplied with to the details of an individual university’s financial and travel accounts. La Trobe University’s governing council has publicly stated its intention to conduct an independent audit of travel by all senior management staff.
Military Detention: Mr David Hicks
149
149
2788 and 2789
149
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 5 December 2005:
-
On what date did the United States Government (a) capture and (b) charge Mr David Hicks.
-
For what period has Mr Hicks been imprisoned by the United States Government at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
-
Is Mr Hicks entitled to the presumption of innocence.
-
What is he doing to ensure Mr Hicks receives a fair trial.
150
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
-
Mr Hicks was captured by Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan in early December 2001. He was handed into United States custody by the Northern Alliance. I do not know the exact date that occurred.
-
Mr Hicks was charged on 10 June 2004.
-
Mr Hicks was transferred to Guantanamo Bay in January 2002.
-
Yes.
-
The Government has consistently urged the United States to ensure Mr Hicks’ trial proceeds as expeditiously as possible. The Government has had discussions with the United States administration regarding the Military Commission system. The Government obtained additional commitments relating to Australian detainees which will apply to Mr Hicks’ case. Those commitments include the following:
- Based upon the specific facts of his case, the United States has assured Australia that it will not seek the death penalty in Mr Hicks’ case.
- Australia and the United States agreed to work towards putting arrangements in place to transfer Mr Hicks to Australia, if convicted, to serve any penal sentence in Australia in accordance with Australian and United States laws.
- Conversations between Mr Hicks and his lawyers will not be monitored by the United States.
- The prosecution in Mr Hicks’ case does not intend to rely on evidence in its case-in-chief requiring closed proceedings from which Mr Hicks could be excluded.
- Subject to any necessary security restrictions, Mr Hicks’ trial will be open, the media will be present and Australian officials may observe the proceedings.
- The Australian Government may make submissions to the Review Panel which would review Mr Hicks’ Military Commission trial.
- Should Mr Hicks choose to retain an Australian lawyer with appropriate security clearances as a consultant to his legal team, that person may have direct face-to-face communications with their client.
- Mr Hicks may talk to his family via telephone and two family members are permitted to attend his trial.
- An independent legal expert sanctioned by the Australian Government may observe the trial of Mr Hicks.
Following the preliminary hearing in August 2004, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I instructed officials to seek some improvements to some operational and procedural aspects of the Military Commission process. A number of improvements, including to the rules of procedure, have occurred since then and the Government will continue to monitor the process.
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
150
150
2801
150
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
Mr Melham
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 December 2005:
-
In respect of the communiqué of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held in Malta from 25 to 27 November 2005, what specific representations has the Australian Government made to encourage other Commonwealth Member States to (a) accede to and effectively implement the United Nations Conventions and Protocols related to terrorism, (b) support the conclusion of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism during the sixtieth session of the United Nations General Assembly and support the early entry into force of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, (c) follow steps outlined in the Commonwealth Plan of Action on terrorism and to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) and relevant UN and other international resolutions, conventions and standards aimed at combating terrorism, (d) support reform of the United Nations including the expansion of the Security Council, (e) support the strengthening of the United Nations Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons, (f) prevent the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict and to take measures to ensure accountability by those responsible for abuse against children and to prohibit and criminalise such practices and assist affected children, (g) adopt and implement the guidelines for Public Financial Management Reform considered by the Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Barbados in September 2005, (h) implement the recommendations of the Report of the Commonwealth Expert Group on the Recovery and Repatriation of Assets of Illicit Origin, (i) support the full implementation of the 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime, (j) meet obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and to implement their commitments under Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI), and (k) implement the new Commonwealth Plan of Action for Gender Equality 2005-2015.
-
Which Commonwealth countries have not acceded to the United Nations Conventions and Protocols related to terrorism.
151
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Australia was actively involved in negotiations to draft the communiqué of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) held in Malta from 25 to 27 November 2005. The final communiqué was endorsed by all CHOGM delegation heads, including the Prime Minister. To prepare a more detailed response would entail a significant diversion of resources and in the circumstances I do not consider the additional work can be justified.
-
This information is available through the United Nations Treaty Collection (http://untreaty.un.org), which can be accessed through the Parliamentary Library.
Defence: Visiting Warships
151
151
2805
151
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
Mr Melham
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 December 2005:
In respect of each visit to an Australian port by a United States Navy or Royal Navy vessel since 30 June 2005, (a) what was the name of the visiting vessel, (b) what was the type or class of the vessel, (c) was the vessel nuclear powered, (d) which Australian port did the vessel visit, and (e) what were the dates of arrival and departure from the port.
151
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
United States Navy
Ship Name
Class
Nuclear
Powered
Port Visited
Arrival Date
Departure Date
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(e)
USAV
Joint Venture
High Speed Vessel
No
Townsville
20 Jun 05
1 Jul 05
USNS
Guadalupe
Oiler
No
Sydney
29 Jun 05
1 Jul 05
USS
Blue Ridge
Command Ship
No
Brisbane
30 Jun 05
5 Jul 05
USS
Vandegrift
Guided Missile Frigate
No
Brisbane
1 Jul 05
5 Jul 05
USS
Fitzgerald
Guided Missile Destroyer
No
Hobart
1 Jul 05
5 Jul 05
USNS
Flint
Ammunition Ship
No
Cairns
1 Jul 05
5 Jul 05
USS
Key West
Submarine
Yes
Brisbane
1 Jul 05
9 Jul 05
USS
O’Kane
Guided Missile Destroyer
No
Darwin
2 Jul 05
3 Jul 05
USS
Mustin
Guided Missile Destroyer
No
Darwin
2 Jul 05
6 Jul 05
USNS
Guadalupe
Oiler
No
Sydney
3 Jul 05
7 Jul 05
USS
Cowpens
Guided Missile Cruiser
No
Sydney
3 Jul 05
8 Jul 05
USS
Kitty Hawk
Aircraft Carrier
No
Sydney
3 Jul 05
8 Jul 05
USS
John Paul Jones
Guided Missile Destroyer
No
Sydney
3 Jul 05
8 Jul 05
USS
O’Kane
Guided Missile Destroyer
No
Brisbane
10 Jul 05
15 Jul 05
USS
Ingraham
Guided Missile Frigate
No
Broome
15 Aug 05
19 Aug 05
USS
Pearl Harbor
Amphibious Transport Ship
No
Darwin
15 Aug 05
21 Aug 05
USS
Tarawa
Amphibious Assault Ship
No
Darwin
15 Aug 05
21 Aug 05
USS
Cleveland
Amphibious Transport Ship
No
Darwin
15 Aug 05
21 Aug 05
USS
Houston
Submarine
Yes
HMAS Stirling
16 Aug 05
19 Aug 05
USS
Ingraham
Guided Missile Frigate
No
Darwin
20 Aug 05
26 Aug 05
USS
Houston
Submarine
Yes
HMAS Stirling
26 Aug 05
5 Sep 05
USS
Rodney M. Davis
Guided Missile Frigate
No
Darwin
29 Aug 05
3 Sep 05
USNS
Concord
Combat Stores Ship
No
Darwin
9 Sep 05
13 Sep 05
USS
Houston
Submarine
Yes
HMAS Stirling
9 Sep 05
21 Sep 05
USS
Houston
Submarine
Yes
HMAS Stirling
23 Sep 05
28 Sep 05
USS
Princeton
Guided Missile Cruiser
No
Bunbury
7 Oct 05
11 Oct 05
USNS
Bridge
Combat Support Ship
No
Fremantle
7 Oct 05
12 Oct 05
USS
Nimitz
Aircraft Carrier
Yes
Fremantle
7 Oct 05
12 Oct 05
USS
Chafee
Guided Missile Destroyer
No
Darwin
15 Oct 05
19 Oct 05
USS
Chafee
Guided Missile Destroyer
No
Townsville
23 Oct 05
27 Oct 05
USNS
Niagara Falls
Combat Stores Ship
No
Darwin
31 Oct 05
6 Nov 05
USAV
Spearhead
High Speed Vessel
No
Hobart
4 Nov 05
1 Mar 06
USS
Frank Cable
Submarine Tender
No
Brisbane
7 Nov 05
12 Nov 05
USS
Columbia
Submarine
Yes
HMAS Stirling
7 Dec 05
10 Dec 05
USS
Chosin
Guided Missile Cruiser
No
Darwin
13 Dec 05
17 Dec 05
USS
Columbia
Submarine
Yes
HMAS Stirling
16 Dec 05
23 Dec 05
USS
Ingraham
Guided Missile Frigate
No
Cairns
17 Dec 05
20 Dec 05
USS
Ingraham
Guided Missile Frigate
No
Brisbane
22 Dec 05
27 Dec 05
USS
Chosin
Guided Missile Cruiser
No
Brisbane
22 Dec 05
27 Dec 05
USNS
Lawrence H Gianella
Oiler
No
Fremantle
30 Dec 05
1 Jan 06
USNS
Concord
Combat Stores Ship
No
Brisbane
31 Dec 05
4 Jan 06
Royal Navy
There were no Royal Navy ship visits during the period 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2005.
Major Powers and Global Interests Branch
152
152
2811
152
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
Mr Melham
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 December 2005:
-
How many Australian Public Service and Australian Defence Force personnel are currently employed in the Major Powers and Global Interests Branch of the Department of Defence; and within each of the four sections that comprise the Branch: United States section; Europe Middle East and Rest of the World Section; United Nations, Peace Operations Section; and Space Programs Section.
-
Who is currently serving as the Assistant Secretary, Major Powers and Global Interests Branch; and who are the Directors of the four sections within the Branch.
152
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The precise number of people within the Major Powers and Global Interests Branch (MPGI) in Defence varies over time but, as at 10 January 2006, there were 29 positions in the Branch – 28 Australian Public Service positions and 1 Australian Defence Force position. The Branch now has five sections: Americas section (5 positions); Joint Facilities and Technical Programs section (4 positions); Iraq section (5 positions); Afghanistan/Middle East section (7 positions); and United Nations Europe, Africa and Peace Operations (6 positions). The final two positions making up the 29 are the Branch Head and the Branch Administration Officer.
The responsibilities of MPGI Branch changed with the creation of a fourth Branch in International Policy Division in mid-January 2006. After this re-organisation, one Branch will have responsibility for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, Africa and United Nations Peace Operations. Another Branch will cover the United States and Joint Facilities, as well as Europe and the Americas. This Branch will also assume responsibility for North and South Asia from the existing Asia Branch.
-
The current Assistant Secretary MPGI is Mr John Owens. As a matter of policy, Defence does not publicly identify non-Senior Executive Service officers.
Ecuador
153
153
2813
153
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 December 2005:
-
Has he read the email titled ‘Shipwreck in the Galapagos Islands’ sent to him on 26 November 2005, by survivors of the sinking of the Darwin Explorer near Puerto Auyora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, on 13 September 2005.
-
Can he confirm that despite registering with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) before leaving Australia they found it very difficult to notify the Government of their plight because:
-
there is no facility for notifying DFAT of this kind of trouble via the Internet and
-
they could not notify DFAT of the loss of their passports as they were prevented access to the necessary DFAT webpage because they could not provide a passport expiry date.
-
Can he confirm that the contact information regarding the Australian Consulate in Guayaquil, Ecuador, provided on the DFAT website on 13 September 2005, was misleading because the Government had already closed this office.
-
When was the Australian Consulate in Guayaquil, Ecuador, closed.
-
What is the Government doing to ensure Australian travellers can more easily contact DFAT in the event of an emergency where passports or other documents have been lost.
-
Will he seek an explanation from the Government of Ecuador regarding the circumstances and the cause of the sinking of the Darwin Explorer; if not, why not.
-
What is the Government’s travel warning for Ecuador and when was this warning first posted.
-
Can he confirm that in this region over the past ten years eleven passenger ships have sunk and two passenger ships have run aground; if not, why not.
-
Has the Government warned Australian travellers about this poor safety record; if so, when; if not, why not.
-
What is the Government doing to improve the warnings provided to Australians travelling to the Galapagos Islands.
153
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes
-
-
The on-line register is used to help consular officers find travellers in the event of an emergency. Australians overseas can contact the 24 hour DFAT Consular Emergency Centre on 1300 555 135, or any of our overseas missions to seek assistance.
-
Measures have been implemented on the passports website, in light of the increasing incidence of identity theft, to make it more secure and to prevent the online cancellation of passports by individuals who are not the rightful holders. In order to report a passport lost or stolen, people are required to provide the name of their guarantor or, in the event of the passport’s having been renewed, the expiry date. If a holder is unable to provide the required details for cancelling the passport online, they can submit an email, the address of which is located under Contact Us on the Passports webpage. Alternatively, by following the Smartraveller link from the Passports webpage, they will immediately see a 24-hour emergency contact phone number which is a free call from anywhere in the world. They would be put through to the DFAT Watch Office which would, by asking for some personal details from the passport holder to confirm identity, record the passport as lost.
-
The Australian Consulate in Guayaquil, Ecuador closed on 14 September 2005. The information on the DFAT website as of 13 September 2005 was accurate.
-
On 14 September 2005.
-
The government has provided a number of ways by which Australian travellers can contact DFAT to report their travel documents lost:
-
Via www.passports.gov.au;
-
By sending an email to passports.australia@dfat.gov.au;
-
By contacting the nearest Australian Embassy or Consulate (or Canadian mission providing consular assistance to Australians);
-
By phoning the 24-hour Consular Emergency Centre (free call);
-
By phoning the Australian Passport Information Service in Australia or, after hours, the DFAT Watch Office;
-
By reporting the loss to Secure Sentinel – www.securesentinel.com.au
-
No. It is for the Ecuadorian authorities, and not the Australian government, to consider any maritime accident report and take any action arising from it.
-
The travel advice for Ecuador is available in full on the smartraveller website (www.smartraveller.gov.au). It advises Australians in Ecuador to exercise caution and monitor developments that might affect their safety because of the risk of terrorism and civil unrest. DFAT first issued a travel advice for Ecuador in October 1999.
-
No. DFAT does not collect statistics on shipping accidents.
-
The travel advice for Ecuador contains the following statement:
“The safety standards Australians might expect of tour operators are not always met, including those operating in the Galapagos Islands. Written confirmation should be obtained from the travel agent or tour operator that their vessel is certified by the Ecuadorian navy to meet the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention standards.”
-
My Department keeps all its travel advisories under review to provide Australian travellers with a realistic understanding of the risks overseas, so they can make their own informed travel decisions in light of the potential risks.
Melbourne Mailing Pty Ltd
155
155
2822
155
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
‘Did the Minister’s department engage Melbourne Mailing Pty Ltd at a cost of $27,500: if so, what services were provided under the terms of this contract.’
155
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
On 1 April 2005, following an open tender process, the Department commenced a three year contract with Melbourne Mailing Pty Ltd for the provision of a mailing house service for the receipt, storage and distribution of citizenship kits, affirmation kits and other citizenship products. Services to be provided under the contract include storage of products, sourcing of mailing lists, assembly of kits, distribution, invoicing and reporting.
Expenditure under the contract to date is $10 980.20 (GST inc).
Commonwealth Property
155
155
2830
155
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
Mr Martin Ferguson
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Does the Commonwealth own the old High Court Building at 450 Little Bourke Street Melbourne; if so (a) does it intend to sell the property and (b) has it considered the heritage value of this building and, if it has, what was the outcome.
155
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
The Commonwealth does not own the old High Court Building at 450 Little Bourke Street Melbourne.
-
The Commonwealth sold the property to the State of Victoria on 13 December 1999.
-
In the Sale Agreement the State of Victoria acknowledged the heritage significance of the property and that the property was listed on the Victorian Heritage Register, which bound Victoria to comply with the requirements of the Heritage Act 1995 (Vic) in relation to the property. Victoria acknowledged that it must endeavour to maintain the heritage integrity of the property which included (but was not limited to) complying with the conservation management plan by Works Australia dated 1996 for the property, a copy of which was provided by the Commonwealth to Victoria.
Nauru
155
155
2833
155
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Will he provide a breakdown of $0.8 million for “the new measure Nauru–maintenance of temporary Consulate-General” as described in his department’s Portfolio Budget Statement.
-
Does the $0.8 million represent the total cost of running the Australian Consulate General in Nauru in 2005-2006; if not, what is the total cost of running the Australian Consulate General in Nauru
156
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
A breakdown of the $0.8 million for the 2005-06 Budget measure, Nauru-maintenance of temporary Consulate-General is:
$0.6 million staffing costs
$0.1 million travel costs
$0.1 million office running costs and accommodation.
-
The operating expenditure for the Consulate General in Nauru in 2005-06 is expected to be about $0.8 million.
Biometric Passports
156
156
2834
156
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
What sum has his department spent on research and development of biometric passports and will he provide a breakdown of this expenditure?
156
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
2002/2003
2003/2004
2004/2005
Facial recognition system:
1,497,239
1,766,526
776,795
Secure placement of chip in passport:
1,283,081
1,521,070
1,447,621
Total
2,780,320
3,287,596
2,224,416
Foreign Affairs: Expenditure
156
156
2836
156
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Is he aware that the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) found that his department spent $48.4 million in 1997-1998 without the authority of the Parliament and in contravention of the Constitution.
-
Is he aware that the ANAO has stated that this expenditure was unauthorised and contravened section 83 of the Constitution and breached section 48 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
-
Can he confirm that his department’s expenditure of the $48.4 million in 1997-1998 was found to be illegal.
-
Has he made any public statement acknowledging the expenditure; if so, when and what statement(s) did he make.
-
Has he identified which officer or officers were responsible for the expenditure.
-
Has the officer or have the officers responsible been the subject of disciplinary action; if so, what disciplinary action was taken.
156
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes. DFAT did not have a Section 31 agreement in place in 1997-98 for the period 1 July 1997 to 17 May 1998, resulting in contraventions of Section 83 of the Constitution and Section 48 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. All prior and subsequent period expenditures were found to have been correctly authorised.
-
Refer (1).
-
Refer (1).
-
Note 28A of the financial statements in the 2004-05 Annual Report acknowledged the error and provided details of the cause.
-
Yes.
-
No officer has been disciplined for the error. None of the officers working at the time is any longer working in the area and/or have left the department. Improved expenditure controls and a greater understanding of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 will ensure such errors do not re-occur.
Terrorism
157
157
2839
157
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
Has his department made an assessment concluding that Al Qaida now has a presence in (a) Jordan, (b) Iran, (c) Syria, (d) Lebanon, and (e) the Palestinian Territories (Gaza or the West Bank); if so, is it also his department’s assessment that the spread of Al Qaida through the Middle East is being motivated, in whole or in part, by the continued conflict in Iraq.
157
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
It is likely that Al Qaida terrorists or sympathisers are present in various locations in the Middle East and have been since before the current conflict in Iraq.
Legal Services
157
157
2840
157
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
What sum has his department spent on external legal advice in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000, (f) 2001, (g) 2002, (h) 2003, (i) 2004, and (j) 2005.
157
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
to (c): The data for financial years 1996 to 1999 is on a previous financial management information system, which has been archived and would be too resource-intensive to retrieve.
-
1999-2000, $1.24 million
-
2000-2001, $3.03 million
-
2001-2002, $4.94 million
-
2002-2003, $3.09 million
-
2003-2004, $2.70 million
-
2004-2005, $1.81 million
-
1 July – 31 Dec 2005 $0.93 million
Note: All figures are GST exclusive.
Australians Imprisoned Abroad
157
157
2842
157
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
How many Australians are currently imprisoned abroad and for how long and in which country has each person been imprisoned
157
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
At present there are 178 Australians serving prison sentences abroad as per the attached list. Provision of a breakdown of the length of time served by each person would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Countries in which Australians are in prison overseas
As at 10 January 2006
Country
Number of Australian prisoners
Afghanistan
1
Argentina
2
Bosnia and Herzegovina
1
Cambodia
4
Canada
1
Cayman Islands
1
Chile
1
China
17
Croatia
2
Cyprus
1
Czech Republic
1
El Salvador
2
Fiji
2
Germany
1
Greece
7
Hungary
2
Indonesia
5
Ireland
1
Italy
6
Japan
2
Kazakhstan
1
Korea, Republic Of
1
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
2
Lebanon
5
Maldives
1
Martinique
1
Mauritius
1
Netherlands
2
New Zealand
19
Romania
1
Serbia and Montenegro
2
Singapore
2
Syrian Arab Republic
1
Thailand
13
Spain
2
Sweden
2
Switzerland
1
Syria
1
The Philippines
1
United Kingdom
9
United States of America
36
Uruguay
1
Vietnam
13
Total
178
Publications
159
159
2845
159
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
In respect of each publication produced by his department in 2005, (a) what was it called, (b) how many copies were produced, and (c) what was the (i) total production and (ii) individual unit cost.
159
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
-
The attached table provides details of publications which were produced by my department in 2005 and which appear on the department’s register of publications, including numbers of copies printed.
-
The register of publications does not include details of total production and individual unit costs. To gather this information would entail a significant diversion of resources which I do not consider can be justified. Further information on departmental publications is available on the department’s website.
(a) Title
(b) Number of copies
A New Future for the OECD : Vision Statement by the Australian Candidate for OECD Secretary General Professor Allan Fels AO
1000
A Report on the Australia-United Arab Emirates Free Trade Agreement
1000
An Australia-Malaysia Free Trade Agreement : Australian Scoping Study [electronic publication]
0
An Australia-Malaysia Free Trade Agreement : Australian Scoping Study [brochure]
2500
Annual Report of the Director General Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office 2004-2005
1400
APEC in Brief
5000
Australia - United Arab Emirates Free Trade Agreement
5000
Australia and the United States : Trade and the Multinationals in a New Era
1500
Australia and the WTO : Doha Round
1000
Australia and the WTO : Services
1000
Australia Brazil: 60 years (Commemorating 60 years of diplomatic ties)
1250
Australia Connections Japan (Australia-Japan Connections)
3500
Australia Fast Facts
5000
Australia in Brief 2005
100000
Australia-China Council 2004-05
1000
Australia-China Free Trade Agreement (Set 1) [Fact Sheets]
10000
Australia-China Free Trade Agreement (set 2) [Fact Sheets]
3000
Australia-China Free Trade Agreement Joint Feasibility Study
3000
Australian National Commission for UNESCO Newsletter
1200
Australia’s Trade by State and Territory 2003-04
350
Australia’s Trade with East Asia 2004 [electronic publication]
0
Australia’s Trade with the Americas 2004 [electronic publication]
0
Australia’s Trade with the European Union 2004 [electronic publication]
0
Composition of Trade Australia 2004
450
Composition of Trade Australia 2004-05
450
Consular List (March 2005)
1150
Consular Services Charter
30000
Council for Australian-Arab Relations Annual Report 2004-05
500
Council on Australia Latin America Relations (COALAR) Annual Report 2004-2005
500
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Annual Report 2004-2005 [two vol set - DFAT & AusAID]
2500
Documents on Australian Foreign Policy, Australia and the Colombo Plan, 1949-1957
1500
Doing Business with Qatar [electronic publication]
0
Doing Business with Saudi Arabia [electronic publication]
0
Doing Business with the Arab World
3000
Doing Business with United Arab Emirates [electronic publication]
0
Education Without Borders : International Trade in Education
2000
ExportEU : a Guide to the European Union for Australian Business
1500
Exports of Primary and Manufactured Products 2004
350
Exports of Primary and Manufactured Products 2004-05
350
Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Budget Statements 2005-06
750
Hints for Australian Travellers (January 2005)
650000
Hints for Australian Travellers (June 2005)
600000
Lasers, Liberty and Legislation
100
Making Travel Advice Simpler and Clearer
5000
Malaysia: An Economy Transformed
1500
More Than Oil: Economic Developments in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates
1500
Negotiating free-trade agreements: a guide
600
‘Not a matter for negotiation’: Australia’s commitment to Malaysia 1961-1966
2000
Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2004-2005 - Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
550
Portfolio Budget Statements 2005-06: Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio
750
Portfolio Supplementary Additional Estimates Statements Appropriation (Tsunami Financial Assistance) Bill 2004-2005 and Appropriation (Tsunami Financial Assistance and Australia-Indonesia Partnership) Bill 04-05 - DFAT
475
The APEC Region Trade and Investment 2005
380
The Australia - ASEAN - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement
5000
The Business Case for Standards
600
Trade 2005: A statement by Mark Vaile Minister for Trade
7000
Trade at a Glance 2005
5000
Trade in Services 2003-2004
350
Trade Resources Kit 2005 [cd-rom]
10000
Trade Topics - A Quarterly Review of Australia’s International Trade:
-
(December 2004)
300
(March Quarter 2005)
400
(June Quarter 2005)
380
(September Quarter 2005)
380
Travel information for Dual Nationals [Arabic]
10000
Travel information for Dual Nationals
40000
Travelling to Turkey for Anzac Day
15000
Travelling Well
50000
Weapons of Mass Destruction : Australia’s Role in Fighting Proliferation : Practical Responses to New Challenges
7000
Commonwealth Property
161
161
2846
161
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
In respect of the refurbishment of the Australian High Commission chancery in (a) London: (b) Singapore, and (c) Wellington, (i) what is the total cost of the refurbishment, (ii) will he provide a breakdown of the total costs, (iii) how long will it take, and (iv) is the chancery still functioning during the refurbishment.
-
In respect of the refurbishment of the residence of the Australian High Commissioner in London, (a) what is the total cost of the refurbishment, (b) will he provide a breakdown of the total costs, (c) how long will it take, and (d) is the residence still functional during the refurbishment.
161
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
, (b), (c), (i), (ii) and (iii).
Project
Project cost (AUD million)
Major cost elements
(AUD million)
Overall timing
London
11.98
Project concept and planning – 0.134
Design consultancy – 0.627
Construction and other costs – 11.218
Two years.
Singapore
12.7
Project concept and planning – 0.091
Design consultancy – 0.427
Construction and other costs – 12.181
Twelve to 18 months.
Wellington
9.31
Project concept and planning – 0.107
Design consultancy – 0.501
Construction and other costs – 8.699
Twelve to 18 months.
-
Yes.
-
There is no proposal for refurbishment of the residence of the High Commissioner in London. As is the case with all property in the overseas owned estate, the residence is the subject of a cyclical repairs and maintenance program to ensure that it is maintained to a satisfactory standard. Details of property maintenance expenditure were provided in the department’s response, submitted on 8 December 2005, to Question 8 – Outcome 4, Output 4.1 – which was taken on notice at Supplementary Budget Estimates hearings on 3 November 2005.
Embassy in Rome
161
161
2847
161
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
What are the reasons for the relocation of the Australian chancery in Rome and what is the total cost of the relocation and will he provide a breakdown of the costs.
161
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The decision to relocate the chancery in Rome was made on commercial grounds. The former chancery was a six storey property that was leased in the 1970s when the size of the embassy establishment was significantly greater than it is today. The new chancery is a leased three-level free-standing building that provides substantially more cost-effective, functional and secure accommodation. The chancery was relocated in July 2004 at a total project cost of $3.6 million, comprising the cost of project concept and planning ($25,000), design and development ($119,000), and construction and other fit-out costs ($3,458,000).
Media Monitors and Rehame
162
162
2848
162
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Does his (a) office and (b) department use the services of Media Monitors and Rehame, if so, what sum was paid to each company in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002, (iv) 2003, (v) 2004, and (vi) 2005.
-
In respect of his (a) office and (b) department will he provide a breakdown of the media monitoring costs purchased from (i) Media Monitors and (ii) Rehame.
162
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
(a) and (b) Yes (see table)
(i) 2000
(ii) 2001
(iii) 2002
(iv) 2003
(v) 2004
(vi) 2005
(a) Mr Downer’s office
Rehame
105,361.24
129,196.98
20,321.58
12,851.64
22,270.21
44,888.72
Media Monitors
629.28
3,674.63
2,349.23
26,018.86
16,609.71
15,837.96
(b) Department
Rehame
52,250.52
47,084.17
91,372.03
66,381.57
48,198.39
51,916.86
Media Monitors
95,082.99
98,950.74
98,001.16
194,199.14
180,734.74
208,035.65
-
See answer to question (1).
Hardship Posts
162
162
2849
162
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Which Australian diplomatic and consular missions are classified as ‘hardship posts’.
-
Do employees receive additional financial compensation at all ‘hardship posts’; if not, which ‘hardship posts’ are not subject to additional entitlements.
162
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The Department does not classify individual posts as ‘hardship posts’ but rates posts on a six-point scale (A to F) reflecting the level of hardship. The Department subscribes to a specialist international human resources firm to provide the ratings, which are updated on an annual basis. Posts rated B to F attract some form of financial compensation, with those rated F at the top of the range. The following lists posts that are currently included in the B to F range.
Abu Dhabi
Abuja
Accra
Amman
Ankara
Apia
Athens
Baghdad
Bali
Bandar Seri Begawan
Bangkok
Beijing
Beirut
Belgrade
Brasilia
Budapest
Buenos Aires
Cairo
Colombo
Dhaka
Dili
Guangzhou
Hanoi
Harare
Ho Chi Minh
Honiara
Islamabad
Jakarta
Kathmandu
Kuala Lumpur
Kuwait City
Manila
Mexico City
Moscow
Nairobi
New Delhi
Noumea
Nuku’alofa
Phnom Penh
Pohnpei
Port Louis
Port Moresby
Port of Spain
Port Vila
Pretoria
Ramallah
Rangoon
Riyadh
Santiago de Chile
Seoul
Shanghai
Suva
Taipei
Tarawa
Tehran
Tel Aviv
Vientiane
Warsaw
Zagreb
-
The Department does not classify individual posts as ‘hardship posts’. The list above at item (1) includes all posts that currently attract some form of financial compensation for their hardship rating.
Overseas Missions: Representational Costs
164
164
2850
164
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Does his department keep records of representational costs incurred by Australia’s overseas missions; if so, (a) how are representational costs broken down and (b) are representational costs broken down into wine and food.
-
What sum was spent on representational costs at Australia’s missions overseas in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005.
-
What sum was spent on representational costs in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005 in (i) London, (ii) Washington, (iii) Tokyo, (iv) Seoul, (v) Geneva (WTO and Embassy), (vi) Berlin, and (vii) Paris.
164
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes, the department does keep records of representational costs incurred by Australia’s overseas missions.
-
Aggregated quarterly returns, which are subject to internal audits, are recorded in the financial management system for each Australian overseas mission. The costs for the post are recorded as either Head of Mission/Post representation, other Australia-based representation or locally engaged staff representation.
-
The departmental financial management system does not record a breakdown between liquor and food representational costs. Bulk liquor purchases that are used for representation are acquitted quarterly at the post.
-
$3,948,085, (b) $4,075,488
(3)
Post
2003-04
2004-05
London
$139,062
$140,757
Washington
$181,703
$182,701
Tokyo
$264,765
$219,300
Seoul
$109,971
$113,694
Geneva (WTO and Embassy)
$125,413
$167,962
Berlin
$98,869
$85,529
Paris
$91,760
$88,476
Overseas Missions: Household Staff
165
165
2851
165
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
What are the arrangements for the appointment of household staff for Australian diplomats abroad?
-
Are all Australian diplomats abroad entitled to household staff?
-
How many household staff are employed, and what sum is spent on the employment of household staff, at the residences of the mission in (a) London, (b) Washington, (c) Tokyo, (d) Seoul, (e) Geneva (WTO and Embassy), (f) Berlin, and (g) Paris, (h) New Dehli, (i) Beijing, and (j) Indonesia?
-
What guidelines does his department have for the situation where non-working relationships develop between Australian diplomats and their household staff?
165
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Heads of Mission/Heads of Post (HOM/HOP) employ domestic staff to assist with official representation and maintain their residence. Domestic staff are employed by the HOM/HOP rather than the Commonwealth. Any proposal to vary the HOM/HOP domestic staff establishment must be approved by the Delegate in Canberra (Assistant Secretary, Staff Development and Post Issues Branch). A-based staff other than HOM/HOP may have access to domestic assistance, depending on the post.
-
No.
-
See information in table below.
Post
HOM/HOP Domestic staff (as at 20/12/05)
Cost in 2004-05 in AUD
(Salaries & related costs as reported by Posts).
(a) London
3
195,479
(b) Washington
6
275,930
(c) Tokyo
4
293,146
(d) Seoul
4
82,772
(e) Geneva (WTO & UN)
(1 & 2)
238,866
(f) Berlin
3
198,437
(g) Paris
4
208,067
(h) New Delhi
7
23,170
(i) Beijing
4
39,812
(j) Indonesia - Jakarta
11
39,788
(j) Indonesia - Bali
3
5,611
-
DFAT staff posted overseas sign the Code of Conduct for Overseas Service, which is underpinned by the Australian Public Service (APS) Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct for Overseas Service requires officers not to engage in inappropriate personal behaviour. The Code includes the specific instruction that “…employee’s personal conduct towards his or her domestic staff…must not be exploitative or be such as to lead reasonably to a perception of exploitation” (Point 5.5).
Overseas Holiday Residences
166
166
2852
166
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Which Australian missions abroad maintain holiday residences.
-
What are details of the holiday residences, in particular, (a) which are (i) owned and (ii) leased by the Government, (b) who may access these facilities (ie are they made available to all Australian Government officials at the relevant mission), (c) how is access to the holiday residences determined, and (d) what sum was spent maintaining the residences in (i) 2002, (ii) 2003, and (iii) 2004.
166
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (2) (a) Some Australian missions abroad maintain recreational accommodation facilities to give staff regular respite from local conditions. As at 1 Jan 2006, the following posts maintained such properties:
Post
Owned or Leased
Number
Ankara
L
1
Athens
L
1
Bangkok
L
6
Beirut
L
1
Buenos Aires
L
1
Cairo
L
1
Islamabad
L
1
Jakarta
O
2
Jakarta
L
6
Manila
L
3
Mexico City
L
1
Moscow
L
2
New Delhi
L
1
Phnom Penh
L
1
Port Louis
L
1
Santiago
L
1
Seoul
L
1
Tehran
L
1
Tokyo
L
4
Vientiane
L
1
-
All Australia-based staff attached to the missions are entitled to access the facilities.
-
Access is determined on a rostered basis.
-
Maintenance costs on leased properties are a landlord responsibility. For Commonwealth and recreational properties, the Overseas Property Office expended the following:
-
2002/03, $23,973
-
2003/04, $17,667
-
2004/05, $171
Overseas Missions: Official Vehicles
167
167
2853
167
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
How many official cars and other vehicles are used to service Australian missions overseas.
-
How many official vehicles are there at the Embassy/High Commission in (a) London, (b) Washington, (c) Tokyo, (d) Seoul, (e) Geneva (WTO and Embassy), (f) Berlin, (g) Paris, (h) New Delhi, (i) Beijing, and (j) Indonesia for (i) business use only and (ii) business and private use.
-
What sum was spent on purchasing, running and maintaining the official vehicles in (a) London, (b) Washington, (c) Tokyo, (d) Seoul, (e) Geneva (WTO and Embassy), (f) Berlin, (g) Paris, (h) New Delhi, (i) Beijing, and (j) Indonesia in (i) 2002, (ii) 2003, and (iii) 2004.
167
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
There are a total of 370 official DFAT vehicles overseas. This figure includes Head of Mission (HOM) vehicles, other SES vehicles and fleet vehicles. It does not include other agency vehicles in DFAT-managed missions or non-DFAT managed missions.
-
Number of official vehicles in the following DFAT-managed missions:
Number of Official Vehicles
Location
(i) Business Use Only
(ii) Business and Private Use
(a) London
6
3
(b) Washington
2
5
(c) Tokyo
5
1
(d) Seoul
7
2
(e) Geneva (WTO and Embassy)
3
4
(f) Berlin
1
2
(g) Paris
4
3
(h) New Delhi
6
2
(i) Beijing
4
3
(j) Indonesia (Bali)
1
1
(j) Indonesia (Jakarta)
15
4
-
Purchasing, Running and Maintenance Costs
-
July 2002 - June 2003
Vehicle
Purchasing Costs
Vehicle Running and Maintenance Costs
Location
AUD Value
AUD Value
(a) London
$Nil
$63,748
(b) Washington*
$Nil
$203,735
(c) Tokyo
$Nil
$23,754
(d) Seoul
$Nil
$32,385
(e) Geneva (WTO and Embassy)
$Nil
$35,839
(f) Berlin*
$Nil
$85,646
(g) Paris
$Nil
$43,179
(h) New Delhi
$Nil
$19,233
(i) Beijing
$52,276
$26,691
(j) Indonesia (Bali)
$Nil
$4,285
(j) Indonesia (Jakarta)
$33,189
$54,425
-
July 2003 - June 2004
Vehicle
Purchasing Costs
Vehicle Running and Maintenance Costs
Location
AUD Value
AUD Value
(a) London
$Nil
$76,006
(b) Washington*
$Nil
$170,326
(c) Tokyo
$Nil
$26,836
(d) Seoul
$120,239
$34,853
(e) Geneva (WTO and Embassy)
$67,923
$30,662
(f) Berlin*
$Nil
$52,285
(g) Paris
$Nil
$45,830
(h) New Delhi
$Nil
$16,115
(i) Beijing
$46,251
$18,779
(j) Indonesia (Bali)
$Nil
$3,964
(j) Indonesia (Jakarta)
$152,013
$52,098
Note* DFAT posts in Berlin and Washington lease official vehicles. Vehicle running and maintenance costs for these posts include leasing costs.
-
July 2004 - June 2005
Purchasing Costs
Vehicle Running and Maintenance Costs
Location
AUD Value
AUD Value
(a) London
$108,911
$70,880
(b) Washington*
$Nil
$178,175
(c) Tokyo
$68,748
$27,737
(d) Seoul
$100,078
$30,500
(e) Geneva (WTO and Embassy)
$23,313
$33,296
(f) Berlin*
$Nil
$59,140
(g) Paris
$Nil
$52,184
(h) New Delhi
$90,307
$17,668
(i) Beijing
$47,356
$23,668
(j) Indonesia (Bali)
$Nil
$5,698
(j) Indonesia (Jakarta)
$32,318
$78,804
Note* DFAT posts in Berlin and Washington lease official vehicles. Vehicle running and maintenance costs for these posts include leasing costs.
Foreign Affairs: Management Training
169
169
2854
169
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
In respect of each management retreat/training conducted by his department in (a) 2004 and (b) 2005, (i) where (location and hotel) and when was it held, (ii) what sum was spent in total, (iii) what sum was spent on accommodation, (iv) what sum was spent on food, (v) what sum was spent on alcohol/drinks, (vi) what sum was spent on transport, and (vii) how many employees attended.
169
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The department conducts management training for staff at all levels but only one management training “retreat”, a residential workshop that forms part of the annual Locally Engaged Staff (LES) Leadership and Development Program. Details of the 2004 and 2005 workshops are as follows:
-
2004 LES Leadership and Development Program – Residential Workshop
-
Location and dates: Mollymook Shores Motel, Mollymook, NSW; 27 to 29 October 2004.
-
Total costs: $30,794.
-
Accommodation costs: $14,999.
-
Food costs: $3,995.
-
Alcohol/drinks costs: $198 (wine served with meals); $600 (soft drinks served with meals).
-
Transport costs: $3,630.
-
Number of employees attending: 22.
-
2005 LES Leadership and Development Program – Residential Workshop
-
Location and dates: Mollymook Shores Motel, Mollymook, NSW; 2 to 4 November 2005.
-
Total costs: $32,987
-
Accommodation costs: $15,389.
-
Food costs: $4,380.
-
Alcohol/drinks costs: $240 (wine served with meals); $630 (soft drinks served with meals).
-
Transport costs: $3,100.
-
Number of employees attending: 22.
Heads of Mission: Representation Accounts
169
169
2856
169
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
Does the Australian (a) Ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See, (b) Consul-General in Los Angeles, and (c) High Commissioner in London have an expenses account or a representational allowance; if so, what sum was spent (i) in total, (ii) on cigars, (iii) on alcohol, (iv) on theatre tickets, (v) on opera tickets, and (vi) on flowers in 2004-2005.
169
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The three positions referred to are all provided with a representation allowance to advance Australian interests through facilitating contact with influential political, business, government and other figures from the host country.
Representation costs for the positions referred to were as follows for 2004/05:
-
$92,601.56
-
nil – tobacco products are not allowable
-
$13,151.16
-
nil
-
nil
-
$5,545.71
Security Breaches
170
170
2857
170
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
In respect of the security breaches recorded in his department in (a) 2003, (b) 2004, and (c) 2005, how many were there and what was the nature of each one.
170
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The number of recorded security breaches are:
-
2002/03, 92
-
2003/04, 84
-
2004/05, 84
My department records security breaches on a financial year basis. A security breach in this context is defined as the accidental or unintentional failure to observe a requirement in my department’s Security Instructions.
Overseas Missions: Pianos
170
170
2858
170
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
How many pianos does his department (a) own and (b) lease.
-
How many grand pianos does his department (a) own and (b) lease.
-
In respect of each piano, where is it and what is its value.
170
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Information collected from overseas posts indicates the department owns 51 pianos, 15 of which are grand pianos. (b) None is leased.
-
Information collected from overseas posts indicates the department owns 51 pianos, 15 of which are grand pianos. (b) None is leased.
-
Pianos located in Heads of Mission residences: Abuja, Amman, Ankara, Bangkok, Beijing, Beirut, Belgrade, Brussels, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Colombo, Dhaka, Dublin, Geneva (UN), Jakarta, Kathmandu, Kuala Lumpur, Malta, Manila, Mexico City, Moscow, New Delhi, New York UN, Noumea, Ottawa, Paris, Port Moresby, Port of Spain, Pretoria, Rangoon, Rome, Santiago, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Stockholm, Tel Aviv, Tehran, The Hague, Tokyo, Vienna, Vientiane, Warsaw, Washington and Wellington.
Pianos located in Chanceries: Jakarta, London, New York CG, Singapore, Washington and Wellington.
Obtaining accurate valuation information for each piano would involve a very substantial commitment of resources that cannot be justified in light of other competing demands.
Overseas Missions: Tennis Courts
171
171
2859
171
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
How many overseas missions and residences have tennis courts.
-
What surfaces are these tennis courts, and in particular, how many have a lawn surface.
171
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
There are 30 tennis courts at overseas missions. Fifteen are located at chanceries, 10 at head of mission residences, four at staff residential compounds and one in a staff recreational facility.
-
One is a lawn court. The remainder are hard courts with various surface finishes.
Commonwealth Property
171
171
2860
171
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
How many properties that his department owns or leases currently are vacant and what is the value of each vacant property.
171
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Information covering the first part of the honourable member’s question is contained in my written reply to Question No.1994–1997 (Hansard 5 December 2005). The current valuation of each of the department’s properties referred to in that reply is as follows:
Property
Address
Post
Valuation (AUD
million)
Staff Residences
Townhouses 1,2 & 3, Ellouk Dr, Port Vila
Port Vila
0.62
Staff Residences
26B Jalan U Thant, Kuala Lumpur
Kuala Lumpur
1.62
Staff Residences
Free standing house in Port Road 2 Compound, Airvos Ave, Port Moresby
Port Moresby
0.12
Residential Compound
Jalan Belimbing Compound, Jalan Kampung, Jakarta
Jakarta
2.93
Residential Compound
Staff apartments 222, 310, 311, 411 and 421, Resident towers, 1-14 2 Come, Mita, Minato ku, Tokyo
Tokyo
1.72, 1.55, 1.55, 1.45, and 1.12 respectively
Residential Compound
Apartments 9 and 19 Mid Section, Dongzhimen- wai Dajie, San Li Tun, Beijing
Beijing
0.50 and 0.40 respectively.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 661
171
171
2870
171
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
What steps did he, his office or his department take to ensure that Australia complied with its obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 661 to prevent Australian nationals and any persons within Australian territories from “removing from their territories or otherwise making available to that Government or to any such undertaking any such funds or resources and from remitting any other funds to persons or bodies within Iraq or Kuwait, except payments exclusively for strictly medical or humanitarian purposes and, in humanitarian circumstance, foodstuffs”.
171
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
A number of regulations were put in place to ensure that Australia complied with its obligations under operative paragraph 4 of UN Security Council Resolution 661 (1990).
These include
-
Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, Regulation 4QA
Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958, Regulation 13CA
-
In accordance with the Banking (Foreign Exchange Regulations) 1959, the Governor of the Reserve Bank gazetted the following Notices:
Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959, Variation of Exemption, GN No. 230, 10 August 1990, p. 1
Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959, Notice of Variation to Authority, GN No. 230, 10 August 1990, p. 2
Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959, Variation of Exemption, GN No. 230, 10 August 1990, p. 3
Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959, Notice of Revocation of Variation of Exemption and Notice of Variation of Exemption, GN No. 14, 17 April 1991, p. 1341
Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959, Notice of Revocation of Variation of Exemption and Notice of Variation of Exemption, GN No. 14, 17 April 1991, p. 1342
Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959, Notice of Revocation of Variation to Authority and Notice of Variation of Authority, GN No. 14, 17 April 1991, p. 1343
Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959, Direction relating to Foreign Currency Transactions and to Iraq, GN No. 20, 22 May 2002, p. 1484
Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959, Revocation of Variation of Exemption: Iraq, GN No. S177, 29 May 2003, p.1
Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959, Revocation of Variation of Exemption: Iraq, GN No. S177, 29 May 2003, p. 2
Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959, Direction relating to Foreign Currency Transactions and to Iraq, GN No. S177, 29 May 2003, p. 3
Foreign Affairs: Legal Advice
172
172
2871
172
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Did his department ever seek legal advice on the implications of the Crimes (Bribery of Foreign Officials) Act 1999 for Departmental officials; if so, what are the details including (a) the date the advice was sought, (b) the date the advice was received, (c) who or which area of his department sought the advice, and (d) who provided the advice.
-
Did his department ever seek legal advice on the legality of the Australian Wheat Board’s commercial arrangements in Iraq; if so, what are the details including (a) the date the advice was sought, (b) the date the advice was received, (c) who or which area of his department sought the advice and (d) who provided the advice.
172
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The department did not seek external legal advice.
-
The department did not seek external legal advice.
Oil for Food Program
172
172
2880
172
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Did any employee of (a) his department and (b) Austrade ever accompany Australian Wheat Board officials or employees during their visits to Iraq during the period 1999 to 2003; if so, will he provide the details of each visit including the (i) dates, (ii) position(s) of the official(s), (iii) cities visited in Iraq, and (iv) details of any meetings held with Iraqi Government officials.
-
Did any employee of (a) his department and (b) Austrade ever provide any assistance to arrange or facilitate the visits by Australian Wheat Board officials or employees during their visits to Iraq during the period 1999 to 2003; if so, will he provide the details of each visit including the (i) dates, (ii) position(s) of the official(s), (iii) cities visited in Iraq, and (iv) details of any meetings held with Iraqi Government officials.
173
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr Vaile
—The answer to the honourable member’s question (1-2) is as follows:
Department and Austrade officials occasionally provided relevant assistance, such as making travel arrangements for AWB visits to Iraq.
Oil for Food Program
173
173
2882
173
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Will he provide details of all representations made to the Government of Iraq in 2002 in response to the Iraqi Minister for Trade’s threat to cancel the Australian Wheat Board’s contracts for the supply of wheat to Iraq in August 2002.
-
Will he provide details of all contact between himself, his office and his department and the AWB in relation to the comments of the Iraqi Trade Minister and the AWB’s subsequent visit to Iraq
-
Will he provide details of all reporting from the Embassy in Jordan and any other diplomatic mission in relation to the comments of the Iraqi Trade Minister and the AWB’s subsequent visit to Iraq.
173
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr Vaile
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (2) Appropriate representations were made by the Australian Government to the Government of Iraq.
-
No. In keeping with longstanding general practice of successive governments, it is not appropriate to make public classified diplomatic reporting.
Oil for Food Program
173
173
2884 and 2885
173
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Did the Australian Embassy in Washington provide reports on the letter from US Senator Tom Daschle and other US Senators to President Bush dated 22 October 2003 concerning the Australian Wheat Board’s (AWB) commercial arrangements in Iraq.
-
When did he first become aware of the letter.
-
Did he, his office, or his department have any contact with the AWB in relation to the letter; if so, what are the details.
-
What steps did he, his office, or his department take to investigate the veracity of the claims contained in the letter.
-
Did he, his office, or his department have any contact with Senator Daschle or any other US Senator that signed the letter; if so, what are the details.
-
Did he, his office, or his department make any representations to the US Government in relation to the letter; if so, what are the details.
-
Did the US Government make any representations to Australia in relation to the letter or in relation to the AWB’s commercial arrangements in Iraq; if so, what are the details.
-
Were concerns about the AWB’s commercial arrangements in Iraq raised by President Bush or any of his officials during his visit to Australia in October 2003; if so, what are the details.
174
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
When the letter was reported by the Embassy.
-
Yes, there were a range of contacts on this issue.
-
The letter did not provide supporting evidence to substantiate claims.
-
Australian Embassy made appropriate representations.
-
Australian Embassy made appropriate representations.
-
No.
-
No.
Oil for Food Program
174
174
2886 and 2887
174
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Did the Australian Embassy in Washington provide reports on the letter from US Senator Patty Murray to President Bush dated 31 October 2003 concerning the Australian Wheat Board’s (AWB) commercial arrangements in Iraq.
-
When did he first become aware of the letter.
-
Did he, his office, or his department have any contact with the AWB in relation to the letter; if so, what are the details.
-
What steps did he, his office, or his department take to investigate the veracity of the claims contained in the letter.
-
Did he, his office, or his department have any contact with Senator Murray in relation to the letter; if so, what are the details.
-
Did he, his office, or his department make any representations to the US Government in relation to the letter; if so, what are the details.
-
Did the US Government make any representations to Australia in relation to the letter or in relation to the AWB’s commercial arrangements in Iraq; if so, what are the details.
174
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
At the time of the 31 October 2003 letter, the Australian Government had already made a number of representations in response to the letter by Senator Tom Daschle on 22 October 2003 and was in contact with the AWB in regard to the 22 October letter. File records do not indicate separate action or reporting in response to the 31 October letter which covered the same issue.
Oil for Food Program
174
174
2888 and 2889
174
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
Did the Australian Embassy in Washington provide reports on the letter from US Wheat Associates to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, dated 3 June 2003 concerning the Australian Wheat Board’s (AWB) commercial arrangements in Iraq which referred to rumours that monies paid under the AWB’s contracts with Iraq may have gone into accounts of Saddam Hussein’s family.
-
When did he first become aware of the letter.
-
Did he, his office, or his department have any contact with the AWB in relation to the letter; if so, what are the details.
-
What steps did he, his office, or his department take to investigate the veracity of the claims contained in the letter.
-
Did he, his office, or his department have any contact with Senator Daschle or any other US Senator that signed the letter; if so, what are the details.
-
Did he, his office, or his department make any representations to the US Government in relation to the letter; if so, what are the details.
-
Did the US Government make any representations to Australia in relation to the letter or in relation to the AWB’s commercial arrangements in Iraq; if so, what are the details.
175
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
When letter was made public.
-
Yes, there were a range of contacts on this issue.
-
No evidence was provided in support of the allegations.
-
Letter was from the US Wheat Associates, not US Senators.
-
Yes, appropriate representations were made.
-
No.
Oil for Food Program
175
175
2893 and 2894
175
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
Did he meet with officials from the Australian Wheat Board on or around 22 August 2005; if so, what was the purpose of the meeting.
175
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
We had meetings with AWB officials at various times.
Oil for Food Program
175
175
2896 and 2897
175
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
Can he provide details of any (a) meeting, whether formal or informal, and (b) contact he had with representatives of the Australian Wheat Board during the period 1999-2003.
175
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
During the period from 1999 to 2003, Mr Vaile and I had a range of contacts with representatives from the AWB on Australia’s wheat export interests.
Oil for Food program
176
176
2898 and 2899
176
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
When did he, his office or officers of his department first become aware of the Australian Wheat Board’s agreement with the Iraq Grain Board for the AWB to assume the cost for the internal transport of wheat in Iraq.
176
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
AWB contracts which first included the term “CIF F.O.T to Silo at All Governerate of Iraq via Umm Qasr Port” were dated July 1999.