2006-05-09 41 1 6 REPS 0 0 2006-05-09 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 2 pm, and read prayers. 1 Ministerial Arrangements 1 14:01:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today, due to budget commitments. I will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources will be absent from question time today. He is representing the government at the funeral service for Mr Larry Knight in Launceston. He will be accompanied at the funeral by the member for Lyons. The Minister for Small Business and Tourism will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. 1 Miscellaneous 1 Miscellaneous 1 14:01:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I seek the indulgence of the House to say something about the remarkable events in Beaconsfield this morning. Few incidents in the life of this country in recent years have gripped the attention of the Australian public like the extraordinary saga of the rescue of Todd Russell and Brant Webb from their apparent entombment in the goldmine at Beaconsfield on Anzac Day. The nation followed this event partly because of the intense human interest involved but also because it was an extraordinary demonstration of Australians pulling together for a common purpose and a common goal. I express the joy and happiness of all members of this House that these two men have been brought to the surface in apparently robust good health, which is a great tribute to them and to their powers of resilience. In expressing that joy and admiration, let us also think of Larry Knight, who died in the mine collapse and who is being buried virtually as we meet here. We extend our thoughts and sympathy to his family and remark upon their extraordinary demonstration of mateship in deferring the funeral of their loved one so that it was possible for his two mates, if they were rescued, to attend the funeral and to share in the bereavement and grief of the family and of the community. This remarkable rescue feat has been, in every sense of the expression, a triumph of Australian mateship. Many sections of the community worked together in harmonious, dedicated resolve to rescue the two men, and it is impossible to complete the list of expressions of gratitude and of tribute to so many who have played a role. We must, I believe, give pride of place to the men who risked their own lives to bring their mates to the surface. Mining is a dangerous, dirty, difficult profession. It carries enormous risks for all of those involved in it. For all that we think of the different issues in relation to something like this, none of us should ever forget how fundamentally dangerous it is for people to go underground for extended periods of time and to win the produce of the earth. If you look back over the history of mining in Australia, as you do over the history of mining all around the world, it has always been a dangerous occupation. We must all stand in awe of and pay tribute to the men and women who are prepared to go underground. I therefore want to particularly pay tribute on your behalf to the men who risked their lives. I think of those who went underground day after day, shift after shift, to try to get their mates back. I also think of the man who, I suppose, bore the ultimate responsibility, Matthew Gill. It was his job on a regular basis to tell the public of the progress made. He knew that, ultimately, if something went wrong he would carry a greater share of the blame than anybody else. I thought he did his work with great calm and stoicism, and we ought to pay tribute to him. I would like to pay tribute collectively to the community of Beaconsfield. I think the mayor, Barry Easther, displayed great community leadership. I pay tribute to the work of the members and the officers of the Australian Workers Union, who properly represented the union interest in this matter. Let us also pay tribute to the spiritual leadership of the local churches. It was wonderful how throughout the ordeal they provided spiritual comfort and leadership to those who sought it—and, as the days went by, increasing numbers of people sought spiritual guidance and comfort—and food and other sustenance to keep body and soul together. That lovely story of the Uniting Church bell being rung for the first time since the end of World War II really did sum it up. In every way it has been a remarkable demonstration of a community pulling together. Our thoughts are, and always were, very much with the families of the two men. Their joy last Sunday week in knowing that their sons, husbands, brothers and fathers were still alive must have been an experience almost beyond understanding. I pay tribute to the emergency services, to the Tasmanian government and to the West Tamar Council, which, under the leadership of Barry Easther, established a command centre, a recovery centre, which was manned by council staff and volunteers. I pay tribute to the many other community organisations I have not specifically mentioned and also note the contribution of the Minerals Council of Tasmania, led by Mr Terry Long. Larry Knight died and we mourn his death, and we extend our compassion and sympathy to his family. But we rejoice for two lives that we all, I guess, in our innermost thoughts must have imagined were gone some time ago. Those two lives were saved and they were brought back through a feat of mining rescue capacity which has almost certainly established a new benchmark in the mining industry around the world. Let us not play that down. This has been a remarkable achievement by the men who got their two friends out. We must be unstinting in our praise for them and unconditional in our admiration of what has been done. As is appropriate, there will be a coronial inquiry into the death of Larry Knight, and I have been informed that—also as is appropriate—there will be a full independent inquiry established by the Tasmanian government into the circumstances of the mine accident. Both of those inquiries are entirely appropriate. It is likely that the mine will be closed for some period of time. If that eventuates, there will potentially be a very significant dislocation for the local community. It is a tight-knit community which is heavily dependent on this mine for its regular sustenance. In that connection I have already indicated and I repeat to the House that, whatever assistance it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to provide to assist the community, particularly the employees of the mine who may be displaced as a result of this, we will be very ready and willing to provide. A task group has been established by the Tasmanian government, and the Commonwealth will be represented on that. I have already in several discussions I have had with the mayor of West Tamar indicated our willingness to assist. Also, if it proves necessary, such ex gratia assistance as may be needed, particularly by the family of Larry Knight, will be provided. This is an occasion for support, but it is also an occasion for us as a nation to in a sense step back and allow this wonderful community to rejoice in its achievement. This is a victory that belongs to the people of Beaconsfield—that is, to all of them, whatever their backgrounds. It is a victory that belongs to the unions as much as it belongs to the management. It is a victory that belongs to the people of the community, whatever their views on any particular subject. Those things are but secondary. We are united in our relief. We are united in our joy that this outcome has been achieved. I think it is appropriate, given the scale of what has been achieved against such incredible odds, that this parliament take an opportunity, perhaps in the second week of these sittings, to invite all of those involved, including the two men, to a reception in the Great Hall. I will arrange for my office to discuss with the office of the Leader of the Opposition arrangements for that so that it can be conducted on a totally bipartisan basis and so that we, as the representatives of the Australian people, can salute this colossal achievement of Australian mateship and this extraordinary feat that has brought from the bowels of the earth two of our fellow countrymen. Whilst I am on my feet—and this is the first occasion since that the parliament has met—I record my sorrow at the death in Baghdad of Private Jacob Kovco whilst on active service with the Australian Defence Force in Iraq. I have already done so but let me repeat here my expression of deep condolence to his widow, Shelley, to their two little children, to his parents and to his wonderful extended family. I had the opportunity, accompanied by the defence minister, of attending his funeral, which was also attended by the member for Chisholm and Senator Stephen Conroy, representing the opposition. In that way, in a bipartisan fashion, the sorrow of the nation was expressed to that family that had lost so much. 3 14:13:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —I wonder if I could have indulgence to speak on the same matters. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition may proceed. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the House. All Australia is jubilant today at the safe rescue of Todd Russell and Brant Webb. Can I say at the outset of my remarks that I look forward enormously to joining with the Prime Minister and making certain that this huge community effort in their rescue is properly recognised in this place. I look forward to that opportunity, as I am sure all members of parliament here today do. This is a rolled gold miracle. It is an epic Australian story. It is a celebration of those great Australian values of mateship, courage, community, family, resourcefulness and skill—all the things that we believe are significant in the Australian character and are demonstrated by incident after incident, which go together to create the Australian legend. This at Beaconsfield has now been added to that list. It was an extraordinary event. We meet as a parliament today in the shadow of the sad side of this epic story, and that is the sorrow that we all have at the death of one of the miners, Larry Knight, and our sympathy with the family and with what they must now be going through. Indeed, we meet and discuss these matters here today probably at the same time as the conclusion of the private funeral that is being held for him. I do understand that Todd Russell and Brant Webb managed to make it to that funeral. The generous act by the Knight family to hold off the funeral until they came out of their cage has been honoured by the fact that they have been able to make it in that time. The thing that we do need to recollect here, as the Prime Minister said, and what has been demonstrated to all Australians, is what a very dangerous profession mining is. It is an enormously lucrative industry from the Australian national point of view but enormously dangerous for those who participate within it. It requires resources of courage to go down to such depths every day in circumstances where you are not absolutely certain that all the day’s proceedings will be conducted in a way that preserves your safety. But, just as it takes extraordinary courage to go down daily in those circumstances, much more courage is required to go through that process to rescue your mates in what is a destabilised deep mine. It is important for us as a place to reflect both on the courage of those entrapped and on the massive courage of those engaged in the rescue activity—the courage it took day after day to go into a destabilised mine at its depths in what has been a largely experimental process of working a way through to the entrapped miners. The courage of the individuals who performed those tasks and those who supported them—the paramedics and other volunteers who were down there providing aid and comfort to the entrapped miners—is something that must be noted and registered with the whole community. I appreciated enormously an opportunity Bill Shorten provided me to talk this morning to two of the miners who were amongst those volunteers, including the one who made, as I understand it, the initial breakthrough into the cavity in which the cage with the entrapped miners was contained. They were just laconic Australians. There was, as you would expect, no sense of heroism—just doing a job for your mates, just doing your business, just doing what you are trained to do and getting on with it and achieving outcomes. But there was that absolute determination that the outcome would be good. We should place on record our appreciation not only for the courage of the entombed miners but also for the courage of those who were at the rock face, so to speak, of the rescue. We also ought to pay tribute to the skill of the engineers who worked their way around the engineering problems associated with this and in that regard to the mine manager, Mr Gill, who was mentioned by the Prime Minister in his remarks. They were the ones who had to make the decisions as to what help would be brought in and what assistance sought from elsewhere from their knowledge about the character of the mining industry—that knowledge that would enable them to call for the right sources of help from state government level, other state government level and the private sector and the like to provide them with the capacity to make a judgment on which of the many alternatives they should take. The epic character of this is enhanced further by the fact that these miners were discovered by somebody ‘allegedly’ performing a rogue act—going where he ought not have been but determined to try to find out whether there was any chance of anyone else left alive and, when all had largely given up hope, hearing those voices. Imagine the horror of the four days of hearing nothing of the two persons before he arrived on the scene and then hearing their voices in the dark—nothing but a destabilised rock face, a destabilised tunnel a mile below the earth’s surface. It is an extraordinary tale. There are all the other issues of community resilience: the marvellous unity of the Beaconsfield community, the effectiveness and the commitment of those in the different community organisations, from the religious groups and the churches through to the local government, all absolutely determined that this epic tale would have a successful conclusion. Along with the Prime Minister, I pay tribute to all of them. I also appreciate and note the Prime Minister’s statement about the preparedness of the federal government to play a role in the economic recovery of the community. This is obviously a dangerous mine at the moment and there will be issues determined in the various inquiries proceeding as to how it got into that situation. But one thing must be absolutely clear for all of us in public life who have any influence over these proceedings: nobody should mine that mine again until we are absolutely certain it is completely safe. If that means it is shut for a time, it must be shut for a time. Should the community be decimated and destroyed as a result of an essential, sensible safety decision? Obviously not. The federal government has a role to play there and it is important that the Prime Minister has offered that role. Can I also pay tribute to Bill Shorten, the AWU official who was frequently the person who conveyed information to the rest of the public as to what was going on in the mine. Of course, apart from the public explanation, he also explained it privately, working closely with the miners to make sure that they were happy and satisfied that correct judgments were being arrived at in relation to the rescue effort. There was a side to his activity and the union’s activities that was an explanation to the public of what was going on. There was another side that was representational, in circumstances of great doubt and difficulty in determining what the correct and safest course was. The fact that the miners were so prepared to go after their mates may well have had something to do with their level of confidence that their interests and the security of the rescue effort were being properly watched by those who spoke on their behalf more generally in the community. So I pay tribute to Bill Shorten there. It is of course a time of mixed emotion. We mentioned that with regard to the terrible losses suffered by the Knight family—made worse, I am afraid to say, by the fact that there was so much activity around them when what they really desperately needed was privacy for grief, reflection and reconstruction of the family. They were caught up, in their grief, in what was the wider inspection, if you like, of the community by all the rest of us as we watched the saga unfold. They have had a terribly difficult time. But we can also note and share in the enormous joy of Brant’s and Todd’s families, the enormous joy that they displayed so obviously before us all this morning, and as a parliament—and we should have this opportunity, as the Prime Minister said—we express our solidarity with them. This is an epic Australian story of great Australian mateship that has reached a successful conclusion, and we should all take joy in it. Very briefly, the Prime Minister mentioned the family of our first casualty in Iraq, Private Kovco; the first casualty himself; and the funeral of Private Kovco that took place recently. All Australia shared the grief of the Kovco family in the circumstances of his passing. Their thoughts would have been with him at the time that that funeral took place. The event is a brutal reminder that Iraq is a dangerous place—that those who go in harm’s way find themselves at risk, whether that risk is a product of accident or a product of events on the battlefield. The War Memorial here makes no differential between those who are killed as a result of a bullet, as a result of disease or as a result of accident. That War Memorial is for all our honoured dead. Private Kovco joins them. 5 14:25:00 Questions Without Notice 5 14:25:00 5 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Minister for Defence. Does the minister acknowledge that it was a mistake to use a private contractor to repatriate our deceased soldier Private Kovco? Will the government now abolish the policy of using private contractors? 6 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr NELSON —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and, I am sure, the opposition spokesman for defence in passing to the Kovco family my condolences for what they have endured since the death in tragic circumstances of Private Jake Kovco. It is interesting that the average Australian would probably have thought until recently that Australia’s defence personnel, were they to lose their lives in deployment, would automatically be returned to Australia and repatriated by the Australian Defence Force. However, it is interesting and instructive and the House should be aware that up until 1966 it was in fact the policy of the Australian government that war dead, whatever the circumstances, would remain in the country in which they had died and be buried at the nearest war graves cemetery. Between the end of the Vietnam War and 1997, the policy which existed in the defence services was that each service would look after its own deceased defence personnel. It was not until the eighties and the nineties that the policy became a combination, depending on circumstances, of the use of a civil contractor or indeed the use of the Australian Defence Force aircraft, in the main. In fact, in 1996, the policy which existed when this government was elected, in the Australian Army Manual of Land Warfare, Part One: The Conduct of Operations, which was dated 16 December 1996 and which is now obsolete, said: ‘Where possible, the back loading of remains to the Australian support area will be achieved under civilian contract arrangements, but it may be necessary for support groups to provide transport and establish temporary storage facilities.’ In the early hours of the morning following us discovering this appalling, terrible error, where the incorrect body had been dispatched from Kuwait to Australia, I said that these arrangements will change. I have instructed the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force to immediately ensure that the existing arrangements for the repatriation of any deceased Australian Defence Force personnel deployed are as stringently adhered to as is possible and that, wherever possible and/or practicable, we repatriate our deceased Defence Force personnel using Australian military aircraft and defence people. In the meantime, as I also announced in the early hours of that morning, I have also asked that all of the options be made available for the government to consider at a whole-of-government level the full repatriation, directly under Australian control, using Australian Defence Force equipment, if that is possible, of our own deceased Defence Force personnel. As soon as those options are presented to me, they will be presented to the government for their full consideration. The most important thing—which I have said to the Kovco family and which I say to the parliament and the Australian people—is that we must do everything we can that is humanly possible, whatever the economic commitment we are required to make, to see that this kind of error does not ever happen again. 6 6 14:29:00 Tollner, David, MP 00AN4 Solomon CLP 1 Mr TOLLNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on recent developments in East Timor? What is the government’s reaction to that situation? 7 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —First, can I thank the honourable member for Solomon for his question. I know, bearing in mind that he is the member for the Darwin area, he has a particular interest in East Timor and has always been solicitous about their concerns. The government make no secret of the fact that we were deeply concerned by the outbreaks of violence in Dili from 28 April, and the government have been monitoring developments there closely. The situation as of today is calm but there are still underlying tensions in the country. Some groups are seeking to exploit those tensions and there is still the potential for there to be further violence; there is no question of that. On 5 May the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reissued a travel advice advising Australians to reconsider travel to East Timor at this time, because of the tension and the potential for politically motivated violence. It also advises that Australians in East Timor who are concerned about their safety should consider departing. But, let me also add, at this stage there is no indication that foreigners have been targeted by those who are perpetrating the violence. We have in a number of ways strongly urged the leaders of East Timor to resolve quickly and peacefully the differences that there are and, of course, to do so with full regard for the democratic institutions of the country, its constitution, the rule of law and international norms of human rights. I have spoken on several occasions to the East Timorese foreign minister, Jose Ramos-Horta. I spoke to him during the course of this morning yet again and registered these messages, and I had a substantial briefing from him about the situation on the ground. We are also, of course, staying in close touch with our ambassador in Dili, and she herself met with Prime Minister Alkatiri today. Last Friday, Australia agreed with the rest of the international community to endorse a renewed United Nations Security Council mission in East Timor. It will determine the nature of our contribution, once the shape of any new mission by the United Nations has been decided, but some time will be needed first of all to assess precisely what might be required. As the Prime Minister said last week, we hope that the government of East Timor can resolve this matter quickly and by using its own resources, but Australia does stand ready to offer assistance if requested by either the East Timor government directly or the United Nations. That is a point I reiterated today to Mr Ramos-Horta. Australia has played a very important role, as all members of the House know, in making the new East Timor possible. We have given a great deal of assistance to East Timor and we continue to do so. We watch events there with concern and with a good deal of diligence because we want to ensure as best we can that East Timor remains a stable country and is able to achieve economic growth in the interests of the welfare of its people. 7 7 14:33:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I have a question for the Minister for Defence. I refer the minister to the findings of the Auditor-General that the first three Tiger helicopters accepted by the government are not capable of providing the performance required because they have inadequate power for their weight, as well as difficulties including faulty weaponry, faulty navigation systems, inadequate emergency locator beacons and substandard flight data recorders. Also, two have limited ability to operate over water. Would the minister explain why the government accepted delivery of these aircraft that have failed to meet their contractual specifications? 8 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr NELSON —I thank the member for Barton for his question. As is often the case, the media reporting of this particular matter is not entirely as the facts would support. The Australian National Audit Office and the Auditor-General have put five recommendations, all of which have been agreed to by the Department of Defence. They are that: for future complex projects, the formal report of the Tender Evaluation Board’s deliberations should be published; there should be periodic audits of intellectual property holdings; there should be testing before the acceptance of aircraft; liaison between project managers and capability managers should occur before accepting; and before the final contract is signed there should be unambiguous specifications. In fact, that is precisely the outcome of the reforms of Defence procurement undertaken under the guidance of Mr Kinnaird just over two years ago. When the Australian government signed this contract for these attack reconnaissance helicopters in 2001, the French program upon which it is based was 18 months ahead of that of the Australian government. The Australian government’s performance in relation to the Tiger helicopters is so good that it is now ahead of that of the French and it is providing data back to the French. In fact, the project is on schedule; the aircraft are flying. This is a $1.9 billion acquisition by the Australian government. The Hellfire missiles have been successfully tested and, as far as the government is concerned, this project, particularly in relation to the training and the simulator, is very much coming back into program. It should also be accepted, and I think everyone should accept, that, in relation to significant acquisitions in terms of procurement, such as the Air 87 Project with the Tiger helicopters—of which we are purchasing 22, 18 of which will be built in Australia—none of this can be done without risk. This project is essentially on track and is a part of this government’s significant commitment to strengthening Australia and building Australia’s defence capability. 8 8 14:36:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 Mr NEVILLE —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House on how Australia’s economic relationship with Japan is improving our exports, creating jobs and keeping our economy strong? 8 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. He represents an electorate on the coast of Queensland and would recognise the significant importance of the close relationship between Australia and Japan, given that the services sector is our largest export earner and that inbound tourism from Japan is a very important component of the earnings in the electorate of Hinkler. Japan is the largest economy in Asia and our largest trading partner, and in 2005 that trading relationship was worth a record $50.7 billion. It is the most significant trading relationship we have. Exports to Japan alone rose by 24 per cent in 2005, to stand at $31.5 billion. Some of the more important sectors in that export effort were minerals and fuels, for example, which set a record in 2005 of $15.6 billion. A lot of those exports were obviously from Western Australia, but they are very important in the overall structure of our economic relationship with Japan. In recent years the beef industry has been the single largest recipient of benefit from our relationship with Japan. Last Friday I was in Rockhampton for the Beef Australia Expo 2006—I am sure the member for Capricornia, if she is here, also supported the expo—and had the opportunity to talk with many beef producers and processors there about what has happened in the global beef market. We are reaching for an export figure of $5 billion in toto for the beef industry. I am sure that when the member for Hotham was there he was apprised of how well the beef industry is going in exports. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGauran interjecting— SU5 Vaile, Mark, MP Mr VAILE —Yes, he should be the shadow agriculture minister. Beef exports to Japan stood at $2.4 billion in 2005. In value terms, almost half of the beef that we export goes to Japan. Those industry leaders who were in Rockhampton last week made mention of this to my colleagues the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. They want the government to maintain its agenda and ensure that we keep these markets open and that these industries remain competitive on the world stage. Japan is also our largest market for liquefied natural gas. LNG exports to Japan are now worth a record $3.8 billion. LNG is a huge opportunity for export growth in the future for Australia, and Japan will be one of our key markets for those exports. LNG export volumes are set to double to around 20 million tonnes per annum by 2011. Members would be aware that in coming weeks the first shipment of LNG in the $25 billion contract with China will leave the North West Shelf to travel to China, adding to the exports of this valuable resource that we are already achieving to Japan and Korea. By 2020 Australia will be one of the world’s largest LNG producers and exporters, with exports worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The government is not prepared to take the relationship with Japan for granted. We are not prepared to just pocket it and expect that it will always be there. We need to continue to nourish and develop it to try to make it grow. That is why, after the Prime Minister’s visit to Japan last year, we launched a feasibility study into a free trade agreement with Japan. We have now agreed with Japan to expedite the completion of that feasibility study so that it will be concluded this year. That will give us an opportunity to launch FTA  negotiations with Japan, our largest trading partner, by the end of this year or early next year. It is important that we do not rest on our laurels and that we do not put all our eggs into one basket in this policy area. It is important that we focus on developing new markets and on strengthening the existing markets we have had for many decades. 9 Distinguished Visitors 9 14:41:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Neil Lucas, Administrator of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 9 Questions Without Notice 9 9 14:42:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 0 Ms KING —My question is to the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. Is the minister aware that 39 Australian employees have been sacked from the Ballarat manufacturing company Maxi-TRANS while that same company has retained 25 employees imported from China on temporary skilled migration visas? Isn’t this the same company that last year put on hold eight Australian apprenticeships after it imported welders from China? Minister, why have these Australians living in my electorate, who were employed without sick leave, annual leave, holiday loading or any long-term employment contracts, now lost their jobs while imported workers have been given greater job security? Is this what the minister meant when he said in this place last year: So I would invite the member for Ballarat to celebrate the fact that a local business is investing in itself and the local region and creating more job opportunities for more young people around Ballarat. Yippee! 10 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister 1 Mr HARDGRAVE —I thank the member for Ballarat for her question. It has been 266 days since the Australian Labor Party asked a question of me in this place about training, about skills or about apprenticeships. It was on 16 August last year, which was the 28th anniversary of the death of Elvis, for the people who want to know. This government has committed more money to the business of training apprentices than anybody else in history. The results are amazing: 397,800 new apprentices in training—a 146 per cent increase, or an extra 161,000 new apprentices since 1996; 139,600 new apprenticeship completions in this last year—a 314 per cent increase since 1996, or an extra 33,700 completions; 168,200 commencements in trade and related occupations—a 33 per cent increase— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Ballarat has asked a serious question about job losses in her electorate. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will come to his point of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Can the minister be drawn back to the question, on relevance, and answer about these specific job losses— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The minister is relevant. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —My point is: what is the member for Ballarat really on about here? In the last 10 years there has been a 286 per cent increase in the number of people in training in Ballarat—almost 4,000 people. In the case of MaxiTRANS, the member for Ballarat has to account to the people of her electorate as to why she is attacking a company that employs a total of 577 Australians— 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —I was attacking you for failing— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Ballarat has asked her question CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —including 70 professionals and 150 tradespeople. In the last few years MaxiTRANS has taken on Australian graduates as well as 68 new apprentices. It has also provided leadership training to its employees through the Ballarat TAFE and supported them in a number of other courses. At the end of the day, this company is doing its job in respect of training people. The issue of importing people from other countries is a separate matter. The member for Ballarat, who was been instructed by the AMWU to get up today and put forward this question, has decided to try to link them together. The Australian government’s priority is the training of young Australians. The statistics that I have put on the record yet again today prove just how successfully our priorities are being executed. 10 10 14:46:00 May, Margaret, MP 83B McPherson LP 1 Mrs MAY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, what is the government’s reaction to the recent events in the Solomon Islands? 10 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —First of all, I thank the honourable member for her question and for the interest she shows. As I am sure all members of the House will know, after the election of former Prime Minister Snyder Rini on 18 April riots broke out in the Solomon Islands capital, Honiara. I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute not just to the Royal Solomon Islands Police but to the members of the Australian police contingent, as part of RAMSI, for the enormous courage they showed in that situation. They had very little to defend themselves with, and they showed simply extraordinary courage. As honourable members will also know, very soon after, as the result of a request to the Australian Prime Minister from both the outgoing and incoming prime ministers of the Solomon Islands, defence and police reinforcements were sent in. They restored order in Honiara, and that order has remained to this day. Two members of the Solomon Islands parliament were amongst those who were arrested and charged for alleged incitement of the riots. This is a most serious charge, and its seriousness cannot be overstated. On Thursday, 4 May, the Solomon Islands parliament elected a new Prime Minister, Mr Sogavare. On 5 May, Mr Sogavare announced that the two members of parliament who are on charges will hold cabinet positions, with one of them to hold the position of minister for police. We are respectful of the sovereignty of the Solomon Islands, but Australia is surprised and deeply concerned by this move. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, said yesterday—it might have been the day before yesterday—that she was aghast at the appointments. We have made representations to the Solomon Islands government and have drawn to their attention our concerns. I hope to visit the Solomon Islands soon with the New Zealand foreign minister and possibly other ministers from other Pacific island countries. It will be an opportunity to talk to the Solomon Islands government not just about this issue that I have raised today but also about RAMSI, the Regional Assistance Mission in Solomon Islands, its role and what it can do. There is no doubt that RAMSI has been very successful since it was deployed in July 2003. Over 3,700 weapons have been seized and more than 5,000 arrests have been made. Courts have the capacity now to manage serious criminal and corruption trials, and the Solomon Islands have achieved the highest rates of economic growth at any time since the early 1990s. These achievements have been very warmly welcomed by the people of the Solomon Islands. An important point to make here is that, whatever criticisms there may be of RAMSI from what I might call the political class, the ordinary people of the Solomon Islands very warmly welcome RAMSI and are enormously supportive of RAMSI. But nobody should have any illusions about the size of the task which the Solomon Islands face. Since 2003, the Solomon Islands have achieved average economic growth of over four per cent, but that rate of economic growth would need to continue until 2025 just to reach the 1980 per capita income levels, which is quite a dramatic statistic. This will require enormous commitment to reform, it will require accountability to restore confidence to domestic and international investors and it will certainly demand very good governance. RAMSI can assist but, ultimately, the government and the people of the Solomon Islands are responsible for their own destiny. They must take their destiny into their hands. We are happy to help, but ultimately they will always be responsible for their own future. 11 11 14:51:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 0 Ms KING —My question is to the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. Does the minister believe that it is acceptable that a number of the sacked Maxi-TRANS workers in Ballarat, including Mr Mark Walker, specifically requested training but were denied the opportunity by the company? What action— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing orders specifically say that people shall not be named unless it is integral and important to the answering of the question. That question can be asked without that name being given, and it is out of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Mackellar. I call the member for Ballarat. I am listening carefully. If the name is not needed to make the question clear, the member for Ballarat need not use it. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms KING —Does the minister believe that it is acceptable that a number of the Maxi-TRANS workers in Ballarat, including Mr Mark Walker, specifically requested training but were denied this opportunity by the company? What action will the government take to provide more training support so that Australian companies like Maxi-TRANS can turn their semiskilled workers into fully qualified tradespeople rather than see them lose their jobs to temporary, skilled workers from overseas? Will the government now join Labor in making its No. 1 priority to train Australians first and to train them now? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Ballarat will resume her seat. In calling the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, I rule that the first part of that question was asking for an opinion, the second part was in order and the third part was not needed. 12 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister 1 Mr HARDGRAVE —I think the last part was a commercial! I thank the member for Ballarat—and sit down, he said. At the end of the day, as I tried to explain amongst all of the baying at the moon from those opposite, Maxi--TRANS is a company that has lifted an enormous amount of weight in the Ballarat economy when it comes to training people. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —What about those 35 workers? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —We have almost 4,000 people in training in Ballarat. When Labor was last in office that figure was about 1,000. So at the end of the day there is a lot of work going on in Ballarat when it comes to training. The individual circumstances of individual workers, the relationship they have with their employers and the decision to train is a partnership that workers and their employers should forge. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —So you don’t care about those 35 workers? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Ballarat, I am sure, wants to stay in the chamber. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —What is absolutely critical is that Australian business understands quite plainly that investing in their workforce is exactly that—it is not a cost to their business; it is a form of investment. But at the end of the day it still comes back to where we were in March last year, when we were asked exactly the same sorts of questions: a vilification of people who have come from another country, not to take jobs— Opposition members interjecting— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —Methinks they protest their innocence too much! Those people come not to take jobs but in fact to create jobs. According to a MaxiTRANS spokesman, in relation to the people who have been stood down, due to whatever circumstances the company has decided, it has cut 35 to 37 unskilled or semiskilled jobs. But none of the people reduced from the company’s casual workforce were qualified welders. At the end of it, that proves the point even further. This company has taken it upon itself to train people first—that is the government’s priority. The training of Australians first has always been this government’s priority. This is a bit rich coming from the mob opposite. In 1993, when he was the minister in charge of training, the Leader of the Opposition presided over the single biggest drop in apprenticeship numbers in Australia’s history—30,000 people in the dumpster. This government has more than repaired that circumstance, and the energy of companies like MaxiTRANS should not be criticised in this place under privilege by the member opposite. 13 13 14:55:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 1 Mr LINDSAY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister advise the House of the additional assistance that Australia is providing to Afghanistan? 13 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr NELSON —I thank the member for Herbert for his question and for his very strong support of defence families in Townsville—who will, I can assure him, enjoy the budget. Yesterday the Prime Minister announced on behalf of the government that a further 240 Australian troops will be deployed to Afghanistan. They will be in the central southern part of Uruzgan province in Afghanistan. They will be drawn from the 1st Combat Engineers in Darwin and also from elements of the 1st Brigade, particularly for logistics. Bushmasters and ASLAVS, and their supporting crews, will come from 6th RAR in Brisbane. In addition to that the Australian government has also announced that the two Chinook helicopters, both of which have undergone a $25 million upgrade for their electronic warfare self-protection systems and avionics, will remain in Afghanistan until April. The Australian troops will be working with the Dutch. The Dutch will have 1,400 troops deployed in this North Atlantic Treaty Organisation led activity. It is very important that Australians appreciate that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, this is a potentially quite dangerous mission. But it is one that is also very important. Of the 240 troops, about half will be tradies and engineers and about half will be protective forces for our own troops. They will also be working in very close partnership with the Dutch forces, which will include F16s and Apache helicopters. I can inform the House that the troops will be based in Tirin Kot. The reconstruction activities will take place at two sites and will include restoration and building of roads and culverts, of water reticulation, of sewerage programs and of basic infrastructure and will also include trade training. I notice that there has been some commentary in the Australian media today that perhaps Australia should not be in Afghanistan. Whilst to some extent that is understandable, it is important that all of us appreciate that, if we do not take up the cause against the Taliban and terrorist elements in Afghanistan—while it is in some ways quite remote from Australia—we will leave the next generation of Australians and other people throughout the world hostage to the kind of ideological insanity that killed innocent Australians in Bali. It is extremely important that we undertake our international obligations. For that reason, the government has committed these forces. 13 13 14:58:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Human Services. Minister, is it the case that advice from the smartcard technology task force, KPMG and Medicare Australia has been overlooked and that the smartcard technology task force head, Mr James Kelaher, has resigned due to the unacceptable risk that ignoring such advice poses both to privacy protection and to cost? 13 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services 1 Mr HOCKEY —No. This project has been flagged in this House for more than two years, initially as a Medicare smartcard, which the Labor Party pledged to take to the last election. In fact, I remember that the member for Lalor asked a question of the minister for health prior to the last election. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Was it a gold smartcard? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —A gold smartcard! The minister for health held up a Medicare smartcard, a successful trial of which has been held in Tasmania over the last two years. There has been extensive community consultation in the lead-up to the development of this proposal. The creative proposal went to the government together with a proposed budget. KPMG did an independent assessment of the business case, and their strong advice was that the business case is essentially overwhelming for the card to be implemented. I particularly appreciate the public support from members of the Labor Party for the smartcard. There were a number of them, including the member for Lalor and the member for Wills. In fact, the Premier of Queensland has already beaten us to it and is implementing a Queensland smartcard drivers licence, and I particularly appreciate his support for that. We are happy to be as open and as transparent as possible on this project. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean —Then release the report! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I have already indicated I am prepared to release the report. You have to catch up, Simon; there is nothing new in that. The first thing we need is for the Treasurer to be feeling a little generous tonight. If he is, then the project is well under way and, if that is the case, I am sure the opposition will join in the debate about just how good this card will be. I particularly appreciate the support of many Australians for the card. As the Prime Minister has said, the support, particularly from younger Australians, has been very strong. That is encouraging, because this card will replace 17 other human services cards. It will cut red tape for individuals and for business and it will be good for all Australians. 14 14 15:01:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 1 Mr TUCKEY —My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the minister aware that state and territory governments are considering raising registration fees for heavy vehicles as of July 2006? What is the Australian government’s attitude towards such proposals? 14 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr TRUSS —I thank the honourable member for his question. Everyone acknowledges the keen interest that the member for O’Connor takes in the transport industry. Like all members on this side of the House, he is gravely concerned about reports that the states will proceed with increases in truck registration fees. I am delighted to inform the House today that the Australian government has decided that the road user charge paid by road transport operators will be unchanged this year. I plan to bring to the parliament very soon a declaration setting the road user charge at 19.633c a litre from 1 July 2006. That is the same figure that has applied for the last five years. So, for six years now, the Commonwealth has frozen the road user charge. At the same time as we froze the fuel excise level we also implemented a freeze on the road user charge. This decision will save the road transport industry at least $200 million this year alone and, of course, that saving will increase year by year. In addition, the federal government is about to abolish the arbitrary boundaries that were applied to the on-road fuel excise rebate and extend the scheme to petrol powered as well as diesel powered vehicles. Those changes will save the road transport industry about $130 million a year. With the federal government taking such a strong lead, it is disappointing that all of the states and territories are talking about putting up road transport registration fees. That is despite the fact that the National Transport Commission has established that there is already over-recovery from the registration fees for the largest part of the transport fleet. Most are already paying to the states more than their cost to the provision of infrastructure. Everyone accepts that the transport industry should pay its own way, and the industry is more than happy to do that as well. But, in the absence of offsetting linked expenditure by the states and territories for roads, I do not think there is any compelling case for the Commonwealth to increase the Australian government’s federal interstate registration scheme. We have no plans to increase our own registration fees. The states should follow suit and give the road transport industry a fair go in these times of high fuel prices and heavy costs in the industry. 15 15 15:04:00 Andren, Peter, MP KL6 Calare IND 0 Mr ANDREN —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, can you confirm that your original proposal to exempt supermarkets from the mandatory code of conduct for the fruit and vegetable industry is now to be redrafted? Can you assure the House that Coles, Woolworths and other supermarkets will be included in such a redrafted code, as was indicated to producers, including those in my electorate, by the former Deputy Prime Minister prior to the 2004 federal election? 15 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGAURAN —I thank the honourable member for his question. The horticultural code of conduct is under consideration by the government, and I am consulting widely with all the stakeholders. The member will be glad to know that the government’s election commitment will be honoured when we have completed our deliberations. 15 15 15:06:00 McArthur, Stewart, MP VH4 Corangamite LP 1 Mr McARTHUR —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House of measures that the government is taking to boost doctor numbers, particularly in rural and regional Australia? 15 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and acknowledge his very hard work lobbying for a new medical school at Deakin University, and I also acknowledge your own hard work in this regard. The government recently announced that there would be an additional 160 medical school places in Victoria, that Deakin would receive $18 million towards its new medical school and that Monash would receive some $5 million towards extending its existing medical school into the Gippsland. I can point out that, already, since 2000, the government has increased medical school places by 30 per cent, and about one-third of existing medical students are bonded to spend at least six years in country areas after they qualify. Since 2000, the government has created 11 rural clinical schools and 10 university departments of rural health. Currently, some 2,000 doctors receive an annual bonus of up to $25,000 a year for working in the country. The government has recently doubled to up to $15,000 the bonus that country GPs receive if they maintain skills in obstetrics and anaesthesia. There is obviously more to do here, but I can report that, since 1996, while city doctor numbers in full-time equivalent terms have increased by three per cent, GP numbers in country areas, in equivalent full-time terms, have increased by 24 per cent. As I said, there is more to be done, but I think all this demonstrates that the Howard government is determined to remain the best friend that Medicare has ever had. 16 16 15:08:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the question that the opposition asked the minister in parliament concerning his knowledge of this cable of 13 January 2000, containing the UN’s warnings about the AWB’s inflated contracts with Saddam Hussein’s regime and the minister’s answer: ‘... of course I would have read them’. Minister, was this a true statement? 16 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —Indeed, it was. 16 16 15:08:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 Mr CIOBO —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister update the House on Australian government funding to Catholic and independent schools? Are there any alternative policies? 16 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 Moncrieff for his question and note his support for all schools in his electorate. The Howard government supports parents in having a choice of schools to which they send their children. We believe that, having paid their taxes, all parents deserve some level of public support. Sixty-eight per cent of all students attend state government schools and receive 75 per cent of public funding; 32 per cent of students attend Catholic and independent schools and receive 25 per cent of total government funding. Our funding model, the SES model, is based on need. Schools in the neediest areas receive 70 per cent of the cost of educating a child at a state government school, and schools in the wealthier areas receive some 13.7 per cent of the cost of educating a child at a government school. Each year the Howard government increases its funding to schools by an average of 6.4 per cent. I am asked about alternative policies. Last week the Leader of the Opposition announced that Labor’s schools hit list was dead. Members will recall Labor’s schools hit list; it was under a funding model called the ‘21st century resource standard’. That was just a fancy name for ripping money away from some schools and giving it to others. It was a policy enthusiastically embraced by the opposition education spokesperson. It meant that $520 million would be taken away immediately from some schools—hence, the hit list. This week the Labor opposition has recommitted to a hit list. Its funding policy is now called a ‘national resource standard’, but it is the same funding model under another name. It means that funding will be frozen to 350 schools, affecting 220,000 students. Labor is ideologically committed to its attack on independent and Catholic schools. This is a hit list by another name. Labor ought to come clean and admit that not only is the Latham schools hit list alive and breathing but it is back. 16 16 15:12:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is addressed again to the foreign minister. I refer to the minister’s answer just now that he was telling the truth when he told the parliament that of course he would have read the cabled warning of January 2000. I also refer to the minister’s subsequent statement to the Cole inquiry concerning his knowledge of this very same cable, where he stated in sworn evidence, ‘I do not have a specific recollection of having received or read this cable or if it otherwise was brought to my attention.’ Minister, doesn’t your statement to the parliament just now mean that your statement to the Cole inquiry was untrue? 16 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —No, it clearly does not. Of course I did not specifically remember a cable, but that is not to say that I would not have read it. That is a completely different proposition. Opposition members interjecting— 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —When it comes to recollection, I would not have thought the opposition would want to make too many political points. We have the Leader of the Opposition who cannot even recall the names of Labor Party senators from South Australia. He cannot even remember the first names of the ones whose surnames he can remember. Those opposite should be a bit careful about going down this track. Of course I do not remember specifically the cables, but I have made the point, as I did to the Cole commission, that I would have read the cables. I said that in the Cole commission on 11 April. All of these statements are entirely consistent. 17 17 15:14:00 Wakelin, Barry, MP HV5 Grey LP 1 Mr WAKELIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister inform the House how the government is performing with land tenure in remote Aboriginal communities to encourage home ownership and commercial activity? Are Aboriginal communities taking up this opportunity? Are there any alternative policies? 17 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr BROUGH —I thank the member for Grey, who represents many remote Indigenous communities in South Australia. Many Australians are probably unaware that there is a small percentage of fellow Australians who are incapable of owning their own home where they choose to live and who are not able to own their own business or to start any enterprise. That is because we do not allow them to have ownership in their own right, because, under a system that has been in place since 1976, land in these areas can be owned only by corporations, not individuals. On 5 October last year, this government undertook to open up Aboriginal townships in these circumstances and, under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act, to establish long-term leases—such as the 99-year leases that occur here in the ACT. This would enable these Indigenous people to have exactly the same rights and the same aspirations as all other Australians—that is, to be able to own their own home, to be able to own their own business, to be able to grow and be part of the market economy. To date, in many parts of Australia, this has been simply impossible. Last week I travelled to the Tiwi islands to sign what I believe is an historical heads of agreement document with the Tiwi people. This will allow the town of Nguiu—the centre of the community—to be leased back. For the first time, these people can join in the economic benefits that this country has been enjoying. The people of the Tiwi islands have shown great leadership to step out from what could have been seen as a comfort zone. They are an inspiration to other Indigenous communities. They have embraced what the Howard government is putting forward to them and, in doing so, they are seeing a new future for their young people. While I was up there, I was also very pleased to announce that the federal government would add another $10 million to the community to enable them to establish a community secondary college. It is because they understand the value of education that they want to see a new path; they recognise that the path they have been on for many, many years has been substandard and has failed their community. They want to embrace home ownership, they want to be part of the market economy and they want to go forward. The Howard government stands by them and with them and will support them the whole way to ensure that they can enjoy the same rights, responsibilities and opportunities as all Australians. 17 17 15:17:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the fact that in March 2004 Ambassador Bremer appointed an ADF officer, Colonel Michael Kelly, as legal adviser of the Coalition Provisional Authority to manage the CPA’s activities in relation to the oil for food program. I also refer to the fact that on 19 May 2004 Colonel Kelly sent an email to our deputy ambassador in Iraq saying: Looks like the jig is up on AWB and the OFF scandal. I refer further to this statement by Colonel Kelly to the Cole inquiry, just released by the inquiry, that in July 2004 he also told the Iraq Task Force in Canberra: … AWB were “up to their eyeballs” in the illicit payments … Given that a senior ADF officer working for the CPA had warned the government about AWB in May and July 2004, on what basis did the minister then instruct Australia’s ambassador in Washington to make representations to the US Senate three months later unequivocally dismissing allegations against the AWB? 18 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —First of all, there are other statements that were released on Friday as well. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Why don’t you come back to this one? 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —I would refer the honourable member to Colonel Kelly’s statement indeed and to other statements in relation to Colonel Kelly’s statement that were issued, and I urge him to sit and try to reconcile them all. Actually, that is the job of Commissioner Cole. As I have often said, the member for Griffith will not be happy with the Cole commission until he himself takes over from Commissioner Cole as its head. In relation to instructions to Michael Thawley, from my recollection—I think the Minister for Trade would share my recollection—we thought Australian companies, including AWB Ltd, should be dealt with fairly and according to due process. That is my recollection. No matter how hard the opposition tries to beat this up, it has to face up to the fact that the government have set up an independent inquiry to examine the issue, and we look forward to it producing its report. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 18 Personal Explanations 18 15:20:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —I do indeed. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —The chamber was misled by the minister for education in the remarks that she made about statements I made last week concerning the Labor Party’s policy on assistance to private schools. She suggested that the proposition I put forward was a freeze. No such proposition was put forward by me. I made it amply clear in the statements that I made at that time that the real value of whatever grants any school was in receipt of at the time we were elected to government would be sustained. In other words, they would be adjusted in order to ensure their real value—that would be an upward adjustment—kept pace with inflation. Can I say, Mr Speaker, that in misleading this place— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition has explained where he has been misrepresented. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —she failed to recollect the fact that more than half the schools operate— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He has made it clear where he felt he was misrepresented. 19 Questions to the Speaker 19 19 15:21:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. Ten years after the launch of the Liberal Party’s debt truck, today the Labor Party launched its own debt truck to highlight that foreign debt is now 2½ times what it was in 1996. This morning we were prevented from driving the debt truck past the front of Parliament House on the grounds that ‘advertising is not permitted in the parliamentary precinct’. Security was not used as a reason to prevent access. My questions to you are these. Firstly, given that 10 years ago the Liberal Party was permitted to park a debt truck at the front of Parliament House in the exact location that we were prevented from accessing today, what is the explanation for this apparent double standard? Secondly, what is the definition of advertising? Does this mean that any truck, bus or car that has a political message on it will be banned from the parliamentary precinct? How does this sit with freedom of speech, and what precedent does this set for future protests in the parliamentary precinct? 19 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Wills. I will make further inquiries on the points that he raises and report back to him. UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr Kelvin Thomson —I seek leave to table a photograph of the Liberal Party debt truck at the front of Parliament House so that the people of Australia can see this double standard for themselves. Leave not granted. 19 19 15:23:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP 0 Mr McMULLAN —Mr Speaker, I have a question that relates to the letter I wrote to you on 18 April concerning the new requirements for sponsorship of Parliament House passes for lobbyists. You will recall that I said at that time that it was so excessive as to be ridiculous and that it set requirements that neither you, nor I, nor the Prime Minister, nor any other member of this parliament could hope to meet. I note there has been some trivial amendment to that proposal. But the fundamental flaw, which requires people to enter the private areas of Parliament House on multiple occasions for 40 weeks of the year, has been retained. I ask whether you will review that proposal and whether you are aware that, as a result of that proposal, to get their numbers of meetings up people are arranging meetings in Parliament House that would otherwise be held elsewhere. How does that enhance parliamentary security? Will you undertake to review this ridiculous set of requirements? A person attending to see members of parliament on every day the parliament sits and every day the cabinet sits would not meet the requirements of the standards which you have now set down. 19 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Fraser. I will have a further look at the points he has raised. 19 19 15:24:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr MURPHY —Mr Speaker, I seek your assistance under standing order 105(b) in respect of questions that have appeared in my name on the Notice Paper this year. Specifically, I refer to question Nos 2998 and 2999 to the Minister for Education, Science and Training and the Treasurer respectively on 7 February; on 8 February, question No. 3005 to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts; on 9 February, question Nos 3013 to the Prime Minister, 3014 to the Treasurer and 3016 to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; question No. 3125 to the Prime Minister on 27 February; question No. 3127 on 28 February to the Minister for Health and Ageing; question No. 3159 on 1 March to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts; and question No. 3172 on 2 March to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Because it is more than 60 days since they appeared on the Notice Paper, I would be grateful if you would seek reasons for the delay in replying to these questions. 20 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Lowe. I will follow up his request with the ministers. 20 20 15:25:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr DANBY —Mr Speaker, also under standing order 105(b), would you approach the Special Minister of State and ask him the whereabouts of the answer to my question of 9 November 2005 on electoral matters? 20 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Melbourne Ports. I will follow up his request. 20 Auditor-General's Reports 20 20 15:26:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports of 2005-06 entitled Audit report No. 36, Management of the Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopter project—Air 87—Department of Defence, Defence Materiel Organisation; Audit report No. 37, The management of infrastructure, plant and equipment assets; and Audit report No. 38, The Australian Research Council’s management of research grants. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. 20 Documents Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 15:26:00 —Documents are presented in accordance with the lists circulated earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following document: Department of Health and Ageing—Statutory review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and the Gene Technology Agreement. Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned. Delegation Reports 20 20 15:27:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Denmark and Sweden on 16 to 27 October 2005. I am pleased to be able to table this report on the parliamentary delegation that I led to Denmark and Sweden. The visit provided a valuable opportunity to strengthen relations between our parliament and the parliaments of Denmark and Sweden. In recent years, government-to-government and people-to-people relations have been growing as we have found many issues of common interest which we share with these Scandinavian countries. These include promotion of free trade, combating terrorism and improving the environment. The delegation’s visit sought to ensure that the parliamentary dimension to our relationship with Denmark and Sweden also received a boost. It also provided an opportunity to gain a better understanding of key issues currently under consideration within the European Union. Danish and Swedish parliamentarians with whom we met emphasised the importance of strengthening contacts between parliamentarians as a way to promote broader cooperation on issues where we share similar approaches. The delegation was impressed by the strength of the parliamentary committee system in both Denmark and Sweden. Parliamentary committees in those countries play a vital and very active role in scrutinising both legislation and government administration. From discussions held with Danish and Swedish parliamentary committees, it was evident that there is a range of issues on which we can share information and ideas. These include security, immigration, the ageing population, work-family balance, labour market reform and the environment, to name a few. The delegation was also impressed by the fact that the Danish and Swedish parliaments both determine their own budgets. This helps to reinforce the independence of their parliaments. Throughout the visit, it was evident to the delegation that Australia is highly regarded in both Denmark and Sweden. The royal marriage of Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and the birth of their son have given an extra boost to the relationship with Denmark. The delegation was thrilled to arrive in Denmark the day after the royal birth. The delegation’s visit also preceded last year’s successful visit to Australia by the King and Queen of Sweden. The delegation found there are significant opportunities for broadening links with Denmark and Sweden in areas such as education and research. The delegation was impressed by the commitment of Denmark and Sweden to research and development. During its time in Denmark, the delegation was fortunate to visit the Foulum Agricultural Research Centre, a most impressive centre on the largest Danish island of Jutland. There the delegation met with a range of Danish research scientists and an Australian research scientist, Dr Mark Henryon, who are working on a range of interesting projects aimed at improving agricultural production and ensuring better environmental outcomes. While these scientists noted that there are contacts between our countries, they said we would greatly benefit from more formalised contacts between our research institutions. The delegation visited Sweden shortly after the announcement that two Australians, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall, had been named as Nobel Laureates. We were fortunate to visit the Nobel Museum in Stockholm and found out that its Centennial Exhibition was not scheduled to visit Australia. The delegation urges the government to examine whether it may be possible to bring the exhibition to Australia, given Australia’s proud association with the Nobel Prize. The meetings and briefings the committee had on energy and environmental issues were also of considerable interest. Information from those briefings is outlined in the delegation’s report. The delegation thanks the Danish and Swedish parliaments for the warmth of their welcome and for the informative program they developed for the delegation’s visit. The delegation also thanks our ambassadors to Denmark and Sweden, Matthew Peek and Richard Rowe, and their staff for the tremendous support provided to the delegation. We are also grateful to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Parliamentary Library and the Parliamentary Relations Office for their contributions to ensuring the success of the visit. I also take this opportunity to thank the delegation’s deputy leader, the member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, and the other delegation members for their work and commitment throughout the delegation. Finally, on behalf of all delegates, I would like to thank the delegation secretary, Andres Lomp, whose excellent work in supporting the delegation was a significant factor in the success of the visit. I commend the report to the House. 22 15:32:00 Washer, Dr Mal, MP 84F Moore LP 1 0 Dr WASHER —by leave—It is certainly a pleasure to address the report on the Australian parliamentary delegation to Denmark and Sweden. On behalf of all delegates, I would like to express my appreciation to the Danish and Swedish parliaments for their hospitality and informative and comprehensive program; to the Australian Ambassador to Denmark, His Excellency Mr Matthew Peek, and Mrs Linda Peek; and to the Australian Ambassador to Sweden, His Excellency Mr Richard Rowe, and Mrs Asa Hasselgard-Rowe and staff for their wonderful support and hospitality. Thanks also go to DFAT, the Parliamentary Library and the Parliamentary Relations Office. Australia’s relationship with Denmark has been strongly enhanced by the marriage of Australia’s Mary Donaldson to Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark and the birth of their son and heir to the Danish throne the day before we arrived on our visit, as the Speaker said. Unemployment in Denmark is around five per cent. The labour market in Denmark is based on employer organisations making collective agreements with trade unions. Around 80 per cent of blue-collar workers belong to a trade union. Many labour market issues are dealt with through negotiations between employers and trade unions. The Confederation of Danish Industries noted that flexibility is needed for future growth, in accordance with the traditions of the country. The confederation noted the impact of globalisation on local industries in Denmark, which has high labour costs and an ageing population. Danish industry has adjusted to this with less labour-intensive industry and with automation and streamlining of production processes. The Danish parliament is considering pension reforms to increase the age of retirement from 60 to 65 years. The confederation noted personal income taxes to be too high, with a top tax rate of 63 per cent and a value added tax at 25 per cent. Child care is a significant issue, with the government providing subsidies to assist with the cost of child care. Standards have been developed for the education of children in day care centres, allowing women to return to the workforce. Greater collaboration between Danish and Australian scientists to improve knowledge and technology based farming would be welcomed by Danish scientists. A visit to Vestas Wind Systems in Jutland demonstrated the manufacture of the wind generators used in Portland, Victoria and Wynyard, Tasmania. The world’s largest container operators, AP Moller-Maersk, were surprised that we operate five major ports to service a nation of only 20 million people. They believe that fewer ports and more comprehensive transport infrastructure based on rail would provide greater benefits. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —And the issue about foreign flag vessels? 84F Washer, Dr Mal, MP Dr WASHER —That is another issue. We cannot afford to compete. The Swedish economy has a highly developed, successful industrial sector which is export orientated. The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences has noted that big business is a key driver of R&D, accounting for three per cent of GDP. Real job growth is still a problem in Sweden. Like Denmark, the issue of migration and sufficient numbers of skilled people needs to be addressed. Sweden and Denmark both share Australia’s concern with the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. Sweden believes that the recent pressure put on the Baltic States and the Ukraine by Russia regarding gas supplies is a matter of concern. Sweden is very dependent on nuclear power and is naturally interested in Australia’s uranium mining policies. Sweden’s environmental objectives are documented in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage report Sustainable cities. Australian wine— DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean —I hope you gave them more than Western Australian wine, Mal! 84F Washer, Dr Mal, MP Dr WASHER —That’s the best. Australian wine and educational services have been of great interest. More than 2,000 students were enrolled in courses in Australia in 2004. Finally, I would like to congratulate Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who were the recipients of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, two Western Australians, and thank Stockholm for the ceremony. Matters of Public Importance 23 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Ballarat proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s failure to train Australians in traditional trades thereby undermining the job security and employment conditions of Australian workers. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 23 15:37:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 0 0 Ms KING —We have called on this debate today to draw attention to the plight of 39 workers in my electorate forgotten by the Howard government. Last year, Labor drew the attention of the House to the decision by the Ballarat company MaxiTRANS to import 25 Chinese workers. Earlier today, it was revealed that the company has sacked 39 Australian workers over the past three weeks. Notwithstanding the company’s claim that the workers have lost their jobs due to—and I am going to quote the part of the press release that the minister seemed a bit reluctant to quote—‘uncertainty and a softening of the market’, the imported labour has been kept on. That this has happened is remarkable enough. That it has been greeted by nothing more than a shrug of the shoulders by the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, who is at the table—and the Howard government in general, from the Prime Minister down—says much about this government’s misplaced priorities. I regret the company’s decision, but I absolutely condemn the Howard government for the policy inertia that permitted the displacement of Australian labour by skilled foreign workers. Make no mistake: the sacking of the MaxiTRANS 39 is an indictment of the Howard government. Thirty-nine workers in my electorate are out of a job today because the Howard government has taken the low road on fixing Australia’s chronic skills crisis. It has gone after a quick fix that facilitates the importation of skills at the expense of training for Australian workers. These are the facts of the MaxiTRANS matter. Last year MaxiTRANS, like other Australian manufacturers, was struggling to find the welders, metal fabricators and boilermakers it needed to meet its contracts. It took the decision to bring in 25 skilled workers from China. According to the company, that decision was made because it needed skilled workers immediately. Around the same time, the company recruited a number of Australian apprentices—and I congratulated it for that—but it then put on hold eight of those apprenticeships when the Chinese workers arrived. In the last three weeks, the company has laid off 39 Australian workers from the Ballarat plant alone. While employed through a labour hire firm, some of them have been working at the plant for up to 20 months—that is, longer than the Chinese workers have been at the plant. At least two of them have been engaged in general welding and the rest of them have been engaged in production. They are semiskilled workers, and all of them wanted the opportunity to train and to keep their jobs. All of them have been employed under conditions that are inferior to those enjoyed by the permanent workers at the plant—including, as I understand it, the Chinese workers. They have received no sick leave, no annual leave and no holiday loading, and there were no long-term employment contracts. There was not much real security there, but at least they had a job. Now they have no job at all. The voice of real people does not often get heard in this House. It should be heard more often. Voices of people like this MaxiTRANS worker who has just got his notice should be heard. He says: I would have loved to be trained as a welder. I know that out of the unskilled labourers Maxi-TRANS would have easily sorted their shortage. But... we’re unemployed now, it is as simple as that. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union is concerned that MaxiTRANS is using imported labour to undercut the conditions and wages of its Australian workers. So far I have given the company the benefit of the doubt on this, but this round of sackings gives me cause for doubt. Whatever the company’s motivations, one fact is abundantly clear: the Howard government is content for Australian businesses to import labour in preference to training Australians. In the midst of the greatest skills crisis in this country in living memory, it is nothing short of absurd that employers find it easier to source skilled labour from overseas than from Australia. If the government had done its job over the past decade, there would have been enough skilled tradespeople in Ballarat to fill the positions filled last year by the Chinese welders. That is the fact of the matter. If the government had provided incentives for MaxiTRANS to skill up these semiskilled workers then there would be enough trained tradespeople today to fill these jobs. It is policy failure on a grand scale. It is not just impacting on manufacturing businesses in my electorate. Across industries, and across the nation, the consequences of the Howard government’s skills policy inertia are being felt. It is not as if the current circumstances are a surprise to anyone. Employers have been shouting it loud and clear. But what has this government done? Absolutely nothing. It has restricted, not expanded, training opportunities for Australians. Under the Howard government, the skilled migration program has been increased by an extra 270,000 skilled migrants since 1997. Yet since 1998 the government has turned 270,000 Australians away from TAFE —that is, 270,000 Australians, young and old alike, have been denied the training opportunities they deserve. While skilled migration is up, skilled vacancies are rising, particularly in regional Australia. The skills vacancy index reveals that the Howard government has not started to address regional skills shortages in several critical trades, including carpenters, joiners, fibrous plasterers, bricklayers and solid plasterers. As MaxiTRANS knows only too well, welders, boilermakers and metal fabricators also feature on the skills shortage register. In fact, metal fitters and boilermakers have been on the national skill shortage list for eight of the last 10 years. Machinists, refrigeration mechanics and welders have been on the list for nine of the last 10 years. Mechanics, auto-electricians, panel beaters, chefs, sheetmetal workers, nurses and medical technicians have been on this damning list for every single year of the past decade. Be it due to complacency or arrogance, the Howard government has been unwilling and unable to fix this problem. I cannot help but contrast the growing skills shortage with rising teenage unemployment in regional Victoria. There is something seriously wrong when you have such high rates of teenage unemployment at the same time as local companies are crying out for skilled workers. As I have said, it is policy failure on an absolutely grand scale. I am not opposed to skilled migration. None of us on this side of the House are opposed to skilled migration. But while it is an important element of our immigration program, it must not be pursued at the expense of Australian workers and their families. The City of Ballarat in partnership with the local business community has actively sought to attract new residents, including migrants, to our area. As a community, we have supported the Chinese workers. They have taken advantage of an opportunity they were offered, and we all say, ‘Good luck to them.’ But sadly, good luck has not come the way of the MaxiTRANS 39. It is time the Howard government reconsidered its skills policy inertia and embraced Labor’s commitment to train Australians first. The people of Ballarat do not want much. We want a strong economy, we want jobs and we want to be sure that our community can offer our kids the education, training and employment opportunities they need to make the most of their lives. We know that by neglecting skills training the Howard government has let us down. Skilled migration must not be permitted to replace training for local people. It must not be allowed to act as the fig leaf covering up nine years of skills policy inertia by the Howard government. Australian workers, including those categorised as unskilled and semiskilled, are the backbone of Australia, not the Prime Minister or the minister at the table. Australian workers built this country and must be supported, not consigned to the scrap heap by this government. Thirty-nine people in my electorate of Ballarat have now been put on the scrap heap by this government while imported workers from overseas remain. Make no mistake: this is a direct result of the Howard government’s incompetence on skills. The requirements for importing temporary skilled workers from overseas mean the Chinese workers at MaxiTRANS have the protection of a contract, while the 39 local workers who have lost their jobs were left with no contract, no sick leave or annual leave entitlements and no protection from sacking. After working for MaxiTRANS for up to two years, they should have had the chance to do extra training to get a formal trade qualification instead of being replaced by imported skilled workers. Many of the workers at MaxiTRANS requested further training but were denied this opportunity. The 39 sackings at MaxiTRANS are a terrible blow to the affected workers, many of whom have mortgages and will have a tough time getting another job in Ballarat. The fate of these 39 Australians is an example of what the Howard government’s policy failure on skills is doing to Australian workers. I have no doubt that the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education is about to get up here at the dispatch box and heap personal abuse on me. That appears to be the style in which he answers questions. That is certainly what he did in question time. He will get up and he will falsely claim that in raising this issue—in daring to speak out for 39 workers who have been sacked in my electorate—I am somehow criticising Maxi-TRANS, an employer in my electorate that employs a large number of people, and that I am criticising the Chinese workers. That is absolutely not what I have done in raising this issue. To claim anything else will be simply untrue. This minister needs to get up and explain to those 39 workers who today do not have their jobs why they were not provided with the opportunity for training so that they could get a trade qualification in welding and keep their jobs. The minister needs to be able to look those 39 workers in the eye and tell them why the government failed to allow them to get training. The reality is that the government has got the balance wrong. It has been absolutely obsessed with attacking the rights of Australian workers at a time when it should have been investing in education and training. My electorate is forced to bear the consequences of the Howard government’s skills policy failure. I urge the House to join with me in declaring that enough is enough. Train Australians first and train them now. 26 15:49:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —I really welcome the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. Far from heaping any personal reflections upon the member opposite— 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —That would be a change. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —like she seems to think I did in question time, it is important to note that she cannot have it both ways. She cannot actually get up and use ‘Chinese imported workers’ as a foil to satisfy the AMWU’s attempt to get her to meet her particular commitment to them by raising questions today and indeed this MPI today. At the end of the matter, unlike those opposite, this government does not believe that a gun needs to be put to the head of individual employees or indeed individual employers. We in fact have record amounts— 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —How about an incentive? CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —She talks about incentives. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —Where are they? CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —I actually listened in silence to you, member for Ballarat. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Member for Ballarat! CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not need protection through the chair, but I make the point that the member for Ballarat wants to moralise and grandstand and put a whole bunch of things on the record, but she will not give me a chance to respond. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr Burke interjecting— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —The member for Watson wants to talk about a lack of material. The member for Ballarat had four minutes left and she wimped out, mate! We in this country at the moment are in a marvellous set of circumstances, where it is jobs looking for people and not people looking for jobs. We are also in a situation in this country today where we have a greater level of incentive, a greater level of assistance and programs which support the training of Australians. 83R Edwards, Graham, MP Mr Edwards —Empty waffle! He doesn’t care about families. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —The member for Cowan should be disgraced by his comments. How dare he suggest I know nothing about families. I have a great deal of respect for you, member opposite, but you will not try and suggest to me that I do not care about families. 83R Edwards, Graham, MP Mr Edwards interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Cowan will cease interjecting. The minister will ignore the honourable member for Cowan. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —I am, on behalf of the government, attempting to put a bit of clarity to the wild accusations made by the member for Ballarat. I do not mind the vigorous contributions from people opposite, but I will not be questioned on my commitment to families. The simple fact is that there was this enormous level of unemployment when those opposite were in power—one million people on the scrap heap—and that that million people represented, just as doctors bury their mistakes, the mistakes of the education and training system. You now have a set of circumstances in Australia where quite the opposite is occurring. We found some fundamental problems with the way our education and training system was geared. Getting onto the MaxiTRANS matter: nobody who is a skilled worker, a tradesperson, has been sacked by this company, by their own admission. I have not seen a press release, but I have certainly seen the reports in the Age newspaper. I think there are some unfortunate points that the Age tries to make in this article, but it suits the purpose of the member for Ballarat in this argument today. MaxiTRANS have, however, laid off some non-skilled or semiskilled people only. The member for Ballarat in her contribution made the point that many of those were hired by labour hire firms—that they are in fact casuals. They are not the skilled people that are needed by this business to grow this business, to create even more than the 577 jobs which exist in the Ballarat region through MaxiTRANS’s effort. Is this right? Is a labour hire firm involved in this? If so, these people are employed by the labour hire firm, not by MaxiTRANS direct. This sounds awfully like the example the member for Ballarat gave last year, and she mentioned it again today. The eight apprentices who were put to one side were not fully qualified tradespeople, who MaxiTRANS sought and who, by the member for Ballarat’s own endorsement in this place just moments ago, were needed to grow the business, to get MaxiTRANS working and working strong; they were in fact apprentices. According to the member for Ballarat at that time, these apprentices were sacked, but the truth was that they were employed by a group training company. They were placed in MaxiTRANS. And each one of those eight apprentices was in fact placed with other host employers. So I am simply saying today that the member for Ballarat is on enormously thin ice of credibility when it comes down to the facts at the core of her argument. In summation, all of her assertions are plainly wrong. At the end of it, we are in this amazing circumstance of jobs looking for people, not people looking for jobs. We are also at a time when the government is spending record amounts of money when it comes to the training of young Australians, and our No. 1 priority is getting Australians trained. But we want to make sure that, for the business community of Australia, who are at the heart of every new person who is put in a position to be trained, it is not about building new buildings at TAFEs, even though we are spending more money on those sorts of things than ever before; it is about supporting the relationships in the training system that satisfy the needs and the expectations of employers, the people who trigger the process of training. Because those opposite have not asked me a question on this for 266 days, until today, I cannot help but suspect that they really do not have too much interest in the facts when it comes to training. At the end of it, they do not want to understand what the state and territory ministers around this country are reluctantly coming around to, and that is the need to fundamentally reform a supply driven approach where the providers of training—and I am talking in particular about public training providers, and I will name them: TAFEs—dictate the terms and conditions on where, how and when training is delivered. This sort of thing did not just happen overnight. In fact, some have suggested that, when the member for Brand’s father was the member for Fremantle and a minister in the Whitlam government, he had a lot to do with the way in which this sort of circumstance has evolved. It is worth noting that a generation ago TAFEs were demand driven, which is exactly what we want to see restored in Australia today. A generation ago, people worked for an employer as an apprentice and then, in their own time, sought and gained the technical training to back up the practical experience they got in the workplace. A generation ago, TAFEs were responding to the sort of training that was demanded of business. But since that dreadful period in Australia’s history, the Whitlam era—and, as I said, it was the member for Brand’s father who was the minister at the time and caused part of the change—the change was continued further on, when you think about the snobbish values brought in by the Australian Labor Party to the whole debate. There was a suggestion that if you do not have a university degree you are going to be a dud. You are a failure. And that is the sort of logic that has pervaded Australian society for decades and that this government is in the process of fixing. LN6 Hatton, Michael, MP Mr Hatton interjecting— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —The member for Blaxland says it is hideous. The member for Blaxland is right. The ordinary working men and women of Australia are far more represented by people on this side than by those on the other side, who pretend to be the backers of the workers of Australia but in fact have left them in a ditch. If they are not in organised labour—in other words, about 85 or 90 per cent of Australians—they are not interested in them. If they are not in an organised union structure, they are not interested in them, because that is how those opposite get here. People on this side are listening to the real job creators and understanding the ambition of parents and indeed the students, and we are now seeing record numbers of people taking up a training opportunity. If those opposite were really serious, they would denounce those Whitlam era circumstances that began the change and that were continued on by the Dawkins reforms that made every corner TAFE a university and created a circumstance which delivered a great deal of reinforcement to the idea of ‘Get a degree or you are a dud’. And then of course the member for Brand himself, in 1993, when he was part of a government that crashed the economy, really did bring home and emphasise the point I continue to make: 30,000 people dropped out of the training system in one year as employers of Australia took their lead from the government of the day and saw the employment of apprentices as a cost their business could not justify, and we lost the benefit of 30,000 people taking on training. That is the sort of circumstance that is a background to any of the legitimate claims that may have been the minor part of the short contribution from the member for Ballarat: the suggestion that in fact there might be unemployment issues that are alive—and I will take her word for it—in her electorate amongst the young people of Ballarat. This is at a time when you go and talk to people in business around Australia and they are saying: ‘Send me a person. Send me a hot body with two hands who wants to actually work hard at the business of learning a trade.’ That is what businesses in Australia in places like the Pilbara and in the mining regions of Queensland are saying. That is why companies like Thiess are paying 18-year-olds $85,000 a year to keep them in the mines as apprentices in certain trades—to keep those kids there so they are not sucked out to some other opportunity. We are in an amazing employment market at the moment. Companies like Maxi-TRANS—which the member for Ballarat is now claiming, after I have drawn it to her attention, that she was not trying to attack—an employer of 577 people, has an enormous commitment to training and understands far more about it than the member for Ballarat does from her cursory once-a-year look at the subject. We have to continue the reforms we are trying to effect. I ask members opposite from the state of New South Wales to put some pressure on their state government to deliver on the COAG reforms that the Premier, Mr Iemma—if there is a dilemma, think of Morris Iemma; it is a great catchcry—has signed up to to bring about school based apprenticeships and a change to licensing regimes—which are basically set in place because of a lack of trust in the training that TAFE delivers. Why don’t you demand of the New South Wales government that it gives training opportunities for school based apprenticeships to young people in New South Wales? What is it about the state of New South Wales and, indeed, the state of Western Australia that fears a set of circumstances relating to school based apprenticeships when states like Queensland and Victoria— 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —The member for Ballarat is saying, ‘And Ballarat.’ There were 190 school based apprentices in Ballarat this year. When Labor was last in office there were none. These sorts of initiatives are there to engage with business, to listen to their demands, to understand the way in which the training system needs to be geared so that training is delivered when, how and in the way that business wants and to encourage more businesses to take on training opportunities. Each of those 39 casual part-time people, if in fact they have lost their work—because they are part of a labour hire firm that may not be the case—is probably finding more work right now. I hope that they engage a company that wants to take on training and will give them an opportunity to learn, if they are ambitious to do it. It is worth saying for the record that, under the government’s program, there is no limit to the number of apprentices who can be employed around Australia. The funding for incentives for apprenticeships is unlimited and the government will support as many apprentices as employers are able to put on, particularly in the trades. In the last financial year, over $539.2 million has been paid to employers under our apprenticeships support scheme. We found when talking to businesses who were unable to attract anybody in the local community to take on training or who were unable to attract sufficient skilled Australian candidates for the jobs—as MaxiTRANS found when they had an urgent need for experienced welders, despite rounds of advertising and open days at the factory—that they made full use of our skilled migration program. The member for Ballarat’s contribution, short as it was, was also lacking in the detail that I think brings the whole story to the front of this discussion. It is important to note, yet again— 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —I welcome the fact that the member for Ballarat is now trying to retract her earlier assertion in this place— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Really? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —The member for Lalor says it is not true. Those opposite are completing my sentences for me. It seems to me that the member for Ballarat was trying to retract her assertion that she was not attacking the Chinese workers but was helping to make a home for them. Like their policy confusion on this issue, those opposite are very confused on exactly what the member for Ballarat meant. At the end of the day, in an environment of record spending, record take-up of apprenticeships and record retention and completion of apprenticeships right across Australia, the government is determined to keep doing the hard work to undo the mess of Labor tradition in this area—a mess which started way back in the horror years of the Whitlam government. 30 16:03:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 0 0 Ms BIRD —I am not going to attempt to be kind or generous to the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education when I say that I think he performs in the most appalling fashion and indicates the worst understanding and commitment to his portfolio of any of the ministers. I exempt the Minister for Human Services, who is seated at the table with him, from that comment. I certainly feel that the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education has indicated throughout his management of this portfolio a really deep and abiding hatred of the public education system. This consistently comes through in his remarks. He has a very superficial level of understanding— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr Hardgrave —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A suggestion of an improper motive seems a bit abrupt to me from the member for Cunningham—the public education expert she might happen to be! 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms BIRD —In my view, this minister has indicated a complete lack of understanding of the vocational education sector, a deep lack of interest in getting a grip on the issues of his portfolio and an entire commitment to running superficial and particularly offensive arguments on the basis that somehow history has indicated that those of us on this side of the House have walked away from those who want to take on training in the traditional trades. It is, I know, a fairly abrupt and unkind assessment of his performance, but I can come to no other conclusion from observing him since my election to this place and his attempts to address the issues of vocational education in Australia at this time. The minister’s greatest expression of passion in response to this matter of public importance was to bemoan the fact that nobody had asked him a question for 266 days. Given the quality of his responses, it is little wonder. I will steal the statement of the shadow minister for health and say: it is not about him; it is actually about the 270,000 young people who have been turned away from training opportunities over the 10 years of this government. The member for Ballarat quite correctly identified that these job vacancies to which the minister refers—in particular, in the manufacturing sector in areas such as welding—are a surprise to no-one. They have been on the job shortage list for the 10 long years that the government has been in office and, most certainly, on that list since the minister has had responsibility for this portfolio. The minister talks about talking with business, which is an important thing to do when developing a national vocational education and training program. For as long as I have been involved in vocational education and training—I started as a TAFE teacher in 1995—Australia has had an internationally recognised and admired TAFE training system which has produced some of the most valued traditional tradespeople in the world. These tradespeople are snapped up when they seek work overseas because we have delivered such high-quality trade training. Under the Hawke and Keating governments, the National Training Authority was established to allow businesses to have input into the development of a national training scheme. The minister’s argument that we on this side of the House are interested only in snobbish university qualifications and do not care about trade training not only is untrue, simplistic and lazy, but also ignores the fact that some of the biggest skills shortages in this country are in engineering and nursing, which require a university qualification. The minister’s assessment of the situation either is a wilful misrepresentation or indicates his ignorance of the skills shortages facing the nation today. Following on from what the member for Ballarat said—because she and I often acknowledge the similarities in our experiences—in the eighties we had a downturn in the steel and mining industries in my area. I have raised it with the Australian Industry Group in my area—indeed, they have acknowledged it themselves—that employers took their eyes off the ball in terms of the long-term skills needs of this country. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —What about the government at the time? DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms BIRD —I will continue if the minister will let me. In taking their eyes off the ball— LN6 Hatton, Michael, MP Mr Hatton interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —It was your mate Keating. DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms BIRD —Whilst I appreciate the interjections, I will continue. In taking their eyes off the ball, the employers laid down the foundations for the problems that occur today. As I said to the Australian Industry Group, governments also took their eyes off the ball in that the major government instrumentalities which recruit and employ apprentices stopped doing so. The Australian Industry Group and I reached agreement that, overall, industry and government allowed the skills shortage we now face to develop. The member for Ballarat has quite rightly said in discussing this MPI that the response of government has been completely inadequate. The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education has presided over one of the most incompetent implementations of a program by a government—the Australian technical colleges—that it is possible to find. In a cobbled together brain-snap during the 2004 election campaign— LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting— DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms BIRD —I know that the smartcard is catching up fast, but I still think it has a fair way to go to take on the incompetent implementation of the technical colleges. During the 2004 election campaign, the minister had the brain-snap that the government would set up 24 technical colleges around the country. At the moment, four colleges are operating and the minister is running around threatening to take away the contracts from other areas. The goalposts for this idea have moved with every announcement the minister has made. The last time the minister came to my electorate to talk to interested bodies about establishing a technical college, he said the government was going to be ‘flexible’ about meeting local demands and that a local area could put together a proposal that suited local circumstances. My understanding is that the committee in my area have been knocked back every time they have put forward a proposal to the department. They have reached the point where they are getting ready to say to the minister, ‘We can’t do anything that meets our local demands that you will tick off on.’ The minister’s implementation of this program is significantly failing to deliver in terms of the skills shortages occurring in my area. Indeed, the program itself—being flawed in that it had such a long lead time to provide skilled tradespeople—is now blowing out because the minister cannot even implement the policy correctly and get these things up and running. The skills shortage is not a surprise; it was identified. These jobs have been on the list for the 10 years this government has been in power. With businesses screaming that the No. 1 issue of concern for growth in the future is not industrial relations but the skills shortage, the government responds by expanding not only the skilled immigration category but also the unskilled immigration category—something we have never seen before. In particular, the member for Ballarat and I share the problem of very high youth unemployment in our areas. I have a son who left school four years ago. I had five boys who, as teenagers, when they were sitting around for more than 12 months desperately trying to find a job, would have jumped at the opportunity to have a trade. The government might be pleased to hear that one of them ended up going to uni and doing science teaching—another skills shortage area. Another three eventually went off and did other things. Only one of them ended up in a traditional trade, and he travels to Sydney for that work. The reality is that there is no snobbishness on this side of the House, nor in our communities, about trade training. There are young people in our areas who want those opportunities and jobs. They do not want a toolbox. They do not want to go back to school at some trade college. They just want investment in trade training opportunities, and the government has walked away from funding our TAFEs—our world-class, world-recognised trade training institutions—for its own ideological bent. The minister can spin and throw accusations at this side of the table as much as he likes, but he is an abject failure in this portfolio. I have little doubt that even the minister at the table, Minister Hockey, would do a 100 per cent better job in meeting this requirement. (Time expired) 32 16:14:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 0 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —Mr Deputy Speaker, prior to addressing this matter of public importance, which I wish to do, I ask for your indulgence to briefly reflect for a moment on the events which have unfolded back home in Northern Tasmania. The loss of the life of one miner and today’s rescue of two missing miners bring us all together at this time. That is something which both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have agreed upon today in their reflections. It has been a very emotional and also uplifting day for the people of Northern Tasmania and indeed the entire Australian community, who have watched with bated breath. Awaking today to the news that Todd Russell and Brant Webb had finally been saved was the best start to the morning that anybody could have asked for. Their rescue has of course been a long time coming and, having found themselves trapped in a cramped cage deep underground on Anzac Day, two weeks ago, they must have experienced many feelings: I suppose relief that they were unharmed and had been protected from the rock fall but also fear for the welfare of their colleagues, their work mates, that they knew were nearby. None of us can even begin to imagine their fears and how they have had to hold their nerve as they waited and hoped for help to arrive. Couple these with their concerns for their loved ones, which would have been very gripping indeed for them, and the uncertainty and sadness that those loved ones would have been experiencing during this time. When contact was actually made with the men eight days ago that Sunday night we all rejoiced, but none of us then imagined how long it would actually take to again see them alive. Today our prayers were answered. Today is indeed a day for celebration, but it is also one for reflection as we remember Larry Knight, a member of the Northern Tasmanian community whose funeral has been held today back home in Launceston. I know that the last two weeks have been unspeakably tough for Larry’s family, especially for Jacquie and their children, who have had to battle many emotions. At times like this we try to understand why these things happen, but for now our thoughts are simply with them. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me that indulgence. I would like to address the matter of public importance which has been raised by the member for Ballarat. It is a legitimate issue for the member to be raising in this place. However, I feel that the raising of the matter of public importance comes from a very poor understanding of the situation in which we find ourselves. She has chosen in this case to word it by making an assumption that the government has in some way caused a failure of policy and has itself failed to train Australians in traditional trades. She claims in her MPI that this has somehow caused the undermining of the job security and employment conditions of Australian workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Australian government has not failed to train Australians. In fact, the government’s record is very strong and in a moment I will be drawing some comparisons with Labor’s record in office when they had an opportunity to play a key role in ensuring that Australia’s skill levels were high. Very importantly, the fact that unemployment in this country today is at the lowest it has been in my lifetime should not be lost on any of us. The question really does become: does Australia have a skills crisis, as people like the member for Jagajaga and the member for Ballarat seem to constantly say, or do we simply have a shortage of labour? I would argue that when we hear people railing against the government and using phrases like ‘skills crisis’ they are walking away from the fact that this government has presided over the lowest unemployment rates in my lifetime. Across Australia the unemployment rate today sits at around five per cent. In my electorate of Bass, unemployment has fallen by two per cent in the last 12 months alone. It seems that my colleagues in the Labor Party opposite who are laughing, being scornful and refusing to listen just do not want to hear that the reality is that we do not have a ‘skills crisis’—that is their jargon—but we do have a labour shortage. This is an important issue. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— DYH Ferguson, Michael, MP Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —The member for Ballarat has raised this matter of public importance but does not want to hear what any anybody else has to say. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —I am sitting here quietly. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Ballarat will continue to sit there quietly. DYH Ferguson, Michael, MP Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —Look at the record of the government and look at the record of the Labor Party. Under Labor, youth unemployment soared to 25.5 per cent in August 1992. Opposition members interjecting— DYH Ferguson, Michael, MP Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —It is just another number and you think to yourself, ‘He’s just reeling off more statistics,’ but as they interject and they heckle they ignore the fact that in 1992 thousands of young Australians had no purpose in life, no goals in life and nothing to strive for—and, in a way, you simply ignore this because you want to win the debate today and you simply want to provide opposition to the government. You are not genuinely concerned. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Lalor will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Bass will refer his remarks through the chair. DYH Ferguson, Michael, MP Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —They are not concerned with the level of youth unemployment that has been taken away from our community. We ought to be rejoicing in this. Do I welcome the fact that there are businesses and industries—by the way, as if the Labor Party actually cares for business and job creation in industry!—facing a good problem? We should be celebrating the fact that we have a problem which is a good problem. We have a problem that this government has created, because there are so many people employed we almost have full employment. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Ballarat has made her speech. DYH Ferguson, Michael, MP Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —If I had a choice between the two, would I choose a situation where we had hundreds of thousands of people, even a million people, looking for jobs or would I have jobs looking for people? That is what we have in this country. We have the Labor Party walking away from their record of the past. They choose to somehow relive the Hawke and Keating years as some sort of economic miracle. We know it was not. When I was in my high school years, growing up in a home with parents who were struggling with a 17 per cent home mortgage and youth unemployment that was so high, it was no joke and no laughing matter. Look at the record. There was 25.5 per cent youth unemployment in August 1992. At that stage there were fewer apprenticeships and there was an unmet demand for vocational and technical education places. That had reached 89,300 places in 1995, of which 69,400 were TAFE places. Skilled workers—and this is a fact—were simply unable to find jobs. Is that what we are looking for from the Labor Party today? Is that their new policy direction? What is the greatest challenge today? Go to Ballarat or Launceston and ask any business. Ask any industry in the employment market what their greatest challenge is. They will tell you that the greatest challenge is finding people to take up skilled positions. Is this a failure of the government? The government is somehow supposed to instantly produce skilled workers when all of the people who are looking for work in the job market—and a majority under good economic management from this government—have been able to find themselves secure employment. From what Labor is saying, the opposite is true. The government has not at all presided over a failure of policy. The opposite is true. The government’s great success story is all of the people who right now are too busy to even be listening to this debate. They are hard at work. They are in their workplaces. They may have the radio on in the corner, but they are busy making money for their employer, holding their job security for themselves, improving their job prospects for the future and carving out a future for themselves. Important as the general area covered by this matter of public importance today is, it is an absolute ruse. The Labor Party have no credibility on this issue. They are crying crocodile tears. It is shallow politics designed simply to provide opposition to the government. It is a total walkaway from their own abject failure to train and skill Australia during the Hawke-Keating years of the 1980s and 1990s. The fact is that the Howard government, having presided over a strong economy, is able to see its young people and its older people get into a fulfilling life and be able to secure employment. They are able to do so on the basis of the very successful vocational and skilling policies of this government. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded. 35 Bills R2483 35 Bills R2395 35 Bills R2398 35 Bills R2399 35 Bills R2401 35 Bills R2394 35 Bills R2400 35 Bills R2498 35 Bills R2499 35 Bills R2479 35 Bills R2480 35 Bills R2481 35 Bills R2509 35 Bills R2477 35 Bills R2442 35 Bills R2502 35 Bills R2490 35 Bills R2488 35 Bills R2392 35 Bills R2204 35 Bills R2482 35 Bills R2497 35 Bills R2505 35 Bills R2504 35 Bills R2501 35 Bills R2486 35 Bills R2418 35 Bills R2506 35 Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills. 36 Bills R2504 36 Bills R2505 36 Bills R2498 36 Bills R2499 36 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 36 Committees 36 36 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senators Hutchins and Webber have been appointed members of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library. 36 Bills R2494 36 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting. 36 Committees 36 36 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The Speaker has received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Ticehurst to be a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage in place of Jackie Kelly. 36 16:26:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services 1 0 Mr HOCKEY —by leave—I move: That Jackie Kelly be discharged from the Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage and that, in her place, Mr Ticehurst be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. 36 Bills R2533 36 Bills R2539 36 Bills R2538 36 Mr BARTLETT (Macquarie) 16:27:00 —by leave—I move: That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. Question agreed to. 36 Committees 36 36 36 00:00:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 1 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —I ask leave of the House to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit concerning the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 2006-07, and also for leave to present a copy of my statement. Leave granted. 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —I rise on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to report on the budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office. This is a requirement of the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951, and reflects the Auditor-General’s status as an independent officer of the parliament. The Audit Office’s budget allocation in 2005-06 was just under $62 million, with a further $1 million received during additional estimates and another $900,000 received as part of the supplementary additional estimates process. The total budget allocation for 2005-06 is $63.8 million. The Auditor-General advised the committee that he had sought additional funding from 2006-07 onwards across three priority areas. First, the Audit Office sought just over $2.8 million over four years to provide audit services resulting from the adoption of the Australian equivalents to the international reporting standards and to fund the financial statement audit of the new Future Fund Management Agency. Second, the Audit Office sought additional funding for the audit of the financial statements of the Department of Defence, at a cost of $915,000 in 2005-06 and $325,000 for each of the 2006-07 and 2007-08 financial years. By way of background, the audit of Defence’s financial statements for 2003-04 and 2004-05 revealed significant issues around the department’s systems and controls. A series of implementation plans to address these issues has been put into place. Progress on these plans will be assessed by the committee in our new inquiry into financial reporting and equipment acquisition at the Department of Defence. Third, the Audit Office sought $3.57 million over four years and $962,000 per annum ongoing to produce an annual audit report on major defence projects, as resolved by the Senate following a report by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee in 2003. I am pleased to report that the Audit Office received the funding for the financial statement audit work that it had requested for 2005-06 and 2006-07 onwards. For 2006-07 the Audit Office received $1.125 million to audit the adoption of the Australian equivalents to the international reporting standards, approximately $225,000 for the audit of the Future Fund Management Agency and an increase of $325,000 for the financial statement auditing of the Department of Defence. The committee notes that the Audit Office did not receive approval in the 2006-07 budget for ongoing funding of an annual report on progress in major defence projects. This proposal was similarly not approved in last year’s budget. The previous Auditor-General advised the Senate, when it formally requested that the Audit Office produce such a report, that this task was beyond the Audit Office’s available resources and commitments. The Audit Office’s position was endorsed by my committee in April 2004. The committee have in recent years devoted considerable attention to the Auditor-General’s reports on individual defence projects. We believe that funding the Audit Office to produce an annual audit on progress with such projects could well deliver significant benefits for both the Department of Defence and the Australian taxpayer. Such a report would also be in line with developments in the United Kingdom and the United States. We will assess this issue further during our current inquiry into financial reporting and equipment acquisition at the Department of Defence and in that light may make recommendations to the parliament at a later date. Overall, the Auditor-General advised the committee that the Audit Office’s budget for 2006-07 is sufficient to enable it to meet its auditing responsibilities. The Auditor-General had previously informed the committee that adoption of the Australian equivalents to the international reporting standards had allowed him to manage the Centenary House rental costs by accessing accumulated funds without recording an operating deficit. As a result, the Audit Office has budgeted to break even in 2006-07. I note that actual outlays under the Centenary House lease agreement will be approximately $6.7 million in 2006-07, $7.3 million in 2007-08 and a further $1.7 million before the lease expires in September 2008. This, of course, is reducing the accumulated cash reserves of the Australian National Audit Office. The Auditor-General also advised the committee that the increasing requirements of auditing standards and the need to be competitive in the accounting and auditing labour market are exerting sustained cost pressures which flow through to the Audit Office’s budget for 2006-07 and the out years. The cost of audit contractors has also increased, adding to the budget pressures. While the Audit Office has used contractors for many years to assist with the larger commercial audits and to manage peak workloads, the Auditor-General informed the committee that he is also using contractors for government agency work due to staff shortages. In the light of these developments, the Auditor-General has indicated that he will be reviewing his budget position and market conditions throughout 2006-07 and will inform the committee of the outcome of this review ahead of next year’s budget. The committee are concerned to ensure that the Audit Office is properly resourced, given the importance of its work. In particular, it is vital that the Audit Office is able to attract and retain the high-quality staff it employs to undertake its performance and financial statement audits. We will await further advice from the Auditor-General before informing the parliament of the resourcing of the Audit Office beyond the coming budget year. The Auditor-General’s advice that his budget of $64 million for 2006-07 is sufficient has been noted and welcomed by the committee, and accordingly we endorse the budget proposed for the Audit Office for the year ahead. I have presented a copy of my statement to the House. 38 Bills R2484 38 Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Dr Stone: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Griffin moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this bill be withdrawn until undemocratic provisions that: reduce the period of time Australians have to enrol to vote and update their details on the electoral roll; introduce new proof of identity requirements; increase the disclosure thresholds to $10,000; and increase the tax-deductibility of political donations are removed”. 38 16:35:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —When I was last speaking on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 approximately five weeks ago I was saying how outrageous it is that this government is abolishing the right of people to enrol to vote after a federal election has been called. I was calling on the government to commit itself to an advertising campaign to let people know that it is changing this law and to let people know that, if they move house or turn 18, they are now obliged to change their electoral enrolment immediately to ensure that their right to vote continues. But I would now like to turn to the matter of funding disclosure. Every political party conducts fundraising, as does every political candidate. There is nothing wrong with this, and it is a necessary and healthy part of our political life. But it is important that fundraising be transparent and that it be open. This bill effectively kills transparency. At the moment, all political donations above $1,500 must be declared and are on the public record. It is true that the $1,500 limit was set some time ago and, while we would have supported keeping the $1,500 limit in place, perhaps some more modest increase being proposed by the government would have met more favourable consideration from us. Perhaps that would not have been out of the question and would not have been objectionable. If they had come up with a reasonable proposal for a modest increase, that would have met with more support on our side of the House. But this bill raises the level of disclosure to the, frankly, extraordinary level of $10,000. This will enable secret donations of $9,999 to be made. Furthermore, the state branches of political parties are separate entities for the purposes of disclosure, which means that up to eight donations of $9,999 will be allowable. In effect, secret donations of up to nearly $80,000 will now be legal once this bill is passed. It pays to look at some examples of international benchmarks of allowable secret donations. In the United States, only donations under $200 need not be declared and any donation above that must be declared. In Canada, every single donation received must be declared. I am not saying that we should adopt that system, but there is no case for increasing the level of funding disclosure from $1,500 to $10,000—a very significant increase which the government has not come anywhere near justifying. What is the government’s reason for doing this? If this law had been in place for the electoral period of 2004-05, around 85 per cent of donations to the Liberal Party would have been secret. This is not good for democracy. Politicians already have a bad name in the community. If the community thinks that people or firms are able to make large secret donations to political parties and that these people or firms may or may not deal with the government on a commercial basis, then the name and reputation of all politicians will be sullied—and this government will be responsible for that. I believe that there is very little political corruption in Australia on either side of politics. There is very little peddling or buying of influence and no evidence that political corruption is widespread in Australia. I would be very surprised if widespread corruption was discovered, but I would like to make two comments. Firstly, I think that one of the reasons that the Australian political system is free of corruption is that we have a transparent and open system of donations and accountability. Secondly, it is important that the system not only not be corrupt but also be seen not to be corrupt. The changes proposed under this bill fail this test abysmally. How will we know if someone who benefits from a government decision did or did not donate $9,999—or, indeed, up to $80,000—to the government’s re-election campaign? Of course, we will not know, and that is not good for the health of Australia’s political system. All sides of politics should declare their significant donations. Donations received by the Australian Labor Party should be declared and on the public record, as should those of the Liberal and National parties and all other political parties. This is a bad bill. It is a bill which makes it harder for people to vote but easier for secret donations to be made. It is a bill which rips up 66 years of convention in this country whereby people are able to enrol to vote in the first few days of an election campaign. It is a bill which goes against the often stated recommendations of the Australian Electoral Commission—including recommendations made by the commission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters after several federal elections—that abolishing the right of people to enrol to vote in that period will reduce the integrity of the electoral roll. This bill should be opposed and it will be opposed. It will be opposed in this House, in the other place and in the community. If enacted it should be repealed, and it will be repealed when Labor comes to office. Labor will deliver a system which provides transparency and openness about political donations in this country. We will deliver a system which makes it easier for people to exercise their democratic rights in this country, not harder, as this government has done. A government has a choice when it comes to matters such as this: it can go down the road of more transparency and more accountability and make it easier for people to vote or it can make voting harder and the system less accountable. This government has gone down the latter road, and when a government goes down that road you can be sure it has done it for its own partisan political advantage. That is a matter of some disgrace and shame for this government. This bill must be opposed and we will continue to oppose it in every possible forum. When Labor comes to office these measures will be repealed and a fairer system—a system which provides accountability and promotes a greater degree of confidence by Australians in the area of political donations—will be put in place. Hopefully, that will happen sooner rather than later, on the election of a Labor government. 40 16:43:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —I thank the member for Prospect for his contribution. I hear his comments about when Labor comes to office, but I do not think that is going to happen anytime soon. Particularly after tonight when we are going to deliver the best budget that this country has seen for decades, I think the Australian people will be even more strongly supportive of the Howard government. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 came about as a result of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election. JSCEM conducts such an inquiry after each federal election and examines all the issues. In this inquiry the committee travelled around Australia and visited all of the capital cities. It also held public meetings in rural and regional areas in Queensland and New South Wales. This is a very comprehensive report. The committee took a lot of evidence and the legislation before the parliament is a result of that very thorough process. It is a very long document, running to over 350 pages, but it basically comes down to 56 recommendations. Some of those recommendations have been taken up by the government and they are incorporated in the legislation that the parliament is discussing this afternoon. The committee indicated that there are a number of issues that, in their words, require immediate attention. This report was brought down in September 2005, and the response to the report is here in the parliament now in May 2006. It takes a lot of time. Understanding that, having had recommendations put to it, the government has to consider those recommendations, formulate its position and frame the necessary legislation, this has been quite a quick process. I note that the chair of the committee at the time that this report was brought down, Mr Tony Smith, has just entered the chamber. I commend him on the thoroughness with which he and his committee have produced this report and on the important recommendations that have been made in it. Mr Smith has since moved on to higher and greater things, and I have taken his place as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which is my privilege. I hope that, in our current inquiry, which I will deal with shortly, my committee will be able to produce just as good a report. In relation to the items requiring ‘immediate attention’, the committee reported: Present requirements for electoral enrolment result in an unacceptable level of inaccuracy in the electoral roll. If the electors of Australia were to read this report and see that comment, they too would be concerned, as the government has been. The committee recommended: … the adoption of two significant enrolment reforms designed to improve integrity and to prevent electoral fraud occurring. We have just heard the opposition indicating that it does not agree with this response. It does not agree with the committee’s recommendations of reforms designed to improve the integrity of our electoral roll and to prevent electoral fraud occurring. Goodness me, how could that be? And why would the Labor Party want to do that? The answer clearly is encapsulated in the experience I have had in my electorate, where, some three or four years ago, there was significant rorting of the electoral roll by members of the Australian Labor Party. There was a celebrated court case over that. In fact, one state member of parliament, as I recollect, had to resign from the parliament. No wonder the Labor Party is railing against sensible measures designed to improve the integrity of the roll and to prevent electoral fraud occurring. I congratulate the committee on being pretty tough on this one, and I congratulate the government on taking up the recommendations. The first requirement and recommendation encapsulated in this legislation is that of proof of identity. The legislation will introduce, for the first time, proof of identity requirements for people enrolling or updating their enrolment. Currently you can just fill out a form—you do not have to prove who you are—and you go on the electoral roll. That gives rise to a mechanism whereby you can actually put phantom people on the roll, if you choose. All we require in this instance is that people have a drivers licence number on their enrolment, which will be cross-checked by the AEC with state databases. If there is no drivers licence—some people do not have a drivers licence—and they want to be enrolled, it is as simple as providing a birth certificate or Medicare card, along with a person from a prescribed class being able to attest to the identity of the applicant. We still provide in the legislation for the unlikely case where there is no documentation—that would be really unlikely. Enrolment of the person will proceed, provided that that procedure is followed. The second matter in relation to identity is the proof of ID for provisional voting. This is where someone comes to a polling station, finds they are not on the roll and says, ‘I’m entitled to be on the roll, I’m not enrolled and I demand my right to vote.’ Previously people have just been allowed to cast a vote; now they will have to prove who they are before the AEC officer will allow them to cast a provisional vote. There are also safeguards there: if you do not have your ID—that can happen—you have several days to submit it to the AEC. I think these are sensible reforms that the government has embraced. The other matter that particularly drew the attention of the committee, which again was railed against by the Australian Labor Party, was the closing of the roll at 8 pm on the day that writs are issued. It has always puzzled me that so many people who know it is a legal requirement to enrol to vote do not do so and then, when an election is called, they pour in and say, ‘Gee, we want to get our name on the roll.’ They have got to do better than that, and I think the community expects people to be enrolled in our democratic system. That is our way. So the government is proposing to address that matter by simply closing the rolls at eight o’clock on the day the writ is issued for people who are not already on the roll and at 8 pm on the third working day after the issue of the writ for people updating their address details. I think that is sensible and prudent. I note that the bill provides for people who turn 18 or who are due to be granted citizenship during the campaign to also have three working days to update their enrolment. When people are 17, I believe they can provisionally enrol and the AEC then automatically enrols them when they have their birthday. It puzzles me why it is necessary to have this but it is the Australian way. We are providing for all eventualities. There are a raft of other issues covered in this legislation. There is some more technical stuff in relation to prisoner voting, party registration, party names and internet authorisation requirements, just to name a few. I would like to finish my contribution to the debate by observing that the committee also recommended a trial of electronic voting. I think there is a need for such a trial. The government has not taken up that recommendation. Electronic voting is used in other parts of the world. I visited the Election Commission of Thailand last week and they showed me their electronic voting machines. It is a particularly impressive system because it allows an easy way for blind voters to cast their vote without third parties being involved. I think a trial—if we are going to do a trial—should be initially with members of the Defence Force who are serving overseas. The electronic voting should be done over the defence integrated secure communications network so that there can be no question about the integrity of the vote. Alternatively, it may also be able to be done through the DFAT network at our posts around the world using DFAT’s secure communications service. I do not think we are going to see electronic voting over the internet at any time in the near or far future. It is too unreliable and people would have concerns with that. I will be pursuing that particular issue through the committee so that we can see whether we can get some action on that. Finally, I note recommendation 56, which states: The Committee recommends that the Parliament refer electoral education to the JSCEM for further examination and report. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Hear, hear! HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —I thank the Deputy Speaker for that. I would like to advise the parliament that that has been done. The committee has that reference from the Special Minister of State and will shortly begin conducting an inquiry into those matters and having a look at education as the key to a healthy democracy. I support this bill and I am disappointed that the Australian Labor Party will not support something that will further improve the integrity of our electoral roll. 42 16:55:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —Before I commence my remarks on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005, with the current Chair and the past Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters here, let me say that I worked in a nonpartisan way on the proposal of the former chairman for four-year terms. The negative comments that I am going to make about this legislation should not be interpreted as obviating the fact that many of us worked together to improve the Australian electoral system. This bill is the first instalment of this government’s agenda for radical changes to Australia’s electoral laws. Its agenda was foreshadowed in the recommendations of the majority report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters of which I am deputy chair. We debated the report last October. In our minority report, the other opposition members and I warned that, if the recommendations of the majority report were put into law, this would be a retrograde step for Australian democracy. We warned that the Howard government, now in control of the Senate, would seek to rig the Australian electoral system for its own advantage. We warned that this arrogant government would use its position of complete parliamentary control to seek to entrench itself in power through extreme legislation. Sadly, this is what we are seeing with this bill, which is no doubt the first in a series of such bills. This bill deals with three of the central recommendations of the majority report. They are recommendations which work most clearly to the electoral advantage of the government parties. These are: first, tougher identity requirements for enrolment and to cast a provisional vote; second, the early closure of the electoral roll; and, third, increasing the amount that can be donated to a political party without that donation being declared. The effect of these changes, if they are passed by this parliament, will be to make it harder for ordinary Australians to enrol and to vote but easier for individuals and corporations to make undisclosed donations to political parties. The government calculates that these changes will benefit the coalition in two ways. First, it calculates that the majority of those who will be affected and indeed disenfranchised by the enrolment provisions of the act will be potential Labor voters. Given what we know about the demographic patterns of voting in Australia, it is probably correct in that assumption, although I think the National Party may be unpleasantly surprised at the effect of these changes on country people, especially in remote areas. Second, the government knows that the donation disclosure provisions will greatly benefit the Liberal Party partly because it is a party which attracts the majority of its donations from corporations and high-wealth individuals and partly because, as the party in power, it will be the preferred option for those seeking political influence and favours through undisclosed donations. These changes represent the reversal of more than 150 years of democratic progress in Australia, progress towards a more democratic, inclusive and transparent electoral system. Australia has always been an innovator, indeed a world leader, in electoral reform and democratic processes. As a result Australia has one of the most open electoral systems in the world, which has the highest reputation for integrity and transparency. Now, for the first time in memory, an Australian government is going to wind back some of these features of our electoral system for no good reason other than for short-term partisan advantage. The government is going to do these things on the basis of allegedly preventing electoral fraud, as the current chair suggested before. The government knows quite well that the inquiry that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducted last year, like every other inquiry the committee has conducted, found no evidence whatever that electoral fraud is a problem in Australia. The committee travelled all over Australia. We heard witnesses with all political views, as well as expert opinions from party officials, the Electoral Commission and academia. Government members of the committee had every opportunity to put evidence of serious electoral fraud or malpractice before the committee. No witness or submission to the inquiry produced evidence of fraudulent enrolment. There is not any evidence that fraudulent enrolment exists on any measurable scale or any evidence that it has affected the result in any specific seat, let alone that it has influenced the result of any federal election. Government members of the committee themselves had to concede that there is no serious problem of electoral fraud in Australia. The Australian Electoral Commission has repeatedly made public statements about the integrity of the electoral roll and the electoral system generally. An AEC Electoral Backgrounder of October 2001 said: It has been concluded by every parliamentary and judicial inquiry into the conduct of federal elections, since the AEC was established as an independent statutory authority in 1984, that there has been no widespread or organised attempt to defraud the electoral system ... and that the level of fraudulent enrolment and voting is not sufficient to have overturned the result in any Division in Australia. This is from our independent statutory authority, the AEC. A leading Australian authority on the electoral system, Professor Brian Costar of Swinburne University, wrote in the Canberra Times last December: If there is a fault in the current Australian electoral procedures it is not rampant enrolment fraud but the very real perception of secretive influence-peddling produced by the excessively free flow of political money. This bill does nothing to tackle that problem; indeed, it seeks to increase the flow of political donations. Instead the government uses the red herring of electoral reform to disguise its real political agenda, which is its own electoral self-interest. At an earlier time, Professor Costar said of the report: If Federal Parliament adopts some of its key recommendations, the right to vote will be significantly restricted, thereby diminishing Australia’s well-earned reputation as a world leader in democratic practice. Indeed, we are proceeding down that line with this legislation. Emeritus Professor Colin Hughes, a highly respected former Australian Electoral Commissioner, wrote in the Independent Weekly last November: The thorough review of the electoral roll conducted in 2002 by the Australian National Audit Office concluded that “overall, the Australian electoral roll is one of high integrity, and can be relied on for electoral purposes”. There are adequate safeguards in the current electoral laws and procedures to deal with any future attempts at fraud without stripping the vote from hundreds of thousands of citizens. Malcolm Mackerras, who has often supported the government when it has been justified in various electoral matters and during various elections, in commentary said that if the recommendations of the report now embodied in this legislation were pursued they would be ‘a relentless pursuit of the electoral interests of the Liberal Party’. It is a pity that the government does not listen to people like this who actually know something about the workings of the electoral system. It is interesting that both the quotes from those experts are on the Notice Paper as a result of a question that I put down on 9 November 2005 and that I had to ask the Speaker today to ask the Special Minister of State to provide some answers to the very serious allegations of Professor Hughes, Professor Costar and Malcolm Mackerras. Of course, there has been no answer from the government before this legislation came up. That is most significant. I bet it will be produced in the next few days when this bill is passed with the government’s automatic majority here and in the Senate. It is a pity the government does not listen to people like this, though, rather than the ideologues in its own ranks and some of the Liberal Party machine men who had a hand in drafting this extreme legislation. The first section of the bill I want to look at is the tougher identity requirements. The bill proposes that all claims for enrolment and transfer of enrolment will be subject to new proof of identity requirements. Anyone enrolling to vote or updating their enrolment will have to provide their drivers licence number or, if they do not have a drivers licence, an identity document such as a birth certificate or a passport, the authenticity of which must be attested to by an enrolled elector in a prescribed class. If they do not have a drivers licence or suitable identity documents, they must produce statements from two enrolled electors who have known the elector for more than one month, and these witnesses must themselves provide a drivers licence or identity document. It is astonishing that the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, Dr Sharman Stone, in introducing this bill in the House last December, provided no justification at all for this proposal. I would have thought that a proposal which will clearly make it more difficult for people to enrol to vote, and to change their enrolment details, needs clear justification from evidence that the current law is inadequate for preventing demonstrated abuse of the electoral system. But the parliamentary secretary produced no such evidence because of course, as we know from the committee’s report, no such evidence exists. What will be the effect of this provision? It will make the process of enrolment and updating of enrolment more complicated and time consuming. Even though more than 80 per cent of adult Australians have a drivers licence and some of those who do not have a drivers licence will have a passport or a birth certificate, there is a significant group of people who do not possess any of these documents. They will have to go through the two-witness process, and quite inevitably some of them will find it too difficult and will not enrol. The Soviet Union used to call this ‘salami tactics’. Slice by slice, the government is restricting voting rights in Australia. Many elderly people in particular do not have drivers licences. They will be impacted. It will seriously inconvenience people living in remote areas since the required witnesses cannot be relatives or people who live with the elector. Other groups likely to be disadvantaged are people whose first language is not English, Aboriginal Australians or first-time voters. Even the majority of electors who do have the correct documents will have to go through a more complex process than at present, and some of them will not bother. The result of this will be an increased level of nonenrolment and incorrect enrolment. The knock-on effect of that will be an increased rush of people trying to enrol or to correct their enrolment details when an election is called. These people, of course, will fall victim to the next proposal in the current bill, to close the rolls on the day the House of Representatives writs are issued, which is usually the day after the Prime Minister announces the election; thus the bill will increase the number of people seeking to enrol at the last minute while at the same time making it more difficult for them to do so. Let me now turn to the section of the bill dealing with the early closure of the rolls. This section will have the effect of disenfranchising anyone who has not enrolled by the time the writs for an election are issued and of potentially disenfranchising all voters who are not enrolled at their correct address by depriving them of an opportunity to correct their enrolment details. Once again, the parliamentary secretary offered no justification for this change, so we must fall back on the arguments used by the government members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in their majority report. The majority report claimed that the current seven-day period for updating enrolment details ‘presents an opportunity for those who seek to manipulate the roll to do so at a time when little opportunity exists for the AEC to undertake the thorough checking required ensuring roll integrity’. The majority report also stated that, since the law currently required everyone who is eligible to enrol to do so and to keep their enrolment up to date, there should be no need for a ‘period of grace’ to allow people to do what they had done previously. One shakes one’s head with wonder at how the government won the last few elections since 1996 with all of this apparent concern about the integrity of the electoral roll. It is based on a complete chimera and it is a phoenix of an argument. The government have obviously won the elections and won them fairly and there has been no substantial electoral fraud, as the AEC and various experts have attested to. The first of the arguments is completely spurious. There is no evidence that any significant number of people seek to manipulate the roll. Who are these people? Why was no evidence about their nefarious activities brought before the committee during its inquiry into the 2004 election? The fact is that these people exist only in the propaganda of the Liberal Party. I happen to believe that the AEC is the body best qualified to inform us of any problems with the integrity of the electoral roll. The AEC has emphatically told the inquiry, as it has told previous inquiries, that there are no such problems which cannot be addressed under the present legislation. The AEC has also refuted the government’s contention that enrolments during the period of grace are not subjected to proper scrutiny, thus making it easier for mysterious manipulators to wend their wicked way with the electoral roll. In his testimony before the committee, Mr Paul Dacey of the AEC stated categorically that the AEC applies its established procedures during the seven-day period after the writs are issued with the same degree of rigor as it does during a non-election period. It has to work a bit harder obviously because of the enrolments that come in, but we all know the AEC officials in our electorates and we know they do a fine job. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducted an investigation into the integrity of the electoral roll in 2001. The AEC testified that it had compiled a list of all cases of enrolment fraud for the decade 1990-2001—71 cases in total or about one per one million enrolments. These 71 false enrolments were carried out for reasons not connected with a desire to influence federal election results. In fact, most of them were done in order for disqualified Queenslanders to get back their drivers licences. Let me remind the House that between 1990 and 2001 there were five federal elections and a referendum, at each of which about 12 million people voted—a total of 72 million votes. The 71 known cases of false enrolment thus amounted to less than one vote per million people. Why would you change legislation, given that trivial level of fraud, and affect hundreds of thousands of people who will try to vote at the next election? The majority report’s second justification is also quite absurd. Of course people should enrol and keep their enrolments up to date, but it is an inevitable consequence of a system of compulsory enrolment that a significant number of people do not enrol until they need to, which is when an election is called. This is no doubt very naughty of them, but to suggest that these people ought to be punished for their negligence by disenfranchisement is extreme and undemocratic. Professor Hughes rightly calls it ‘excessive legalism’ and argues that it ‘runs counter to the sensible, long-established practice whereby the Australian Electoral Commission does not pursue prosecution for non-enrolment if the neglect is remedied’. This is the ethos that we should be pursuing in a compulsory voting system. The seven-day period for updating enrolment details was introduced as a result of the problems associated with elections up to 1983 when the roll closed at 5 pm on the day the writ was issued. At the 1983 double dissolution election, approximately 90,000 voters were unable to vote when they arrived at the polling booth on election day. Mr Ivan Freys, an AEC official, who testified before the committee about the 1983 election and the lack of time before the close of the rolls, told the inquiry: It created a lot of confusion and a lot of provisional votes, and a lot of people go in to vote, find they are not on the roll and just walk out. I think that is what the government wants. I have frequently quoted figures from the 2004 election, but I will do so again so that the House understands the enormity of what the government is proposing in this bill. At the 2004 election, 284,000 people enrolled or changed their enrolment in the five working days, the period of grace, between the issue of the writs and the closure of the roll. This total included nearly 80,000 Australians, mostly young people, enrolling for the first time. At the same election, 180,000 people cast provisional votes. Over the three-year election cycle, over two million Australians enrolled, re-enrolled or changed their enrolment. All of these people will be disadvantaged by the changes proposed in the majority report and as a result of this legislation and may be disenfranchised. It may only be a small proportion, but in very close seats and in Senate races a small proportion can be decisive. This is in fact what the government wants: just a little more, another slice, shaving off a little more—salami tactics, just as I described it. Finally, let me turn to the section of the bill dealing with the disclosure of donations, which was well covered by the previous opposition speaker, the member for Prospect. I mentioned the mythical manipulators on the electoral roll. Here, however, we have clear evidence of the real manipulators of the electoral system: those who seek to buy influence through undisclosed donations and party officials who want to make it easier for them to do so. It is in this section of the bill that the hands of the government’s backroom people can be clearly seen. The object of these recommendations is simply to make it easier for corporate donors to give money to the Liberal Party without having to disclose it. The opposition is firmly opposed to any change to the current disclosure regime. It is very misleading for government members to claim that 90 per cent of donations will still be disclosed if the threshold were raised to $10,000 as this is a measure of total donations, not a measure of the amount of each donation. Under this legislation, donors will be able to exploit the federal structure of the Liberal Party to donate $10,000 to each state and territory division, thus making an undisclosed donation of $80,000. If the current donors in the last round of the AEC disclosure contributed a similar amount to the Liberal Party, then millions of dollars would go undisclosed. Raising the disclosure threshold to $10,000 will allow large amounts of money to flow, without scrutiny, into the coffers of the Liberal Party. The opposition also opposes the section of the bill which increases the threshold of tax deductibility for political donations from $100 to $1,500. As we said in our minority report, this is ‘an unjustified attempt to transfer private political donations into a taxpayer subsidy’. The reason the Hawke government introduced public funding for political parties was to create a fully transparent system and to prevent attempts to buy influence through undisclosed donations. These provisions will encourage individuals and companies to make undisclosed political contributions at taxpayers’ expense. The public has a right to know the sources of funding for political parties and we are opposed to changes which make it easier for individuals or corporations to make large donations to political parties in secret. These changes proposed in this legislation are a retrograde step for Australian democracy. 48 17:15:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 1 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —There are a number of aspects that I wish to cover in my contribution to today’s debate on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005; however, I have no option but to start where the previous speaker, the member for Melbourne Ports, concluded. Not very often have we had such a breathtaking example of the opposition’s hypocrisy as we had in those last few sentences, when the member stood in this House and said that the Australian Labor Party opposes the increase in tax deductibility from $100 to $1,500 and that this is a terribly retrograde step, knowing—I assume he knows and give him credit for knowing—that, in 1997, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters produced a report with a unanimous recommendation that the government do precisely what we propose in this bill. Let me take the member for Melbourne Ports to paragraph 13.107 on page 338, where the committee noted an earlier unanimous JSCEM recommendation in 1997. That recommendation states: ... that donations to a political party of up to $1500 annually, whether from an individual or a corporation, are tax deductible. I give the member for Melbourne Ports, who was deputy chair of that committee, credit for knowing the content of this report. However, for the record, let us recall who the members of the committee were back in 1997. From the government, there was the then chair and now minister, Mr Nairn, Senator Abetz, Senator Nick Minchin, Mr Michael Cobb and Mr Graeme McDougall. From the opposition, there was Senator Stephen Conroy, the deputy leader in the Senate—who presumably in 1997 thought this was not a retrograde step but a progressive step and now, according to the member for Melbourne Ports, has changed his mind—Mr Laurie Ferguson and Mr Robert McClelland, both of whom are on the front bench of the opposition and presumably were part of the shadow cabinet decision to oppose precisely what they supported in 1997. You will never get such a clear-cut case of the hypocrisy of those opposite when it comes to electoral matters. That hypocrisy runs through all the arguments that have been put forward by those opposite in this debate and in our committee hearings. It is the case that we reached agreement on many matters within the report and—although you would not know it from this debate—that the opposition said they supported many matters in this bill. However, to hypocritically claim that something is retrograde when the party membership of the opposition supported it nine or 10 years ago just says so much about the approach of those opposite. I say to the members of the public and to those following this debate that this is the best illustration of how the Labor Party and the opposition cannot be believed in their arguments on this bill. We are told that it is retrograde to try and improve the integrity of the electoral roll; to seek to have identification requirements, which the Australian public have become used to having in so many respects; to seek to have a system where people who enrol and re-enrol have to prove they are who they say they are; and to try to have an electoral roll that is up to date at all times. The time available to me does not permit me to address all of the issues that have arisen in today’s debate, but it does allow me to address some of the main ones. The first issue, which I have already addressed, speaks volumes. As previous speakers have said, a good deal of this bill stems from the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That committee spent a year working very hard to produce its report and its 56 recommendations; it did so with the aim of reporting within a year of the last federal election so that the government and the parliament would have time to consider detailed changes of the type we are debating today and, if minded, to implement those changes in good time before the next election. It is the case that Australia—I have said this before; I said it last October in my tabling speech on the report—has a better than good electoral system, but that does not mean that we cannot do better. That does not mean that we should not seek continually to improve it. That does not mean that it is not open to abuse. That does not mean that abuse has not occurred—and, if the member for Melbourne Ports and those opposite have forgotten, I suggest they consult the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party. If they had done so just a few years back, they would have been consulting some of those members in jail. The member for Melbourne Ports also pointed out that Australia has led the world in electoral reform and he is right about that. However, that is precisely why we should never shy away from improving our electoral system, which is precisely what this bill seeks to do. It seeks to improve the integrity of our Electoral Act—and today I want to address in detail issues relating to that. Before I do that can I point out that, while some of the recommendations that our committee made were made for the first time, many of them have been made over a number of years—back to 1996. I pay tribute to those committees and to the chairs of those committees for their work, which we picked up. I point out for the benefit of the House the longstanding debate that this parliament has had, both through its committee processes and through those reports. That in itself is another very good argument that the claims of rushing through changes—many of which have been mooted for 10 years—also fall flat. I would like to firstly address the issue of the closing of the rolls. As previous speakers have pointed out, the bill proposes that the electoral rolls close at 8 pm on the third working day after the issue of the writs for an election, with some minor exceptions, which have been addressed by previous speakers. This is a much-needed measure. In fact, it needs to be pointed out that this measure does not go as far as the majority on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters sought to go. In reality, those three days would be four or five, because the issue of the writs very rarely happens on the day the election is announced. As we reported for the majority, the current seven-day period is an encouragement for those who should be on the electoral roll not to come onto the electoral roll and for those who are on the electoral roll not to keep their details up to date. What those opposite do not mention is the contradictory nature of our electoral law. Many people support compulsory voting. I know those opposite vigorously support compulsory voting. We had some decent discussions about that issue. But, hand in hand with compulsory voting, no matter what your view, goes compulsory enrolment. We have a law that says that, if you are eligible to vote, you must be on the electoral roll and your details must be accurate. We have a contradictory law that effectively says that, if you would like to ignore the first law and not have your details up to date or be on the electoral roll, you can do so in the seven days after the election writs have been issued. Our point is that that is too long a period of time. The best evidence for this is that the number of people seeking to do this is growing by 50,000 every election. Would it not be better to encourage people to keep their details up to date and to encourage those who turn 18 to go onto the electoral roll? Obviously, the system has not been working. It is not too much to ask. There is this debate as though filling out a form is so difficult, that it is a massive burden. You cannot turn 18 without filling out forms—to get a drivers licence, to get a bank account, to get all sorts of identification. You cannot move house or change electorate without changing the details of your rates and your utility bills. It is not too much to ask that, at that time, people change their electoral details. The Australian electoral roll is also used for all sorts of other elections that occur throughout the three-year period. There has been this false and breathless litany of claims that this will disenfranchise voters. WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby interjecting— 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —I urge the member for Melbourne Ports not to react sensitively to the fact that his hypocrisy on the $1,500 tax issue has been exposed. WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby interjecting— 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not need to hear his excuses now. He will have plenty of opportunity to explain why some of his frontbench have a different view from his. We will look forward to that on another day; there will be plenty of time for that. We have this situation where it is claimed that people will be disenfranchised. That is utter bunkum. Disenfranchisement occurs when someone is prevented from having a voting entitlement. Everyone in Australia has the same voting entitlement. To claim that if somebody does not keep their enrolment up to date they are somehow disenfranchised, by their own voluntary action, is utterly ridiculous. Another measure I would like to briefly mention is the requirement for identification for those enrolling and re-enrolling. The Australian Labor Party would have you believe that it is a retrograde step to require simple forms of identification in a timely manner. There are a range of forms of identification. I will not go through all of those now, but the drivers licence number is the simplest one. Failing that, there is a list a page long of alternative forms of identification, from the Medicare card right through a whole range of other forms of identification. But, somehow, this is a retrograde step as well. As I think the now minister famously said when he was chair of the committee, to get a video in Australia you must provide more identification than you need to provide to get onto the electoral roll. The Australian public will view this as a sensible measure, and they will wonder why it has not been a requirement all along. Other aspects of this bill that have received mention by those opposite include, obviously, the change in disclosure and also good measures on party registration, which, unless the situation has changed, I understand have bipartisan support. Let me just deal quickly with disclosure. From memory, the disclosure threshold was originally set at $1,000 in 1984 and raised to $1,500 in 1991. The government are proposing an increase to amounts above $10,000. We believe that is more in line with 2006 standards, and it is in line with thresholds in the UK and New Zealand. I will quickly address the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite on the issue of disclosure. Because the $1,500 threshold for disclosure has not increased since 1991, it has been effectively reduced in real terms. But at the National Press Club, the Leader of the Opposition said that, if he were to win government, he would change the threshold back to $1,500. The obvious hypocrisy of this statement is that he is happy to have an amount fixed in stone and not even to have incremental increases. If the Leader of the Opposition is true to his word, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition values his word, by saying that he opposes the change from $1,500 to amounts above $10,000 and that, if he has his way, he will change that amount back to $1,500—that is my understanding; and it is his right—the Australian Labor Party will continue to declare amounts above $1,500. You can declare any amount. You can voluntarily declare $500. So I welcome the fact that, if this bill is passed, the opposition will declare all amounts between $1,500 and $10,000. That is their policy. They would not be so hypocritical as to run to the next election not declaring amounts between $1,500 and $10,000. That would be utterly hypocritical. In a voluntary way, the Australian Labor Party—and we welcome this fact—will declare all amounts between $1,500 and $10,000. I am sure that their state secretaries and federal secretary have noted that, but I am not so sure that they will be as enthusiastic about it as those opposite—and we note that. In the few minutes left to me in this debate I want to address one issue that is not in the bill. It is an issue that had the unanimous support of the committee, and I urge the government to act on it in the future—that is, electronic voting for the blind. In a bipartisan way, the committee spent a considerable amount of time on it. At present, the sight-impaired cannot cast a ballot without the assistance of either a family member or a member of the AEC—that is, they cannot cast a secret ballot. Technology enables this to be overcome. The committee reported back in October that electronic voting for the blind and the sight impaired was now possible and safe and that there ought to be a trial of it in every federal electorate at the next election. I would like to see that pursued. We do not, as some people have reported, see this as a precursor to a general move to electronic voting, but we do think that it is long overdue and that it ought to be considered and introduced on a trial basis before the next election. 51 17:34:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —As we all appreciate, every time we rise in this House we exercise, as I am doing now, a democratic right on behalf of the constituents who have elected us. Those same constituents exercise their right to have us speak or not to speak on their behalf every election. But I contend that these simple, vital democratic rights are increasingly being restricted by a hungry, arrogant and elitist government—the Howard government. The latest threats to these rights come in the form of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005, which is currently before the House for debate. The Howard government is making it harder by virtue of the changes embodied in this amendment bill for people to vote and, at the same time, raising the bar on political donations—the thin edge of the wedge for a healthy democratic society. That is exceptionally important, because at the heart of the legislation before the House is the creeping, ugly Americanisation of this country under the Howard government. The unquestioning, fawning approach of this government in its relations with the United States, I contend, is breathtaking. Yet decent, hardworking Australians do not want to be another America—for example, just question them on their attitude to health care and the Americanisation of the Australian health care system. Ordinary Australians take pride in those things that set Australians and Americans apart. One of those key differences is at the heart of the debate this evening—that is, our politicians do not need millions upon millions of dollars to be able to access political office in this country, and I am thankful for that. Alternatively, in the United States, where television rules and political advertising campaigns determine political fortunes, one 30-second ad can cost millions of dollars. The 2004 US election was the first billion-dollar election campaign. Between them, George Bush and John Kerry raised more than $689 million, while more than $330 million was collected through surrogates and allies. This was double the previous record set in the United States for the 2000 electoral contest for presidential office. The effect is a system dominated by the elite for the elite. This is not representative democracy in the way that the founding fathers envisaged. For years the United States system has been plagued by poor disclosure of campaign donations, allowing millions of dollars to be funnelled through the main parties in a perversion of democratic values and objectives. We need only look at the recent case in the United States of Jack Abramoff, the man dubbed the ‘superlobbyist’ of the Republican Party, to see how our democratic future could be corrupted by secret bagmen—which would be the end result of the changes proposed by the Howard government this evening. Interestingly, some 20 members of the US congress are implicated in one of the biggest political corruption scandals in years. Abramoff used bribes, including campaign contributions and largesse, to influence legislators. We have been lucky in Australia in that, historically, we have not had that approach to the political system at a local, state or federal level. But the ramifications of this system are far wider than this group suggests. The direct link between fundraising and elections is crystal clear from the results of the congressional elections in 2004. Of the 435 who were elected, only seven incumbents lost to challengers. To get elected, most of the winners spent five times as much as their rivals. In the last four congressional elections, 98 per cent of the incumbents who ran for re-election won—and they won handsomely. Once elected—and this will be the real challenge for all of us if the bill before the House is approved—the incumbents continued to build their election booty. The incumbents in this year’s House and Senate elections already have $400 million which, according to the non-profit, nonpartisan organisation FairVote, is growing at triple the rate of recent campaigns. US political scientist Ross Baker warns that the US system ‘more nearly resembles hereditary entitlement than competitive democracy’. The American Political Science Association—and this is exceptionally important—has serious concerns. It says: Even the most optimistic observer would concede that the American system, with politicians’ reliance on private money to fund their campaigns, creates the potential for influence peddling. But not only the observers are concerned; American politicians themselves are warning about the corruption of the system—and rightly so—and their warnings ought to be heard in the corridors of the Australian parliament. Senator Robert Byrd put it this way: The incessant money chase that currently permeates every crevice of our political system is like an unending circular marathon … and it is a race that sends a clear message to people that it is money, money, money—not ideas, not principles, but money—that reigns supreme in American politics. The way to gain access on Capitol Hill, the way to get the attention of members of this body, is through money. That effectively means that under the American system—and this is the challenge for the House this evening—money opens doors, money means influence and money influences legislative outcomes. We as a nation have to be very careful to avoid such a result. Compounding the problem is the massive amount of time that US politicians put into fundraising. US politicians are no longer concerned about ideas, principles and debate; they are on a continuous round of fundraising efforts. It reminds me of some reports in today’s media about budget evening for the government. Tonight there will be continuous fundraising from room to room and corridor to corridor. It has started in Australia, and this bill will only make it worse. This evening, in this very House, there will be a clear example of what we have to be very careful about with respect to where we are going to end up as a result of the potential amendments embodied in this bill. We should not forget that, when you are devoting yourself not to your core job of arguing about what is right but to raising money, you are neglecting your electorate and your constituents. We are elected to represent our constituents’ views, to attend to their local concerns and to argue for what is in the national interest. That is why former US senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum—now co-chair, with Walter Mondale, of a campaign finance reform group mobilised by former US President Clinton—said: Here we are forced to raise money all the time … We don’t sit down and talk to each other very much anymore. We don’t have time. I just don’t know how people find time to think or reflect. That says it all. It is important to take note of the views of these seasoned US politicians because they are the ones experiencing the problems posed by the poor disclosure of political donations and the impact that unaccountable flows of money have on corrupting a political system. We should be very careful about not corrupting the Australian political system. I say that because Australian politicians, unlike their US counterparts, are not dependent today on extraordinary sums of money to participate in our political system. We ought to be exceptionally proud of that. It means an ordinary person can get elected to a local council, a state or territory parliament or the Australian House of Representatives or Senate. I am proud of that. It means anyone can stand for office. But I would rigorously argue that this is now threatened by the creeping Americanisation of our electoral system so openly embraced by the Howard government. The dangers of increasingly unaccountable flows of money are clear from the US experience: a race for ever greater funds, incumbents with so much money that they can keep out challengers, and politicians who are so busy raising funds that they do not have time to do their real job of helping their electorates and creating good, strong policies—to actually do the job for which the electors elected them. It is therefore ironic that, in speaking on this issue last year, the then Special Minister of State, Senator Abetz used the following quote from Ronald Reagan to advocate for this bill: ... democracy is not a fragile flower. Still, it needs cultivating. I know what Senator Abetz wants to cultivate. He wants to cultivate sizeable and unaccounted for donations to political parties in Australia. I simply say in response to that statement by Senator Abetz that in America democracy is becoming fragile by the day. The consensus is that these vast sums of money are corrupting the system, and everything points to it. In light of the American experience and existing concerns about the transparency of our system, how is it even conceivable that the government of the day could propose increasing the financial threshold for nondisclosure of political donations? I actually think the current threshold is more than generous. Under this bill, and this is exceptionally important, no disclosure at all will be required for political donations up to $10,000. This is nearly seven times the current threshold of $1,500—a very generous threshold. There is no justification for increasing that threshold to $10,000. Whether we like it or not, $10,000 can very heavily influence a particular view of a politician elected to this House in a tight political situation and is the massive amount of money which the government now proposes be the very generous threshold for nondisclosure of political donations. The government will also increase the level of tax deductible contributions to political parties or independent candidates from $100 to $1,500. I simply say this is double dipping. Political funding, which was first brought in in New South Wales and spread to the Australian parliament and many state and territory parliaments, was for the purposes of assisting the political process in Australia. We all know we have very generous entitlements as incumbents: $125,000 per year, for example, just for the purposes of printing material for our electorate, with mobile telephones, computers and postage entitlements rising up to $50,000 to $60,000 per year, all paid for by Australian taxpayers. But it is now proposed that in addition to all these very generous entitlements paid for by Australian taxpayers—from their hard earned dollars, given the sacrifices they make to make an investment in the integrity of the Australian political system—we double dip yet again. The benefits of incumbency are supposedly no longer good enough. Having been elected in 1996, when the Howard government was first elected, I have seen the dramatic growth in my entitlements. By way of example, I was told on my election in 1996 that the average expenditure on printing of a member of the House of Representatives was $20,000 to $30,000 per year. We now have, and we do not have to account for it other than by meeting guidelines, up to $125,000 per year; yet the government now proposes by way of this bill that we get an even bigger kick as representatives of political parties so that people making donations to us can have tax deductibility increased from $100 to $1,500. It is corruption at its very best ripping off Australian taxpayers yet again with the government saying, ‘Yes, not only do you have to pay for members’ entitlements and for the huge amount of moneys paid to the political parties by way of electoral funding but now you will have to pay even more through tax deductibility on donations.’ I think Australians are entitled to ask: how does this serve us? The effect of this legislation will be to encourage the donation of huge amounts of money without accountability to voters. At the same time, the government is making it harder for voters to get enrolled. It is trying to rob them of their right to vote and their right to take part in the Australian political process. These laws could mean 300,000 Australians are disenfranchised. With one hand the Howard government will be giving the green light to those with money to influence and get their way in this country, to peddle their influence, while on the other hand the government will be taking away from those ordinary Australians their opportunity to even cast a vote. That is the crux of the debate: if you have got money you can peddle influence but if you are an ordinary Australian the government is going to make it harder for you to vote. But, worse still, those that will be most affected will be young people—people we need to get in contact with the political processes—Indigenous Australians and Australians from non-English-speaking backgrounds. The problem is that the Howard government does not believe that their votes are safe. That is what it is really about: how it maximises its vote whilst restricting access to some in the Australian community. Under these laws the government will close the electoral roll at 8 pm on the day that an election writ is issued, except in two cases. Those are where a person turns 18 years old or where people are granted citizenship between the day on which the writ is issued and polling day. These people will be the only ones to get the right to enrol. People updating their details on the electoral roll will only be given three days to do so. The current laws allow a seven-day grace period for people enrolling to vote or updating their details on the electoral roll. Based on a figure from the last election, this will affect about 280,000 people. These people either enrolled to vote or changed their enrolment in a substantive way in the five working days between the issue of the writ and close of the roll. That is what happened last time with the close of the roll. The government will also require identification when a person is enrolling to vote, when a voter changes their details and with provisional voting. These changes are based on the government’s argument that they prevent electoral fraud. I simply remind the House of the consensus in Australia that our country’s electoral system is one of great integrity. I agree with that view. The Australian Electoral Commission is an organisation of integrity and it has upheld this consensus. Indeed, it has raised concerns about the impact on nondisclosure of political donations. The Australian National Audit Office reported in 2002 that the electoral roll is one of ‘high integrity’. Even the experts are therefore baffled by the necessity for these laws. As Professor Brian Costar has argued: If there is a fault in the current Australian electoral procedures it is not in rampant enrolment fraud but the very real perception of secretive influence peddling produced by the excessively free flow of political money. And unlike the American system, where a constitution and bill of rights is intended to act as a protection on individual rights, the Australian system only provides limited access to judicial protection in electoral matters. This makes the bill all the more abhorrent. The opposition, the Labor Party, is particularly concerned about the impact of these changes on young people and their right to exercise a vote. The changes could affect up to 80,000 young Australians. They reflect the fact that the Howard government is out of touch with young Australians. Everybody understands the importance of trying to go out of our way to get people to vote, to actually participate in the Australian political system. It is about time that the Howard government realised that there is an error in the way it is proceeding with the electoral changes before the House this evening. Young people should be encouraged to participate in the system, not prevented from doing so. Obviously they are very busy and have to go out of their way in a very tough environment with respect to the pressure of work or study. We have to make sure that they are given the right to enrol, to participate in the Australian electoral system. To add to this long list of negative impacts, we have also recently learnt that the laws will seriously affect the operations of charities and community groups. A Senate inquiry heard recently that the proposed electoral changes could see charities and community groups gagged. Legal advice from the National Roundtable of Nonprofit Organisations said that changes to the definition of electoral matters in the bill would mean that charities and community groups would be unable to make even passing reference to past or present public policy issues. Under the law, such groups could be labelled as partisan political players, scaring away potential private donors and the public. The fact that the government has moved to fix this problem reflects the fact that these laws were simply poorly thought out and drafted in haste. In concluding, I believe that it is plainly obvious to all in the Australian community, on reflection and examination of this bill, that increasing the threshold for undisclosed political donations is dangerous for any democracy. It can corrupt a system that has been respected throughout the world. At the same time, the concerns these laws pose for the young, the disadvantaged, Indigenous communities, charities and community groups simply far outweigh any perceived benefit claimed by this government. The Howard government should step back. We as a nation have long invested in an electoral system that is respected and regarded as being honest. There is no good reason why the threshold for nondisclosure of political donations should be increased. It is a recipe for corruption and unaccountability, and the Howard government should know better. (Time expired) 56 17:54:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 0 Mr MELHAM —The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2005 contains provisions the cumulative effect of which will undermine the integrity of our electoral system. This government is intent not on improving our electoral system but on partisan political advantage. The Americans, two elections ago, had Florida and the hanging chads. This government, in this bill, produces early close of rolls for most people—apart from two modest exceptions—and also introduces a proof of identity requirement for provisional voters and for people enrolling or updating. I regard those as the equivalent of the hanging chad provisions. They are being put into our Electoral Act. They are designed to knock out potential electors—not to enfranchise them but to disenfranchise them, as was the case with the hanging chads in Florida. In Florida, the system resulted in a president being elected—as was subsequently found—with a minority of votes. When the votes were subsequently counted, it was found that he was in a minority. I want to correct something that the member for Casey said when he impugned the member for Melbourne Ports in relation to provisions contained in the 1997 Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on funding. Sure, there was a unanimous recommendation; but it was never the policy of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party to increase thresholds. Members on parliamentary committees do not bind the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. The Federal Parliamentary Labor Party rejected the particular recommendations of the committee and pushed for maintaining existing threshold levels. That is why we have the legislation before us today. Until the government got control of the Senate, we managed to do that. The member for Batman referred to the fundraising events that are going on this evening—how this parliament is being used to fill the coffers of the Liberal Party and its members through fundraising events coinciding with the— EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —What—you want to dispute that, do you? Go into the corridors. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —I would like to remind the honourable member that it is inappropriate to make allegations about fundraising activities which are clearly untrue in the context of this debate, which is about something entirely different. He should stick to the issues. 10000 Quick, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! There is no point of order. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —It is absolutely imperative that it is linked to this debate, because in this legislation we are increasing the threshold for disclosure levels. The minister at the table should know what we are actually debating. Part of it is about an increase in thresholds. That will mean that a lot of that fundraising activity that is occurring, where parliament is being used by the Liberal Party as a major fundraiser, will not be disclosed under the increased thresholds. They will not be required to do that. The thresholds will be increased to $10,000. The $1,000 a head on a minister’s table and $600 a head on a backbencher’s table will all be hidden. We will have the best politicians that money can buy, but we are not going to be able to see the money that buys them. We are not going to have transparency and openness. That is where there is a second leg in this legislation, which I regard as putrid legislation. As the member for Batman pointed out, political fundraising is occurring that supplements public funding and entitlements. This is the third level. I call it the invisible money. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —It’s triple dipping, not double dipping. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —It is triple dipping. That needs to be pointed out. The minister at the table should not be so precious. She needs to just go out into the corridors, the Mural Hall and the Main Committee area and she will see what is happening. I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.00 pm to 7.30 pm 57 Bills R2551 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 57 Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time. 57 57 19:30:00 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 Mr COSTELLO —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction Australia has weathered some economic storms over the last decade — storms every bit as deadly as the cyclones that lashed the north of our continent in the early part of this year. We have weathered the Asian financial crisis, a global downturn, a one in a hundred year drought. We have had threats to our international tourism from new diseases such as SARS. We have had terrorist attacks and the security response has brought huge additional costs and challenges. Our military forces are in theatres of war. With disciplined and prudent management our economy has come through these storms intact — in fact growing, in fact growing in the longest continuous stretch our nation has ever experienced. There were moments where we were vulnerable. But through these storms we never lost sight of our goals — to get Australians jobs, to keep inflation low, to keep home loan interest rates affordable, to balance our Budget, and to repay Labor’s debt. We have now eliminated the $96 billion of net debt that Labor left the Australian Government when it left office. Our Budget is in surplus for the 9th time in 10 years:‑ in 2006‑07 a forecast surplus of $10.8 billion. We have established a Future Fund which has begun to save for the future. With these savings the next generation will be able to meet the challenges of their time. Now the Australian Government is debt free in net terms. We do not have to collect taxes to pay the Government’s interest bill. We are saving over $8 billion per annum in interest payments. Tonight I will announce how we can use those savings:‑ for a new programme of investment; for a new comprehensive tax plan; to help Australian families; to assist older Australians; and to secure and defend our country. A New Programme of Investment Tonight I am announcing new investment in physical infrastructure and research infrastructure that will carry Australia into the next decade. Our AusLink Programme is a coordinated plan to build Australia’s key highway and rail network. In the five year period from 2004‑05 we have allocated $12.7 billion to this programme. Tonight I am announcing an additional $2.3 billion — an increase of nearly 20 per cent — in that programme. The largest allocation will be $800 million this year to accelerate duplication of Australia’s busiest interstate road freight route — the Hume Highway. Apart from three by‑passes, this money will complete the dual carriageway from Sydney to Melbourne and pull it forward from 2012 to 2009. We will provide $220 million to accelerate works to improve the safety of the Bruce Highway between Townsville and Cairns, and an extra $48 million to the Tully flood works project. This is in recognition of the key freight link that the Bruce Highway provides to far north Queensland. It will also support the region’s recovery from the devastating impact of Cyclone Larry. In addition to these works this Budget will allocate new money of:‑ $323 million for the Great Northern, Great Eastern and Eyre Highways in Western Australia; $160 million for the Pacific Highway in New South Wales; $100 million for the Sturt Highway in South Australia; $60 million for the East Tamar Highway in Tasmania; and $30 million for the Victoria Highway in the Northern Territory. Earlier this year I announced additional funding for the Western, the Calder and the Goulburn Valley Highways in Victoria. All these projects are AusLink national network roads. At the local level the Australian Government has its Roads to Recovery programme funding Local Councils to upgrade local roads in local towns and neighbourhoods. The programme over 5 years averages around $300 million per year. The Australian Government will pay an additional $307.5 million to Local Councils this year — before 30 June — so Councils can double next year’s level of construction. Over the last three years the Australian Government has allocated $550 million to the Australian Rail Track Corporation to upgrade the Interstate Network between Perth and the Queensland border. An additional $270 million will be allocated in this Budget in 2005‑06 to improve track quality and rail speed on the North‑South rail corridor between Melbourne and Brisbane. The Road User Charge for heavy vehicles currently stands at 19.6 cents per litre. The Government will not proceed with an anticipated increase in this charge which was to have come into effect on 1 July 2006. This is a saving to the road industry of $1.2 billion over the forward estimates. Water Infrastructure The Government is committed to restoring the health of the Murray River system. A healthy, working river system will benefit the environment. It will benefit irrigators, industries and towns in the Murray‑Darling Basin. In this Budget, I am announcing a new injection of $500 million to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. This money will be used to undertake a range of capital works and improvements to protect the resources of the basin and enhance environmental flows. The Government will seek the cooperation of State Governments to maintain their contribution in real terms to the Commission. Our road, rail and water initiatives represent a major investment in our regions and our future. Health and Medical Research In this Budget the Government’s investment in infrastructure runs further than physical infrastructure. This Budget makes major new investment in health and medical research — an area where Australia is a world leader. Our scientists have made many breakthroughs of world importance such as the bionic ear, treatment of stomach ulcers, and melanoma treatment. We look to them to make many more. In 1995‑96 annual grants to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) were around $127 million per annum. In the 1999‑2000 Budget I announced a plan to double that funding. In the 2004‑05 Budget I announced a plan to increase it again. Tonight I am announcing a further increase in funding for the NHMRC which will take base funding to over $700 million per annum by 2009‑10. This is a five‑fold increase over the 1995‑96 levels of spending on health and medical research. As part of this increase I am announcing 65 additional health and medical fellowships over the next nine years for researchers doing important work in unlocking the causes of diseases and searching for their cures. And tonight I am announcing new funding of $235 million for the physical infrastructure — the laboratories, the equipment that our researchers need to do their work. This will fund new infrastructure at facilities of world renown such as the Howard Florey Institute ($37 million), the Garvan and Victor Chang Institutes ($14 million), and the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute ($10 million). All up this new investment in scientific infrastructure amounts to around $806 million over five years. In 2006‑07 the Government will spend $48 billion on health and aged care. It spent $20 billion in 1996‑97 when it was first elected. Tonight’s Budget includes the new $1.9 billion package over five years for Mental Health Services for increased services, increased respite places, and for specialist mental health nurses. It also provides more funds to train more doctors and nurses as part of a package agreed by the Council of Australian Governments. A New Comprehensive Tax Plan Mr Speaker, tonight I am announcing a new comprehensive tax reform plan with three parts:‑ first another instalment in income tax reform; second a major improvement in business tax; and third a plan to simplify and streamline superannuation which represents the most significant change in nearly 20 years. Our tax system exists to fund the decent services in health and aged care and other services that Australians legitimately expect and are entitled to receive. If we can fund these services, balance our Budget, defend and secure the country, and reduce the tax burden we should aim to do so. This year we will do so. And we will reduce personal income tax very significantly. Since 2000 we have reduced the marginal tax rates at the lower end of the income scale. Tonight I announce that from 1 July 2006 we will reduce the marginal tax rates at the upper end of the income scale. We will reduce the 47 and 42 cent rates to 45 and 40 cents. This will give Australia four marginal tax rates of 15, 30, 40 and 45 cents. In addition we will increase the thresholds so that the 15 cent rate will apply up to $25,000, the 30 cent rate up to $75,000, the 40 cent rate up to $150,000 and the 45 cent rate will apply to income above that. Across the forward estimates more than 80 per cent of taxpayers will have a top marginal tax rate of 30 cents. Only 2 per cent of taxpayers will be affected by the top marginal tax rate on 1 July. Six years ago the threshold for the top marginal tax rate was $50,000. If that threshold had been indexed in 1996 it would have stood below $64,000 by 1 July this year. By 1 July this year that threshold will be $150,000. For low income earners, the Low Income Tax Offset will increase from $235 to $600. It will phase out from $25,000 to $40,000. It means a low income earner will not pay tax until their annual income exceeds $10,000. These changes and the change to the 30 per cent threshold will provide more incentive for those outside the workforce to re‑enter it and those on part‑time work to take additional hours. Senior Australians will also benefit through the Senior Australians Tax Offset. The changes I have announced tonight will make the Australian tax system more competitive and bring Australia’s upper income tax rates into line with OECD averages. Business Tax Our plan here has two parts—depreciation and reform of small business taxation. We recently received a report on the International Comparison of Australia’s taxes. It showed that our company tax rate—which this Government cut to 30 per cent—is internationally competitive but that Australia had the equal lowest value of depreciation allowances in comparator countries. Evidence suggests that a diminishing value rate of 200 per cent is more appropriate in a world of rapidly advancing technology than Australia’s current rate of 150 per cent. Therefore we will move to enhance our taxation arrangements by moving to a 200 per cent diminishing value rate on eligible business assets acquired after tonight. The measure will cut business tax by $3.7 billion over the next four years. It will encourage Australian business to undertake investment in new plant and equipment, to keep pace with new technology, and to remain ultra‑competitive. The Government will also reduce the complexity of small business tax arrangements. In April this year, the Government announced reforms to the fringe benefits tax in response to the Task Force on Reducing Red Tape. This Budget takes progress much further with a range of measures which will reduce the complexity faced by small business. These include changes to make the Simplified Tax System more attractive, aligning thresholds for small businesses to simplify eligibility for various concessions, and simplifying and extending access to the small business capital gains tax concessions. These changes will provide benefits worth $435 million to small business over the next four years. Mr Speaker, this Budget also includes measures to protect the integrity of the tax system. We will recover an additional $2.3 billion through measures against international tax arrangements and more audits on high-wealth individuals. Superannuation Mr Speaker, tonight I release a plan to simplify and streamline superannuation. This plan represents the most significant change to Australia’s superannuation system in decades. It will sweep away the current raft of complexity faced by retirees, increase retirement incomes, give greater flexibility as to how and when superannuation can be drawn down, and improve incentives for older Australians to stay in the workforce. At the core of the plan is the proposal to exempt Australians aged 60 or over from any tax on their end benefits where these are paid from a taxed superannuation fund. This would apply from 1 July 2007. There would be no tax on a lump sum. There would be no tax on a superannuation pension. This would be the most direct way of cutting through the complexity of the current system. Reasonable benefit limits would be abolished. Age based limits would be abolished. A simple universal contribution limit would apply. People would not be forced to draw down on their superannuation. The self‑employed would be able to claim a full deduction for their superannuation contributions. The self-employed would be eligible for the Government co‑contribution. It would be easier for people to find and transfer their superannuation between funds. It is also proposed to halve the pension assets test taper rate from $3 to $1.50 per fortnight for every $1,000 of assets above the free area with effect from 20 September 2007. The current taper rate of $3 means that a retiree loses more age pension than they earn on their additional savings if they do not achieve a return of at least 7.8 per cent a year. This is a large disincentive to save for retirement. Family Assistance Mr Speaker, a fundamental part of our tax system is the assistance that we provide to families who are raising children. Helping families is one of the highest priorities of this Government. Since 1996 we have doubled assistance to families through the Family Tax Benefit system. The maximum payment per child has increased from around $2,400 to $4,200 a year. Tonight I am announcing further enhancements to Family Tax Benefit Part A. Currently, families can receive the maximum amount if they earn less than $33,361. Last year I announced that we would increase this to $37,500 from 1 July 2006. Instead we will now increase it to $40,000. This will provide additional assistance to almost half a million Australian families at a cost of $993 million over four years. The Government will also expand eligibility for the Large Family Supplement to include families with three children with effect from 1 July this year. This will provide additional assistance to nearly 350,000 Australian families with a payment of an extra $248 per year. Mr Speaker, this Government recognises the availability of child care is important for many Australians and that finding the right option to meet the needs of families is an important decision for parents wishing to return to the workforce. Tonight I announce that the Government will remove the limit on the number of subsidised outside school hours care and family day care places. This means any new service set up by any eligible group will be funded. There will be no limit on funded places. It is expected that this will generate an additional 25,000 places by 2009. In 1996 there were 300,000 child-care places in Australia. We are budgeting for over 700,000 in 2009. And from 1 July parents will be eligible to receive the new Childcare Rebate. This will rebate 30 per cent of out of pocket child-care expenses up to $4,000 per child per annum. Supporting Older Australians and Carers Our strong Budget position allows us to provide further assistance to older Australians. This recognises the important place they hold within our community. This Government introduced a Utilities Allowance—a bi‑annual payment to age pensioners to assist with the cost of utilities—in 2005. At the same time a Seniors Concession Allowance was introduced for certain self‑funded retirees who do not get pensioner concessions. This year the Government will provide an additional one‑off payment equal to the annual amount of the utilities allowance of $102.80 to each household with a person of Age or Service Pension age eligible for that allowance. A $102.80 payment will also be provided to each self‑funded retiree who is eligible for Seniors Concession Allowance. These bonuses will be paid by 30 June 2006. We will also extend eligibility for the Utilities Allowance to cover other groups of older Australians—recipients of Mature Age Allowance, Partner Allowance and Widow Allowance. The Government will assist people in rural areas who cannot access the Age and Service Pension because of increases in the value of their family property. From 1 January 2007, the Government will exempt the value of properties from the pension assets test for eligible rural people, where they have had a 20 year connection with the land and it is not reasonable for them to realise the asset or lease the land. Carers of people with disabilities—whether they are children or older people—make a special, selfless contribution to our society. In recognition of this, tonight I announce as I did in the past two Budgets an additional $1,000 to be paid this financial year to over 100,000 people eligible for the Carer Payment. As in the last two Budgets, there will be an additional $600 payment this financial year to those people receiving Carer Allowance. It is estimated that around 370,000 people will receive this additional payment. It will not affect the carer’s social security entitlements and the bonuses are tax free. Maintaining our Commitment to Defence Mr Speaker, this Budget continues this Government’s strong commitment to defence and national security. In the year 2000 with our Defence White Paper, the Government made a landmark decision to undertake a ten‑year investment in our defence capabilities. This provided the Australian Defence Force with the certainty to plan ahead for projects like the Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEWC) aircraft, naval Air Warfare Destroyers, Abrams Battle Tanks and the Joint Strike Fighter. In this Budget I announce that we will provide for three per cent real growth in defence funding for the defence planning period from 2011 to 2015‑16. This decision, at a cost of $10.7 billion, will ensure that the Australian Defence Force continues to be provided with a firm basis for its long‑term planning. In addition to this, the Budget provides further funding for significant improvements to the capability of our armed forces. We will provide $2.2 billion to acquire up to four new C‑17 heavy lift aircraft which can transport an Abrams Tank or a Chinook Helicopter. This airlift will assist the rapid deployment of ADF resources and improve our capacity for disaster relief. We will also provide $1.5 billion over ten years to improve the Army’s sustainability, survivability and readiness. The strength of Australia’s military will always remain the quality of its people. The Government is providing $250 million to improve recruitment and retention arrangements for the Australian Defence Force. And we are increasing pay to attract and retain personnel for the Active Reserve. Strengthening National Security Strong intelligence is critical to the Government’s national security strategy. The best way of thwarting terrorism is to interrupt and intercept terrorists before they can achieve their deadly ambitions. This Budget contains new measures to strengthen Australia’s intelligence capabilities. The Government will increase ASIO staffing from around 1,200 to over 1,800 staff, and improve its technical capabilities. A further $125 million will enable increased operations of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. And we will work closely with other governments in the region to meet the threat of terrorism at home and abroad. This Budget contains measures to build further capacity in law enforcement and cooperation in the region. In September 2005, the Government accepted the recommendations of the Wheeler Report into security and policing at Australia’s airports. We announced an initial range of measures in response. Tonight I am announcing further measures, including counter‑terrorism first response, community policing, and closed circuit television monitoring to increase security at airports. Mr Speaker, this Budget contains $1.5 billion over the five years to 2009‑10 in new measures to strengthen Australia’s national security. In total, the Government has now committed $8.1 billion in new spending on national security over the nine years from 2001‑02. Combating Illegal Fishing Increasingly, illegal fishing vessels have been entering Australia’s sovereign waters. They pose a number of risks, including quarantine, illegal immigration, importation of prohibited goods and endangering fish stocks. In this Budget, I am announcing an additional $389 million over four years to combat illegal fishing. This will fund increased surface and air surveillance and patrol capability. We expect to double the number of fishing vessels apprehended in Australia’s northern waters each year. We will engage rangers from Indigenous communities to assist in locating vessels hiding in inland waters. We will detain and prosecute illegal fishermen. We will construct five new dedicated boat destruction facilities in Northern Australia to destroy and burn seized vessels. This will provide a strong deterrent against illegal fishing and ensure that Australia’s sovereign interests are protected. Building Skills and New Innovation Under the new national training agreement covering 2005 to 2008 the Australian Government will provide $5 billion to enhance our training and skills. This Budget is taking research funding and investment in innovation to record levels. It is necessary to work at ways to turn the fruits of innovation to commercial projects. We will introduce a new investment vehicle — the Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnership — to increase the provision of start up capital for small, innovative firms. Existing restrictions on venture capital limited partnerships will be eased. The Government will provide $200 million to establish up to ten new funds in a new round of the Innovation Investment Fund programme. Economic Outlook Mr Speaker, Australia’s impressive economic performance of the last decade is set to continue. The outlook is for ongoing solid economic growth coupled with low unemployment and moderate inflation. GDP is expected to grow by 3¼ per cent in 2006‑07, following more modest growth in 2005‑06. Economic growth will continue to be supported by strong global demand for Australia’s commodities. This is generating robust growth in business investment and should lead to an increase in export growth. The unemployment rate is expected to remain around its current level — a 30 year low. Over 1.7 million jobs have been created in Australia since 1996 and the proportion of the Australian population in employment is around record levels. For the first time, in 2006‑07, the Australian economy will grow to $1 trillion. Australia’s sustained economic growth is the result of the Government’s strong economic management and ongoing economic reform. Maintaining this course will secure the achievements of the past decade and provide the foundation for future growth and prosperity. Conclusion We will face further challenges in the future. Some — like the ageing of the population — we can predict now and begin to prepare for. Others may come with a surprise. But we will meet those challenges stronger because we are free of Government debt. We will meet them stronger with this plan for tax reform — for individuals, for business — and the largest superannuation reform in decades. We will meet our challenges stronger for the investment in families, the aged, in defence and security, in transport and water which will build better opportunities for the future. This is a Budget which will build opportunity for the future. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned. 64 Budget 64 20:04:00 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 Mr COSTELLO —I present the following documents in connection with the 2006-07 budget: Budget strategy and outlook 2006-07. Budget measures 2006-07. Federal financial relations 2006-07. Agency resourcing 2006-07. Ordered that the documents be made parliamentary papers. 65 Budget 65 20:04:00 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 Mr COSTELLO —I present ministerial statements as listed in the document now being circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Details of the statements will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 65 Bills R2550 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 65 Bill presented by Mr Nairn, and read a first time. 65 65 20:06:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. It is with great pleasure that I introduce Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2006-2007, which, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007, is one of the principal pieces of legislation underpinning the second budget of the fourth term of the coalition government. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2006-2007 provides funding for agencies to meet: expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to local government authorities, the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and local government authorities; administered expenses for new outcomes; requirements for departmental equity injections, loans and previous years’ outputs; and requirements to create or acquire administered assets and to discharge administered liabilities. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2006-2007 seeks approval for appropriations totalling $9,214.6 million from the consolidated revenue fund. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) includes a minor technical change to clauses and schedules relating to state payment items. References to ‘states’ have been expanded to include the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory, and local government authorities. Details of the proposed appropriations are set out in schedule 2 to the bill, the main features of which were outlined in the budget speech delivered by my colleague the Treasurer earlier this evening. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned. 65 Bills R2549 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 65 Bill presented by Mr Nairn, and read a first time. 65 65 20:09:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007 is to provide funding for the operations of the three parliamentary departments. The total appropriation sought through this bill is $171.6 million. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned. 66 Bills R2548 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 66 Bill presented by Mr Nairn, and read a first time. 66 66 20:10:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. It is with great pleasure that I introduce Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2005-2006. There are two supplementary additional estimates bills:  Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2005-2006, and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2005-2006. I shall introduce the latter bill shortly. These bills seek authority for supplementary appropriation from the consolidated revenue fund in the current financial year, to pay for important initiatives agreed by the government since additional estimates 2005-06. The total appropriation being sought through the supplementary additional estimates bills is approximately $3,625.7 million, with $1,336.5 million being sought in bill No. 5. The major items of expenditure in the bill include: additional funding to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to enable a payment of $500 million to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission in 2005-06. The government is committed to restoring the health of the Murray-Darling Basin and this funding will allow the commission to accelerate its capital works program, undertake additional projects under the Living Murray Environmental Works and Measures Program, and deliver 500 gigalitres of water per annum for environmental water flows. an additional $310.4 million to fund a coordinated package of measures to assist those adversely affected by Tropical Cyclone Larry, including: $97 million to the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to provide support in the form of ex-gratia payments to individuals and families, a one-off diesel and petrol subsidy program to assist businesses, including farmers, and a one-off program of income support payments; $86.9 million in wage subsidy payments to businesses and farmers affected by the cyclone; and an additional $126.5 million in grants to affected businesses to assist with restocking, replanting, re-establishment and clean-up; these measures are part of a total package costing $433.8 million in 2005-2006; grants totalling $265 million to a number of medical research facilities, including: $50 million to the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research to contribute towards a seven-storey extension that will double the floor space available for medical research; $50 million—which I am very pleased about—for capital works at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University; and $165 million to a number of other medical research facilities for a variety of development and expansion projects, including $37 million to the Howard Florey Institute; an additional $243 million will be provided to the Department of Transport and Regional Services to enable a $270 million payment to be made to the Australian Rail Track Corporation to assist with investment in Australia’s interstate rail network, including the upgrading of the north-south corridor; contributions totalling $87 million to universities, including: $75 million to the Australian National University for general capital works, subject to the university also contributing $50 million of its own resources; $12 million will be provided to the University of Wollongong to expand the Centre of Transnational Crime Prevention; and a one-off contribution of $23 million to support the establishment of new medical schools in Victoria; an additional $19.5 million financial assistance to support primary producers in regions that have been declared eligible for exceptional circumstances assistance and those in regions that have been declared eligible for interim income support; a $10 million contribution to the construction cost of a non-government, community managed boarding college to deliver education and related services to Indigenous high school students on the Tiwi Islands; grants to sporting facilities, including: $15 million towards the establishment of the South Australian State Aquatic Centre; $15 million to the Melbourne Cricket Ground to support the establishment of an Australian sports museum; and $9.6 million toward upgrade of Toyota Park, home of the Cronulla Sharks Rugby League Club, to enhance spectator safety and security and improve disabled access. The remaining amount in Appropriation Bill (No. 5) relates to estimates variations and other measures. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned. 67 Bills R2547 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 67 Bill presented by Mr Nairn, and read a first time. 67 67 20:16:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2005-2006 provides additional funding for agencies to meet: expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and local government authorities; and non-operating requirements in the form of departmental equity injections. Total additional appropriation of around $2.3 billion is proposed in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2005-2006. The supplementary appropriation is required to fund important initiatives during the current financial year that have been agreed by the government since additional estimates 2005-06. The major items of expenditure in the bill include: additional funding to the Department of Transport and Regional Services to enable a total payment of $2.126 billion for the following projects: $960 million to New South Wales. $800 million, together with funding already being provided to the Hume Highway under AusLink, would enable full duplication of the Hume Highway in southern New South Wales except for the bypasses of Tarcutta, Holbrook and Woomargama by the end of 2009. The remaining planning of the three bypasses would continue so they could be completed as soon as practicable; and the remaining $160 million being for projects on the Pacific Highway to support key safety initiatives and accelerate the upgrading of the highway to dual carriageway. This funding is subject to matching expenditure by the New South Wales government. $345.5 million to Queensland for the Bruce Highway between Townsville and Cairns. This includes $124.5 million to upgrade the Bruce Highway immediately south of Tully to an appropriate level of flood immunity and width. $323 million to Western Australia for the Great Northern Highway, the Great Eastern Highway and the Eyre Highway. $100 million to South Australia for the Sturt Highway. $60 million for Tasmania to upgrade the East Tamar Highway north of Launceston to Bell Bay. $30 million to the Northern Territory to improve the flood immunity of the Victoria Highway. $307.5 million to supplement the AusLink Roads to Recovery program to local, state and territory governments for investing in local roads. An additional $521.2 million to the Department of Finance and Administration to extinguish the Australian government’s liability for the superannuation entitlements of former State Rail employees of South Australia and Tasmania. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned. 68 20:20:00 House adjourned at 8.20 pm 68 Notices The following notices were given: 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer to present a bill for an act to repeal the Australia-Japan Foundation Act 1976, and for related purposes. (Australia-Japan Foundation (Repeal and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2006) 2K6 Brough, Mal, MP Mr Brough to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to the child support scheme, and for related purposes. (Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—Initial Measures) Bill 2006) 2K6 Brough, Mal, MP Mr Brough to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to social security and veterans’ entitlements, and for other purposes. (Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (One-off Payments to Increase Assistance for Older Australians and Carers and Other Measures) Bill 2006) EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott to move: That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 11 May 2006. OK6 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr Nairn to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Facilities upgrade to Shoalwater Bay training area, Rockhampton, Queensland. 83Y Hoare, Kelly, MP Ms Hoare to move: That this House: notes the release of a confidential document by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, which shows the Iranian authorities continue to identify and monitor the lives of Baha’is living in Iran; recognises the right of all people to worship freely without fear of persecution; expresses its concern that the Government of the Islamic Republic is monitoring the activities of the Baha’i community in Iran and that Iranian newspapers and radio stations have been conducting an intense anti-Baha’i campaign, similar to those that occurred in 1955 and 1979 in the lead up to Government campaigns of persecution against the Baha’i community; and calls upon the Government of the Islamic Republic to cease its monitoring of the Baha’i community and to desist from any campaign of persecution against Iranian Baha’is. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson to move: That this House: acknowledge that on 16 June 2006 Australia and Japan celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the signing of the Basic Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation between Australia and Japan that came into force on 20 August 1977; and recognise that: the Basic Treaty was a key step in helping to overcome the suspicions of the post World War Two environment and the establishment in our region of a commitment to peace and support for the United Nations; and thirty years on Australia and Japan share a great friendship and partnership on the political, security, economic, social, cultural, environmental and development fronts. RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr Kerr to move: That this House: conveys its respects to His Excellency the Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Iran and request His Excellency to convey to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini the House’s opinion that the report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief Concerned about Treatment of Followers of Baha’i Faith in Iran dated 20 March 2006 has raised important issues regarding the impermissible treatment of members of religious minorities; and calls on the Government of Iran to refrain from categorising individuals according to their religions and to ensure that members of all religious minorities are free to hold and practise their religious beliefs without discrimination or fear. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall to move: That this House: acknowledges that many people over 50 are computer illiterate or do not own a computer; notes that: telephone numbers and postal addresses for government departments are not always featured in government advertisements and e-mail addresses only are shown; government departments do not always have their street addresses in telephone directories, resulting in the cost of a telephone call for pensioners to locate the address of the government department; and the absence of a tenants directory in government buildings makes it difficult to locate the floor of the government department, once the street location has been found; and calls on the Federal Government to recognise: the difficulty older people are having in accessing information regarding the contact telephone number and location of government departments; and older people do not have the computer skills or access to computer technology to locate government departments if e-mail addresses alone are given. 0K6 Bartlett, Kerry, MP Mr Bartlett to move: That this House: recognises Taiwan’s: world class health care system; strong commitment to improved international health standards and international health security; and proud record of medical assistance to developing countries; notes that: as emphasised by Dr Jong-wook Lee, Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the experience of SARS in 2003, and the ongoing threat of Avian Influenza, show the imperative of an internationally coordinated approach to international health emergencies; in the same way that Taiwan’s containment and management efforts during the SARS epidemic in 2003 were hampered by its inability to access the expertise of the WHO, its capacity to meet the challenges of a global Avian Influenza epidemic would be similarly constrained if it continues to be denied the right to participate in the operation of the WHO; the World Health Assembly’s (WHA) Rules of Procedure formally allow for the participation of observers in the activities of the organisation, without reference to questions of sovereignty; the participation of observers in WHO activities is consistent with the principle of ‘universal application’, given expression in the WHO’s constitutional mandate to “advance the health of all peoples”; there are currently six semi-permanent WHA observers, including a sovereign state (the Holy See), a quasi-state (Palestine), a political entity (the Order of Malta), and three international organisations, and thus the granting to Taiwan of observer status should not be construed as a form of political recognition; private Members’ bills in support of Taiwan’s bid for observer status with the WHO were tabled in this House in both 2003 and 2004; support for Taiwan’s previous bids has also come from many other governments, including the US Government, the EU, Japan and Canada at the May 2003 and 2004 Summits of the World Health Assembly in Geneva; and there is considerable public support for Taiwan’s participation in the WHO from professional medical organisations; and supports the participation of Taiwan in the WHA as an observer, given that such participation would allow Taiwan to more effectively contribute to international health coordination, and to better protect its 23 million people from possible trans-national health emergencies, including Avian Influenza. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson to move: That this House, in recognising support by the Australian Government, Maritime Unions and shipowners for the new International Labour Organisation consolidated Maritime Convention: urges the Australian, State and Territory Governments to expedite recognition of the Convention by Australia; and calls upon the Australian Government to commit: resources to enhance compliance and enforcement measurers to ensure successful implementation of the Convention as shipping workers are amongst the most exploited in the world because of the extensive use of flag on convenience vessels; and to cooperative processes including legislative change and resource allocation to support implementation of the Convention code as there is exhaustive documentation of violence, intimidation, double book keeping to cover up underpayment of wages and even rape and murder in the maritime industry. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson to move: That this House believes that the Australian Government should declare 3 September each year as Merchant Navy Day in Australia as a means of: recognising the heroism of Australian seafarers in times of war; acknowledging that during World War II, one in eight Australian merchant seafarers perished; and noting that, in her address to the 2005 US National Maritime Day memorial service, US Secretary of Labour, Elaine L Chao, called on all Americans to honour the brave men and women who served the country, in times of war and said “American merchant mariners have a rich history in this nation… They have served in every American war since the United States was born. With their tradition of courage, patriotism and perseverance, merchant mariners have proven that they stand by this great nation no matter what the challenge. And in so doing, they have served as an inspiration to every generation of Americans.”; and recognising the debt that all Australians owe to Australian merchant seafarers for the contribution they have made to the defence of this nation, particularly their role in the allied victory in World War II. JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George to move: That this House: notes the statement made on 20 March 2006 by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief expressing concern about the treatment of followers of the Baha’i faith in Iran; expresses its grave concern that instructions have been issued to collect information and monitor activities of members of the Baha’i faith in Iran; regards such action as an unacceptable interference with the rights of members of religious minorities; fears that such monitoring could be used as the basis for persecution and discrimination against members of the Baha'i faith; and urges the Government to pursue these concerns with our Embassy and with representatives of the Iranian Government. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson to move: That this House: in recognising that the Australian Government terminated Australia’s Social Security agreement with the United Kingdom on 1 March 2001 in an attempt to force the U.K Government to address conditions of the agreement, notes that as a result of the Government’s decision to terminate the Agreement: new arrivals from the UK of pension age will now need to accrue 10 year’s residence in Australia to qualify for the Australian age pension; and former Australian residents will no longer be able to claim a non-means tested UK retirement pension using their Australian residence; and calls on the Government to negotiate a new Agreement with the UK Government and that such an Agreement address the issue of the non-indexation of UK pensions in Australia so that the indexation of UK pensions will be of benefit to UK pensioners in Australia and Australian taxpayers. 73 Questions in Writing 73 73 703 73 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 Ms Grierson asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 7 March 2005: For the year (a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002, (d) 2003 and (e) 2004, how many laptop computers were stolen from, or otherwise remain unaccounted for, at the Australian Taxation Office in (i) Newcastle, (ii) Albury-Wodonga, (iii) St Leonards, (iv) Hurstville, (v) Parramatta, (vi) Wollongong and (vii) the Sydney CBD. 73 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Dutton —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ATO laptop computers recorded as stolen and/or lost   2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Newcastle 0 0 7 1 0 Albury-Wodonga 0 0 1 1 0 St Leonards 0 1 4 0 0 Hurstville 0 0 1 1 2 Parramatta 0 0 4 4 1 Wollongong 0 0 0 1 0 Sydney CBD 0 0 1 2 9 Total laptops stolen/lost 0 1 18 10 12 73 73 1068 amended 73 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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. 73 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: Yes. (b) Please refer to table below. Please refer to table below. Department of Transport and Regional Services Name Postal address Purpose Cost (GST incl) Quantum Market Research 96 Bridport St, Albert Park, Victoria 3206 To conduct an evaluation of the Commonwealth Regional Information Service and its delivery elements. $89,540 The Social Research Centre Pty Ltd 37 Streldon Avenue, Strathmore, Victoria 3041 To conduct a survey to monitor changes in community attitudes and perceptions on a wide range of road safety issues. $81,811 Socom Pty Ltd Level 2, 19 -21 Argyle Place South Carlton, Victoria 3053 To conduct focus groups to test the ‘Leading Practice Model for Development Assessment’ – a model that provides a blueprint for jurisdictions for a simpler, more effective approach to development assessment. The Australian Government’s contribution to the cost of the project was $80,000. Eureka Strategic Research PO Box 767, Newtown, NSW 2042 To undertake research on Australian Government communications with local government. $62,601 Colmar Brunton Social Research PO Box 2212 Canberra ACT 2601 To undertake qualitative and quantitative research to assist in the development of a communications strategy for the Green Vehicle Guide. $66, 676 Quantum Market Research 96 Bridport St, Albert Park, Victoria 3206 To undertake developmental research to help guide decisions on the future of the Australian Government Regional Information Service (AGRIS). $57,200 Solutions Marketing and Research Pty Ltd PO Box 453 Neutral Bay NSW 2089. To undertake independent research on Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) to determine the level of understanding of the ACC name and role. $27,500 Quantum Market Research 96 Bridport St, Albert Park, Victoria 3206 To conduct focus group testing of advertising concepts for the Commonwealth Regional Information Service campaign. $20,900 Centre for Tourism Research Centre for Tourism Research, University of Canberra, ACT 2601 To undertake qualitative research into perceptions of the National Capital following the Australian of the Year Awards and Celebrate! Australia Day Live concert. $19,834 Centre for Tourism Research Centre for Tourism Research, University of Canberra, ACT 2601 To develop a questionnaire for the National Capital Exhibition to monitor visitor demographics and feedback. $4,268 CRM Australia Unit 16, 177-199 Pacific Highway, North Sydney 2059 Telemarketing campaign to obtain sales leads for fire emergency response training and fire safety consulting services. $3,010 Press Ganey Associates PO Box 5983, Gold Coast Mail Centre, QLD 9726 To undertake a survey of Christmas Island Hospital inpatients to ascertain patient satisfaction. $1,525 National Airspace System Implementation Group NASIG, c/-DOTARS, PO Box 594, Canberra ACT 2601 Survey of radio carriage in ultralight aircraft. $896 AirServices Australia Name Postal address Purpose Cost (GST incl) Eureka Strategic Research PO Box 767, Newtown, NSW 2042 External customer satisfaction research for AirServices Australia. $66,599 New Focus Suite 3, Level 1, 99 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000 International brand perceptions study for AirServices Australia. $48,968 New Focus Suite 3, Level 1, 99 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Annual stakeholder survey for AirServices Australia. $29,634 75 75 1262 75 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 11 May 2005: Who attended the celebration of Her Majesty The Queen of Australia’s birthday at Government House, Canberra, on 21 April 2004 and 21 April 2005. What sum was spent on each of these functions. 75 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Notice of these events appeared in The Canberra Times Vice‑Regal Notices on 22 April 2004 and 22 April 2005 respectively. I am advised by the Official Secretary to the Governor‑General that it is not possible to identify the cost of individual functions of this nature. 75 75 1901 75 Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP XS4 Fremantle ALP 0 Dr Lawrence asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 9 August 2005: Is the Minister’s department providing any funds to organisations which require their employees to meet certain religious requirements (eg membership of a particular church or religious group) as a condition of their employment; if so, will the Minister identify the organisations. Does the Minister’s department provide funds to any organisations for programmes which include religious instructions, or faith-based counselling; if so, will the Minister identify the organisations. Does the Minister’s department place any requirements on church and charitable organisations which receive funds from the department that the funds not be used for religious or evangelical purposes; if so, what are the guidelines or requirements. How does the Minister’s department ensure that services and programmes funded by the Government and delivered by church and charitable organisations are not used for religious or evangelical purposes. 76 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: The Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) provides funding to government and non-government organisations, including religious and charitable organisations, through various programmes and initiatives, to support and strengthen outcomes in the areas of education, science and training. DEST does not collect information relating to the employment conditions or contractual arrangements of staff of funding recipients. Funding is tied to specific outcomes set out in contracts/funding agreements and/or programme guidelines, and no funding is provided for the purpose of religious instruction or activities. As above. Funding provided to government and non-government organisations is administered within appropriate accountability frameworks, which include periodic reports, acquittals, audits and financial statements, to ensure that funding is spent in accordance with the requirements of the relevant agreements/contracts and guidelines and with the objective of achieving the outcomes for which the funding was provided. 76 76 2071 76 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 17 August 2005: What sum was spent by the Government on (a) travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) other expenses for the Prime Minister’s visit to the United States of America from 15 to 19 July 2005 and the United Kingdom from 20 to 24 July 2005. Who accompanied him on this journey. 76 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 31 December 2005, the sum spent by the Government on (a) travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) other expenses for my visit to the United States of America from 15 to 19 July 2005 and the United Kingdom from 20 to 24 July 2005 was: $218,690.80 $249,802.51 $2,885 $145,454.26 These figures include the overnight stay in the United Arab Emirates. I was accompanied by my wife and a small number of personal staff, departmental officials and security officers. 77 77 2073 77 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 17 August 2005: What was the cost of the reception for members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery hosted by Their Excellencies the Governor-General and Mrs Jeffery at Government House, Canberra, on 6 July 2005. Which Members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery accepted an invitation to attend the reception. 77 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised by the Official Secretary to the Governor-General that it is not possible to identify the cost of individual functions of this nature. Notice of this event appeared in The Canberra Times Vice‑Regal Notices on 7 July 2005. 77 77 2075 77 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 17 August 2005: Can he confirm that his department is responsible for the leading negotiations with the United States Government on an Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology for Homeland/Domestic Security Matters. When did the Australian and United States Governments first discuss the possible negotiation of this agreement. Will the proposed agreement be a treaty-level agreement or a less-than-treaty status agreement such as a memorandum of understanding. What is the primary purpose of the proposed agreement and what kind of collaborative activities are likely to be carried out under its provisions. What timeframe is anticipated by the Australian Government for conduct and completion of these negotiations. Which Australian and United States Government agencies will be responsible for the implementation of the proposed agreement. Will the proposed agreement include provisions governing the exchange of classified information. What financial implications may arise from this proposed agreement. Does the Government contemplate negotiating similar agreements with other governments, for example the Government of the United Kingdom 77 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I can confirm that my department is responsible for leading negotiations with the United States Government on an Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology for Homeland/Domestic Security Matters. Representatives from the United States Department of Homeland Security visited Australia in August 2004. As a result of this visit the US Government and my department have actively engaged to progress an agreement. The proposed agreement will be at the treaty level. The purpose of the agreement is to establish a framework to encourage, develop and facilitate bilateral cooperative activities in science and technology that contribute to the domestic security capabilities of both nations. The agreement will facilitate cooperative activities such as collaborative research, staff visits and information and material exchange that will contribute to the enhancement of domestic security capabilities of both nations. Negotiations have been completed. The agreement was signed in Washington on 21 December 2005 by the Australian Ambassador to the United States of America, Mr Dennis Richardson and the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, Mr Michael Chertoff. My department will be responsible for implementing the agreement in Australia while I understand that the Department of Homeland Security will be implementing the agreement in the US. The agreement has the necessary provisions governing the exchange of classified information. There are no direct financial obligations on the government that result from the agreement. However, the agreement provides the opportunity for the co-funding of collaborative research projects with the United States. The Government is open to opportunities for establishing similar agreements with other governments but there have been no formal approaches at this stage. 78 78 2162 and 2164 78 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 10 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. 78 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 questions is as follows: I have not received any training, coaching or assistance in public speaking or voice projection at public expense during my time as Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has no record of any training, coaching or assistance in public speaking or voice projection at public expense undertaken by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade during his time in the trade portfolio. Not applicable – refer (1). 78 78 2166 78 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, 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. 78 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: No. Not applicable. 79 79 2174 79 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 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. 79 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: No. Not applicable. 79 79 2175 79 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, 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. 79 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: No N/A. 79 79 2179 79 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Sport, 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. 79 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for the Arts and Sport has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: No. Not applicable. 80 80 2184 80 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Ageing, 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. 80 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The Minister for Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: I am advised that my predecessor, the Hon Julie Bishop MP, did not receive any training, coaching or assistance in public speaking or voice projection at public expense. Not applicable. 80 80 2185 80 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, 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. 80 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 Fran Bailey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. (b) $5,156. Sarah Gorman Communications (as the representative of Spaeth Communications), PO Box 69, Kent Town, Adelaide SA 5071. 80 80 2231 80 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 5 September 2005: Did he invite Queensland businessman Mr Hajji Abdul (Ray) Rahman Deen to the meeting on 23 August with 14 Islamic community leaders. Has he seen media reports that Mr Deen is a Liberal Party member and member of the Campaign Committee of Mr Gary Hardgrave, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. Was Mr Deen invited to the Meeting on 23 August because of his Liberal Party connections rather than because of his standing in the Islamic community. Has he seen media reports that Mr Deen sent a fax to members of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils implying that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were not responsible for the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 and asking “why did 4000 Jews not show up for work”. Did he knowingly invite people who do not believe Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 to the summit designed to foster better understanding between Muslins and non-Muslims in Australia; if so, why. 81 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes Yes No Yes. I am aware that Mr Deen issued a statement indicating that the views attributed to him were not his personal views. No 81 81 2329 81 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 7 September 2005: What are the objectives and strategies that comprise the Coastcare program. How are the objectives of Coastcare to be achieved. How are the strategies implemented through (a) the priority areas of activity, (b) the matters for targets, (c) the three key themes, and (d) the three investment streams. What proportion of the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) budget was (a) allocated and (b) expended on the Coastcare program in 2003-2004. What is the rationale for spending only $700,000 of a total of over $22.9 million (3%) in the NSW coastal Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions on coastal, estuarine and marine issues. What is the rationale for spending only $960,000 of a total of over $21 million (4.6%) in the Western Australian coastal NRM regions on coastal, estuarine and marine issues. What is the rationale for spending only $1.24 million of a total of over $13.8 million (9%) in the Victorian coastal NRM regions on coastal, estuarine and marine issues. What is the rationale for spending only $1.8 million of a total of over $19 million (9.4%) in the Queensland coastal NRM regions on coastal, estuarine and marine issues. Can the Minister explain why only $9.8 million of a total of almost $25.6 million (38%) in the Western Australian NRM regions was spent directly on addressing matters for targets while the majority of funds was spent on measures such as coordination, facilitation, capacity building and awareness raising and what action is being taken to increase the proportion of funds being spent directly on addressing matters for targets. In respect of priority funding under the regional programs which, from July 2003 to March 2004, supported the monitoring of only two estuarine, coastal or marine sites for the purpose of ‘baseline, trend or condition studies for targets’, (a) what was the total NHT cost of monitoring activity, (b) in which regions did it occur, (c) to which matters for targets do these monitoring studies relate, (d) what proportion of the total priority funding for estuarine, coastal or marine did it represent, and (e) which accredited targets have been established as a result of the monitoring studies. What funding and resources have been directed to volunteer groups under the Coastcare program. What funding and resources have been directed to coastal management committees under the Coastcare program and where are the management committees located. 81 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: The objective or national goal of the Coastcare Programme is to protect our coastal catchments, ecosystems and the marine environment. In seeking to achieve the objective, ten national priority areas of activity have been identified for the Natural Heritage Trust in general, and Coastcare specifically. These priorities guide the selection of projects to be funded at the national and local level, are included in the bilateral agreements with each state and territory, and form the basis of targeted investment through regional natural resource management plans and investment strategies. Activities that contribute to achieving Coastcare outcomes are funded through all three Natural Heritage Trust investment streams (national, regional and local) and collectively contribute to all ten of the Natural Heritage Trust investment priority areas of activity. The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council also identified ten resource condition matters for target that regional bodies consider when developing specific targets for regional plans. Activities to achieve these regional targets are identified in regional investment strategies. Coastcare activities funded through the regional investment stream contribute to achieving targets set by the regional bodies and, at the same time, collectively contribute to national achievements in relation to the matters for target. Coastcare activities contribute to most of the ten matters for target. In coastal catchments, activities that maintain and improve land, river and biodiversity condition up-stream can contribute significantly to estuarine, coastal and marine habitat integrity down-stream. Coastcare activities also address the three key themes of the Natural Heritage Trust: conserving biodiversity; implementing sustainable agriculture and natural resource use; and building capacity and institutional change. Coastcare activities often focus on biodiversity conservation and community capacity building. Sustainable agriculture activities up-stream in coastal catchments can improve the condition of estuarine, coastal and marine habitats and ecosystems down-stream. Coastcare local level delivery is funded through the Australian Government Envirofund, which supports community groups and individuals to undertake small projects, valued up to $50,000, to target local problems. Further information can be found at the Natural Heritage Trust website www.nht.gov.au. In June 2002 the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board approved indicative programme allocations under the Trust for 2002-03 to 2006-07 based on 13% for Coastcare. In 2003-04, $36 million was expended on Coastcare, which represents 14.4 per cent of the total Trust expenditure of $250 million. to (8) The 2003-04 Regional Programs Summary Report identifies regional investments approved under the Extension of the Trust from July 2002 to June 2004 for activities having primarily “coastal, estuarine and marine” outcomes as follows: $670,067 in NSW, $959,525 in Western Australia, $1,241,665 in Victoria and $1,967,403 in Queensland. These figures referred to in Questions (5) to (8) are not indicative of total regional expenditure on Coastcare activities maintaining or improving the condition of estuarine, coastal and marine habitats and species in these states. Regional investment activities are typically developed to achieve multiple outcomes. In preparing the 2003-04 Regional Programs Summary Report, the approved allocation and expenditure for each activity was attributed to only one matter for target based on the primary intent of the activity. Activities with significant Coastcare outcomes were distributed against all of the matters for target: biodiversity targets (rivers and wetlands, native species, invasive species and native vegetation as well as coastal, estuarine and marine) and water quality targets (nutrients, turbidity, salinity) and occasionally land targets (soil condition, salinity). Up to June 2005, Western Australian regions were in the process of developing their regional natural resource management plans and investment strategies. A significant proportion of funds was required by the regions to undertake the required community consultation, capacity building and awareness raising. Under the Extension of the Trust from July 2002 to June 2004, $27.5 million was approved from the regional investment stream for expenditure in Western Australia, comprising $6.4 million of foundation funding, $18.5 million for priority actions, $1.4 million for state-wide and multi-regional activities and $1.2 million of regional competitive funds. The six regions in Western Australia now have accredited plans and approved investment strategies under the bilateral agreement with the Government of Western Australia. As a result, an increasing proportion of funds will be spent directly on addressing the matters for target. The two sites referred to are not indicative of the total number of sites where funding under the Extension of the Natural Heritage Trust has enabled monitoring of the condition of estuarine, coastal and marine habitats and species. In preparing the 2003-04 Regional Programs Summary Report, the outputs of any single activity were reported against only one matter for target based on the primary intent of the activity. Activities that include significant Coastcare outputs are distributed against other matters for targets such as water quality targets (nutrients, turbidity, salinity) and biodiversity targets (rivers and wetlands, native species, invasive species and native vegetation). The two sites referred to are in South Australia in the South East natural resource management region where coastal litter surveys were carried out. The monitoring was a small component of a South East region activity, which received $80,000 of Trust funding. The monitoring attracted additional investment from the local fishing industry and the South Australian Government. The monitoring output was reported against the “estuarine, coastal and marine habitat integrity” matter for target. By enabling risks to be identified and assessed, the litter survey monitoring has guided engagement with professional and recreational fishers to change their fishing practices and contribute to the achievement of the regional resource condition target “Maintain and improve the condition of marine and coastal resources until 2002 and beyond”. Volunteer groups are strongly engaged in the delivery of Coastcare. Some volunteer groups work closely with regional bodies to carry out Coastcare activities that form part of larger regional investment strategies activities. In some cases no funding would be given directly to the volunteer group. In cases where funding is provided to the volunteer group this would be a devolved grant and would not be routinely reported by the regional body. Most volunteer groups are involved in Coastcare through Australian Government Envirofund projects. Under the Extension of the Natural Heritage Trust, the Envirofund has funded over three hundred small Coastcare projects with proponents who have self-identified as either a “community group” or a “non-government organisation”. Volunteer groups occur in both categories and funding and resources are not readily identifiable. Across Australia, coastal management committees are constituted in a variety of ways including being publicly elected committees or bodies established by local government or a state government department or agency. Similarly to the volunteer groups discussed in the response to Question (11) above, coastal management committees may work with regional bodies to deliver elements of the regional investment strategy or may receive small grants through the Australian Government Envirofund where they may self-identify as a “community group” or a “non-government organisation” or be sponsored by an organisation in another category. Funding and resources to coastal management committees is not readily identifiable. 83 83 2387 83 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 15 September 2005: What properties, or lettable floor areas at partially occupied properties, owned by the Commonwealth and in the possession of the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, are currently not utilised by the department or agency in question, and are not let out. For how long has each property, or part of a property, identified in part (1) been vacant and why has it been left vacant. 84 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: There are three Commonwealth owned vacant properties under the Education, Science and Training portfolio which are not utilised and are not let out. Two are Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) staff houses located in Port Hedland. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has space in Australia House, London which is currently vacant. One of the DEST staff houses in Port Hedland has been vacant since March 2005, the other since May 2005. The houses have been left vacant as a result of staffing changes. The ANSTO space in Australia House has been unused since October 2003, when the last Counsellor returned to Australia. The lease runs to 30 June 2008. There has been no interest from other Australian Government agencies to take over the lease, and security reasons prevent sub-leasing to a non-Australian Government tenant. 84 84 2534 84 Corcoran, Ann, MP 009CW Isaacs ALP 0 Ms Corcoran asked the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 31 October 2005: In respect of the speech made to the Sydney Institute by the Minister on 4 October 2005 and the Full Habitation Review which was undertaken in the electoral division of Isaacs in February 2005, over what period was the review undertaken. Was the review conducted by email, letter, phone, personal contact or some other means. How many households were contacted personally and what proportion of the households in the electoral division of Isaacs do they represent. In respect of the Minister’s statement in the speech that “89.17% of the electors were enrolled at the correct address”, will he explain how this statistic was calculated and how the remaining 10.83% of electors are accounted for. 84 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 Mr Nairn —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has provided the following information in response to the question: The Isaacs Review started in the first week of February 2004, with all fieldwork, and processing of objections, completed by early July 2004. The Review was conducted primarily through personal visits to households in the division. Follow-up activities for those addresses where electors could not be contacted during those visits, and for establishments such as caravan parks, were conducted by mail. 49,507 enrollable addresses were contacted by door knock during the Review; this represented just over 91 per cent of the 54,713 enrollable addresses in Isaacs. The remaining addresses (just under 9 per cent) were contacted by mail. The AEC defines the accuracy of electors’ information as the percentage of current electors who are enrolled for the address at which they are living; that is, their enrolments were correct at the time of the Review. As reported, using this definition the Review confirmed that 89.17 per cent of the electors on the Isaacs roll were living at their enrolled address. Of the remaining 10.83 per cent of electors, 6,462 (7.24 per cent) were found to have left their enrolled address in the division and action was taken to transfer these electors to their new address in another division, if this was known, or remove them from the roll, if not. A further 3,174 electors (3.56 per cent) had some change to their enrolment details but remained within the division and the Review identified 14 deaths. 85 85 2576 85 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 November 2005: How are Defence and other Government agencies made aware of illegal fishing activity in Australian waters and which other agencies are concerned with this issue. Do all the agencies identified in part (1) contribute resources to Coastwatch and the Joint Offshore Protection Command. Have Defence resources (Navy or other) been moved to the north of Australia from anywhere else; if so, (a) what are they and (b) what is the cost per day of deploying each of these resources. Are adequate naval resources available to cover the north-west of Australia. Do the Navy’s rules of engagement prevent Navy patrols from firing on fleeing illegal fishing boats (eg in order to disable their propulsion system). Has the Navy had difficulty in apprehending illegal fishing boats in shallow waters; if so; are shallow waters used by illegal boats to evade capture. Is Defence aware of reports that illegal fishing vessels regularly land in remote areas of northern Australia to store fishing gear and access fresh water; if so, has Defence made any assessment of the threat this poses to Australia’s national security (eg terrorism, deliberate spread of disease). Is the Minister able to say whether there are sufficient Customs and Defence resources to patrol waters to Australia’s north-east and north-west. Is the Minister able to say whether the measures currently taken against illegal fishing boats are effective. Is Defence currently engaged in developing policy and strategic options to tackle illegal fishing better in northern Australia. Is Defence working with other departments or agencies to strengthen the regime of dealing with illegal fishing vessels; if so, how. 85 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Sightings of vessels potentially fishing illegally are reported to the Coastwatch National Surveillance Centre (NSC) primarily by Customs or Australian Defence Force (ADF) aerial surveillance assets, but also by private vessels and members of the public. Officers in the NSC contact relevant agencies to advise them of the sighting and, where appropriate, to seek the agency’s requirement for any further action. The following Commonwealth agencies are primarily involved in relation to this activity, although other agencies may also become involved depending on the circumstances of the individual Foreign Fishing Vessel (FFV): the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Fisheries Management Agency, the Department of Defence, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; the Department of the Environment and Heritage, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. The Joint Offshore Protection Command (JOPC) comprises resources drawn from Customs and Defence. Coastwatch is a division of Customs and receives its resources through Customs budgetary processes. Each of the agencies identified in part (1) contributes to the Civil Maritime Surveillance Program (CMSP) through the provision of relevant intelligence and information which informs the Coastwatch Risk Assessment Methodology, and by membership of, and contributions to, the CMSP operational and strategic planning committees. and (b)      The Navy’s Fremantle Class Patrol Boats are being replaced with more capable Armidale Class Patrol Boats. The vessels are being built in Western Australia and will be based at Darwin and Cairns. Darwin-based patrol boats will be forward deployed to Dampier with the support of a Navy logistics unit based at Dampier. Yes. See my response to Question on Notice No. 1223, published in the House of Representatives Hansard on 9 August 2005. Illegal fishing boats have at times conducted fishing operations within areas of shallow, uncharted or inadequately surveyed water. The circumstances present some challenges to both Navy patrol boats and Customs vessels. Subject to distances involved, rigid inflatable boats can be deployed to search for and apprehend vessels that enter these areas. Yes. Assessments have been undertaken to ascertain the threat posed by these vessels. The Navy Fremantle Class Patrol Boats are being replaced by the more capable Armidale patrol boats, and the Government has announced that an additional two Armidale patrol boats will be purchased to further strengthen our capabilities against illegal activity in our northern waters. Additionally, on 11 October 2005, the Government announced it would increase funding to Customs by $57 million over four years to boost its ability to manage FFVs and crews detained in northern Australian waters. The funding will enable Customs to employ an additional 34 Customs officers and purchase four new tactical medium response vessels. The additional vessels will take over responsibility for apprehended fishing boats from Customs or Navy patrol vessels as they near port. This will allow the larger Customs and Navy vessels to return more quickly to their patrol and response activities. Measures to combat illegal fishing activity have been effective in apprehending record numbers of FFVs in 2005. Defence works closely with relevant central agencies with responsibility for developing policy and strategic options to combat illegal fishing activities in northern Australia. Additionally, under the auspices of the JOPC, Defence works closely with Coastwatch to continuously review the deployment of operational air and surface assets of both agencies to ensure their optimum use. Defence works closely and cooperatively with each of the agencies identified in part (1). 86 86 2598 86 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 8 November 2005: Further to the answer to question No. 2344 (Hansard, 1 November 2005, page 97): What is the Government’s response to the Australian Electoral Commission’s analysis of the data relating to informal voting for the 2004 Federal election. 86 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 Mr Nairn —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has provided the following information in response to the question. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) undertook data analysis to identify the factors that influenced the increase in informal voting from 4.82% (580,590 out of 12,054,664) of votes cast for the House of Representatives from the 2001 election to 5.18% (639,851 out of 12,354,983) of votes at the 2004 election. This analysis is outlined in the AEC Research Report No 7, October 2005, which is available from the AEC website at www.aec.gov.au. The AEC provided a copy of this report to the former Special Minister of State for information and consideration. No formal Government response is proposed. However, I have noted the key findings of the Report that: a. there was a significant increase in the percentage of ballots made informal by marks and scribbles. If the informality level in this category had not increased in 2004, overall informality would have stayed at 2001 levels; b. the strongest predictor of a rise in informality in any Division is an increase in the number of candidates on the ballot paper; c. ballots that are informal because the elector has marked “Number 1 only” or marked non‑sequential preferences make up almost 50% of overall informality in all states and territories; and d. the 10 divisions with the highest informality levels were part of the 27 divisions nationally with the highest non-English speaking background levels. This has been an issue identified in the last two federal elections. The Report also highlighted that the differences in the voting systems between the states and territories, and in the ways ballots are deemed informal in those systems continues to impact on informality at the federal level. Levels of ballots marked with “Number 1 only” remained high in New South Wales and Queensland in the 2001 and 2004 elections. Both of these states have optional preferential voting for state elections. The AEC has undertaken further analysis into the predictors of informality through two other studies – Analysis of Informality in Werriwa during the 2005 By-Election, and A Pilot Project on Informality in Port Adelaide. The outcome of these studies is being published in AEC Research Papers Numbers 8 and 9 on the AEC website in March 2006. Both of these Divisions have relatively high levels of informality and a high percentage of electors from non-English speaking backgrounds. The AEC’s comparative analysis of informal voting at the 2004 federal election and the Werriwa by‑election, held in March 2005, indicates that in addition to the different voting arrangements for the House of Representatives and the Senate, the way in which information is presented on “how to vote” cards, and the order in which the elector completes their ballot papers when Senate and House of Representatives elections are held concurrently, are factors influencing the level of informality. The Pilot study of the Division of Port Adelaide found that while there was a correlation between electors from non-English speaking backgrounds and informality rates, the correlations exist only with certain communities of non-English speaking electors. There is a need for a more targeted approach to elector information campaigns. The AEC has had preliminary discussions on its research findings into informality with the secretariats of the major political parties and the former Chair of the Joint Senate Committee on Electoral Matters. In the coming months the AEC will be further engaging with stakeholders to develop strategies aimed at reducing the rate of informality where possible. I note that analysis of informal voting by electorate, however, indicates that local factors can also have a significant impact. Targeting electors in electorates that are at risk of a high informal vote could be very effective. I have asked the AEC to keep me informed of its progress in developing more targeted public awareness campaigns to reduce informality. 87 87 2602 87 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 9 November 2005: How many staff employed by his department were offered employment covered by a certified agreement or award. How many staff employed by his department were offered employment only on an AWA. 88 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Please see pages 51, 77, 100, 228-232 of the 2004-2005 Department of Human Services Annual Report. This answer required 1 hour at a cost of $40.00 to prepare. 88 88 2603 88 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 9 November 2005: In respect of child support debt, (a) how many cases were there and (b) what total sum was payable in each electoral division in (i) 2002-2003, (ii) 2003-2004, and (iii) 2004-2005. How many of the cases in each year and each electoral division referred to in part (1) are now finalised with no debt outstanding. Will he explain the procedures used to collect child support debts. Are there performance measures or bonuses associated with the sums collected; if so, what are the details. 88 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: CSA is not able to provide the requested data by electorate as this is not the way in which it collects administrative data on customers. I have, however, attached a table (available from the House of Representatives Table Office) that records the number of cases with debt in each postcode in Australia; the value of the debt for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The table records the number of cases in each postcode that have debt for each of the three years specified. In many of the postcodes there has been a decline in the number of cases with debt. It is important to note, however, that there will be some cases that had debt in 2002-2003 that will not have had debt in 2003-2004 or 2004-2005. At the same time, there will be cases in the 2003-2004 or 2004-2005 years that have fallen into arrears that did not have debt in 2002-2003. In effect, cases will have come into the debt totals while others will have gone out because their debt has been enforced. With most clients the process used to collect debt will depend on the client’s financial circumstances and arrangements, and their attitude to the payment of the outstanding Child Support. Further information on how CSA collects child support debts is available on CSA’s website, www.csa.gov.au. CSA does not have performance bonuses associated with enforcement of debt. CSA does regularly report on its collection performance. 88 88 2633 88 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 10 November 2005: Why has he not provided an answer to question No. 1262 asked on 11 May 2005. 88 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 1262. 89 89 2662 89 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 28 November 2005: For 2004-2005, (a) how many and (b) what proportion of payments made by the Minister’s department to small business were not made within (i) 30 and (ii) 60 days of receipt of the goods or services and a proper invoice in accordance with Government procurement policy. 89 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: (a) and (b)   (i) not made within 30 days (ii) not made within 60 days (a) how many payments 2,589 682 (b) what proportion of payments 12% 3% 89 89 2663 89 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 28 November 2005: For 2004-2005, (a) how many and (b) what proportion of payments made by the Minister’s department to small business were not made within (i) 30 and (ii) 60 days of receipt of the goods or services and a proper invoice in accordance with Government procurement policy. 89 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The number of payments to small business for the financial year 2004-2005 which were not made within 30 days were 1,417 or 15.44% of total payments made. The number of payments to small business for the financial year 2004-2005 which were not made within 60 days were 261 or 2.84% of total payments made. Since July 2005 my Department has put in place a number of measures to improve this payment statistic and the number of payments to small business not made within 30 days from receipt of invoice, for the current calendar year is, on average less than 5%. 89 89 2664 89 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 28 November 2005: For 2004-2005, (a) how many and (b) what proportion of payments made by the Minister’s department to small business were not made within (i) 30 and (ii) 60 days of receipt of the goods or services and a proper invoice in accordance with Government procurement policy. 89 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department of Finance and Administration does not separately collect data on payments to “small businesses”. The data below is based on departmental payments up to and including $5 million to non‑government entities. This assumption is based on the definition that is used in the consolidation of data for the Commonwealth Payments to Small Business - Survey of Payment Performance that agencies are required to complete every six months. In 2004-05, 786 payments were not made within 30 days. In 2004-05, 157 payments were not made within 60 days. In 2004-05, 4.3% of payments were not made within 30 days. In 2004-05, 0.9% of payments were not made within 60 days. 90 90 2668 90 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 28 November 2005: For 2004-2005, (a) how many and (b) what proportion of payments made by the Minister’s department to small business were not made within (i) 30 and (ii) 60 days of receipt of the goods or services and a proper invoice in accordance with Government procurement policy. 90 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: For 2004 – 2005 Financial year 897 payments to small business were not made within 30 days of receipt of a correctly rendered invoice. This represents 1.44% of the total invoices received and paid to small business. 168 payments to small business were not paid within 60 days of receipt of a correctly rendered invoice. This represents 0.27% of the total invoices received and paid to small business. 90 90 2671 90 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 28 November 2005: For 2004-2005, (a) how many and (b) what proportion of payments made by the Minister’s department to small business were not made within (i) 30 and (ii) 60 days of receipt of the goods or services and a proper invoice in accordance with Government procurement policy. 90 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: 2,166 payments to small business were not made within 30 days; and 870 payments to small business were not made within 60 days. 9% of payments to small business were not made within 30 days; and 3% of payments to small business were not made within 60 days. 90 90 2688 90 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 Mr Brendan O’Connor asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 28 November 2005: Has the Minister’s department engaged Phillips Fox Lawyers since 21 November 2004; if so, (a) on how many occasions, (b) what was the cost of engaging Phillips Fox Lawyers (i) on each individual occasion and (ii) in total since 21 November 2004, and (c) what services were provided by Phillips Fox Lawyers on each occasion. 90 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Existing automated systems do not differentiate between dates of engagement and billing dates. Billing dates subsequent to the 21 November 2004, currently captured on the systems, may relate to ongoing matters where the date of engagement preceded 21 November 2004. To collect and assemble the information solely for the purpose of answering the question would be a major task, and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure and effort that would be required. For the reasons indicated in (a) above, the information sought in the question is not readily available from existing automated systems. With the launch of the new Directorate of External Legal Services in mid-2006 it is anticipated that this information will be available for new matters. Defence Legal’s finance systems indicate that the total of all invoices paid to Phillips Fox Lawyers from 21 November 2004 to 16 December 2005 was $4,964,869.69. Defence is not able to devote the considerable time and resources required to provide a response on services provided by Phillips Fox Lawyers on each occasion. However, Phillips Fox Lawyers have provided legal representation, contract negotiation, legal advice and drafting and legal awareness training across all groups in Defence. 91 91 2694 91 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 28 November 2005: What sum did the Minister’s department spend during 2004-2005 on external (a) barristers and (b) solicitors (including private firms, the Australian Government Solicitor and any others). What sum did the Minister’s department spend on internal legal services. What is the Minister’s department’s projected expenditure on legal services 2005-2006. 91 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (b) During 2004-05, Defence spent $33m on external barristers and solicitors (including private firms, the Australian Government Solicitor and others). The department’s accounting systems do not allow the figure to be broken down as barristers are retained by the external solicitors handling each matter on behalf of Defence. This figure includes disbursements and GST. During 2004-05, Defence spent $24.1m on internal legal services, which includes overheads and GST. Defence’s projected expenditure on legal services in 2005-06 is $65.7m. This figure includes disbursements and overheads, and incorporates the estimated internal costs for both Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation. 91 91 2698 91 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 28 November 2005: What sum did the Minister’s department spend during 2004-2005 on external (a) barristers and (b) solicitors (including private firms, the Australian Government Solicitor and any others). What sum did the Minister’s department spend on internal legal services. What is the Minister’s department’s projected expenditure on legal services for 2005-2006. 91 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: During the 2004-2005 financial year, the Attorney-General’s Department spent: $1,132,391.92 (including GST) on external barristers, and $4,564,108.90 (including GST) on external solicitors including the Australian Government Solicitor and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. These figures exclude amounts of legal services expenditure relating to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance and international obligations under various bilateral maintenance arrangements. In 2004-05 expenditure on legal services for these matters was not recorded separately from expenditure on a range of other services provided in accordance with Australia’s international obligations under the above Conventions, such as translation services. The Department does not have a separate legal services branch. Within the Department, there are units that provide both internal and external services, principally the Office of International Law, the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, and the Counsel assisting the Solicitor-General. Legal services are provided at no cost to the areas of the Department receiving the services. There is no billing arrangement for internal legal services and separate records are not kept about this expenditure. These expenses are treated as part of the aggregate of staffing costs for the Department. An estimate of the cost of internal legal services provided by officers of the Department to the Department in 2004-05 has been derived from an assessment of the number of staff involved in providing internal legal services and the proportion of their time involved in providing those services. The staff of the Office of International Law devoted to providing internal legal services are, approximately the full time equivalent of 0.5 of an APS3 level, 1.0 of a Legal Officer, 1.0 of a Senior Legal Officer, 1.0 of a Principal Legal Officer and 0.5 of an SES Officer. The staff of the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing devoted to providing internal legal services are the full time equivalent of 0.2 of a Legal Officer, 1.0 of a Senior Legal Officer, 0.3 of a Principal Legal Officer and 0.1 of an SES Officer. Approximately 50% of the time of the Counsel assisting the Solicitor‑General (a Principal Legal Officer) is devoted to providing legal services to the Department. The cost of internal legal services was then estimated based on salary levels for these positions and increased by a factor reflecting typical staffing and other overheads within the Department. By this method, it is estimated that approximately $0.95 million was spent on internal legal services by the Department in 2004–05 and approximately $0.99 million is expected to be spent in 2005-06. In addition, the costs of the Solicitor-General (including salary) are met by the Department. The budgeted amount for outsourced legal services in 2005-06 is $6.3 million. 92 92 2701 92 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 28 November 2005: What sum did the Minister’s department spend during 2004-2005 on external (a) barristers and (b) solicitors (including private firms, the Australian Government Solicitor and any others). What sum did the Minister’s department spend on internal legal services. What is the Minister’s department’s projected expenditure on legal services for 2005-2006. 92 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: During the 2004-2005 financial year, the Department of Education, Science and Training spent: $58,911 (excluding GST) on external barristers, and $1,316,118 (excluding GST) on external solicitors including the Australian Government Solicitor and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (includes all professional fees and disbursements). During the 2004-2005 financial year, the Department of Education, Science and Training spent $2,062,631 exclusive of GST on internal legal services (includes salary plus superannuation, administration and legal education and library expenses). The projected expenditure for outsourced legal services in 2005-2006 is $1,860,000 exclusive of GST (includes all professional fees and disbursements). The projected expenditure for internal legal services in 2005-2006 is $2,400,000 exclusive of GST (includes salary plus superannuation, administration and legal education and library expenses). 93 93 2703 93 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 28 November 2005: What sum did the Minister’s department spend during 2004-2005 on external (a) barristers and (b) solicitors (including private firms, the Australian Government Solicitor and any others). What sum did the Minister’s department spend on internal legal services. What is the Minister’s department’s projected expenditure on legal services for 2005-2006. 93 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: The total amount spent by my department on external barristers and solicitors during the 2004-2005 financial year was $6,226,214.94 (GST exclusive). This amount is made up of expenditure of $5,667,454.16 for the Department, $252,802.30 for IP Australia and $305,958.48 for Geoscience Australia. IP Australia and Geoscience Australia are part of the Department and are prescribed agencies under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and regulations made thereunder. This amount includes fees and disbursements. The department does not separately record the amount spent on barristers. Barristers are generally engaged through firms of solicitors and their work is included as part of the overall invoices submitted by those firms. My department spent approximately $1,225,810.52 on internal legal services during the 2004-2005 financial year. This amount includes payments for overheads (salary and administrative expenses) related to internal legal services. The answer given to the honourable member’s previous question on notice on the amount spent by my department on internal legal services in the 2003-2004 financial year also included overheads involved in the provision of the internal legal services. These overheads are included in the calculation of the amount spent by my department on internal legal services in the 2004-2005 financial year. My department’s projected expenditure on external and internal legal services for the 2005-2006 financial year is $6,976,856 for the Department (this includes external and internal legal services (not including all overheads)), $347,799.10 for IP Australia and $250,000 for Geoscience Australia. All of these amounts are GST exclusive. 93 93 2725 and 2728 93 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 29 November 2005: For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, what was the total staffing level in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005. For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio for (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005 how many New Apprentices (i) had commenced and (ii) were employed. How many of the New Apprenticeships referred to in part (2) were traditional apprenticeships (as defined by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research as an apprenticeship in an occupation in Australian Standard Classification of Occupations Group 4—Tradespersons and Related Workers—at AQF level 3 or above with an expected duration of more than 2 years full time). How many traditional apprenticeships does the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio intend to offer to commence in 2006. 94 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 questions is as follows: Details regarding staffing levels for the department and each agency in my portfolio can be found in the Annual Reports for the department and agencies from 2000-01 through to 2004-05. Given the nature of the work of my department and agencies in my portfolio, neither the department nor any of the agencies in my portfolio have employed any New Apprentices as defined over the periods identified. Not applicable. Given the nature of the work of my department and agencies in my portfolio, neither the department nor any of the agencies in my portfolio intend to offer any traditional apprenticeships to commence in 2006. 94 94 2730 94 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 29 November 2005: For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, what was the total staffing level in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005. For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio for (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005 how many New Apprentices (i) had commenced and (ii) were employed. How many of the New Apprenticeships referred to in part (2) were traditional apprenticeships (as defined by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research                 as an apprenticeship in an occupation in Australian Standard Classification of Occupations Group 4—Tradespersons and Related Workers—at AQF level 3 or above with an expected duration of more than 2 years full time). How many traditional apprenticeships does the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio intend to offer to commence in 2006. 94 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: Total staffing levels as at 30 June 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 are available in the department’s annual reports. and (4) The department and all agencies have a nil response. 94 94 2732 94 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 29 November 2005: For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, what was the total staffing level in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005. For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio for (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005 how many New Apprentices (i) had commenced and (ii) were employed. How many of the New Apprenticeships referred to in part (2) were traditional apprenticeships (as defined by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research as an apprenticeship in an occupation in Australian Standard Classification of Occupations Group 4—Tradespersons and Related Workers—at AQF level 3 or above with an expected duration of more than 2 years full time). How many traditional apprenticeships does the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio intend to offer to commence in 2006. 95 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Department of Finance and Administration 854; 878; 928; 1,078; and 1,269.         These figures included all ongoing, non-ongoing and casual employees. Not applicable – Finance does not employ apprentices. Not applicable – Finance does not employ apprentices. Not applicable – Finance does not employ apprentices. Australian Electoral Commission 2000-01, 870; 2001-02, 861; 2002-03, 811; 2003-04, 929; 2004-05, 803. Nil. Nil. Nil. ComSuper 2000-01, 384; 2001-02, 368; 2002-03, 373; 2003-04, 380; 2004-05   396. Nil. Nil. Nil. CSS/PSS Boards 2000-01, 0; 2001-02, 0; 2002-03, 19; 2003-04, 21; 2004-05, 24. Nil. Nil. Nil. Commonwealth Grants Commission 2000-01, 58.6; 2001-02, 45.3; 2002-03, 48.4; 2003-04, 47; 2004-05, 40.5. Nil. Nil. Nil. 96 96 2736 96 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 29 November 2005: For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, what was the total staffing level in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005. For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio for (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005 how many New Apprentices (i) had commenced and (ii) were employed. How many of the New Apprenticeships referred to in part (2) were traditional apprenticeships (as defined by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research as an apprenticeship in an occupation in Australian Standard Classification of Occupations Group 4—Tradespersons and Related Workers—at AQF level 3 or above with an expected duration of more than 2 years full time). How many traditional apprenticeships does the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio intend to offer to commence in 2006. 96 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: Information on total staffing levels is available in the published annual reports for the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources and other agencies within my portfolio. No apprentices were employed by my Department or by agencies within my portfolio during this period. Not applicable. No apprenticeships will be offered by my Department or by agencies within my portfolio during 2006. 96 96 2740 96 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 29 November 2005: For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, what was the total staffing level in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005. For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio for (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005 how many New Apprentices (i) had commenced and (ii) were employed. How many of the New Apprenticeships referred to in part (2) were traditional apprenticeships (as defined by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research as an apprenticeship in an occupation in Australian Standard Classification of Occupations Group 4—Tradespersons and Related Workers—at AQF level 3 or above with an expected duration of more than 2 years full time). How many traditional apprenticeships does the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio intend to offer to commence in 2006. 97 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The information sought is available in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and portfolio agencies’ Annual Reports. Nil. Not applicable. Nil. 97 97 2815 97 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 December 2005: Further to the answer to question No. 350 (Hansard, 13 October 2005, page 99), what are the full details recorded by No. 34 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force for (a) beverages supplied and (b) beverages unconsumed for the Special Purpose Flights requested for the Minister for Defence and flown (i) 20-29 April 2003, (ii) 30 May-2 June 2003, (iii) 18-19 September 2003, (iv) 24-26 February 2004, and (v) 5-7 April 2004. 97 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 details requested are contained in paper based archived records. To manually collate the information sought would be a major resource-intensive task. Given the current demands on my department, I regret I am unable to justify the allocation of the considerable time and resources required to provide the information. 97 97 2816 97 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 December 2005: Further to the answer to question No. 350 (Hansard, 13 October 2005, page 99), what are the full details recorded by No. 34 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force for (a) beverages supplied and (b) beverages unconsumed for the Special Purpose Flights requested for the Prime Minister and flown (i) 7-15 February 2003, (ii) 16-17 April 2003, (iii) 30 April-10 May 2003, (iv) 12-20 July 2003, (v) 3-6 August 2003, (vi) 13-17 August 2003, (vii) 17-19 August 2003, (vii) 3-9 December 2003, (viii) 22 December 2003, (ix) 16-18 January 2004, (x) 4-5 February 2004, (xi) 4-6 March 2004, (xii) 1-10 June 2004, (xiii) 27-28 July 2004, (xiv) 31 July 2004, (xv) 18-22 November 2004, and (xvi) 29 November-1 December 2004. 97 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 details requested are contained in paper based archived records. To manually collate the information sought would be a major resource-intensive task. Given the current demands on my department, I regret I am unable to justify the allocation of the considerable time and resources required to provide the information. 98 98 2817 98 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 December 2005: Further to the answer to question No. 350 (Hansard, 13 October 2005, page 99), what are the full details recorded by No. 34 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force for (a) beverages supplied and (b) beverages unconsumed for the Special Purpose Flights requested for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and flown (i) 28-30 April 2003, (ii) 21-27 May 2003, (iii) 17-20 June 2003, (iv) 31 July-1 August 2003, (v) 17-18 September 2003, (vi) 7-9 December 2003, (vii) 16-19 December 2003, (viii) 3-6 February 2004, (ix) 14-19 August 2004, (x) 9- 10 September 2004, (xi) 17-20 November 2004, and (xii) 4-7 December 2004. 98 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 details requested are contained in paper based archived records. To manually collate the information sought would be a major resource-intensive task. Given the current demands on my department, I regret I am unable to justify the allocation of the considerable time and resources required to provide the information. 98 98 2818 98 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 December 2005: Further to the answer to question No. 350 (Hansard, 13 October 2005, page 99), what are the full details recorded by No 34 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force for (a) beverages supplied and (b) beverages unconsumed for the Special Purpose Flights requested for the Hon. Wilson Tuckey MP and flown (i) 23-26 February 2003, (ii) 17-18 July 2003, and (iii) 24-26 September 2003. 98 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 details requested are contained in paper based archived records. To manually collate the information sought would be a major resource-intensive task. Given the current demands on my department, I regret I am unable to justify the allocation of the considerable time and resources required to provide the information. 98 98 2826 98 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 8 December 2005: Will the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 lead to many workers accepting individual contracts that (a) offer lower wages and (b) do not deliver a living wage; if so, what new measures will he introduce to help these workers and their families; if not, can he explain why it will not. Will the exemption of trading and financial corporations with up to 100 employees from unfair dismissal laws put at risk the legal incentive for them to undertake fair treatment of employees; if, not, why not. Will the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 significantly disadvantage those employees with little or no bargaining power in the work force; if not, why not. Will the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 reduce the number of minimum working conditions for employees; if so, how will the rights of the most vulnerable workers be protected; if not, why not. Will the new Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) be appointed by the Government; if so, will this jeopardise the objectivity and neutrality established by its predecessor, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC); if not, why has the AIRC been replaced by the AFPC. Can he explain how the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 serves Australia’s (a) social and (b) environmental goals 99 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 —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Workplace Relation Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (the Work Choices Act) will create a workplace relations system that promotes the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia by giving employers and employees the flexibility to negotiate agreements that suit their particular circumstances. Agreement making, whether collective or individual, has consistently delivered better wage outcomes than other industrial instruments. The Government believes that the Work Choices Act will deliver better wage rises to employees because agreement making will be easier. In addition, employees negotiating an agreement cannot be paid less than their relevant Australian Pay and Classification Scale (APCS). APCSs are based on classification pay scales contained in awards as varied to reflect the 2005 Safety Net Review. Rates of pay cannot fall below this level. No. All employees, regardless of the size of business they are employed in, continue to have access to unlawful termination provisions. In addition, the Australian Government will provide $5 million for a ‘best practice’ education and training programme on fair and proper employment termination practices to help employers to understand and comply with the termination of employment provisions under the Act. No. The Work Choices Act provides specific protections for vulnerable workers in agreement making. All employees will be entitled to appoint a bargaining agent to act on their behalf in agreement making. For collective agreement making, if an employee is concerned about being seen to appoint a bargaining agent, they can do so through the Employment Advocate, and their identity will remain a secret. When employees are provided with ready access to a proposed agreement, the employer must also provide an Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) information statement. The OEA information will contain information about how to obtain advice from the OEA. The OEA also provides a free service to explain the content of agreements to an employee or potential employee. There are also specific protections for employees under the age of 18 who are negotiating an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA). An AWA for an employee under the age of 18 cannot be lodged unless it is signed and dated by an appropriate person (such as a parent or guardian) for the purpose of ensuring that person gives consent for the employee to make the AWA. In addition, broader protections for vulnerable workers will be maintained, including protection against discrimination. Specific provisions also relate to persons from a non English speaking background, young people and to contract outworkers in the Victorian textile, clothing and footwear industries. Finally, the Government is significantly expanding the Office of Workplace Services to provide protection and enforcement for the rights of all employees, including vulnerable employee. The Work Choices Act will for the first time enshrine in law a set of minimum conditions of employment called the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard (the Standard). No employee who is part of the national system will be able to receive less than the Standard. See also the response to question 3. The Australian Fair Pay Commission (Fair Pay Commission) will be appointed by the Governor-General on advice from the Government. The Government does not believe this will jeopardise the objectivity of the Fair Pay Commission. It is standard practice for the Governor-General to make appointments to statutory bodies like the Fair Pay Commission on advice of the Government. Members of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) are and will continue to be appointed in this way. In other words, the Fair Pay Commission will be appointed in the same way as members of the AIRC are appointed. The Fair Pay Commission will operate independently of Ministerial control and be guided in its work by the requirements of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Decisions of the Fair Pay Commission cannot be overturned. The Fair Pay Commission will be supported by a secretariat that is an independent statutory authority that will operate independently of Ministerial control. The Work Choices Act will serve Australia’s social goals by providing a framework for cooperative workplace relations which promotes the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia. 100 100 2832 100 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 8 December 2005: Has the Office of National Assessments (ONA) made an assessment concluding that al Qaeda 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 its assessment that the spread of al Qaeda through the Middle East is being motivated, in whole or in part, by the continued conflict in Iraq. Has he or his office requested or received from ONA any assessments on the strength or otherwise of al Qaeda in the Middle East. 100 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ONA produces classified assessments on a wide range of terrorism-related issues. Consistent with the practice of successive Australian Governments, it would not be appropriate to comment publicly on judgements contained in these classified assessments. ONA’s practice has been not to list the precise topics on which it produces classified assessments since to do so may reveal details of Australia’s intelligence interests. My office receives all ONA assessments. The Leader of the Opposition is briefed on key issues affecting national security. 100 100 2907 100 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 December 2005: For 2004-2005, what sum did the Minister’s department and portfolio agencies pay to (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blake Dawson Waldron, (c) Phillips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgate, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murry Neumann Solicitors for legal services. Which partners or principals of (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blake Dawson Waldron, (c) Phillips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgate, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murry Neumann Solicitors were responsible for undertaking or supervising legal services supplied by the firm to the department or agency in 2004-2005. For each partner or principal listed in response to part (3), what was the total amount billed to the department or agency for services undertaken or supervised by that partner or principal in 2004-05. What are the details of the legal services provided to the department or portfolio agencies by (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blake Dawson Waldron, (c) Phillip Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgate, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murry Neumann Solicitors in 2004-05. 101 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:   Defence $ Defence Housing Authority $ (a) 5,443,308 93,545 (b) 5,508,783 8,438 (c) 4,256,039 8,087 (d) Nil Nil (e) 1,341,512 Nil (f) 71,846 148,720 (g) 56,598 Nil (h) 27,694 Nil (i) Nil Nil (j) Nil Nil Note: These figures are GST inclusive. and (4) The information sought in the honourable member’s question is not readily available from Defence or the Defence Housing Authority. To collect and assemble such information solely for the purpose of answering the question would be a major task, and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure and effort that would be required. 101 101 2909 101 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 8 December 2005: For 2004-2005, what sum did the Minister’s department and portfolio agencies pay to (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blake Dawson Waldron, (c) Phillips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephen Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors for legal services. Which partners or principals of (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blake Dawson Waldron, (c) Phillips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephen Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors were responsible for undertaking or supervising legal services supplied by the firm to the department or agency in 2004-2005. For each partner or principal listed in response to part (3), what was the total amount billed to the department or agency for services undertaken or supervised by that partner or principal in 2004-2005. What are the details of the legal services provided to the department or portfolio agencies by (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blake Dawson Waldron, (c) Phillips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephen Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors in 2004-2005. 102 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: Department of Transport and Regional Services For 2004-2005, the Department paid the following sums for legal services:- Firm Amount Clayton Utz* $137,370.85 Blake Dawson Waldron* $280,363.74 Phillips Fox* $326,490.55 Sparke Helmore Nil Freehills Nil Minter Ellison* $312,567.90 Corrs Chambers Westgarth* $604,913.10 Mallesons Stephen Jacques $8,941.46 Deacons Nil Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors Nil *Firms asterisked together with the Australian Government Solicitor are members of the Department’s Legal Services Panel. The above figures are inclusive of disbursements. The following partners were responsible for undertaking or supervising legal services, supplied by their particular firm, to the Department in 2004-2005:- Firm Partner Clayton Utz Richard Morrison Blake Dawson Waldron John Clark Phillips Fox Stuart Imrie, Caroline Atkins Sparke Helmore N/A Freehills N/A Minter Ellison John Weber Corrs Chambers Westgarth Tom Brennan Mallesons Stephen Jacques Justin McDonnell Deacons N/A Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors N/A The figures provided in question (1) were the total amount billed to the Department for services by each respective firm in question (2). The Partners listed are managing/relationship partners and oversee all work provided by their firm to the Department. All of the Legal Services Panel firms listed in response to question (1) provide the Department with legal advice and assistance on a range of legal issues, in particular, the preparation and settlement of contracts, tender documents, funding agreements, grants and litigation matters. Mallesons Stephen Jacques provided assistance to the Department on a debt recovery matter. AMSA For 2004-2005, AMSA paid the following sums for legal services:- Firm Amount Clayton Utz $9,182.00 Blake Dawson Waldron Nil Phillips Fox $88,284.00 Sparke Helmore Nil Freehills Nil Minter Ellison $26,705.00 Corrs Chambers Westgarth Nil Mallesons Stephen Jacques Nil Deacons Nil Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors Nil The above figures are inclusive of disbursements. The following partners were responsible for undertaking or supervising legal services, supplied by their particular firm, to AMSA in 2004-2005:- Firm Partner Clayton Utz John Carroll, Peter Crowley Blake Dawson Waldron N/A Phillips Fox Anthony Willis, Clinton McKenzie, Stephen Argument Sparke Helmore N/A Freehills N/A Minter Ellison Dennis O’Brien, Max Cameron Corrs Chambers Westgarth N/A Mallesons Stephen Jacques N/A Deacons N/A Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors N/A The figures provided in question (1) were the total amount billed to AMSA for services by each respective firm in question (2). The Partners listed are the same for the answer to this question. Clayton Utz provided AMSA with legal advice in relation to Coronial Inquest representation and property matters. Phillips Fox provided AMSA with legal advice in relation to contract negotiations and Coronial Inquest representation. Minter Ellison provided AMSA with legal advice in relation to leases and other property matters. Air Services Australia For 2004-2005, Air Services Australia paid the following sums for legal services:- Firm Amount Clayton Utz Nil Blake Dawson Waldron $73,074.28 Phillips Fox Nil Sparke Helmore Nil Freehills $228,398.65 Minter Ellison $588,244.51 Corrs Chambers Westgarth $1,350,127.94 Mallesons Stephen Jacques $101,918.28 Deacons Nil Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors Nil The above figures are inclusive of disbursements. The following partners were responsible for undertaking or supervising legal services, supplied by their particular firm, to Air Services Australia in 2004-2005:- Firm Partner Clayton Utz N/A Blake Dawson Waldron Peter McQueen, Richard Bunting, Vince Rogers Phillips Fox N/A Sparke Helmore N/A Freehills Michael Mills, Paul Savage, Kristin Stammer, Tony Coburn, Frances Drummond Minter Ellison Neal Parkinson, John Weber, Alan Bradbury, Bruce Cowley, Bruce Heddle, Denis O’Brien, Elizabeth Whitelaw, Gareth Jolly, Gary Goldman, Mark Treffers, Michael Brennan, Michael Tehan, Odette Gourley, Paul McGinness, Paul Schoff, Ruth Stringer Corrs Chambers Westgarth Tom Brennan, Sue McCarthy, Breen Creighton Mallesons Stephen Jacques Stephen Skehill Deacons N/A Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors N/A The figures provided in question (1) were the total amount billed to Air Services Australia for services by each respective firm in question (2). The Partners listed are the same for the answer to this question and, although this question calls for expenditure billed by each individual partner, unfortunately Air Services legal database does not capture this information. To obtain such detail, Air Services would need a considerable amount of time in order to collate that information. (4) Firm Legal Services Provided Clayton Utz N/A Blake Dawson Waldron Commercial, litigation, regulatory, property related services Phillips Fox N/A Sparke Helmore N/A Freehills Property related services, regulatory, procurement, commercial Minter Ellison Procurement, regulatory, commercial Corrs Chambers Westgarth Property related services, industrial relations, regulatory, commercial Mallesons Stephen Jacques Regulatory, procurement, litigation Deacons N/A Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors N/A Civil Aviation Safety Authority For 2004-2005, Civil Aviation Safety Authority paid the following sums for legal services:- Firm Amount Clayton Utz Nil Blake Dawson Waldron Nil Phillips Fox $140,000 Sparke Helmore Nil Freehills Nil Minter Ellison Nil Corrs Chambers Westgarth Nil Mallesons Stephen Jacques $166,391 Deacons Nil Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors Nil The above figures are inclusive of disbursements. The following partners were responsible for undertaking or supervising legal services, supplied by their particular firm, to Civil Aviation Safety Authority in 2004-2005:- Firm Partner Clayton Utz N/A Blake Dawson Waldron N/A Phillips Fox Gary Rumble, Tony Conaghan, James Daniel, George Marques, Nick Ruskin, Rick Catanzariti, Anthony Willis Sparke Helmore N/A Freehills N/A Minter Ellison N/A Corrs Chambers Westgarth N/A Mallesons Stephen Jacques Ian Johnson, Justin McDonnell, John Topfer, Bruce Moore Deacons N/A Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors N/A Phillips Fox Partner Amount Gary Rumble $20,162.00 Tony Conaghan $5,183.00 James Daniel $142.00 George Marques $411.00 Rick Catanzariti $1,313.50 Anthony Willis $248.50 The Civil Aviation Safety Authority does not have separate figures for costs of services provided by the relevant partners in Mallesons Stephens Jacques as the firm do not allocate any total figures nor a specific time for partners. Both Phillips Fox and Mallesons Stephens Jacques provide a full range of legal services to Civil Aviation Safety Authority. These include legal advice on statutory interpretation, litigation, contractual matters, IR issues, insurance issues, administrative law issues, governance issues and legal aspects of regulatory issues. National Capital Authority The National Capital Authority has a ‘nil’ response to this Question on Notice. Note: All figures above are inclusive of GST. 105 105 2911 105 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 8 December 2005: For 2004-2005, what sum did the Minister’s department and portfolio agencies pay to (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors for legal services. Which partners or principals of (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors were responsible for undertaking or supervising legal services supplied by the firm to the department or agency in 2004-2005. For each partner or principal listed in response to part (3), what was the total amount billed to the department or agency for services undertaken or supervised by that partner or principal in 2004-2005. What are the details of the legal services provided to the department or portfolio agencies by (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors in 2004-2005. 106 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: For 2004-2005, the sums paid to each of the law firms listed in the question by each agency within my portfolio, including the Attorney-General’s Department, were as follows. Administrative Appeals Tribunal (a) Clayton Utz $6,234.52 (b) Blake Dawson Waldron $0.00 (c) Philips Fox $0.00 (d) Sparke Helmore $5,311.90 (e) Freehills $0.00 (f) Minter Ellison $0.00 (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00 (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques $0.00 (i) Deacons $0.00 (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00 Australian Customs Service* (a) Clayton Utz $381,842 (b) Blake Dawson Waldron $94,046 (c) Philips Fox $0.00 (d) Sparke Helmore $0.00 (e) Freehills $0.00 (f) Minter Ellison $0.00 (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00 (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques $0.00 (i) Deacons $0.00 (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00 * Figures exclude GST Australian Federal Police (a) Clayton Utz $71,219.98 (b) Blake Dawson Waldron (on behalf of Soebagjo Jatim Djarot, Attorneys at Law, Indonesia) $18,312.00 (c) Philips Fox $0.00 (d) Sparke Helmore $0.00 (e) Freehills $0.00 (f) Minter Ellison $0.00 (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00 (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques $450.00 (i) Deacons $0.00 (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00 Australian Law Reform Commission (a) Clayton Utz $0.00 (b) Blake Dawson Waldron $6,050.00 (c) Philips Fox $0.00 (d) Sparke Helmore $0.00 (e) Freehills $0.00 (f) Minter Ellison $0.00 (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00 (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques $0.00 (i) Deacons $0.00 (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (a) Clayton Utz $0.00 (b) Blake Dawson Waldron $0.00 (c) Philips Fox $0.00 (d) Sparke Helmore $0.00 (e) Freehills $0.00 (f) Minter Ellison $11,065.12 (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00 (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques $0.00 (i) Deacons $0.00 (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00 Family Court of Australia (a) Clayton Utz $0.00 (b) Blake Dawson Waldron $0.00 (c) Philips Fox $0.00 (d) Sparke Helmore $0.00 (e) Freehills $0.00 (f) Minter Ellison $54,509.00 (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00 (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques $0.00 (i) Deacons $0.00 (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00 Federal Magistrates Court (a) Clayton Utz $0.00 (b) Blake Dawson Waldron $0.00 (c) Philips Fox $0.00 (d) Sparke Helmore $0.00 (e) Freehills $0.00 (f) Minter Ellison $2,709.96 (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00 (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques $0.00 (i) Deacons $0.00 (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (a) Clayton Utz $8,339.11 (b) Blake Dawson Waldron $0.00 (c) Philips Fox $0.00 (d) Sparke Helmore $0.00 (e) Freehills $0.00 (f) Minter Ellison $3,863.67 (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00 (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques $0.00 (i) Deacons $0.00 (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00 Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (a) Clayton Utz $0.00 (b) Blake Dawson Waldron $0.00 (c) Philips Fox $0.00 (d) Sparke Helmore $0.00 (e) Freehills $0.00 (f) Minter Ellison $0.00 (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00 (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques $6,275.89 While initially paid from the Commonwealth’s own funds, the entire amount was subsequently reimbursed from funds being administered under the Bankruptcy Act 1966. (i) Deacons $281,946.72 Of this only $69,285.55 was paid from the Commonwealth’s own funds, without being subsequently reimbursed from funds being administered under the Bankruptcy Act 1966. Further amounts may yet be recoverable from bankrupt estates. (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00 National Native Title Tribunal (a) Clayton Utz $0.00 (b) Blake Dawson Waldron $0.00 (c) Philips Fox $0.00 (d) Sparke Helmore $0.00 (e) Freehills $0.00 (f) Minter Ellison $5,650.40 (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00 (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques $0.00 (i) Deacons $0.00 (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00 No payment was made by the Attorney-General’s Department to any of the listed law firms in 2004-05. The Department engaged Blake Dawson Waldron in 2004-05 in one matter but payment for their services was made in 2005-06. The following portfolio agencies did not make any payment to the firms referred to in paragraph 1 in 2004-05: The partners or principals responsible for undertaking or supervising legal services provided to agencies within my portfolio, including the Attorney-General’s Department, in 2004-2005 by the law firms listed in the question were as follows. Attorney-General’s Department Firm Partners/Principals (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron Ms Angela Summersby (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Administrative Appeals Tribunal Firm Partners/Principals (a) Clayton Utz Mr Mark van Brakel and Ms Sally Shephard (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore Mr Phillip Salem (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Australian Customs Service Information regarding legal services provided by individual partners or principles of law firms is held on individual issue files within Customs and would require a significant diversion of resources to provide. Australian Federal Police Firm Partners/Principals (a) Clayton Utz Mr Peter Crowley (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (for Soebagjo Jatim Djarot) Unknown (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques Mr Chris Wheeler (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Australian Law Reform Commission Firm Partners/Principals (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron Mr Bill Conley (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Firm Partners/Principals (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison Mr Adrian Swale (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Family Court of Australia Firm Partners/Principals (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison Ms Elizabeth Whitelaw (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Federal Magistrates Court Firm Partners/Principals (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison Ms Kristina McGeehan-Hall and Mr Adrian Swale (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Firm Partners/Principals (a) Clayton Utz Mr Brian Loftus (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison Mr Andrew Fisher (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia Firm Partners/Principals (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques Mr Malcom Brennan (i) Deacons Mr Andrew Bruce (j) Craddock Murray Neumann National Native Title Tribunal Firm Partners/Principals (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison Mr Mark Naughton and Mr Phil Bisset (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann For each partner or principal listed in response to part (2), the total amount billed to the Department or agency in 2004-2005 is as follows: Attorney-General’s Department Partner or principal Amount 1. Ms Angela Summersby $7,579.00 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Partner or principal Amount 1. Mr Phillip Salem (Sparke Helmore) $5,311.90 2. Mr Mark van Brakel (Clayton Utz) $4,796.27 3. Ms Sally Shephard (Clayton Utz) $1,438.25 Australian Customs Service Information regarding legal services provided by individual partners or principles of law firms is held on individual issue files within Customs and would require a significant diversion of resources to provide. Australian Federal Police Partner or principal Amount 1. Mr Peter Crowley $55,443.08 2. Supervised by Mr Peter Crowley $15,776.90 3. Mr Chris Wheeler $450.00 4. Unknown - Blake Dawson Waldron (on behalf of Soebagjo Jatim Djarot, Attorneys at Law, Indonesia) $18,312.00 Australian Law Reform Commission Partner or principal Amount 1. Mr Bill Conley $6,050.00 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Partner or principal Amount 1. Mr Adrian Swale $11,065.12 Family Court of Australia Partner or principal Amount 1. Ms Elizabeth Whitelaw $54,509.00 Federal Magistrates Court Partner or principal Amount 1. Ms Kristina McGeehan-Hall $1,699.06 2. Mr Adrian Swale $1,010.90 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Partner or principal Amount 1. Mr Brian Loftus $8,339.11 2. Mr Andrew Fisher $3,863.67 Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia Partner or principal Amount 1. Mr Malcom Brennan $6,275.89 2. Mr Andrew Bruce $281,946.72 National Native Title Tribunal Partner or principal Amount 1. Mr Phil Bisset $2,790.70 2. Mr Mark Naughton $2,859.70 The following services were provided to agencies within my portfolio, including the Attorney‑General’s Department, in 2004‑2005 by the law firms listed in the question. Attorney-General’s Department Firm Services (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blake Dawson Waldron Procurement advice (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Administrative Appeals Tribunal Firm Services (a) Clayton Utz Representation for the AAT in 3 Federal Court appeals (b) Blake Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore Representation for the AAT in a Federal Court appeal (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Australian Customs Service Firm Services (a) Clayton Utz Provision of non-core legal services* under a legal panel arrangement (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron Provision of non-core legal services* under a legal panel arrangement (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann * Non-core legal services provided by legal panel members include: - Litigation arising under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 - Debt recovery - Tendering and contracting [including advice on drafting of agreements, (including consultancy contracts), memoranda of understanding and other commercial documentation] - Provision of advice in relation to legislation that is not administered by Customs other than advice in relation to Customs powers under that legislation e.g. general advice on taxation law not specifically administered by Customs, trade practices law, corporations law - Employment and work-place relations law, including disciplinary matters and worker’s compensation - Matters relating to contractual and common law actions and disputes - Advice sought by National Customs Agents Licensing Advisory Committee in relation to its powers under the Customs Act 1901 - Property matters - Information technology and intellectual property matters - Matters relating to probity, Commonwealth accountability and commercial practice and policy in relation to legislation that is not administered by Customs - Matters concerning legal compliance and risk management in relation to legislation that is not administered by Customs - Private international law impacting on commercial activities in relation to legislation that is not administered by Customs, and - Alternative dispute resolution in relation to ‘non-core’ matters. Australian Federal Police Firm Services (a) Clayton Utz Legal services in respect of the new AFP Headquaters at Anzac Park West (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (for Soebagjo Jatim Djarot) Advice on Indonesian Law (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques Power of Attorney (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Australian Law Reform Commission Firm Services (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron Legislative drafting associated with the ALRC’s inquiry on the uniform Evidence Acts (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Firm Services (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison Contract advice (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Family Court of Australia Firm Services (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison Drafting request for tender and lease Court premises, drafting agreement to design, construct and lease Court premises and the provision of general legal advice with respect to the leases of Court premises (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Federal Magistrates Court Firm Services (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blake Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison Lease of office & court accommodation (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Firm Services (a) Clayton Utz Legal advice and services provided in relation to Colin Dunstan v HREOC & Ors (Fed Court, AG30 of 1997) (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison Legal advice and services provided in relation to the sub-lease of L9 Piccadilly Tower, 133 Castlereagh St Sydney to Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia Firm Services (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques Advice and representation of the Official Trustee in regard to various bankruptcy matters (i) Deacons Advice and representation of the Official Trustee in regard to various bankruptcy matters (j) Craddock Murray Neumann National Native Title Tribunal Firm Services (a) Clayton Utz (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron (c) Philips Fox (d) Sparke Helmore (e) Freehills (f) Minter Ellison Represented the Tribunal in an AD(JR) Act application in the Federal Court (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques (i) Deacons (j) Craddock Murray Neumann 116 116 2924 116 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 8 December 2005: For each financial year since 1999-2000, what sum has the Minister’s department spent on services provided by law firms on matters associated with the Australian Submarine Corporation. Which law firms have been responsible for providing these services. Which partners or principals of those firms have been responsible for undertaking or supervising those services. For each financial year since 1999-2000, what sum has the department been billed for services undertaken or supervised by those partners or principals. What has been the nature and purpose of legal services provided to the Minister’s department in relation to the Australian Submarine Corporation. 116 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department of Finance and Administration has paid the following amounts to law firms on matters associated with ASC Pty Ltd (formerly Australian Submarine Corporation): Year Amount ($) 1999-2000 923,521 2000-2001 3,150,404 2001-2002 1,529,935 2002-2003 0 2003-2004 10,265 2004-2005 0 The Australian Government Solicitor, Blake Dawson Waldron, Dunhill Madden Butler and Phillips Fox have provided these services. The data is not readily available and would require a significant diversion of resources to compile. The data is not readily available and would require a significant diversion of resources to compile. The nature and purpose of the legal services provided to the Department of Finance and Administration in relation to ASC Pty Ltd is legal advice on a variety of matters in relation to the Minister’s shareholder relationship with ASC Pty Ltd. Such advice includes input into the 2000/2001 scoping study into the future ownership of ASC Pty Ltd which addressed not only several broad issues facing the industry and a number of major legal and operational issues which inhibited the sale of ASC but also a range of other matters, including bringing in a strategic capability partner and addressing complex intellectual property issues. Legal advice being provided by Freehills as part of the ongoing scoping study into the sale of ASC Pty Ltd, has not been included in the table in answer to Question (1). The current scoping study is expected to be completed in the first half of 2006. 117 117 2925 117 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 December 2005: For each financial year since 2001-2002, what sum has the Minister’s department spent on services provided by law firms on matters associated with the Headquarters Joint Operations Command (HQJOC) project. Which law firms have been responsible for providing these services. Which partners or principals of those firms have been responsible for undertaking or supervising those services. For each financial year since 2001-2002, what sum has the department been billed for services undertaken or supervised by those partners or principals. What has been the nature and purpose of legal services provided to the Minister’s department in relation to the HQJOC project. 117 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 2001-02 – Nil. 2002-03 – $21,815.00. 2003-04 – $297,063.99. 2004-05 – $1,114,478.80. 2005-06 – $1,122,290.69 (to 1 December 2005). Australian Government Solicitor, Blake Dawson Waldron and Clayton Utz. Australian Government Solicitor – Mr John Scala (Chief Counsel Commercial), Ms Susan Reye (Senior General Counsel) and Mr Peter Jeffery (Senior General Counsel); Blake Dawson Waldron – Mr Trevor Danos, Mr David Somervaille, Mr Paul Vane-Tempest, Mr Tim Brooks, Mr Anthony Hill, Mr Patrick Ibbotson, Mr Chris Mitchell, Mr John Clark, Ms Joanne Evans, Ms Elizabeth Johnston, Ms Teresa Dyson and Ms Rehanna Box; and Clayton Utz – Mr Marko Misko. Australian Government Solicitor (from 2002-03) – $1,052,192.91; Blake Dawson Waldron (from 2003-04) – $1,482,091.57; and Clayton Utz (from 2003-04) – $21,364.00. See my response to Question on Notice No. 2903. 118 118 2926 118 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 8 December 2005. For each financial year since 2001-2002, what sum has the Minister’s department spent on services provided by law firms on matters associated with the Headquarters Joint Operations Command (HQJOC) project. Which law firms have been responsible for providing these services. Which partners or principals of those firms have been responsible for undertaking or supervising those services. For each financial year since 2001-2002, what sum has the department been billed for services undertaken or supervised by those partners or principals. What has been the nature and purpose of legal services provided to the Minister’s department in relation to the HQJOC project. 118 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Financial Year Spending on Legal Services re HQJOC 2001-02 Nil 2002-03 Nil 2003-04 Nil 2004-05 $1,153 2005-06 $11,578 The firms employed by the Department of Finance and Administration (Finance) to provide HQJOC-related legal services were: Australian Government Solicitor Phillips Fox Blake Dawson Waldron Minter Ellison. The partners or principals who oversighted HQJOC-related legal services provided to Finance were: Australian Government Solicitor: Peter Jeffery, Tony Burslem Philips Fox: Gary Rumble Blake Dawson Waldron: Shaun Gath, John Odbert Minter Ellison: John Weber Finance employs firms, rather than particular partners to provide advice. HQJOC-related services paid for by Finance commenced in 2004-05 and are presented by year and by firm in the following table: Australian Government Solicitor 2004-05 $1,153 Phillips Fox 2005-06 $3,300 Blake Dawson Waldron 2005-06 $7,288 Minter Ellison 2005-06 $990 The services were legal advice on the operation of the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1989. 119 119 2941 119 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 7 February 2006: What is the total cost to the Commonwealth, including the labour costs, of contesting the current Freedom of Information request by News Limited in relation to disclosure of bracket creep and other tax measures. 119 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Dutton —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The information sought by the honourable member’s question can not be readily ascertained. 119 119 2945 119 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, in writing, on 7 February 2006: Did the Australian Public Service Commission engage Palm Consulting at a cost of $22,467.51 to assist with national workshops; if so, (a) what was the purpose of each national workshop and (b) how many people participated in each workshop. What other costs were associated with the national workshops. 119 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 —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes, the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) engaged Palm Consulting to assist with National Workshops for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA). This was part of a broader arrangement under which the APSC engages consultants from a panel of providers to assist APS agencies achieve a range of leadership, learning and development outcomes. On selection of an appropriate consultant, the agency liaises with the consultant to ensure that the required solution is delivered appropriately and within the project timeframe. The APSC invoices the agency to recoup the cost of sourcing the consultant and managing the panel. The purpose of the national workshop conducted for DIMA was to: ·    determine the opportunities for improvements across state and territory operations; ·    agree how best to work effectively across the network; and, ·    define values and relationships. 243 DIMA employees participated in the workshops. DIMA has advised that it incurred the following additional costs associated with the workshops: ·      travel costs for the consultants totalling approximately $6,973; ·      costs for venue hire and incidentals for the workshops of approximately $15,966 (including the cost of flying staff in remote areas to their capital city to participate). 119 119 2946 119 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, in writing, on 7 February 2006: Did the Australian Public Service Commission engage Austrategies Consulting at a cost of $11,200 to provide emotional intelligence training; if so how many individuals received the training from which departments and divisions were the people who received the training drawn what form did the training take where did the training take place why was it considered necessary to provide training in emotional intelligence. 120 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 —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Public Service Commission did engage AuStrategies Consulting Network at a cost of $11,220 (including GST) to conduct a training programme entitled, “Improving Leadership – with Emotional Intelligence” on 10 and 11 November 2005. Fourteen participants completed the training. There were seven participants from the Australian Taxation Office; three from the Australian Electoral Commission; two from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and one each from the Child Support Agency and Centrelink. The training occurred over two full days and used a combination of presentation and experiential learning approaches. The training occurred in the training room at the Australian Public Service Commission’s Brisbane Office. Well developed emotional intelligence is recognised as a significant component of effective leadership. The training programme provided opportunities for participants to understand emotional intelligence and its relevance to managerial and leadership effectiveness. 120 120 2947 120 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, in writing, on 7 February 2006: Did the Australian Public Service Commission engage DHC Operations to provide the venue for a ministerial conversation at a cost of $25,468; if so what was the ministerial conversation where was it held how many people participated. What other costs were associated with the ministerial conversation. 120 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 —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Public Service Commission engaged the Hyatt Hotel Canberra, who have the contract for the catering at Parliament House, to provide the venue and catering for a Ministerial Conversation. The value of that engagement was $26,668.80, which included a $1,200 deposit plus the balance of $25,468.80. Catering included a two course meal, orange juice, water and coffee/tea. Ministerial Conversations is a series of presentations by Ministers that give agency heads and senior executives across the Australian Public Service the opportunity to hear directly from Ministers on their current policy perspectives, and their expectations of the public service in implementing Government policy in a whole-of-government context. The event in question was a lunch presentation by the Treasurer, the Honourable Peter Costello. The lunch presentation was held in the Great Hall at Parliament House. 339 people attended. Other costs associated with this event were: Audio Visual, $6,847 Promotional material, $ 172.50 121 121 2948 121 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, in writing, on 7 February 2006: Did the Australian Public Service Commission engage Rob Brennan and Associates to provide facilitation for ‘Leadership at the Bay’ at a cost of $18,590.46; if so what was the purpose of ‘Leadership at the Bay’ where was it conducted what was its duration and how many people participated. What other costs were associated with ‘Leadership at the Bay’. 121 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 —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes, the Australian Public Service Commission engaged Rob Brennan and Associates to assist with “Leadership at the Bay”. This was part of a broader arrangement under which the APSC engages consultants from a panel of providers to assist APS agencies achieve a range of leadership, learning and development outcomes. On selection of an appropriate consultant, the agency liaises with the consultant to ensure that the required solution is delivered appropriately and within the project timeframe. The APSC invoices the agency to recoup the cost of sourcing the consultant and managing the panel ‘Leadership at the Bay’ was part of the Department of Finance and Administration’s 2005 Graduate Development Program. The Graduate Offsite was held in Batemans Bay at the Coachhouse Marina Resort from 5-7 October 2005. The offsite focussed on helping the participants move beyond their graduate role, as well as preparing them for future management and leadership roles within the department. It was conducted at Bateman’s Bay, NSW. The duration was 3 days. There were 49 graduates who attended along with two staff from the program area and the three facilitators. Other associated costs incurred by the Department of Finance & Administration included: - conference facilities, accommodation, catering and sundries $16,607.90 - hire of a Murrays Coach for the return trip to Batemans Bay $1,700.00 121 121 2949 121 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, in writing, on 7 February 2006: Did the Australian Public Service Commission engage Mental Nutrition at a cost of $14,828 for program delivery; if so, what services were provided under the terms of this contract. 122 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 —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes, the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) engaged Mental Nutrition to deliver programmes and services at a cost of $14,828. The APSC engages a number of consultants to deliver a range of programmes that are accessible by APS employees and paid for by their agencies. The following programmes were delivered by Mental Nutrition as part of the Commission’s calendar of programmes: 12/8/05       Interview Tips & Techniques 19/10/05     Interview Tips & Techniques 24/11/05     Interview Tips & Techniques 30/06/05     Presentation Skills 28/10/05     Presentation Skills               In addition, 6 sessions of executive coaching were provided for an SES officer in the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare between October and December 05. 122 122 2953 122 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 February 2006: Did the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research engage Beyond the Edge Pty Ltd at a cost of $11,660 to edit and review publications; if so, what publications were edited and reviewed under the terms of this contract. 122 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Response: Yes Adoption of ACIAR project outputs: Studies of projects completed in 1999-2000, V. McWaters and D. Templeton (eds) ACIAR, Canberra, October 2004 (at a cost of $13,500) and Adoption of ACIAR project Outputs: studies of projects completed in 2000-2001, V. McWaters, S. Hearn and R. Taylor (eds), ACIAR, Canberra, October 2005 (at a cost of $16,600). 122 122 2954 122 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 7 February 2006: Is he aware of the decision by the Department of Family and Community Services to withhold $267,000 in funding to the Fairfield City Community Aid and Information Service (FCA) under the Emergency Relief Program. Was additional funding provided to alternative providers during the December period under the Emergency Relief Program; if so, what was the name and postal address of each of these providers and what sum did each receive; if funding was not provided to alternative providers, will he explain why not. Were attempts made by the department to inform clients of the FCA of the alternative funding arrangements, if not, why not. Will he direct the department to restore funding and allow the FCA to distribute much needed emergency assistance to families in Fairfield, if not, why not. 123 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr Brough —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA) has not withheld funding from Fairfield Community Aid and Information Service (FCA). FCA did not accept the funding offer for the 2005-06 financial year. The offer lapsed after 20 days. Upon further consideration and investigation, FaCSIA determined to not make a further funding offer due to the operational and financial circumstances of FCA, and instead has publicly canvassed expressions of interest for alternative providers. Additional funding of $40,000 was provided to The Salvation Army (NSW) Property Trust for distribution through its Community Service Centre in Fairfield. The postal address for The Salvation Army (NSW) Property Trust is PO Box A435 Sydney South 1232. The department does not have access to information on FCA clients. Emergency relief funds are for one-off purposes and not for a specific or regular group of users. Clients are not expected to become dependent on regular or frequent assistance. The Government relies on emergency relief agencies to deal with their clients in a responsible manner. Centrelink was aware that FCA was not providing the service and was referring people needing emergency assistance to the Salvation Army outlet in Fairfield. My department has advertised for providers who are willing and able to provide a quality emergency relief service to the people of Fairfield. 123 123 2958 123 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 7 February 2006: How many representatives of coal and mineral-based industries were invited as (a) active participants and (b) observers to the inaugural meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate in Sydney. How many renewable energy representatives were invited as (a) active participants and (b) observers to the inaugural meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate in Sydney. Is the Minister aware that around the world other countries are moving towards an increased role for renewable energy sources in meeting their energy needs; if so, why did the Government accord renewable energy second-rate status at the inaugural meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate in Sydney. Has the Minister seen reports that the Reserve Bank Director, Professor Warwick McKibbin, has said that the Asia-Pacific climate partnership was making a mistake by delaying a carbon trading system until after the development of technology to slash greenhouse gases. Is the Minister aware that Professor McKibbin has said that there was very little evidence that government subsidies ever directly led to breakthrough technology, with companies more likely to be inspired by price signals. What is the Minister’s response to Professor McKibbin’s view that a carbon trading system is necessary to promote the technological developments which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 123 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: Active participants (Australian): 3; and (b) observers: 11 Active participants: 4; and (b) observers: 6 Australia is among the leading countries forging an increased role for renewable energy sources in meeting energy needs. Renewable energy was a key component of the inaugural Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate meeting, and is a key focus of Australia’s involvement in the Partnership. For example, the Prime Minister’s announcement of an Australian $100 million new funding contribution to support the work of the Asia-Pacific Partnership included a minimum $25 million to advance renewable energy projects. As well, Australia is co-chairing the renewable energy taskforce. to (6) Professor McKibbin makes a valuable contribution on issues around directions on market mechanisms to underpin future climate change responses. The Australian Government considers that introducing a carbon trading system that drives up electricity and fuel prices would not be environmentally effective. Without an effective global response to climate change, such action would harm Australia’s competitiveness while delivering uncertain environmental benefits. Imposing new costs and taxes on production in Australia would only increase the cost of living for Australians – affecting low and middle income earners in particular as it would not only drive industry and jobs overseas, but also move greenhouse gas emissions offshore. It may make you feel good to constrain industry in Australia – but to shift emissions to a less-regulated jurisdiction does not help to reduce global greenhouse gas levels. The Asia-Pacific Partnership and the Australian Government’s flagship climate change programs, such as the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund and the $75 million Solar Cities Trial, provide key platforms for advancing at this time the development of low emissions technologies needed to bring about the major reductions in greenhouse emissions over the longer term. The Government stated in its 2004 Energy White Paper that it is prepared to consider least-cost approaches to constraining emissions, including market-based measures such as an emissions trading scheme, as part of an effective global response to constraining greenhouse gas emissions. 124 124 2959 124 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 7 February 2006: Will she provide a breakdown of funding provided under the Success for Boys Program indicating the total funding granted to electoral divisions held by members of the Labor, Liberal, and National parties and independents. 124 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: The list of schools that were successful in receiving first round funding under the Success for Boys Programme can be found on the following web site: http://www.successforboys.edu.au/ 124 124 2991 124 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 27 February 2006: Did the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development adopt the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions on 21 November 1997. Did Japan, Korea, New Zealand and Australia become parties to the convention on 13 October 1998, 4 January 1999, 18 October 1999, and 25 June 2001 respectively. On what occasions, in what circumstances and with what results has Australia had consultations with other states in the West Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean and between those oceans about those states becoming parties to the convention. 125 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 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD Convention) was signed on 17 December 1997 and entered into force generally on 15 February 1999. Japan deposited its instrument of ratification for the OECD Convention on 13 October 1998 and the OECD Convention entered into force for Japan on 15 February 1999. The Republic of Korea deposited its instrument of ratification on 4 January 1999 and the OECD Convention entered into force for the Republic of Korea on 5 March 1999. New Zealand deposited its instrument of ratification on 25 June 2001 and the OECD Convention entered into force for New Zealand on 24 August 2001. Australia deposited its instrument of ratification on 18 October 1999 and the OECD Convention entered into force for Australia on 17 December 1999. I am not aware of specific occasions in which Australia has held discussions with other states about becoming party to the OECD Convention. All OECD members are party to the OECD Convention. While non-OECD members can accede to the OECD Convention, Australia has focussed on encouraging countries to become party to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). UNCAC largely supersedes the OECD Convention as it (a) incorporates key bribery obligations contained in the OECD Convention as well as broader anti-corruption obligations and (b) was negotiated in a UN forum with broader membership than the OECD. UNCAC entered into force on 14 December 2005 and has 140 signatories and 49 parties. Australia is actively encouraging Asia-Pacific countries to become party to UNCAC including through: -       membership of and support ($300,000) for the Asia Development Bank-OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for the Asia-Pacific that includes 25 countries a members (see http://www1.oecd.org/daf/asiacom) -       providing $300,000 for the joint Australia-UN Office of Drugs and Crime -Thailand workshop (Bangkok, January 2006) to promote UNCAC ratification.