2006-06-20
40
1
6
REPS
0
0
2006-06-20
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers.
BUSINESS
1
Business
1
12:31:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr TURNBULL
—On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the following to occur during the periods set aside in standing order 34 for government business on Tuesday 20 June 2006:
-
in relation to proceedings on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006 at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 6pm, whichever is the earlier, a Minister to be called to sum up (for a period not exceeding 5 minutes) the second reading debate and thereafter, without delay, the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the Bill to be put without amendment or debate and any Government amendments that have been circulated for at least two hours shall be treated as if they have been moved together; and
-
in relation to proceedings on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) bill 2006 at the conclusion of second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 8.30pm, whichever is the earlier, a Minister to be called to sum up (for a period not exceeding 5 minutes) the second reading debate and thereafter, without delay, the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put without amendment or debate; and
-
any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
1
12:31:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Deputy Manager of Opposition Business
0
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted, with a view to substituting the following words:
“This parliament condemns the government’s actions to prevent members from speaking on each and every bill that comes before the House and, in particular, from restricting debate on 13 bills—
Mr TURNBULL
(Wentworth
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister)
12:32:00
—Mr Speaker, I move:
That the question be now put.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I have to read the motion. Just sit down—patience. I haven’t finished.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The parliamentary secretary is in order if he wishes to move a motion.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—My motion continues:
... in the last four sitting days.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—Mr Speaker, I have moved that the question be now put.
Question put.
12:36:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
73
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
54
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Katter, R.C.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Snowdon, W.E.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Windsor, A.H.C.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Turnbull’s) be agreed to.
12:42:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
74
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
54
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Katter, R.C.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Snowdon, W.E.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Windsor, A.H.C.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECTRICITY) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
3
Bills
R2512
Second Reading
3
Debate resumed from 2 March, on motion by Mr Hunt:
That this bill be now read a second time.
3
12:44:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
0
Mr ALBANESE
—The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006 makes some administrative amendments to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. What it does not do is advance the cause of renewable energy in this nation. The government recently established an inquiry into nuclear energy for Australia and is determined to impose nuclear power plants and nuclear waste dumps on Australia. Guillotining this debate on renewable energy highlights the hypocrisy and the bankruptcy of this government when it comes to addressing climate change. When Australians need a responsible, forward-thinking and balanced approach to climate change and renewable energy, all we get is this weak piece of legislation.
Labor supports the bill. There is not much in it that you can oppose, because it does not do much, but we are very disappointed that the bill is merely tinkering with administrative arrangements for renewable energy when greater investment and action is required. This bill shows that, instead of being a responsible steward for our environment and our economy, the Howard government has put climate change in the too-hard basket.
The 2006 budget did not mention climate change, for the 11th year in a row. The budget had no initiatives for clean renewable energy. This bill is consistent with the government’s irresponsible approach of doing very little to avoid dangerous climate change—the greatest environmental challenge facing the world. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change caused by carbon pollution is making Australia hotter, the ocean warmer and our cities and towns drier. The CSIRO says climate change is directly affecting the water supply of every city and town and is threatening the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu. The science is pretty clear that climate change increases the intensity of cyclones and hurricanes. Climate change means we will have more category 4 and category 5 cyclones. If climate change remains unchecked, it will severely damage Australia’s agricultural and tourism industries while also impacting on many Australians through health effects, weather events and further water restrictions. There is no doubt that recent steep rises in temperature can be put down to human activity.
But the government’s hypocrisy in having the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is responsible for water, gagging a debate on renewable energy, which has a direct impact on climate change and therefore on water, shows the bankruptcy of the government’s approach. Surely, the recent destruction caused by Cyclone Larry should have been a reminder of the severe weather we must prepare for at home as our planet warms. If for no other reason, Australia’s self-interest dictates we must support clean renewable energy. To do so is prudent and not to do so is irresponsible.
As well as understanding the immediate and long-term threat of climate change, the most important thing to understand about dangerous climate change is that it can be avoided. I repeat: dangerous climate change can be avoided. If governments, communities and businesses work together to get us out of the heat trap which is developing around the world, we can avoid dangerous climate change. Humans have become a force of nature. We are changing the climate, and what happens next really is up to us. Climate change has been caused by humans; but, thankfully, solutions already exist to address it. We can and should act now to address the problem.
That is why the bill before the House represents such a failure of policy by the Howard government. By bringing forward a bill that does nothing to increase the use of renewable energy, the government has failed. Renewable energy is universally acknowledged to be an important part of any climate change strategy. However, instead of supporting clean energy projects and smart, efficient technologies, the Howard government is taking Australia the other way. Instead of a balanced and prudent approach, the Howard government is trapped by old thinking and irresponsible policies.
It is hard to believe but in Australia there is still no national climate change strategy. The report released last month by the Australian Greenhouse Office showed, once again, the Howard government’s failure when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. It showed that, if you exclude land use changes made in New South Wales and Queensland by the state Labor governments, greenhouse gas emissions in Australia increased by 25.1 per cent between 1990 and 2004. We hear my opposite number, Senator Ian Campbell, the parliamentary secretary and many members of the government often speaking of the need for a 60 per cent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It is the scientific consensus that that sort of reduction is needed to avoid dangerous climate change; yet the reality of Australia’s performance is absolutely disastrous—a 25.1 per cent increase in emissions between 1990 and 2004. A government that is complacent about climate change places our environment, our economy and our vital infrastructure at risk.
By doing nothing in this bill to increase the use of renewable energy, we just reinforce that. But what is the government doing in order to distract attention from its failure? It is setting up an inquiry to look at imposing a nuclear power industry on Australia. It will not say where the nuclear reactors will go or where the waste from those reactors will go. Of course, you cannot look at the cost of any major piece of infrastructure, such as a nuclear reactor, without looking at where it will go. That is a major part of the cost of imposing on Australia what government advisers say will need to be at least five or six nuclear power plants.
In question time in the House last week, the Minister for Education, Science and Training, who has responsibility for the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, failed because she did not have any idea about the four incidents that occurred in one week at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. The first of those incidents was on Thursday, 8 June—the same day that the chair of the government’s nuclear inquiry, Mr Ziggy Switkowski, stepped aside from the ANSTO board. He intends to return to the board. The inquiry has nuclear proponents as members, with the advocacy of nuclear energy being a prerequisite for appointment to this inquiry. It is quite an extraordinary situation. In the best Yes, Minister fashion an inquiry into nuclear energy is instigated, with all the people on the inquiry being advocates of nuclear energy and some of them having a commercial interest in Australia’s promoting nuclear energy. It is quite an extraordinary situation.
Mr Greg Bourne, the head of WWF, was called while he was overseas—two hours before the composition of the inquiry was announced—and asked to be on the inquiry. That shows two things: firstly, the government were unprepared, given the haphazard way they put together this list; secondly, Greg Bourne refused the invitation to be on this inquiry and described it as a ‘rubbish’ inquiry because it would not be dealing with renewable energy. The key to Australia’s future needs is not about going back to the past, to a discredited form of nuclear energy that creates waste that cannot be dealt with and is uneconomic for Australia; it is about renewables. This bill means we have totally lost the opportunity to move forward with renewable energy and to take advantage of the opportunities to improve not just our environmental performance but our economic position.
Let us look at some practical examples. Last month the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, said that it was not a problem that Australian renewable energy companies had to move offshore to China to commercialise their products rather than to produce them here. Two weeks ago I met with the Roaring Forties renewable energy company in Tasmania, which is an offshoot of Hydro Tasmania. After the budget, Roaring Forties announced that it would not proceed with half a billion dollars worth of projects in Tasmania and South Australia because of the government’s failure to increase the mandatory renewable energy target. The Howard government’s policies are destroying Australia’s clean energy industry and jobs in regional Australia. Roaring Forties is the same company that announced a $300 million deal, when Premier Wen Jiabao was here, to provide three wind farms to China. So the situation is such that Australian innovation and renewable energy is welcome in China but it is not welcome in the Prime Minister’s Australia. That is an absolute disgrace.
If you thought the Howard government was not to blame for that, recently the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, blocked a wind farm in Victoria because it would threaten one orange-bellied parrot every 667 years. The orange-bellied parrot has not been seen by anybody at the Bald Hills wind farm project, but the minister used his power under the EPBC Act—which is questionable, and I understand will be challenged in the courts because of this—to intervene. Senator Campbell then tried to stymie a Western Australian wind farm, which his own department, after examination, had agreed was a project worthy of support. Instead of blocking clean energy projects, the Howard government should seize the opportunities which are there. Sadly, the Howard government’s approach to renewable energy is all about politics and not about Australian jobs or the environment. The Howard government’s approach to renewable energy is both irresponsible and very inefficient. We have the potential for a stronger renewable energy industry, yet the government’s policies send jobs overseas and cripple our renewable energy market.
The personification of the government’s failure came with the latest Business Review Weekly rich list, which comes out every year. In it you can see where the richest Australians have moved to and from in the previous year. Sometimes they move from No. 10 to No. 8, or from No. 16 to No. 19, but this year there was a spectacular debut. Dr Zhengrong Shi, a dual Chinese-Australian citizen who had never before appeared on that list, debuted at No. 4 on the list of the richest Australians, with a wealth of $3 billion. Dr Zhengrong Shi did his PhD in solar energy at the University of New South Wales. His wealth comes from developing solar energy technology in China. The solar energy technology being used by Dr Shi has made his company, Suntech, very hot property, if you can excuse the pun. It is shameful that Howard government policies have sent great innovative solar energy technology to China—invented in Australia but made in China. What a disgrace. When will the government take action to ensure that Australian ideas in the booming renewable energy market are commercialised in Australia, creating Australian jobs? You have to wonder: why back the toxic, expensive, risky nuclear power industry when Australia has such an abundance of good ideas and other energy sources?
I see Dr Zengrong Shi as the personification of the government’s failure on renewable energy. Let us put it in perspective. This individual dual Chinese-Australian citizen is worth $3 billion in personal wealth. Yet the government would have us believe that the nuclear inquiry is the big issue facing Australia. Uranium exports, which were worth $500 million last year, need to be put into perspective. This one individual is worth $3 billion.
It is for that reason that I will be moving a second reading amendment to the bill. If we are going to meet the challenges posed by climate change and adapt to a carbon constrained economy, planning is the key. We need to act now for the future of Australian society, Australian jobs and business. We need to move towards a modern, clean-energy economy.
The chairman of Rio Tinto, Mr Paul Skinner, has recently called for the introduction of market mechanisms as part of the global solutions to combat climate change. Mr Skinner confirmed that:
... ultimately, the challenge for the global political leadership was how the two components—technology and market mechanism—could be brought together for a long term solution.
Just as science and technology have given us tools to measure and understand the dangers of climate change, so too can they help us deal with them. The potential for innovation and business investment is immense. It is about providing the market based stimulus for the deployment and transfer of clean-energy technologies, the transfer of which the International Energy Agency has estimated at $27.5 billion worth of carbon credits. By not ratifying Kyoto Australia is giving the world a jump-start in this new, dynamic global marketplace.
Australian companies are already being disadvantaged by our exclusion from carbon markets and from the developing renewable energy technology markets. The investment is simply going elsewhere. Our technology and our know-how are heading to China instead of creating jobs at home. More and more we are seeing this occur. More and more our isolation on this issue has become an international embarrassment which makes it harder for us to achieve other environmental objectives. We have seen that recently at the International Whaling Commission.
The Kyoto agreement was hailed by the Prime Minister back in 1997 as ‘a win for the environment and a win for Australian jobs’. The Prime Minister got it right then but he is wrong now. Labor takes a more sensible, practical approach on this issue. We acknowledge that the nature of such agreements is that they are a product of compromise and, like almost every international agreement we are part of, we do not say that it is perfect. We need to think beyond 2012, but by not ratifying Kyoto we are excluding ourselves from the negotiating table of future agreements and undermining our credibility.
It is very hard for Australia to argue that countries such as China and India should take on board targets. Clearly there is a need for the developing world to also look at reductions, just as annex 1 countries to the Kyoto protocol have targets for their greenhouse gas emissions. But there is a reason why annex 1 countries—the most industrialised countries that have created the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change—took the lead. Commonsense tells you that it was important that they move forward in the first instance.
Our credibility is very limited. Australia got the second-most generous target in the world—108 per cent. Only Iceland, at 110 per cent, has a more generous target. Even after the concessions we got on land use being accounted for in reaching our target, Australia said no. I had the privilege of attending the Montreal climate change conference last year. Australia’s credibility, along with that of the United States, was very limited because of that. The alternative that some would put—that of the climate pact—was rejected for funding by the United States Congress. This week it managed to get a total funding contribution from the US government of $4 million, which might pay for a few airfares for people to go to meetings. It is just farcical compared with the main game—the international agreement that is the Kyoto protocol.
The Mandatory Renewable Energy Target was announced in 1997 in the wake of Kyoto. It was implemented in 2001. It has helped the deployment of renewable energy projects and technologies. This has meant that the 2010 MRET target of 9,500 gigawatts of generation has basically been achieved now. MRET stimulated the renewable energy industry, subsidiary manufacturing industries and substantial intellectual property rights that are now being used around the world. The government should have taken advantage of this bill to increase and extend the MRET target. The government’s own review panel, headed by former government senator Grant Tambling, recommended that MRET targets should increase beyond 2010 at a rate equal to the rate before 2010 and stabilise at 20,000 gigawatts in 2020.
To understand why this never happened, and why renewable energy is being strangled in Australia, you have to look at the politics of renewable energy and the genesis of the MRET. When MRET was first announced it was the government’s stated intention that it would increase the market share of renewable energy generation as a percentage by two per cent. This is what the government said:
Electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers will be legally required to source an additional 2% of their electricity from renewable or specified waste-product energy sources by 2010.
That was Senator Ian Campbell in Hansard on 14 August 2000. However, in its design MRET became a gigawatt hour target rather than a percentage of market share. That is, by making the target a gigawatt hour target rather than as a percentage of electricity generated, the target became a dead target. The result is that market share of renewable energy in 2010 will be approximately 10.5 per cent—exactly the same as it was in 1997. In other words, MRET has not increased the market share of renewable energy; it has simply enabled it to keep pace with our growing demand for energy.
There are many implications of the government’s current dead MRET target. The renewable energy industry is currently facing a significant downturn in project activity and investment. Without an increase, Australia stands at risk of stranding industry capability, technology, skills and intellectual property. We are missing out on great opportunities because of our failure to be involved in the international world. Because of our failure on Kyoto, we are unable to participate in the clean development mechanism, which would allow Australian companies to invest in our region and to gain an advantage that otherwise is not available to them. Because of its failure, Australia cannot receive investment under the joint implementation measures of the Kyoto protocol, which could see great opportunities for investment here in renewable energy and other greenhouse friendly economic activity from those countries that are struggling to meet the targets that have been established. By not ratifying Kyoto, Australia is not able to attract this investment. The fact is that the international emissions trading market is booming as countries like Britain, Germany, Spain and Japan all look for cost-effective ways of meeting their obligations.
The Howard government sees no contradiction in proclaiming that Australia will meet the Kyoto target whilst also claiming that ratification would destroy economic growth. The Howard government signs the vision statement of the Asia-Pacific climate pact, which concludes it ‘will complement, but not replace, the Kyoto Protocol’, but then senior ministers proceed to trash Kyoto. The fact is that the government is two-faced on climate change. There needs to be action. Determining when to act is often as important as determining how to act. There is an opportunity cost of time. As the business roundtable on climate change pointed out, the longer the delay in action, the more expensive it will be—which is why this bill fails so dismally. The government says that its technology will somehow be applied by itself without any economic incentives. That is simply a triumph of hope over experience.
This bill could and should have done far more for renewable energy. All around the world governments are putting in place polices to facilitate its growth. The future for UK wind power was brightened with the July 2003 approval of up to 600 megawatts of offshore wind power by 2010. In Spain, Denmark and Germany alone the expansion of the renewable energy sector has created about a quarter of a million new jobs in the last few years. John Howard’s refusal to ratify Kyoto has meant that Australian companies such as Macquarie Bank are investing in massive renewable energy projects in Europe and Britain. According to Business Review Weekly, Australia is missing out on $3 billion worth of investment due to the inertia of the Howard government. We need effective incentives to drive investment. Growing targets for clean, renewable energy are part of this solution.
The government has also failed with the drafting of the bill. Throughout the investigation of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee Labor senators raised concerns over the antigaming provisions in clause 30D of this bill. We are concerned that those provisions would have some unintended consequences for the sugar industry. This is an issue that Labor and some sections of industry have been pressuring the government over for some months. It is disappointing that government senators on the committee did not accept the clear and cogent arguments made by Labor and industry on this matter.
Today, given that the government has gagged this bill, I suspect that the amendments that have been flagged as being needed by the government are not coming. Perhaps they have been knocked over by the Prime Minister’s office. But I suspect that the government will be back here when we get to consideration in detail moving amendments to its own bill because it has it wrong. So you get it wrong in the detail of the bill. You then leave it on the shelf for a couple of months. Then last night you decide, ‘Oh, we’ve got to bring on this bill.’ When it is brought before the House the first thing that happens is the parliamentary secretary for water, who feigns concern about climate change, moves a gag to stop debate on renewable energy before this House, yet the government still has not even got the legislation right in its detail. That is why I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not denying the bill a second reading, the
House condemns the Howard Government’s complacency over climate change and calls upon the Government to:
-
join the established global framework for action against climate change and ratify the Kyoto Protocol;
-
establish a national emissions trading scheme so Australians can minimise the cost of adjusting to a carbon constrained economy and enjoy the economic opportunities arising from the global carbon trading market under the Kyoto Protocol;
-
ratify the Kyoto Protocol and therefore allow Australian companies to benefit from the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation provisions which encourage and reward renewable energy projects;
-
work towards a long-term target of 60% cuts to Australia’s year 2000 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050;
-
increase Australia’s investment in proven renewable energy technologies by substantially increasing the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target;
-
support greater incentives for the research and development of renewable energy; and
-
support measures to improve energy efficiency, such as making an effective 5 star building code the national standard for new homes, and developing partnerships with energy utilities so that they don’t just sell electricity and gas but also help people use less energy and cut their bills”.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Is the amendment seconded?
8T4
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
Mr Laurie Ferguson
—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
9
13:15:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
0
Mr SLIPPER
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought you were extraordinarily generous to the previous speaker in allowing him to finish reading his second reading amendment. Were it possible to recycle the hot air uttered by the member for Grayndler, obviously Australia would go some considerable distance towards meeting our renewable energy target. I am pleased, however, to join the debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006. It is widely recognised in the Australian community that renewable energy is a source of energy which we as a nation ought to avail ourselves of. There seems to be a bipartisan approach to the fact that we need to use this renewable energy in a way that we often in the past have not. The requirement for greater energy efficiency and improved access to renewable energy is, quite frankly, one of the most significant issues confronting the world and Australia today. Put simply, mankind must do its best to reduce its reliance on energy, the creation of which has pollution as a by-product, in order to reduce the stress on our planet in dealing with pollutants.
The Australian government is committed to renewable energy, although you would not really think so if you listened carefully to the honourable member for Grayndler. The Australian government understands that, by dedicating ourselves as a nation to the use of so-called green energy sources—such as solar panels, wind farms and the like—we can enjoy the dual benefits of having power and reducing the impact its generation has on the environment. The renewable sources of power are varied and quite remarkable. There are the common, well-known sources—such as hydro-electric schemes, wind farms and solar power—but there are the lesser-known alternatives such as bagasse cogeneration. This is the process by which the waste left over after juice has been extracted from a crop is used as fuel to help power the extraction process. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, you would be aware that it is quite common in the sugar industry. It is notable that through bagasse cogeneration power left over can be directed to other users. Renewable energy sources also include black liquor, a combustible by-product of the paper production process; landfill gas; wood waste; energy crops; crop waste; food and agricultural wet waste; the combustion of municipal solid waste; gas collected from sewage; geothermal aquifer; tidal energy; waves; and hot dry rocks, to name others.
The value of these renewable energy sources is well recognised in the community. Nine years ago, in 1997—which was only one year after the people of Australia entrusted the keys of office to this government—the government introduced the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, the MRET. It is administered by provisions set out in the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. The MRET scheme outlines the requirement that by the year 2010, and until 2020, the Australian energy producers sector will be producing an extra 9,500 gigawatt hours each year of renewable energy. This is well above the 16,000 gigawatt hours of power that were produced in 1997 when the scheme began, and it has been set as a benchmark from which greater targets can be set. The aim of the MRET is simply to encourage a slowdown in the generation of emissions in energy production and then to maintain it at a targeted level.
Obviously, it will be virtually impossible for a fossil fuel dependent power station to be able to contribute to this target in a physical capacity, but they can contribute thanks to renewable energy certificates. These certificates are created by those power companies which source their power through green means such as those mentioned earlier. The production of one megawatt hour of green energy makes the producer eligible for one renewable energy certificate. The MRET is valuable in that it places a legal responsibility on power producers to actively take part in the overall production of renewable energy. Those power companies that are unable to qualify for RECs through their own power generation methods—(Quorum formed) Thank you to my friend the member for Melbourne Ports for organising a much better audience for this speech. The House rather sadly was starkly empty and, indeed, it is good that so many people came to make sure that this important debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006 was able to continue.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, the production of one megawatt hour of green energy makes the producer eligible for one renewable energy certificate. The MRET is valuable insofar as it places a legal responsibility on power producers to actively take part in the overall production of renewable energy. Those companies that are unable to qualify for RECs through their own power generation methods—the use of coal for example—are given the opportunity to buy the certificates, thereby purchasing a share in the creation of green energy.
These certificates are traded at prices anywhere between $20 and $50 each—but mostly around $25 to $40—depending on quantity and continuity of certificate supply. The sale of the certificates provides an income stream for the producers of renewable energy. Power producers have a responsibility to comply with the renewable energy targets, and must surrender certificates annually to demonstrate that they are actually meeting their particular liability. This is one of the unique markets that have arisen in the contemporary world, such as the international trade in ‘carbon credits’—the buying and selling by countries of the right to burn fossil fuels.
As I mentioned earlier, the drive in Australia towards reduced emissions and greater production of renewable power is governed by the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. At the introduction of the act, it was decided that it would be independently reviewed after its first two years of operation. The government’s responses to the recommendations that came out of that review are implemented by the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006, which we are now debating. The bill is designed to improve the effectiveness of the act and the following are among the targets of the bill.
The bill introduces time limits with regard to creating a renewable energy certificate. One of the issues that became apparent during the review of the act was that there was no set time frame between when renewable energy is produced and when the REC needs to be created. The bill suggests a time frame of 44 weeks after the generation of the unit of renewable energy is formalised. The bill will allow provisional renewable energy accreditation for proposed new power generation projects. This will help to resolve a ‘chicken and egg’ type situation. As it stands at present, the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator is able to give accreditation to those power generators which have met certain criteria, including complying with various Australian and state government regulations. However, the producer may not be able to meet the criteria until its facility is actually ‘up and running’, and this is obviously causing a dilemma. The bill suggests giving provisional approval to projects so that they can begin moving ahead, while the application proper is assessed within a six-week time frame.
The bill also clarifies various definitions in the act in relation to eligible renewable energy sources. It clarifies provisions relating to the claiming of renewable energy certificates in the case of solar hot-water heaters and small renewable-energy power generators. Homeowners can currently indirectly participate in the MRET scheme, and the bill introduces simplified procedures to administer this process. The Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator has quantified the value of domestic renewable energy systems in relation to renewable energy certificates. In addition, the bill streamlines the system by which agents are able to trade in RECs that are created in the domestic sector.
The bill makes room for the entry of new operators in the renewable energy sector, while also making provision for changes to the national electricity market. The bill suggests the introduction of new powers for the Renewable Energy Regulator, enabling it to collect information that will assist in effective monitoring of power producers, ensuring they comply with the legislation.
It is important to encourage increased production and use of renewable energy in Australia. The renewable energy certificates scheme has been helpful in bringing about a change in mindset to this issue within the power industry. It is very important that this system is not allowed to be abused, so safeguards are important. The bill proposes that accreditation for a producer of electricity can be suspended in cases where its reported output of renewable energy is manipulated so as to create extra renewable energy certificates without an actual increase in its production of renewable energy.
The provisions of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006 will help to increase further the effectiveness of the act in encouraging and administering the continued growth and development of the renewable energy sector. This is an important, ongoing step and the government ought to be given credit for it. The outcomes which will flow from the implementation of this bill will be very positive for the energy future of Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
12
13:29:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I rise this afternoon to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006. In doing so, I indicate that the bill to a large extent implements some of the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. As I have said on many occasions recently, here unfortunately is yet another example of the Howard government’s tardiness and sloppiness in its attention to the legislative program and to issues of detail. Firstly, I suppose we should think about why it has taken three years to bring this legislation to the parliament—because the energy debate is not only important internationally but also of primary concern to Australia at the moment.
It is interesting to note that, in terms of access to energy, our cold war might have finished, but there is a new cold war; it is about who controls the source of energy throughout the length and breadth of the global community. It is a cause of major tension. We need only think about what occurred in Russia earlier this year, when the Russian government turned off access to gas to a number of countries that historically it had been supplying gas to, with the issue being the cost of gas. It is causing tension, for example, between the United States and China, with exploration going on throughout the world where energy options are available. So I think there should be some urgency in Australia about the energy debate, yet it has taken the Howard government since 2003 to bring forward propositions and suggested recommendations for implementation going to the review of renewable energy in Australia. This is merely another example of arrogance by the Howard government 10 years on. The member for Fisher has talked about the keys to the cabinet room. Perhaps it is time that those opposite lost the keys to the cabinet room, because they are not taking seriously some of these important economic debates that Australia should be involved in.
I also note unfortunately that, as the result of a procedural motion moved by the Howard government at the commencement of this important debate, many speakers on both sides of the House will be denied the opportunity to contribute to it. The guillotine has been used yet again, as it has been used consistently over the last couple of parliamentary days, to deny the representatives of the Australian people their opportunity to contribute to debates about their future. The debate about renewable energy is part of the debate about our future. It is not only a debate about cleaner energy in Australia; it is also a debate about additional energy at a time when energy demand in Australia is growing—in the same way that energy demand internationally is growing. If you have any doubts about that, just think about the growth in energy demand in our backyard, in our own region, in countries such as China and India. I believe it is time that the Australian community gave the Howard government a message—that they think, as a matter of courtesy, their representatives ought to be allowed to participate in these important debates in their House, the House of Representatives, the chamber in which governments are formed.
That aside, the long list of speakers who desire to contribute to this debate indicates the importance with which members on both sides of the House regard this debate about renewable energy. They care about Australia’s future energy security and supply diversity and they also indicate, by their willingness to speak in the debate, their concerns about climate change and the environment. Having said that, can I also say that the problem is at the very top of government in Australia; the Prime Minister does not care about this debate. That is not to say he has never taken the debate seriously. The truth is that, until 1979, the Prime Minister understood the issue of energy security, but it was then that he removed the excise on LPG, which is part of the debate about energy. In my contribution to the debate today, I suppose it is fair to say not only that the Prime Minister should have removed that excise but also that he has shown he is 30 years out of date. He is largely uninterested in the views of his own members, as demonstrated by his being part of the decision to guillotine debate today. Obviously, he treats the views of the Australian community with disrespect and arrogance.
On behalf of the opposition, I simply say that this is a very important debate. I expect it is unlikely that all members will get the opportunity to put their case on renewable energy and all the matters that go with it, because it has become usual for the government to exercise its arrogance by guillotining debate in the House. But the bill itself is important. There are many aspects of the bill that the opposition, the Labor Party, wholeheartedly supports. We see the issue of renewable energy as important to the overall energy debate.
For that very reason, the Leader of the Opposition made a major speech, a blueprint speech, in Sydney on 7 March this year, entitled ‘Protecting Australia from the threat of climate change —Blueprint No. 6’. That speech was about the issue of climate change. Obviously, as previous speakers on our side have said, it included support for the ratification of Kyoto, which is not a challenge to Australia—not a challenge at all because, with the little sweetheart deal we did over land clearing in Queensland, Australia would easily meet its requirements under the Kyoto convention. But I think it is important that that speech, as with the contribution of others in the community, tried to focus the Howard government on the need to get serious about these issues.
In that speech the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, not only talked about renewables but also acknowledged there is a broader debate on energy in Australia. He indicated correctly that coal, for example, will remain a dominant source of power generation for the foreseeable future in Australia—and that is a statement of fact. No-one can deny that, as important as renewable energy is, as Kim Beazley’s speech says at page 8—and it is an important speech on climate change that he made on 7 March 2006—coal will remain a dominant source of power generation for the foreseeable future in Australia.
That is why the Australian community has to accept the requirement by government, in association with the private sector, to make significant investments in cleaning up our coal-fired power stations and in clean coal technology, where there are issues of sequestration and gasification. It also means that, in a broader debate about transport fuels—which also goes to the question of energy—we as a nation have to become involved once more in nation building. We pride ourselves, for example, on our success in building the Snowy. That was about nation building. If we could do it 50 to 60 years ago, why can’t we do it now? That is about being serious about debates on transport fuel, investing in trying to encourage overseas investors who are already operating in Australia in the gas industry, for example, and being prepared to invest in Australia with respect to the gas to liquids process and issues of coal to liquids. It is all about transport fuel security and it is all part of the debate about energy supply in Australia and our security internationally. In that context, Kim also spoke about the importance of the renewable energy industry. That is part of the debate about climate change and it is also part of the debate about how we expand our access to energy supply to meet the overall demand by Australian consumers.
This bill also has to be about improved market transparency and business certainty, more opportunities for biomass, wood waste and solar technologies and better administration of the measures. All of these measures are welcomed by the opposition, but we are still concerned that the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, the MRET, does not go far enough to maintain investment in renewable technologies in Australia over the longer term. The 2003 review of MRET recommended that the lifetime for the MRET scheme be extended from 2010 to 2020 and a target for electricity generation from renewable sources be set for 2020 at 20,000 gigawatt hours.
The government did not accept this recommendation, arguing that a better path is to more directly promote the development and demonstration of a broader range of low emission technologies and more aggressively address the impediments to the take-up of renewable energy. Labor supports these initiatives, but you also have to accept that at the same time you cannot continually tinker with a policy framework for renewables. Industry needs some certainty, and that is a matter of investment. It is about a tough global market. It is about trying to encourage an investment climate which guarantees investment certainty. The MRET measure had the support of the renewable energy industries and it formed the basis for its long-term planning. That is why this debate is so important.
Failure to continue and expand the measure has undermined the confidence of the renewables sector in investing in Australia. While MRET got the renewable industry off to a flying start in Australia, its ability to respond in the future will be diminished. The MRET generated growth in renewable energy generation, primarily from the hydro and solar water sectors, where strong growth in the wind sector coming from a small base is important. The government’s own review of MRET in 2003 identified that, without an increase in MRET, further investment in wind was likely to fall away within the next few years, and of course that is what we are seeing today.
More importantly, few inroads have been made into biomass and solar technologies, particularly solar thermal, both of which have enormous potential in the Australian context. Geothermal technology is the other sleeping giant of the renewables sector, and I believe that much more has to be done to promote its development and deployment in Australia. I also note that, despite the eligibility of wood and other biomass wastes for renewable energy certificates under the MRET, there has been very limited investment to date—and perhaps some of that is due to the ideological approach adopted by some in the green movement. Maybe it is about time they stepped back and had a hard think about their ideological approach and the short-sighted nature in the way they approach some of these complex issues. It is also interesting that forest growers and timber processors have the existing capacity to supply wood waste to produce almost 3,000 gigawatt hours of electricity each year without harvesting one more hectare of trees. Why shouldn’t we support this industry? As far as I am concerned, it is no different from the support we should give, for example, to wind power, solar or a variety of other renewables.
On that note, according to the National Association of Forest Industries, if the available resources were used to produce renewable energy, it would result in $800 million of investment in new plants throughout regional Australia and employment for over 2,300 people—not something to be sniffed at in the context of the difficulties of employment and training and economic activity in regional Australia today. Delivering these investments would supply enough electricity for 400,000 houses and would lead to a permanent reduction in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels of 2.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year. It is both economically and environmentally smart. It would also add to the existing industry use of low-grade timber processing and harvesting residues to produce steam, heat and energy.
The MRET has also had only a marginal influence on generation from solar photovoltaics. The 2003 MRET review recommended a longer term deeming period of 15 years for solar photovoltaics. It would seem to be a good measure to encourage continued research and development, since, despite their potential, solar photovoltaics remain a long way from commerciality. The capital cost reduction curve for solar photovoltaics is at a critical point, where significant breakthroughs are essential if the technology is to have a long-term future. In some ways, therefore, our support for this technology has never been more important because, without that next breakthrough, the potential of the technology could be lost as other options overtake it.
I note that the member for Grayndler has moved a second reading amendment addressing some of the opposition’s concerns about the government’s ad hoc approach to energy policy in this country, and I ask those contributing to the debate to focus on this second reading amendment. As part of my contribution, I would also like to address the issue of energy efficiency, because I think it is important. As the member for Grayndler has said, the opposition calls upon the government to support measures to improve energy efficiency, such as making an effective five-star building code the national standard for new homes and developing partnerships with energy utilities so that they just do not sell electricity and gas but also help people use energy and cut their bills. It is smart for householders and it is smart for business.
I think it is fair that, whilst we would all support practical measures that increase energy efficiency, it seems to me that the current national energy efficiency standards for residential buildings in Australia and the various state and territory standards are underpinned by too many questionable assumptions and too little scientific evidence. The Productivity Commission has reported concerns about the analytical basis for the standards last October. The key issue is on the focus with respect to reducing household energy running costs and the thermal performance of the building shell. At least at the time the Productivity Commission was undertaking its investigations, the Australian Greenhouse Office’s home design manual noted that true low-energy building design should consider—and I think this is important because it is lost from the debate—embodied energy and take a broader life cycle approach to energy assessment. Merely looking at the energy used to operate the building, as far as I am concerned, is not really acceptable. It is a broader scientific debate. I say that because timber frame construction is lightweight in nature. It does not fit the thermal performance philosophy.
The analytical basis used also means that concrete slab on ground comes up trumps for efficiency over suspended timber flooring—an interesting concept. Consequently, $70 million worth of sales a year have been lost in the Victorian timber flooring market since the Victorian rating system was introduced. That is despite the fact that a 1999 study undertaken for the Australian Greenhouse Office found it would take 62 years to get a net greenhouse benefit from a concrete floor over a timber floor—never let the facts stand in the way of some policy decisions. And recent research indicates a concrete slab produces a net increase in CO2 emissions of 15 tonnes per house compared to a timber floor. The problem is the standards ignore the fact that cement is highly energy intensive to produce, while timber is a renewable resource, grown using direct sunlight and processed using relatively little energy in sawmills. And sometimes the energy in sawmills is produced using biomass from wood waste itself.
The Productivity Commission has recommended the Australian Building Codes Board commission an independent evaluation of energy efficiency standards to determine how effective they have been in reducing actual, not simulated, energy consumption, and whether the financial benefits to individual producers and consumers have outweighed the associated costs. And the sooner the government ensures this is done—and it is a complex issue for the Australian and the state and territory governments—the better, because in the meantime the timber industry is suffering, regional Australia is suffering, and it may well be doing so for no good reason.
I am therefore pleased to see that the industry has successfully lobbied the Victorian government for an amnesty on wooden floors in new homes until April 2007 to allow time to address the issue. Perhaps in this context, the Victorian government should also be reviewing why native hardwood timber—harvested, used and regrown using sustainable methods—is not available for use in Victorian government construction. Perhaps they should also reassess this issue at the same time.
But it is clear that, unfortunately, the Greens are now much more sophisticated in their attack on the forest industries, directly targeting industry markets to achieve their ends. The Wilderness Society responded to the Victorian amnesty by saying it was a ‘cynical attempt by the industry to maintain market share’ rather than improve energy ratings or environmental sustainability—an interesting response from a so-called Green organisation. This is an issue I am confident the industry will win on a sound scientific basis over the shallow political rhetoric of some in the environmental movement.
National building standards that increase energy efficiency are a must, but we have to make sure we get them right as a community. Demand management is exceptionally important, and making sure that our national building standards are energy efficient is also important. In conclusion, there is no point having national standards that do nothing for energy efficiency and nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but instead create artificial trade barriers against certain products and add unnecessary costs for new homebuilders. Ordinary people are doing it tough enough today, trying to raise the money to buy a new home, without having imposed on them artificial standards that do not do anything environmentally. Let us get it right and approach it from a scientific basis.
As I have said, the Labor Party supports this bill and welcomes the fact that by 2010 the renewable share of electricity consumption will be around 11 per cent. It is off a low base, and we have to do what we can to encourage its uptake. But our view remains that much more could and should be done to encourage further growth in the deployment of renewable electricity sources over the next decade. This contribution by the government takes us part of the way; there is still a lot further to go.
17
13:48:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
1
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006. It is true to say the Australian government comes in for a fair amount of criticism for not signing up to the Kyoto protocol. However, a practical approach by this government is designed to manage a program for renewable energy and greenhouse gas mitigation. It is part of the essential policy mix to address a growing number of environmental concerns. There is so much this government has done. This government established the Australian Greenhouse Office, and I know from my work in the Public Works Committee that the office does a great job in that area alone—in looking at how we can reduce the greenhouse gas from public buildings.
Australia was the first country in the world to introduce a nationally mandated renewable energy target, which is backed by this legislation. In another first, the Australian government initiated the AP6 group. For those who do not understand that short title, it is the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which includes Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States. This partnership covers about half the world’s population and about half the global contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Kyoto covers about 32 per cent of the world’s emissions. This is a practical way of endeavouring to reduce greenhouse gas through regional cooperation and to explore new technological solutions to address climate change. Representing the parliament at the 114th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Nairobi in May this year, I was able to encourage the drafting committee, in a resolution on combating global degradation of the environment, to acknowledge in that resolution the establishment of the AP6 group and its contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I also want to make the point that the Australian government is well-regarded internationally for its action on climate change, despite the fact that Australia is a relatively small producer of greenhouse gases, with just 1.46 per cent of the global emissions. We are investing considerable money, time, resources and energy into doing something about it. This is backed by a $1.8 billion investment. Australia is on track to meet its target set under Kyoto. In contrast, many countries that have signed up to Kyoto will not to meet their targets when the agreement expires in 2012. Investment in renewable energy is expected to be in excess of $3 billion, increasing renewable energy by more than 50 per cent compared to pre-legislated mandatory renewable energy targets.
In 1997, the Prime Minister made a statement, Safeguarding the future: Australia’s response to climate change, in which he said:
Targets will be set for the inclusion of renewable energy in electricity generation by the year 2010. Electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers will be legally required to source an additional 2 per cent of their electricity from renewable or specified waste-product energy sources by 2010 (including through direct investment in alternative renewable energy sources such as solar water heaters). This will accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid-based power applications and provide an ongoing base for commercially competitive renewable energy. The program will also contribute to the development of internationally competitive industries which could participate effectively in the burgeoning Asian energy market.
This statement was followed by the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, which provided the framework for Australia’s mandatory renewable energy targets. Under this act, Australian electricity retailers and other buyers of electricity, as the Prime Minister said, are required to collectively source an additional 9,500 gigawatts of electricity per annum from renewable sources by 2010. The amount contributed to the target by each liable entity is determined on a proportional basis. The target of 9,500 gigawatts is being phased in up to 2010 and will be sustained until 2020. In the interim, incremental progress will be achieved through annual targets.
The amendments in this bill implement the government’s agreed responses to the review of the act. The legislation allows further opportunities for the bioenergy and solar sectors to participate—that is a move I particularly welcome—and it improves administrative integrity and efficiency. Since the initial legislation was passed, there have been several inquiries and some earlier amendments to the original bill, with alternative renewable technologies developing so rapidly that it is not surprising that the operation of such landmark legislation will need careful monitoring and appropriate adjustments from time to time.
Contemporary environmental debate has been significantly focused on climate change. While this is indeed a very important part of the debate, it would be dangerous to allow climate change to be the exclusive focus of any debate relative to the environment. Energy use may be a major contributor to climate change, but one of the overwhelming issues for a contemporary world is how we use energy more efficiently, both at an industrial level and at a domestic level.
In both cases, much could be done to place emphasis on recycling. Not only do we use raw products, both organic and chemical, to create many consumer goods, but we frequently dispose of products before the end of their useful life, thus wasting both the natural and manufactured resources as well as the energy used in their production. Take plastic pot plant containers, for example. Five years ago it was estimated by Pot Recyclers Ltd that 100 million pots were used as plant containers. Of these, 8,000 tonnes of these plant pots went into Western Australian landfill alone. There is a wonderful family in my electorate, the Williamsons, who for many years have battled bureaucracy as they have strived to collect and recycle plastic pots.
A consumer will buy a single plant in a single plastic pot from their local nursery, take it home and plant it and then throw the pot into the rubbish. A research report in 2004 conducted by the Sustainable Energy Development Office found that to manufacture one tonne of polypropylene 27,222 kilowatts of energy are used. This would be enough energy to power the average home for 5.3 years. Australian manufacturing uses 240,000 tonnes of polypropylene per year. Of that, 108,000 tonnes will end up as landfill. Short-term packaging goes from manufacture to landfill, on average, within six months. Pot plants go from manufacture to landfill in six weeks.
The Williamson family reprocesses the pots using 98 kilowatts of electricity per tonne. This not only saves pots going to landfill; it also saves energy. For their trouble, the Williamsons pay 5c levy on each pot they recycle. The work of the Williamson family has attracted attention and awards from Australia and around the world, and recently Mr Williamson and his family were flown to Atlanta to receive an award for their environmentally friendly business.
One of the great threats to human life—if we continue to consume at the rate that we are and other developing countries also begin to consume to the extent of the developed world—is the disposal of goods we no longer want and in which all the component parts have not been fully expended. According to many scientists, climate change has occurred and does occur naturally from time to time. While we do not wish to hasten major climate change due to our profligate ways, we must also look at these matters in balance with other measures.
Public education is one of the ways that we can change industrial and domestic users’ behaviour. For example, there is the formation of the Climate Group, an international coalition with a secretariat in the United Kingdom, which has members ranging from corporations to governments, who are committed to developing new, clean technologies that maximise energy efficiency and minimise greenhouse gas emissions and to developing renewable energy sources. This group has demonstrated in a recent study that sustainability is not necessarily antithetical to profitability. For example, BP reports a saving of $650 million from emission reduction efforts; IBM reports a saving of $791 million; DuPont claims $2 billion in efficiencies; Alcoa is looking at saving $100 million by 2006; and ST Microelectronics expects $900 million in savings by 2010. Germany reports its efforts will lead to the creation of 450,000 new jobs, many of them within the renewable energy sector, according to M Northrop in Leading by example.
The government is taking a multifaceted approach, and I am pleased to see programs such as the Solar Cities program, which is aimed at reducing energy consumption at the domestic level. Again, this is an initiative of the federal government. There are many practical things we can do in our day-to-day living to reduce the amount of energy we consume, and the Solar Cities program is designed to achieve efficiency through trials and public education.
Climate change is not new. What is alarming is the speed at which it is changing and the lack of preparedness to design lifestyles and commercial and industrial developments to reflect these changes. In addition, we need to avoid adding significantly to the problem by polluting and by overclearing land of vegetation.
The mandatory renewable energy target legislated by this government in 2001 seeks to accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid based electricity supply. A number of renewable energy sources have been identified as suitable, including solar, wind, ocean, wave and tidal, hydro, geothermal, biomass, specified waste, solar water heating, renewable stand-alone power systems and renewable fuels—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
19
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Immigration
19
19
14:00:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that for more than six weeks more than 20 important fact sheets have been removed from the immigration department’s website, including ‘Immigration: the background’, ‘Key facts in immigration’, ‘Processing priorities’, ‘Seeking asylum within Australia’ and ‘Immigration detention’? Isn’t it the case that, of the total number of fact sheets, more than half relate to matters to be debated under the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006? Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that the government is keeping Indonesia more informed than the Australian people during this debate?
20
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—The answer is no.
Workplace Relations
20
20
14:01:00
Anderson, John, MP
4K4
Gwydir
NATS
1
Mr ANDERSON
—My question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask: has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to concerns raised by Australian businesses on the proposed roll-back of flexibilities in the Australian labour market? What is the Prime Minister’s response to these concerns?
20
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—My attention has been drawn to concerns expressed by the business community of Australia. Last week the Mines and Minerals Association of Western Australia stated that removing Australian workplace agreements would cost the mining industry over $6 billion. Austral Ships, one of the absolutely premier examples of Australian inventiveness and capacity, which employs over 1,000 Australians in Western Australia, said last week:
This would not be here in Western Australia under a collective agreement. Our productivity would be nowhere near high enough. We would not be able to survive.
Michael Chaney, the Chairman of the Business Council of Australia, said that the policy announced by the Leader of the Opposition misses the fundamental point that AWAs have played a significant part in improving productivity. Today, the national body, the Minerals Council of Australia, in a news release called for Labor to reconsider the proposed workplace reforms because they are ‘ill-conceived and potentially detrimental to the long-term viability of the Australian minerals industry’. These are not the words of somebody uninterested in the great resource sector of Australia; these are the words of the Minerals Council of Australia. The Minerals Council’s companies produce more than 85 per cent of Australia’s annual minerals output.
Every time I see the member for Perth interviewed on the issue of industrial relations productivity, he says, ‘It is all due to the boom in the mining industry.’ Well, if it is all due to the boom in the mining industry, why is the Labor Party trying to lower the boom on the mining industry? Basically, that is what the Labor Party is trying to do—it is trying to lower the boom on the boom. That is a monumentally counterproductive thing to do for the future of this country. The Minerals Council went on to say—and these words could well echo the views of many on the Labor Party front bench, who regarded the announcement made last week by the Leader of the Opposition as a sell-out to some gangsters in Sydney:
The MCA is deeply concerned by the ALP’s proposal to abolish Australian workplace agreements, re-invigorate collective bargaining, strengthen the award system and reposition unions as an external third party in negotiating terms and conditions. The impressive transformation of the minerals sector over the last decade is in part due to flexible workplace laws transforming work practices, pay and conditions and productivity in the mining industry.
They are the words of an industry which is part of the great 21st century wealth of this country. They are words of advice that the Leader of the Opposition would do well to listen to and heed.
Workplace Relations
21
21
14:05:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—It also has something to do with enterprise bargaining.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader will come to his question.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr BEAZLEY
—I ask a question of the Prime Minister on this subject. I refer the Prime Minister to the concerns of George Liarakos, a small business owner and pharmacist from Melbourne, who is in the gallery today and who told Labor’s industrial relations task force that the government’s industrial relations laws are unfairly skewed against the interests of employees, prevent genuine bargaining and allow competitors to undercut the conditions of employment Mr Liarakos offers his employees, which will place him under considerable pressure to do the same. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that his legislation will not force Mr Liarakos, who wants to provide decent jobs with decent conditions, to join a wages race to the bottom just to stay competitive?
21
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. Let me give a guarantee. In addition to reminding the Australian people of my record, let me give this guarantee. I can guarantee that wages will always be higher, unemployment will always be lower, productivity will always be higher and growth will always be stronger under a coalition government than under a Labor government.
Economy
21
21
14:07:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
1
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of plans to further regulate the Australian economy? Would the Prime Minister outline to the House how Australian workers will be affected?
21
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I am aware of some further plans. I was not aware of them until I read my copy of the West Australian newspaper, which I did with great interest this morning, but I am aware of some further plans by courtesy of Unions Western Australia secretary, Dave Robinson. Dave very helpfully had something revealing to say about his plans to further regulate the Australian economy. Let me set the scene for Dave. We are all aware of the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition to abolish Australian workplace agreements. We are all aware of course that in the Sydney Morning Herald at the weekend a Labor Party frontbencher ‘described it as a gutless rollover to appease a mob of gangsters in Sydney’. And we are all aware of the fact that Australians do better under AWAs than they do under collective agreements and awards—far better; according to the ABS, by about 13 per cent compared to collective agreements.
We are also told by the Leader of the Opposition—I think we were told this by him at the ALP conference—that what would happen if he became Prime Minister would be that he would not allow any new AWAs; he would allow the existing ones to run their course. In less than a week, the friendly Dave from Western Australia has belled the cat on that one. What Dave has really told us is that:
Under a Labor government, only employers who had genuine agreements with staff would be able to maintain their agreement until the AWA’s expiry date.
In other words, according to the unions who run Labor policy on this issue, not only will there be no new AWAs but, even in relation to the existing AWAs, if Mr Beazley becomes the Prime Minister, according to Dave what will happen is that the unions will run a ruler over the existing AWAs, and those they do not like they will tell the newly elected Labor government to knock out. So I look forward to reading my copy of the West Australian tomorrow to get the latest instalment on Dave Robinson’s plan to reregulate the Australian labour market.
Workplace Relations
22
22
14:10:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement of Reno Lia, an electrical worker, who told Labor’s IR task force:
I’d say I’ve worked three of every four Saturdays over the last 20 years. Now I’d be telling lies if I said I didn’t do it for the money ...
Overtime is a very, very big issue. A very big component of making ends meet ...
As much as I make jest about the fact that the wife goes to Knox City and spends all our money, I’m quite proud of the fact that we have got a little bit of money for her to go and do that. I’m wrapped that the kids do have sporting activities.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member will come to his question.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am about to. Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that, under the government’s industrial relations legislation, overtime payments and penalty rates are no longer protected, and this threatens the aspirations of families such as the Lias?
22
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I must confess, in reply to the question asked by the honourable member, that I am at a distinct disadvantage because I do not get invited to meetings of the Labor Party’s IR task force. I am quite certain that if I were invited to meetings of the task force I would be able to inject a bit of intellectual rigour into what they are debating. And do you know what I would ask that person and also the gentleman referred to in the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition? I would ask those gentlemen: do you recall 17 per cent interest rates? Do you recall that in 1996 industrial disputes were monumentally higher?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 104. This was a question about overtime payments and penalties, which the government is trying to get rid of.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Grayndler for explaining his point of order. I have been listening closely to the Prime Minister. It was a lengthy question, and the Prime Minister is in order.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I was asked about the proceedings of the ALP’s industrial relations task force and I was suggesting, Mr Speaker, that if they asked the right questions they would get completely objective answers. As for the questions that ought to be asked, they ought to be asked: what has happened to productivity? What has happened to employment? What has happened to taxation? What has happened to interest rates? What has happened to the general prosperity of Australia? What has happened to real wages? I would be asking what the real wage rise was between 1983 and 1996. I would have to truthfully answer, if I were a member, ‘1.3 per cent’. I would ask what it was between 1996 and 2006. Truthfully, I would have to say ‘16.8 per cent’. I have finished my answer, Mr Speaker.
North Korea
22
22
14:13:00
Jull, David, MP
MH4
Fadden
LP
1
Mr JULL
—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the government have any evidence that North Korea is preparing to test-launch a long-range ballistic missile? What response does the government have to any such action?
22
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the member for Fadden for his question. The government is very concerned by reports that North Korea may be preparing to test-launch a long-range missile, which we would view as a highly provocative act that would only isolate North Korea further. A long-range missile test would be contrary to North Korea’s September 2005 joint statement pledge to maintain peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and in North-East Asia at large. On Friday we called in the North Korean Ambassador, Ambassador Chon, as a result of action the DPRK was taking to prepare for the launch of a long-range missile. We called him in again yesterday, after further international concerns were raised, and underlined the serious consequences that would follow any launch. We will continue to work closely with our allies and friends to persuade North Korea to maintain its 1999 self-imposed moratorium on ballistic missile testing.
North Korea is gravely mistaken if it thinks a long-range missile test would improve its security or its bargaining position at the six-party talks. We call upon it to re-engage immediately and without condition. A missile test would place additional strain on an already deadlocked six-party process and would cast serious doubt on North Korea’s willingness to engage the international community and move towards denuclearisation. North Korea’s track record on missile exports adds to concerns about its development of long-range missiles. Australia continues to play an active role in combating missile proliferation, including through participation in the missile technology control regime. The government calls on North Korea to back away from preparations for a long-range missile test launch and return to the six-party talks without precondition.
Workplace Relations
23
23
14:15:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his assertion yesterday that Esselte workers would be $27 a week better off under the now withdrawn Esselte AWA. Isn’t it the case that David Rojas, an Esselte worker for 15 years, has calculated that the AWA offered to him would cut his personal take-home pay by $50 a week—10 per cent of his weekly wage? Didn’t the Prime Minister’s assertion rely on a seven-paragraph media statement prepared at the government’s request by Esselte which does not refer to the alleged $27 a week? Haven’t both the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Prime Minister refused media requests to release their $27-a-week calculation? How does the Prime Minister explain himself to David Rojas and why did he mislead the Australian people yesterday?
23
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—We have not misled the Australian people and nor have we misled the parliament. The person who has done the misleading is, in fact, the member for Perth.
00AMR
King, Catherine, MP
Ms King interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Ballarat is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I remind the member for Perth that the AWA offered to Esselte staff increased the minimum hourly rate to $18.39 an hour—
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Perth has asked his question.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—compared to the collective agreement rate of $17.13. This was said in the parliament yesterday.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith
—Put your calculation out.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Perth is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—On this basis, a calculation along the lines of that made by the member for Perth shows an employee working 38 ordinary hours and three hours overtime would actually be $27 a week better off and over $4,000 better off over three years. The member for Perth asks me to release the calculations. I have just repeated them; I do not need to release them. Self-evidently, the member for Perth has been caught out telling porkies. He said, ‘$65 a week worse off’, ‘$27 a week better off’.
84C
Thompson, Cameron, MP
Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Blair is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—He is arithmetically challenged to the tune of $92 a week. He is the person who has been telling the porky. He has been caught out. You do not have to be very bright to work out from those calculations that the member for Perth has been caught out again.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I would ask that the Prime Minister table his calculations for the benefit of the House.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister said before the House yesterday that he had been given a document by Esselte. I am asking that the document that he was reading from be tabled.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler would be aware that he can ask the Prime Minister whether he could table the document he was quoting from.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I am doing that. I ask that the document he was reading from be tabled so that we can see whether there is a real document or if he is just making it up.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler has now asked whether the Prime Minister would table the document he has in front of him. Prime Minister, is the document confidential?
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—The document I was quoting from very briefly is marked ‘Confidential’. But I might add that the Esselte document was a press release, so I assume the member has it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I call the honourable member for Bass. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat; I have called the member for Bass.
Taxation
24
24
14:19:00
Ferguson, Michael, MP
DYH
Bass
LP
1
Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, would you outline to the House how hardworking Australians—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Bass will resume his seat. There are far too many interjections.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler is warned! I call the member for Bass to begin his question again.
DYH
Ferguson, Michael, MP
Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House how hardworking Australians in my electorate of Bass will benefit from tax cuts due to commence on 1 July?
24
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Bass for his question. I can inform him that in two weeks time, on 1 July, every Australian paying income tax will receive an income tax cut as a result of this year’s budget. Low-income earners will benefit from an increase in the low-income tax offset so that they will not pay tax until their annual income exceeds $10,000. Those on the lowest tax rate of 15 per cent will not go into a higher tax bracket until their taxable income goes past $25,000. Those on the 30 per cent tax rate will not pay a higher marginal tax until their taxable income goes past $75,000. For those on the two top tax rates, both the rate is cut and the threshold is increased so that the 42c rate is cut to 40c and applies to those on incomes between $75,000 and $150,000 and those on the top rate have a reduced top rate of 45c in the dollar and it applies only to each dollar of income over $150,000. That means that, from the lowest paid to the upper income earners, every Australian will receive an income tax cut from 1 July—the beginning of next month.
These tax cuts follow on from the tax cuts in the A New Tax System, which was introduced in 2000. They follow on from a round of tax cuts in the 2003 budget of $2.4 billion per year, tax cuts in the 2004 budget of $14.7 billion over four years and tax cuts in the 2005 budget of $21 billion over four years. These tax cuts, which start on 1 July, total $36.7 billion over four years. This compares favourably to those of previous governments. The last Labor government did not fulfil its promise to cut taxes even though it put them into legislation before the 1993 election. Not only could you not believe what the Labor Party said; you could not rely on the legislation of the Labor Party, which legislated tax cuts before the 1993 election and then took them back. Mr Keating, the then Prime Minister, famously said, ‘They are not a promise; they are l-a-w.’ But they turned into a complete falsehood, of which the current Leader of the Opposition was very much a part.
From 1 July 2006, 80 per cent of Australian taxpayers will face a top marginal tax rate of 30 per cent or less. Under the tax scales announced in the 2006 budget, a person on average weekly earnings will pay $1,209 less than they would have under an indexed 1995-96 scale. Let me repeat that: if we had indexed the 1996 scales to CPI, a person on average weekly earnings would have paid $1,209 more than they will pay from 1 July. This government has been able to run economic policy, to manage the economy, to cut taxes and to give Australians opportunity at work. The Labor Party has fought us every step of the way. Labor is the anti-reform party of Australian politics, and the Australian people would be worse off under its policies.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner
—How are your media reforms going, Pete?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Melbourne.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Melbourne is warned!
Workplace Relations
25
25
14:25:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
0
Dr EMERSON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall the following exchange in Brisbane on 28 September 2004, at the launch of the coalition’s industrial relations policy:
Journalist: Do you think ... the Government would consider reducing the number of allowable matters?
Prime Minister: Well, we don’t ... they’ve worked pretty well ...
Why did the Prime Minister mislead the Australian people in the 2004 election campaign by saying that he would not put at risk public holidays, rest breaks, incentive based payments and loadings, allowances, penalty rates and shift and overtime loadings?
25
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—Even with more than my generous amount of charity to the opposition, that question does not even internally compute. The quote that you gave that I allegedly used does not even establish your false proposition.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Rankin has asked his question. Does the member for Rankin wish to raise a point of order?
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—Yes. For the benefit of the Prime Minister, he was asked:
Do you think ... the Government would consider reducing—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Rankin will resume his seat. He has asked his question.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
26
26
14:26:00
Vale, Danna, MP
VK6
Hughes
LP
1
Mrs VALE
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on recent steps by the corporate regulator to protect investors from corporate wrongdoers? Are there any threats to the corporate regulator’s activities? What can be done to address this issue?
26
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Hughes for her question. I can inform her that the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, continues to take successful action against corporate wrongdoers. Last week ASIC banned two Melbourne directors who were associated with an unregistered managed investments scheme from providing financial services. This followed a successful action last year where the Federal Court made orders regarding the companies, prevented the companies from operating their scheme and permitted the assets of the scheme to be returned to investors. The action by ASIC ensured that $2.8 million was returned to 26 investors—that is, a repayment of all moneys.
Last year ASIC secured convictions against 27 people, with jail terms of 97 years; 58 company officers were banned; 12 auditors and liquidators were disciplined or deregistered; 60 companies were wound up; and, 215 criminal civil and administrative proceedings were undertaken. The success of Australia’s national corporate regulation depends on a referral of power from state governments. The Commonwealth does not have unqualified power over corporations. The High Court has found that on a number of occasions, and this system can be maintained only if the states refer their residual power over corporations to the Commonwealth government.
Mr Speaker, you will recall that on two occasions I have raised the matter in the House that the current referrals are due to expire on 15 July, and I am pleased to report that many of the states have now extended that referral. However, the date for the referral, 15 July, is less than four weeks away. If we do not receive the remaining referrals, Australia’s system of corporate regulation will collapse. I regret to inform the House that one government has still not got around to referring this power, and that is the New South Wales government. Again, the New South Wales government has not been able to refer to the Commonwealth its corporations power, which underpins all of the Corporations Law. This is not a matter to be played around with. Recently in the Australian Financial Review, Professor Ian Ramsay was quoted as saying:
It’s hard to imagine this delay is simply due to tardiness ... I suspect it reflects brinkmanship ...
It is brinkmanship coming out of the New South Wales government—the factional controllers of the Leader of the Opposition—in relation to Corporations Law. We had the Investment and Financial Services Association, IFSA, putting out a press release yesterday calling on the states to extend the referral power and saying we are risking:
... the regulatory framework and governance underpinning around $1 trillion worth of Australian savings and investments.
I call on the Leader of the Opposition to get in touch with the New South Wales government as a matter of urgency and to instruct his union backers and factional allies to give the referral to the Commonwealth—a referral which underpins the whole system of corporate regulation in this country, a referral which is necessary to $1 trillion of investments which are held by average Australians—rather than play brinkmanship.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley interjecting—
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—He interjects in defence of the New South Wales government’s tardiness. He interjects in defence of them rather than standing up for once and saying to these factional backers to get on with it—take a position in the interests of financial investors. He interjects in that way in which he attempts to absolve himself from any responsibility. This is an important matter. We call on the New South Wales government to do it. It is necessary for every investor in Australia.
Workplace Relations
27
27
14:31:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the following exchange he had with Laurie Oakes on the Sunday program on the weekend:
LAURIE OAKES: ... you can’t deny that a lot of workers are bargaining away conditions ... they lose their penalty rates, their holiday leave loadings ... They end up out of pocket.
JOHN HOWARD: I mean you talk about, did you say annual leave?
LAURIE OAKES: Annual leave loadings.
JOHN HOWARD: Yes, well annual leave, you can’t lose your annual leave.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member will come to his question. He will not debate his question.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I am, Mr Speaker. Laurie Oakes continued:
LAURIE OAKES: But you can bargain away the loading.
JOHN HOWARD: No, no hang on, you can’t.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Perth will come to his question!
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Why did the Prime Minister mislead Laurie Oakes and the Australian people on Sunday when he said that annual leave loading cannot be bargain away?
27
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I think all of us around here know that nobody misleads Laurie Oakes. Laurie Oakes is a very competent journalist. Let me say to the member for Perth that what I said on Sunday is perfectly true, and that is that under the law—and I am glad he asked me this question, because people have been running around the country around telling porkies about it; they really have. It amazes me—it shocks me, in fact—that people would go around saying that under the law you can bargain away your four weeks annual leave. You cannot do that.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 104. The question is about annual leave loading. He is misrepresenting, as he did on Sunday.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The member for Perth asked a long question. The Prime Minister is in order.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I am telling the member for Perth that my assertion in relation to annual leave is absolutely true. Loadings were the subject of bargaining long before Work Choices. There is nothing revolutionary about that. Let me just remind the member for Perth in case he has forgotten that under the Work Choices law you are guaranteed four weeks annual leave. You cannot give that away. You are allowed at your request—that I think has to be in writing—to cash out up to two weeks of that. And do you know the state of Australia on which that particular provision is modelled? It was modelled on the industrial relations legislation of the Western Australian government.
Iraq
27
27
14:34:00
Washer, Dr Mal, MP
84F
Moore
LP
1
Dr WASHER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister update the House on the role of Australian troops in Iraq and their vital contribution to rebuilding the economic and social infrastructure in the province of Al Muthanna?
28
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr NELSON
—I thank the member for Moore for his question and very strong support for the global fight against terrorism and the support of democracy in Iraq. Yesterday the nationally democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq made an announcement which represents a significant milestone in the move towards democracy in Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki announced that the first province in Iraq which will transfer entirely to provincial Iraqi control will be that of Al Muthanna.
The Australian Defence Force currently has some 1,350 of its personnel, of whom we are very proud, across the theatre of Iraq, from the security detachment in Baghdad through to the North Arabian Gulf in one of our Anzac class frigates, conducting surveillance flights with P3C Orions, heavy airlift in C130 Hercules and a variety of other important roles in Baghdad, including security. We have had 460 soldiers protecting some 600 Japanese engineers in the Al Muthanna province. Over that time our soldiers have done us proud. They have trained around 1,650 Iraqi army soldiers of the 2nd Brigade of the National Iraqi Army. They have also supported a number of very important projects. The member for Moore in particular will be interested in the mobile health clinic. There have also been veterinary clinics, water purification, the restoration of a community centre, the refurbishment of bus stations, the development of an ambulance station, the reconnection of electricity and a whole variety of very important tasks.
I am advised that very shortly we can expect the Japanese Prime Minister and the Japanese defence minister to announce the future of the Japanese engineers in Al Muthanna. Should the Japanese government announce that it will be withdrawing its engineers then the Australian government will redeploy our 460 soldiers to Tallil, which is an American air base just north of the Al Muthanna-Dhi Qar border. They will there undertake training at the basic training centre and further provide training for the Iraqi security forces. They will also—
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very serious and significant step, and really it ought to be done with a proper parliamentary statement that parliament can then discuss. You do not make a complete change to the role of Australian defence forces like this without that parliamentary statement. Every time there has been a commitment like this, that has been the case. Frankly, it is a disservice to the troops to make the announcement—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat; he is debating his point of order. The Leader of the Opposition would be aware that it is not for the occupant of the chair to make that decision. There are other forms, if he feels strongly about it. The minister is in order. I call the Minister for Defence.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr NELSON
—So the government is disposed to having the Australian Defence Force in Al Muthanna provide training from the air base in Tallil. They will also provide further training in support of border protection to the Iraqi security forces in the southern part of Iraq. In addition to that, if the Iraqi security forces, under the direction of the democratically elected Iraqi national government and the provincial government of Al Muthanna, require it, and if the legal, administrative and military arrangements are to the satisfaction of the Australian government, we will provide in extremis support to the Iraqi security forces. This is a very important step and an important milestone in the move to the democratically governed country of Iraq. We are very proud of what our soldiers have done. This job is associated with risk because it is an important job. We are very proud of them and we look forward to further progress in Iraq.
Iraq
29
29
14:39:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Is it the case that the government has characterised Australia’s participation in the war in Iraq as being for, firstly, the search for weapons of mass destruction, then regime change, then protecting the Japanese and now a fourth phase of security overwatch? What intelligence assessments have been made of any additional risks that will be faced by our troops undertaking this new role? Given that it appears the British and Italians are scaling back their involvement in the region, what will be done to ensure our troops have adequate backup, including helicopter and artillery support and, if necessary, medical evacuation capability?
29
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr NELSON
—I thank the member for Barton for his question. It is very important to Australia and to Australians that stability be brought to the Middle East. It is also extremely important that we appreciate that the war against terrorism is a global activity. It is not confined to our borders or to our region.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The opposition has asked a question; the minister is answering it.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr NELSON
—Terrorist activity in Iraq and in countries in the Middle East has everything to do with Australia and the next generation of Australians. The Labor Party cannot on the one hand celebrate and welcome—
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. This is where relevance counts. The minister was asked a series of detailed questions on intelligence assessments and what support was going to be offered to the troops. We are entitled to an answer.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Does the Leader of the Opposition want a response to his point of order?
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition might stop interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order. The minister has only just begun his answer. I call the Minister for Defence.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr NELSON
—As was foreshadowed some months ago, the progress in Iraq is that, having had a democratically elected Iraqi government, where 12 million Iraqis at risk to their lives voted on three occasions, the process in Iraq is to move to provincial Iraqi control. What that means is that the coalition, working with the Iraqi government, including the provincial government, has been working with the British forces, the Iraqi forces and all of those who are in Iraq to negotiate the arrangements under which the Iraqi people will govern themselves and be responsible for their own security. Of course there has been a detailed intelligence and risk assessment undertaken of this, and the Leader of the Opposition of all people should know that under no circumstances do we discuss intelligence issues in a public arena.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Lingiari is warned!
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr NELSON
—I further say to the opposition: you cannot on the one hand—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The level of interjections is far too high.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Incorporated within that question were questions about the state of heavy weapons backup for the Australian soldiers, the security arrangements associated with them—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to his point of order.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—and there is no answer!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will not debate the question. If he wishes to raise a point of order, he may; but he will come straight to his point of order. The minister is relevant. I call the minister.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr NELSON
—The third most senior operative in al-Qaeda, al-Zarqawi, was killed the week before last. That was news that was welcomed by the Leader of the Opposition. You cannot on the one hand argue that the fight against terrorism should not be undertaken in Iraq and then welcome the outcome of the heavy lifting being done by the rest of the world. The Leader of the Opposition is no more than the bloke at the back of the tandem bike who does not—
Opposition members interjecting—
83Z
Irwin, Julia, MP
Mrs Irwin
—Go and have a blood pressure tablet!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Fowler is warned! Has the minister completed his answer?
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr NELSON
—Yes.
Workplace Relations
30
30
14:44:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
1
Mr JOHNSON
—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the parliament of how Australia will benefit from a single national system of workplace relations? Has such a system previously been supported by substantial people in the community? Is the minister aware of any alternative views?
30
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
Mr ANDREWS
—I thank the member for Ryan for his question and his interest in workplace relations in Australia. It is true that the government believe that we should have one single national system of industrial relations. We believe that because it would reduce duplication, it would reduce complexity and it would reduce the cost and confusion for both employers and employees. The reality is that we have some 10 million Australians in work in Australia—the highest number historically—but thousands of different state and federal awards and pieces of legislation. There are six competing systems of industrial relations operating, which is costly, confusing and complex. The government are committed to reducing this burden.
I was asked by the member for Ryan whether there were any other significant figures who have supported one national system of industrial relations. As far back as 1972 the then Labor Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Whitlam, supported a national system of industrial relations. It was interesting, when I read the Workplace Express email recently, that the member for Perth had told an industrial relations society conference in South Australia just last Friday that it would ‘not be inappropriate’ for the ALP to contemplate a national system of industrial relations.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith
—Make sure you say everything I said!
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr ANDREWS
—I hear the member for Perth interjecting. It was a bit like him running around to the business community in Australia in the last year saying it would not be inappropriate to have AWAs. I take it from that that the member for Perth is advocating that we have a national system and is joining with what the government wants to do. He is not the only one who would see a national system as being valid. Mr Combet, the Secretary of the ACTU, said last March:
We are not necessarily in principle hostile to having a more cogent and clear national system of industrial relations. I think the economic efficiency argument is quite clear.
That is what we on this side of the chamber have been saying month after month. If we can remove this duplication and cost, it will be of great benefit in productivity to businesses in Australia and therefore indirectly to the workers of Australia as well. We know that the architect of the Leader of the Opposition’s backflip on AWAs, Mr Robertson, the Secretary of Unions NSW, is implacably opposed to a national system of industrial relations in Australia. The question out there is this: who is going to write part of the ALP’s policy on industrial relations? Is it going to be the member for Perth, who was rolled on the last part of their policy, or is it going to be Mr Robertson, the leader as I understand it of the ‘gang of mobsters’—the ‘mob of gangsters’—in Sydney? Is it going to be the shadow spokesman for industrial relations or is he going to get rolled once again by the union bosses?
Workplace Relations
31
31
14:48:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
Mr HAYES
—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it refers to a matter before the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission today about the Tooheys brewery at Lidcombe in New South Wales. Is the Prime Minister aware of comments by Shane Simpson, a driver for Tooheys, who said:
As of 31 July we are no longer employed ... We are out of pocket for all the good will. We leave here with no job and no form of good will.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the proposed independent contractors legislation protects the goodwill of a small business owner or will this just be another attack on living standards? Is this life under John Howard for truckies at Tooheys?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The last part of that question was not necessary.
31
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the member for Werriwa for his question. Can I start by saying that the dispute between the truck drivers and Tooheys has absolutely nothing to do with the Work Choices legislation. I want to make that very clear. Can I also make this very clear. It is interesting, even ironic, that the member for Werriwa should be asking this question today, because the coalition party room has had quite an extensive debate on the independent contractors legislation. In fact, great care has been taken in the preparation of that legislation to look after the goodwill of the very people you ask the question on behalf of.
Mental Health
31
31
14:50:00
Entsch, Warren, MP
7K6
Leichhardt
LP
1
Mr ENTSCH
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister inform the House of progress in delivering the government’s mental health initiatives, particularly in Queensland? How can groups in my community benefit from these initiatives?
31
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr ABBOTT
—I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. I acknowledge his long-term passionate advocacy in this area and his advocacy on behalf of the Mental Illness Fellowship North Queensland and, in particular, its members working in his area. As the Prime Minister announced earlier this year and as was confirmed in the budget, this government will spend an additional $1.9 billion to boost mental health services over the next five years. This includes, amongst other things, about $800 million for psychologists consultations and mental health nurse services that should benefit up to 71,000 patients a year. The details are still being worked out in consultation with the relevant professional bodies, but the delivery will resemble current referred and ‘for and on behalf of’ services and services currently provided under the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care program—which I should inform the House will be retained and expanded. I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing for the good work he has done in developing this important package of measures.
The government is also spending $130 million to train an additional 400 mental health nurses and an additional 120 clinical psychologists a year. There will be $370 million to help mental health patients to gain work and also to provide 650 new respite places for the families of mental health patients.
I think this demonstrates that the Howard government has certainly lived up to its responsibilities in this area. I can inform the House that so far the New South Wales government has committed an additional $420 million, the Victorian government $170 million, and the Western Australian government $47 million to improving mental health services. We would like to see some additional commitment from those governments but we would like to see some commitment to start with from the Queensland, the South Australian and the Tasmanian governments. I think, given what the federal government has done, the Australian people have a right to expect commensurate commitment from each of the states.
Skilled Migration
32
32
14:53:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
Ms MACKLIN
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen a report in today’s Australian Financial Review that a Sydney company, ABC Tissue, has brought in 24 Chinese workers for the construction of a new plant in Wetherill Park? Is it not the case that these workers have entered Australia on 457 visas, on the basis that they have specialist skills which are in short supply in Australia? Is the Prime Minister aware of claims that there are Australian workers able to take on these jobs who have done other jobs for ABC Tissue? Is the Prime Minister also aware of claims that these Chinese workers do not possess the skills referred to on their visa applications? What action will the Prime Minister take to have these claims fully and properly investigated?
32
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I did see the report and I am informed that these allegations are being investigated jointly by the department of immigration and the relevant state and federal agencies. On 16 June this year, the department’s officials in Guangzhou met with representatives of the Hunan Industrial Equipment Installation company to discuss the allegations. On 20 June, the department and the Office of Workplace Services will visit ABC Tissue to make further inquiries. On 23 June, the department will meet the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union to discuss further the issues they have raised. Occupational health and safety concerns have been referred to WorkCover New South Wales. The department takes, so I am informed, all allegations of exploitation of workers and the inappropriate use of the temporary skilled migration program very seriously. All allegations are fully investigated and, where they are proven, appropriate sanctions are applied. In other words, there has been a full, prompt and, I believe, to date, unarguably an effective investigation in relation to these allegations.
There was some suggestion in the article and perhaps in some commentary that there had been some approach by way of representations by the Attorney-General to the minister to intervene. Let me say at no time did the Attorney-General make representations or discuss this case with the minister or the department of immigration. In no way did he try to influence the process. In other words, the allegations are being taken seriously and obviously the outcome of that investigation will be made known. If something wrong has happened, sanctions will be applied. If something wrong has not happened, then no sanctions should be applied. What fairer, more transparent, more decent system could you possibly have?
World Refugee Day
33
33
14:56:00
Barresi, Phillip, MP
ZJ6
Deakin
LP
1
Mr BARRESI
—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General, representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. On World Refugee Day, would the Attorney-General advise the House of Australia’s commitment to resettling refugees? How does this compare—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Deakin has the call.
ZJ6
Barresi, Phillip, MP
Mr BARRESI
—How does this compare with other countries?
UK6
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Wills is warned!
33
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr RUDDOCK
—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. We know that the honourable member for Deakin has a very genuine and ongoing concern about the plight of the world’s refugees. Today being World Refugee Day it is appropriate to acknowledge that 8½ million refugees in the world today are living in some of the most appalling circumstances. What pleases me is that the figure has significantly declined and is at its lowest level since the early 1980s.
If you look to see why that is the case, you find it is because many have been able to return home; that in many places there has been effective local integration; and that some countries, such as Australia, play a part in resettling those who have no prospect of returning home and are in the most difficult of circumstances. It can also be attributed to Australian policies—the decisive action taken by governments to ensure that the most despicable regimes, of the sort that we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, have been removed. Such circumstances have meant that fewer people have had to flee.
Australia continues to punch above its weight in resettling refugees and is consistently among the top three countries, along with the United States and Canada. This year some 13,800 refugee and humanitarian places will be offered. That is almost double the number that were being resettled from offshore in 1999-2000.
One of the reasons that we are able to do this is that offshore detention, which has been referred to by members opposite, as part of our border protection measures has been able to work and has worked. The government’s record shows that we have been able to give genuine refugees assistance and, in appropriate cases, resettlement, but we have also been able to give more support to the refugees who are in greatest need. It is in that context that we on this side of the House have a very longstanding commitment to helping refugees.
I would contrast it, as I have been asked by members opposite, with the approach that they seem to want to take to these issues today. Contrary to the position that the Leader of the Opposition was advocating back in 2001, when a bipartisan approach was sought, the Labor Party want to play politics with this issue now. That is what they are about.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Attorney General has the call and he will be heard.
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr RUDDOCK
—I have the courage to support policies and programs that work and support the most vulnerable. We are not about to chop and change in the way that members opposite have and to walk away from policies that have been shown to work effectively and in Australia’s national interest.
Small Business
34
34
15:00:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. I refer to the following comments by the minister for small business, reported today, when she said that collective bargaining:
... can allow franchisees to strike a better deal with big business. With collective bargaining, small businesses can reap the benefits of economies of scale ...
Minister, if collective bargaining is important for small business dealings with big businesses, isn’t it even more important for employees’ dealings with big businesses?
34
Bailey, Fran, MP
JT4
McEwen
LP
Minister for Small Business and Tourism
1
FRAN BAILEY
—I have to say that I am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition would even ask a question to do with small business—seeing that you do not stand for small business. I can advise the Leader of the Opposition that those comments were made in regard to amendments to the Trade Practices Act, which the opposition voted against in the Senate.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Lalor is warned!
JT4
Bailey, Fran, MP
FRAN BAILEY
—If the Leader of the Opposition had one iota of confidence in or understanding of small business, he would never reinstate unfair dismissal and he would not abolish AWAs.
Work for the Dole
34
34
15:02:00
Tollner, David, MP
00AN4
Solomon
CLP
1
Mr TOLLNER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workforce Participation. Would the minister update the House on how Work for the Dole is helping to prepare job seekers for employment around Australia? Would the minister also outline examples of some of the most innovative projects?
34
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
Minister for Workforce Participation
1
Dr STONE
—I thank the honourable member for Solomon for his question. He was celebrating with a lot of us last night in the Great Hall because one of his constituents, Mr Warren Suradi, was a finalist in the Prime Minister’s Work for the Dole Achievement Awards. As one of the great participants—an outstanding participant—Mr Suradi had been involved with a team of fellow work-for-the-dolees in building greenhouses and a market garden in an Indigenous community in the Northern Territory. We strongly commend all of last night’s finalists and particularly Mr Suradi.
Work for the Dole is now nine years old and it is an extraordinary program. It began with some controversy. Some felt that it was not appropriate that the long-term unemployed were asked to work in their communities to meet a mutual obligation and, therefore, to have a sense of greater contribution, given that they were being supported by that same community. We have statistics now which show that some 80 per cent of people who complete a Work for the Dole program say that it has improved their self-esteem and improved their capacity to find a job and, indeed, their sense of wanting to go back and find work. In fact, over 42 per cent of those who finish a Work for the Dole program within three months are in a job or are doing work related training. However, it is not just the individual who has had such an extraordinary benefit through Work for the Dole. There have been nearly half a million Work for the Dole participants in these last nine years. No doubt these half a million who have moved on to work as a result of the program have helped bring down the unemployment statistics in Australia to some of the lowest rates in 30 years.
We know, for example, that the 29,000 projects that these Work for the Dole teams have worked on in communities right across Australia—from metropolitan areas to rural areas—have helped build community. They have given back where someone could not have been employed on a salary. It was not work that was in any way supplanting a paid workforce; it was work that built back—for example, gardens and toys for preschools. There has been a lot of natural resource development work and cultural and heritage protection. Just one project, for example—the Work for the Dole team in Ulverstone, Tasmania—has built a safe area for dementia sufferers in the Mount St Vincent Nursing Home. In Shoalhaven, the member for Gilmore’s area, the Scrap Shop at Bomaderry has recycled materials and, while the Work for the Dole trainees or participants have been doing this work, they have also been training in retail and business through a TAFE course.
Let me tell you that, after nine years, the Work for the Dole program has proved itself to be among the most outstanding in our suite of programs that help Australia’s unemployed; it has helped to bring down our unemployment statistics to their lowest level in 30 years. I thank all of the members of the opposition who attended the Prime Minister’s awards last night in the Great Hall, celebrating the outstanding work of our Work for the Dole participants, the CWCs and the sponsors. In this day and age, we should commend the courage of our long-term unemployed who are getting a better life through participating in community work that is meaningful for them and meaningful for their families and the places they come from.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
35
Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers
Workplace Relations
35
35
15:06:00
Mr HOWARD,MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister may proceed.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—The member for Rankin asked me a question which basically suggested that I had misled the Australian people in 2004 in answer to a question. Not only was it not supported by the material that he quoted, but, on checking the transcript of the news conference, I find that the member for Rankin had left out a material phrase in my response.
This is what the member for Rankin said. He was not paraphrasing; he was purporting to quote me. In answer to the question, I allegedly said, ‘Well, we don’t ... they’ve worked pretty well ...’ What he left out was the phrase, ‘Well, we don’t at this stage, Mark.’ In other words, it was an eminently reasonable answer. Also, when quoting the journalist, the member for Rankin could not quite bring himself to quote even the full question. The full question was: ‘Do you think, in the interests of workplace flexibility’—but, of course, the great economic rationalist from Rankin could not bring himself to utter the words ‘in the interests of workplace flexibility’.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
35
Questions to the Speaker
Statement by the Minister for Defence
35
35
15:08:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. I ask whether you could secure, or use your good offices to secure, a statement from the Minister for Defence in this place about picking up the materiels, as requested of him by the opposition defence spokesman. Are you aware, Mr Speaker, that when it was announced we were going to Al Muthanna province, it was made quite clear that, if our troops were in trouble, they would have access to British divisional assets in Basra, like artillery, helicopters and tanks. The question that was asked, as you would be aware, Mr Speaker—what was sought from the Minister for Defence—was not a request for actual intelligence but the detail of an assessment on risk and, given that the British and the Italians were withdrawing and there was a materiel possibility—and if there is a materiel possibility, this is a more dangerous situation—what sorts of divisional assets they now have access to in relation to helicopter and artillery support and, if necessary, medical evacuation capability. It is pretty unusual for a substantial commitment to be made in a conflict situation without an accompanying parliamentary statement.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the Prime Minister wish to respond to that?
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—I do.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I call the Prime Minister.
36
15:09:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—I want to inform the House of two things: during question time the Japanese Prime Minister, as has been widely foreshadowed, made a statement to the effect that the Japanese engineers were being withdrawn—as has been widely predicted—and it is my intention to make a statement to the House about the redeployment of the Australian forces on Thursday. In accordance with the normal custom of the parliament, the Leader of the Opposition will have an answer in reply.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the Prime Minister. I believe that response would cover the leader’s request.
Parliament House: Signage
36
36
15:10:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—Yesterday the member for Denison asked me a question about a sign prohibiting photography. The sign in question is located on the fence between the grassed ramps and the internal courtyard, which includes the staff cafeteria. The reason the sign is there is to reinforce the point that photography in the private areas of the building is prohibited without the prior approval of the Presiding Officers. This is to protect the privacy of members, senators and other building occupants. There is no prohibition on photography in the public areas, including visitors being able to photograph the building generally.
Shell Questacon Science Circus
36
36
15:11:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—Yesterday the member for Canberra asked me a question related to a request to park a Questacon science circus truck at the main entrance to Parliament House. I can advise the member for Canberra that Questacon was refused permission to park its science circus truck at the main entrance to Parliament House because it was not an integral part of the Questacon event. Parking the truck would have been equivalent to erecting a large sign advertising Questacon and the event. The parliament’s forecourt has never been seen as a suitable place for advertising, even if related to events inside Parliament House. The President and I see no reason to make any change to that policy.
Member for Bass
36
36
15:12:00
Kerr, Duncan, MP
RH4
Denison
ALP
0
0
Mr KERR
—Mr Speaker, first may I thank you for your answer to the question that I asked yesterday. I have a further question to you. Again, I thank you for your letter to me indicating your intended approach to the matter of a claim of possession of the Order of the British Empire award by the member for Bass. Will you report your consideration to the House in the usual way so that the member can at least be comforted that the formal processes of the House for a breach of privilege will not be invoked whatever chiding he may remain at risk of from members on this side?
37
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Denison. I think he probably has given an answer to his question by that statement. I believe that all members are now aware of the content of that letter.
Government Statements
37
37
15:13:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
1
0
Mr TUCKEY
—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. Could you assist the House by providing a list of the number of statements that were made to this House under the Hawke and Keating governments as compared to the Fraser government and the Howard government?
37
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for O’Connor. It certainly is possible to arrange to have those statistics provided to him.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
37
Personal Explanations
37
15:14:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I do.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Yesterday and today, I was misrepresented by the Prime Minister in question time in respect of the now withdrawn Esselte AWA. Firstly, the Prime Minister asserted that I had misled the House on Thursday when I said that a full-time Esselte worker whose work included working on Saturday would be $65 a week worse off on the Esselte AWA. This is not borne out by the facts and is not reflected by the detailed calculations I have released publicly. It is not true.
Secondly, the Prime Minister said I misled the House because I had based the $65 on Saturday work, which was not relevant. This is not true and is not borne out by the facts. Thirdly, that where Saturday was worked, compensation was paid. This is not true and is not borne out by the facts. Indeed, under the AWA, ordinary work from Monday to Friday has been extended from Monday to Sunday.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member is now debating his point.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Fourthly, the Prime Minister said the figure was not a $65 loss, but a $27 profit, and I quote:
On the basis of a calculation along the lines of that made by the member for Perth … they would actually be $27 a week better off …
The Prime Minister said this was based on a press release from Esselte.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Perth will show where he has been misrepresented. He will not debate the point.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I am showing that. The Prime Minister said that that assertion, that I was $92 out, was based on a press release from Esselte. The Esselte press release did not include reference to the $27.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Perth will get to where he has been misrepresented. He will not debate the issue!
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I am doing exactly that. Finally, the Prime Minister said that I had deliberately distorted the facts. That is not true. That is misleading. It is offensive, but then again the Prime Minister would know all about that!
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
37
Private Members' Business
Howard Government
37
37
15:16:00
Andren, Peter, MP
KL6
Calare
IND
0
0
Mr ANDREN
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Calare moving immediately.
That this House:
-
deplores the guillotining of debate on important bills before this Parliament;
-
condemns the cynical management by the Government of the business of the House;
-
condemns the gagging by the Government of debate on crucial fuel tax, energy and land rights bills and the refusal to allow any non-Government amendments by Members elected to promote the best possible legislation for this country;
-
calls on the Government to recognise the absolute right of all Members of Parliament—within reasonable arrangement—to properly debate and seek to amend all legislation before this House;
-
condemns the by-passing of the House of Representatives as the Chamber that should allow Members to properly consider legislation and the substitution by this Government of the Senate as the only meaningful debating Chamber;
-
further calls on the House to condemn the erosion of democratic processes to satisfy the political agenda of the Government;
-
condemns the majority of the media for its failure to critically examine the erosion of democratic processes in this House; and
-
calls on the House to rescind motion number one on today’s Notice Paper and allow proper scrutiny and debate on all legislation.
This is a dictatorship by the executive! This is a sham of democracy, and we—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:17:00
—With great reluctance, I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
15:21:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
78
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
60
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Beazley, K.C.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Katter, R.C.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
39
15:26:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—I second the motion. To shut down debate on renewable energy at this time in—
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:26:00
—With equal reluctance, I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
15:27:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
78
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
60
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Beazley, K.C.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Katter, R.C.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Windsor, A.H.C.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Andren’s) be agreed to.
15:29:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
59
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Beazley, K.C.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Katter, R.C.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Windsor, A.H.C.
78
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
41
Personal Explanations
41
15:32:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
1
0
Mr LINDSAY
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
HK6
Lindsay, Peter, MP
Mr LINDSAY
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
HK6
Lindsay, Peter, MP
Mr LINDSAY
—Following a speech I made in the parliament last week, the Queensland Nurses’ Union issued a media release yesterday claiming:
Lindsay’s attack on Queensland nurses’ pay rise confirms the Howard Government is about cutting pay.
The media release went on to say:
Mr Lindsay has confirmed ... the Howard government and its supporters, such as Mr Lindsay, undervalue nurses.
There was nothing in my speech about cutting nurses’ pay. I am on the public record supporting the work of nurses and their pay rise.
DOCUMENTS
41
Documents
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:33:00
—Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Report No. 35—Report of an inquiry into a complaint by Mr AV of a breach of his human rights while in immigration detention.
Migration Act 1958—Section 486O—Assessment of detention arrangements—
Government response to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s statements—Personal identifiers 056/06 to 066/06.
Reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman—Personal identifiers 056/06 to 066/06
Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
41
Matters of Public Importance
Workplace Relations
41
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lilley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to acknowledge that new econometric modelling undertaken by the OECD casts grave doubt on the economic case advanced by the Government in support of its extreme industrial relations policies.
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—
41
15:34:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
0
Mr SWAN
—The economic case for the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations legislation changes is unravelling, and everyone in the chamber knows it. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer has the guts to defend it. The Prime Minister will not debate the Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer will not come into this parliament and defend his case, because in terms of hard-edged economics the OECD has stripped away any case that could be made by this government for greater employment effects and greater wages effects from this extreme industrial relations package.
Since the introduction of the government’s industrial relations laws, the worst fears of Australian workers have been realised. Barely a week passes without fresh examples of unscrupulous employers sacking their employees unfairly, cutting their wages, or eroding their working conditions. We can debate the detail, but whether they are $40 a week worse off, $60 a week worse off or $90 a week worse off, the fact is that out there under the government’s extreme Work Choices policy the rights of millions of Australian workers are being eroded and their living standards are taking a hit. For many Australian workers there is no choice in Work Choices—except the choice between lower wages or no job. In recent weeks the horror stories have grown from a trickle to a stream. Soon, the inevitable logic of competition will ensure that this stream builds into a flood. Good employers are going to be forced to follow the lead of unscrupulous employers because of the inevitable need to compete. What is now clear is that lost in this flood will be the hopes and dreams and financial security of countless middle Australian families.
So what is the purpose of all this pain? Where is the gain? Why, as mortgages are getting bigger and credit card repayments are getting more unavoidable, is the Howard government cutting wages and attacking job security? According to this Prime Minister, the answer is fairly simple. For 30 years this Prime Minister has been standing in this chamber defending the one idea he believes in above all else, and that one idea is very simple. It is that radical labour market deregulation will lift employment and increase wages. This is the single creaky pole of economic logic propping up the new industrial relations changes. Every section of the act, every TV ad, every fire and brimstone defence in this chamber is leaning on that single creaky pole of the Prime Minister’s belief. That one idea is propping up the wholesale assault on the wages and working conditions of middle Australian families. It is an idea with a dark history, an idea with strong roots in the dark mills of 19th century England and the workhouses of the Industrial Revolution. It is an idea that has sent men down dangerous mines and locked women and children in sweatshops. It is also an idea that dominates the thinking of the Prime Minister. But everyone on this side of the House knows it is an idea whose time is well and truly up. Its time is up because the fundamental assertion that unchecked competition in the labour market will mean more jobs and better wages has been assassinated by a silver bullet of reality from the OECD.
This silver bullet was fired by the OECD in their 2006 Employment Outlook. One thing we know about this Prime Minister is that he has the courage of his prejudices. Every one of those dark prejudices is challenged in this OECD report. That wall of dogma that has dominated his thinking for the last 30 years is fundamentally challenged. What is the first prejudice that this Prime Minister has? He has a prejudice against the minimum wage. There has never been a minimum wage increase that this Prime Minister has welcomed. We know that if the Prime Minister had his way the minimum wage would be $50 less than it is at the moment, because John Howard has also always believed in reducing the minimum wage. He has argued that that will lead to a reduction in unemployment. What does the OECD have to say about that? This is the silver bullet that cuts away that wall of prejudice that underpins all of the legislation that is attacking the living conditions of the Australian people and ultimately putting at risk our prosperity, because underlying this legislation there is no hard-headed economics nor is there any social justice. What the OECD does fairly and squarely is rip away the Prime Minister’s economic prejudice. This is what the OECD concluded:
No significant direct impact of the level of the minimum wage on unemployment is identified ...
No. 1 prejudice washed down the drain! But do we get any acknowledgement of that from either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer? On the very day last week that this report was being published by the OECD, the Treasurer had the hide to come into this parliament and claim that a 1994 report from the OECD justified their attack on the minimum wage and wages of Australian workers. Fair dinkum, you would have thought he might have been just a tad embarrassed. On the very day that that embargoed report was upstairs, he was down here saying the opposite, knowing full well what was in the OECD report. On the minimum wage, the OECD went on to say:
The minimum wage could encourage higher participation, by helping to make work pay for the low skilled.
Isn’t that an arrow against not only their extreme industrial relations policies but their outrageous attack on many welfare recipients of this community whom they will not assist into the labour market to lift participation levels? They have consistently refused to provide the capacity-building programs and the incentive that is required to lift participation. We have a Treasurer who comes into this House and claims he is concerned about intergenerational challenges but he then puts in place a taxation system and a welfare system that actually stop or inhibit people from participating in the labour market whilst at the same time radically reducing their capacity to feed their families. This report blows the whistle on that approach across the board and strips bare the rhetoric from this government in defending these extreme policies.
In the Treasurer’s budget speech there was no mention of participation, and we know why: because this government has in place a raft of policies that the OECD now tell us we do require if we are going to maintain our prosperity by lifting our participation rate. Although the OECD do not quite say that in those words, the OECD have acknowledged that there is a link between fairness in society and good economic outcomes. We do not have to have a race to the bottom. We should not be taking our country down the food chain by cutting wages to compete with India and China. We should be taking our country up the food chain by investing in skills and lifting productivity so that we can compete with India and China. That is the way ahead for this country and that is why this agenda of that minister over there is so bankrupt, because it is not only unfair but is putting at risk the future prosperity of this country.
The second prejudice that this Prime Minister has been attached to for the last 30 years is his prejudice against unions, collective bargaining and collective agreements. This Prime Minister gets high on the thought that he can do something nasty to unions. The very thought that Australian workers might want to come together and be stronger as a result—through cooperating and bargaining in their workplace—goes to the heart of this government’s mean-spirited and narrow approach not only to economics but also to society. So look at what happens when that silver bullet hits prejudice No. 2. What does the OECD say? The OECD conclude that coordinated wage bargaining at the enterprise level is ‘found to significantly reduce unemployment’. Well it might, because we certainly know that has been the impact when we have had that in this country—something the government deny continuously and lie about in this House day after day and week after week.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Lilley will withdraw ‘lie’.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I withdraw. The third prejudice of this Prime Minister is that we cannot have any decent protection for workers from unfair dismissal. He has ranted and raved about that. Of course we do need sensible unfair dismissal laws, but we have a Prime Minister who wants to rip them away altogether. He has done that for firms of a particular size. We have a Treasurer whose absurd position is that he does not want any unfair dismissal laws at all because he believes that is the way ahead in the 21st century. That is 19th century thinking. We in the Labor Party have 21st century thinking and now the OECD has shown 21st century thinking by raining on their parade and blowing away the economic underpinnings of their argument for this extreme industrial relations package. The OECD has said:
The impact of EPL—
that is, employment protection laws—
and union density on unemployment are statistically insignificant.
What a damning finding, which goes to the core of the very existence of the modern Liberal Party under Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello, who made his name in politics by picking on little old ladies working in lolly factories. What is it about the government that they can ignore such fundamental hard-headed economics and put in place policies which so fundamentally rip away at the dignity of working people? What really drives their mean and narrow approach? They have always said that what drives their mean and narrow approach is that they are standing up for wealth creation and stronger prosperity in the future. The OECD has blown that away.
This report shows why the government have not done any economic modelling and certainly why they have not released any economic modelling to justify this extreme package. Last December the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, Ken Henry, stated:
Treasury has never undertaken any modelling of the effects of the Government’s workplace relations reforms.
Now we know why. We know the answer, because the pre-eminent economic organisation in the world that this Treasurer quotes all the time when he is attacking us in this House has confirmed what fair dinkum modelling would show. That is selective quoting once again. This brings us back to the OECD report, which I seek leave to table.
Leave granted.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I particularly highlight chapter 7, which really sums up the nub of the case put by the OECD. This chapter contains comprehensive econometric analysis of policies that have impacted on employment and unemployment to date. It has resulted in the OECD moving away from a one-size-fits-all policy centred on radical deregulation of labour markets.
Let us examine their findings in some more detail. The key is summed up in figure 7.1 on page 211. This figure summarises the OECD analysis between the unemployment rate and selected institutions and policies over a 20-year period from 1982 to 2003. It highlights:
The correlation between the unemployment rate and employment protection laws is almost zero. The correlation between union density and unemployment is again almost zero. The correlation between unemployment rates and active labour market programs is almost -0.5. In other words, well-designed and active labour market programs are linked to low unemployment.
We all know that on this side of the House. A fundamental belief in active labour market programs goes to the dignity of every worker or potential worker in our society. We have had a belief in these programs since Chifley’s full employment paper, going right back to the postwar reconstruction. It is about time we saw some decent active labour market programs from this government, and we are not seeing them at all. The alarm bell has been rung by the OECD on your inattention here. Of course, your inattention to skills is also exposed for all to see, but so is your vandalism when it comes to tax—
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Lilley will refer to members by their electorate or title.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—The vandalism of the government, when it comes to tax, is exposed because they draw attention to the tax wedge. You get higher unemployment when there is a large tax wedge—a large difference between what it costs an employer to employ a worker and what the worker gets in the hand. The government is operating a tax wedge on someone on minimum wages of 98c in every additional dollar they earn, and it wonders why we have low participation.
This is a government that has not put in place the raft of policies that are required to protect our prosperity—incentive across the board in the tax system that lifts participation, attendance to the skills of our workforce and education more broadly, attendance to innovation policies, and some national leadership when it comes to our national infrastructure. All of these things go to the core of productivity, and if we are going to protect prosperity in this country we need a raft of policies which lift productivity so we can create wealth and spread opportunity. (Time expired)
45
15:49:00
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
0
Mr ANDREWS
—The only thing that has been unravelling over the past week is the Leader of the Opposition’s foolish policy to rip up Australian workplace agreements. That is the collective judgment that has been made over the past week of the Leader of the Opposition and that policy. You would hardly think that you were looking at the same report as the member for Lilley if you were listening to his remarks and actually reading the report from the OECD. One thing which is quite clear from the OECD Employment Outlook 2006 is that it paints a highly favourable picture of Australia.
The member for Lilley said, ‘We want to see some decent labour market programs.’ I ask him, members opposite and the Australian public: what better decent labour market program is there than one that has driven down unemployment to 4.9 per cent? That is the lowest unemployment rate in this country for three decades. What sort of labour market program did we have under the Labor Party when unemployment in this country was in double digit figures? Unemployment was at well over 10 per cent, and yet over the past decade the economic management of this country by this government has seen a substantial fall in unemployment to 4.9 per cent. For the first time in 30 years in this country and the first time in the lifetime of many Australians there has been a 4 in front of the unemployment figure in this country.
Look at what the Labor Party proposed in its re-regulation of the labour market. Take not my views about this but the views of the Labor Party’s preferred economic modeller, Access Economics. Their analysis of the Labor Party’s proposals to re-regulate the Australian workforce was that the unemployment rate today would be closer to eight per cent—that is, some 315,000 Australians who have a job today, or who had jobs at the time of that analysis when the unemployment rate was still 5½ per cent, would not have a job. Yet the member for Lilley comes in here with his overblown rhetoric and talks about wanting to see some decent labour market programs. I think ordinary Australians understand that such programs have driven down unemployment to 4.9 per cent in this country and have seen more Australians employed than in any other period in our history. They have brought about real wage increases of 16.8 per cent into the bargain. Tax rates and inflation rates have fallen. Interest rates are a far cry from the double-digit interest rates I can remember when the Labor Party was in government, when small business was paying interest rates of over 20 per cent. This government’s programs of the last 10 years have delivered real and tangible benefits for the men and women of Australia and their families, yet we hear this rhetoric from the member for Lilley today.
Go back to the OECD report, because it points to Australia’s experiencing significant reductions in its unemployment rate—currently at a 30-year low of 4.9 per cent. The report also notes that the employment rates in Australia have risen markedly over the past decade, with more than 10 million Australians in work. We have more Australians employed in this country than at any other time in our history. It was not that long ago, when the Leader of the Opposition was the employment minister in the Hawke-Keating governments, that the number of unemployed in this country measured one million. When asked about that back then, the Leader of the Opposition conceded that the long-term unemployed were being left on the scrapheap. When asked about his job as employment minister, he also conceded that, of all the responsibilities he had when he was in government, that was the job in which he had the least interest. So it is a stark contrast to what we saw when the Leader of the Opposition was responsible for some of the economic management of Australia.
We can also see from the OECD report that Australia is one of the few countries that have combined stronger productivity growth performance with stronger job creation. We know something about productivity growth from the experience of the last 10 years, and it can be simply stated. Those businesses, industries and sectors of the Australian economy that have most embraced the flexibility of the workplace relations system introduced in Australia 10 years ago are also the businesses and sectors of the Australian economy that have had the highest productivity growth.
One of the stand-out examples of this is the mining and resources sector of Australia. I mention this sector because it is the wont of the member for Perth, the Leader of the Opposition and others opposite, when pointing to Australia’s current economic prosperity, to say that this is largely a result of the mining and resources sector. It is true that the mining and resources sector has contributed greatly to the prosperity we are enjoying, but here lies the internal contradiction of the Labor Party’s argument: you cannot say on the one hand that this sector of the Australian economy has led to this prosperity and that it is the reason we are enjoying prosperity today—with low unemployment, high employment, low interest rates, low inflation et cetera—yet say on the other hand that we want to rip away from the Australian mining and resources sector one of the very mechanisms that have helped it to achieve the prosperity and to thrive in the way it is today.
This was the central nub of the argument advanced last week by the chairman of Business Council of Australia, Mr Michael Chaney. The Business Council of Australia, along with virtually every other business organisation in this country, backed up by the editorial writers of almost every major newspaper in Australia, condemned as a retrograde step the decision of the Leader of the Opposition last weekend to rip up Australian workplace agreements and rip up in the process the advantages that more than half a million Australians and their families have derived from Australian workplace agreements. In his criticism of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaney said:
AWAs have played a significant part in improving productivity, particularly in sectors that are critical to Australia’s current and future growth, notably mining and resources.
The nub of the argument being advanced by the business community, by Mr Chaney amongst others, is that Australian workplace agreements—the thing that the Leader of the Opposition wants to rip up—have been critical in improving the productivity of the mining and resources sector in Australia.
If at any time in future somebody hears Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, or Stephen Smith, the member for Perth, saying, ‘Our prosperity is a consequence of the mining and resources sector in Australia,’ they must ask the logical question, ‘Why would you want to rip away from that sector one of the things which the leaders of that sector say have led to that prosperity, which we all enjoy—not just the mining companies—in Australia?’ Over the past week we have not heard a single word from the Leader of the Opposition about this.
The reality is that the union movement—particularly in New South Wales, led by Mr Robertson—which has this implacable hatred of individual contracts in Australia, demanded of the Leader of the Opposition that he go to their conference and say that he will rip up AWAs. Cheered on by the comrades in the Sydney Town Hall, he thought this would be a popular move that the rest of Australia would congratulate him on. And they did not. The business community of Australia immediately said, ‘This will take Australia backwards.’ The editorial writers in Australia came out and said that this would take Australia backwards. No wonder there was a headline in the Australian on Thursday of last week: ‘Beazley another Latham: business’. What is the illusion? The troops out by Christmas, and AWAs out by Christmas. It was a foolish statement by the former Leader of the Opposition and an equally foolish one on these matters by this Leader of the Opposition.
The OECD report paints a favourable picture of Australia. It paints a picture similar to that which the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, painted on his visit to Canberra about a week ago. He said:
... Australia has taken important steps to become more flexible and at the same time keep its safety net structures, but this is an on-going movement, the world is changing, competition is shifting and labour laws have to reflect that fact.
… … …
... the labour laws, of not only the 1970s, but even the 1990s, are probably not the ones we need in the 21st century.
That was the Managing Director of the IMF commenting on changes in labour laws in Australia, saying that, let alone going back to the 1970s, which is what the Leader of the Opposition is promising to do, even the labour laws of 10 years ago are not going to drive an economy like Australia’s in this century. This is the great divide in Australian politics at the present time. There is a government that is prepared to tackle the challenges of the future in Australia. That is what this government is prepared to do and that is the record of the last 10 years.
Preparedness and courage to tackle the future are not necessarily isolated to one side of politics or the other. Indeed, I think it is a fair concession to make that the Labor Party under Mr Hawke was prepared to tackle some of the challenges that Australia faced during the 1980s. This side of politics largely supported the then Labor government to tackle the challenges facing Australia. That stands in marked contrast to almost every reform that has been advanced by this government over the last 10 years, where we have seen implacable opposition from the Australian Labor Party to measures that will meet the challenges of Australia’s future. Industrial relations is just one more example of that today.
No wonder, according to media reports this morning, the Leader of the Opposition suggested to his comrades in caucus that Labor MPs should stop reading the opinion pages and start reading the letters pages. There are two things which are important about that. I know he does not want anybody to read the opinion pages because we have seen these sorts of headlines: the Daily Telegraph, ‘Sop to the unions’; the Australian, ‘Beazley bombs as economic manager’; a similar one from the Australian; the Advertiser in Adelaide, ‘Beazley fires wide of a sitting duck’; the West Australian, ‘Beazley plans return to an unwanted past’; the Herald Sun in Melbourne, ‘Beazley steps backwards’; and Gerard Henderson in the Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Beazley ties his future to the unions’. Probably the most apt one of all was in the Sydney Morning Herald editorial itself on Tuesday of last week, ‘Beazley’s real agenda: his job’.
So I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition would not want his colleagues in the Labor Party to be reading the opinion pages of the papers. He would not even want them to be reading the news pages today, because in the Australian, for example, there is the headline ‘Beazley’s gamble puts Labor behind’. Here is another one: ‘Workers lose $27 a week’. This refers to the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition. Another headline in the papers today reads ‘Beazley tears up his own contract’. This shows that Australians understand that the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to have the courage to stand up for the future of Australia.
I also note why he wants them to read the letters pages rather than the opinion pages. The ACTU on its website has a media guide. It talks about writing letters to the editors of newspapers and jamming the phone lines of radio talkback and the like. Indeed, in one campaign, which involved emails, something like half the emails had actually come from people overseas and not in Australia. So this orchestrated campaign from the union movement is what he wants rather than some objective assessment of his foolish policy to rip up AWAs and to rip up the changes that Australians are enjoying at the present time.
The reality is that these changes over the last 10 years have been good for Australia. They have driven down unemployment. But the reality is also that there are still many hundreds of thousands of Australians who do not have a job, and I for one believe that we ought to create the conditions under which as many Australians as possible can get a job. That is what we are on about on this side of the House—not putting up the white flag, as the Leader of the Opposition has done in the past, and not surrendering to the union heavies at Sussex Street in Sydney who want to dictate policy to him. He needs to have the courage to do what Tony Blair did, and that was to stand up to the union movement and say, ‘These changes are good, because they are good for the ordinary men and women of this country.’ Had the Leader of the Opposition done that last weekend he would be in a significantly different position today from that which he is in with all the condemnation of his backflip over the last week.
48
16:04:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—It is all very well for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to read out headlines of papers. I have a headline that I would like to share with the House: ‘Wage cuts won’t boost jobs’. That was in today’s Age in an article by a leading economist, Tim Colebatch, which clearly shows that the OECD report that has just been released indicates that you do not have to go the low road to ensure economic prosperity. Indeed, the minister has already conceded that previous Labor governments were able to make the hard decisions and structural change—sometimes very difficult structural change—but the difference between those administrations and this government is that we did not inflict pain upon ordinary working families the way this government seeks to do.
The fundamental difference between the way in which previous Labor governments went about changing this economy—and let us not forget when you talk about changing the economy that it was Labor governments that fundamentally modernised this economy to ensure that Australians benefited from those changes—and this government is that those governments did not, as this government has, choose that ordinary working families would suffer. That is the result of these laws. The Work Choices legislation in effect is driving down wages and conditions of employment. We say to the government: go about change in a way which will ensure that ordinary working families will not be worse off. That has been clearly enunciated by the OECD report. There is a myth that you have to deregulate, that you have to have effectively a laissez-faire economy without any employment protection if we are going to prosper. Of course, the OECD report refutes that. In effect, the OECD has concluded that, when comparing a country and an economy that provides employment protections, encourages collective bargaining and spends on training, it is clear that such a country could yield an equally successful employment outcome.
So it is not the case that you have to choose the low road. Indeed, there are many countries that are comparable to ours in terms of their economy and standards of living that have chosen the high road. They have chosen to spend, for example, a greater proportion of their GDP on training and have been encouraging collective bargaining, encouraging protection to be afforded to employees and providing assistance to people who are out of the workforce, for whatever reason, enabling them to go back in and participate in the workforce.
This government has chosen to go the low road for a variety of reasons. One is that the Prime Minister has had an obsession about smashing unions. I hate to think that a government of this great country has chosen to put, in terms of public policy, its hostility towards employee organisations ahead of the prosperity of ordinary working families, but it has chosen to do that. The OECD has clearly illustrated that it is not necessary to deregulate, to remove employment protections, to remove all unfair dismissal laws in order to provide for a prosperous nation.
I will make some comparisons. For example, the government likes to boast that it has a low unemployment rate. We welcome the reduction in unemployment and always will. We welcomed it when the Hawke-Keating period ensured that the double-digit inflation and the double-digit unemployment of the Howard-Fraser years was turned around. But we turned that around without going down this low-road path and without inflicting pain on ordinary working Australians.
The OECD report does indicate that the unemployment level of this country is 4.9 per cent, which does not place us at the top of the rankings—in fact, it places us in the middle of the rankings of wealthy nations. If we were to compare ourselves to Iceland, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway, we would find ourselves far worse off in terms of unemployment levels. Those countries, which have levels of regulation and employment protections in their industrial relations systems, have far lower unemployment levels than this country.
It is not about us going down the road the government chooses. It is not for us to undertake an Americanisation of our system. Nor is it for us to go down the Scandinavian road. What we should be doing when we are looking at creating a system that will provide sufficient flexibility and ensure productivity improvements is looking at a system that is not going to divide this nation, that is not going to make the majority of employees worse off as a result of the changes. Bringing people along with us is critical—making sure that people in the main are winners, not losers. But this government, by introducing the Work Choices legislation, has chosen the low road, has chosen a road that will hurt ordinary workers. That is a great tragedy.
When we were going around the country, the industrial relations task force visited 20 electorates. We spoke to church groups, community groups, workers, employers and many other representative bodies. What we did not hear was: ‘Yes, you should cut wages or remove protections for employees in order to find ways to improve the economic growth of the nation.’ In fact, we heard amongst small businesses a concern that the government had gone too far. We have heard again today that small businesses are not supporting the government’s Work Choices laws, in the main. There may well be a few people out there who are supporting them, but I have not seen too many small businesses get up publicly and say that they love these new laws. I have heard them say that they find them prescriptive, that the ministerial capacity to intervene between the parties is unprecedented and that the laws are cumbersome and complex—1,200 pages of laws is supposed to be simplifying the system, is it? That is not what we are hearing when we speak to small businesses, including, for example, a manager at a Hertz rental car company in Launceston, in the seat of Bass in Tasmania. He expressed fears that the legislation was out of step with basic Australian values. He told us in February this year:
We are supposed to be a society and an Australian society is supposed to have a reputation of being egalitarian and a fairly evenly divided society. We have travelled overseas and we have seen the gap between rich and poor, abject poverty and absolute wealth.
That was a concern expressed by a small business operator who thought that the way in which this government is choosing to go is in fact dividing this nation between the haves and have nots—not bringing people along with it or ensuring that the growth being produced is being shared widely. Clearly, that has not been the case. If it were the case, we would not hear such criticisms.
The government therefore really has failed to embrace the path that the Hawke-Keating government chose to go down when reforming the economy. Yes, there were some hard decisions made by those administrations. In fact, they deserve great credit in fundamentally altering this society in order to ensure that we had a modern economy and that there were flexibilities in place to ensure growth. But they placed protections in the system. We devolved from central wage fixing into enterprise bargaining, but we did so in a way that would not allow employees to be worse off as a result of that devolution. So we did modernise the industrial relations system, we actually broke the back of the double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment that occurred under the Howard-Fraser years. But we chose to protect people along the way.
Unfortunately, this government have sought to go after employees. It may well be purely through their hatred of unions that they have allowed the most vulnerable in our community to be the target of this legislation, but in the end the Australian people will not forget. They know exactly what has gone on here. They know that Work Choices provides no choice at all for them. They are aware that their conditions of employment are vulnerable. Effectively, now, with the removal of unfair dismissal laws, more than half the workforce of this nation is precariously employed. We had a quarter of the workforce that was casualised. By changing the laws for those employees working for companies with fewer than 100 employees we have effectively ensured that over half the workforce is precariously employed—and that is just not on. That is an absolute disgrace and a tragedy. (Time expired)
51
16:14:00
Tollner, David, MP
00AN4
Solomon
CLP
1
0
Mr TOLLNER
—Like many people in this place, I suppose, prior to coming here I had a long association with the trade union movement in Australia. I worked for 10 years with an industry superannuation fund, and thank goodness the days when they called industry super funds ‘union funds’ are gone. Whilst I was with that fund, for almost a decade I was a paid-up and card-carrying member of the Finance Sector Union of Australia. Like many people, I have seen the bad side of unionism. I have seen some terrible things happening—people going out on strikes and eventually losing jobs and industries being shut down—but I have also seen the good side of unionism and people genuinely committed to the worker and to trying to find them a better outcome in their place of employment. I have also worked for wages. I have been on the end of a crowbar and a shovel. I have mustered cattle. I have ploughed paddocks. I have laid tiles and cleaned concrete formwork in the construction industry. I have also been self-employed. I sold welding alloys for a long time in western Queensland and some parts of Victoria. I have been self-employed selling advertising space and insurance and investment products. I have been a company director. And I have done a whole range of other jobs.
I do not think that makes me unique on this side of the House. On this side of the House we have people who have served in a wide range of occupations—in sales and as aircraft pilots, physicists, doctors, lawyers and economists. You name it; pretty well every occupation is covered by members on this side of the House. When you have a look at the other side of the House, you see that it is comprised mainly of hacks. There are 88 caucus members. Of those 88 caucus members, there are 41 former union officials, 34 former political staffers, six former union lawyers, nine former state parliamentarians and six to whom I refer as Labor royalty. You have to ask, when you see this matter of public importance and how it is being debated, what the people who have proposed this debate actually know about it. I looked at what the OECD says about Australia’s new workplace relations system. The OECD has been a strong supporter of the government’s workplace reforms for quite some time. The OECD’s Economic survey of Australia 2004 said:
To further encourage participation and favour employment, the industrial relations system also needs to be reformed so as to increase the flexibility of the labour market, reduce employment transactions costs and achieve a closer link between wages and productivity. Regulatory requirements for collective and for individual agreements should be eased so that they can replace awards.
The IMF has also been a very strong supporter of the government’s reform program. In their Staff report for the 2005 article IV consultation on Australia, prior to the introduction of these reforms, the IMF stated:
There is now an exceptional opportunity to implement further reforms to sustain and improve Australia’s strong economic performance. In particular, employment and productivity can be improved by implementing proposed reforms of labor markets and welfare policies.
Sharan Burrow, the President of the ACTU wrote to the IMF. In October last year, David Burton, the Director of the Asia and Pacific Department of the IMF, responded to her letter. He said:
... IMF staff recognized that Australia has already made substantial progress towards a more flexible labor market. As noted in the staff report, this improvement in flexibility, supported by increased competition in goods markets and other structural reforms, has been an important contributor to Australia’s excellent record of job creation and productivity growth during the past 14 years.
Having said that, you have to wonder what is driving the Australian Labor Party and why the Labor Party and their union allies have been running around for the last few months predicting the end of civilisation as a result of the Work Choices legislation. We heard that the sky was going to fall in. We heard that women and children were going to be murdered, that there would be more divorces, class warfare, lower fertility rates and no more weekend barbeques. Almost two months into the operation of Work Choices, this doomsaying from the Labor Party has been exposed for what it is—pure and utter hysteria. Criticisms of Work Choices by the Labor Party and the union movement are more about the fear of union bosses of losing their privileged status than they are about the confected outrage over rights at work that we have seen recently.
Mr Beazley has in the last week or so decided to turn his attack on Australian workplace agreements. Almost one million Australians have entered into AWAs since 1996, and Mr Beazley wants to deny them the chance to have their say on their working conditions so that he can keep sweet with unions.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Solomon will refer to members by their seat or their title.
00AN4
Tollner, David, MP
Mr TOLLNER
—I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker; I meant to say the Leader of the Opposition. John Robertson, the leader of Unions NSW, gave us a hint on what it is that Mr Beazley is looking to do in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald weekend edition of 10 and 11 June, in which he said:
The big-ticket item is to keep the ALP standing firm on abolishing Australian workplace agreements—something some of the mates in Canberra are agitating to water down. It’s unbelievable—finally we have an issue that connects with the labour heartland and these geniuses want to finesse the message. Just say no!
I think most people would have heard by now that employees on AWAs earn an average of 13 per cent more than those employees covered by certified agreements, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Leader of the Opposition’s plan to abolish AWAs flies in the face of the flexibility that we need in the labour market in the 21st century. The fact is that Western democracies with the lowest levels of unemployment—such as Australia, the UK and New Zealand—have deregulated their labour markets. Those places where there are highly regulated markets—such as France, Germany and Spain—also lead in high levels of unemployment.
Where I come from, the Northern Territory, it is pretty common knowledge that we have some fairly high wages. And it is no coincidence that, in the Northern Territory, there are some 13,366 workplace agreements already in place. In my electorate of Solomon alone there are 8,082 workplace agreements. There are 5,284 workplace agreements in the electorate of Lingiari. That is an extraordinarily high proportion of the working population—more so, I suppose, than in any other state or territory in Australia. As I say, it is no coincidence that wages in the Territory, on average, are higher. That is being driven, obviously, by AWAs.
AWAs allow employees to be more flexible with their employers. They deliver better benefits. But all this is being jeopardised by the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition. As I said yesterday, in speaking about the Aboriginal land rights act, some people in the Labor Party see it as in their interests to keep Aboriginal people subservient. I think the same attitude applies here where they want to keep the workers subservient. They want to have a Communist enclave in the workplace. They want workplaces to be highly regulated, and that is not the view of this government. (Time expired)
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The discussion has concluded.
AVIATION TRANSPORT SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL 2006
53
Bills
R2530
Referred to Main Committee
53
Mr BARTLETT
(Macquarie)
16:25:00
—by leave—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2006-2007
53
Bills
R2551
Report from Main Committee
53
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
53
FRAN BAILEY
(McEwen
—Minister for Small Business and Tourism)
16:26:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2006-2007
53
Bills
R2550
Report from Main Committee
53
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
53
FRAN BAILEY
(McEwen
—Minister for Small Business and Tourism)
16:27:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2006-2007
53
Bills
R2549
Report from Main Committee
53
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
53
FRAN BAILEY
(McEwen
—Minister for Small Business and Tourism)
16:28:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 5) 2005-2006
54
Bills
R2548
Report from Main Committee
54
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
54
FRAN BAILEY
(McEwen
—Minister for Small Business and Tourism)
16:28:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 6) 2005-2006
54
Bills
R2547
Report from Main Committee
54
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
54
FRAN BAILEY
(McEwen
—Minister for Small Business and Tourism)
16:29:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (FUEL TAX REFORM AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
54
Bills
R2553
CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (FUEL TAX REFORM AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
54
Bills
R2555
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (FUEL TAX REFORM AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
54
Bills
R2554
Returned from the Senate
54
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
EXCISE LAWS AMENDMENT (FUEL TAX REFORM AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
54
Bills
R2552
Consideration of Senate Message
54
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting.
RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECTRICITY) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
54
Bills
R2512
Second Reading
54
Debate resumed.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To that, the honourable member for Grayndler has moved that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
54
16:31:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
1
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—I welcome the opportunity to conclude my presentation on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006. As I said, amongst the benefits of the changes brought about by this amendment, more householders will be able to participate in the scheme through changes that allow more eligible solar hot-water heaters—and I think that move should be universally welcomed. Under the scheme, accredited renewable energy generators can create one tradeable renewable energy certificate for each megawatt hour of energy they produce. The measure creates an incentive for electricity retailers and large users to purchase these certificates and surrender them to demonstrate their compliance.
According to the second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the government’s projections are aimed at achieving 9,500 gigawatt-hour targets, which would bring the renewable share of electricity consumption in 2010 to around 11 per cent. This would result in carbon dioxide equivalent abatement of about 6.6 million tonnes per annum or about 10 per cent of the current projected abatement for the Kyoto commitment period 2008-12. As I said earlier, there have been several reviews in relation to renewable energy. The 2003 review of the act made recommendations to enhance market transparency and to improve business certainty. As a result of that review, the government also agreed to increase opportunities for bioenergy and solar technologies, encouraging greater innovation.
Concerns have been raised about driving renewable energy expertise away from Australia due to these changes. However, I believe that the government has a very delicate balancing act to perform—that is, establishing an effective mandated renewable energy target without creating distortions in the market and ensuring that incentives are targeted to the most appropriate forms of renewable energy development.
The bill, I think, reflects the majority of the recommendations of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, providing a package of amendments that will improve the operation of the mandatory renewable energy targets. The changes are a result of expensive consultations, which have gone on since 2002, and an independent review in 2003. I think the government is demonstrating that it is committed to making sure that it is approaching the energy environment issue in a multifaceted way, as any responsible government ought to. (Quorum formed)
I was interested in the previous speaker, the member for Batman, who talked about the importance of building design and energy efficiency. On those issues, I agree with him. I think, though, that what we must realise is that, certainly in building design and energy efficiency, state governments have a very important role to play, and I think that some responsibility must be sheeted home to state governments to make sure that the architecture and the design concepts of buildings within their jurisdictions and within the local government jurisdictions are rightly overseen by them.
In summary, this government has taken a number of very important measures. As I said before, the first is the establishment of the Australian Greenhouse Office; the second, which is the subject of this bill, is the introduction of mandated renewable energy targets; and the third is the initiation of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. In conclusion, the AP6 partners cover most of the world’s manufacturing capacity for electrical appliances, from light bulbs to air conditioners and televisions. Energy efficiency improvements of these appliances made by the AP6 partner countries can drive rapid global improvements in energy efficiency. They are improvements that will reduce energy demands and costs and associated greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. I remind the House that, as a key negotiator at the Montreal meeting, Australia played a very important role in forging this new international collaboration.
The AP6 is a model of cooperation and practical action involving both developed and developing countries as equal partners that will play a major role in helping the world find a solution to human induced climate change. I think the bill before us today makes some sensible amendments, gives some flexibility and reflects the concerns of a very good Senate majority report and recommendations. I commend the bill to the House.
56
16:39:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
0
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I rise to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006. This bill is in place of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002, which was amended some 3½ years ago beyond the government’s tolerance and subsequently allowed to lapse. This bill consists of amendments to the act of 2000, but regrettably and most substantially it is an indication of how the government can take five years of evidence of their 10-year program for supposedly promoting the production of electricity through use of renewable energy and then mock it. This program, purportedly encouraging the production of electricity through use of renewable energy, runs from 2001 to 2010. After five years of operation, halfway through the time frame, the content of this amendment provides plenty of evidence of the government’s negative attitude towards environmentalism generally and renewable energy specifically.
The Prime Minister’s 1997 statement, Safeguarding the Future: Australia’s Response to Climate Change, said in part:
Electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers will be legally required to source an additional 2% of their electricity from renewable or specified waste-product energy sources by the year 2010.
This target of a two per cent increase in the proportion of electricity generated from renewable energy would have meant a total of 12.7 per cent of 2010 production. Let us see how this original promotion is going.
At the time of the Prime Minister’s 1997 announcement, the proportion of renewable energy production was approximately 9.6 per cent through hydro schemes and an estimated 1.1 per cent through other methods, including solar hot-water systems. By the year 2001, at the start of the operation of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act, the proportion of electricity produced by renewable means appears to have fallen. Hydro schemes’ proportion of electricity generated had decreased from 9.6 per cent in 1997 to 8.1 per cent in 2001. In 2001, 12.7 per cent of production would have been 25,245 gigawatt hours and, in 2004, would have given us a target of 27,045 gigawatt hours. It is anticipated that 12.7 per cent of production in the year 2010 will be approximately 31,115 gigawatt hours and 37,465 gigawatt hours in 2015.
The government’s promotion of renewable energy for electricity generation was regrettably changed from the original growth target of 12.7 per cent to a static target, an increase of 9,500 gigawatt hours over what was produced at that time. This would mean an annual renewable output of around 25,500 gigawatt hours. The government is happy for industry to produce at the end of the 10-year promotion a total of 25,500 gigawatt hours. This is likely to be only 10.4 per cent of electricity production in 2010, an actual decrease in the proportion of electricity generated by renewable means from the original baseline proportion of 10.7 per cent in 1997.
The government is happy for its promotion of renewable energy to call for a decrease in the proportion of electricity generated by renewable means. That is some promotion. The government is also happy for the required amount to remain static throughout the next decade, with no required increase of renewable energy production over the current 9,500 gigawatt hour increase. This will result in a renewable energy target—if one can call it that—of 25,500 gigawatt hours in 2020. In the year 2015, it is expected that the target will deliver 8.6 per cent of total electricity generated, a decrease of 20 per cent of the 1997 baseline. Industry will meet the target—it is not hard to catch a dead rabbit—but that is hardly the point.
In 2002 it was predicted by the Business Council for Sustainable Energy that by 2010 we would only just be maintaining the proportion of renewable energy generated in 1996-97. The government appears to have lowered expectations, and probably future outcomes, thereby evidently realising its objective. What is worse than having a static target for 10 years of this promotion’s operation is having absolutely no expectation of growth in the subsequent 10 years of promotion from 2010 to 2020.
The government is confirming in this amendment bill that it has absolutely no expectation of industry to increase the proportion of power generated by use of renewable energy over its 1997 level. The government’s own white paper from 2004, Securing Australia’s energy future, identifies that demand for electricity will increase from 2004 levels by 50 per cent by 2020. The government knows its static target is effectively meaningless. The white paper also anticipates at least $37 billion in energy investments by 2020 to meet demand—investments that will be productive for 50-odd years, investments that this government is apparently quite happy to see ploughed into brown coal power generation, or similar, instead of any number of renewable technologies.
Limiting the target to the static 9,500 gigawatt hours this decade, and maintaining exactly the same quantity of electricity generation throughout the next decade, purposefully neutering the incentive to invest in renewable energy will, one can presume, lead to the opportunity created by mandatory renewable energy targets being squandered. The change from a growth target of 12.7 per cent of production to a static increase of 9,500 gigawatt hours after 20 years is an example of the billboard policy. A mandatory renewable energy target: it sounds great, it looks great up there in lights, and the government can say it is the first of its kind in the world. But it will also inevitably be the worst. Put a name like ‘mandatory renewable energy target’ on a billboard, authorise and print it, and forget about actually achieving anything. It is misrepresentation, nothing more, and it is such a waste of the opportunity given to this government by the Australian people.
This renewable energy promotional strategy is farcical. The government knows this. The government can only have designed the promotion strategy with this outcome in mind. How can anyone say that it is changing a growth target to a static target in terms of gigawatt hours, and pretend it is doing anything but pulling its head out of the harness it created for itself in 1997? Nevertheless, there may be some incredibly bright people pursuing substantial change regardless of the government’s target. I have heard of some examples. I have heard of some CSIRO scientists and the Queensland Centre for Advanced Technology producing solar turbine technology, which they think can store and produce power on a continual basis, overcoming the unreliability of solar and wind energy.
They believe it could replace coal-fired power stations in 20 years, which sounds miraculous, but apparently they cannot get sufficient financial backing within this country. I wonder why? According to a recent article, Queensland sustainable energy management consultant Mr Guy Lane has said that it has failed to generate interest among Australian investors, because they are more comfortable with traditional energy sources. Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy Executive Director, Ric Brazzale, said one of the biggest barriers was the lack of political support. I would be keen to receive any background the Minister for the Environment and Heritage or fellow members may have on this project, and whether or not it is worthy of Australian investment. The article may sound far-fetched. It was by Ian Gerard of the highly reputable daily the Australian on 2 February this year.
I would like to acknowledge the leadership demonstrated by the Australian business roundtable on climate change. This group has members including BP Australia, Insurance Australia Group, Origin Energy, Swiss Re insurance, Visy Industries and Westpac. The roundtable commissioned CSIRO to quantify expected impacts of climate change on Australia, and commissioned Allen Consulting Group to assess the costs of substantially reducing our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, both in acting toward this end sooner, and the costs anticipated if we act later.
The outcome of this research was that substantial reductions could be realised at an affordable cost by acting sooner. The longer changes take to be implemented and realised, the greater the increases in costs to business and the Australian economy at large. The government’s response toward such groups’ contributions will no doubt be one of indifference at best. The response of some government agencies and members of the public is more encouraging. For example, a constituent of the Hindmarsh electorate came in to see me recently. He is a firefighter and a really terrific bloke who has spent $20,000-odd of his own money, and thousands of dollars in rebates, installing a photovoltaic system in his home, courtesy of the Australian Greenhouse Office.
Photovoltaic means electricity from light. Such a system uses daylight to power ordinary electrical equipment such as refrigerators and lights. It is quite different, I understand, to the commonplace solar thermal technology used to heat water. The Photovoltaic Rebate Program commenced in January 2000 and offers a cash rebate of $4 per peak watt, capped at $4,000 per residential system and per school or community building system. This program was extended a year ago although, unfortunately, it is to be phased out in June 2007. It is unfortunate that such initiatives will not remain in place and available to greater numbers of Australian households who may become aware and convinced of such a scheme’s merits over time.
It is also unfortunate that the federal government’s interest is probably even lower in terms of carbon trading. It seems the government is saying: ‘It’s better to sit back and wait to see if everyone else will do it, making it inevitable globally. Europe may have started, but it is early days and results are mixed. There’s no rush; let’s wait and see.’ In contrast to this approach, New South Wales have developed their own scheme. In February 2005 New South Wales Forests was fully accredited as an abatement certificate provider under rule 5—that is, carbon sequestration of the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme. As a result, New South Wales Forests now has authorisation to create, register and trade New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates.
New South Wales continues to be a pioneer in introducing carbon dioxide emissions trading and exploring methods to use forests for greenhouse-friendly products. The first carbon trades in Australia involved state forests of New South Wales working with Pacific Power and Delta Electricity. A subsequent carbon sink investment project has been announced with the Tokyo Electric Power Company. New South Wales Forests is developing a complete account of the carbon uptake and storage in relevant parts of its plantation estate, and is working to develop carbon accounting tools that could be applied throughout New South Wales, including in privately planted forests. So it is an exciting new era for those who grow forests. Now when we create a healthy forest, we not only receive a return for the wood products being grown, but may also benefit from trading in carbon credits.
The apparent view of New South Wales is quite distinct from that of the federal government. New South Wales holds the view that, although international trading systems for carbon dioxide emissions are still being developed and there is apparently no prospect of a national trading scheme while we have this federal government, there is growing recognition that Australia needs to act now to expand its planted forests and build a base that will make a real impact on the greenhouse issue. Everyone in this country bar the federal government is, I understand, in favour of a national carbon-trading system. I look forward to people such as the Premier of South Australia, Mr Mike Rann, leading the way, with NSW obviously at the cutting edge. I also look forward to the reforestation of—in some cases—increasingly degraded parts of South Australia, the creation of carbon sinks and the improvement that that will promote in the quality of the land.
We have recently heard that, within South Australia, a new $236 million, 45 wind turbine investment by AGL will not only make the Flinders Ranges wind farm the biggest in the nation but increase renewable electricity to 15 per cent of total state production. So what have the Rann Labor government done? They have increased their target for renewable energy from 15 per cent of total electricity production to 20 per cent within 10 years. It is quite remarkable to see the difference between Labor and coalition governments, to feel the enthusiasm for the growth of the renewable energy sector, on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, to reflect on the federal government amendment bill currently before the House.
59
16:54:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
1
0
Mr TUCKEY
—The member for Hindmarsh made some quite interesting comments in his speech. He talked of an acquaintance who has put in a photovoltaic array to supply electricity to his home, and he said that that was ‘electricity for life’. He should know that included in that package, which is extremely expensive for the amount of electricity that is provided, would be a significant bank of batteries which must be recharged during daylight hours, hopefully on bright, sunny days, and that they have quite a limited life. So the photovoltaics on the roof are a good idea—and I might mention later how they could be better utilised—but unfortunately they are not ‘electricity for life’.
It is interesting that the member for Hindmarsh talked about products of New South Wales Forests. Why they have not been charged with fraud, with their carbon credits scheme, I do not know. But I just happen to recollect one of their wildfires burning into Canberra and burning out 400 houses. Who are they paying back for all those carbon emissions that their benign neglect of their forests created? I note that they are selling carbon credits and, as the member for Hindmarsh said, also getting a return for their wood products. When they cut the tree down, do they pay back the carbon credit? Obviously, part of that tree is going to be destroyed. Certainly, with a little bit of luck, some of it will be retained, and the sequestered carbon might be utilised in a home and stay there. The offcuts will be burnt, and they will emit carbon dioxide. So it is pretty interesting.
It is a pity that the member for Hindmarsh has left, because I thought this was the ripper. He has given Labor Premier Mike Rann a big lift. I read in the paper that Labor Premier Mike Rann the other day participated with his minister in releasing all these balloons filled with some lighter-than-air gas, probably helium or hydrogen, to demonstrate to all the householders how much CO2 they were emitting each day. I guess that is a pretty good media stunt, and I hope that the rubber did not pollute somewhere when the balloons eventually burst. But the reality is that the entire residential sector of Australia uses 13 per cent of our energy. To be quite honest, I think there are better ways of addressing greenhouse emissions than by starting with the 13 per cent—when, for instance, transport uses 50 per cent of all the energy consumed in Australia. I will take the opportunity to speak a little more about that in due course.
It is similar to the speech of the member for Grayndler, which I have had the opportunity to read. He went on to say that, by not extending the MRET in the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006, the government is endangering regional jobs. When we refer to the second reading speech relevant to this legislation, we learn for a start what MRET is. The MRET, which is Australia’s mandatory renewable energy target, came into operation in 2001. It is set at a percentage, which is two per cent. Obviously the member for Grayndler thought that possibly we should increase that. The reality is that energy consumption in Australia and energy generation is increasing as our population increases and, might I add, as our workforce increases. (Quorum formed)
The reality of all of these matters is that, as described in the second reading speech:
MRET uses a market based approach to drive higher renewable energy uptake. Renewable energy generators accredited under the measure may create one tradeable renewable energy certificate for each megawatt hour of energy they produce.
In other words, we have a system which grows not by increasing the percentage amount that is identified but by the fact that it has to reach 16,000 gigawatt-hours by 2020.
It is interesting that the member for Hindmarsh also said that the South Australian government—he lives in South Australia—is going to create another great big wind farm. Of course, these certificates are available for wind generation, and that is clearly a renewable resource. I refer to the parliamentary secretary’s second reading speech, in which he said:
To help address this issue the bill provides a process for granting provisional accreditation from the renewable energy regulator at the pre-commissioning stage.
That is, of the installation of a renewable energy facility. But I am very interested to know: what exactly is the number of renewable certificates based on? Is it based on the actual amount of energy generated or the energy capacity of each generator? They are two entirely different things.
Just how much of that energy is generated when nobody wants it? There are a few factors known about the wind. There has been many a song written about the variations of the wind, connecting it to the variability of love and all these sorts of things. This variability is a known factor. Another one which always strikes me is that the wind often blows strongest just as the sun goes down. So what are we doing with that energy at that time? The Labor Party would say that it is all being used by the slave labourers employed in all our factories who work all night and on Saturday and Sunday. When I drive through industrial areas, there seems to be a tremendous amount of darkness about those particular facilities.
So we have a lot of power being generated by the wind when we do not need it. That is not necessarily to say that we should not have wind generation, but the House has heard me say, particularly as it applies to remote areas, that that surplus energy might be converted by the simple process of electrolysis into hydrogen. In a remote area, if you have 1,000 kilowatts of wind generation capacity on the top of the tower, you have to have 1,000 kilowatts of diesel generation sitting at the bottom and ticking over. It has to be ready to handle any of the fluctuations.
There was an article in the Australian recently on one of the big set-ups in New Zealand producing 150 megawatts—that is about half as big as a typical coal fired power station—and it was experiencing 100 megawatts of variation in energy generation over five-minute intervals. The New Zealanders were actually more worried about when the generation went up than when it went down, because it was frying everybody’s computers. You cannot have a grid system with those sorts of variations. What happens when you have a coal fired base load? You have to keep burning the same amount of coal as you did before the wind farm was there simply to fill the gaps. They always keep turning because they have to turn at a constant speed, but they do not always generate the same amount of electricity. Their fans adjust.
The BMW company have motorcars now with reciprocating motors that run on hydrogen. They have just done a deal with Total to start installing hydrogen service stations.
JH5
George, Jennie, MP
Ms George
—What about the buses in Perth?
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—We have those too, and they run on fuel cells, which is a little more complex at this stage of development. These are motors just like those you would see in any other car but their fuel is hydrogen and their fuel tanks can be refilled in three minutes. You have to go there. But why aren’t we—and why isn’t Premier Rann, Premier Iemma or anybody else—looking to these people—
JH5
George, Jennie, MP
Ms George
—Why isn’t the Prime Minister?
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—well, we will come to that—and saying, ‘For goodness sake, put these things to some practical use, but don’t try and kid us that those renewable energy certificates are genuinely reducing greenhouse gases if, back at the coal fired power station, we’re still burning as much coal because they are not a responsive operation’? You just cannot. If you have a back-up of hydropower or something like that, you can feed it in with very short response times. But, if you are burning coal and you have big steam generators and things of that nature, you cannot do it.
I have a situation in my own electorate with 650 kilowatts up the tower and 700 kilowatts of diesel gensets on the bottom. Our government, quite properly, according to its principles, is providing another $1 million to put up a second tower. I have asked the minister to put the $1 million into hydrogen generation and then run those supporting diesels on hydrogen. Then we would have a renewable power package. But in the last two days Woodside, a great Australian company, has been here telling us about its prospects and, consequently, Australia’s prospects in the export of liquefied natural gas. Natural gas is a lower level polluter per unit of energy than coal, but it is still a hydrocarbon and it still emits carbon gases. Woodside tells us of its Browse resource, which it says is as big as the North West Shelf. It wants to develop entirely offshore a virtual floating liquefaction platform—which I hope it can put on land—north-west of Broome. Broome is the commencement of the great tidal resource of the Kimberleys, a resource with the generating capacity of all the energy consumed in Australia today of whatever variety.
The interesting thing is that these people want 900 megawatts of electricity to run this facility when they put it together. To the best of my knowledge, that is 1½ times the biggest coal fired power station in Australia. How do they intend to run it? Suck the gas straight out of the ground, burn it through gas turbines and generate all this electricity with a high level of emission—and I would think a pretty serious level of consumption—of natural gas that we could otherwise be liquefying and selling to someone in some part of the world, which is the best financial return for the product.
Isn’t it better—and maybe the opposition wants to take the lead on this—that the government start looking at some of its expenditure for the purpose of building that power station on the tides? All the problems of wind do not apply to tidal energy, simply because it is predictable. Yes, it is cyclical but it is predictable, and when something is predictable it is manageable. You can use pump storage, something that is used in the Snowy, and you can do all sorts of other things to even out the load so that you can keep it, basically. But, all of a sudden, we have the foundation for a tidal energy system. I call it greenhouse with grunt, because there is a huge capacity, it is a manageable, renewable source and, as long as the moon keeps going around the earth, it will be there. That cannot be said of gas and, I guess, to a degree it cannot even be said of hot rocks—although I think hot rocks are a renewable resource that responds to many of these things.
Kyoto has been mentioned by the member for Grayndler. A piece of paper has never fixed anything and I think we should never have signed that protocol. That is not the solution. I welcome the government’s initiative to rope India, China and the United States into a single confrontation of this problem. We could be a supplier of liquid hydrogen to the world. The member for Throsby mentioned those three buses driving around Perth. They are 300 kilowatts, the size of a tractor. Taking the reference of the member for Hindmarsh to photovoltaics, put them on a farm in sufficient size and they might take up half an acre in space—but not a thousand acres to grow the fuel necessary to create biodiesel or something. If you have that there, you could be electrolysing your pesky groundwater and pump-storing hydrogen in a movable electricity generator—the same as sits on the roof of these buses—that could sit in the tractor when you were using it or in the head of the harvester when you were using that or maybe just towed behind.
These are the options when we turn to hydrogen. But outside the environmental issues—and there are people who look you straight in the eye and say ‘The emission problem is not even true’—if we want to fix the price of petrol or the price of private transport, why would we not go to the manufacture of hydrogen as the fuel of mobility? As a response to that, we have a wonderful situation because we would be producing it within Australia using the tides of the Kimberleys and we would be in a position to make sure that petrol prices as we know them—if you like, the price of running a motor car—would not be volatile and would not be dependent on the resources of other countries, particularly those that are a bit more volatile.
If we were to focus on hydrogen as the fuel of the future, we have every renewable energy source available for its manufacture but, more particularly, the tides of the Kimberleys where we have the energy to do the lot. We have the opportunity, if government were a partner, to get a 900- or, let us say, a 1,000 megawatt—that is as big, by the way, as a nuclear power station—built in the Kimberleys on truly renewable power. That is a challenge—that is not easy—but that is the sort of thing I would like to see happen. I would like to think, when the member for Throsby gets up, that she would say, ‘What a great idea, and why aren’t we doing it?’ If the Labor Party want to take the lead on an issue like this, instead of telling us we should have ratified Kyoto, I think we might get a deal—and something that might be of great assistance to the Australian people. (Time expired)
63
17:14:00
George, Jennie, MP
JH5
Throsby
ALP
0
0
Ms GEORGE
—It is always interesting following the member for O’Connor. I must compliment him on this occasion for a range of very constructive suggestions that he has added to the debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006, particularly in terms of a hydrogen future which many nations will face a little way down the track. I just say to the member for O’Connor how disappointed I am that his constructive ideas do not seem to register in the corridors of power in his government. I think it would be far more beneficial for the nation and for his government to be examining the kinds of constructive suggestions that he has made in this debate rather than, as we have seen, a very diversionary strategy focusing on the potential development of a nuclear industry in Australia.
Unlike the member for O’Connor, I believe that the government is not really serious about the enormous environmental challenges that face us with climate change and global warming. I say this because the government continues to refuse to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Despite the fact that it does have flaws, it is the only international arena in which these decisions can be discussed in a meaningful way. It is true that we do need to involve the developing nations, but I think that they are looking to see what countries like our own are prepared to do in playing our part in reducing the ever-increasing global carbon emissions.
This government is also refusing to take any meaningful action in helping our economy, our community and our business sector to adapt to a more carbon constrained future. Even the business community is now saying to the government that there is a sense of urgency, that we need to act; we cannot just wait. Setting up this diversionary nuclear industry inquiry is wasting time because, on all the best economics, it does not stack up—even your own Treasurer has said that. If we are going to wait around for the next stage of nuclear reactors, which we are told are going to be much safer, it will be a long wait. I think that most people with expertise in this area say it will be at least 10 years before safe nuclear reactors will see the light of day.
I am also very concerned that this government displays a conspicuous lack of support for the renewable energy industry. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, or one of his colleagues, would recall sitting on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage when we examined the issue of MRET. Many submissions made to the committee said that it was really urgent for the government to take action to increase the mandatory renewable energy target so that business has the sense that the government has a framework, a target and a strategy to move to increase the uptake of renewable energy sources.
I see the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage has entered the chamber for this very important debate. I was just saying that it is much to the government’s shame that it has not raised the MRET and that this is having a decidedly negative impact on the renewable energy industry. Let me cite one example. Just recently a company called the Roaring 40s announced that they were halting work on wind farm projects in Tasmania and South Australia. They cited as their reason the government’s refusal to increase the MRET. Ironically, just last month this same company announced a $300 million deal with China to provide three wind farms there. So it is not surprising that the clean energy industry is packing up its bags and looking for opportunities in other countries. What a shame. In the words of the managing director of that company from his press release:
The MRET measure introduced in 2001 successfully kick-started the renewable energy industry in Australia. However, without an increase in the initial target level, electricity retailers are reluctant to commit to long-term REC deals which are crucial in financing renewable energy projects. Consequently, further substantial investment in the renewable energy industry is unlikely without an increase in the target.
They are not alone in expressing that point of view. We have not just failed domestically by not increasing that target but also taken Australia out of the main game of the huge growth in renewable energy in the international arena. We are missing out on significant benefits that would have come to our nation’s economy from the ratification of Kyoto—in particular, through opportunities under the Kyoto protocol’s clean development mechanism and the joint implementation program. Only by being part of Kyoto can Australia seize the economic benefits of the worldwide push for cleaner and more renewable energy. Had we ratified Kyoto, this government would have provided Australia with access to the trillion dollar industry of carbon friendly technologies that is emerging globally, and ratification would have sent a clear message to our business sector that, as a nation, we are taking a planned approach to shifting our economy onto a low carbon growth trajectory, one that will ensure the quest for low carbon growth becomes a significant driver of innovation.
Interestingly enough—and appallingly, I think—the business community is now ahead of the government on this issue. We saw recently the data produced by the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change and the economic modelling undertaken which showed clearly the economic cost of inaction on climate change. Their modelling and arguments quite rightly point to the fact that rising greenhouse gas emissions threaten our entire economy and, in particular, that temperature increases will put two of Australia’s largest exporter earners—our tourism and agricultural sectors—at great risk, threatening up to a quarter of a million jobs with a no-change attitude. They argue, and any sensible person would realise, that the longer the delay the higher the final bill will be. Their modelling showed that, with early action, setting us on the path to reduce emissions by up to 60 per cent by 2050—which is what we really need to be looking at—was achievable without halting economic growth or job creation in this nation. In other words, it could be a win-win situation, but every day, every week, every month and every year we delay that final bill will be all the higher—and future generations will be left to pay for it as well.
In Labor’s view, we need to set a price signal on carbon. We have proposed all along that the sensible way of achieving these goals of reducing our emissions would be through the creation of a national emissions trading scheme. It is a proposal that has not been taken up as yet by the Howard government, although I do read now and again different opinions on this issue reflected at the cabinet table, so I am hoping that good sense will ultimately prevail. We are going to keep on your hammer because without a national emissions trading scheme we are not going to see the end results that we all know are desperately needed.
I cannot believe our lack of action when compared with China. Just recently, as we know, the Chinese parliament committed their country to a 15 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. China has now become a world leader in solar cell production. The 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing is being used to stimulate China’s solar energy industry with plans for solar power and geothermal energy to be used at various sites. Contrast this with the sorry plight of solar energy and innovation in Australia.
As our shadow minister often says, we could have been the Silicon Valley of solar but we needed national leadership and we did not get it. If you take, as one example, the solar hot-water system developed at Sydney University, the technology could absorb sunlight very efficiently and work below freezing temperatures. The Chinese saw its commercial potential and grabbed it. It is now a huge part of China’s booming solar market, a market which accounts for 80 per cent of the world’s new solar water heater installation and an even larger proportion of the world’s production. Amazingly, invented in Australia and now made in China, it is nothing short of a national disgrace. More and more of our innovative projects are falling over through the lack of commercialisation and the lack of incentive provided by the government and these companies are packing their bags and moving offshore.
I am not going to speak to all the details of Labor’s policy. We do believe we have a positive and economically sustainable way of meeting the challenge of reducing greenhouse emissions without hurting the economy and without hurting jobs. We do believe that Kyoto should be ratified. We believe that you have to set targets for greenhouse gas reduction and we believe you cannot achieve those end points unless you have a national emissions trading scheme. We have committed to generate more of our energy from renewable sources by increasing the pathetically low rate of MRET that we now face.
The main point that I want to get across in the debate on this bill is that to avoid the effects of dangerous climate change we really need to get our act together and we need to act now. We need to commit to sensible alternatives that produce cost-effective reductions in greenhouse pollution. I know that alternative renewable energy is never going to displace base load capacity that will for decades to come be driven on coal, but we are an innovative nation. I think some of the pilot projects in clean coal technology and geosequestration really need an added impetus and boost from this government, but it is not beyond our wit as a nation to provide the necessary industry support for wind power, solar power and wave power. I have a wave power demonstration project in my electorate that not only uses wave power to make energy but also has a desal plant attached to it. There is the whole area of biofuels, and we have talked a lot about the importance of ethanol to our future. As the member for O’Connor said in his contribution, the prospects for hydrogen are also important as is the coal- and gas-to-liquid technologies that the shadow minister for resources has talked about.
But instead of being serious about this what do we find? We find just in recent weeks a politically motivated decision by this government to block a wind farm at Bald Hills because it might threaten, over many years, an orange bellied parrot. It is preposterous that we would stop a wind farm development on the grounds of a tiny risk that a small number of orange bellied parrots could be killed when we all know that climate change could wipe out this species and many others within 50 years. I think we have to get the balance right. I cannot understand why previous wind farm projects that were in the vicinity of orange bellied parrot colonies were approved with sensible management plans attached to them. You have to say that this was a decision driven by political expediency and nothing more than that.
The government needs to be doing more about energy efficiency, which is also part of the equation. You only have to look at a recent UK Climate Group report called Carbon down profits up. It showed that 43 companies have significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions and by doing so saved themselves a total of $15 billion. So it makes good business sense as well as good environmental sense. DuPont, as one example, has cut its emissions by over 70 per cent in recent years, at the same time as increasing production by nearly 30 per cent and saving more than $2 billion in the process.
I want to say something in winding up about the issue of nuclear power. There appears to be a growing chorus of opinion, championed by the PM, who has suddenly discovered that global warming is a serious issue, that believes nuclear power is now the answer to the huge challenge of climate change. I believe that proponents of nuclear energy have always exaggerated the potential of nuclear energy while playing down the risks and consequences. Nothing has changed in this debate in recent times. I am very pleased and so is my community that the leader of my party has said that nuclear power is not appropriate for Australia.
The economics of nuclear power simply do not stack up. Australia is fortunate in having abundant and relatively cheap gas, high-quality coal and renewable resources to meet our domestic power needs. In that regard, clean coal technology and geosequestration will have an increasingly important role into the future. But, for me, the economic arguments against nuclear power are overwhelmed by the fact that no-one to date has come up with a solution as to how radioactive waste can be stored safely for thousands of years. From a sustainability perspective, while the nuclear waste issue remains unresolved, the nuclear power industry will be transferring the risks, costs and responsibility to future generations. There is no community in Australia that has to date signified its willingness to be the repository for relatively small amounts of low-level research and medical waste, let alone the high-level waste generated by nuclear power stations. And which member of parliament has volunteered to have a nuclear reactor situated in their electorate?
Nuclear power is dangerous. There continues to be the risk of accidents. Look at the recent leaks at Lucas Heights and remember Chernobyl. It is a grim reality that 20 years later 350,000 people remain displaced and three-quarters of a million hectares of productive land remain off limits, with experts arguing that the final death toll could be as high as 24,000 people. On top of that in this very troubled world, you have to add the new possibilities of nuclear terrorism. Remember that uranium, like oil, gas and coal, is a finite resource. Renewables are our only ‘in-finite’ energy options. In a recent paper, the President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Professor Ian Lowe, concluded with the following quote, which for me sums it up:
We are 50 years into the best funded development of any energy technology, and yet nuclear energy is still beset with problems. Reactors go over budget by billions, decommissioning plants is so difficult and expensive that power stations are kept operating past their useful life—
as Tony Blair well knows—
and there is still no solution for radioactive waste. So there is no economic case for nuclear power. As energy markets have liberalised ... investors have turned their backs on nuclear energy. The number of reactors in western Europe and the USA peaked about 15 years ago and has been declining since. By contrast, the amount of wind power and solar energy is increasing rapidly. The actual figures for the rate of increase in the level of different forms of electricity supply for the decade up to 2003 are striking: wind nearly 30 per cent, solar more than 20 per cent, gas 2 per cent, oil and coal 1 per cent, nuclear 0.6 per cent. Most of the world is rejecting nuclear in favour of alternatives that are cheaper, cleaner and more flexible. This is true even of countries that already have nuclear power. With billions already invested in this expensive technology, they have more reason to look favourably on it than we do.
It is time our Prime Minister got the message. We must act now to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The citizens of Australia must demand this of the Howard government. We must take part in the trillion dollar industry emerging globally in renewable energy technologies. Instead of the Prime Minister’s focus on nuclear power, which is really nothing more than a diversion, we should be out there supporting our clean energy industries in the manner suggested by the opposition in the second reading amendment to the bill moved by our shadow minister.
67
17:33:00
Washer, Dr Mal, MP
84F
Moore
LP
1
0
Dr WASHER
—May I first acknowledge the terrific job which the member for Throsby does on the Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006 will implement the government’s agreed response to the review of the operation of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 established the mandatory renewable energy target measure which came into operation in 2001 and is scheduled to end in 2020. The mandatory renewable energy target is the first of its kind in the world. The UK’s Renewables Obligation scheme, which began in 2002, is similar. However, it is not mandated through legislation and there are no penalties for noncompliance.
The mandatory renewable energy target places a legal liability on Australian electricity retailers and other large buyers of electricity to contribute proportionately towards annual targets for additional renewable energy. This annual target will increase to 9,500 gigawatt hours in 2010 and remain at that level until 2020. This is expected to push the amount of renewable energy used in electricity generation from 10.7 per cent in 2000 to 12.7 per cent in 2010.
How does the scheme work? The key features of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target scheme are renewable energy certificates. These certificates are created by accredited power stations that generate power from renewable energy sources in excess of a baseline amount. This baseline amount was calculated on power stations which were operating before the act came into effect in 2001 to encourage generation of power above their existing level of production. One renewable energy certificate is created for every one megawatt hour of renewable energy power generated above this baseline.
Some installations of solar hot-water heaters and small renewable energy generation units may also be eligible for renewable energy certificates. Deemed renewable energy certificates for both solar water heaters and small generation units may be either created and traded by the owner of the system or assigned to a registered agent. That means that, when you purchase an eligible hot-water system, the associated certificates may be registered and sold at a later date by you or passed on to the seller of the hot-water system who will give you a rebate or price reduction of some kind. In this case, the seller will then own the certificates. These renewable energy certificates are the ‘currency’ of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. Once created they are registered with the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator and placed on the green electricity market or sold via bilateral deals. The certificates are in an electronic format and each has its own unique code. Any organisation or individual can purchase renewable energy certificates on the market. Once registered, these renewable energy credits can be ‘banked’ indefinitely in anticipation of an increase in market value. The final act in the life of the certificates is when they are surrendered to the renewable energy regulator.
Out of interest, the trading price of a renewable energy certificate in March this year was $20.50 and as of January 2006 approximately 14.6 million renewable energy certificates had been created since the start of the scheme—5.3 million of these from hydro power, three million from solar hot-water heaters and 2.6 million from wind power. Australian electricity retailers and other large buyers of electricity are required to meet targets of renewable energy acquisition by purchasing certificates through the market. For example, if an electricity retailer purchases 10 per cent of all electricity available nationally, they must meet 10 per cent of the graduated target for that year. They discharge this liability by surrendering the required number of certificates to the renewable energy regulator.
The graduated target is issued by March each year and a renewable power percentage is calculated for that target to be reached. The renewable power percentage effectively determines what an electricity retailer’s liability is for that year. For example, in 2006 the target is 4,500 additional gigawatt hours of power from renewable energy sources. In order for this target to be reached, the renewable power percentage has been calculated at 2.17 per cent. So if an electricity retailer, the liable party, purchases 100,000 megawatt hours of electricity in 2006, they must surrender 2,170 renewable energy certificates to fully discharge their liability.
As the renewable power percentage is calculated in advance, it is based on estimates of the total amount of liable electricity in upcoming years. In some years the percentage may result in more certificates being surrendered than the specified target; in other years the percentage may be set too low, resulting in fewer certificates being surrendered. This underachievement or overachievement against the interim target is corrected by adjusting later years’ renewable power percentage.
If liable entities do not surrender sufficient renewable energy certificates, the shortfall charge is $40 per megawatt hour. So if the retailer were to be short 1,000 renewable certificates, they would be liable for a charge of $40,000. However, if the shortfall is less than 10 per cent of the total liability they may make up the shortfall in the next year.
In March 2003 the mandatory renewable energy target scheme was put under detailed scrutiny by the Tambling committee, with the findings being presented in September 2003. Many of the recommendations dealt with refinements to the mandatory renewable energy target scheme to allow it to work more effectively and transparently, as well as supporting many of the recommendations that were included in the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002. The 2002 bill sought to improve the administrative integrity, effectiveness and efficiency of the scheme, but it was stalled in the Senate in late 2002.
The government has agreed to many of the recommendations to improve the scheme and is implementing these improvements in this bill. However, the government did not agree to the recommendation of extending the scheme from 2010 to 2020 and of increasing the target to 20,000 gigawatt hours for 2020. Why? A target of 20,000 gigawatt hours in 2020, whilst providing a subsidised growth path for renewable energy, would impose significant economic costs through higher electricity prices. The recommendation would double the current projected cumulative economic cost of the scheme to over $5 billion by 2020 in net present value terms. The Australian government does not believe these costs can be justified. As stated in the June 2004 energy white paper, Securing Australia’s energy future:
MRET will continue to play a significant role in supporting the renewable sector, and will underpin $2 billion in renewable energy investment in the period to 2010. The scheme has played a important role in demonstrating the potential for renewable technologies, in reducing renewable energy project costs and facilitating the development of ‘soft’ infrastructure such as regulatory and market structures. In increasing renewable capacity, the scheme has largely supported currently available technologies, and provides little direct support for the development of new low-emission technologies.
The Australian Government considers a better path is to build on the successful outcomes of MRET to more directly promote the development and demonstration of a broader range of low-emission technologies, and more aggressively address the impediments to the uptake of renewable energy. The $500 million Low-Emission Technology Development Fund and the $100 million in funding to promote the strategic development of renewable energy technologies are key parts of the strategy, as are the Solar Cities Trials.
What are the recommendations of the review being implemented in this bill? The bill contains measures that will improve market transparency and business certainty by: introducing a time limit following renewable energy generation during which the certificate for that generation must be created; allowing the publication of additional data relating to renewable energy generation, the baselines allocated, and certificate shortfalls of liable parties; and providing a process for granting of provisional accreditation for power stations before they are built. This will enable participants to make better informed investment and trading decisions. The review also reported that the uptake of bioenergy under the measure was lower than expectations. To assist with this the bill simplifies the eligibility requirements for energy crops and plantations, and removes any anomalies that have occurred in the treatment of municipal solid waste.
The bill encourages the greater participation of solar technologies by broadening the eligibility of solar water heaters and by simplifying deeming arrangements for solar small generation units. The bill also provides for the surrender of renewable energy certificates by persons who do not have a liability. Individuals or organisations may purchase certificates and voluntarily retire them from circulation. This could be done for a wide range of reasons, including for philanthropic purposes, and will encourage additional renewable energy generation. The bill allows the minister to determine the eligibility of new renewable energy sources to encourage emerging new technologies.
This bill clarifies the list of eligible energy sources by removing some items which were not sources as such but rather processes and technologies for transforming energy sources into electricity—for example, fuel cells are removed. The eligible sources list will now include: hydro; wave; tide; ocean; wind; solar; geothermal-aquifer; hot dry rock; energy crops; wood waste; agricultural waste; waste from processing of agricultural products; food waste; food-processing waste; bagasse; black liquor; biomass based components of municipal waste; landfill gas; sewage gas and biomass based components of sewage; and any other energy source prescribed by the regulations.
My electorate of Moore, like that of the member for Throsby, is involved with a renewable energy power station which is accredited with the scheme. The waste disposal facility at Tamala Park uses biomass from the electorate of Moore as well as from other electorates as its energy source and it taps the landfill methane to generate electricity via a reciprocating engine.
There are many fascinating technologies being developed to harness renewable energies, and I am sure that our energy mix in the future will involve many of them. We are also seeing some of these technologies combining with current energy sources. Rather than the current debate of fossil versus renewable we will see in the future a combination of best technologies and resources to produce cost-effective energy with next to zero greenhouse and pollution emissions.
An example of this is solar thermal energy. Solar thermal power plants generate heat by using lenses and reflectors to concentrate the sun’s energy. Solar thermal energy is emerging as a cost-competitive source of electrical power, especially as it can combine beneficially with current energy sources such as coal, gas, biomass, photovoltaics and wind power. As you are all aware, Australia has abundant reserves of both brown and black coal, and we derive 85.5 per cent of our electricity from this energy source. In view of this, any other energy source that can combine with coal power in a beneficial way is exciting news.
Solar thermal power is suitable for base and peak load power and for distributed or stand-alone generation. In contrast to other types of renewable energy generation, the energy from solar thermal energy can be stored far more cheaply in the form of heat, as well as providing more continuous power. It can provide supplementary steam energy to bolster the efficiency of coal fired power plants and cut greenhouse emissions. It can also give the low grade energy needed to filter CO out of the exhaust gases of existing coal and gas fired power stations for long-term storage.
A major solar-coal trial is taking place at Liddell power station in New South Wales for extra steam production, and CSIRO’s National Solar Research Facility in Newcastle is exploring the use of concentrated solar thermal technology to reform methane from natural or coal bed gas to make synthesis gas. Synthesis gas is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. This process is being used for power generation, for production of industrial chemicals or transport fuels and for generating hydrogen for power production. It also has the added bonus of taking off the CO in a pure stream for long-term sequestration.
The innovative mandatory renewable energy target scheme has been successful to date, and there has been significant investment in the renewable energy sector as a result. This bill helps streamline the operation of the scheme, ensuring that it will continue to be successful in encouraging further generation of electricity from renewable energy sources.
70
17:47:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
0
Mr HAYES
—I welcome the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006. Renewable energy is an increasingly important source of energy for securing Australia’s energy needs. Energy in all its forms is the lifeblood of a modern economy. It is an essential ingredient in the production of just about every good and service that you can imagine. Electricity itself has fast become a consumption good.
I also welcome the second reading amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. It is important that, in any debate about the security of Australia’s energy future, consideration is given to the impact of energy consumption on the environment. It is important that both sides of the energy equation—production of and demand for energy as well as its environmental impact—are always considered. I will return to some of these comments a little later.
The bill we have before us today seeks to introduce a time limit following the renewable energy generation, during which renewable energy certificates for that generation must be created. The bill also enhances the market transparency by allowing for the publication of additional data relating to renewable energy generation, the baseline allocated to power stations that were in operation prior to the announcement of measures and the additional information on the liable parties’ renewable energy certificate shortfalls. Quite frankly, they are very important. But this bill also provides the opportunity for the participation of bioenergy and solar energy technologies to access renewable energy certificates—again I would say a very important development.
The size of the contribution of renewable energy production to Australia’s total electricity supply is relatively low. That stands to reason, given the abundant supply of coal that we have available to us in Australia. In fact, in 2004 the bulk of Australia’s electricity was generated by burning coal. Black coal production at that stage was responsible for about two-thirds of Australia’s electricity demand, and brown coal was responsible for supplying about a quarter of the country’s electricity demand. Less than one per cent of Australia’s electricity, according to the Electricity Supply Association of Australia, was generated from oil or other sources.
It is disappointing that this bill seeks to change only the administrative arrangements associated with renewable energy. It is also disappointing that the government has acted to gag this debate, because the renewable energy sector investment that is needed, the benefits that can be achieved and the difficult issues that need to be considered with climate change and energy security are not being treated with the level of seriousness they deserve. I do not know whether it is a product of the government’s single-mindedness when debating Australia’s energy future or just some dislike for the renewable energy sector, but it seems to have some sort of objection to providing any sort of support for this industry.
One thing is looking reasonably certain when it comes to the government and debate about Australia’s energy future: the government is pretty willing to put all its options in one basket. When the government first announced the mandatory renewable energy target in 2002, it was set up as a percentage. In fact, in his second reading speech, Minister Campbell said:
Electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers will be legally required to source an additional 2% of their electricity from renewable or specified waste product energy generation.
From its earliest form, the MRET worked or at least it seemed to work. The renewable energy sector got off to a flying start. Investments were made. Not all those who had participated in that industry did so successfully, but funds were being committed and investments were being made. For the first time, the MRET at that stage was target based. It was very clear that the targets had to be met in terms of generating tradeable certificates, because they were underpinned and supported by a penalty regime. I have to admit that it was an innovative policy and, as I understand it, a policy that was adopted by many other countries. The MRET provided for the entry of a policy instrument that provided an environmental solution in a national energy market. That is not an insignificant step, and I am sure most people would agree. But obviously things change, particularly the design of the MRET scheme. As I said initially, the MRET scheme was originally conceived as a market share target, but it is now more like a gigawatt hour target. As some people have said, once this happened it became almost a dead target.
A fixed target such as a gigawatt hour target cannot of itself act to increase the market share of renewable energy sources accounted for, as all a fixed gigawatt hour target will allow us to achieve is renewable energy to at least keep pace with growing energy demands—not exceed them, not to make inroads into them but to just keep pace. The MRET has enabled further development in an innovative industry and one that makes a significant contribution to the Australian economy. I can attest to that on a personal basis, having worked with a company which was very dependent on generating energy tradeable certificates in order to commit funds from their investors to renewable power generation.
Despite the advances in renewable energy development, this government risks stagnation of the entire industry. Australia risks falling behind its global competitors when it comes to addressing the energy challenges of the future. Australia also risks stagnating industry, its capabilities, its technology, its skills and its intellectual property. Despite getting off to what I consider to be a good start, when it comes to the renewable industry sector the government’s failure in energy policy poses a serious risk not only to the future of the Australian renewable industry but also to Australia’s energy and electricity future.
It is important that Australia can stand on its own two feet when it comes to the production of electricity not only to support our lifestyle but to support our economy. It is disappointing to see that, with so many other technologies on offer and so many other options for the ongoing supply of electricity in Australia, the Prime Minister and his government are wedded to only one. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister is wedded to a position whereby he is not prepared to ratify the Kyoto protocol. He continues to cling to the argument that meeting those requirements will be damaging to our economy yet, when he addressed the Asia-Pacific climate pact, he indicated that Australia can achieve the same outcomes as Kyoto without damaging the economy. When you consider both approaches, it does not lend itself to making a great degree of sense. The government cannot work out whether it is Arthur or Martha when it comes to climate change, as long as we have nuclear power in Australia. A Labor government would provide the leadership to protect the environment and Australia’s future.
This government is ignoring other technologies available to us that should be part of a general suite of solutions to our energy future. Technologies such as geosequestration—the process of carbon dioxide capture from power generation processes and storing it underground—is not being taken seriously by this government. Australia has huge resources of coal and a huge power-generating capacity invested in the coal industry.
As I noted at the outset, power generated from coal accounts for nearly two-thirds of Australia’s power demands. Geosequestration is already occurring in other parts of the world and has been for quite some time. It is my understanding that it might not be economical right here and now in Australia, but it has to be considered economical or, at least, essential in the not too distant future. We need to constantly address and achieve energy security in this country. Importantly, we have to have a vibrant energy policy which looks at not only demands and supply but also, as I indicated earlier, its impact on the environment.
Australia has an abundance of coal resources—as I understand it from publications I have read, about 800-years supply—yet coal and clean coal technologies are not being considered by this government as part of a suite of technologies that are available to secure Australia’s energy future. Coal will remain the dominant source of power generation in this country for some time to come. That is why it is so important that cleaning up coal is not dismissed as simply pie in the sky. Geosequestration, gasification and other technologies present opportunities to expand the supply opportunities available to us, while taking positive steps to address climate change.
In the very short time that I have left, I would like to acknowledge the contribution today of the member for Batman, who sought to introduce into the debate Australia’s energy security, particularly as to how we should extend the argument to transport fuels. I could not agree with him more. All members in this place know the pain that our constituents are currently feeling at the petrol pump. Every week the price of petrol seems to go higher. In fact, only yesterday a poll was released that indicated that the price of petrol has had a dramatic impact on the spending habits of Australians.
10000
McMullan, Bob (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr McMullan)—Order! In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I call the minister.
73
18:00:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
0
Mr BILLSON
—I would like to acknowledge the contributions of all colleagues to this debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006. This bill before the House implements the government’s response to the 2003 review of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and reconfirms the government’s commitment to the mandatory renewable energy target under what is otherwise known as the MRET scheme. The act is a world-leading piece of legislation that a number of countries have modelled for promoting renewable energy through a market based trading system. The MRET, which requires that minimum amounts of additional renewable energy be sourced by wholesale electricity purchasers, is a significant greenhouse abatement measure, driving in excess of $3 billion in renewable energy investment to 2010 and increasing renewable energy generation by more than 50 per cent, compared to pre-MRET levels. Since the measure commenced on 1 April 2001, over 230 power stations have been accredited, encompassing small and large producers using a wide range of fuel types.
To assist market transparency, the bill introduces a time limit following renewable energy generation during which renewable energy certificates for that generation must be created. The bill also allows for the publication of additional data relating to renewable energy generation such as existing baselines and additional information on a liable party’s renewable energy certificate shortfalls. The bill also provides a process for granting provisional accreditation from the renewable energy regulator prior to commissioning and introduces a time limit for the regulator’s consideration of applications for accreditation of generators.
The bill increases opportunities for bioenergy and solar technologies. Opportunities for bioenergy are increased by enabling renewable energy certificates to be created for a broader ranger of renewable material, broadening the scope of wood from plantations to be eligible as a renewable energy source under the measure. Amendments in this bill allow more solar water heating systems installed to be eligible to create renewable energy certificates and expedite the process by which certificates can be claimed for new solar water heater models as they become commercially available. In addition to these amendments, the bill provides for the surrender of renewable energy certificates by persons who do not have a liability under the act. This will allow interested individuals or organisations to purchase certificates and voluntarily retire them from circulation. The bill also contains a range of administrative amendments to provide greater clarity about what is an eligible renewable energy source, what is an accredited power station and what is a relevant acquisition of electricity. Similar amendments to vary or amend documentation or decisions allow the regulator to address mistakes made by participants or respond to changing circumstances, additional information or the results of monitoring and compliance actions.
Concerns have been raised by the opposition that the bill does not go far enough and that the government should increase the mandated renewable energy target. However, increasing the MRET would impose significant economic costs through higher electricity prices in Australia. Targets of five per cent and above could increase the cumulative economic costs of the MRET by $10 billion. The decision not to increase the target should also be seen in the context of the government’s strategic focus as articulated in the energy white paper which was released in June 2004. The white paper focuses on developing a broad range of the low-emission technologies needed for deployment at scale in the future to make the deep cuts in the greenhouse emissions that scientists tell us will be needed over the next several decades. The government considers a more effective path to a sustainable energy future is to encourage a broad range of low-emission technologies, including renewables, and to further address barriers and impediments to the uptake of renewable energy. The energy white paper contains a number of new initiatives and articulates an effective pathway to a sustainable energy future.
Concerns have been raised by sections of the renewable energy industry that the gaming provisions in the bill may unintentionally penalise or discourage, for example, sugar mills and refineries from optimising or expanding their core operations or improving their electricity generation efficiency and capacity. This is not the government’s intent, as is indicated in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. To clarify this situation, the government amendment circulated in my name will allow regulations to be made which will specify certain matters that the regulator must take into account when making his or her decision on gaming. I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum. This government amendment has the support of the sugar industry and will provide some certainty to the industry in relation to this issue. I acknowledge the input and advocacy of Senator Boswell on this matter and encourage the ongoing engagement of the sugar industry with the government to ensure that the concerns about unintended consequences—(Time expired)
74
18:05:00
Andren, Peter, MP
KL6
Calare
IND
0
0
Mr ANDREN
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence on a procedural matter.
10000
McMullan, Bob (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr McMullan)—The member did give me the courtesy of advising me in advance of his intention to do this. I make it clear I am not very comfortable with this procedure but I am aware of the precedent and I am aware of the advice that the member has received, so I will hear him.
KL6
Andren, Peter, MP
Mr ANDREN
—Mr Deputy Speaker, with the curtailing of the debate, I seek leave to have my written speech incorporated in Hansard.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Leave is granted. Can I make it clear that I think this is a matter that the Procedure Committee might need to look at because it does not reflect the intention of the House and the resolution which it carried. But there is a precedent. The member for Calare has acted in accordance with it and so has the minister.
The speech read as follows—
This bill represents another lost opportunity for this government to get serious about supporting renewable energy sources for the benefit of future generations of Australians.
In the debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000, which introduced the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target – the MRET – I expressed my concern about the adequacy of the government’s target of an additional 9,500 gigawatt hours of electricity from renewable sources per year, especially when the original target was to be an additional 2% rather than a set figure.
Apart from the fact 2% target was in itself inadequate I was concerned that as our electricity output increased, the 9,500 megawatt hours target decreases in percentage terms.
The debate about the MRET and greenhouse gas emissions has always been skewed by interpretations of figures, usually by the government trying to put us ahead of the game in comparison to greenhouse gas emission levels in the early nineties.
The parliamentary secretary’s introductory speech on this bill still attempts the same trick, celebrating the 9,500 gigawatt hours target as “an increase of over 50 per cent above the 16,000 gigawatt-hour level of renewable electricity generated in 1997”.
This debate should not be about fiddling the figures against the past, it should be about the future. The future is why we need renewable energy resources. If future generations are to enjoy the same access to electricity that we take for granted – we need a much stronger, ongoing commitment to renewable energy sources now. Indeed if we take the better option of combining renewable energy development with sensible conservation measures we’d be well on the way to sustainable energy use.
The parliamentary secretary went on to celebrate the fact the current MRET would “bring the renewable share of electricity consumption in 2010 to around 1 1 per cent.” This is not worth a shout when the original intention of the MRET scheme was to achieve a total renewable energy share of 12.7% by 2010.
The fact we are now almost 2% off the pace bears out my concerns that changing the target from a percentage to a set level of gigawatt hours would result in a lesser share of energy coming from renewable sources.
The bill before us now will continue to do this, as it retains the 9,500 gigawatt hours target and extends its lifespan by ten years to 2020. This is entirely unacceptable.
Even the government’s own review of the MRET recommended the life of the MRET scheme be extended from 2010 to 2020, with the targets increasing to 20,000 gigawatt hours by this time. Though this would still only represent a 2% target, the government did not accept this recommendation.
The 9,500 gigawatt hours MRET for new renewable energy output puts us well behind other countries. The UK has adopted targets for additional renewable energy of 10% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. Germany has a 12% target for 2010, and the US, India and Greece out-strip our current targets.
The MRET review also found the renewable energy sector currently employs 6000 people directly, and employment in the sector is growing. Undoubtedly such growth would be accelerated with a more robust MRET of 10%. This would also more appropriately reflect the Prime Minister’s aim for the MRET scheme, which he stated in 1997, was to: “accelerate the uptake of renewable energy ... and provide a larger base for the development of commercially competitive renewable energy.”
This is the energy debate we should be having – not the political distraction of the Prime Minister’s nuclear debate. Our lack of commitment to alternative and renewable energy sources is not only pathetic but inherently dangerous and ominous for future generations who will have to deal with our lazy negligence.
Nuclear power stations cost an absolute fortune and consume much energy depleting fuel in their construction. They take 10 to 15 years to get up and running and then use huge amounts of energy to extract the finite and very impure uranium ore required to run them. There is also the little problem of what to do with the indestructible radioactive waste.
Why not encourage a mix of wave, wind, hydrogen, and most importantly solar energy initiatives? Because these are not in the interest of the mining and oil sectors.
Let’s talk about solar energy, in which we once led the world until a lack of interest and support from successive governments saw our technological advances go offshore. Forward looking governments in Europe took up our advances while we continued to promote quarrying of climate-destroying minerals for short-term and short-sighted economic gain.
As a global energy crisis looms large, our government and most western governments go for a quick fix nuclear option, followed by emerging economies like India, China and now Indonesia – sitting as it does on an earthquake fault line. All alternative energy sources have their limitations, be they wind, ethanol or hydrogen, but a source of infinite energy shines on the planet every day and has the potential to fuel our homes and our transport.
We need to pick up our development of solar technology. It is not completely off the drawing board, but one can be forgiven for not knowing anything about it, given the government’s lack of commitment to the issue.
We have schools at both the University of NSW and the ANU making significant inroads in the development of photovoltaic technology, especially in reducing the cost of producing photovoltaic cells, which is attracting overseas attention. Our government should be doing what it can to encourage such developments here in Australia rather than lose the technology, and those who created it, offshore.
Until the government gets serious about its mandatory renewable energy targets and sanctions at least a 5% target for 2010, or even better 10%, I cannot support this bill.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Deputy Speaker, can I seek indulgence and your advice.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Very briefly.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—There has been an amendment moved by the minister. It was not moved when the bill was introduced. It was not moved today. I assume he has just moved it.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The amendment is in order. The resolution of the Leader of the House makes it clear that, as is standard in this matter, government amendments circulated up to two hours before the conclusion of the debate are to be considered and will be considered in the subsequent resolution when I put it to the House.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—It means though, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I make the point—that now the opposition has been excluded from commenting.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—That is what the resolution means.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—On the amendment?
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—That is the nature of the standard resolution.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—That is an extraordinary abrogation of—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Resume your seat, Member for Grayndler.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Albanese’s amendment) stand part of the question.
18:11:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr McMullan)
79
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
53
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
77
10000
McMullan, Bob (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr McMullan)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, the question now is that the remaining stages of the bill, including the government amendment as circulated, be agreed to.
The government amendment read as follows—
(1) Schedule 1, item 77, page 23 (after line 26), after subsection 30D(4), insert:
(4A) In considering whether the outcomes referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) were or were not the result of a gaming arrangement, the Regulator must have regard to any matter prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Member for Grayndler, I do not know how you can get the call, but I will hear you.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I repeat my earlier—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Grayndler!
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—It is impossible. We are now voting on an amendment that has not been considered by the House.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The amendment is in order and, I have to say, is in accordance with hundreds of precedents of this House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT (SUBSCRIPTION TELEVISION DRAMA AND COMMUNITY BROADCASTING LICENCES) BILL 2006
78
Bills
S496
Debate resumed from 19 June.
Explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Ley.
Second Reading
78
78
18:19:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
0
Ms LEY
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) Bill 2006 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) to increase flexibility in the operation of the 10 per cent requirement for new spending on drama on subscription television.
The bill also amends the BSA to give the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) a discretion to allow the transfer of a community broadcasting licence to another person which represents the same community interest. This is intended to deal with changes of corporate arrangements by licensees.
Subscription television drama
On 29 December 2005 the government announced changes to the 10 per cent requirement for new spending on drama on subscription television. With these changes the government has reaffirmed its commitment to the new eligible drama expenditure requirement.
Currently, subscription television broadcasting licensees who broadcast channels predominantly devoted to drama programs, and their program providers, are required to spend at least 10 per cent of their drama program expenditure each year on new Australian drama.
The requirement continues to ensure that the subscription television industry contributes to the production of high quality local drama. It also ensures the promotion of high quality and innovative programs by providers of broadcasting services.
This remains an important policy objective for the government. It reflects the role of drama in shaping a sense of ‘Australian identity, character and cultural diversity’, which is one of the objectives of the BSA.
The new eligible drama expenditure requirement commenced on 1 July 1999. It has annually delivered $15 million to $20 million in funding support to a variety of Australian productions, ranging from multi award-winning feature films such as Somersault to television series such as Love My Way.
A review of Australian and New Zealand content on subscription television broadcasting services has been conducted, as required by the BSA. The report of the review, which was tabled in parliament on 16 March 2005, found that the 10 per cent new eligible drama expenditure requirement remains an appropriate measure.
The review also found that the requirement is highly valued by the production industry and underpins a wide range of drama projects for theatrical, subscription and free-to-air television release.
Whilst the requirement is considered successful in meeting its objectives, the review recommended some changes to ensure its continued effectiveness. The government has therefore drafted this bill to reflect these recommendations and to ensure the ongoing success of the requirement.
Currently there is a disincentive for licensees to spend more than the 10 per cent requirement for new drama production in one financial year. The then Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) found that the inability to carry forward expenditure from one year to the next has previously resulted in decisions not to finance new programs that would have otherwise met the new eligible drama requirement.
The government has therefore introduced this bill to amend the BSA to allow spending in excess of the 10 per cent requirement to be carried over into the following financial year. This will provide the subscription broadcasting industry with increased flexibility in its investment decisions and will encourage a higher level of investment in quality local drama productions.
The bill provides for more flexible arrangements for the treatment of preproduction expenditure on script development. This will encourage greater investment in script development and encourage licensees to become more involved in the earlier stages of drama production in Australia.
In addition, the bill seeks to amend the definition of ‘drama program’ for the purposes of the subscription broadcasting expenditure scheme to make it consistent with the definition of ‘Australian drama program’ within the Australian Content Standard that applies to free-to-air television broadcasters.
Expenditure consistent with the proposed changes incurred after 1 January 2006 will be able to be treated as new eligible expenditure. This will provide the industry with some certainty in relation to proposed investment in Australian drama, allowing investment decisions to be implemented ahead of the legislative process.
A further review of the new eligible drama expenditure requirement will take place in 2008 to take account of the changes occurring in the subscription television sector.
Transfer of community broadcasting licences
Part 6 of the BSA provides for the allocation of community broadcasting licences by ACMA. Part 6 currently contains no provision for the transfer of a community broadcasting licence. This can lead to difficulties when a licensee changes its corporate identity or ceases to exist, leaving ACMA with little alternative but to seek the surrender of the licence and conduct a new allocation process. Such situations have arisen in relation to changes in the corporate arrangements of governing councils of remote Indigenous communities and arrangements for Radio for the Print Handicapped services.
The bill amends the BSA to allow ACMA to approve the transfer of community broadcasting licences where there is a change of corporate identity, provided that the new licensee continues to represent the community of interest that the licensee represented either at allocation or most recent renewal (whichever is the later).
Any decision to refuse to approve a transfer will be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I commend the bill to the House.
80
18:24:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
0
0
Mr RIPOLL
—I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) Bill 2006. This legislation deals with two discrete issues. The first relates to how the subscription television industry meets the legislative requirement to invest in the production of local drama. The second issue concerns ACMA’s ability to facilitate the smooth transfer of community broadcasting licences in circumstances where a licensee changes its corporate identity or dissolves. I can indicate at the outset of this debate that the opposition support the government’s proposals for dealing with these two matters and that consequently we will be supporting the passage of this bill through the House.
I would like to start with the issue of subscription television drama. Schedule 1 of the bill contains a series of amendments to division 2A of part 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act. This part of the act provides that subscription television licensees must spend at least 10 per cent of total program expenditure on new eligible drama programs. For the purposes of the act ‘eligible drama programs’ include Australian and New Zealand programs. The inclusion of New Zealand programs reflects the requirements of the closer economic relations agreement. These provisions were inserted into the Broadcasting Act in 1999.
The local content requirements for Australian television reflect a point long acknowledged by both sides of politics in Australia: that, in the absence of government intervention, the market is unlikely to produce desirable levels of Australian content. Producing Australian drama is an expensive business. It is far cheaper to fill program schedules with foreign programming. Labor strongly supports the continued retention of local content requirements for free-to-air and pay television.
Drama programs play a crucial role in shaping our national identity and reflecting our national character and cultural diversity. It is important that our kids see Australian stories and hear Australian voices. While other countries produce excellent programs that we all enjoy, government must ensure that there remains a significant place for Australian talent to be showcased.
At present the local content requirements for pay TV are substantially less than the free-to-air networks. All commercial free-to-air television broadcasters must show at least 55 per cent Australian programming between 6 am and midnight. In addition there are specific minimum annual subquotas for Australian adult drama, documentary and children’s programs. At this stage of the development of the subscription TV sector it is appropriate the requirements for local content are less demanding than those for the mature and extremely profitable free-to-air sector. Nevertheless, it is reasonable that in return for a licence to operate pay TV services in this country licensees like Foxtel and Austar be required to put something back into the community.
Under the current legislation the pay TV sector is making a significant contribution to Australian drama production. The pay TV industry spent $15.9 million on Australian drama in 2004-05. Programs like Somersault and Love My Way have received critical and audience acclaim. Love My Way, starring Claudia Karvan, has won the best drama Logie for the last two years. It also won the best television drama category at the AFI awards.
Eleven years after the previous Labor government introduced pay TV in Australia, the sector is growing in strength. It is estimated that around 1.8 million households, around 25 per cent of the population, have access to pay TV. Industry analysts have forecast that it will reach 30 per cent of households in the next three or four years. Revenue and profit forecasts in the sector are strong. There is strong evidence that, once people adopt pay TV, consumers strongly value the extra choice that it provides over free-to-air networks. In households with access to pay TV, pay TV viewing accounts for around 55 per cent of all TV viewing. These statistics emphasise the importance of ensuring that Australian content has a place on what is an increasingly popular platform.
Pay TV has also been at the forefront of introducing new digital technology to Australian consumers. Labor supports the development of a viable and strong pay television industry to provide choice to consumers and to enhance competition. As the industry continues to grow, it will be appropriate to review the local content requirements for the sector. Under the US Free Trade Agreement, Australia can increase the existing 10 per cent expenditure requirement on drama channels on pay TV up to 20 per cent if it is deemed necessary. However, Labor does not believe that any increase in the drama expenditure requirement is appropriate at this time. The government has announced that a review of the drama expenditure requirement will be conducted in 2008. This review will provide a suitable opportunity to reconsider this matter in the future.
I would now like to turn to the detail of the changes proposed by the bill. The amendments to division 2A of part 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act contained in this bill flow from a review of the drama requirements conducted by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in 2004. The report of the review was tabled in March 2005. The report recommended the continuation of the drama expenditure requirements. The report also stated that the current legislation ‘is highly valued by the production industry and underpins a wide range of drama projects for theatrical, subscription and free-to-air release’. However, the review did recommend changes to give licensees more flexibility in meeting the requirements.
The bill proposes that pre-production expenditure on script development should count towards the fulfilment of that quota. This is intended to stimulate investment in script development and encourage pay TV licensees to support projects at an earlier stage. The bill also allows licensees to carry over new drama spending in excess of 10 per cent of the total program expenditure to the following financial year. This change is consistent with the regime that applies to commercial free-to-air broadcasters in relation to Australian content and better reflects the commercial reality of how programming decisions are made.
The changes in the bill will have retrospective application from 1 January this year. These changes should further improve the quality of Australian drama on pay TV by encouraging investment in quality scripts. Labor is persuaded that these amendments improve the operation of the regulatory regime by enhancing flexibility for pay TV channel operators and licensees. It is essential that these amendments do not operate in such a way as to subvert the intention of the local content requirements of the Broadcasting Services Act. Labor will carefully scrutinise and review their operation.
Before I conclude on this issue of local content, I think it is important to state that quality Australian drama should not be available only to Australians who can afford subscriptions to pay TV. It is vitally important that the government also ensure that the ABC is properly funded so that it too can play a role in promoting Australian culture. This is, after all, a key element of its charter. Local drama produced by the ABC has fallen to record lows in recent years—a very disappointing outcome. Last year the ABC broadcast only 13 hours of drama. In contrast, when Labor left office in 1996 the ABC showed 73 hours of Australian drama.
In the budget the government did provide an extra $30 million over the next three years, but that was just half of what the ABC had deemed necessary for it to improve its services. Based on the ABC’s triennial submission, the extra funding granted by the government will only allow the production of 28 hours of local content next year. It will pay for just six additional hours of drama. Surely a government sitting on a massive budget surplus can do better than that and can support our Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Australians are entitled to a world-class public broadcaster that is able to adequately invest in local drama.
Turning to the issue of community broadcasting, I refer to proposed section 2 of the bill, which contains amendments to allow the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, to license community broadcasters. Labor supports the community broadcasting sector as a vital part of our national media landscape. There are around 500 community radio and television broadcasters across Australia, including specialist broadcasters such as Indigenous broadcasters, ethnic broadcasters and religious broadcasters. Our democracy depends on different and diverse voices in our media community. The community broadcasting sector is a critical part of this diversity and should be supported. It is estimated that around 25,000 Australians are involved in the community broadcasting sector. It is important that the regulatory regime governing the sector appropriates efficiently.
Schedule 2 of the bill addresses an anomaly in the existing legislation. At present, ACMA is not able to transfer community broadcasting licences. In recent times, ACMA has encountered difficulties where companies operating community broadcasting services for Indigenous communities or Radio for the Print Handicapped have dissolved or changed identity. The bill proposes to allow ACMA to approve the transfer of a licence where the new licensee represents the same community of interest without the need to go through the full licence allocation process. This will save the regulator and community broadcasters both time and unnecessary expense. Under the amendments contained in the bill, the company taking up the broadcasting licence must notify ACMA within seven days of the transfer. ACMA’s decisions on whether to approve the transfer are subject to merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These changes will give regulatory certainty to broadcasters and are supported by Labor.
While this House is considering issues related to community broadcasting, I would like to raise another matter which is of great importance to that sector. The single most important issue confronting the community broadcasting sector over the next few years is the need to ensure that the sector is able to make the transition to digital broadcasting. In her recent discussion paper, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, indicated that the government would like to switch off analog broadcasting between 2010 and 2012. The minister promised to develop a digital action plan to facilitate this transition. There will be an advertising campaign to encourage Australians to buy a digital television or a set top box timed to coincide with that.
Digital television is supposed to offer Australians increased picture quality and more choice. That is not the case with community television, however. More than five years after the commercial and national television broadcasters began digital transmission in Australia, there is still no plan to assist community broadcasters to go digital. Consequently, consumers are faced with the absurd situation that when they make the switch to digital they actually get less choice. You cannot receive community television on Briz31 in Brisbane with a set top box. Labor believes that it is essential to provide a pathway to get community television into the digital age. If we do not, community television will simply die. This cannot be allowed to happen. I commend the bill to the House.
83
18:36:00
Cadman, Alan, MP
SD4
Mitchell
LP
1
0
Mr CADMAN
—The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) Bill 2006 deals with subscription television and it follows a review that was done some time ago. The current provisions allow for a 10 per cent expenditure by subscription broadcasters on Australian drama. However, following the review, there have been proposals for change. The Broadcasting Services Act defines a subscription television drama service as a service devoted predominantly to drama programs—that is, more than 50 per cent of the programming consists of drama programs and includes such channels as Showtime, Fox 8 and UKTV. Some of the productions included are films such as The Proposition and drama series such as The Alice, McLeod’s Daughters and Love My Way. The subscription television industry spent $15.9 million on new Australian and New Zealand drama programs in 2004-05. There are 17 available subscription television drama channels: Boomerang, Cartoon Network, Turner Classic Movies, Hallmark, the Disney Channel, Fox 8, Fox Kids/Classics, Movie Extras, Movie Greats, Movie One, Movie One Take 2, Nickelodeon, Showtime, Showtime 2, Encore, TV1 and UKTV.
Let me give the House some idea of the spread of these proposals. The review found that the local documentary production sector remains well supported but that we need to give more attention to the drama provisions. That is what this legislation does: it encourages the use of Australian drama at 10 per cent of all programming. It does not sound like too much; it is only a bit over three per cent of actual airtime. The review, apart from looking at drama, looked at documentaries. One might say, ‘Why not include documentaries in this as well?’ but the review found that documentaries were well catered for. The production centre remains well supported, with 62 per cent of finance provided through direct and indirect government sources. The sector is fully supported by broadcast quotas for commercial free-to-air broadcasters. The subscription TV sector already invests significantly in Australian documentary production without a formal requirement for us to do any more. This legislation moves to change some of the provisions of drama production.
New Zealand is included in these provisions. One may ask, ‘Why do the Kiwis get a run under Australian regulations and legislation?’ Under the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Trade Agreement, the CER—the scope of which includes the production of programs for television and broadcasting of programs on television—New Zealander and services provided by New Zealanders—
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the state of the House.
10000
Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BK Bishop)—In accordance with standing order 55(b), the House will be counted at 8 pm if at that time the member so desires. We do not take any divisions or quorum calls between now and eight o’clock. I call the honourable member for Mitchell.
SD4
Cadman, Alan, MP
Mr CADMAN
—I wanted an audience, but I am pleased with your ruling. The scope of the CER includes broadcasting programs on television. New Zealanders and services provided by New Zealanders are allowed access to the Australian market for television programs which is no less favourable than that allowed to Australians or services provided by Australians.
The bill also includes changes to scripting and production up to the point of photography. Under the current framework, licensees are unable to claim expenditure for script development. This shortcoming is picked up in this legislation. Expenditure on new eligible drama does not include script development at the moment unless the project progresses to principal photography. It is not until the cameras actually start to roll that production costs, which include scripting, are included under the current legislation. However, in the proposals we are introducing tonight, if principal photography commences in a financial year, the program is not at that time an eligible drama program and the claim for an earlier year must be reduced by the amount claimed in the earlier year if that should occur. So there is a protection if there is a rollover from one financial year to another, but the amendments do allow script development expenditure to be incurred as part of the drama production.
Licensees may not be able to claim their entire year’s expenditure quota on script development. They can claim only 10 per cent of the total expenditure on script development. The capacity to roll over is restricted, and the amount that can be spent on script development is also limited. The bill introduces new measures to allow the spending in excess of the 10 per cent requirement in any one year to be carried forward to the next year—
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—Madam Deputy Speaker, with great respect, I rise on a point of order in relation to the operation of standing order 133, which is a provision for deferred divisions on Mondays and Tuesdays. I would indicate that it is not my intention to call a quorum, but I do rise on this point of order and ask that you reflect on standing order 133 in your advice to the honourable member for Shortland.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I will rule on that point of order, Chief Opposition Whip. I ruled in accordance with standing order 55(b). I repeat my ruling, and that is the ruling that stands. I call the honourable member for Mitchell.
SD4
Cadman, Alan, MP
Mr CADMAN
—The bill amends the definition of drama production to provide for consistency between the definition applying to subscription television broadcasters and the Australian content standard applying to free-to-air broadcasters. Australian drama production is a program which has a partially scripted screenplay in which the dramatic elements of character, theme and plot are introduced and developed to form a narrative structure and has actors delivering improvised dialogue that is based on a script outline or outlines developed by a writer or writers. So it is a creative process that we are looking at.
I was saying that it is possible under these new provisions to carry overexpenditure forward into following years so that the 10 per cent can be achieved across two years or, if there is an underexpenditure in any one year, that shortfall can be carried forward as well. I think this is a very commendable change and I think that the lifting of Australian content and drama is something that most Aussies would like.
I would like to see the ABC move ahead in much the same way as the BBC has moved to split production from broadcasting. I know that people do not always find this an attractive process, but I think if the ABC were to establish a separate production house they could win contracts to supply programs to a range of stations and to sell internationally. Not only subscription television but also free-to-air television would be covered by a production house, which would be an ABC government based production house, and they would have to compete on merit to sell or screen their productions either through the ABC or elsewhere.
It seems to me that the production house of the ABC needs to compete for audience and for content against all-comers, whereas an in-house production process—such as we have now—limits the capacity of the ABC to be challenged on the basis of artistic merit, content and relevance. I would like to see a change. That would mean to the ABC core business that they would become a broadcaster and they would focus on looking at the best programs of any type, basically Australian, and continue very much as they are now but be able to shop a little more widely and to take up Australian programs produced by their own production house or to rely on others—principally, to a high degree, productions from the UK, but not entirely. I think we have in that process a sensible future for the ABC that is not privatised but is challenging, exciting and which would produce some excellent results for the Australian broadcaster.
Whilst I am on Australian broadcasting, I believe that we have moved into a situation where we need some more definite guidelines in the classification of television drama, video games and the internet—all media—for parents in particular. I am not so much worried about the adults in our society. I feel they should be free to choose what they watch with some limitations, but not oppressive limitations. I think that parents are having difficulty in making assessments about the various classifications applied by Australian government regulations on the internet, video games, film and television. I would like to see a drawing together of those areas that are covered by the portfolios of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts so that so there is a predictable approach to classification.
When Daryl Williams was Attorney-General he made some changes to the classification program. He said that it was not a loosening up. I found inconsistencies and imprecise wording in the language adopted in the classification program. A presentation given by the Attorney-General at that time has allowed, in a number of instances, some unfortunate films to be released in Australia. Some have been blocked; some have been released. The complaint about films such as Hostel and Wolf Creek is that they are dreadful films with violence, torture and mistreatment of women in a sexual context, and I oppose those sorts of things completely. Those sorts of films encourage violence and completely wrong attitudes to develop in males, particularly young males. I think we need these changes and a predictability across the various modes of communications, whether they be internet, tape, video, DVD, television, film or literature. If there is a consistent approach then I believe that, as a civilised community and as parents, we can, where necessary, make sensible judgments about screening out information that it is better children do not see and to put a limit on some of the really weird and deviant material that encourages unsatisfactory and dangerous behaviour. Drawn to my attention—and I know drawn to yours as well, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop—have been the problems in Indigenous communities in Australia with pornography and violence on film and video. That is something that I find detestable both in the attitudes it creates in men towards women and in its impact on children, particularly young children, in those communities.
When one looks at the 18-plus restricted category, one sees under the heading ‘Violence’, for instance, that it is defined currently by Daryl Williams as:
Violence is permitted.
Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context.
I believe that violence may be permitted but it would be sensible that it should not be excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed and sexual violence may only be implied and must be justified by context even in the implication. The depiction of sexual violence should be barred from R18-plus classifications. I do not see any value in the depiction of sexual violence, artistic or otherwise. It could be implied if the context justified it but under no other circumstances. I am not seeking in these comments to suggest that a harsh regime should be resurrected but, in fact, that there should be greater clarity in what we are actually seeking to achieve. So at the top end there is sexual violence.
There are a couple of other changes I would like to see, but one that I particularly want to mention is drug use. Drug use is permitted under the current classifications. I would suggest that drug use should not be permitted to be depicted in that R18-plus classification under the changes. I think we ought to look at the G category. Parents have come to me and said, ‘We don’t quite know how to handle the G category because there seems to be an inconsistency in television, which can vary the hours.’ That is another component of television that does not apply to film, literature or the internet. The hours of screening also need to be taken into account with television. The impact test for G category currently reads:
The impact of the classifiable elements for material classified G should be very mild only.
What is ‘very mild only’? Producers are always pushing the envelope. A better wording would be something such as, ‘The classification G is for a general audience and must not contain material which is harmful or disturbing to children.’ That is what parents would expect. When children see a G classification movie or television, parents would not expect very mild classification material, whether it be sex, violence, language or drug use. They would not expect any of that to occur even to a very mild degree. They would expect it to be perfectly safe to allow children to watch a G classification without supervision. So with respect to drug use for G classification, the current situation is:
Drug use should be implied only very discreetly—
mind you—
and be justified by context.
I cannot believe that we are allowing that sort of depiction for children. I would have thought that for drug use a better classification would be, ‘Verbal references to drug use are not permitted.’ I do not think there should be any reference to drug use and I think that violence also needs a clarification that is not there currently.
In conclusion, I support the legislation before the House. I think it is sensible to advance Australian film and Australian television for subscription television. This is good legislation. On the other hand, we have to be very careful about how we continue to classify the whole range of electronic and other types of media that can be damaging to children and, where extreme material is used, I believe we need to be more careful to ban some elements. (Time expired)
86
18:56:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
0
Mr GARRETT
—Labor recognises the important role that the pay television sector plays in the development of Australian culture in our country. It is a relatively recent form of broadcasting but very clearly, over time and into the future pay TV will contribute substantially by way of the broadcast of Australian generated material—Australian content, Australian stories and Australian dramas. It will employ Australians and take Australian stories out to the viewing audience. We certainly recognise that this industry will be a critical part of Australia’s broadcast future, particularly for Australian material that is broadcast to people.
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) Bill 2006 amends the Broadcasting Services Act in two ways. Schedule 1 proposes an amendment to division 2A, part 7 of the BS Act to change the requirements of subscription television licensees for producing Australian content on drama channels and has the potential to produce some important results for the film and television industry in Australia. Schedule 2 of the bill gives the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, the capacity to transfer community broadcasting licences.
Under current arrangements, the act provides a requirement for subscription television licensees to spend at least 10 per cent of total program expenditure on new drama programs in each financial year. The effect of this bill is to amend that requirement so that subscription television licensees, the pay TV licensees, can count preproduction expenditure on script development as part of the quota. Additionally, the bill will allow the licensees to carry forward any drama spending in excess of the 10 per cent requirement to the following financial year. There is, I think, some sense in having arrangements of that kind reflected in this bill.
The additional amendment to the community broadcasting element of the act will allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority to approve the transfer of a community broadcasting licence where the new licensee represents a common interest or constituency. That approval process would be subject to a merits review by the AAT. That is important particularly, as I am sure members are aware, with Indigenous community broadcasting stations, which quite often find themselves having to go back to the authority because their circumstances change and there is a requirement that there be a new licensee.
Labor supports the bill, but we do believe it is very important to both scrutinise and review the operation of the changes that are proposed, particularly in relation to the amount of locally produced drama on pay TV. The changes to community broadcasting will give some certainty to broadcasters and make for a better regulation of that aspect of the industry, and we support those changes. We will watch very closely, though, the progress once this bill comes into law to make sure that the licensees themselves are not subverting the original intention of the Broadcasting Services Act.
I will reprise some history that led to this bill coming into the House. In March 2005 the government tabled the report Review of Australian and New Zealand content on subscription television broadcasting services. As an aside, New Zealand generated content does fulfil the requirements under the existing legislation and under this legislation. It was this review that informed the government’s decision and led to this bill coming into the House. The review looked at the act and identified the fact that the legislation of the original Broadcasting Services Act was enacted because of the importance of drama in contributing to a sense of Australian identity—that is one of the objects of the BSA—and because the greater costs of local production could mean that imported material might threaten their viability. This is indeed one of the great challenges that local producers of documentary, drama and other locally originated material face in meeting the cost requirements for getting a product like that script developed, filmed, produced and put to air. They face significant competition from the importation of programs, documentaries, dramas and other forms of broadcast material and works whose costs have been recouped through broadcast in other territories, particularly the United States.
An example that is probably well known to the House would be the television series Lost. I do not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you are familiar with this piece of entertainment, but the preproduction costs were somewhere in excess, if my memory serves me correctly, of $100 million, which is way in excess of the sort of budget that we would expect for an entire program to be generated and developed by Australian producers, featuring Australian talent. As a consequence, it is extremely important, given economies of scale that operate to the benefit of overseas producers who seek to have their material sold into the Australian market, that there be a requirement for pay television licensees to show a certain amount, in this case in terms of their budgets, of locally originated material—Australian drama, Australian stories—on pay TV.
In August 2002 the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts directed the ABA to see whether the legislation needed to be amended to change eligible drama expenditure requirements for subscription TV, and that resulted in the review. It found that the production industry values the new eligible drama expenditure requirement imposed on subscription television operators, that it underpins many drama projects for subscription and free-to-air TV releases and that that particular requirement led in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 to investment of more than $45 million in film and television projects, mainly supporting feature films.
The review also found that the current 10 per cent requirement that is identified under the existing act meets the intent of the act without being a burden on the industry and contains an implicit growth component that will apply to a growing range of drama channels post-digitisation. I will come to digitisation in a second. The government has decided as a result of the review that there is no need to increase the 10 per cent new eligible drama expenditure, although it may be necessary to re-examine that requirement. I want to put on notice that I do think it is necessary to re-examine that requirement. My personal view is that, for the present time, 10 per cent is probably not sufficient. In any event, we certainly support 10 per cent and, as we scrutinise the effect of this legislation, we will consider whether it ought to be increased. Under the USFTA it can go to 20 per cent. As I will mention later, as pay TV becomes more profitable I think there will be some strong arguments that it could come up.
The ABA also reported that no pay TV entity has reported any pre-production expenditure under the scheme to date and that the current rules were providing insufficient incentive for the subscription television industry to direct funds towards new and innovative programming. It also reported that, if limited pre-production expenditure on script development were allowed to count towards the requirement for new eligible drama production, that may encourage the production of higher quality screenplays and involve subscription TV entities in projects early in their development—and I think that is everybody’s hope.
The government has decided to allow limited preproduction expenditure on script development to count towards the new eligible drama expenditure requirement. To the extent that this would, hopefully, provide for a more robust development of scripts—certainly with more time spent on that as part of the process—that could and should be a good thing. Allowable spending on script development, though, will be limited to third parties for eligible projects and the script development expenditure will be allowed prior to the commencement of principal photography and will be capped at a maximum of 10 per cent of the total eligible drama obligations. I think those statistics make for at least a reasonable framework for these new arrangements to operate in.
The other issue considered through this review process was the treatment of the carryover of qualifying expenditure, and that is clearly what this bill goes to. The review considered, on the basis of data that the ABA provided, that it did not find there was any lack of compliance with the scheme, but it did find that the requirement in its current form offers little incentive for expenditure in excess of the minimum requirement and that there has been evidence of a tension between commercial pressure to spend funds in one financial year to ensure that particular programs are produced—for example, television drama series—and the timing of payments to meet a regulatory expenditure requirement. As a result of that review the government has decided that expenditure in excess of the 10 per cent requirement will be allowed to be carried forward and treated as new eligible expenditure in the following year. The government hopes that this will provide greater incentive for expenditure in excess of the minimum 10 per cent. Additionally, this measure is intended to remove potential constraints on investment decisions. As a consequence of these things, this bill has come into the House.
I have to say that Labor is generally concerned at the state of the film and television industry in Australia. Whilst it is true that there has been a mini revival of sorts, and many of us look hopefully to a continuation of whatever mini revivals may be on the landscape, with films such as Wolf Creek and the nomination at Cannes of Ten Canoes for certain criteria and awards—and there are a number of other Australian films that some of us would have seen and know about—the commercial success that the industry has previously and historically enjoyed has become less and less. Certainly fewer and fewer films have been capable of reaching the gross in terms of box office receipts that were a feature of a number of films produced during the 1980s and early to mid-1990s.
The Australian Film Commission’s 2004-05 national survey of feature film and TV production provides some statistical reinforcement of what is a pretty subdued and at times dour picture of the film and television landscape. Its findings are well known so I do not intend to rehearse them at great length this evening in the House. But it is worth while noting that in Australia, for the period 2004-05, the feature film and TV drama production industry spent $536 million. That is a reasonable amount of money, although not high. But it was 10 per cent down on the preceding year, which is a little surprising given that the economy generally was buoyant, and whilst the number of local feature productions increased slightly from some 16 to 19 it still remained below the 10-year average of 24. We produce very few feature films in this country in comparison with countries of similar population and gross national income size, and we seem to be producing fewer and fewer. I think there is a strong argument to say that the fewer feature films we produce the less likelihood there will be of having successful feature films.
Additionally, the Australian Film Commission national survey also showed that the increase in foreign feature activity during the past decade has meant that Australian productions in terms of total spending have fallen—and I think this is the key statistic here—from 60 per cent in 1995 to 18 per cent in 2004-05, and that spending on locally produced drama for television has fallen significantly over the past five years as well. In 2001 the total expenditure was $393 million, while in 2004-05 the figure was $205 million—a decline of some 50 per cent or more. Australian children’s television drama is at a 15-year low as well.
The fact that the number of hours of locally produced drama on television has also fallen suggests that policy is awry in terms of the ability of our story makers, our actors, our producers and our directors to get their product onto screen and for it to be seen and appreciated by people. We have about a million young Australians currently overseas. There is a great diaspora of talented and creative Australians who have had to go elsewhere to work, quite often in the film industry. I note that the United Kingdom has introduced a number of reform measures to deal with the lack of health of its film industry, which has included the restructure of its public funding arm for film. The UK Film Council, which has responsibility for the British Film Commission, British Screen Finance and the British Film Institute, as a consequence of consolidating and restructuring has made real headway in developing a much more healthy and vital export oriented film industry.
There is no doubt that subscription television licensees—pay TV—have scope for further investment in Australian content, particularly locally produced drama. Kim Williams, Foxtel boss, said last year, ‘We remain on track to reach cash flow break-even before 30 June 2006.’ Now that they have established themselves and now that their infrastructure costs have been depreciated, those profits are most likely to increase over time. So subscription television licensees do have the capacity to generate higher levels of locally produced drama, and we on this side of the House would certainly encourage them to do that.
One concern that I need to mention in the time left to me is that subscription television licensees have had annual shortfalls in their actual expenditure on local drama. This is clearly a problem in the way in which the industry has approached both the spending of the money and the requirements that it has to meet to spend the 10 per cent within the period of time designated in the act. But clearly there is also a problem in the way in which they are organising themselves and the priority they place on making sure that they get local drama projects up. To get a local drama series away is not an easy task. There are many skills, long time lines, a lot of development, a lot of work and a lot of investment that go into them. But I do not think it is an unrealistic expectation from this parliament that pay TV licensees should be meeting the expenditure they are required to, including with the changes that are forecast in this bill, as a matter of course. They should be seeking to do better than that, but they certainly should be seeking to meet it.
In closing, let me look quickly at the budget. I make mention of a couple of issues that arise from it, one of which is the provision of a subscription arm for the ABC. The ABC remains relatively underfunded. Certainly we welcome a budget commitment of some $30 million for a subscription arm to produce local drama and other material, but it is equally important that the subscription TV industry play its role. We have a deficit in our balance of trade in royalties from the screen industry, and in the audiovisual sector we run a deficit of around four to one. Yet we have an abundance of talent, capacity and ability in this country that could be utilised if the policies and the enthusiasm, particularly of the sector, were brought to bear.
The minister has announced an expansion of the review of tax incentives 10B and 10BA to go further and to consider additional measures that may assist generally in getting private sector investment in our film and television industry. I think the government must look much more seriously at further ways of harnessing scarce private investment to boost the production of local drama on our screens. It is not an exaggeration to say that many in the industry feel that things are in stasis, that they have effectively ground to a halt, that people have to go elsewhere to seek out employment and that the structures—the financial frameworks and the tax arrangements—are not of such an order as to generate increasing amounts of good, local Australian drama and material for our television screens—both free-to-air and pay.
I draw to the government’s attention the fact that, in relation to community broadcasting and community television, there is a lack of any provision for the digital roll-out of community television in the government’s recent proposals on media reform. It is absolutely essential that the government address this issue, because the community broadcasting sector, particularly community television, will be absolutely stalled unless they have the capacity to get onto the digital platform, and that will take necessary investment by this government. Many are concerned that a requirement that sits at 10 per cent and allows costs to be adjusted over a longer period is not sufficient, but for the moment Labor will carefully scrutinise and review the way that these changes play out.
91
19:16:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
0
Mr SLIPPER
—Australia prides itself on having a unique culture that is not only special to us but also recognised as being unique and special by people from other nations around the globe. The scenes during the World Cup currently under way in Germany are a testament to that. I must say that it was encouraging to see supporters of both Brazil and Australia celebrating together after the match between the two countries on Monday. Brazil, like other nations, clearly admires the easygoing and friendly nature of Australians, our respect for others and our determination. Right around the globe these are some of the good things that, as a nation, we are known and respected for.
It is really important that these and other cultural attributes are encouraged and supported in many areas of the wider society, including in the dramas that are broadcast on television. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) Bill 2006 helps to encourage new Australian drama on subscription television by removing some of the rigid requirements relating to spending on new drama.
The television production industry is characterised by some unique attributes—and these attributes are not dissimilar to those also faced by the film industry. There are times in these industries when a great deal of money, time and effort can be invested in a project, only for those behind the project to witness the eventual collapse of the project for a number of possible reasons. As a result, all those things invested seem to have no resulting financial payoff. It is one of the recognised and accepted risks inherent in an industry that relies on high levels of creativity and dedication and that a very high number of pitfalls and hurdles must be negotiated before the seed of an idea finally makes its way onto the screens in our lounge rooms.
Up to now, the legislation has not adequately taken into account some of those intangibles. This has a significant impact on the requirement, as set out in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, that at least 10 per cent of the program expenditure of subscription television broadcasting licensees go towards new Australian drama. This is a legislative requirement that is obviously designed to ensure that Australian dramas maintain a safeguarded presence on our televisions. However, it is important to note that pre-production of a TV project can involve story and script development, including research, that can, in some cases, take a number of years. Yet the funds spent in this area cannot be credited towards the 10 per cent new drama spending until the said drama is actually at the stage of principal photography. This bill recognises this predicament. It will bring about a change that accepts the spending on script development as part of the 10 per cent spending requirement on new drama more immediately.
It is obvious to see that the intent of this change is to encourage greater development of drama projects. As most in the industry will tell you: ‘You can make a bad film out of a good script, but you can’t make a good film out of a bad script.’ This argument applies equally to TV drama. The change proposed in the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) Bill 2006 can expect to boost script development activity while also ensuring projects that do reach the photography stage are of the highest possible standard.
In addition, the bill before the House will allow production companies which spend more than the required 10 per cent on new drama to carry that over to the following financial year. I think most people in the House would accept that that is an important, substantial and essential change which will improve the industry to a very great extent. It is encouraging to think that some production houses are spending greater than 10 per cent of their annual program budget on new Australian drama. Frankly, it would be a good thing to see spending on Australian drama continue to increase. As an aside, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, over the years you have taken a very great interest in the arts, in Australian television, the Australian film industry and Australian drama. I suspect, without wanting to impact adversely on the neutrality of the chair, that you also support the bill currently before the chamber. I think all of us would like to see spending on Australian drama continue to increase.
While the changes suggested in the bill will give producers somewhat of a financial safety net, it is important that it does not become an excuse to take on risky projects simply because the safeguards are in place. It is also vital, in my view, that producers do not rely entirely on script and story development to meet their new drama-spending responsibilities.
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) Bill 2006 also includes other changes, including allowing the transfer of community broadcasting licences. I have to admit that this has been a difficult situation, because there has been no allowance for such transfers, even in the case of changes to a licensee’s corporate identity or where a licensee ceases to exist. The bill gives power to the Australian Communications and Media Authority to approve the transfer of licences in certain cases. The bill is another important initiative on the part of this government. It will substantially improve the industry, and I commend the bill in its entirety to the House.
92
19:23:00
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
0
0
Mr TANNER
—The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) Bill 2006 before the parliament has Labor’s support. It deals with a couple of ultimately relatively minor but noteworthy changes to the broadcasting services legislation. One change slightly broadens the obligations that are imposed on pay TV with respect to Australian content and the other enables a more flexible transfer of community radio licences, as governed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Both of these are worthy changes. They are really issues of detail relevant to people in the sector and Labor supports both propositions.
I want to make some remarks about media reform, the particular changes concerning parts of the media sector and some of the broader issues that are still to be addressed. Having been shadow communications minister for three years from 2001 to 2004, I have had extensive exposure to structural, market and regulatory issues in the communications sector, particularly in broadcasting. There is a gaping need for major deregulatory reform in the sector. Although the government has made one or two half-hearted attempts at this, it has spectacularly failed to advance the cause. In the last couple of days we have seen yet another example of that spectacular failure. In many respects, the most disappointing aspect of the legislation before the parliament today is that it is so limited that its scope in providing sensible reform in the media sector is so small, albeit at least positive.
The issue of local content on pay TV is quite a vexed one. Unlike the free-to-air TV network, it is more complicated to regulate. Rather than dealing necessarily with a single network per se, you are actually dealing with a platform that broadcasts any given number of channels and particular kinds of content that, almost by definition in some cases, are not amenable to local content. If you are broadcasting, for example, international sport on a particular channel then it seems to me to be a bit absurd to impose an obligation that X per cent of that channel should be for local sport, particularly when you consider that there are other channels that broadcast very substantial amounts of local sport—for example, the footy channel in the case of Foxtel. It is more complicated to regulate local content on pay TV but, nonetheless, it is a worthy pursuit.
I would like to place on record—and I suspect other speakers have also done this—that there are some very positive things happening on pay television with respect to local content. In particular, I applaud the locally produced and scripted series Love my way. I think I saw most of the episodes—not every one—of both the original series and the second series. It was an excellent example of high-quality Australian drama, with interesting and innovative scripting and top-class acting performances. It is the kind of cutting-edge Australian drama that we would like to see more of on both pay TV and free-to-air TV. Anything that encourages more of that kind of investment—which, in the case of Love my way, I think, in the long term will prove to be a very positive thing for Foxtel—certainly has my support and the support of the opposition.
Community radio is a sector that I have a connection and involvement with going back many years and I think it is worthy of greater government support. In the recent budget there was a small increase in funding for community radio. That was the first funding increase for many years. I think it was a fulfilment of an election promise by the government. Certainly, I commend the government on extending that small but significant additional support to the sector. Community radio represents in the vicinity of 250 radio stations around Australia. There is also a significant community television network or an array of stations that has emerged in recent years. All of them are underfunded, all of them are running on the smell of an oily rag, all of them are getting by hand to mouth and all of them are relying on an army of volunteers. They all play a very significant role in Australia’s broader cultural and media life. They provide an array of services to sections of the community that often do not get proper services from mainstream media. In particular, they provide very effective training opportunities for young people, mostly to get an early entree into mainstream media and to acquire skills. In many cases, whether as performers, technicians, announcers or script writers—all sorts of different skills—people get their first step into community radio or TV before moving on to bigger and better things.
Community radio and television plays a very important role in Australia’s creative life and the media sector. It deserves, I think, greater recognition, greater funding and greater support not only from government but also from the community generally. Although the provisions of the legislation before the House tonight are only modest and specific reforms, I commend the government on introducing them. I would urge the government, and indeed all members of the House, to pay greater attention to community broadcasting and to provide greater support.
Community broadcasting is one of the hidden success stories of Australian media and, in particular, it is an outstanding example of how government assistance to community organisations can be provided in an efficient and very cost-effective way. Prior to the changes in the budget, total annual funding by the government of community broadcasting was in the vicinity of $6 million a year. This was distributed through the Community Broadcasting Foundation, an organisation on which the government nominates one board member and the remaining members are from the sector itself. The total budget for running the Community Broadcasting Foundation is in the vicinity of $300,000 to $400,000 a year and the remainder of the money is, in effect, distributed in grants to the 250-odd community radio stations around Australia.
Although inevitably there are arguments and debates about how that is done, one thing is absolutely clear: the taxpayer gets real value for money out of this funding because the vast bulk of the money ends up providing direct assistance to a vast array of community radio stations all around Australia, assistance which translates immediately and directly into the kinds of things that those stations need to function. It is a very good model for distributing government assistance in a way that is at arm’s length from politicians; the actual decisions about who gets what money are not being taken by ministers, bureaucrats or members of parliament. Those decisions are effectively being taken by the sector collectively and large amounts of money are not being siphoned off in administration costs. Community radio is one of the quiet achiever sectors of the Australian economy. Community television, a much younger and in some respects a more problematic sector, is also worthy of the same support.
But the question I would like to ask tonight, which I think this legislation really raises, is: where is the rest of the government’s reform agenda? Where is the serious reform agenda in communications, media and broadcasting? When you look across the spectrum in the broadcasting sphere, you see a negligible take-up of digital television. Fewer than 10 per cent of Australian households have a digital TV capability, unlike those in the United Kingdom where there is a free-to-air product—digital TV called Freeview—which has roughly 30 channels which, for the cost of less than $100 for a set-top box, any ordinary citizen with an analog TV can gain access to. The end result is that—as of the last time I looked, which is about a year ago—over 50 per cent of households in Britain have taken up this option. Although many of those 30 channels are not exactly showstoppers, nonetheless they still constitute a significant enhancement to viewing choice in the UK, a driver for the take-up of digital TV and a basis on which we can assume that in the future there will be a significant further enhancement of digital options in United Kingdom broadcasting.
We have seen similar things occur in other parts of the world. In Berlin, for example, all television broadcasting is now digital and this is gradually being undertaken in other regions of Germany. Whereas many other developed nations are moving ahead in leaps and bounds in digital broadcasting, we are still stuck in the straitjacket of the 1998 legislation. I concede it was supported by Labor, so the original decisions that were taken by the government on these issues had our support. Many of those decisions were wrong. Many of those decisions were well-meaning and well-motivated but were taken in ignorance or with a lack of understanding of where things were likely to head. We as a society remain shackled by those decisions, which are essentially designed to inhibit the development of digital and to ensure that digital is really nothing other than a direct reflection of the existing analog regime, rather than being—as is the case in the UK—a new, different product which in some respects is competing with analog.
To compound this problem, despite a slight recent improvement, our level of broadband access is still rated as only 17th in the developed world. That is on the basis of an extraordinarily generous interpretation of what constitutes broadband—256 kilobits, which in many parts of the world would be regarded as a joke in terms of speed, where megabits is the more appropriate magnitude of broadband. Even with that extraordinarily generous OECD definition, we in Australia still manage to only get up to 17th in the world while equivalent countries like Canada, the United States and most of the western European countries are way ahead of us. It is a long and complicated story as to why we have been so recalcitrant in broadband access, most of it to do with Telstra’s continuing market dominance, Telstra’s unwillingness to really push the envelope on broadband and the government’s unwillingness to put in place market structures and genuine competition arrangements which ensure that Telstra is forced to do that under truly competitive pressure from other players in the market. But that is a separate albeit related issue.
The question we need to be asking is: why is it that, after years of recycling the failed, discredited policies of former communications minister Richard Alston, we are still stuck in the same place? The new Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, puts out a set of proposals, which are only draft proposals or discussion options, which include a warmed up, reheated, rebaked version of the discredited datacasting model, which was unique to Australia and designed to enable the government to say to the existing TV networks, ‘Don’t worry; there’ll be so many restrictions on this that they won’t be able to compete with you in free-to-air broadcasting,’ and at the same time to say to would-be new entrants, such as Fairfax and News Ltd, ‘Well, we’re not going to give you a TV licence, but we’ll give you the next best thing; it is datacasting.’ The end result was that nobody bid for those licences. They lapsed and the spectrum that was available for use—for competition, greater choice for consumers and innovation—was not used, and of course now the government is attempting, in a sense, to recycle the same discredited ideas.
Similarly, the government seems unable to bite the bullet on multichannelling, mainly because two out of the three commercial TV networks are opposed to it. There is an extraordinary situation here. The basic argument of two of the three commercial TV networks on multichannelling—the third, the Seven Network, actually wants to do it—is that they do not believe there is a viable business model for sending out more than one signal over their digital spectrum, even though technically they can send out several signals. I think this must be one of the rare cases in the history of regulation where private businesses are asking a government to ban them from doing something because they do not believe they can make money out of it. I find that quite extraordinary. In my view, the answer on that front should be simple: if you do not believe you are able to make money out of it, don’t do it—but why should we ban people from doing it?
A couple of days ago in the Senate, the minister, Senator Coonan, effectively scuttled the government’s reforms to cross-media ownership and foreign ownership laws, which, again, have been floating around for almost five years. In September 2001, the Prime Minister first floated the prospect that the government was proposing to abolish the restrictions on cross-media ownership and foreign ownership, and throughout the following parliament attempts to do this were eventually blocked in the Senate. The government has dillydallied and messed around ever since, frightened of the National Party and frightened of the proprietors—not wanting to actually take anybody on and not wanting to have a serious reform agenda but simply trying to please the media moguls.
Yet again they have discovered that it is pretty difficult to go into a genuine reform agenda with the aim of just pleasing established vested interests. News Ltd, in their submission to the government’s discussion paper process, has indicated that the abolition of cross-media ownership and foreign ownership laws no longer has their support because of the associated proposals with respect to datacasting and the government’s clear indication that it will leave open the possibility of that additional spectrum being used for subscription television purposes—that is, for other players to compete against Foxtel—and the fact that the government is refusing to allow a fourth TV network to be established.
It is hardly a surprise that the News Ltd position is essentially driven by self-interest. I do not criticise them for that—they are a private business. They are entitled to put a position that reflects their business interests, and in particular they are entitled to run an argument which says that their business interests are being unfairly disadvantaged. Frankly, broadly I agree with them. I think their assessment of the government’s reforms is essentially fairly accurate. So it is hardly surprising that they are taking the position they have, and the mere fact that it is obviously driven by self-interest does not necessarily make it wrong.
The government’s cross-media ownership and foreign ownership laws reform agenda has effectively been scuttled, and that creates a real opportunity for the government to literally go back to the drawing board. Instead of starting from the premise of pandering to media moguls—instead of starting from the premise that they want to give a few free kicks to powerful media companies that might deliver political support for them in the future—why do they not start from the premise that a fundamental liberalisation of broadcasting and media in this country is long overdue and that there should not be restrictions on ownership. The Productivity Commission had it right. The Productivity Commission report in 2000 went through all of the issues that need to be addressed and essentially said that, once you have addressed the issues—the use of the spectrum, more competition, multichannelling and all of those kinds of issues—and got the market structure right with a greater degree of competition, openness and lighter regulatory arrangements, it is appropriate to ask questions about cross-media ownership rules.
Basically, those rules are a product of a restricted regime. Where you have a regime that says, ‘There shall be no more than three commercial TV networks,’ almost by definition you create circumstances where, in order to ensure that you do not have outrageous monopoly power and abuse of that power, you have to have ownership restrictions. You have to use regulatory mechanisms, and in some cases fairly crude prohibitions, to ensure that you have a minimum level of diversity, because you are precluding the market from delivering that diversity. It is long overdue for the government to go back to the drawing board genuinely on these issues and acknowledge that, in certain respects, the world has moved on.
It is a bit of an open secret that, in years gone by, I have broadly been a supporter of the idea of a fourth TV network. I would have to say that that proposition is gradually becoming less and less significant because, at the early stages of broadcasting over the internet, we are starting to offer very serious competition to the existing TV networks and, indeed, to Foxtel. That is a good thing, but it should be on equal terms and in genuinely liberalised markets, not on the basis of this incredible hodgepodge and patchwork of conflicting and competing regulatory arrangements, quid pro quos, deals for mates and special arrangements that are designed to cobble together something that does not offend this person or that group.
We really need to go back to first principles in all these issues and recognise that, gradually, technological change is sweeping away the antiquated regulatory arrangements that the government has tried to preserve in the wake of that technological change. For the benefit of Australian consumers, creative producers, artists, scriptwriters, actors and all those people who have contributions to make, we need to revitalise this whole sector. The starting point has to be to get away from the 1998 regulatory regime, to admit that it was a mistake and go back to first principles, ensuring that no existing player in the industry is unduly disadvantaged but acknowledging that overall, in the necessary reform, while there will be some pain and some gain for everybody, the Australian community, consumers and producers will be the beneficiaries. (Time expired)
97
19:43:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
0
0
Ms OWENS
—The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) Bill 2006 is a relatively small bill compared to many that we consider in this House but a quite significant one for two reasons. Firstly, it relates to regulation and structures in broadcasting that bring diversity and cultural benefit to Australian audiences—and we should always be concerned that our broadcasting industry is doing that in the most efficient way possible. Secondly, in a world surrounded by mountains of regulation, this bill is actually a simplification. The government is known for creating another piece of paper every time it breathes, yet this bill quite cleverly reduces some of the paper for two important sectors of the broadcasting industry by dealing with two completely unrelated issues.
The first one relates to the requirement that subscription television channels that broadcast predominantly drama direct 10 per cent of their drama production expenditure to new Australian drama. This bill makes some amendments that simplify the process and change some of the definitions of what can be included in that 10 per cent. The second one is a mechanical matter that allows the Australian Communications and Media Authority some discretion to transfer community broadcasting licences from one person to another under quite specific circumstances—again, extremely important amendments that will ease the way for two sectors in the broadcasting industry: the subscription television channels and our community broadcasting sector.
Schedule 1 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to increase flexibility for subscription television companies as they seek to spend the required 10 per cent of their drama budgets on new Australian drama. This follows a review back in 2004 of Australian and New Zealand content on subscription television and broadcasting services, as required under the Broadcasting Services Act. The review was tabled in parliament in March 2005. It found that the requirement for expenditure of 10 per cent on new eligible drama was quite appropriate and should be maintained, but it did suggest a few ways to simplify the process. Under the old act, pre-production costs cannot be claimed as part of the 10 per cent until the project progresses to principal photography. Also, that 10 per cent cannot be carried over year by year—the 10 per cent claimed on Australian drama must be spent within the one financial year. Both of these requirements are incredibly harshly prescriptive for an industry which does not work on an annual basis in respect of its new productions.
Productions may develop over several years, with several different partners and each with their own time frames. Essentially the old act was bad regulation. It unnecessarily impacted on the creative and financial decisions of a company which was seeking to do the right thing. This amendment adds considerable and needed flexibility. For a start, it allows pre-production such as script development to be included in that 10 per cent well before the project progresses to principal photography. It is hoped that this will encourage subscription television companies to invest more heavily in the script development phase. There is quite a belief in the Australian industry that there is insufficient development of scripts in the early stages because of a lack of funds. This amendment encourages subscription television to invest in the early stages, allowing for considerably greater risk-taking and more creative projects in the early stage before they are obliged to continue to the second stage. It also allows for a carryover of the 10 per cent into the next financial year, which reflects the fact that, in this industry, projects are not begun and ended in any particular financial year and may stretch over several years. So this amendment reflects the reality of the expenditure pattern in the creation of television drama.
The bill also amends the definition of drama to bring it into line with regulation for free-to-air television. This is important given that in the film and television industry producers often deal with several different investors, quite often from different countries. At the recent Screen Producers Association conference in Brisbane, I attended an extremely amusing trivia quiz. A number of producers were asked specific questions—for example, how many Australian actors do you need in a Swiss-French co-production with the ABC? What percentage of a budget must be spent in France if your co-producers are Canada and Australia? It was fascinating to see the extraordinary detail that these producers carried around in their heads simply to be able to access the range of moneys that they needed to get a project off the ground.
One could argue that this is just the beginning for them. It is a very small step to bring subscription television and free-to-air television into line in Australia, but there is clearly a great deal of work needed to bring the range of parties that invest in film into the same regulatory framework so that producers can make decisions around what the project needs and not what the regulators need. This is a significant step that not only will bring it into line with free-to-air television but also will allow businesses to develop their projects around the context of the project itself and not around the needs of government regulation. This is particularly true for companies that essentially are trying to do the right thing, not necessarily the wrong thing.
The second part of this bill relates to community broadcasting. It is quite a simple change which recognises that community broadcasters may start quite small and change their corporate structures as they grow. Currently a community broadcaster may be an incorporated association and may, some time down the track, seek to change into a company limited by guarantee. Under the old act it is not possible for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to transfer that community licence from the incorporated association to the company limited by guarantee. It has to suspend the licence and call for new applications. This change is quite a simple one but it allows the Australian Communications and Media Authority to make that change without a fuss. The change recognises that we need flexibility for organisations that essentially are doing the right thing.
Going back to the subscription television industry: while this regulation does allow greater flexibility both in quality control and business decisions, one must recognise that with greater flexibility comes the need for greater scrutiny. The regulation is due for review in 2008, which perhaps is a little too early to tell because of the long lead-time for television production that will allow only two years in what is often a much longer cycle. Nevertheless, the need for review is even greater once one introduces this kind of flexibility into the system. It is extremely important that the new flexible legislation is not used by those who are uncommitted to Australian content to avoid their obligations.
The Film Commission, in a submission to the review in 2004, talked about the need to assess the number of hours and not just the number of dollars. I would question that, given that we hope that subscription television will invest in a range of product, some of which may be quite expensive and designed for export. So the number of hours will not necessarily reflect the commitment or the actual value to the Australian film and television industry of the work produced. However, it is important that we carefully scrutinise the outcome of this amendment over time so that we do not find companies using preproduction as a way to limit their exposure—spending their 10 per cent in areas which they can essentially write-off quite easily because the project does not go to filming at all. I know there is some concern on the producer side that that will be the case with some, but again this bill allows those who are doing the right thing to well and truly get on with their job—and it must always be a priority that those who are doing the right thing are not unnecessarily regulated or have barriers put up preventing them from doing that in the best possible way.
In closing, I would like to commend the government for finally making these amendments. They are an important simplification for two very important parts of the broadcasting sector, and I am sure they will be well received. They are not, of course, all that the producer side of the sector would like to see. In the submissions prior to the review, there was considerable argument put from the production side of the industry that the 10 per cent quota was too low. It is, of course, considerably lower than the free-to-air television industry and there is some argument put by producers that it should be raised. The review found that this was not appropriate at this time, and this amendment does not deal with raising that level. But it is worth noting that, as the industry changes, becomes more profitable and has a greater role to play in the development of Australian television, there will no doubt be even greater pressure from the producer side of the industry for that quota to change. The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement does allow Australia to increase that quota up to 20 per cent, and there is no doubt that the producers in the industry will continue to pursue that objective.
100
19:55:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
1
0
Mr BALDWIN
—We appreciate the contributions from the members for Oxley, Mitchell, Kingsford Smith, Fisher, Melbourne and Parramatta. I thank the members because each has expressed their support for this bill, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) Bill 2006. This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act of 1992, referred to commonly as the BSA, to increase flexibility in the operation of the 10 per cent requirement for new spending on drama on subscription television. Perhaps I should quickly nominate what subscription television is. There are currently 17 available subscription television drama channels in Australia: Boomerang, Cartoon Network, Turner Classic Movies, Hallmark, Disney Channel, Fox 8, Fox Kids/Classics, Movie Extra, Movie Greats, Movie One, Movie One Take 2, Nickelodeon, Showtime, Showtime 2, Encore, TV1 and UKTV.
The subscription television drama expenditure scheme requires that subscription television broadcasting licensees spend at least 10 per cent of the total program expenditure on new Australian and New Zealand drama programs in each financial year. Licensees have consistently met the expenditure requirements. This requirement reflects the role of drama in shaping our sense of Australian identity, character and cultural diversity and underpins a wide range of drama projects for cinema, subscription and free-to-air television released, including the movie The Proposition and the drama series Love My Way. In fact, the subscription TV industry spent $15.9 million on Australian and New Zealand drama in 2004-05.
This bill amends the BSA to allow limited preproduction expenditure on script development to be claimed in the financial year it is incurred rather than when the principal photography commences, which is the case under the current scheme. These amendments will encourage greater investment in script development for local drama. I note the member Fisher said that you can make a bad film out of a good script but you cannot make a good film out of a bad script. I am encouraged that money can be spent and claimed on developing up the proposal and the script for a film but also note that only a maximum of 10 per cent of the quota can be carried forward on script development. So, in essence, one per cent on script development can be carried forward in the year.
This bill also amends the BSA to allow expenditure in excess of the annual 10 per cent quota to be carried forward into the next year. The amendments will better accommodate the way in which commercial and investment decisions regarding new drama projects are made. The carry forward measures in the bill will provide the subscription broadcast industry with increased flexibility in its investment decisions and will encourage a higher level of investment in quality local drama productions. The proposed amendments have the support of the subscription television broadcasting sector and the production industry.
The bill also amends the BSA to give the Australian Communications and Media Authority a discretion to allow the transfer of community broadcast licences to another person which represents the same community interests. This is intended to deal with changes of corporate arrangements by licensees. Community broadcasting enjoys bipartisan support. The community broadcasting amendments will enable licensees to make sensible changes to their corporate arrangements without putting their licences at risk and thereby remove a degree of uncertainty from the sector. Again, I congratulate those members who spoke to this bill for their contributions. I commend the bill to the House.
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—It being nearly 8 pm, I observe that earlier today the honourable member for Shortland drew the attention of the Deputy Speaker to the state of the House. In accordance with standing order 55(b), I will count the House if the member so desires. The member not being present, the matter lapses.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the state of the House.
(Quorum formed)
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
101
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I put the question that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA’S SKILLS NEEDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
101
Bills
R2535
Second Reading
101
Debate resumed from 19 June, on motion by Mr Hardgrave:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Ms Macklin moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:
-
creating a skills crisis during their ten long years in office;
-
its continued failure to provide the necessary opportunities for Australians to get the training they need to get a decent job and meet the skills needs of the economy;
-
reducing the overall percentage of the Federal Budget spent on vocational education and training, and allowing this percentage of spending to further decline over the forward estimate period;
-
its incompetent handling of the Australian Technical Colleges initiative as evidenced by only four out of twenty five colleges being open for business, enrolling fewer than 300 students;
-
failing to be open and accountable about the operations of the Australian Technical Colleges, including details of extra student enrolments, funding levels for the individual colleges, course structures and programs;
-
denying local communities their promised Australian Technical College because of their ideological industrial relations requirements; and
-
failing to provide enough extra skills training so that Australia can meet the expected shortfall of 100,000 skilled workers by 2010”.
101
20:05:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
0
0
Ms BIRD
—Given my short run last night before the adjournment, I am pleased to resume my contribution on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. Before we adjourned last night I was acknowledging the fact that the government had introduced the original 2005 bill in order to ensure the achievement of a commitment made during the 2004 election campaign and that the current bill before us seeks to amend that bill to bring forward the funding allocation. I was making the point that the response during the election period was clearly to the fact that there was an important debate going on in the community about the ongoing problem with the skills shortages in various industries and in particular in the traditional trades. Indeed, if we look to the most recent Department of Employment and Workplace Relations report on vacancies, we can see that that skilled vacancies problem has continued. The skilled vacancies index rose by 1.8 per cent in May 2006. All three of the occupational groups experienced an increase in the number of vacancies: professionals, by 0.1 per cent; associate professionals, 3.5 per cent; and the trades, 2.9 per cent.
If in considering the problem of skills vacancies that has existed since 1994 we look at the graph provided by the department, it is quite clear that there has been a long-term, ongoing problem with providing the skilled workers that many of the industries that drive our economy require. Indeed, it is an issue that is consistently debated in the community. Like many members, I am sure, when I talk to local business and industry in my area I consistently hear that they have difficulties in finding both skilled tradespeople and specific university graduates—in particular, in the engineering field—in my area.
It is important that the government seriously addresses the problems that we face currently and in the future on providing the required skilled workforce. The pity with the Australian technical colleges legislation originally was that it is a fairly long-term and problematic approach, although I do support the idea of the technical colleges generally. My understanding is that the act itself proposed establishing 25 technical colleges that would cater for up to 7,500 years 11 and 12 students and that the government had nominated 24 regions across Australia in which these colleges were to be placed. In my own state of New South Wales, colleges were to be placed in Gosford, Dubbo, the Hunter, my own area of the Illawarra, Lismore, Ballina, Port Macquarie, Queanbeyan and Western Sydney.
I took the opportunity in a previous debate in this House, not actually on the bill, to make the point that I felt this program is probably the most incompetently administered above and beyond all I have observed the government implement since the 2004 election and taking up my seat in this place. This program has been pretty much a dog’s breakfast from go to whoa. I think the minister made the policy on the run. I thought it was fairly ill conceived at the time but was willing to give the benefit of the doubt that, with some serious effort, it may get off the ground and provide at least a partial answer to some of the challenges facing businesses. I have been sadly disappointed in that. If we look at progress to date, 21 ATC proposals have been announced but only four have commenced operation this year. I understand the one in Northern Tasmania is scheduled to open in August, but most of them are scheduled for 2007. Of those, however, only six funding agreements have actually been signed with ATCs: in North Queensland, north Brisbane, Adelaide south, Bendigo, Bairnsdale-Sale and Perth south. Seven of the 21 are clearly experiencing difficulties getting their funding proposals signed off and agreed to by the department and the minister. Indeed, my understanding is that, for the one proposed for my own area of the Illawarra, there have been several funding proposals put to the department for approval and each one has been knocked back.
It is very difficult for many of us who represent areas where these technical colleges are proposed—and this is why I am a bit bemused by the government’s requirement for this amendment to bring the money forward—to find out where exactly each of the proposals are up to. There is very little transparency in this program, and that is why I have some reservations about the amendment that gives the discretion for that movement of funding to the minister. As the local member, I have put some questions in writing to the minister. It is difficult to get the detail of why the ATC in my area is experiencing difficulties. I certainly have information on a confidential basis from some members involved in the proposal that, each time they put a proposal up, it was knocked back for a variety of reasons—in particular, problems with the capital involved in the proposal. An amended proposal was put up where the organisation itself would carry most of the capital costs and do a leasing arrangement. That was again knocked on the head, and some degree of concern was expressed about the links with the local TAFE that are part of that proposal.
The difficulty is that the government went out and the minister appeared in these local regions and had information sessions for consortia that might be interested in the proposal of carrying forward the ATC. The message we were very strongly given at those was that they were very much to be locally driven and very much to be responsive to locally appropriate models. In good faith, on that basis many of the local proponents went forward with their proposals, believing that they could put together, under a fairly flexible model, a proposal that was appropriate to the resources and the needs of their region. It is difficult for me to give any sort of honest analysis of whether the government’s knockback of these proposals by our ATC proponents have been legitimate or not, simply because it is impossible to get the detail on what has been going on. It is not good public policy practice to have this sort of program rolling out in which people see proponents in another area announced as having received funding—$20 million, $9.5 million, whatever it may be for their currently approved proposals—that looks pretty much like what they proposed. They are saying to local members such as me, ‘How is what we are proposing any different? Why are we getting knocked back?’ It is important for good faith in these sorts of initiatives that are very different, very new and with very little precedent to be maintained in the face of what can seem to be fairly inconsistent judgments on the various proposals.
I continue in my local area to be optimistic, to give the government the benefit of the doubt and to hope that the commitment to get this up and running is genuine. The proposal seems good. Certainly in my area the proponents have gone to a great deal of trouble to locate the ATC close to the train station and public transport. That is important, given that you are going to be drawing students from a very broad geographic region. To make the system viable, you need to be able to access good, reliable public transport.
It seems that there is a sincere effort to work cooperatively with other providers and businesses in the area, so I am at quite a loss to understand what the problem has been with their proposal and, sadly, unable to fulfil what I think should be part of my function as the federal representative to give them advice and guidance on how they might improve and better progress that proposal when I cannot find out exactly what the criteria are on which these decisions are being made. One would presume from this amendment bill bringing significant amounts of the funding forward from 2008-09 that, indeed, the government does anticipate rapid progress on these ATCs. I certainly hope that that is an optimistic portent for the one in my region and for those other seven that are currently waiting to have their proposals progressed, but I am not particularly convinced that my optimism is well founded in this case.
I think the important thing to acknowledge is that the government has introduced a new system—a federally funded and significantly privatised form of technical and further education for year 11 and year 12 students—that is unprecedented and I would suggest to the minister that it would reflect a much more genuine commitment to progressing that agenda to be more flexible and more open in the decision-making processes. Whilst I am happy to support the amendment bill going through, I would certainly reflect back to the minister and the government the wish that, if anything, our cynicism and concern about the genuine nature of these proposals be laid to rest by a more transparent process so that we can give good advice and publicly feel confident in supporting the local proposals in our areas.
Of course, this bill was considered by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee and these same concerns were reflected in the report of the opposition senators. In particular, the report of the opposition senators indicated a concern about the slow progress in implementing this program. I think that partly reflects the fact that it was not a well-considered, well-developed proposal that was taken to the election. I have previously described it in this place as a ‘brain snap’ by a minister desperately trying to find something beyond a toolbox that sounded a bit inspiring to the electorate about addressing the skills problem. In the spirit of addressing that problem, I am happy to support it, but I am particularly frustrated—as I imagine many others are—with the slow progress. Indeed, I understand the minister recently has been out there threatening the potential for some colleges to progress because he considers there is a lack of genuine commitment from the local communities. If their experience is anything like my community’s, I would say that it is potentially not a lack of commitment but a great deal of frustration that the flexibility they seemed to be encouraged to have at the original stage when the minister was promoting the expressions of interest has very much disappeared as they try to progress it through the bureaucracy. The report of the opposition senators also recognised the concern about the lack of financial transparency to which I have referred.
This legislation is of particular interest to me in many ways. I am a former TAFE teacher and I coordinated the joint schools TAFE programs and the Australian traineeship program, so I did an awful lot of work when I was at the TAFE with the local schools and, in particular, coordinating with year 11 and year 12 students doing vocational education and training courses through the TAFE system and also with businesses that were employing trainees under the then Australian traineeship scheme. I acknowledge that the TAFE sector has been particularly good at working closely with local businesses. I know the TAFEs in my area—and I am sure members on both sides of this House have had the same experience with their TAFE colleges—have attempted to work very closely with their local industry. They are very aware of the fact that they want to be putting out graduates who have good job opportunities in their local area. In our area there is a great deal of pride amongst the educational institutions about creating job-ready young people who have a capacity to get work. I acknowledge that the University of Wollongong consistently gets national awards under the quality accreditation scheme for universities for having the highest number of graduates who gain employment after graduating from university. The university and TAFE colleges in my area have been working very closely together for a long time and they jointly work closely with local industry with a focus on developing and delivering programs that best suit their needs. Both the local private and public high schools in my area have very much taken on board the opportunity to run vocational education and training courses.
The other reason that this issue is close to my heart is that I have a 22-year-old son and a 17-year-old son, so I am very conscious of the fact that, if we expect kids to stay on at school, offering them those meaningful opportunities to study is important. My younger son undertook a vocational education and training course in the music industry run by a very good private music provider in my area—313. I really believe that that opportunity is important and, if these colleges can provide another level of that sort of opportunity for young people, I think they will provide a really valuable service, which is why I am keen to see them progressed and, as you can no doubt tell from my contribution, why I am rather disappointed that—unfortunately for those who genuinely want them to happen in our areas—they seem to be stalling on a whole lot of levels.
The disappointment more broadly in addressing the skills issue, reflected in the amendment moved by the shadow minister for education, is that the technical colleges in themselves, even combined with initiatives such as the toolbox allowance, are very much bandaid solutions. There has been a view that young people have a bit of snobbery towards the trades. I would argue that, from my own experience, that is not the case. My oldest son when he finished school had four mates who were consistently in my lounge room. Three of those five were very keen to follow their fathers into traditional trades, but the opportunities were not there. Indeed, when I talk to young people very often I find that they do not complete their trade when they get an apprenticeship because of the lack of incentives and the opportunities to earn better money once you have some basic skills.
The proposals that the shadow minister for education has put forward that support and encourage young people not only into trades but into staying and completing apprenticeships are important and deserve commitment from the government. Labor support this amendment and indeed the original bill—which I would have liked to have spoken on, but I was gagged, which has become a bit of a standard practice unfortunately in this place.
I would like to finish on the fact that the young people who take up these courses will be valuable into the long term. Their contribution will be appreciated. But to address the skills shortage, the government need to look far more broadly and to get these sorts of programs moving rather than to run them out at election time and then mismanage, as has been the case with this one, the implementation over potentially three years now. We will have the next election before we see the outcomes. I say to the House that I hope this amendment reflects the fact that they are getting on with the job with this particular program. (Time expired)
Debate interrupted.
PRIME MINISTER
105
Miscellaneous
105
20:24:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Grayndler to move immediately the following motion:
That the:
-
the Speaker report back to Parliament prior to Question Time on 21 June 2006 concerning the apparent doctoring of Hansard, Question Time on 20 June 2006;
-
the House notes that Hansard records the Prime Minister as stating, “productivity will always be higher and growth will always be stronger under a Coalition Government than under a Labor Government”; and
-
the House also notes that ABC TV News which is captioned live, correctly transcribed the Prime Minister as stating, “productivity will always be higher, and growth will always be stronger under a Labor Government … under a Liberal Government rather than a Coalition Government”.
This follows the undemocratic processes occurring in the parliament with 13 bills being gagged this week. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister cannot defend his industrial relations reforms. It is no wonder he is confused and we are seeing yet again a repeat of the undemocratic practices—
Mr BALDWIN
(Paterson
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources)
20:25:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
20:30:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. DJC Kerr)
74
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
41
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Danby, M. *
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G.
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A. *
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—Is the motion seconded?
107
20:35:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
0
Mr SWAN
—Yes. The Prime Minister has doctored Hansard—
Mr BALDWIN
(Paterson
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources)
20:35:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
20:36:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. DJC Kerr)
74
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
41
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Danby, M. *
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G.
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A. *
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Albanese’s) be agreed to.
20:40:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. DJC Kerr)
41
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Danby, M. *
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G.
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A. *
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
74
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA’S SKILLS NEEDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
108
Bills
R2535
Second Reading
108
Debate resumed.
108
20:44:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I rise with great pleasure tonight in support of the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Bill 2005. Firstly, I would like to address some comments made by the member for Cunningham, who derided some of the initiatives that this government has brought in when she said that things like the tool box do not add much value. Today I had a phone call from people within an industry asking whether that particular initiative could be applied to young apprentices who work in the aerospace sector, because they see this initiative as being something that would add value and incentive.
But, importantly, the point I would like to make is that there is no silver bullet in this area. It is pointless for the opposition to be seeking and grasping for a silver bullet—one particular policy that will fix the problem. This problem has developed over a large number of years for a range of reasons, and it requires a holistic approach by government working with industry and the education sector to address it. I am pleased to see that this bill by the Howard government is one measure which takes that holistic approach and gets a range of stakeholders involved.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Bill 2005, which provides for the establishment and the operation of these technical colleges. This bill will bring forward funding from 2008-09 into 2006-07. Whilst the total amount of funds appropriated under the act will remain unchanged, it means that there is a need for increased expenditure in early years because of the uptake and activity associated with these technical colleges.
The question has to be asked: why is that uptake there? The uptake is there because people in the community recognise that skills training and a trade are valuable things for young people to have. They look at the fact that these colleges will not only strengthen our existing system but, most importantly, promote pride and excellence in the attainment of a trade qualification. No longer will trade training be seen as the alternative course for those who do not have the capacity to pursue an academic career; it will be seen as a first choice for many people in Australia. That means, by having a stand-alone technical college, we give young people who want to pursue a trade a first choice and we give them pride and a place of excellence to do that training.
One of the important things that have attracted the support of the community is that these colleges will have a governing council which is led by local business and industry. As opposed to educational institutions turning the handle and churning out people who do not necessarily meet the needs of industry, we will now have industry being involved with running the college and setting the curriculum but also—and importantly—through the use of school based New Apprenticeships we will see employers start to build relationships with these young people while they are going through their years 11 and 12 at school, completing initial trade training. So, when they finish that phase, there will already be a relationship established, which greatly increases the chances of those young people going into an employment contract that will see them complete that trade with an employer. There is strong support for the technical colleges. But, as I said, it is just one element of a range of initiatives that this government is bringing in. I think that is an important point to make.
We had three bids from consortiums who wished to run the technical college in the electorate of Wakefield, because people caught the vision of what it could provide. I am pleased to say that the bid that was put together in conjunction with the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide and the Northern Adelaide Industry Group ended up being the consortium that won the bid in northern Adelaide. It has put together a team and an industry panel that is at the point now of signing a contract with the federal government. It has selected both the principal and the chairperson of the governing council, who have been working very effectively, and those appointments will be made public in the very near future.
The need for this training and the public support for it in Adelaide is large. In the electorate of Kingston, we found that on public information nights over 400 people turned up and applied for positions when, in the first year of operation of the college, there will probably be only 110 places. The indications we have received in the north of Adelaide are that the response will be equally strong.
What are some of the other strings in the bow that the government is using in terms of apprenticeships? First, we are continuing with our strong support for apprenticeships, and as part of our approach to have a national standard of training and industrial relations the name of the apprenticeship system is being changed to Australian Apprenticeships. This has been supported by COAG, so it is not just a federal government initiative. It is something that the states are supporting, because they recognise there is a need to have a genuinely national approach to apprenticeships, training and skills recognition so that people have one licensing regime, one competency based apprenticeships system, that recognises their qualifications as they need to move around Australia—whether through their own desire as to where they would like to work or because their company would like them to work in other locations.
This is not the only means we are using to attract people into apprenticeships. The Army Reserve now has a system where, with local civilian apprenticeship teaming partners, it is offering apprenticeships in a range of trades: vehicle mechanics, fitters, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, technical electricians, sheet metal workers, supply operators, cooks or—with traineeships—clerks. This program offers people the opportunity to receive valuable on-the-job training with the Army Reserve as well as with civilian companies, and they earn both an apprenticeship wage from the teaming partner and tax-free pay from the Army Reserve.
This system has just started to graduate its first young people and, based on the quality of defence trade training in the past, I anticipate that this system will deliver great benefit into the future. (Quorum formed) As I was saying, this is only one of a number of government initiatives looking at boosting trade training and, importantly, connecting the young people as well as the mature age people of Australia with opportunities to train and engage with the workforce. For example, the Skilling Australia’s Defence Industry program will provide an opportunity to train the people we need in this country, whether they be at the project manager, the systems engineer or the trade level, to ensure we have the workforce in future to support our defence industries. The Sustainable Regions Program, which has been operating in the electorate of Wakefield, has resulted in the Northern Advanced Manufacturing Industry Group, which has an active program working in the schools, attracting young people to see the benefit of what is happening in industry and how what they are learning at school can be applied in industry. Rather than turning up their noses at the thought of either finishing school or taking up further training, they see the very real application of how what they are doing at school and what they can get through an apprenticeship can be applied in industry. It has been terrific to see employers in the electorate of Wakefield supporting this program.
An equally important question, though, is why is this initiative needed? In part, it is due to two main reasons: firstly, the growth in jobs. People talk about a skills shortage, but it is really a labour shortage because of the number of jobs which have been generated. Employers in Wakefield tell me that they are looking for skilled tradesmen. Certainly, most home owners I know who want people to work at their house tell me about the difficulty in attracting skilled tradesmen. But there are also many employers out there looking for unskilled people or people with lower levels of skills, and they cannot attract them and hold them in jobs because the workforce is just not there.
I was very happy to send out a media release this week referring to the fact that the national unemployment figures have dropped below five per cent. In the electorate of Wakefield, they have decreased to 7.8 per cent. Whilst that is higher than the national average, it means that there has been a 5.4 per cent reduction since this government came into office. In some of the regional areas, such as Clare, unemployment is well under two per cent and employers literally struggle to find anyone to fill jobs.
The growth in jobs, the demand for labour and the demand for skills is one of the reasons for this initiative. But there is another reason why this initiative for the technical colleges—combined with the range of other initiatives this government is bringing in—is so important. That is, there has been a decrease in the opportunities for trade training. That decrease has not just happened because of community attitudes and the feeling that was prevalent perhaps two decades ago that, to make something of your life, you had to finish year 12 and go to university. It was the outcome of that attitude which saw the Elizabeth Technical High School in Playford close down. It was an excellent school, which operated from 1960 to 1975. In fact, there were two schools: the Elizabeth Boys Technical High School and the Elizabeth Girls Technical High School. These were closed down and eventually became the Fremont-Elizabeth City High School, which was an amalgamation of three schools. It took away that focus on trade training. I know that the member for Jagajaga and others come in here and like to lambast this government, but it was a Labor government in South Australia which closed those schools down.
If people in the electorate of Wakefield comment to me on the lack of technical high schools, there is one thing that those who remember mention with even greater passion—that is, the closure of the Apprentice Training School at what was the Weapons Research Establishment, currently known as the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. The Apprentice Training School was recognised as a leading school within Australia, if not the world, in training skilled tradesmen to a very high level across a range of skills. The decision to close down the school was taken in 1987, with the closure occurring in 1994. Who was presiding over that matter in 1987? As I looked in the records to find out who was responsible for defence and the decisions on its restructuring, I saw it was none other than the current Leader of the Opposition, who was then Minister for Defence. He closed down the premier skills training institute in Australia, the Apprentice Training School at DSTO in the electorate of Wakefield. He closed that down and now has the gall to complain about a lack of skills training.
With the closure of technical high schools, the closure of the apprentice training school, combined with the introduction of the corporate support program, CSP, and the outsourcing within defence that saw other trades sent out to the private sector—and, again, that occurred under Robert Ray as the Minister for Defence—we saw a considerable decrease in skills training.
The advent of the technical colleges offers hope for the first time to the community and business people of the electorate of Wakefield. They will have an opportunity for their young people, once again, to access a place of learning where trades are valued, where there is a place of excellence for young people to learn trades and contribute to the local business and economy and to grow the kinds of skills that we need to continue making Australia the best country in the world in which to live.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
111
Adjournment
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Breast Cancer: Herceptin
111
111
21:00:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
0
0
Ms BIRD
—I take the opportunity in the adjournment debate tonight to provide an update to the House on a very important issue in my electorate and that is the process of registering the drug Herceptin with both the Therapeutic Goods Administration and—hopefully, I understand, by July—the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I have put on the record of the House before the case of a lady in my area, Michelle Radford, whose husband had written to me at the time when she had consulted her specialist and been told that for her the best opportunity of ensuring there was no relapse of breast cancer was to undergo a treatment with the drug Herceptin and that that was estimated to cost $60,000. Michelle has young children and for her family the only opportunity to access that drug would have been by selling their house. This is what prompted her husband to write to me.
I am glad to say that since that time there has been progress by the drug company Roche in actually applying to the TGA for approval for the drug to be used in first-stage cancer. I understand from the TGA, on 21 April, that they have actually approved the application to extend the use of Herceptin for the treatment of patients with HER2 positive, localised breast cancer when used in conjunction with a chemotherapy regime. There is a little bit of disappointment in the announcement in that the decision has been approved for node positive disease or node negative disease with a tumour diameter greater than 20 millimetres. That has caused some concern to some women in my electorate who think that putting the rider on it that the tumour has to be of a particular size may cause some future problems for women. For example, if their tumour is 18 millimetres in diameter, they then face the question of whether they should find $60,000 to undergo the treatment or wait till the tumour has grown to an appropriate size. However, it is progress and I am hopeful that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme processes will approve the listing so that women do not face that particularly traumatic choice of trying to find that sort of money or waiting and seeing.
I acknowledge the fact that our community has got behind Michelle and her family. I suggested to some friends of Michelle’s that perhaps we could set up a trust fund for the treatment and see if we could raise a significant proportion of the cost from the local community to help the family out and avoid their having to sell the family home at what is a particularly difficult time for the family anyway. I could not imagine how devastating it would be for the children, already dealing with mum being sick, to also have to deal with the sale of the family home. Our community, probably like most of the communities in all of our electorates under these circumstances, rallied very strongly behind Michelle and her family. I attended a pink ribbon fundraising night that was organised for Michelle only a fortnight ago and, to date, the community has raised just over $50,000 of the $60,000 cost of the treatment. That has meant that the Radfords have been able to retain their family home.
My hope is that we can progress the approval of the drug so that, in future, women will not have to make that decision and communities will not have to step in to do the fundraising that is needed. The reality for something like breast cancer is that the Cancer Research Council and breast cancer support groups are already making significant fundraising attempts in our communities. This support should be provided through the proper Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme process. I am very hopeful that will be the outcome in July when a determination is made by the processes of the PBS in the interests of the women and their families in all of our communities.
Ryan Electorate: Green Corps Program
112
112
21:04:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
1
0
Mr JOHNSON
—Developing the skills and opportunities of our young people and looking after the local Ryan environment is very important to me as the federal member for Ryan, the representative of the people of the western suburbs of Brisbane. That is why I decided that I would like to sponsor two young participants in one of the local community’s Green Corps projects to come to Canberra and meet with ministers and parliamentary secretaries who have a great interest in the Green Corps program—something that the Howard government can be very proud of. I am pleased to speak in the parliament today to thank the relevant ministers and parliamentary secretaries whom my two young participants had the opportunity to meet when they were here last month.
I want to thank the Minister for Workforce Participation, the Hon. Dr Sharman Stone, and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the Hon. Senator Ian Campbell, as well as the two parliamentary secretaries who gave their time to meet my two participants—Greg Hunt, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, and Pat Farmer, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. I also thank the Speaker of the House of Representatives, whom my two participants had the great privilege of meeting.
In sponsoring these two young students from the Ryan Green Corps project, I had the great pleasure of meeting them and learning about their interests and career aspirations. I was pleased to pay for their air fares and their overnight accommodation here in Canberra. I am sure they would have felt that their time in Canberra spent meeting members of the executive as well as coming to question time was very special for them.
Green Corps is all about skills development. Green Corps is all about character formation. The Green Corps program is all about confidence and self-esteem. It is about acquiring skills in teamwork and self-discipline. It is also about forming friendships in the program. The Green Corps program does make a difference in the lives of young Australians, and I would certainly commend it to my colleagues in the parliament.
Green Corps is the Australian government’s development and environmental training program for young Australians aged 17 to 20. Each Green Corps project involves some 10 young Australians taking part in a range of activities and experiences over half a year. Since the program began, more than 11,000 young Australians have joined Green Corps projects across Australia and more than 11 million trees have been planted, some 4,700 kilometres of fencing have been built, 36,000 hectares of weeds have been removed, 7,700 kilograms of native seeds have been collected and more than 4,000 kilometres of walking track have been constructed or maintained. The Green Corps project really does give young people a sense of worth and opportunity and exposes them to people who can help them with their career aspirations. It gives them new and additional skills to develop their careers and their character.
The Ryan electorate was very fortunate to have a Green Corps project located at Chapel Hill. From July to December last year two young Australians whom I sponsored to come to Canberra, Ms Lindsay Johns and Mr Adrian Evans, took full advantage of the program. They participated in the Cubberla-Witton biodiversity enhancement project, which involved the revegetation of several creeks in the Chapel Hill local area as well as the collection of samples of local plant and weed species. Overall, the project collected 10 kilograms of seeds, planted 6,000 trees, propagated 800 seedlings, constructed 20 metres of boardwalk and removed 8,200 square metres of weeds.
This is very valuable to the Ryan community. Both these young Australians, Ms Lindsay Johns and Mr Adrian Evans, took great pride in their participation in the program. They completed a significant amount of accredited training over the 26 weeks and one has already gone on to use this training and practical experience to secure a job in the field of environmental study. Young Adrian Evans noted in his report how much he enjoyed it and how much difference it made to his self-esteem. Indeed, he lost 35 kilograms and even got his drivers licence as a result of the program. It really stimulated his confidence and self-belief.
In conclusion, Ms Lindsay Johns noted in her report: ‘I have made life-long friendships which I wouldn’t have formed without this experience. Green Corps was a great experience that helped me to see that there were more possibilities to life. The positive atmosphere helped me to refocus my goals and gave me ideas about what clear paths I could choose.’ (Time expired)
Breast Cancer: Herceptin
114
114
21:09:00
Byrne, Anthony, MP
008K0
Holt
ALP
0
0
Mr BYRNE
—Tonight I rise following the contribution by the member for Cunningham to talk about Herceptin and the inexcusable delay experienced by women and men suffering breast cancer in being able to access that drug on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is an issue that has caused enormous concern in my area. In fact, I will talk later about a 28,000-signature petition compiled by a lady who is fighting for her life but is very angry about the fact that the government is ignoring her plight and her demand that Herceptin be listed on the PBS as soon as possible.
I want to tell this story through the eyes of two extraordinary women who are fighting the devastating effects of breast cancer and demanding the government take action to ease their plight. They are Marree Bissells and Kathy Levanic. These two women have been to hell and back. They have fought a life-threatening illness and endured the hardships of treatment and are very angry at John Howard and Tony Abbott for the delays in providing a drug that they believe could save men and women in Australia. They do not understand why it is not listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
The first extraordinary lady is Kathy Levanic. She is a resident of Hallam, who is 39 and married with children. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in June 2005. Interestingly, she read about Kylie Minougue’s experience and went to the doctor, who found a lump in her breast. She discovered that she had a very aggressive form of breast cancer and sought treatment. She had cancer in nine lymph nodes and had 15 removed. She endured months of radiation therapy and chemotherapy before being told that Herceptin was her best chance of survival. But she was also told that, because it is not listed on the PBS, it would cost her $64,000 to save her life. Fancy being at the end of a treatment protocol and then being told, ‘By the way, you’ve just got to mortgage your house to save your life.’ It is absolutely disgraceful. She has had to raise $40,000 through the generosity of the community through sporting clubs and great schools like Eumemmerring Primary School.
The second extraordinary woman, who has organised a petition of 28,000 signatures in my area, is Marree Bissells. I have a 16,000-signature petition that I cannot table in this House tonight but will table later. That adds to the petition of 12,000 other signatures that I have already tabled in the Main Committee. Marree is 46 and a mother of three. In June last year she found out that she had breast cancer. She had to endure months of chemotherapy and radiation therapy and then was told that, to get the maximum effect of those very harrowing and enduring treatments, there is a two-month window to utilise Herceptin. But she was told she would have to pay up to $91,000 to save her own life because it is not listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Imagine how she feels. She had to consider mortgaging her home to access a life-saving treatment. She said to get to the point of having the Herceptin treatment she had to endure:
... painful disfiguring surgery, many months of harsh debilitating side effects from chemo, weeks of continuing radiation treatment which burns your skin and adds to your fatigue and then when it’s the most beneficial time to start herceptin we have to wait, the best time to start ticking by adding to the despair, frustration and tears in an already very lonely place.
She has a message that she asked me to read to John Howard tonight. In her words:
Mr Howard you like giving money to people overseas when they need help but what about people here in your own Country who need Herceptin—we need your help to save lives, but us, here in Australia get nothing from you.
Mr Howard that is a national disgrace.
Mr Howard the over 2000 people with HER2 positive breast cancer in Australia continue to suffer, These are the same people who have worked hard, paid their taxes and built the prosperity of this nation you so often talk about. Why won’t you help us Mr Howard?
Mr Howard the thousands of HER2 positive breast cancer sufferers have been physically damaged and emotionally drained by this illness. Now for us funding treatment for Herceptin ourselves we are being financially damaged and that is too much to bear. Whilst our bodies may heal and we may pick up the pieces of our lives for some it is the financial damage that they will never be able to recover from. This is simply unacceptable.
If the listing of Herceptin is not about money but about safety then herceptin has been proved safe and effective.
I have here the relevant Therapeutic Goods Administration press release.
Why do obstacles continue to be put in our way? Barriers from us getting the best chance to live, the best chance to see our kids and our grandkids grow up.
In the words of someone who is fighting for her life and who organised a 28,000-signature petition, it is a disgrace that Herceptin is not listed on the PBS. (Time expired)
Lucas Heights Reactor
115
115
21:14:00
Vale, Danna, MP
VK6
Hughes
LP
1
0
Mrs VALE
—I rise tonight to correct the outrageous and irresponsible comments made yesterday by the member for Fowler regarding the research reactor at Lucas Heights in my electorate. Her uninformed comments related to some minor production incidents last week in the radiopharmaceutical production laboratory at ANSTO. Regrettably, not only were the member’s comments uninformed but they were hysterical, as is wont to occur when one speaks out of ignorance for the purpose of political scaremongering.
Yesterday, the member stated her concern about a ‘series of Lucas Heights reactor leaks’. This was nothing short of a disgraceful, irresponsible misrepresentation. It was irresponsible and lazy because, as a member of parliament, the member could have at least put a little effort into researching the issue—except her crass political opportunism and prejudice got in the way of the truth. Before my constituents take any alarm from her statement they should be made aware that the member does not have any qualifications in science whatsoever. In fact, her only qualifications are typical of a Labor member: a union hack with little relevance to the wider contemporary Australian community.
Contrary to the member’s statement yesterday, there have been no leaks from the research reactor, a fact that the member could have verified with very little effort. There were four minor production incidents last week, none at the reactor. All were very minor—in fact, all were significantly less than the regulatory reporting standards required by the independent regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, otherwise known as ARPANSA.
As openly reported by ANSTO to the Minister for Education, Science and Training and to the media, the first incident concerned the rupture of a small production pipe in the radiopharmaceutical production unit, which released a puff of gas that measured a fraction against the naturally occurring background radiation. The radiation from this tiny discharge measured 0.05 micro-sieverts, against a normal background of 2,000 microsieverts per year measured at 1.6 kilometres downwind. By far the most concern of ANSTO staff rightly focused on the interruption of the vital production of molybdenum-99, which is used in the production of nuclear medicine.
Approximately 500,000 Australians benefited from the provision of nuclear medicine last year. I understand that ANSTO was able to import sufficient molybdenum to supply about 55 per cent of the current Australian medical demand last week. Further imports are expected this week and I understand that ANSTO anticipates meeting all of Australia’s nuclear medicine needs soon thereafter.
The other three incidents last week were as follows. On Wednesday morning, 14 June, a worker received a low radiation dose from iodine-123, which is used in the diagnosis of thyroid cancer. This product was produced at the national medical cyclotron near the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and was shipped to Lucas Heights for packaging for patient use. Upon assessment it was revealed that the worker received four per cent of the annual limit for radiation workers and significantly less than a patient would receive getting a nuclear scan. The worker did not need to have any treatment and has returned to work. On Thursday morning, 15 June, another worker contaminated his shoes and trousers when he dropped a vial containing an amount of technetium-99m. I am advised that his skin was not contaminated and the clothing was cleaned. His personal dosimeter revealed that he had not received any dose in excess of that which he would expect to receive during his normal work. On Thursday afternoon, 15 June, a worker at the national medical cyclotron near the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital was cleaning waste in a thallium-201 production area when a pack of radioactive material burst. A small splash found its way beneath his safety glasses and into his eye. The worker attended the emergency department of the hospital to have his eye washed. Indications are that he received much less than one per cent of the annual dose limit for the eye but, since there were chemicals involved, the worker has since visited an eye specialist.
The member for Fowler may not be aware of the responsibility of ARPANSA, an organisation for which I willingly accept either the blame or the credit, depending on one’s philosophical point of view. This agency is an independent scientific oversight body whose role is to oversight all of the Commonwealth’s nuclear activity and is separate and distinct from ANSTO. ARPANSA is accountable to the Minister for Health and Ageing whereas ANSTO is accountable to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. This organisation exists as a very important resource for the government, for our local Sutherland Shire Council and for the Liverpool City Council. It provides an assurance for my constituents as to the exercise of world’s best practice at ANSTO.
Finally, if it would assist the member for Fowler, I would be delighted to arrange a full briefing for her on site at ANSTO. I am sure she would find the experience edifying. There is a great cure for ignorance—it is called knowledge. Regrettably, there is no cure at all for ideological prejudice.
Breast Cancer: Herceptin
117
117
21:19:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—Like the honourable member for Cunningham and the honourable member for Holt, I want to raise the issue of the listing of Herceptin on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I have spoken about this in the House in the past and I take this opportunity to again call for the listing of Herceptin on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I understand the July meeting of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee will consider the listing of Herceptin, and it will be a travesty if it is not listed.
Breast cancer has touched all of us. I doubt that there is a single Australian who has not had a family member or close friend diagnosed with breast cancer at some point, 11,000 women being diagnosed with breast cancer each year. There is no doubt that Herceptin is useful in treating breast cancer in many cases—certainly not in all cases, certainly not even in the majority of cases, but in a significant amount of cases—and if we can help one woman get through the challenge of breast cancer we as the parliament have an obligation to do so. In fact, it is estimated that Herceptin will be useful in the treatment of about 25 per cent of breast cancer cases.
The New England Journal of Medicine reported in 2005 that combining standard chemotherapy with Herceptin for women with early stage HER2 breast cancer reduces the recurrence of the disease by 46 per cent. This finding is based on one of the biggest studies ever conducted in this field, with over 5,000 patients participating in the trial in over 39 countries, including Australia. The President of the Clinical Oncological Society of Australia, Dr Stephen Ackland, said that the reduction in the recurrence of breast cancer through this drug is greater than has been found for any treatment in this field for the last 30 years. I agree with both the Cancer Council of Australia and the Clinical Oncological Society of Australia, which said:
Results of international trials of the drug Herceptin provide strong evidence to support a listing under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
There has been a development since I last spoke in the House. On 21 April the Therapeutic Goods Administration announced its decision to approve Herceptin as a treatment for HER2 breast cancer when used as part of a chemotherapy regime but only when treating tumours over 20 millimetres in length. It has to be noted that the TGA process is completely different from the PBS process. It involves clinical issues as opposed to a decision as to whether the government will subsidise the use of Herceptin through the PBS. I am not a doctor and I do not pretend to understand all the clinical issues that the TGA would have gone into, but the decision to limit Herceptin to tumours over 20 millimetres has caused considerable concern and hurt amongst breast cancer sufferers and there is an obligation on the TGA to explain this decision to sufferers of breast cancer.
There is no doubt that this decision would be expensive, but this is what the PBS is for and this is what the Australian people expect. This drug is effective in treating cancer and stops it coming back in many cases. There is overwhelming support in the community for the listing of Herceptin on the PBS. I have received 28,071 signatures on a petition I circulated in my electorate. My honourable friend the Chief Opposition Whip has received 26,000 signatures in his nearby electorate of Chifley, the honourable member for Cunningham has received 28,000 signatures and the honourable member for Holt has received 28,000 signatures. Other members have received very significant feedback. I would like to share with the House, as the honourable member for Holt did, just a couple of the many letters I have received on this issue. The first is from a constituent of mine at Bosley Park. It reads:
Dear Chris
Thank you for the opportunity to have this petition filled.
It is especially pertinent in my workplace as we have a colleague undergoing this treatment. She has had to mortgage her house which is difficult when one is too sick to work.
The following is from another woman who saw my petition but is not from my electorate. She wrote:
Good luck with this petition. I am a breast cancer sufferer who will need herceptin. The cost will probably be close to $80,000.
If there is any news I would love to be contacted.
Letters like this remind us that it is real people who are affected by the decisions we take in this place. Because of the cost of listing Herceptin, this issue will go before federal cabinet. I take this opportunity to call on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend to the cabinet that this drug be listed on the PBS. I call on the cabinet to approve its listing on the PBS. The Australian people would expect nothing less. They expect us to be supporting women going through this very difficult time. (Time expired)
Child Support Agency
118
118
21:24:00
Schultz, Alby, MP
83Q
Hume
LP
1
0
Mr SCHULTZ
—When the public announcement was made by the government that there was going to be an implementation of the Parkinson report recommendations on child support there was nobody happier than I—and I know many of my parliamentary colleagues—to hear that announcement. There was nobody happier than I because I am well aware—I am probably the most informed member in this parliament, including the ministers responsible for portfolio—of the issues centred around child support. We had great lead-up comments about how we were going to address the culture deeply embedded in the Child Support Agency, we were going to make it fairer and more equitable to both of the parents in the interests of the child, we were going to ensure that the training that was going to go into the department was going to be first class and was going to be centred around people being able to professionally deal with the very emotive issues on the phones and we were going to ensure that the discussions that occurred between Child Support Agency staff and people ringing were recorded so that we had ample evidence of the professional way, hopefully, that the Child Support Agency would react to the changes.
But in the last three or four days we have heard that the culture that has regularly been referred to as endemic in the Child Support Agency—and that is the anti-father bias—has been reintroduced. The enforcement side of it has taken precedent over all of the good things that should happen within the department to make it fairer and more equitable to children. When I say the enforcement side of it, I refer to a public announcement by the Minister for Human Services, Joe Hockey, that we are going to implement a program in which 120 people are going run around willy-nilly, spying on and recording on video those who are referred to as ‘those male payers’ who are alleged not to have lived up to their obligations as the fathers of children.
None of us would condone any system which allowed a father not to live up to his moral and proper obligations to look after a child that he has sired, but nothing has been said about what we are going to do about women who, for many years, have been falsely claiming child support from a male who was not the father of the child that he was purported to have sired. In those instances it is not always only one child but sometimes two, three and four children. No effort has been made by the Child Support Agency to bring those women who have lied in their sworn statements to the Child Support Agency to justice for what they have done in creating undue financial and mental stress to male payers.
I could go on talking about the issue, but what I am concerned about this evening is the control we are going to have over these 120 people. Are they people who are well trained and aware of the sensitivity of the job they are about to undertake? Who is to make sure that the people they are investigating, in many instances who are having their human rights abused, are in fact guilty of what the minister talks about in his press statements? Are we going to fit these people out with grey uniforms and jackboots, which would be appropriate for the actions that the minister says they are going to take out in the public arena? I have grave reservations and concerns about this initiative by the minister. I would have thought that there were other areas of the Child Support Agency that needed to be cleaned up with a great deal of vigour than putting 120 people out into the community specifically to watch ‘suspect parents’ and to gather video data on their lifestyles. That is not what this government is all about and what this government purports to be all about. It is an undemocratic process. Quite frankly, I think the minister has bowed to the pressure of people within the CSA. (Time expired)
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
119
21:30:00
House adjourned at 9.30 pm
NOTICES
119
Notices
The following notices were given:
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
to present a bill for an act to amend the National Health Act 1953, and for related purposes. (National Health Amendment (Immunisation) Bill 2006)
83R
Edwards, Graham, MP
Mr Edwards
to move:
That this House:
-
recognises that Friday, 18 August is the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan;
-
recognises that this battle was the defining battle in Australia’s longest war;
-
recognises the bravery, tenacity and courage of those who fought in that battle and those who supported them;
-
recognises the sacrifice of all who served and suffered in that war;
-
recognises the ongoing needs of veterans who served in that conflict and recognises the ongoing needs of family members and in particular the unresolved health issues of a number of children of Vietnam Veterans; and
-
reaffirms the support of this House for these veterans and their families. (Notice given 20 June 2006.)
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
120
Questions in Writing
Commonwealth Funded Programs
120
120
2256
120
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
Ms Grierson
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 6 September 2005:
-
Does the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle can apply for funding; if so, what are the details.
-
Are the programs identified in part (1) advertised; if so, in respect of each program (a) what print and other media outlets have been used to advertise it and (b) were these paid advertisements.
-
In respect of each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), (a) what is its purpose and (b) who is responsible for allocating funds.
-
With respect to each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) businesses and (c) individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle received funding in (i) 2003-2004 and (ii) 2004-2005.
-
What sum of Commonwealth funding did each recipient receive in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005 and what are their names and addresses.
120
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:
-
No.
-
to (5) Not applicable.
Australian Taxation Office: Prosecutions
120
120
2943
120
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 7 February 2006:
-
Will he list the prosecutions the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) initiated in (a) 2004 and (b) 2005.
-
In respect of each prosecution listed in part (1), what sum did the ATO seek to recover through the courts in (a) 2004 and (b) 2005 in (i) unpaid tax, (ii) interest, and (iii) penalties.
-
Will he list the judgments that were handed down in (a) 2004 and (b) 2005 on cases brought by the ATO and, for each year, what sum did the ATO actually recover through the courts in (i) unpaid tax, (ii) interest, and (iii) penalties.
-
In respect of each judgment listed in part (3), was a custodial or suspended custodial sentence imposed; if so, what are the details.
-
Which cases were settled out of court or by consent award in (a) 2004 and (b) 2005, and in respect of each case, what was the quantum of the award.
-
How many bankruptcy orders were sought on businesses for tax debt in (a) 2004 and (b) 2005 and what was the average sum of the outstanding tax sought.
120
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:
-
and (b) ATO prosecutions can arise through referral of briefs of evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP). Note the decision to prosecute is the prerogative of the CDPP. For some excise matters briefs of evidence are referred to the Australian Government Solicitor. The ATO also operates an in-house prosecution function under a delegated authority, for prescribed offences, from the CDPP.
In 2004:
- 151 briefs were referred to the CDPP
- 15 briefs were referred to the Australian Government Solicitor
- 6,176 prosecutions were initiated by ATO in-house prosecutions
In 2005:
- 136 briefs were referred to the CDPP
- 1 brief was referred to the Australian Government Solicitor
- 5,703 prosecutions were initiated by ATO in-house prosecutions
-
The ATO does not seek to recover unpaid tax, interest or penalties through prosecution action. The prosecutions that are conducted by in-house prosecutions and the CDPP are for criminal offences which do not relate to unpaid tax, interest or penalties.
Generally, fines resulting from convictions are payable to the courts. The ATO is not responsible for management of these matters.
-
In 2004:
- 3,794 convictions arising from ATO in-house prosecutions with fines of $6,303,387
- 149 convictions obtained by the CDPP plus:
3 good behaviour bonds (no conviction recorded)
1 conditional discharge
1 case dismissed by the court
1 found guilty with no conviction recorded
1 found not guilty
1 person found guilty on one charge however no conviction recorded
Reparation orders of $1,779,923
In 2005:
- 4,459 convictions arising from ATO in-house prosecutions with fines of $10,955,692
- 109 convictions obtained by the CDPP plus:
5 cases dismissed by the courts
2 conditional discharges
2 not guilty
1 good behaviour bond with no conviction recorded
1 permanent stay of prosecution
Reparation orders of $4,010,631
-
There were 114 custodial sentences imposed in 2004 with the sentences ranging from 21 days to 6 years in length. Please note that these are head sentences, and multiple charges can be laid against an offender.
People were successfully prosecuted for the following offences;
Crimes Act 1914 - Sect 29B False representation
Crimes Act 1914 - Sect 29D Fraud
Crimes Act 1914 - Sect 67 Forgery of Commonwealth documents etc
Crimes Act 1914 - Sect 86 Conspiracy
Crimes Act – various State offences
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 11.1 Attempt
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 134.1 Obtaining property by deception
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 134.2 Obtaining a financial advantage by deception
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 135.1 General dishonesty
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 135.2 Obtaining financial advantage
The Criminal Code Act 1995- Sect 135.4 Conspiracy to defraud
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 136.1 False or misleading statements in applications
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 145.1 Using forged document
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 - Sect 251L Unregistered Tax Agent not to charge fees
Tax Administration Act 1953 - Sect 8C Failure to comply with requirements under taxation law
Tax Administration Act 1953 - Sect 8P Knowingly making false or misleading statements
Tax Administration Act 1953 - Sect 8T Incorrectly keeping records with intention of deceiving or misleading etc
Tax Administration Act 1953 - Sect 8U Falsifying or concealing identity with intention of deceiving or misleading etc
Tax Administration Act 1953 - Sect 8Y Liability of officers etc of corporations
Fuel (Penalty Surcharges) Administration Act 1997
Excise Act 1901– Sect 117D Unlawfully moving tobacco leaf
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 117C possession of tobacco seed, plant or leaf
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 117B Unlawfully selling excisable goods
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 117A Unlawfully moving excisable goods
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 25 Only licensed manufacturers to manufacture licensed goods
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 117H Unlawfully selling tobacco leaf
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 117E Unlawfully buying tobacco seed or plant
There were 67 custodial sentences imposed in 2005 with the sentences ranging from 3 months to 9 years. Please note that these are head sentences.
People were successfully prosecuted for the following offences;
ANTS (ABN) Act 1999-Sect 23 Misuse of ABN
Crimes Act 1914 - Sect 29B False representation
Crimes Act 1914 - Sect 29D Fraud
Crimes Act 1914 - Sect 7(1) Attempt offence
Crimes Act 1914 - Sect 75 Personating public officers
Crimes Act – various State offences
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 11.1 Attempt
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 134.1 Obtaining property by deception
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 134.2 Obtaining a financial advantage by deception
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 135.1 General dishonesty
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 135.2 Obtaining financial advantage
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 144.1 Forgery
The Criminal Code Act 1995 - Sect 145.1 Using forged document
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 - Section 251L Unregistered Tax Agent not to charge fees
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 - Sect 251O Advertising etc by persons other than registered Tax Agents
Tax Administration Act 1953 - Sect 8C Failure to comply with requirements under taxation law
Tax Administration Act 1953 - Sect 8N Recklessly making false or misleading statements
Tax Administration Act 1953 - Sect 8P Knowingly making false or misleading statements
Tax Administration Act 1953 - Sect 8U Falsifying or concealing identity with intention of deceiving or misleading etc
Tax Administration Act 1953 - Sect 8Y Liability of officers etc of corporations
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 117D Unlawfully moving tobacco leaf
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 117C Unlawful possession of tobacco seed, plant or leaf
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 117B Unlawfully selling excisable goods
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 117A Unlawfully moving excisable goods
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 25 Only licensed manufacturers to manufacture licensed goods
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 117H Unlawfully selling tobacco leaf
Excise Act 1901 – Sect 117E Unlawfully buying tobacco seed or plant
-
The CDPP may elect not to prosecute some matters referred to it by the ATO. On some occasions individuals prosecuted for certain offences (e.g. failure to lodge) may have complied by the time of the hearing, however prosecution of the offence continues. Prosecution action arising from ATO activity is for criminal offences and does not relate to unpaid tax.
-
and (b) The following tables show insolvency actions commenced in connection with the recovery of tax debt for the relevant years, however information for the average sum sought is not available.
2003-2004
Creditors Petition Issued
595
Wind Up Petition Issued
1,439
2004-2005
Creditors Petition Issued
700
Wind Up Petition Issued
786
Pilot Tutorial Voucher Initiative
123
123
3012
123
Vamvakinou, Maria, MP
00AMT
Calwell
ALP
0
Ms Vamvakinou
asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 9 February 2006:
-
How many students in the electoral division of Calwell (which includes the postcode areas of 3042, 3047, 3048, 3061, 3064, 3059, 3428, and 3429) were eligible for vouchers for tutorial assistance under the Pilot Tutorial Voucher Initiative.
-
For the electoral division of Calwell, what proportion of students deemed eligible or participating in the program attend each category of school.
-
How many parents or care-givers of students in the electoral division of Calwell (a) applied for and (b) received vouchers for tutorial assistance under the Pilot Tutorial Voucher Initiative since the commencement of the Program.
-
Based on the pre and post-tuition assessment of students, what was the difference in the reading levels achieved by students in the electoral division of Calwell who have participated in the Pilot Tutorial Voucher Initiative.
-
How many parents or care-givers of students in the electoral division of Calwell who approached the broker to participate in the program were unable or unwilling to access suitable tuition.
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:
-
and (3) Any student in Victoria who was below the year 3 national reading benchmark in 2003, or who was exempt from the year 3 national reading benchmark in 2003, was eligible for the pilot Tutorial Voucher Initiative. The Australian Government does not have the data for eligible students at the electorate level. For postcodes in Melbourne’s north-west, 34 parents/caregivers applied for assistance. Of those, 33 students received tuition and 1 student was not able to be matched to a tutor.
-
Of the 34 students who participated in the pilot Initiative in Melbourne’s north-west, 19 students attended State schools and 15 students attended non-government schools.
-
The Department does not hold identified data on the improvement in reading achievement of individual students. The evaluation of the pilot Initiative shows that over 80% of responding parents felt their child had improved in reading and enjoying reading and 85% felt their child had increased their confidence in reading, while 69% of responding tutors felt most or all of the students they tutored had improved in reading.
-
No data has been collected that addresses this question.
Massage Service
124
124
3319
124
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 29 March 2006:
-
Did the department or any agency in Minister’s portfolio pay for massages for its staff in 2005; if so, what sum was spent on this purpose.
-
What was the cost per massage.
-
How many staff made use of the service.
124
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Australian Bureau of Statistics
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Australian Office of Financial Management
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Australian Taxation Office
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Corporations & Markets Advisory Committee
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Inspector-General of Taxation
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
National Competition Council
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Productivity Commission
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Royal Australian Mint
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Treasury
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Massage Service
126
126
3330
126
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 29 March 2006:
-
Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio pay for massages for its staff in 2005; if so, what sum was spent on this purpose.
-
What was the cost per massage.
-
How many staff made use of the service.
126
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.
-
Not applicable.
-
None.
Media Training
126
126
3338
126
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 29 March 2006:
-
Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio engage the services of a media training company in 2005; if so, how many individuals in the department and each agency received media training.
-
For 2005, what sum was spent on media training by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio.
126
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Australian Bureau of Statistics
-
Yes. 56 staff received media training.
-
$17,942 (excluding GST)
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
-
Yes, one.
-
The sum spent was $3,400.
Australian Office of Financial Management
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
-
There were seven individuals from ASIC who participated in media training for the calendar year 2005.
-
For the calendar year 2005, ASIC spent $11,667.20 (GST inclusive) on media training.
Australian Taxation Office
-
18 individuals received media training in the Tax Office.
-
The cost of the media training was $13,777.50 (incl GST).
Corporations & Markets Advisory Committee
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Inspector-General of Taxation
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
National Competition Council
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Productivity Commission
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Royal Australian Mint
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Treasury
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Media Training
127
127
3340
127
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 29 March 2006:
-
Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio engage the services of a media training company in 2005; if so, how many individuals in the department and each agency received media training.
-
For 2005, what sum was spent on media training by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio.
127
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:
-
No.
-
Nil.
Philippines National Police
127
127
3395
127
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
Mr Albanese
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 30 March 2006:
For 2005-2006, what sum in aid has been provided to the Philippines National Police (a) in total and (b) under each specific program of the Australian Federal Police.
128
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
$1,741,500.00
-
Attributable to specific programs is as follows:
1. 8 members of the Philippines National Police (PNP) sponsored to attend various internationally hosted management and leadership training programs during the 2005-2006 financial year totalled $64,000.
2. 27 members of the PNP sponsored to attend an AFP Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) program conducted in the Philippines. This program included the gifting of a mobile DVI laboratory, totalled $40,000.
3. The AFP Law Enforcement Cooperation Program (LECP) also manages the Philippines Counter Terrorism Capacity Building project which is jointly funded by the AFP and AusAID. The project has a budget of $1,637,500.00 million in the 2005 – 06 financial year. This is a Whole of Government initiative targeting areas such as bomb data capacity, forensics training, and specialist training in intelligence collection and investigations case management.
Macarthur Youth Commitment
128
128
3399
128
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
Mr Hayes
asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 30 March 2006:
-
Is he aware of the success in southwest Sydney of the Macarthur Youth Commitment’s Transition Brokers Programme.
-
Is he aware that 96% of the participants on the programme are either employed, in education or in training.
-
Is he aware that Macarthur Youth Commitment will be required to cease providing services on 30 June 2006 and that this is likely to leave between 500 and 600 ‘at risk’ clients without any support services to make a successful transition from school to work.
-
What is the reason for replacing the Macarthur Youth Commitment Transitions Brokers programme, which is currently assisting more than 700 clients, with the Youth Pathways programme which has a total of 316 funded clients.
128
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:
-
and (2). Yes. Progress reports provided to the Department of Education Science and Training by Macarthur Youth Commitment indicate that the program has contributed to the outcomes quoted. An evaluation of the program which is being conducted by the Macarthur Youth Commitment is scheduled to be completed by the end May 2006.
-
and (4). I am aware that the Macarthur Youth Commitment recently approached the Government for funding to continue their operations post the end of June this year for a further six months.
The Australian Government has implemented Career Advice Australia (CAA). This initiative is helping young people make informed decisions about their future. CAA is a part of the Australian Government’s vision that every young person should find and achieve their potential.
The expanded role of Local Community Partnerships under CAA will facilitate assistance for all young people aged 13 - 19, including the “lesser at risk” cohort of students who have historically received general career advice and information-based assistance under the former Jobs Pathway Programme. The services to be facilitated through Local Community Partnerships include: individual transition plans; career advice; structured workplace learning and advice and information on vocational education; and training pathways and opportunities.
The facilitation of these support services to all secondary students through schools and Local Community Partnerships under CAA has allowed the new Youth Pathways to focus on assisting those young people who are most at risk of disengaging from education.
The replacement of the Jobs Pathway Programme with Youth Pathways reflects the Australian Government’s desire to avoid duplication of effort in assistance for young people across jurisdictions. Participant numbers for Youth Pathways were determined based on a number of factors including the programme budget and the cost of delivering the more intensive personalised case management services. The proportional distribution of the 17,000 participant numbers to each Service Region was based on ABS Census data (unemployed 15-to-19 year old early school leavers). This was the most reliable data available to indicate the distribution of the number of at-risk young people and the most equitable basis on which to allocate the funding and business levels in a nationally consistent way.
Transition support services for this area will be delivered by a number of organisations that have been contracted following open and competitive tenders and funding applications.
Analysis of the assistance historically provided through the former JPP indicates that 42% received general career information/advice; 25% was job search related and 33% was personalised and customised assistance. Many of the students that used to be supported by JPP and the Transition Brokers could be expected to be assisted under the CAA initiative. In addition, young people (16 year olds who have left school) can now receive employment related assistance from Job Network’s Intensive Support Job Search Training and/or Intensive Support Customised Assistance. Job Network services provide more intensive employment based assistance than was available under JPP.
While acknowledging the good work that has been done by the Macarthur Youth Commitment, the Government has increased resources through the services in place under the CAA initiative, and the new Youth Pathways for those young Australians who are the most at risk.
Taxation Legislation
129
129
3448
129
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
How many times have tax laws been amended since 1 January 2000 to (a) correct technical errors, (b) deal with unforseen consequences of earlier legislation, and (c) fix errors.
129
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The detailed information the honourable member seeks is publicly available and can be accessed at www.comlaw.gov.au.
Government Departments: Outsourcing
129
129
3454
129
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
Which Government departments and agencies are planning to send computer programming work offshore.
129
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 Finance and Administration portfolio, for which I have portfolio responsibility, is not planning to send computer programming work offshore. In regards to all other portfolios, the question should be directed to the responsible minister.
Foreign Affairs: Protocol Guidelines
130
130
3554
130
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
Mr Melham
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 22 May 2006:
-
Further to the answers to questions 348 (Hansard, 8 February 2005, page 195) and 1204 (Hansard, 14 June 2005, page 207), is it the case that the latest edition of the Protocol Guidelines issued by his department in September 2005 advise foreign embassies that Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall should be addressed to “His Excellency Major General Philip Michael Jeffery, AC, CVO, MC, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia”.
-
Did he and/or the Secretary of his department approve the September 2005 Protocol Guidelines before they were provided to foreign embassies and released to the public on his department’s website.
-
Did the Government consult with or inform the Governor-General before requiring that Letters of Credence and Recall be addressed to His Excellency; if so, when did this take place.
-
Did the Government consult with or inform Her Majesty the Queen of Australia before deciding to end the requirement that Letters of Credence and Recall be addressed to Her Majesty as Australia’s Head of State; if so, when did this take place.
-
Who was the last foreign Head of Mission to present Letters of Credence or Recall addressed to Her Majesty the Queen.
-
Who was the first foreign Head of Mission to present Letters of Credence or Recall addressed to the Governor-General.
130
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Section 2.6.1 of the Protocol Guidelines was amended in March 2006 to advise foreign missions that letters of credence and recall should be addressed to “His Excellency Major General Philip Michael Jeffery, AC, CVO, MC, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia”.
-
The Department’s Protocol Guidelines are approved by the Chief of Protocol.
-
Yes; most recently in January 2006.
-
Yes, the Government consulted Her Majesty the Queen, as Queen of Australia, most recently in November 2005.
-
HE Mr Amraiya Naidu, High Commissioner for the Republic of the Fiji Islands.
-
HE Mrs Marie France Roussety, High Commissioner for the Republic of Mauritius.
Middle East
130
130
3564
130
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
Mr Danby
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 23 May 2006:
-
Can he say whether the former Chair of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, purchased large numbers of productive greenhouses for use by, and for the employment of, Palestinian Arab workers after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza; if so, is he able to say what was the value of these greenhouse buy backs.
-
Did Australia’s mission to the Palestinian Authority (PA) positively evaluate this program.
-
Can he say how many Palestinians were employed in the greenhouses.
-
Has Australia’s mission to the PA evaluated claims by the Palestinian Company for Economic Development that hundreds of greenhouses have been destroyed by gunmen from the Al Aqsa or Hamas.
-
Can he say whether further greenhouses were destroyed over the weekend of 12 and 13 May 2006; if so, can he also say what the total value was of the greenhouses destroyed (a) that weekend and (b) since the Israeli withdrawal.
-
Were the greenhouses that have been destroyed since the Israeli withdrawal paid for by Mr Wolfensohn’s Western donors.
131
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
A number of greenhouses were purchased for this purpose by a consortium of US donors, including Mr Wolfensohn, co-ordinated by the Aspen Institute. The cost of these buybacks was approximately USD 14 million, and the Palestinian Authority contributed around USD 20 million for greenhouse refurbishment.
-
There was no formal evaluation of the programme made by either the Australian Representative Office in Ramallah or AusAID. No funding for the project was provided by the Australian Government.
-
The greenhouses and packing houses employed approximately 2,700 full-time workers and 1,800 part-time harvest employees. Approximately 600 security guards were also employed.
-
No. Australia’s Representative Office in Ramallah is unaware of any such claims.
-
I understand that greenhouses located at Morag were taken or destroyed during the period from 11 to 14 May as a result of a land ownership dispute by two prominent Gaza families. The replacement cost of these is estimated by USAID at USD 1 million. Since the Israeli withdrawal, approximately 500 dunums (equivalent to 125 acres) of greenhouses have been destroyed. USAID estimates the replacement cost for these greenhouses overall at approximately USD 5 million.
-
The greenhouses that were destroyed since the Israeli withdrawal have been purchased by the donor group organised by Mr Wolfensohn.