2006-08-08
41
1
7
REPS
0
0
2006-08-08
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 2 pm and read prayers.
CONDOLENCES
1
CONDOLENCES
Hon. Dr Reginald John David Turnbull
1
1
14:01:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House of the death on 17 July 2006 of the Hon. Dr Reginald John David Turnbull, a former senator. Reginald Turnbull represented the state of Tasmania from 1962 to 1974. As a mark of respect to the memory of Reginald Turnbull, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the House.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
1
14:02:00
Questions Without Notice
Middle East
1
14:02:00
1
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that the United Nations flash appeal is urgently seeking $US150 million to provide food, water and medical supplies to the people of Lebanon. I also refer to the fact that the appeal is currently undersubscribed by $81 million. Given that the government of Lebanon is facing a humanitarian disaster, with up to 25 per cent of its population displaced, and given that Australia is home to one of the largest Lebanese expatriate groups in the world, will the Prime Minister now agree to increase aid to the people of Lebanon?
1
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. As I think he will know, the government has already given some $5 million. We will consider adding to that. It is true that Australia has a very significant population of people of Lebanese descent. Let me take this opportunity to record my, the government’s and, I think, the Australian people’s immense respect for the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in arranging for the withdrawal from Lebanon of something in the order of 5,000 Australian citizens. To the best of my knowledge, not one death or injury has been occasioned to an Australian citizen for want, in reasonable terms, of a speedier facilitation. I think it is a remarkable effort and it does rather fly in the face of some very foolish things that were said at the beginning of this by a number of those opposite and a number of spokesmen for the Lebanese community in Australia.
Let me say that Lebanese Australians almost without exception as they have returned to this country have expressed their gratitude to the Australian government and their gratitude to the Australian ambassador in Beirut, Lyndall Sachs, which I also record—and I had the opportunity of talking to her directly—who has done a first-class job in very difficult circumstances. Sometimes self-appointed community spokesmen ought to bear in mind that when ambassadors and embassy staff in these situations try to help Australians overseas they risk their lives in doing so. The ambassador remains in the danger of Beirut. The ambassador is staying at her post. She is doing her job on behalf of the Australian people and I take this opportunity on behalf, I hope, of all members of the House to express my great gratitude and admiration for her in the job she has done. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and his department have done a superb job in safely evacuating 5,000 Australians and some of those people who criticise him, including the Leader of the Opposition, ought to eat their words.
Economy
1
1
14:05:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
1
Mr KEENAN
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House the results of the latest Economic Survey of Australia? What does this indicate about the Australian economic outlook?
2
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. I can inform him that the OECD released its report last week on Australia. The OECD survey noted that Australia’s recent macro-economic performance since the turn of the millennium has averaged around three per cent and growth in real domestic income averaged four per cent, placing Australia amongst a handful of OECD countries which achieved such rapid growth. The unemployment rate has fallen to five per cent, and the OECD noted in its report that:
… Australia is now one of the few OECD countries where general government net debt has been eliminated.
That is because this government has now relieved Australia of Labor’s $96 billion of net debt.
The OECD report was picked up by the Financial Times of London, which in its editorial on 1 August wrote the following:
What can you say about an economy that is a textbook case of good policies, well executed? That is the challenge facing the authors of the latest survey of Australia by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development …
The Financial Times went on to say:
Though the OECD identifies some causes for concern, its report card is mostly straight “A”s.
The list of achievements is impressive. After years of sustained growth, Australia enjoys higher living standards than all the Group of Seven economies except the US.
Let me stop there. After 10 years of economic management, living standards in Australia now exceed the living standards of every one of the G7 countries with the exception of the United States. The OECD said that this was the result of impressive reform—reforms like balancing the budget, repaying $96 billion of debt, introducing the GST, reducing income taxes and reforming industrial relations. All of those reforms were opposed by Labor, and if Labor has its way it will roll Australia back to where it was suffering under the poor administration of the Labor Party back in the 1990s. The coalition has turned Australia’s fortunes for the better, and that is the pay-off from reform.
Interest Rates
2
2
14:09:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall this election TV ad, which was seen by—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The leader will resume his seat. Members will put those placards down. I remind all members of my warning on placards at the last session. I will deal with people who disregard that.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr BEAZLEY
—Does the Prime Minister recall that television ad, which was seen by millions of Australians and is still on the Liberal Party website? Doesn’t this advertisement clearly ask Australians to trust the Howard government to ‘keep inflation under control’ and ‘keep interest rates at record lows’? Now, with three back-to-back interest rate hikes, why does the Prime Minister use weasel words to hide the fact that he has failed on both fronts and has breached the trust of the Australian people?
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! There is far too much noise!
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
2
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—Yes, I’m real nervous, Jenny! She’s got me on the run! Perhaps I can best respond to that question asked by the Leader of the Opposition by referring to a question that I was asked on this subject not after the election but before the election. It was a question asked of me by Neil Mitchell of 3AW in Melbourne. I think the Leader of the Opposition knows Mr Mitchell. He is about the most respected radio broadcaster in Melbourne at least and he is amongst the very best in the country. This is what he had to say. This was the question:
So you wouldn’t be embarrassed to win the election and then have an interest rates rise …
That is a fair question, and that is what has happened. We won the election and there has been an interest rate rise. This is what this debate is all about. You know what my answer was? This was on 23 September 2004. This is what I had to say:
Well I don’t seek to give guarantees, judgements about individual movements. My argument is that they will—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Parramatta will remove herself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Parramatta then left the chamber.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I said:
Well I don’t seek to give guarantees, judgements about individual movements. My argument is that they will always be lower under our policies and that argument is supported by the last time Labor was in government and the impact of their industrial relations policies.
The truth is that under 13 years of Labor interest rates on housing averaged 12¾ per cent; under 10 years of this government they have averaged 7¼ per cent—five percentage points lower. Every homeowner in Australia over a certain age, their children and, in some cases, their grandchildren know that under the former government housing interest rates reached the astronomical level of 17 per cent. I believe that the government’s credibility as the parties in politics best able to deliver lower interest rates remains absolutely unchallenged.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Peter doesn’t think you tell the truth.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting.
Middle East
3
3
14:15:00
Cadman, Alan, MP
SD4
Mitchell
LP
1
Mr CADMAN
—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of action the government has taken to protect Australians who have been caught up in the conflict in Lebanon?
3
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr DOWNER
—Mr Speaker, first can I thank the honourable member for Mitchell for his question. He made many representations for support for constituents of his, and family and friends of constituents of his, who were caught in Lebanon after the fighting broke out on 13 July.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade started off with a situation where it was estimated there were 25,000 Australians in Lebanon and, with a tremendous amount of determination and in the most difficult circumstances imaginable, have evacuated 5,200 Australians or permanent residents and their families. Now, most of these people—not quite all, but most—have been evacuated to Cyprus and Turkey, using 16 voyages on six different chartered ships. The fact is, Mr Speaker, the evacuees were provided with transit accommodation and other assistance before boarding aircraft which were chartered by the government for a trip to Australia. And so far more than 4,600 of the evacuees have already returned to Australia.
I just want to make the point that the major phase of the evacuation is now complete but some capacity still remains. We obviously have to take into consideration, in particular, around 100 people who we believe—we are not sure—are trapped in southern Lebanon, who would like to get out and are unable to do so. So we are continuing to do everything we can to try to evacuate that group of people—working with the United Nations, the Red Cross, privately organised convoys and, obviously, other partner governments. But the security in southern Lebanon rather obviously remains very dangerous. It remains volatile, and any further evacuations would be extremely difficult.
I would like, in conclusion, to join with the Prime Minister and say that the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade did a simply extraordinary job evacuating 5,200 people, 15,000 kilometres away. Some people were saying, ‘Well, the French can get people out, and the Spanish and so on.’ Those countries are on the Mediterranean Sea, as I think all members would be aware. Australia happens to be 15,000 kilometres away from the Mediterranean Sea and it was a simply massive undertaking for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Yesterday, I went down to the department and met with the officers who have done this excellent work at the Australian end, and I made the point to them that the Australian people were proud of what they had done. And I add—because she obviously could not be there—that we are very proud of what the ambassador, Lyndall Sachs, and her staff over there in Beirut have done, in trying circumstances, and showing enormous courage.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
4
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
4
14:18:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Razali Bin Ibrahim, a member of the Malaysian parliament. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
4
14:18:00
Questions Without Notice
Interest Rates
4
4
14:18:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
Mr SWAN
—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Reserve Bank’s measure of the debt servicing of households shows a bigger share of household income is being consumed by mortgage interest payments today than ever before? Why doesn’t the Prime Minister tell the truth, like the Treasurer’s parents said he should, and admit interest rate rises today are having a greater impact on household budgets than rates prevailing in 1989?
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister has the call.
4
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—Mr Speaker, the truth is that housing loans are larger today because people are wealthier today than they were 10 years ago—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—and the value of their homes is higher. And I thought even the member for Lilley would understand that if the value of your home is greater then the loan you need to buy that home has to be greater. But let me content myself as I cast around for a description of the state of the Australian economy at the present time. I found some words spoken on 30 July 2006. These words were:
... Barrie, because times have been good, unemployment is low, the economy is relatively prosperous ...
I couldn’t have put it better myself. Wayne Swan, Insiders, 30 July 2006.
Census
4
4
14:20:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
1
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the importance of tonight’s census in the delivery of government services?
4
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question. I can inform him that the Australian census, which is taking place tonight, is something that is important for all Australians. The census will be used to allocate over $40 billion of GST revenues to the states and the territories. It will underpin the delivery of health services and educational services. It is important for overall demographic trends and it is a five-year snapshot of the importance of our society in terms of its income, ethnic background and, of course, overall population.
There will be three new topics in this year’s census: whether a person needs assistance in day-to-day activities, the type of internet connection households have, and whether voluntary or unpaid work or caring is being carried out—this will give us a fixture for the first time of the amount of voluntary work that is going on in our society. There is also a fourth question, which is only asked on a more infrequent basis, which is a question about female fertility. The question is used for estimating Australia’s future population figures and is very important to work out what Australia’s future population will be, particularly the ageing of the population and the demand which we will be having for childcare centres, nursing homes and the like.
I emphasise the census is confidential. Nobody need disclose their name but there is an option, if a person chooses to do so, to have the information kept for 99 years by the National Archives and then it will be available to historians, genealogists and their own descendants. There are some people who want the right to do that for the sake of their own descendants.
There is a 98 per cent compliance rate with the census. There is enormous cooperation from Australian households and I thank Australian households in advance for taking part in that. I will certainly be going back to my flat with my two flatmates and we will be disclosing the nature of our household—two married men with a single boarder sitting in a flat—which will no doubt add to the interest of the social composition of various family types in Australia. Who knows what the genealogists will make of our household in 99 years time—two married men with a single boarder in Canberra on 8 August 2006. No doubt, there will be others in this House who have even stranger family relationships, but I invite all members of the House to take part in the census tonight.
Interest Rates
5
5
14:24:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—I am staying in a hotel with 200 other people, I do not know what they will make of that! My question is to the Prime Minister and it follows the answer he gave to the member for Lilley. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister tell the truth about interest rates and admit that, according to the Reserve Bank, a bigger share of household income is being consumed by mortgage interest payments today, on his watch, than under Mr Keating?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! That question went very close to trying to imply something that should be part of a substantive motion but I will call the Prime Minister.
5
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I very happily and readily concede that people pay more for their houses now than they did 10 or 20 years ago and as a result they borrow more. It stands to reason that if you are richer with your assets, in order to acquire those assets you have to borrow more money. That is the explanation for what the Reserve Bank said.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question went to a bigger share of household income. That is what the Prime Minister has to respond to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is answering the substance of the question.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—On any measure, including measures used by the Reserve Bank, this country is wealthier than it was 10 years ago. Average Australians are better off than they were 10 years ago. The debts are higher but the assets are larger. It is a matter of elementary economic logic.
Middle East
6
6
14:27:00
Jull, David, MP
MH4
Fadden
LP
1
Mr JULL
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What stance is the government taking on the proposed United Nations Security Council resolution on the Lebanon?
6
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr DOWNER
—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question. I think all members of the House acknowledge his interest in and experience and professionalism of issues of foreign affairs. Obviously, the government is deeply concerned about the loss of life in the Middle East since the fighting began on 13 July. With that in mind, we welcome the United Nations Security Council’s consideration of a draft resolution which has been drawn up, in particular, by France and the United States and which was brought forward on Sunday. I hope that this will be voted on soon.
This resolution calls for a full cessation of hostilities—that is, for Hezbollah, a terrorist organisation, to stop all attacks and in that circumstance for Israel to stop offensive operations and for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire based on a set of principles, including strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both countries, and full implementation of resolutions requiring the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon. As I said, I hope this resolution can be agreed on quickly and pave the way for a cessation of hostilities and for a second resolution which would mandate an international stabilisation force under chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. But let me make the Australian government’s position perfectly clear on this. We are not interested in seeing some kind of temporary solution—or bandaid solution—which several months or a year down the track is going to fall apart and when there will simply be a resumption of hostilities and more people will be killed. Now, out of this crisis, there is the opportunity to achieve a sustainable peace built around a quite simple and obvious proposition: that there must be a two-state solution to this problem.
Israel must be guaranteed by all parties its right to exist within secure borders and there must be the establishment of a Palestinian state. It is important that people understand that the problem here is that, while most countries in the world agree with that, there are some countries that do not. Amongst those countries that do not support the two-state solution are Iran and Syria. They are funding, supporting, aiding and abetting terrorist organisations Hezbollah and Hamas. They are supporting those organisations, which equally do not support Israel’s right to exist.
Some people say that Israel should negotiate with Hezbollah and Hamas or Iran and Syria. Those countries and those organisations do not believe Israel has a right to exist. The only thing Israel has to negotiate with those countries and those organisations is its own country. They have nothing else to offer, because those countries and those organisations want to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth, to use the words of President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
We completely reject that. It is not that we are somehow biased or play to domestic constituencies, or anything like that. It is simply that Israel has a right to exist, and so does a Palestinian state have a right to come into existence. That is the only solution here. For those who think that they can solve the problem of the Middle East by trying to destroy Israel, the simple answer is that they will not. All they will do is cause war. That is all they will do. Some people on the other side may mock, as the member for Sydney does, but my view is that all those people will do is cause war. I have made it perfectly clear—
Opposition members interjecting—
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—She just laughed at me!
Opposition members interjecting—
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—Don’t be so sensitive. Why are you sniggering?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will resume his seat.
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms Plibersek
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like that comment withdrawn. The minister has implied that I do not find this situation serious and that somehow—
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—You were sniggering at me; I will not withdraw it.
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms Plibersek
—I’m sorry, Minister—it’s very easy to snigger at you.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll
—He’s an evil little shit!
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sydney will resume her seat. I suggest to the member for Sydney that she might make a personal explanation at the end of question time. The member for Sydney will resume her seat.
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms Plibersek
—I require it to be withdrawn.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sydney would be aware that what the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said is not unparliamentary.
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sydney would be aware that to use the expression to say someone is ‘sniggering’ is not unparliamentary. If the member for Sydney—
Opposition members interjecting—
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I again say to the member for Sydney: she may wish to take a personal explanation at the end of question time.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In this place the convention is this: if a member of parliament has been offended by remarks made by somebody on the other side, the Speaker can require a withdrawal, if it happens to be unparliamentary. But the convention is that, if the person finds it offensive then the courtesies of this place mean that it is withdrawn. I have done it many times myself. That is the first point.
The second point to that point of order is this: the Minister for Foreign Affairs said a great deal more about the member for Sydney than simply characterising her attitude. He went on to describe the member for Sydney—I am sure, if you check the record—as having a particular attitude towards war and encouraging it. Quite frankly, they were utterly offensive remarks. The member for Sydney took objection—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition is now debating the issue and will resume his seat.
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms Plibersek
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister said that it is people like me who support war, and I require that to be withdrawn.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sydney will resume her seat and I will rule on her point of order. If the Minister for Foreign Affairs used the words that the member for Sydney raised then I would ask him to withdraw them.
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—Mr Speaker, I did not say she supported war. Of course I did not. I think she is objecting to my saying, as she sniggered, that she was mocking me on a serious issue. I would suggest that, on a serious issue, the opposition, instead of sniggering at ministers talking about it, do not do so in the future—and they won’t get themselves into trouble. It is as simple as that.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Oxley made three very unparliamentary and extremely offensive remarks about the foreign minister, and I ask that they be withdrawn.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If the member for Oxley has made offensive remarks, he will withdraw them.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll
—Mr Speaker, I will withdraw—but they were the truth.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Oxley will withdraw without reservation.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll
—Mr Speaker, I said I would withdraw and I do withdraw.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Oxley.
Interest Rates
8
8
14:36:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
Mr SWAN
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer’s claim that interests rates in Australia are low. Apart from New Zealand, can the Treasurer name a country with a comparable economy that has mortgage interest rates that are higher than Australia’s?
8
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—New Zealand, of course, has substantially higher interest rates than Australia, because New Zealand has had nearly as strong a growth as Australia. But, as I said earlier, Australia has had stronger growth than every country in the OECD and, in living standards, has overtaken all the countries of the G7 except for the United States. Let me make this point: the standard variable mortgage interest rate is 7.8 per cent, and the Reserve Bank noted in its decision that many people pay less than that. That was one of the things that it put into its statement. We can measure that mortgage interest rate against the historical situation in Australia. Under this government, the mortgage interest rate has averaged 7.16 per cent, whereas under the Labor Party it averaged 12¾ per cent.
ET4
Bevis, Arch, MP
Mr Bevis interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Brisbane.
ET4
Bevis, Arch, MP
Mr Bevis interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Brisbane is warned!
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—The standard variable mortgage interest rate, which is now 7.8 per cent, compares with the mortgage interest rate of 10.5 per cent when this government was elected. So, if you look at it in comparison with the Australian experience, and if you especially look at it by comparison with the Australian Labor Party’s record, these are substantially lower interest rates than under the previous government and lower than they would be under the Labor Party.
Trade
8
8
14:38:00
Secker, Patrick, MP
848
Barker
LP
1
Mr SECKER
—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government remains determined to gain new market opportunities from the current round of global trade talks for exporters in my electorate of Barker and elsewhere in Australia. Are there any alternative views?
UK6
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Wills is warned!
8
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the member for Barker for his question. I am sure that, on behalf of the beef exporters, the sheep meat exporters, the dairy products exporters and the wine industry in his electorate, he is interested in knowing where the global trade negotiations are heading from here. From the outset, can I say that it was disappointing that discussions a few weeks ago broke down, as they did in Geneva. That was a disappointment not only for Australia’s farmers and exporters but also for many of the developing countries across the world that are looking for an outcome in this round to give their economies the opportunity to grow and expand.
In answer to the member for Barker’s question, this round of negotiations is not dead. It is very close to just hanging on by a thread but it is not dead. The opportunity still exists to close the gap. What members opposite also know is that there are 149 members of the WTO and they all have to agree on an outcome. Australia has been playing the role of an honest broker in trying to bring the major parties closer and closer together so that we can deliver on the objectives we have set ourselves. There has been some significant progress made since we launched this round in 2001, and I instance one aspect of it. There was a commitment at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting last year to eliminate export subsidies by 2013. That would mean, for example, the opportunity of an extra $600 million worth of business for the Australian dairy industry if those export subsidies were eliminated. That opportunity is still in prospect.
We know what is needed to be done to achieve an ambitious outcome on market access in agriculture and industrial goods, and we know what is required to be done to achieve an ambitious outcome in reducing the level of domestic support for agriculture across the world, so we have been playing an honest broker role. We remained in contact with the major players since the negotiations were suspended in Geneva. In fact, in the coming weeks and months, we will be participating at different levels in discussions to try to restart these negotiations. Meetings are coming up with ASEAN ministers in Malaysia in a couple of weeks time, and we will be hosting a meeting of the 20th annual meeting of the Cairns Group, a group started during the Uruguay Round in Cairns—
An opposition member interjecting—
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr VAILE
—And by Labor; I acknowledge that. The Cairns Group was established during the course of the Uruguay Round, and it is still alive and exercising influence today. In November the APEC ministers and leaders will be meeting in Vietnam, and we aim to continue to raise the level of ambition with colleagues at all these meetings to try to take advantage of the window of opportunity that still remains open. It is still this government’s No. 1 trade policy objective to get a conclusion to this round. We are not prepared to agree to an outcome that has a low level of ambition and does not deliver for agriculture and our exporters of industrial goods and services. We want a highly ambitious outcome to deliver benefits to the exporting industries in Australia, because it is only that way—through our trade policy objectives—that they will deliver on our objectives of keeping the Australian economy strong.
Interest Rates
9
9
14:43:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and relates to the government’s undertakings persistently in the last election campaign, which are still on their website, to keep interest rates at record lows. Has the Prime Minister seen comments by mother of five Debbie Bridgman of Western Sydney? On 3 August, the Sydney Morning Herald reported her as saying:
“When someone says that, you put your trust in them and feel a certain level of security” ...
“We started plans [for the extension] a year and a half ago, knowing we could afford to do that without expecting interest rates to continue to rise.”
Does the Prime Minister agree with his parliamentary secretary Malcolm Turnbull that people like Debbie Bridgman have overdramatised the three rate rises since the election?
10
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I have seen those remarks by Debbie Bridgman—is it? Let me say to her, and let me say to families all around Australia, that last week’s interest rate rise was not something that anybody in the community welcomed. However, it was an unavoidably sensible and responsible response by the Reserve Bank of Australia to a number of factors. As I said at the time, and I repeat it here, the action taken by the Reserve Bank at the time it was taken could well have reduced the likelihood of more severe action being taken in the future.
As my response to Neil Mitchell on the eve of the last election indicated, at no stage in the last election campaign did I give guarantees that interest rates would never rise. What I said—and as sure as I stand here at the dispatch box, I know it to be true—was that interest rates under the coalition will always be lower than they are under a Labor government. I would say to Debbie Bridgman that, if you are really interested in long-term interest rate sustainability and affordability, please do not vote Labor.
Workplace Relations
10
10
14:46:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
Mr SLIPPER
—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, can you confirm that the ACTU has been making false claims about the government’s workplace relations reforms? Would the minister be kind enough to outline to the House the real situation in relation to these claims?
10
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 Fisher for his question. It is true that in June this year the ACTU commenced a series of advertisements claiming to be the real experiences of Australians under Work Choices. Those experiences have been investigated by the independent umpire, the Office of Workplace Services, to see whether any rights of workers were being abused. The result of that investigation was that the Office of Workplace Services, an independent body, found that these claims were phoney and misleading.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley interjecting—
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr ANDREWS
—The Leader of the Opposition interjects. I remind him that, in the last election campaign, he promised to put more money into the Office of Workplace Services.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Gorton!
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr ANDREWS
—What we have now is the secretary of the ACTU and the opposition attacking the umpire, the Office of Workplace Services, simply because it has revealed that these advertisements were phoney and misleading. This week the ACTU has launched a new series of ads but, instead of these being the real experiences of ordinary Australians, they are now using actors. They are now using actors in this new series of ads.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Gorton is warned!
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr ANDREWS
—Why are they using actors? Because it was shown that what was in the previous series of ads was misleading and did not stack up. What we have here is the ACTU and the Australian Labor Party dipping their hands into the pockets of ordinary working Australians and ripping out $20 million to pay for a series of deceptive and misleading ads. That is what has happened, and that is what the Office of Workplace Services has shown.
Opposition members interjecting—
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—He has got to withdraw what he said. Did you hear what he said? You called him a snivelling—I know what you called him. Even I could hear that. Everybody could hear that.
Opposition members interjecting—
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Opposition use very offensive language against the minister for workplace relations and, under the standing orders which he claims to uphold, he should withdraw it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I call the Leader of the Opposition.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—Just so you know exactly what I said, Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—I referred to the people who reported to him on those people they alleged to investigate, and only one of whom—I described them as ‘snivelling little liars’. Now, if he wants me to withdraw that, I withdraw.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition.
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr ANDREWS
—What the Leader of the Opposition has just confirmed is that he is prepared to attack the independent umpire on the orders of Greg Combet and the ACTU—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If the level of interjections does not drop, I will deal with people immediately. I call the minister.
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr ANDREWS
—These are honest Australian public servants doing their job, and they do not deserve that sort of description from the Leader of the Opposition. The only reason they get it is that the Office of Workplace Services dared to reveal the truth about the misleading ads from the ACTU. At the start of this campaign, the Leader of the Opposition and the unions said that the new laws would be a green light for mass sackings in Australia. What has happened in the last couple of months is that we have seen 100,000 new jobs created in Australia. That is what we have seen. We are proud of these laws. We are not going to rip them up and go back to the 1980s and the sort of economy that the Leader of the Opposition was partly responsible for. We are about building the prosperity of this country, and these reforms are about doing that.
Workplace Relations
11
11
14:51:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his comments on Meet the Press last Sunday about the government’s industrial relations changes:
... most of the concerns that have been raised so far have been phoney ...
Has the Prime Minister seen comments by Catholic Bishop Kevin Manning in the latest edition of the Catholic Weekly that the government’s industrial relations legislation is ‘manifestly unjust’, removes ‘fundamental measures of fairness’, ‘violates ... any reasonable notion of a “fair go”’, is ‘weighted “too heavily”’ and ‘stacks the scales in favour of the employer’?
84C
Thompson, Cameron, MP
Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Blair!
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Does the Prime Minister believe Bishop Manning’s concerns are phoney?
11
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I have not read last week’s issue of the Catholic Weekly. I apologise to the Catholics in the House for not having done so. I accept I apologise particularly to some of those opposite and behind me, but I am not surprised—may I be frank and, I hope, courteously frank to His Grace—that Bishop Manning should have made those comments. Over the years I think Bishop Manning on a number of issues has been quite critical of the government’s policies. I respect his right to do that, but I would point out that even a Catholic bishop does not speak for all Catholics in this country. I know many devout mass-going Catholics who are very strong supporters of this legislation. I know that they have absolutely no difficulty in reconciling support for this legislation with their Catholic faith. We have been talking a little bit about politics and the Christian heritage in the last few days, and I think it is very important to make the obvious statement that there is no such thing as a Catholic position on industrial relations. I do not claim any particular support of Christian doctrine in relation to it.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I think many of these issues are such that, if you read the Bible conscientiously, you could probably find some passages that supported our point of view and you could find some passages that supported the other point of view. I think if we are sensible, we will not try to invoke the plot for either side of the argument. If we are to have a sensible debate on the merits of this legislation, my advice to every person on this side of the House is: let’s leave out of the debate indications by the clergy to either side of the argument. As to the substance of what I said on Meet the Press, do you know what I had ringing in my ears?
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Griffith is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—It was not the words of Bishop Manning or indeed the words of somebody of the cloth who was supporting our legislation. What I had ringing in my ears was the denunciation of the ACTU advertisements by the Office of Workplace Services. We had a number of examples. We had the lady who had worked for the RSL. What Greg Combet’s ad did not disclose—there was no reference to it—was that she received a severance payment which was above what she was entitled to by law. What the Office of Workplace Services revealed—
84C
Thompson, Cameron, MP
Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Blair is warned!
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about whether he regarded Bishop Manning’s comments as phoney.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is addressing the substance of the question.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—As I was saying, what was ringing in my ears—and as I remember correctly and I think I heard it correctly, the member for Perth asked me about my interview on Meet the Press—was what Greg Combet’s ad said was that the workers at the Cowra Abattoir had been unfairly treated as a result of the Work Choices legislation. What was found by the Office of Workplace Services was that the firm was losing money because of, inter alia, the drought; therefore, it had no alternative but to let staff go. I remind the Leader of the Opposition and everybody who sits behind him that, back in the early 1990s, many firms in Australia were going broke and those opposite had a very highly regulated industrial relations system.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Gorton will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Gorton then left the chamber.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—What I also had ringing in my ears was, having read the Australian the previous day, there was reported a case before the—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The only thing not ringing in the Prime Minister’s ears is the question he was asked. All of this is strictly irrelevant, and I ask you to bring him back to the question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I call the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is answering the substance of the question.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—The ringing in my ears was the case of the former employee of that union in Victoria, the union that is run by—who is it?—Dean Mighell. In this case, an employee of the union was taking the union to the IRC complaining about an unfair dismissal. I wonder what law she was using. But the interesting thing is not what she was doing but what Dean’s response was. He said, ‘This is all nonsense’—he did not quite say that, but that will do for parliament—‘this is not an unfair dismissal, this is a genuine redundancy.’ In other words, when Cowra Abattoir does it, it is outrageous but, when the union does it, it is a genuine redundancy. That is what I mean by phoney.
Asia-Pacific Region
13
13
14:58:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
1
Mr LINDSAY
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister explain to the House how the Australian Defence Force is helping to maintain law and order and assisting legitimate governments in the Asia-Pacific region?
13
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr NELSON
—I thank the member for Herbert for his question and for his very strong commitment to the Townsville defence community. Traditionally Australians have considered, understandably, Australia’s defence as relating directly to Australia itself, but in this century as things have changed so too has our defence strategic outlook. Defending and protecting our people, our interests and our values relates to protecting not only our borders but also countries in our region and indeed the global interests of Australia. In that regard, as we go forward it is obvious that the security of countries in our region relates directly to the security of Australia. And so the Australian Defence Force has been called upon recently—and is likely to be again in the foreseeable future—to support, amongst other things, the protection of borders in countries in our region and the stabilisation of governments and security in countries in the Pacific region and other parts of Asia. We are also required to support humanitarian and disaster relief. At the moment Australia is actively involved in counter-terrorism arrangements in a number of countries.
I think we all recall the Boxing Day 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. We were all impressed that within 48 hours the Australian Defence Force was providing humanitarian relief. We were all impressed in April this year when we saw 110 specialist troops fully armed in combat gear deployed within less than 24 hours to the Solomon Islands. The Defence Force peaked at 400 in the Solomons. Similarly, in May we saw the Australian Defence Force go into East Timor at the request of the East Timorese government to provide and support peace and security. In all of that Australians should be equally proud of the courage and efforts of the Australian Federal Police. Very often we see the high-profile activities of the Australian Defence Force and the Army, but working alongside them in these countries is the Australian Federal Police.
It is extremely important to us as Australians that we appreciate that we cannot afford to have failing states in our region. The so-called arc of instability, which basically goes from East Timor through to the south-west Pacific states, means not only that Australia does have a responsibility to prevent humanitarian disaster and assist with humanitarian and disaster relief but also that we cannot allow any of these countries to become havens for transnational crime or indeed havens for terrorism. We are extremely proud of the efforts of the Australian Defence Force. We will be building on those in the future. Australia has a responsibility in protecting our own interests and values to support the defence and protection of the interests and values of these countries in our region.
Fuel Prices
14
14
15:02:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the last time petrol prices in Australia were at $1.15 per litre crude oil was around $US60 per barrel, compared to the budget forecast of more than $US70 per barrel and current prices of around $US74 a barrel? Why then did the Prime Minister tell the Australian people on Sunday that petrol prices could soon fall to $1.15 a litre, contradicting the Treasurer’s own budget estimates? Prime Minister, can you please explain to the House the basis for your comment about petrol prices falling to $1.15 a litre?
14
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I did not make the prediction attributed to me. I said that there was in the immediate term no likelihood of it going down but I entertained the hope—and I think I used that expression rather than making an educated projection—that it was possible that it might return to a lower level, and I think I did indicate that. I gave no time frame to it. I do not in any way withdraw what I said. I am grateful that what the member for Hunter has done by his question is to confirm the fact that the price of petrol is overwhelmingly governed by the world price of crude oil. I think that is a very valuable acknowledgement in the current debate and I thank him for it.
Indigenous Health
14
14
15:03:00
Tollner, David, MP
00AN4
Solomon
CLP
1
Mr TOLLNER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister advise the House of a new study that suggests some improvements in the area of Aboriginal health? Will the minister advise what further action the government is considering in this area?
14
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr ABBOTT
—I do thank the member for Solomon for his question and I thank him for his consistent interest in this very important topic. I can inform the House that successive federal, state and territory governments have consistently invested more resources in better health facilities for Indigenous people. Since 1997 the number of Aboriginal medical services funded by the federal government has increased from 108 to 183 and there has been an 87 per cent increase in the number of episodes of health care given to Indigenous people. Spending on Aboriginal medical services has increased from $100 million in 1996 to $350 million a year now. There has been a 50 per cent increase in the number of Indigenous doctors and a 30 per cent increase in the number of Indigenous nurses. It is one thing to spend more money; it is another thing to see measurable improvements in Indigenous health. There has been some encouraging recent news.
A study just published in the Medical Journal of Australia shows that in the Northern Territory—and this will be of particular interest to the member for Solomon—the increase in diabetes death rates has slowed from 13 per cent to three per cent a year over the period from 1992 to 2001. The increase in heart disease death rates has slowed from six per cent to one per cent a year. Lung disease death rates, which were increasing at three per cent a year, are now dropping at six per cent a year. I see that the member for Lalor is giggling. No-one should be complacent about this. This does suggest that in at least some areas government policy is working.
I notice that on the weekend the Leader of the Opposition came out with a commitment to entirely eliminate Indigenous health disadvantage within two terms of government. I welcome that commitment, because I have to say that this government has no monopoly of wisdom or insight in this area. I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to specify precisely what he would do differently. What new programs would he introduce? What new spending would he commence? Because if he cannot say exactly what he would do differently, he is guilty of peddling false hope in an area which is far too important for more Beazley bluster.
Fuel Prices
15
15
15:07:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
Mr SWAN
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer’s numerous assurances that the ACCC is constantly monitoring petrol prices to ensure that consumers are not being gouged by oil companies. Treasurer, is it the case that according to a letter from the ACCC Chairman, Graeme Samuel, this price monitoring is limited to collecting incomplete data from oil company websites and filling in the gaps with six-month-old data? Treasurer, do googling and six-month-old data constitute effective monitoring? Will the Treasurer now instruct the ACCC to engage in formal price monitoring to enable them to demand and collect relevant data?
15
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—The ACCC monitors the daily average retail prices of unleaded petrol, diesel and automotive LPG at 3,600 sites across Australia. Under a new arrangement which I have announced today, E10 will be included in the ACCC’s price monitoring program. There is daily monitoring of 3,600 sites across Australia. From memory, there are around 6,000 sites in Australia, so that is nearly 50 per cent of the sites—although, as I say, I am going from memory. There are 3,600 sites and they are put up on the ACCC website.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—So the answer is no, is it?
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—I don’t even remember what your question was, old son.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Treasurer cannot possibly be relevant. He does not know what the question was.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—There is no point of order.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—The point is that the shadow Treasurer could not possibly be relevant, because no-one cares what his questions are. I will table a statement which has been produced by the ACCC in relation to petrol prices.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order that goes to relevance—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—There is no point of order on relevance. The Treasurer is answering the substance of the question.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—I will table for the benefit of the House and both sides of the parliament the prices from the International Energy Agency data on petrol, ex tax and with tax, in the countries of the OECD. It shows that there is a remarkable uniformity in the ex-tax price right across the OECD, that the only substantive variation is in relation to the tax component and that the tax component in Australia is the third lowest in the OECD after the United States and Canada—meaning that in the relevant quarter, which I believe was the March quarter, the price in Australia was up around $1.30, compared with countries such as Norway, where it was about $2.70, and the United Kingdom, where it was about $2.20. I will also table the release I put out in relation to daily average retail price monitoring at 3,600 sites across Australia—and I invite members of parliament who want to access that information to look at the ACCC’s website.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr Fitzgibbon
—Mr Speaker, I invite the Treasurer to table also the wholesale prices of petrol in Australia and the terminal gate prices for petrol in Australia. I know he will not, because he does not have the—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Hunter will resume his seat. If the member for Hunter wishes to raise another question, he will do so in the proper course.
Family Relationship Centres
16
16
15:11:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
Mr FAWCETT
—My question is to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General update the House on progress in establishing the new family relationship centres to help build stronger families throughout Australia?
16
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr RUDDOCK
—I thank the honourable member for Wakefield for his question and also for his sage counsel and advice as chair of the backbench task force advising in relation to the implementation of this very important program. I am delighted to be able to advise the House that all 15 family relationship centres opened to the public on schedule at the beginning of July. I might say that that happened notwithstanding suggestions that it may not occur. I commend those who were very much involved in ensuring that this investment of more than $400 million by the Australian government could play a very positive role in the lives of Australian families.
In the first month of operation the 15 relationship centres have received more than 2,000 phone calls, and over 720 people have dropped in for assistance with relationship issues. They have conducted more than 1,000 interviews, and hundreds have attended group sessions. The family relationships advice line answered more than 8,600 calls during July. Thousands of information kits about the family law system have been distributed to those seeking advice from the advice line. More than 31,000 visits have been made on the family relationships online website. It is clear that the community is ready to embrace the government’s vision in relation to relationship problems, which is that it is better to talk than go to court and that parents should focus on their children rather than treating them like another item of property over which you litigate.
I have been officially opening centres over the past few weeks. We have been able to open nine centres so far—at Salisbury, Elizabeth, Hobart, Sutherland, Penrith, Wollongong, Strathpine, Sunshine, Ringwood and Frankston—and I am going to launch the Canberra centre this afternoon. All the centres are staffed by committed and enthusiastic professionals who are concerned with helping families on relationship issues. I have nothing but praise for the good work the staff are undertaking at all the centres I have attended.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr RUDDOCK
—The member for Batman does not seem very interested, but I might say that the member for Gellibrand was able to visit the Sunshine centre this week and has seen firsthand the professional and safe advice and service that has been provided. She welcomed the opening of that centre, and I hope she will be able to welcome generally the implementation of these very important measures.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
16
Questions to the Speaker
Parliamentary Behaviour
16
16
15:15:00
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
0
Mr TANNER
—Mr Speaker, this follows on from a question I asked of you on 22 June with respect to your rulings regarding statements by members that are required to be withdrawn. This afternoon in question time the honourable member for Sydney requested that a statement be withdrawn. You initially declined to require that statement to be withdrawn and subsequently, as a result of points of order, asked for it to be withdrawn.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—No he didn’t.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—The statement was withdrawn. Shortly thereafter, the Minister for Defence requested that the member for Oxley be required to withdraw statements he had made, without outlining what those statements were. I sit very close to the member for Oxley and I did not hear those comments. It is pretty clear, Mr Speaker, that, unless you have some kind of telepathic relationship with the Minister for Defence, you would not have heard them either. Yet you required the member for Oxley to withdraw those statements. My question to you is: prior to a member being required to withdraw, is it necessary for you to establish and to rule that the statements made by that member were unparliamentary or, if a withdrawal is requested, is it the position that that withdrawal will be automatically granted? You have ruled both ways this afternoon; I would like to know which is the rule.
17
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Melbourne. I would make two points. First of all, such a point should be taken at the time when he believes that the comments should be withdrawn. Second, if a member finds words offensive, then the member who made the offensive statement is called upon to withdraw. If he withdraws without reservation, and by implication admits that he made an unparliamentary statement, then no further action will be taken. Regarding the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when requested to withdraw an offensive comment he said that he had not actually made that comment, which left the chair with no option but to accept what he said.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner
—Mr Speaker, with due respect, I do not think you have answered my question. Is an automatic withdrawal going to occur or do you have to adjudicate on whether words are unparliamentary?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I make the point to the member for Melbourne that, if he refers to the House of Representatives Practice, it makes it clear what is considered to be unparliamentary and what is not. Occupiers of the chair will call for withdrawal immediately when they are aware of unparliamentary language. If the occupier of the chair did not hear it, then the occupier has to rely on other members for that point.
Question Time
17
17
15:18:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question to you, Mr Speaker, goes along the same lines. I would ask that you check the record in relation to the performance of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when he was clearly requested to make a withdrawal. During the course of question time you will recollect that I was requested to make a withdrawal even though my remarks were not directed at any member opposite. My remarks were directed at the behaviour of certain members of a minister’s department. Nevertheless, because the member requested that I should withdraw those remarks because he found them offensive, even though they were not directed at him or any member in this place, I observed, and was invited by you to observe, the convention that, when a member of parliament finds a remark of another offensive, that remark is withdrawn. So I withdrew.
In the case of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, he was asked explicitly to withdraw remarks he made about the member for Sydney—I am sure, when you check the record, you will see those remarks. You then requested him, properly, within the framework of the conventions of this place as observed later in question time, to withdraw the remarks that he made about the member for Sydney. The Minister for Foreign Affairs obviously wants to join the Leader of the House in bullying women and he wishes to be able to get away with it. I do think, Mr Speaker, you should examine the record.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—There is no need to debate the point.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, I ask that the Leader of the Opposition be required to withdraw that remark.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
18
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition. In responding to the Leader of the Opposition, I will check the record.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order relevant to this matter, the difference that was explicit was that the minister was at the dispatch box and could obviously be clearly heard by you. But, secondly, the member for Sydney was sniggering, because I saw her.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for O’Connor will resume his seat.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll
—Take your pills, Wilson!
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for O’Connor is warned!
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, is it in order for a member to rise in their place and scream out interjections?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Chief Opposition Whip may have missed me giving a warning to the member for O’Connor.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
18
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
18
15:21:00
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
0
0
Ms PLIBERSEK
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms PLIBERSEK
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms PLIBERSEK
—Today while answering a question, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, amongst other things:
All they will do is cause war—that is all they will do. Some people on the other side may mock, as the member for Sydney does, but my view is that all those people will do is cause war.
And so on. Mr Speaker, I took objection to two things in that statement and we have only dealt with one. I wish to make a personal explanation in relation to both of those.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will come to her point.
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms PLIBERSEK
—The first thing that I wish to make a personal explanation on is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, this is not a personal explanation; this is a debate, and properly she should speak on the adjournment.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. I am listening closely to the member for Sydney and I would ask her to come to the point where she has been personally misrepresented.
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms PLIBERSEK
—Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am. The first way in which I was misrepresented is that in this statement I believe the Minister for Foreign Affairs has grouped me with a group of people that he suggests are interested in supporting and causing war in Lebanon and the Middle East. I find that deeply and profoundly offensive.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member will not debate this. The member has made her point, but she will not debate it.
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms PLIBERSEK
—Secondly, Mr Speaker, he has suggested that I was sniggering and indeed laughing. There is no way that anyone could imagine that I would ever in any circumstances laugh at what is going on in the Middle East today. Perhaps I had a look of disbelief on my face.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member has made her point.
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms PLIBERSEK
—He is a very uncredible foreign affairs minister. But I was certainly not laughing at the situation in the Middle East.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member has made her point. She will not debate it. The member will resume her seat.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
19
Questions to the Speaker
Questions in Writing
19
19
15:23:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr MURPHY
—Mr Speaker, I need some assistance under standing order 105(b). Before I ask for your assistance, I need to ask you a question, because I have asked you, under standing order 105(b), to write to the Treasurer in relation to question No. 8, which first appeared on the Notice Paper of this parliament on 17 November, 2004. That question was the same question that I asked in the 40th Parliament and it goes back some three years or so since I first raised the question. I could be dead before I get an answer. Your predecessor sent letters to the Treasurer and you have sent letters and we do not even get an answer! It is a serious question about people who put themselves outside the taxation system and do not even lodge tax returns. So once again—through you, Mr Speaker, with great respect—I would ask you to write to the Treasurer and just ask why he is not even acknowledging your requests, on my behalf and that of my constituents, to get an answer to question No. 8, which first appeared in this parliament on 17 November 2004 and has been outstanding for some three years.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the member for Lowe have further questions?
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr MURPHY
—I have got a number of other questions.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If the member for Lowe could come to those questions.
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr MURPHY
—To facilitate the House, I will go through them very quickly. They are questions Nos 2999, 3005, 3013, 3127, 3172, 3389, 3392, 3393, 3394, 3460, 3462, 3507, 3508, 3570, 3585, 3588, 3589, 3590, 3595, 3596, 3601, 3602, 3603 and 3604.
19
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Lowe. I will follow up his requests with the relevant ministers.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
19
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
Reports Nos 49 to 52 of 2005-06
19
19
15:25:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports Nos 49 to 52 of 2005-06 entitled No. 49, Performance audit-Job Placement and matching services-Department of Employment and Workplace Relations; No. 50, Performance audit-Arrangements to manage and account for aid funds provided under the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development-Australian Agency for International Development-Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; No. 51, Performance audit-Implementation of the Parliamentary Resolutions Arising from the Review by the Parliamentary Service Commissioner of Aspects of the Administration of the Parliament-Department of Parliamentary Services; and No. 52, Performance audit-Management of selected Telstra Social Bonus 2 and Telecommunications Service Inquiry Response programs-Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
20
DOCUMENTS
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:25:00
—Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Health Insurance Act—Biennial review of the Medicare provider number legislation, December 2005—Record of special meeting held on Friday, 24 February 2006 to discuss the report of the 2005 biennial review of the Medicare provider number legislation.
Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
20
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Economy
20
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s breach of trust on interest rates and its failure to put in place the policy settings needed to keep downward pressure on inflation, petrol prices and mortgage repayments.
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—
20
15:26:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—This government cannot manage the economy in the interests of ordinary working Australians—Middle Australia—effectively anymore. This government cannot manage the economy in the interests of Middle Australia anymore, and that was absolutely eminently evidenced by the way in which the Prime Minister and the Treasurer conducted themselves in this place in question time. This government has failed to protect hardworking Australians from the consequences of rising interest rates and from the consequences of skyrocketing petrol prices. It has failed to keep interest rates at what it promised in the last election campaign would be record lows. It has failed to do that by failing to keep inflation under control. It has been crying crocodile tears over petrol over the course of the last 18 months and has been doing absolutely nothing about it, instead denying that you can do anything and absolutely refusing to exercise the authority that is in its hands to ensure that petrol prices are properly monitored in this country—by both the oil companies and the retailers having the firm hand of the ACCC riding them at this very difficult time—and absolutely refusing to contemplate alternative fuels to protect us in the long term from our excessive dependence on Middle East oil.
The government is terminally out of touch. The government is terminally arrogant. The relationship between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is terminal too. What they have said about each other over the course of the last four weeks cannot be suppressed. One described the other as being guilty of hubris and the other described the accuser as being a liar. The combination of those two positions, whilst we absolutely agree that they have correctly characterised each other, is small comfort to ordinary Australians, who wish to be assured that they have a government that is devoted to their interests and not to the interests of each other in the government. In fact, for a considerable period of time now the concerns, the fears, the hopes and the opportunities of Middle Australians have been the furthest thing from the Prime Minister’s mind and the Treasurer’s mind.
I doubt whether they were ever there in the Treasurer’s mind, but the Prime Minister at least some years ago attempted to effect a concern for what was happening to Middle Australia. Everywhere I go—and I have been many places around this country in the course of the last six weeks—if I am told once, I am told 10 times, as I meet people in shopping centres, at coffee mornings, in airports and in the highways and byways of this nation, that the Prime Minister has changed. What they mean about the Prime Minister changing is that they once thought the Prime Minister was on their side; now they think the Prime Minister is on the side of the big end of town and is no longer concerned about them. As some evidence of this, he permits his parliamentary secretary, without rebuke, to go around describing the sorts of people who are complaining about the circumstances in which they now find themselves, the circumstances which are leading to this judgement about the character of the Prime Minister, as guilty of overdramatisation. That is what Mr Turnbull said of constituents such as the lady whom we referred to in the course of question time, Debbie Bridgman. He described the remarks she made as overdramatisation.
Let me read them again because this is the authentic voice of Western Sydney, of Middle Australia and of those now experiencing considerable difficulties in handling their mortgages. This is what she said in reference to what was said by the Liberal Party during the last election campaign:
When someone says that—
and by ‘that’ she meant keep interest rates at record lows—
you put your trust in them and feel a certain level of security. We started plans [for the extension] a year and a half ago, knowing we could afford to do that without expecting interest rates to continue to rise.
Ordinary people in this country are not tricky, they are not dodgy and they are not used to dealing day by day with weasel words. They are used to dealing with each other in their family situations and in their social relationships with integrity. They are not there for the smart political point; they are there to make personal judgements about the things they need to do in their lives that will enhance their families, increase their opportunities and ensure their security. They actually weigh the words of politicians in ways that we in this chamber never would. We in this chamber who are participants in the day-to-day political process are highly sceptical of each other. The public is not. The public in fact places a very high value on what is said to them by senior figures in this country and undertakings that they get at election time. When they see things like ‘keep interest rates at record lows’, they not only vote for people they believe will do that but also act on the assumption that when they said those things to them they were telling the truth.
This government has got form in this regard. Many people have borrowed up to their eyeballs over the last couple of years on the basis of these sorts of statements which still sit on the Liberal Party website. ‘Keep interest rates at record lows’ sits, as we speak, on the Liberal Party website. They have taken decisions based on that to mortgage themselves to the eyeballs in confident expectation they can calculate the future. The simple fact of the matter is that they cannot. The government has form. It did that with the privatisation of Telstra. T2 will live in infamy in the way ministers went about the place selling Telstra 2 as a massive opportunity, encouraging people into it, bidding up the price to blazes. And haven’t the mums and dads who followed government advice on that occasion suffered from that? They are now suffering from following the advice of the Prime Minister on this.
I could not believe what happened when we asked the question in this place about the blatant Liberal Party advertising. If this darned advertisement appeared once, it appeared 1,000 times around this country and still sits proudly on the website. What did the Prime Minister do? He was not apologetic at that stage. He became apologetic subsequently when he used the words he did about the actions of the Reserve Bank. But at that point the Prime Minister said, ‘I went to Mr Mitchell and made a comment to Mr Mitchell.’ The look of cunning on the Prime Minister’s face did not fool us. The cunning grin on the Prime Minister’s face was directed at Middle Australia.
Let me tell the House what Mr Mitchell had to say about what he thought his conversations with the Prime Minister amounted to during the election campaign, because I think it bears some repeating here:
I would accept the mean and tricky bit, and the dodgy language, but I chased him around and around in circles, time after time again before the election saying “would you guarantee to keep interest rates at this rate or lower” and he said no. Well, he didn’t say, no but he said exactly that answer that Robert’s making the point about and it is dodgy language but it’s political language and you both do it I’m sure. He said “I will do better than Latham”, “I will keep them lower than Latham” and time and time again I tried to get him to say otherwise and he wouldn’t. So I’d say he hasn’t lied, but he’s been dodgy.
Fair dinkum. Debbie Bridgman, confronting his dodginess, is now experiencing extreme financial difficulty which the Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary says is somewhat overdramatised. I suppose you do get rather dramatic if you think your family is going broke. I suppose you do get a bit overdramatic if it means that you think that you can no longer afford private health insurance. I suppose you do get a bit overdramatic if you think that there is a question mark over whether or not you can pay your bills at the private school you want to send your kid to. I suppose you do get a bit overdramatic if you think that the logical consequence of all of this is that the bank might call in your mortgage. You might get pretty dramatic when that is the circumstance you confront—a circumstance that will never be confronted by the member for Wentworth and the Prime Minister or any of his chortling, hooning members, that gibbering array of pathological exhibits that sit on the front bench opposite us, because frankly—
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: even by the Leader of the Opposition’s current standards I think that is offensive language and it should be withdrawn.
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member will withdraw.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr BEAZLEY
—I withdraw. There are two standards in this place and I will observe the standard that applies to us, so therefore I withdraw. The Prime Minister then gave an answer to another question. You could see his handling of this issue in the current circumstances in which he finds himself because he knows he is going to be confronting a great deal of suffering amongst the Middle Australians he has so fundamentally betrayed. What he had to say in his remarks then was that the Reserve Bank had acted in a timely fashion, that the Reserve Bank needed to do what it did because of the circumstances it confronted in managing this economy.
The Reserve Bank has had an awful lot to say, which is why over the weekend we in the opposition suggested there needed to be a mini-budget here. The Reserve Bank has been quite explicit for some considerable time now about the reasons. It has said there is pressure on interest rates, and the thing that it is talking about is not the state of international markets and not the state of international oil prices. It has talked about explicit capacity constraints in the Australian economy, the resolution of which is in the gift of the government. That is what the Reserve Bank has been talking about. I will cite a few examples:
The clearest indication of emerging pressures on capacity has been in the disappointing performance of exports to date, which has been associated with a widening of Australia’s current account deficit.
… … …
… supply constraints, including much-publicised capacity constraints in rail and port infrastructure, have begun to hamper export growth.
… … …
Sharp increases in wages have also been reported in localised parts of the business services sector where skill shortages are particularly acute.
That was February 2005. March 2005:
Over recent months, it has become increasingly clear that remaining spare capacity in the labour and goods markets is becoming … limited.
May 2005:
… labour shortages are becoming increasingly broad-based across industries and skill levels.
I can go through another 10 quotes on that, bringing them right up to this last month, and through about three interest rate rises while they have been doing that. The simple fact of the matter is this, and we have been driving this point home to the Australian people over the course of the last 18 months: this government disinvested in critical areas of public investment over the course of 10 years, which has now severely jeopardised the Australian economy and is forcing interest rates up. In the area of public investment in higher education and in TAFE training, the figure is minus eight per cent.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—According to the OECD.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr BEAZLEY
—According to the OECD. The percentage in the average nation equivalent to us in the same period of time is plus 38 per cent. The extraordinary thing is, and you can see it in the ministers opposite—the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Minister for Human Services—they do not know that. They do not understand that. They do not know what they have done, and that is all part of being massively out of touch, massively arrogant and massively uncaring about the people whom they pretended to be supportive of: Middle Australia. Just as they have mounted a savage assault on how they earn their money in the industrial relations system, so they have now on their capacity to pay their mortgages—and they will pay the penalty for it. (Time expired)
23
15:41:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
0
Mr ABBOTT
—Let me say to members on this side and on the other side that no borrower likes interest rate rises. No motorist likes petrol price increases. But the test of a politician is not his or her ability to complain about things which no-one likes; the test of politician is his or her ability to actually make a difference to the things complained about. The easiest thing in politics is to complain; the hard thing is to actually make a difference to the fundamental economic issues that our country faces.
All we could really make out today from the Leader of the Opposition’s lengthy harangue is that he is against interest rate rises and he is against petrol price increases. So say all of us. We are all against these things. None of us likes these things. The question is: what will he do to bring about the happy outcomes that he says he is in favour of? I have to say it: yet again, the Leader of the Opposition has illustrated the truth of his predecessor’s statement that ‘a big bellowing cow in this parliament will never persuade the Australian public’. Let’s not forget for a second that, when members opposite had a choice between the former member for Werriwa and the current Leader of the Opposition, they voted for the former member for Werriwa, because at least the former member for Werriwa—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—And he had a thing for you, if I may say to the member for Grayndler; and his quote about the member for Grayndler—‘a habitual liar’—is well worth repeating in this place.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Deputy Speaker—
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—I withdraw that quote from the former member for Werriwa if it pleases the member for Grayndler.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Is the honourable member for Grayndler satisfied that the member has withdrawn?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I don’t even have to say it!
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—The fundamental point is this: there is no evidence whatsoever that the Leader of the Opposition has the slightest inkling of how to address those matters which he constantly runs around this country complaining about. There are things that government can control; there are things that government cannot control but can influence. I would say that, when it comes to the things that government can control, this government has delivered benefit after benefit to the people of Australia. When it comes to things which government cannot control but can influence, this government has put the policies in place to try to deliver the right outcomes for the Australian people.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the fundamental thing which governments can control is the tax that they expect the Australian people to pay. And let me remind the chatterboxes opposite that in the last budget a single income earner on $40,000 a year, with three dependent children, received a tax cut of over $40 a week. That is $40 in the pockets of average Australians, which will enable them to meet, when they occur, the higher prices which sometimes regrettably they face. And over the life of this government a single income earner on average weekly earnings, with two dependent children, is better off in real terms to the tune of 36 per cent.
This is a government which wants to govern for Middle Australia. This is a government which wants to be known as doing the right thing by the battlers of this country. I do not say for a second that everything this government has done has been applauded by everyone. I do not say that this government can protect everyone from the thousand shocks which inevitably we are prone to in this mortal life, but I do say that when it comes to putting more money in people’s pockets, and when it comes to delivering more real benefits to the ordinary people of Australia, this government is the best friend the battlers have ever had.
Let us look at some real things that this government has delivered. Over the life of the former government average mortgage interest rates were 13 per cent. Over the life of this government average mortgage interest rates have been just seven per cent. In 1996 the real household wealth of this country was $2,000 billion. Ten years later the household wealth of this country has more than doubled to $4,500 billion. And if you look at the statistics published by the OECD you will see that our standard of living, which did rank 13th in the world, is now eighth in the world, thanks in large measure to the sensible policies pursued by this government.
We had, from the Leader of the Opposition, a series of bland assertions that this government cannot manage the economy. Who would you believe: a Leader of the Opposition who was, just a few short weeks ago, in danger of losing his job, who was making a self-interested and self-serving plea, or the most reputable financial newspaper on the planet, the Financial Times of London, which said—as the Treasurer reminded us earlier today—that the Australian economy is ‘a textbook case of good policy, well executed’?
Who would you believe: a Leader of the Opposition, a failed former finance minister, a former employment minister who gave us unemployment rates of over 11 per cent—almost a professional failure when it comes to his former ministerial record—or the Financial Times, which said that Australia’s economic report card is straight As, and further pointed out that Australia had higher living standards now, after 10 years of the Howard government, than all of the G7 economies except the United States?
Now, again, let me make it crystal clear: no borrower likes interest rate increases; no motorist likes petrol price rises. We like them less than anyone else because we know that we will be blamed for them—unfairly or not, we will be blamed for them—but this government has done more than any government in the Western world to try to ensure that the Australian public are protected against these eventualities that they dislike so much.
We heard the now standard slag-off of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The Leader of the Opposition, who was once widely respected as being a decent bloke, cannot seem to stand up in public these days without using a series of nasty personal smears and sneers at the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, even stooping, today, to a fairly pathetic parody of the Prime Minister’s speaking style. But this is a good, strong partnership on this side of the House, and whatever may have been thought—or whatever may have been implied about all sorts of things on this side of the House over the last few weeks—it pales into insignificance compared to what the Leader of the Opposition has said recently about his predecessor but one, whom he claims to be able to work with should the member for Hotham become the president of the Australian Labor Party. When it comes to passionate hatred it is difficult to quote the former Leader of the Opposition—the man whom members opposite wanted to make Prime Minister of this country 18 months ago. It is difficult to quote him in this House without an absolute barrage of caterwauling interjections and points of order.
This Prime Minister has not changed, in the marrow of his bones, in his concern for the ordinary people of this country. My fear is that the Leader of the Opposition has changed—and he has changed for the worse. While his capacity to make decisions is as deficient and as defective as always, that decency which was once attributed to him is no longer in much evidence.
This MPI claimed to be about poor policy settings which, according to the Leader of the Opposition, were contributing to higher interest rates and higher petrol prices. Perhaps the shadow Treasurer, who I presume is going to follow in this debate, might have some answers here. I ask members opposite: what are their policy settings to keep interest rates low? Were they going to scrap the tax cuts perhaps—is that their policy? What spending might they cut? Is it going to be health spending? Is it going to be education spending? They constantly say that we are not spending enough in this area, so I ask the shadow Treasurer exactly what will he do to try to ensure that interest rates stay low.
We heard from the Leader of the Opposition today that part of the problem was bottlenecks in rail and port infrastructure. Perhaps the shadow Treasurer will tell us what he has been saying to the state Labor premiers about their rail systems. What has he been saying to the state Labor premiers about their port authorities? If these are problems, and the Leader of the Opposition says they are, what has he said to the people who control them? What has he said to his ideological brothers and sisters in arms on these issues? We heard from the Leader of the Opposition that there were problems in our labour market. The Leader of the Opposition does not want to make our labour market more flexible, more free and more fair; the Leader of the Opposition wants to send our labour market back to the 1980s, the 1970s or the 1960s—and we all know that they were the dark days for Australian productivity and Australian competitiveness. Not only am I appalled by the Leader of the Opposition’s Jurassic Park attitude on workplace relations but I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday, 17 June this year. One shadow minister, speaking of the Leader of the Opposition, described his policy on AWAs by saying:
‘This is a gutless rollover to appease a mob of gangsters in Sydney,’ ...
This is what the Leader of the Opposition is doing. What difference is that going to make to interest rates? If anything, the Leader of the Opposition’s policies in all of these areas are going to make a situation, which just at the moment is somewhat stressful for Australian families, infinitely worse.
On petrol prices, what is the Leader of the Opposition going to do? He is not going to reduce excise. He told us that on the weekend—a skerrick of economic responsibility from the Leader of the Opposition—but perhaps the shadow Treasurer could give us some plan. We had plenty of rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition; let us have a plan from the shadow Treasurer actually to bring petrol prices down. All we got from the Leader of the Opposition was something about monitoring. Monitoring is all very well; several thousands of petrol stations are monitored on a daily basis by the ACCC. The question is: what do you do, having monitored? If the shadow Treasurer and the opposition are to be taken seriously, let us have a clear, precise, detailed plan. Suppose all this monitoring shows that prices are going up? What will the opposition do to make a difference? If they cannot tell us what they would do to make a difference then, yet again, we have a pathetic attempt to scare the Australian public without offering anything at all as a solution. Let me again quote the former leader, the former member for Werriwa, the man whom members opposite preferred to the current leader at the only time they had to vote between them:
The Beazley culture is scab-lifting—see an issue, a public sore, and try to lift the scab without offering your own remedy.
It is not good enough. It was not good enough the first two times the Leader of the Opposition contested an election and it certainly will not be good enough for a third time, if the Leader of the Opposition gets that far. He was the finance minister who gave us the $11 billion black hole. He was the employment minister who gave us 11 per cent unemployment, the defence minister who gave us the dud subs that we have spent 10 years fixing. He was the communications minister who gave us the $4 billion cable duplication. He might have been a nice bloke but he was a total failure as a minister and I do not think he is ever going to be Prime Minister.
26
15:56:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
0
Mr SWAN
—The Treasurer has dodged this debate. He has scurried off with his tail between his legs back to the chicken coop. It is just another repeat of what we had last week when he did not have the courage to take on the Prime Minister. Just as he did not have the courage to take on the Prime Minister, he does not have the courage to take on this debate. Of course, the Prime Minister has not had the courage to take on this debate. This is something which is so important to the living standards of average Australians: rising interest rates in an environment where Australians were promised record low interest rates by this Prime Minister. Adversity is a test of character and it is a test that this Treasurer has failed. He failed it last week and it is a test that he has failed again today. The hollow man in here in question time today had no answers on interest rates at all, yet it is his actions and the actions of the government that are putting Australian families under such tremendous financial pressure.
Now the Treasurer may not have any numbers in the party room—that is pretty clear—but he cannot be allowed to ignore the numbers presented in this House that demonstrate that the percentage of income being paid by people with housing mortgages is the highest in our history. It will no longer be sufficient for him to walk into this House and say, ‘Blame Keating.’ They can blame Howard and they can blame Costello because the percentage is now higher than it has ever been. Interest rates have been going up and up and up and up and up and up and up because we have had seven rises in a row, but we have had three rises since John Howard went to the Australian people at the last election and promised record low interest rates. What does that really mean? Think about it for a minute. What it actually means is that John Howard himself in his advertising was taking personal responsibility for interest rates. There was the ad: record low interest rates. What that advertising says is, ‘I, John Howard, take personal responsibility for what happens with interest rates over the next three years.’ As we well know, interest rates are going up—three times since he made that promise—and record interest repayments are putting Australian families under financial pressure.
But John Howard does not understand a word of that, because he has been living at Kirribilli for 10 years. He really does not have to pay the freight, and neither do many of the ministers in this government, or many of those sitting behind them, who live fairly privileged lifestyles. All MPs live privileged lifestyles but, when you are so out of touch that you do not understand the financial pressure on Australian families—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—you should give it away, Minister. You should absolutely give it away, because you don’t get it. You absolutely don’t get it: a 7.8 per cent variable interest rate is not low.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—You don’t get it. The explosion of household debt has changed the interest rate equation in this country forever. It has changed forever, because the percentage of household income required to service a mortgage is at a record high. People are paying more in monetary terms and more as a percentage of income than ever before. But, of course, John Howard and Peter Costello still think they are low. This is what Peter Costello said on the Sunday program: ‘If you see a single digit in front of your interest rate, that’s low.’ This has now been airbrushed from the Treasurer’s website; you cannot find it on the Treasurer’s website. We know why: he is so embarrassed. Do you know why? Because the data has been there in the Reserve Bank report on monetary policy from last Friday. Data from the Reserve Bank shows that mortgage interest paid as a share of household disposable income was 6.1 per cent in September 1989. What was it in March 2006? It was 8.7 per cent. That is the figure they do not get: people are paying an increasing percentage of their incomes.
We have had two more interest rate rises since these figures were collected. These three interest rate increases have cost the average new mortgage holder $108 a month. And that doesn’t matter? We had the Prime Minister out there suggesting that it was not very much; it was only a little bit. We had the Treasurer out there suggesting the same. But let me tell you what those last three increases are worth: in the electorate of Greenway, they have cost $241 a month; in the electorate of Aston, $169 a month; in the electorate of Dickson, $210 a month. So what was the PM’s response in here today? He suggested that somehow households can pay their mortgage by selling their equity—that, if you are having problems paying your mortgage, you front up to the bank manager and say, ‘Look, I can’t pay the mortgage, but my house is worth a lot more.’
The point I am making is that this government does not understand the financial pressures that families are under. Somehow, through the commentary of the Prime Minister last week, was this notion that Australians had overextended themselves by borrowing more. Why had they done that? Because he encouraged them to. As Mrs Bridgman said in the Sydney Morning Herald, she went out and borrowed more—she felt she could do so because the Prime Minister told her. Now the Prime Minister says, ‘You’ve probably been out there borrowing more to go on a holiday, buy champagne, buy caviar.’ The truth is, Minister, that may be okay for some, but for most people it is the necessities of life that they actually have to put together to make sure they can get by. They are not out there borrowing for any reason other than to have a roof over their head and to provide the necessities of life.
In the middle of all this comes Malcolm in the Middle. Malcolm blunders in and says: ‘There’s nothing dramatic about this; it’s okay. I don’t have a problem with my $10 million, $20 million mortgage’—or whatever he has, if he has one at all. No problem for Malcolm at all. The backdrop to this is both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister saying interest rates are low. It is a pity the payments are so high. I do not think that we will hear a lot more from this government with their drumbeat of saying how high they were 10, 13 or 14 years ago, because now they are the highest ever.
So, why are we having this debate today? And why did question time begin as it did today? Why did it begin by discussing electoral advertising? As I said before, with that advertising the Prime Minister took personal responsibility for interest rates. This was a sleazy path to win the last election—nothing more, nothing less. It was absolutely sleazy. The Prime Minister’s desperate opportunism has been now compounded by his failure to listen to six alarm bells, which have been rung by the Reserve Bank since the last election—his refusal to heed their warnings about the need to invest in skills, to do something about training skilled workers, to do something about training doctors, to do something about training skilled workers in the traditional trades and so on, to do something about our infrastructure. In two budgets he has ignored those six warnings and he has sold the country short. The result has been rising core inflation and rising interest rates. When he gets confronted with rising core inflation, who does he blame?
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms Plibersek
—Bananas!
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Bananas! Do you know what? The Australian electorate picked that right away. They knew the Prime Minister and the Treasurer had gone bananas. It was a crooked defence, it was a shady defence and it was a sleazy defence—and it was an insult to the Australian electorate, who are being hit by rising prices across the full range of food items in the supermarket and across health and education, and they did not fall for it.
Then we had the Reserve Bank alibi. The week before last they were out there saying, ‘It’ll be the Reserve Bank’s responsibility; nothing to do with us.’ Pity about that advertising. Then of course we had the prosperity excuse. At one stage the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were out there saying, ‘They’re going up because we’re so good.’ And they expect the public to clap. They certainly were not clapping. Then we had to blame the homeowner, which of course was what he was doing to Mrs Bridgman. They picked his course there.
This government have to accept some responsibility. They were always out there claiming credit when the figures were good. They said it was their magnificent economic effort that produced a low inflation, low interest rate environment. Suddenly, when it turns into a high interest rate, high inflation environment, it has nothing to do with them at all. I think that says so much about this government. We have the worst Prime Minister in 60 years—that is what we have. And we have one of the worst Treasurers in our history. We have a Prime Minister who bequeathed to this country his record: 21 per cent interest rates. They cannot speak with any credibility on interest rates anymore. (Time expired)
29
16:07:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
1
0
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—In his address, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned one constituent. In speaking to this debate I remember a conversation I had with a constituent just before the 2004 election. This constituent phoned me and we had a conversation. He said that his father had told him that he would be quite happy with a Labor government except that they were no good on finance and on foreign affairs. I thought, ‘That is extraordinary.’ I asked: ‘When did your father say this?’ He said, ‘He died in 1951.’ It has been a very long strand in Australia that the Labor Party is not seen as a party that can be trusted on the economy or on national security. I looked at the latest Newspoll on the economy, interest rates and inflation, and it is remarkably consistent across all three questions and across a period of time. Very roughly, 60 per cent of respondents say that the Liberal-National coalition would best handle the issue of the economy, interest rates and inflation, 20 per cent say the Labor Party would be best and 20 per cent are uncommitted. So if you go walking in a shopping centre, you would find that of every five people, three would say that the Liberal and National parties are best, one would say that the Labor Party are best and one would be uncommitted.
This MPI is an attempt by the Labor Party to get more than 20 per cent. They are trying to get off the floor and are trying to show that they do have some credibility on economic matters. This MPI, let us not forget, mentions the government’s ‘failure to put in place the policy settings needed to keep downward pressure on inflation’. I waited 15 minutes while the Leader of the Opposition spoke and 10 minutes while the shadow Treasurer spoke to hear what the alternative Labor Party policies are. I thought that perhaps the RBA statement on conduct of monetary policy that we introduced in 1996, whereby through an exchange of letters it was agreed that the Reserve Bank would keep an inflation target of two to three per cent, was one of the settings they had in mind. No. Perhaps they were talking about the way the government had repaired the budget—the $11 billion Beazley black hole that was left to us in 1996—which helped fireproof the Australian economy through the Asian financial crisis. But, no; that was one thing they could have mentioned, but they did not. Let us not forget that the steps we took then, with the Reserve Bank and the role it played—and it played a fantastic role—were very important for the Australian economy in seeing that we came through the Asian financial crisis when most of our trading partners went into a very deep recession. The United States had an economic downturn in 2001. With the old Australian economy, it used to be the case that when America sneezed we caught a cold. But we saw that the Australian economy came through 2001 and through the 2002-03 drought—again, due to the good economic management of Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello but also the whole team, which is very much focused on the management of the economy.
If you look at the 2004 election campaign you will see that it really came down to the central question of: who do you trust to manage the economy? Our position was that it takes a lot of discipline and a lot of experience to manage an $800 billion economy—it is now a $1 trillion economy. What we have seen is that, every time there has been a hard decision, this government has put the interests of workers—jobs and the economy—ahead of small, narrow interests, and this is something that is beyond the Labor Party. Workers picked up on that. When we saw the timber workers in Tasmania applauding the Prime Minister, blue-collar workers right across Australia picked up on it. In fact, they were very scared about Mark Latham.
We mentioned a bit about the interest rates. I seem to remember Mr Latham signing a pledge card, as well, that he would keep interest rates low. The fact of the matter is that interest rates will go up and interest rates will go down, and to not have interest rates moving at all is, according to the outgoing Reserve Bank governor, Ian Macfarlane, a very unstable environment to have. The important thing is that we have a very credible independent Reserve Bank that keeps inflation between two and three per cent, which it has done over the period of the Howard government. When you compare our performance on inflation with Labor’s performance on inflation, I would take our performance any day. Over 10 years, our average on inflation has been 2½ per cent. It is half what it was under Labor—and similarly with interest rates and so on. The approach we have taken has been to reform the economy—and Work Choices is part of this—to ensure that we have prosperity in the future. Reform today for prosperity tomorrow.
When we look at inflation, one of the things the Leader of the Opposition mentioned as one of his policy responses was capacity constraints. Part of the reason for capacity constraints is that the economy has been growing at over three per cent for 10 years. Unemployment now is the lowest it has been since 1976; it is 4.9 per cent. In the most recent monthly figures since Work Choices was introduced, we saw the unemployment rate fall at the same time as the participation rate rose. More people were entering the workforce and still the unemployment rate fell. We saw something like 53,000 new jobs created in a month, and 38,000 of those new jobs were for women.
When we look at interest rates, again, I would take this government’s performance any day over Labor’s performance—in fact, over any Labor government performance you choose to mention. If we look back over a very long historical period, we see that interest rates have been higher under Labor governments than under coalition governments. Who can forget when interest rates reached 17 per cent? They were up at 17 per cent from mid-1989 till early 1990. The rates that farmers were paying were 21 per cent. If we look at the Labor Party’s record over that 13 years, we see that it was interest rates of almost 13 per cent that people paid over the whole 13 years. In the 10 years under this government, they have been a little bit over seven per cent.
There are a couple of points to make on the issue of petrol. First of all, we took a number of decisions early in 2001: we removed 1½c from the excise, we also removed indexation and previously we had removed 6.7c to compensate for the introduction of the GST. The excise at the moment sits at 38c a litre. Had we not taken those three decisions, it would now be 59c a litre: it would be more than 20c a litre more expensive than it is now. On the issue of the ACCC, the Leader of the Opposition’s one contribution was that we should have more monitoring. Some have suggested that the ACCC does not have enough power in this area. There actually have been a number of cases of price-fixing in recent times: one in the Ballarat area; one in the Geelong area. Last of all, something that has been presented to the current Senate inquiry looking at petrol is that the non-tax price of petrol is remarkably similar across OECD countries—what makes the difference is the tax portion. We see amongst all the OECD countries that Australia has the fourth lowest tax. It is only Mexico, the United States and Canada that have lower taxation than we do.
In conclusion, this MPI is a very limp attempt by the Labor Party to demonstrate that they do have some economic credibility. I would have appreciated hearing some solutions and some alternative policies. They do not have any. They cannot demonstrate how they would have performed better than the Howard government. The current settings are as good as they can be. (Time expired)
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is concluded.
THERAPEUTIC GOODS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 3) 2006
31
BILLS
R2528
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EXPORT CONTROL AND QUARANTINE) BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2582
AUSTRALIA-JAPAN FOUNDATION (REPEAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2556
Referred to Main Committee
31
Mr BARTLETT
(Macquarie)
16:17:00
—by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
FUEL TAX BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2518
FUEL TAX (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2525
PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2562
PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX (INSTALMENT TRANSFER INTEREST CHARGE IMPOSITION) BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2575
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2006 MEASURES NO. 3) BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2571
NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM (UNTAINTING TAX) BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2531
HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE) BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2567
RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECTRICITY) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2512
AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL AMENDMENT BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2529
LAW ENFORCEMENT INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2541
LAW ENFORCEMENT INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2543
LAW ENFORCEMENT (AFP PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND RELATED MEASURES) BILL 2006
31
BILLS
R2546
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2006-2007
31
BILLS
R2549
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2006-2007
32
BILLS
R2551
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2006-2007
32
BILLS
R2550
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 5) 2005-2006
32
BILLS
R2548
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 6) 2005-2006
32
BILLS
R2547
Returned from the Senate
32
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
ELECTORAL AND REFERENDUM AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL INTEGRITY AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2484
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2006 MEASURES NO. 2) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2522
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (MEDICARE LEVY AND MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2568
ENERGY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2569
FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FOREIGN FISHING OFFENCES) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2565
PLANT HEALTH AUSTRALIA (PLANT INDUSTRIES) FUNDING AMENDMENT BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2566
AGE DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2538
EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (WELFARE TO WORK AND OTHER MEASURES) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2540
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2006-2007
32
BILLS
R2551
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2006-2007
32
BILLS
R2550
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2006-2007
32
BILLS
R2549
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 5) 2005-2006
32
BILLS
R2548
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 6) 2005-2006
32
BILLS
R2547
BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT (SUBSCRIPTION TELEVISION DRAMA AND COMMUNITY BROADCASTING LICENCES) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
S496
EXCISE LAWS AMENDMENT (FUEL TAX REFORM AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2552
EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (FUEL TAX REFORM AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2553
CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (FUEL TAX REFORM AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2555
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (FUEL TAX REFORM AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2554
FUEL TAX BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2518
FUEL TAX (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2525
AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL AMENDMENT BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2529
DO NOT CALL REGISTER BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2564
DO NOT CALL REGISTER (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2563
RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECTRICITY) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2512
HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE) BILL 2006
32
BILLS
R2567
LAW ENFORCEMENT (AFP PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND RELATED MEASURES) BILL 2006
33
BILLS
R2546
LAW ENFORCEMENT INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER BILL 2006
33
BILLS
R2541
LAW ENFORCEMENT INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2006
33
BILLS
R2543
PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2006
33
BILLS
R2562
PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX (INSTALMENT TRANSFER INTEREST CHARGE IMPOSITION) BILL 2006
33
BILLS
R2575
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2006 MEASURES NO. 3) BILL 2006
33
BILLS
R2571
NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM (UNTAINTING TAX) BILL 2006
33
BILLS
R2531
FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION (2006 BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
33
BILLS
R2561
Assent
33
Messages from the Governor-General and the Deputy of the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA’S SKILLS NEEDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
33
BILLS
R2535
Second Reading
33
Debate resumed from 22 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”.
33
16:19:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
0
0
Ms HALL
—The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 brings forward funding for the proposed 25 Australian technical colleges from 2008 and 2009 into 2006 and 2007. The total level of funding remains the same, and it also establishes a regulation-making power to allow for funding to be carried over, or brought forward, into another calendar year, removing in future the need for recourse to legislation such as this bill to alter the timing of funding.
This legislation is being debated today because, when the government introduced the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Bill 2005, it introduced flawed legislation. I do not know how many times I have stood up in this House and debated legislation that we have had to re-examine because the government failed the first time to get its legislation right. The one thing you can be certain of with the Howard government is that it will get things in quickly but it does not think about the consequences of them and we have to revisit them again.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—That’s not true!
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms HALL
—This legislation allocated insufficient funds to deliver the government’s 2004 election promise in a timely manner. The minister opposite said, ‘That’s not true.’ I can refer him to a number of examples of where we have had to revisit legislation because the government has got it wrong—a number of bills within his portfolio area that we have had to revisit on a number of occasions. A promise made in the heat of an election campaign with little thought and no planning is what this promise by the government to set up Australian technical colleges was. It was made on the spur of the moment. The minister at the time had a rush of blood to the head and thought, ‘Aha! Australian technical colleges—that sounds good. We’ll try and convince the people that we’ve got the answer to the skills shortages in Australia.’ It was an announcement that was designed to be a vote-grabber by the minister for education, who specialises in shooting from the hip. The Australian technical colleges proposal was vague and without substance. It was, supposedly, a plan to address the skills crisis in Australia.
The Australian Industry Group, a group that enjoys some favour with the government, has estimated that there is a skills shortage of around 100,000 in Australia. I think that is quite a conservative figure. The answer that the government came up with to address that shortage was to establish these Australian technical colleges. Interestingly, today only four out of 25 are operational, and the first tradesman will not be qualified until 2010. The government’s second approach to addressing the skills crisis is to bring workers in from overseas. In addition to bringing in skilled workers from overseas, they are bringing in apprentices.
In the electorate of Shortland that I represent in this parliament there are many young people who would like to train to be apprentices. Recently, I visited Delta Energy Systems with the Hunter Valley Training Company. They are responsible for training apprentices locally. I met with some of the young apprentices who are training there. They told me their story and how valuable and worth while the training was. The Hunter Valley Training Company told me that it was very competitive to obtain an apprenticeship through them. They had hundreds and thousands of young people applying for apprenticeships and they had to turn them away. Why? Because there are not enough places.
Instead of addressing that crisis, instead of making it easier and encouraging employers to train apprentices, the government have gone about duplicating a system that is already operating. We have had a very strong TAFE system in Australia but, under the government, I hate to say, it has been in decline. They have ripped funds out of the TAFE system. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned earlier, under the government there has been a decline of eight per cent in spending on TAFE and higher education, compared to an increase of some 38 per cent in overseas nations. Interestingly, compared with other nations, the next worst-performing country actually increased its investment by six per cent in TAFE and universities.
The government are faced with a chronic skills shortage—a shortage that has the potential to undermine the operation of our economy. What have they done? They have ripped money out of the TAFE system and set up the Australian technical colleges system that will not see a trainee on the ground until 2010. I find it highly offensive, and the people whom I represent in this parliament are not too impressed with it either.
Labor have adopted a different position from that of the government. We will support their legislation and the building of these 25 technical colleges and the additional resources that will go into them, but we think there is a much better way than what the government have put forward. Labor’s Skills and Schools Blueprint highlighted a number of things that can be done that will make a real difference to education in Australia. As I have said, Australia urgently needs action to address our skills shortage. A skills shortage is a significant capacity constraint on Australia’s economy and the government’s proposal for 25 technical colleges is far too little, far too late. As I have said, the colleges will not produce tradesmen until 2010. This is at a time when we have this shortage of skilled workers—at the minimum, 100,000—and the government are adopting a very short-sighted approach.
When the government announced their proposal for Australian technical colleges, I think they were consumed with the election. They thought it sounded like a good idea. People in Australia were aware that we had this skills shortage. The government’s answer was to duplicate the system. It is not good enough. We really need a government, such as a Beazley Labor government, that would build an education system that teaches young people how to work, as well as how to study—a system that will prepare our young people for work and prepare Australia for the future, not a system that is based on duplication and that also lacks transparency and accountability. I will deal with that in a moment. As I have said, under the Howard government, Australia is the only country in the developed world to rip money out of universities and TAFE colleges. Australia needs a more systematic approach to promote trades, science and technology and education than the Howard government’s proposed 25 technical colleges. Labor’s Skills and Schools Blueprint that was released in 2005 outlines our program for getting skills into schools. I will touch on that in a moment.
The other aspect of this legislation that I find quite worrying is the fact that the government is mixing funding for the colleges with industrial relations. We all know that the government is full of zealots who have one thing in mind, and that is to undermine the workers in this country.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—I rise on a point of order. The honourable member has a responsibility to tell the truth.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The minister has no point of order.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms HALL
—In response to the minister, I would like to remind him that he has a responsibility to tell the truth as well and on many occasions I believe that he has been quite loose with the truth. Before the point of order I was talking about the government’s approach to Australian technical colleges and the requirement that all workers will have to sign AWAs. When the original piece of legislation was introduced into this parliament, TAFE teachers from Belmont TAFE within my electorate contacted me and expressed their concern. Firstly, they were concerned that it was duplicating a very fine system of TAFE colleges that exists throughout the country and, secondly, they were very concerned about the impact that the legislation would have on their conditions and their ability to develop and deliver quality education for their students. They are totally committed to delivering that quality education to the students that they teach. They take great pride in their work and they work together as a unit.
I do not think that Belmont TAFE is any different to other TAFE colleges within Australia—all the teachers are very dedicated to their students, dedicated to learning and dedicated to teaching those young people so that they can become part of the workforce of Australia and have the skills that we need to compete against other countries. They were also concerned about the fact that included in this legislation was a clause that said that college principals will have the responsibility for the employment of staff. Whilst it will be overseen by an industry-led government authority, they still have serious concerns about it because they have seen in the past how the government’s administration of such schemes has lacked transparency and accountability. I would have to say that I still share those concerns in relation to that original legislation. I had those concerns at the time that this legislation went through the parliament in June 2005 and I still hold those concerns today.
I believe that this response by the government is, once again, a knee-jerk response. It has happened because the government did not allocate funds properly originally. I believe that it will do nothing to solve the problem of our skills shortage; rather it is duplicating a system that has operated very well in Australia. It is not offering anything new. There is no new direction coming through this; rather it is the Howard government saying, ‘We can do it better than the states.’ I do not agree with that. I think you only have to look at a number of areas to see how the government blames the states for its own inadequacies.
Labor’s skills blueprint, which we released in September 2005, outlines a program for getting skills into our schools. It outlines a program for the future. Labor’s skills blueprint is a blueprint that has hope, a blueprint that will take Australia forward in this century. It offers young people better choices by teaching trades, technology and science in first-class facilities and ridding our schools of the dusty workshops that exist now, workshops that are inadequate. It establishes a trade school scheme to double the number of school based apprentices, it establishes specialist schools for senior years of schooling in areas such as trade and technology, and it establishes a trade taster program so years 9 and 10 students can experience a range of options which could also lead to pre-apprenticeship programs.
Since this government has starved the TAFE system of funding there has been a massive decline in the number of pre-apprenticeship courses run in our TAFEs. Pre-apprenticeship courses are the courses that prepare young people to undertake trades. Once a young person has completed a pre-apprenticeship course, they have the skills and learning to go into a workplace and actually be an effective member of the workforce. A young person who has completed a pre-apprenticeship course is in a much better position to be an effective worker, and employers relish taking on a young person who has completed one of those courses. I think the Howard government really stands condemned for its failure to invest in young people and to invest in TAFEs. Labor’s plan is to increase the number of young people completing apprenticeships through incentives such as an $800 per year skills account, which would abolish up-front TAFE fees.
It is interesting to note that, when the Howard government first talked about Australian technical colleges, the Prime Minister said there would be no fees. Surprise, surprise, surprise! Students attending Australian technical colleges will now have to pay up-front fees. Once again, this is an example of how the Australian people are constantly being misled by the Prime Minister.
For every student doing a traditional apprenticeship, $800 will be paid directly into a skills account—and it is in the traditional apprenticeships and traditional trades that we have a massive skills shortage throughout Australia. It is very important that young people train as apprentices and become tradespeople, otherwise Australia’s future will be very gloomy. Under the $2,000 completion bonus scheme, traditional apprentices would be paid $1,000 halfway through their training and a further $1,000 on completion. This scheme aims to achieve an 80 per cent completion rate. There is already a 70 per cent completion rate for traditional apprenticeships, whilst 40 per cent of people who undertake apprenticeships under the New Apprenticeships scheme drop out. This is about developing real skills for the future.
The government stands condemned for the way it has implemented the Australian technical colleges legislation. The facts that only four colleges are operational and only 100 students are currently attending them speak for themselves. It will be 2010 before the first apprentices to complete their training through these technical colleges actually hit the workshop floor as fully trained tradesmen. This certainly is not good enough. I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and will be voting accordingly.
37
16:39:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—I rise to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. I am working on a book on Australian history, and some of the things I have read are very interesting. The journalist and historian Paul Kelly, in describing John McEwen as a patriot with very strong convictions, used a phrase that I memorised. He said that John McEwen was a politician before the age of television politicians, who are characterised by a certain ‘vacuous lucidity’. I thought that was a delightful phrase which is very relevant to the debate we are having today. I do not know about other people’s experiences of the last election campaign, but I found that health was a constant and continuous issue, and another issue was tradesmen. It did not matter whether it was Karumba, a little town in the Gulf of Carpentaria; Julia Creek; the big industrial city of Mount Isa; Innisfail, in the heartland of the coast; or the burgeoning northern suburbs of Townsville that I represent—all of them had the same cry: ‘We are desperately short of tradesmen.’
Just a couple of days ago a tradesman charged me $45 an hour. I did not want to say to him that I was very pleased that he charged as low as that. The free market system in this country has dictated that a lawyer, when he graduates, probably gets between $35,000 and $45,000 a year. Up my way, a plumber, when he graduates, can get maybe 50 per cent more than that. So the marketplace is sending out a signal. But if there is no means by which you can become qualified as a tradesman then you are in desperate trouble. This brings me back to ‘vacuous lucidity’. I have heard speaker after speaker say in this place that we have a very serious problem with tradesmen. Being a simple country boy from Cloncurry, I looked at the TAFEs where we train people.
When I was elected as the federal member for Kennedy in the early 1990s—and I hope my memory serves me correctly here—there was a TAFE in Mareeba that turned out skilled tradesmen—electricians, plumbers and carpenters; a TAFE in Innisfail that turned out these people; and a TAFE in Mount Isa that turned out these people. I have attended graduation ceremonies at Innisfail—I think I may have even attended one before I was a member of parliament—and about 700 people were there. I doubt whether you would get 100 people now. And they are not writing home to mummy to say they are a qualified diesel fitter; the diplomas they are getting now are in social welfare, community training and counselling services. Whilst most of these courses are very valuable, they are simply a triumph of the self-evident. The average mother who has raised a family—a person who has lived in the world—would have a very good working knowledge of relationships. But ordinary people are not qualified to be a diesel fitter, a motor mechanic, an electrician, a plumber or a carpenter. These are highly skilled trades. Even elementary things such as bricklaying are not taught in the TAFE courses. The courses deal with ethereal issues that are not of practical value to the area in any shape or form.
Having said that, when I became the member for Kennedy in the early 1990s, there were three huge buildings—probably about $30 million or $40 million worth of installations—in those three towns. They had a cadre of lecturers and trainers who talked together and increased their mutual knowledge and understanding of the various fields in which they worked. We looked forward, for example, to the aquaculture training group at Innisfail becoming one of the most advanced knowledge groups in the country in the field of aquaculture, and I include the universities in that. They were in the very heartland of the prawn and fish farming industries. We had these buildings that are now empty. They advertised and placed articles in the newspaper saying, ‘How are we going to use these empty buildings?’ The graduation ceremonies consist of nobody. Those lecturers and trainers who lived in Innisfail, Mareeba and Mount Isa no longer have jobs there.
The trades university, one of the little universities that existed in those three towns—or cities, if you like—no longer exists or functions that way at all. In fact, in Mount Isa it has now been incorporated with the local high school. That is what has become of this once magnificent TAFE, which we thought might become one of the great schools of mind for Australia. That was our dream and the dream of the head of TAFE at the time. The head of the TAFE at Innisfail, Julia Thaggard, had a dream at the time that they would ultimately be one of the outstanding places of learning in the world in the field of prawn and fish farming, and they were well on the way to doing that. This semester there is no course in prawn or fish farming at all at the Innisfail TAFE. I hear, though I cannot confirm, that discussions are under way that, like Mount Isa, it will also become integrated with the high school—or ‘sort of’ integrated.
We get back to our vacuous lucidity. Everyone in here talks about training. I do not know who is being trained. I see the amount of expenditure and then I find out what it is being expended on. It is being expended on social worker courses. That is where all the money is going at the Innisfail TAFE. I do not want to knock that. Thank heavens we have something going on there. What I want to say is that people are not being trained whatsoever in the essential trades that we require for our standard of living. The training program being undertaken is a bit scary. Basically they say: ‘You at this sugar mill or you at Mount Isa Mines develop a training course and we’ll stamp it as approved. Then we’ll say that that person who has done your course is now a diesel fitter.’ He might be qualified to do some fitting work in the lead smelter in Mount Isa, but when he goes to get a job at a mine in the Gulf Country or in the Cloncurry area he knows nothing about fitting in that sort of industry. If he wants to go across to a sugar mill, or a trained sugar mill person wants to go across to a mine, which occurs all the time in North Queensland, he has none of those essential skills. He has been trained narrowly in the interests of his employer—and I am not knocking the employers here. He has been trained in the interests of Mount Isa Mines owners, Xstrata, or in the interests of Bundaberg Sugar in the case of the mills.
I must emphasise that I am not criticising either of those corporations. I have done so from time to time, but I am not doing that here. They naturally will undertake whatever they need to undertake to fulfil their own narrow business needs. It was the job of government to say: ‘We will develop a group of people, whom we will certify, who can work as electricians, diesel fitters or whatever the skill may be.’ I might add that we have a lot of foundries—what in days past we used to call blacksmiths, and I think that is still the best name for them—such as Wilkinson’s at Atherton, the Wangan foundry and Camuglia’s at South Johnstone, near Wangan outside Innisfail. Each of these firms requires highly skilled tradesmen. No matter how much they work at it they cannot train all their own people and hold onto them. People do a trade and then they want to move around and see the world or chase big money out in the mining fields for a few years, and they might come back but they might not. The Wilkinsons and the Camuglias—and the Mount Isa Mines and the sugar mills of South Johnstone and Tully—need to be able to attract qualified people. They need to know that these people are genuinely qualified. There is no longer any facility that facilitates this. We have a mickey mouse arrangement.
It has always fascinated me that the great proponents of the free-market system in this place decided that we should have multiskilling, which serves the very narrow interests of the employer, but really there is no-one skilled in a trade. Their small level of knowledge over a wide area does not qualify them to do a proper job in a narrower but much more demanding knowledge environment, such as that of an electrician. So multiskilling led the TAFEs in Queensland down the pathway to partially training in the narrow interests of the employer without providing the sort of training that a university provides. We constantly hear people say that workers should go into trades. I do not know how you qualify as a tradesman except to serve the narrow interests of the employer, and that does not qualify you as a tradesman to move from one industry to another—and I use the North Queensland example, where we have foundries, engineering works, sugar mills, mines and giant processing plants such as Yabulu that process nickel et cetera. It does not enable workers to move from one industry to the next; their qualifications are far too narrow to achieve that end.
In Queensland, Vince Lester—he worked against me at the last election and the election before last; I am holding no candle for him personally—brought in Bill O’Brien, one of the three O’Brien brothers who ran what I think may have been the second biggest wheat-milling and flour-milling operation in Australia. They always said it was hard to buy a loaf of bread in Queensland without the O’Briens getting a quid out of it. Theirs was a very dynamic company and one of the great dynamos in that company was Bill O’Brien. So Vince Lester took Bill O’Brien and made him head of the TAFEs in Queensland and he very much made the TAFEs related to and serving the interests of the great industries of Queensland. But he did not do it by sacrificing their ability to produce fully trained tradesmen that could move from one industry to the next. In fact, the TAFEs prospered under him. It was after his period of time that I came into this place. The Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland had fallen and it had been replaced by a Labor government—so it was really after his time—and the TAFEs were still going strongly. The period I described when 600 to 700 people were turning up to graduation ceremonies in Mount Isa, Innisfail and, I presume, Mareeba as well—that period of great growth in Queensland—was a result of the eighties under Bill O’Brien.
I do not know of a single company in Queensland that complained about those arrangements. But we then moved into this airy-fairy multiskilling, where everyone is multiskilled but no-one is highly skilled enough to actually perform as a tradesman and there is no facility to train them. There is no facility in the Kennedy electorate of 200,000 people. There is not a single facility that now trains a plumber or an electrician or a diesel fitter or anyone in any of these trades. They still do some low-level training. They teach them how to ride a backhoe or drive a truck, but that is the extent of the actual practical training—and the TAFEs were for practical training; they were not social welfare areas. It does not cost you anything to have a social welfare area but, if you are going to train someone as a fitter and turner, you have got to have lathes, you have got to have people to look after those lathes and people that know how to work those lathes. You have got to have highly skilled people in near enough to permanent employment working all of the time. In fact, there were those people working all the time. I do not know, but clearly the expenditure on TAFEs has increased. I would not say ‘dramatically’ but I would say ‘significantly’, and I accept the government’s arguments here. But I am asking myself where the hell the money is going, because as far as Kennedy is concerned—and I suspect this is the same for other electorates throughout Australia—there is no longer an ability to train any of the basic skilled tradesmen that we need inside the Kennedy area. Not one single TAFE performs that function.
We see with escalating intensity the very similar situation that arose in South Africa, where the country brought in a myriad of people from north of South Africa. They were very poorly paid when they were brought in. They basically worked for nothing, and they lived in towns like Soweto. Suddenly the people woke up one morning and those that were South African suddenly realised that they were a very small minority group in their own country. What is happening here is that we have liberalised the immigration laws—and I for one stood in this place and said it was a good thing. But I would have never conceived in the wildest stretch of my imagination that any government would remove the award system and related arrangements. I quote that very great Australian, John McEwen, who said, ‘I always believed in the award system’—he thought it was a good system—‘and it delivered to the people.’ He said that if a worker enjoyed a decent wage and if, through tariffs, the secondary industries enjoyed a good income, then it was only right and proper that farmers should also get support through some of these arrangements. He said very proudly, ‘Every single industry in Australia now has statutory marketing arrangements of a significant size that deliver to those people a moderately acceptable income.’ He said that when he left this place—and it was profoundly true.
But we now find that our tradesmen have to come from overseas because there are no tradesmen being qualified in Australia. I cannot speak with authority for the whole of Australia. All I can speak on behalf of are the 200,000 people that live in the electorate of Kennedy, and there is no training whatsoever there now, so we have to bring them in from overseas. I do not know how many people are going to come in from overseas. The opposition in this place has pointed out, quite rightly, that in Australia now there are meatworks half of whose employees are from Brazil, Indonesia or the Philippines. Hardly a week goes by in my electorate without people wanting to bring more people in. All of the tradesman and a very large proportion of the professional people in North Queensland, whether they be doctors or mining engineers, are coming from overseas. But now we see a huge flood of unskilled workers and tradesmen coming into this country. There are two reasons for this. One is the abolition of the award system. Previously there was no incentive to bring this cheap labour from overseas into Australia, but now there is. Previously you still had to pay them the award whether or not they were from Third World countries. You still had to pay them the award as if they were an Australian. Before they had to pay the award but now they do not. There is a huge incentive to bring into this place people from Third World countries. That is exacerbated dramatically by the fact that we have very low levels of skilled tradesmen in this country. That increases the movement towards massive numbers of people being brought in from overseas. Our young people that were once being trained in their home towns are no longer being trained in their home towns. (Time expired)
41
16:59:00
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
0
0
Mr SNOWDON
—I thank the member for Kennedy for another challenging and entertaining contribution. He reflects, I think, the concerns of many who live in regional Australia, and across the Top End in particular, about the issue of skill shortages and the failure of the education system to adequately provide tradespersons and others in areas in the workforce where there are skills shortages. That is reflected in the mobility we are now seeing across the workforce. Workers are attracted to areas like Mount Isa, no doubt, but certainly to other mining areas in the Top End where there are severe labour shortages and skilled workers are able to attract very high remuneration.
However, we support the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, which purports to produce 25 technical colleges as a result of a promise at the last election. Although we think it is a marginal start in what is a huge job, we support it. But I have to say the capacity of the government to deliver on its promise is clearly evidenced by the lack of performance in producing outcomes and getting colleges operating, and in failing to have a plan that properly addresses the skills shortage across this nation now or into the future.
We know that these technical colleges will not produce their first qualified tradesperson until 2010. We are informed by the Australian Industry Group that by that time we will need at least an extra 100,000 skilled workers. Just think about it. We are getting 24 technical colleges. As of the first semester, only four of these technical colleges were up and running, with fewer than 100 students enrolled across Australia. If we assume that each one of those students who is enrolled in training as a tradesperson commits and goes through their three- or four-year training, they will have produced 1,000 of the extra skilled workers Australia will need by 2010.
We know that in the case of the Northern Territory there was an announcement on 22 February last year on ABC radio that a technical college would be set up for a new year start—that is, the beginning of 2006. The report quoted the federal Minister for Vocational and Technical Education asserting that a college would be set up by that time. Yet today there is no technical college funded in this way by the Commonwealth up and running in the Northern Territory. It was of course to be placed in Darwin, and I will come to that issue in a little while. But we now know that, according to the government’s own website, they propose to have this new college operating by February 2007. Apparently, it is a non-government school catering for years 11 and 12 students. Last year we were promised it would be running by the beginning of this year; this year we are told that it will be running by the beginning of next year.
On 4 May this year, the consortium which was given the tender to carry out this work, including the Northern Territory Construction Association, the Chamber of Commerce and Group Training NT, were apparently told that if they did not hurry up and put in a feasible business plan they would potentially lose their funding. So we had a crisis in the middle of the year, following the fact that it was announced last year that there would be no commencement at the beginning of this year. After the crisis in the middle of this year, we were told that it will open at the beginning of next year. We do not know how many students there will be. I am told there could be—let us hope there are—around 50. Think about that. This magnificent edifice, this great monument to the forward thinking policies of the Howard government will, if it actually operates, have in its first intake around 50 students. Let us be kind and assume that they do three-year apprenticeships and that they begin in 2007; they might have finished by the completion of 2010. Some will do other courses and longer courses and might not finish until 2011 or 2012. Of course, we know that under normal sets of circumstances not all will finish. So this great contribution to alleviating the skills shortages in the north of Australia will, having been announced last year in 2005, at the very best, by the end of 2010, produce, we hope, somewhere between 40 and 50 new tradespersons. You would have to say that that in itself identifies the problem—the failure of this government to come to grips with its obligations in the area of higher education and TAFE.
We know from question time today that the government is well behind OECD standards in the area of funding for higher education and TAFE. Yet we have seen a cutback of eight per cent or thereabouts in funding here in Australia. This is a country with major skills shortages, and we see a debate going on about bringing foreign workers, and indeed foreign apprentices, into this country. We have huge labour shortages and yet across the north of Australia a huge untapped labour force which this country and this government is ignoring by dint of failing to address their needs.
I might say that this is not the case for industry, and I refer particularly to the mining industry. There was a time when you would be hard-pressed to find an Indigenous person working in the mining industry in Australia. It was not too long ago. But now, with the emerging skills shortages, there is a recognition by the mining industry—forthright recognition, I might say—of their obligations as Australian companies and as good citizens of this country to deal properly with Indigenous Australians, both in terms of their native title rights and interests but also, in the case of the Northern Territory, their rights under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. They had a community obligation to deal with those people properly and fairly, so many of them have changed in terms of their employment of Indigenous Australians.
What they have sought to do is to source labour from Indigenous communities across the Top End of Australia. In the case of a few organisations—Rio Tinto is one I can name; BHP is another, and we had a discussion only last week with Alcan Gove—they recognised that, if they want to actually fix their own skills shortages over time, what they need to do is to engage with the Indigenous communities in the areas in which they live, to provide them with the skills they need and require, to get them access into the training programs that they require to get the skills that they need to work in these organisations.
Last year I was fortunate to travel with my colleague Simon Crean and others and we visited the Argyle Diamond Mine. In the workshop we came across a young Aboriginal woman from the Kimberley—not from Kununurra but from a community not too far away—who I think at the time was around 18. Do you know what she was, Mr Deputy Speaker? This is a commendation of the work which was being done by the company and of her attitude as a young person: she was a trainee welder. Not only was she a trainee welder but she was seen as a gun welder. This is an area where, for a start, women were not welcome in the workplace for many years, but we have seen a liberation of ideas. Even the member for Parkes would tell us that it has happened in his own electorate, with any sort of luck. But not only that—here we have a young Aboriginal woman, who would have had not a ghost of a chance of getting a job of this type a decade ago, being welcomed with open arms by an industry which knows it has skills shortages and needs to work as a good citizen, keeping in mind not only its obligation as a company to get a return for its shareholders but its obligations to the community to provide skills and training for these Indigenous people.
Why that is important is that the knowledge of the skills shortage is not new. Indeed, I was responsible for launching a study of skills shortages across the Top End of Australia in 1995 or 1996. What that skills shortage survey demonstrated is what this government has failed to do and the need that this government has ignored for a decade, since it came to power. The way to address skills shortages in the regional and remote parts of Australia, in the north of Australia, is to work with, educate and skill up the Aboriginal community. Yet the government has failed miserably to do it.
In the case of the Northern Territory, let me say specifically that the Northern Territory government’s Workforce NT report for 2005 notes the following:
The NT economy is predicted to continue to strengthen over the next few years with increasing exploration and resource development, continuation of major project construction activities, and a strengthening tourism market. In the current climate where skill shortages exist across a wide range of occupations, it is reasonable to assume that the demand for skilled workers and the demand for labour will continue at both the local and national level.
We know that has been the case. The skills in demand list of October 2005 from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations showed at the time a Territory-wide shortage of workers in child care, accountancy, nursing, midwifery and other health specialist areas, as well as in the engineering, automotive, electrical and construction trades—not a bad list. If you ask an employer who lives in any of the regional towns in the Northern Territory whether they are able to attract labour, you will find most of them will say, ‘It’s bloody hard.’ Yet we know that, sitting there, waiting to be tapped, is a large Indigenous population with very high levels of unemployment. This government has failed to see the light.
A more comprehensive snapshot of the skills shortage is contained in the Workforce NT report, the result of an NT-wide survey conducted in 2005 by six training advisory committees. Across the Territory in 2005, 53 per cent of businesses reported difficulty in recruiting staff, and the most difficulty was experienced in the central region, which includes Alice Springs—which is where I live, by the way—where 65 per cent of businesses reported difficulty. That was followed by the Barkly region, which is around Tennant Creek and across to Borroloola, including the McArthur River Mine, with 59 per cent.
Tradespersons and related workers were nominated as the most difficult group of workers to recruit, with 34 per cent of responses citing difficulty. Labourers and related workers followed on 13 per cent, professionals on 12 per cent and clerical and service workers on 12 per cent. If you go across the east Arnhem region, the Katherine region, the Barkly region or the central region, they have similar data, which shows huge skills shortages and an inability of the business community to attract staff.
I have referred to Indigenous employment. My electorate and the regions identified in the Workforce NT report have a significant Indigenous population—indeed, in my electorate of Lingiari it is approaching 40 per cent—but it is a population that faces serious barriers to engagement with the jobs market. None of these barriers is going to be addressed by this technical college in Darwin, by the way. The Workforce NT report noted:
... over 83 per cent ... of the Indigenous population aged 15 years and over—
in the NT—
reside in remote areas. This existing and potential labour force is characterised by:
High rates of disengagement from the labour market;
High rates of employment through Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP);
Declining mainstream employment ...
Dr John Taylor, in a 2003 Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research discussion paper titled Indigenous Economic Futures in the Northern Territory, wrote:
The only growth in census-recorded Indigenous employment—
in the NT—
since 1996 has occurred in the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme, with Indigenous numbers in mainstream (non-CDEP) employment actually falling ...
Now, that is an absolute indictment. He continued:
The CDEP scheme has thus overtaken mainstream employment as the primary employer of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
He also said that the number of Indigenous adults in mainstream or non-CDEP employment has declined by 10 per cent since 1996.
I am a strong advocate of the CDEP program but you have to think about it and think about the changes to the welfare reforms which the government has implemented. Dr Taylor recorded:
To date, the thrust of Commonwealth policy aimed at reducing welfare dependence and raising economic status has been towards increasing mainstream employment, especially in the private sector.
Yet, as we have seen, and as Dr Taylor notes, in the Northern Territory this has been alarmingly unsuccessful. And we have to ask why that is, because it reflects the indolence and complacency of the policymakers and those people administering government policy here in Canberra.
I note that the various ministers responsible for Indigenous affairs in this place are yet to come to terms with their obligations to understand this issue, to understand the educational shortfalls that exist within the Indigenous community and to understand that kids are not going to school. I am talking of thousands of young Aboriginal kids in the Northern Territory alone—and I know this is true of other parts of Australia—older than the age of 13, or of school-age, who do not go to school. They do not go to school or they do not have schools available to them.
In fact, up until 2001, as I have said in this place time and time again, the previous CLP administration—the conservative administration in the Northern Territory—closed down high schools in the bush and there was not one government school in the remote communities of the Northern Territory that provided a mainstream high school education to one Indigenous person—not one! They had no access to high schools, so how were they to achieve the skills required to get a job—if they could compete in the labour market in their vicinity or elsewhere—or have basic skills to get entry into the training programs required to get a trade? Ask yourself the question. You do not need to be Einstein to work it out.
We need to have a significant increase in expenditure in education and training in the bush if we are to address these skill shortages over time. This paltry effort being made by the government in terms of these technical colleges is but a drop in the ocean. If we are fair dinkum about addressing skill shortages across the bush in the north of Australia this government—or any government—should invest appropriately in Indigenous education, Indigenous TAFE services and higher education. Then they will get some decent results. (Time expired)
45
17:19:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
0
Ms BURKE
—I also rise this evening to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 and note with some disappointment that no government member is speaking this evening on this bill—a bill which provides for the establishment of the Australian Technical Colleges which they lauded during the last election as something fantastic and new which would resolve our skills crisis. But not one of them is going to be speaking this evening. Several have spoken on the bill, but only a handful when you look at the number from our side who have spoken in this debate. Surely, if they are such advocates of this wonderful institution they should be here commending it and saying what a great service it is for our community.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon
—We had 14 speakers to speak, including yourself; but none of them.
83S
Burke, Anna, MP
Ms BURKE
—So there are 14 speakers for us this evening, and none of the government members has bothered to turn up tonight and support this initiative of the government.
Whilst Labor supports the bill before the House to give greater administrative flexibility, allowing the government to expedite the allocation of funds between program years because of changing circumstances to the establishment of the ATCs, I can but agree with the conclusion in the Bills Digest. Sometimes the Bills Digest gets it right on the money. It says in the concluding comments:
As the Explanatory Memorandum states, the regulation making power is intended to provide greater flexibility and efficiency in the administration of the ATC program. However a question remains about the level of parliamentary scrutiny that will be applied to the delivery of the program.
That is the Bills Digest, not something that has been written by Labor, a commentator or anybody else. There is a question over the scrutiny of this whole program, and allowing this change will ensure greater diversity in how the money is administered.
Whilst Labor has supported the creation of the ATCs, it is with a sort of a half-hearted and very critical enthusiasm, because it is way too little and way too late. Most of the money going into this program could have been much better spent in other areas. It could have been much better spent by giving it to existing systems that are already providing this much-needed service. Australia needs urgent action to address the skills crisis of our nation. Labor supports the introduction of the ATCs, as I say, but it is way too little and it is way too late.
We have a skills crisis in this country and no end of discussion about Labor’s xenophobic reaction to importing skilled migrants is going to resolve that crisis. No number of ATCs established today, which will not produce one new skilled person into our community before 2010, is going to resolve this crisis. The Howard neglect, this government’s complete abrogation of skills for the last 10 years, has created the situation. They squandered the situation that Labor had created for them. They squandered it away and they have done nothing to help it. The Howard government have systematically underfunded the TAFE sector. They have systematically seen reduction within the TAFE sector. Indeed, the Howard government record in this area is nothing short of a disgrace.
Under the Howard government, Australia is the only developed country to have reduced public investment in our TAFEs and universities. Everybody else has realised that to progress you have to skill, you have to diversify, you have to become clever. We are not going to compete on a dollar-for-dollar basis with India and China, so we have to be clever, we have to be better skilled. Instead of doing something about that and investing in our TAFEs and universities, they have actually taken money away. Public investment in our universities and TAFEs has fallen eight per cent since 1995. The OECD average is a 38 per cent increase. So we have had a decrease of eight per cent where everybody else around the world has said, ‘Yes, this is the way to go, this is what we need to do; we need to put money into skills and training.’ Indeed, the Australian Industry Group has estimated that by 2010 we will need an extra 100,000 skilled workers. These ATCs are going to go nowhere near resolving that crisis.
The AiG has also conducted some really good research amongst its many member groups recently and released two reports, one into manufacturing—which, again, is in crisis in this country, and this government seems totally inept in doing anything about it—and another titled World class skills for world class industries. The industries out there recognise that they need world-class skills to get up, and both these reports have said one of the greatest failures for industry in this country at the moment is not only the lack of skilled people but also the lack of resources to train individual people. More importantly, most of these reports come back and say it is not just about skilling people up; it is about reskilling, retraining and ongoing training within the sector to ensure that they have skills needed to compete in this market. The AiG report World class skills for world class industries states:
-
Key reforms to the education and training system and employers’ use of the system especially are focused on post entry level training, increased provider competition to provide genuine choice and increased flexibility of training delivery;
-
Increased investment by employers in formal training and government support for that investment through financial incentives and the taxation system;
-
The adoption of more world class approaches to skilling by employers to improve their effectiveness with encouragement from government employer groups; and
-
Increased efforts by employers to develop closer links with their communities to project positive images of trade occupations.
In the manufacturing sector they conclude:
Becoming a more skillful global competitor
-
Increase the focus of the training system on the upskilling of existing workers;
-
Increase the overall spending on education and training;
-
Improved access to recognition of skills for existing employees;
-
Extend and refine incentive payments to employers;
-
Make Science and Engineering undergraduate programs a National Priority for concessional HECS eligibility; and
-
Broaden tax eligibility for self-education expenses for learning beyond current career.
They do not say that the ATCs are going to be resolving their problems any time soon but they recognise that skilling is the way to go, the way to have a focus, and we need to deal with it and we need to deal with it now. This bandaid measure is going to go nowhere near resolving this problem. Since 1998, 300,000 eligible students have been turned away from TAFE places. That is an indictment upon this government—300,000 students have been turned away. Why didn’t the government inject the much-needed cash into our existing and terrific TAFE system—a system this government has systematically starved of funds.
I have in my electorate two fantastic institutions, one being the Box Hill TAFE. It is recognised as Victoria’s best TAFE college. It has indeed won worldwide recognition for the courses it provides. If the money had been given to Box Hill TAFE, these courses could be up and running and they would have probably 100 or more students that they could put through their books now. Why? Because they have the infrastructure, they have the teachers, they have the system—they did not need to go and reinvent the wheel as these ATCs have. The government said that the establishment of these ATCs was to have more of an industry focus. Obviously, the government again has no idea how a TAFE system operates, because my TAFE system is totally connected with the industry in my electorate. It is totally connected with the industry that it serves. Indeed, its whole education focus is based on industry needs. They constantly talk to the industry about what the industry needs. They are constantly talking about what those skilling needs are. They do not do it in isolation.
The previous minister for education used to continually criticise Box Hill TAFE because it had a belly dancing course. What he never actually went on to explain was that the belly dancing course was a full-fee paying course for people interested in doing something outside the norm. What he also did not go on and say about that course was that it got a whole lot of people who had not been inside a training institution for years to come in and see it was not a scary place. They often went to something like belly dancing, tap dancing or cooking at their own expense, fully fee paying, with no government money going in. Then they would go back and take up other training opportunities because they realised that the TAFE was really a friendly environment, it was a great place to study and, particularly for mature age people who had not been inside an educational facility for some time, it was a great opportunity to go back and study. I have Box Hill TAFE saying ‘Why don’t you just give us the money?’ Sitting next door to Box Hill TAFE is the Box Hill Senior Secondary College. Again, it is the absolute model that the government is talking about in the ATC. It is currently existing and already operating. Sadly, I was there last week because four of its portables had burnt down. It is not stopping the school. They run specific TAFE programs. They run VET, VCAL and they educate year 10, 11 and 12 students, predominantly in trades. It is the most progressive, innovative place you can go to. It also offers mainstream courses for the VCE. It has a fantastic arts program and the most innovative sports program. I met with about 15 students over lunch before I did a tour of the college to see, sadly, the damage from the fire but also the recent upgrade that the state government had provided.
There are some fantastic tennis courts at Box Hill senior secondary. If you ever want to play tennis this is the place to go because they have a specific tennis school. They have a football school and they have a basketball school but they also have welding. I went down and met the kids doing their welding subjects. One of the kids said to me: ‘The great thing about doing this is that I get to see what I’ve done at the end of the day.’ This kid’s parents have a property. He has actually researched via the CSIRO website how to produce an instrument so his parents can take some of their eucalyptus leaves and distil them into oil. This kid in Year 11 has gone and researched this. His teachers have been able to provide him with the materials and the instruments to do this.
It is sitting there. It is a big building. The government could have just given the money to the Box Hill Senior Secondary College. It has got the staff. It has got the students. It has got the things. It is up and running. It is connected to industry because it provides the students with the opportunity to go out—predominantly one day a week, some of them two—into industry to work. So they know those connections. Instead we have created in the eastern suburbs an ATC based at Ringwood and at Forest Hill. I am very thankful to the member for Deakin who, when he spoke on this before I rose, told us that there are a whole 13 students at the Ringwood ATC. So there are 12 more than there are at other places but there are 13 students there.
The fascinating thing about the eastern ATC based at Ringwood and St Joseph’s College is that the ATC is sitting in a government secondary school at Ringwood Secondary College. All those students are funded as government students. Even the students who are at the St Joseph’s campus at Forest Hill—St Joseph’s being a private Catholic institution—are on the books as students funded by the state government. The principal of the Ringwood Secondary College is also the principal of the ATC. The committee of management for the ATC is a subcommittee of the school committee. So we have created this other entity with 13 students but it actually exists in the school. Why didn’t they just give the money to the Ringwood Secondary College to extend its VET and VCAL program? Because, fundamentally, that is what is happening.
All the teachers teaching the program are not on AWAs; they are actually employed under the EB and the award that currently exists within the state of Victoria. They are currently funded under the state of Victoria. So it is an absolute furphy that this other thing had to be created because the states would not cope with it and would not cop it. This is a fully funded state government initiative. There is one general manager employed by the ATC and there are some staff who come in as service providers who do some of the extra vocational type training; I do not know their employment status. But the majority of teachers are within the Victorian government system and are providing the standard set of curricula that they would to all the other students. I do not even know if these are 13 new students or just existing students who wanted to have a different arrangement.
So why have we gone through this laborious process of setting up an ATC when we could have just funded existing institutions that are there? We have created this competitive mentality. There are so few technical teachers out there that the institutions are all now trying to poach them off each other. A lot of the courses at Box Hill TAFE and at Box Hill Senior Secondary College would be filled beyond capacity if they could get the appropriate teachers. Again, they do not exist, and we have not addressed that at all through any of this ATC establishment. They have not looked at the fact that they now have competing entities trying to vie not only for students but more importantly for staff. It just seems so ludicrous.
We have a situation of complete duplication. I would say: a complete waste of money. We are not even going to see any graduates come out of this whole process until at least 2010. Then we do not even know if there are going to be one, two or 100. The media reports into this situation cite a crisis. I will just re-echo what everybody said. We have got these wonderful edifices sitting there but there is almost nobody in them. The Australian, in an article entitled ‘New tech college is in crisis’, dated 25 April 2006, reports:
JOHN Howard’s vision for 24 federally-funded technical colleges to tackle the skills shortage has unravelled, with the Government threatening to strip some regions of the training centres promised at the last election.
The vocational colleges, which fall largely in marginal electorates held by the Coalition—
As I said, the one in my neck of the woods is in the seat of Deakin, right next door to my electorate—
from Darwin to coastal Queensland and regional Victoria, are being set up in competition with state-run TAFE colleges.
But Vocational Training and Education Minister Gary Hardgrave yesterday revealed three of the colleges could be scrapped after bidders failed to satisfy government tender requirements and another four were running behind schedule and may not open on time.
The colleges, to be established at a cost of $350 million over four years, were to offer tuition to 7500 students by 2009.
Mr Hardgrave said three colleges announced in NSW at Dubbo, Queanbeyan and Lismore/Ballina on the far north coast could be scrapped within weeks unless he received a ‘clear indication’ from the community of local support. He also accused the NSW Government of obstructing the moves to establish the colleges.
‘In the case of those communities—if they don’t take up the offer we will have to look at other regions,’ Mr Hardgrave told The Australian.
‘In the areas where the communities haven’t taken ownership of it I am going to have to look at taking them of them and giving them to other regions.
‘There were several other regions around Australia—there’s a couple it Queensland, some in South Australia and Victoria and at least one other it WA—that expressed interest.’
Australian Technical Colleges proposed for Geelong in Victoria, Illawarra in NSW, Darwin and Adelaide North may not meet their expected starting dates.
Asked yesterday if he was concerned these colleges would open on time, Mr Hardgrave replied: “Absolutely, I am worried about it. I am going to Darwin next week to give them a hurry up.
‘You’ve got to actually extract a digit and do something. There’s people fiddling around with blocks of land they want to buy. What they should be worried about is how they are going to build their affiliation with business that is going to drive this.’
But Illawarra Technical College spokesman Tony O’Connor said the region desperately needed the training opportunities and revealed he had begged the Department of Education for a meeting.
So here was this absolute tete-a-tete between the minister and others saying, ‘It’s his fault; it’s my fault’, et cetera. Spare me! Instead of actually doing something and sitting down with these individuals, the government insisted that it had to be industry led; the government insisted that it had to be a school. Funnily enough, there were a whole lot of industry people who said, ‘We don’t want to become a school, and we don’t want to have to get registered; that’s why we’d rather do it in partnership with a school. That’s why we’d rather have the TAFEs as the lead people on these groups.’ But, no, the government insisted industry had to take the lead.
In the instance of the ATC in my neck of the woods, Box Hill TAFE was involved, and they were happy to be involved. They were having virtually no involvement, although they were cited in the press release as part of the partnership and the group, because it was all about the industry focus and establishing a school. They kept saying, ‘We’re already a registered school, and we’re already doing this; why don’t we just do it at our premises?’ But, no, that would be too logical; that would be just too sensible. Instead, we had to set up somewhere else so that we could say, ‘Yes, it’s industry driven.’ But industry is driving the training.
The other thing that nobody recognises in any of this is the fact that a lot of kids are out there who want to take up apprenticeships but sometimes there are no apprenticeships to be offered. So, yes, they can do the training, but there are no businesses that are willing to put them on, and that worries me. I started work in a Victorian state government instrumentality, the great VicRoads. We used to have lots of people who were taken on as apprentices. The SEC, the railroads—all those—took on truckloads of apprentices. But what have we done? We have privatised the lot of them, and none of them take on apprentices now. None of the instrumentalities that used to exist across all the states hire people as apprentices. I used to deal with all the apprentices. They were a great bunch of people; a lot of them were old and a lot of them were young. But we do not offer those opportunities any more. So, yes, we can talk about training, but we need to ensure that businesses take on the apprentices and, more importantly, that they actually see those kids through to the end of their apprenticeships. We have the highest dropout rate in apprenticeships. A lot of the apprentices get through two years and think, ‘Four years is too hard; it’s too complicated; I’m not earning enough.’ We are doing nothing about retaining these people.
Solutions to skills shortages and the disengagement of young people from education, particularly in the middle years of schooling, depend on the capacity of society to provide a comprehensive education to all its citizens, particularly through a healthy public education system. The structure that the government has set up has created a competition policy, with TAFEs against ATCs, with industry dominating VET, and they have not provided the opportunities we need. This system will not resolve the skills crisis we have. (Time expired)
50
17:40:00
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
WU5
Corio
ALP
0
0
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—Welcome back to the session, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams; as usual, you are looking resplendent in the chair. The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 is one that the opposition will be supporting. However, I must say that I support the second reading amendment which has been moved by the member for Jagajaga in her speech to the House on this matter.
We ought to cut to the chase in all this, because this initiative, according to the government’s own description, was the centrepiece policy on skilling Australians. Those are not my words; they are the words of government members. They told the Australian people that the Australian technical colleges initiative was their centrepiece policy on skilling young Australians. They announced it some 20 months ago as the government’s response to a skilling crisis which the opposition had pointed out was evident for years. Proposing this initiative was a knee-jerk response by the Prime Minister. It was not well thought out and not really attuned to meeting the needs of the Australian economy at this point in time, so let us judge the government on its record.
Some 21 months after it was announced that we were going to have 25 colleges, four have been opened, as I understand it, with only 300 students. If this is the centrepiece policy on skilling Australians for the challenges this economy now faces, then heaven help us all. You cannot get a greater example of useless incompetence than this. We have some 300 people enrolled in these colleges when in fact the government told us that they would have at least 1,200 enrolled in four colleges. The government’s commitment was that there would be 300 students in each college and that there would be 25 colleges—7,500 students to meet Australia’s skill crisis—but we have 300-odd of them. I say to the members opposite: you have got to be joking! You cannot defend this proposal. This is absolute, utter incompetence from a government that was told not just by the opposition but by business in this country, by unions in this country and by the community of Australia that they wanted investment in education and training of their young. And what do we have? We have a billion dollars wasted on a war in Iraq, with the policy failing as we speak, and a billion dollars blown up against the wall in useless advertising to prop up the government’s political position over a decade—and this is called modern government in Australia. If you come up with a policy proposal and you put it into the political ring, I think there is an expectation that you will do what you say. That is a reasonable expectation.
I will debate with members opposite the concept of these Australian technical colleges, but if the government says that it will introduce 25 of them and that they will have 300 students, the government should at least do it. It is absolute, utter incompetence. That is the problem with this government. For too long this government has got away with a breathtaking incompetence behind the very bland statements that this Prime Minister has made about the Australian economy.
Let us revisit some of the facts on the Australian economy, because it is the economic argument that we are talking about here today—how best to prepare Australia for the next 10, 15 and 20 years, and what is going to be the foundation of our prosperity. We on the opposition side have been arguing that one foundation of that prosperity is in the skilling of Australians—on continuing education for all Australians, particularly young Australians, giving people the skills that will equip them in a flexible workplace to cope with an ever-changing global economic environment. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that that is the imperative. Every other country comparable to Australia realises it and has ramped up its expenditure in the skilling of its people.
What has the Prime Minister done? The smirk on the faces of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer! What have they done? They have reduced expenditure in the technical education and higher education sector. They have exposed this country, like never before, to the economic winds of change that are swirling around the globe and that will consume us if this government is allowed to continue with this incompetence.
The bill we are debating tonight brings funding for the proposed 25 Australian technical colleges forward from 2008-09 to 2006-07. The total level of funding remains the same. We have supported this in principle. We are not going to deny this expenditure to the education system. But we have been critical of the narrow scope and the now bungled implementation of the government’s policy.
I have spoken previously in this House about this proposal’s flawed concepts—for example, standards and quality issues. Why will parents choose to send their children to these new colleges? By the time students reach year 11 and year 12 they have had very well established affiliations with other students and have a career path in mind in other institutions. There are day-to-day practical school administration issues; there is an assumption that there are employers who will freely embrace the concept and provide time and resources to train these young people for one day a week; and there is an assumption that local businesses, industry, education and training providers, parents and the wider community will all cooperate in the development of these colleges. That is a simplistic proposition, to say the least.
At the end of the day this is a futile enterprise that demonstrates clearly the ad hoc nature of the Howard government’s policies in relation to education and training, immigration, industry and the existing TAFE system. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Jagajaga, has proposed a second reading amendment. I am going to read it out because it encapsulates all of the argument here and it is worth putting it on the public record again. The proposed amendment begins:
... 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 ...
That is a fact. There is a skills crisis. This government has been in power for over 10 years. Those opposite have had their hands on the levers. And everybody in this economy says that there is a massive skills crisis. The amendment continues:
-
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 ...
That is a fact again. Some 50,000 people are being rejected from our skilling institutions—young people who cannot get a spot in them because this government has curtailed the funding to those institutions. The amendment continues:
-
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 ...
How dumb can you get? How absolutely dumb can a coalition government get? I will argue with this government on a whole range of policy issues, but this is one we ought to agree on—the skilling of young Australians. You are a dumb, incompetent government when it comes to the skilling of Australians. The amendment continues:
-
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 ...
That is self-evident, isn’t it—their incompetence in this regard? The amendment continues:
-
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 ...
Let us not kid ourselves on this. Australia has a massive skills crisis and this initiative will not even scrape the surface in addressing it. Where does the Australian economy go? Where do communities go? Where do young people go? Where does our prosperity go as others grow around us and consolidate their hold on future prosperity?
Government members will say, ‘There is an inherent contradiction in what the honourable member for Corio is saying, because this economy has been prosperous for the last 14 years.’ Who gave you the prosperity? Labor did.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—I know! You were—
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—The honourable parliamentary secretary may be dumb when it comes to skilling issues, so let me spell it out for him. We gave you four per cent growth over four years. Is that a fact or is it not?
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—And a $96 billion debt.
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—Are you so much of a political imbecile that you do not understand the economic history? We gave you four per cent growth for four years. Is the honourable member going to debate that particular proposition? He will not because he cannot; it is economic fact.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt interjecting—
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—The honourable member talks about inflation. Labor broke the back of Liberal inflation. You left us with 11 per cent and we reduced it to two per cent. If the honourable member wants to dispute that and stay in fairyland, I am quite happy for him to do so. The honourable member for Lyons understands this because he was around then, but the parliamentary secretary was not around then so he likes to argue from the point of recent history. I am giving you the economic history of Australia when your former Treasurer—the Prime Minister, Mr Howard—relinquished the reins of government. Labor broke the back of Liberal inflation, Labor laid the basis for the low interest rate regime, and Labor gave you four years of four per cent growth. But what did your Prime Minister give Labor? He gave us an economy that was going backwards and losing jobs. He gave us 11 per cent inflation. He gave us interest rates of 11 per cent. Of course you do not mention the 20-odd per cent that they went to while Mr Howard was Treasurer, when the Liberal Party was in power.
We could go into a range of other areas if the honourable member wants to debate modern Australian economic history—I am quite happy to refresh his memory—but the simple fact of the matter is that the Australian economy is on a knife edge. We are saddled with debt. We are labouring under interest rate increases as a result of the debt that Australians are carrying. That is not my analysis; that is the analysis of your Treasurer and your Prime Minister. They said that high levels of debt would feed directly into interest rates. And what did the government do? It promised it would bring them down but it did not.
One thing you can be absolutely certain of is that the government will either not address the skills crisis that Australia faces or it will put a proposal into the ring that it cannot deliver on. Another certainty is that interest rates will rise under the Liberals because, since the last election, there have already been three increases. Some buffoon on the other side, who happens to be a member of the executive, said that those interest rates have been overdramatised. I say to him: come down to my electorate of Corio and see the families that are struggling now because their penalty payments have been removed by your industrial relations system, resulting in a contraction in their incomes. They are now forced to work in places away from Geelong. They have to drive to Melbourne and fork out more for their petrol every day. But not only that, they also have to suffer Liberal interest rate rises. They are not Labor interest rate rises; they are Liberal interest rate rises. When they go to the supermarket they face Liberal increases in inflation.
The reason why we have an inflationary situation in this country is that this government neglected to invest in skills, resulting in pressure on Australian businesses. That is the reality. You can talk about a commodities boom that is sucking skilled workers to the west in Queensland but the simple fact is that 21 months ago the government said it would establish 25 colleges and it has established only four. The government said there would be 300 enrollees in each of those colleges—a total of 7,500—and there is a total of 300. That is your record: high Liberal debt and increasing Liberal inflation. The certainty that Australians now face, courtesy of the coalition, is a rise in interest rates, which burdens households, farmers and workers, yet you have the gall to get up and say that the state of the Australian economy and the prosperity that Australians enjoy is the result of all your work, when in fact you were left with four years of four per cent growth and a low inflation rate.
The Australian people are finally waking up to the fact that this prosperity can be very illusionary when their household incomes are under pressure from high Liberal interest rates, from high Liberal inflation and from petrol prices that are a result of the government’s failed energy policy. When the Australian people look at their kids, who were supposed to go to these colleges and be skilled, they see a skilling process that does not meet the needs of the Australian economy. In a knee-jerk reaction, the government has delivered immigration policies that enable workers to be brought into this country on low rates, and the kids of Australian families have to compete with those people in the marketplace under the government’s industrial relations system. Nobody is under any illusion. I say to the honourable member opposite: don’t try to hide behind the economic facts. I am quite happy to debate them with you.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—We wouldn’t dream of using economic facts!
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—I have just used a few.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—What was unemployment?
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—I could quote to you 11 per cent unemployment that your Prime Minister left us. Would you like to discuss that?
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—I would.
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—I am quite happy to discuss that. I am quite happy to discuss that, while unemployment was at 11 per cent, there was also the 11 per cent inflation rate, the 11 per cent interest rates and the economy that was losing jobs by the thousands every day. I am quite happy to discuss that. But when is this government going to face up to the reality that this country needs its young people to be skilled? We need that so that our economy can compete in the future in an economic environment that will be very taxing for this government. The government has failed on this very important policy initiative. We all know when this policy initiative was cobbled together: it was cobbled together before an election as a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that Australia still faces. (Time expired)
54
18:00:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
0
0
Ms KING
—It is a great delight to follow the honourable member for Corio in this debate; despite reports to the contrary, he appears to be in very fine voice this evening. I think he absolutely pinged the government on this issue. He pinged the government in relation to its Australian technical colleges but, in particular, he also pinged the government on the problems we are facing across the board in our economy at the moment: the skills crisis and a failure by the government to invest in skills training, innovation, and industry plans for manufacturing. The member for Corio completely pinged the government’s record on economic policy.
I rise to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. If ever we had an example of the Howard government’s ineptitude it is in the management of the Australian technical colleges, but more starkly it is in the complete and utter failure to avert or address the skills crisis in this country. We face some very serious challenges in our economy at the moment. There is a shortage of skilled workers and a lack of investment, both public and private, in infrastructure, and that is nowhere more starkly evidenced than by Telstra’s decision to pull out of high-speed broadband. There is no innovation or industry plan, particularly for our manufacturing sector, which those of us in regional economies are so desperately reliant upon. There is no plan to boost productivity, to develop our skills or to bring down our critical levels of foreign and household debt. The government has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to these issues. It has been paralysed by leadership tensions since the 2004 election and has been unable or unwilling to deal with the major challenges facing our economy.
The second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister for education goes to the heart of the government’s failure on this issue. The government has failed to avoid a skills crisis, through its ineptitude during its 10 long years in office. It likes to blame everybody else for economic problems. It likes to share in the glory when there are economic good times, but when there are economic problems it tries to go back 10 years. The government has been in office for 10 years, but what has it been doing to address these issues? It has failed to provide the required opportunities for Australians to access training that will ensure their future employment and ensure that the future skills needs of this country are met.
We need training now to meet the projected shortfall of 100,000 skilled workers by 2010. The government has failed to commit to vocational education and training. It has not maintained the overall percentage of the federal budget that is allocated to vocational training and education. It has in fact allowed this percentage to reduce over the forward estimates period. How short-sighted can you get? Its one policy solution to the skills crisis, which is the policy solution lauded by the Howard government at the 2004 election as ‘the centrepiece of our drive to tackle skills shortages and’—wait for it—‘revolutionise vocational education and training throughout Australia’, is proving to be an abject failure.
Of the proposed 25 Australian technical colleges, how many are actually open? There are just four open for business today. Of the promised 7,500 students to be enrolled, working towards their trade in a school based apprenticeship, how many are actually enrolled today? There are 300. Of these 300 students, how many are extra students convinced to undertake trades training because of the technical college initiative rather than students who would have been enrolled in these institutions or like institutions anyway? We do not know, because the government is too embarrassed to talk about it.
I supported the original bill in this place, which introduced the Australian technical colleges, because investing in trades and technical education is of critical importance both to the individuals involved and to the Australian economy. I supported the original bill to establish the colleges, despite the lack of detail available and despite the flaws in the government’s proposal. And I will support this bill before us today which attempts to get the money for the colleges spent more quickly.
But, unfortunately, to date the government has not made a great deal of progress on its Australian technical colleges, and it has been pretty reluctant to provide much detail about any progress. The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education has an opportunity in the consideration in detail stage of this bill to give more information about the progress on the colleges. From what we have been able to glean so far, they are simply taking too long and the reality of the colleges nowhere near matches the government’s overblown rhetoric about them.
In Ballarat we were pretty disappointed to see that we were not considered for one of these technical colleges, not because we so desperately wanted one of the government’s colleges but because we would have been grateful and grabbed with both hands the opportunity to access federal funding to address our skill crisis and our high teenage unemployment rate. We have been screaming out for assistance in Ballarat, but the government has now so highly politicised its decision-making process that it allocated these colleges not on the basis of need but on the basis of patronage.
There has been absolutely no transparency about how the locations for these colleges were selected. Were the locations selected on the basis of need in relation to lack of training availability, apprenticeship numbers in a given region, unfilled job vacancies, employment prospects or industry demands? Who would know? This is a cobbled together policy, with the 25 locations announced in the context of a federal election.
The skills crisis is of particular concern in the electorate of Ballarat. There are simply not enough individuals in the traditional trades and there is a high youth unemployment rate, which is running at around 25 per cent. I know that there is a great deal of anger in the region about the fact that Ballarat was overlooked as a location for an Australian technical college by the Howard government, despite the situation facing the region. There was no transparency around the allocation process, and certainly there is now no transparency about the apparent reallocation process for these 25 technical colleges.
The minister has recently been on ABC radio in Ballarat stating that Ballarat now may be considered for one of the Australian technical colleges. He has raised some hopes in the community about that. It is not because he has suddenly seen the light and realised that, if the government were being transparent about locating these colleges on the basis of need, Ballarat would have been allocated one in the first place but because he cannot get them up and running in other areas. With only four of the 25 colleges operating, the minister now has to scrabble around for alternative areas.
If the government announces a college for Ballarat, we will welcome it because, frankly, we need federal funding to assist us in dealing with our massive skills crisis—a crisis created by this government and one that it has done very little to address—and in dealing with our high teenage unemployment rate. We will gladly take your money, Minister. But, if the proposal seeks to enforce the minister’s narrow criteria and model over existing training structures in Ballarat, it will be absolutely doomed to fail.
In Ballarat, we already have a strong VET and VCAL in schools program. We have terrific secondary colleges. Sebastopol College, which used to be Sebastopol Technical School, after years of declining enrolment now provides a huge range of options for young people. Whether the kids from there go into university, stream into TAFE, go into arts or go into their own businesses, there is room for every one them at Sebastopol College. It is seen as one of the desirable schools in my electorate. Sebastopol College, Mount Clear College, Ballarat Secondary College’s Barkly Street campus and Ballarat High School have for some time been offering pathways into trade and vocational education and training. These colleges are working together. They have specialised in areas where they know that they have strengths. There is transportability of kids between the four secondary colleges if they do not have the equipment or the training for a particular trade.
These schools, alongside the state government, have invested in upgrading equipment for vocational training and they provide that training to many private schools in my electorate. These schools have got together with the department of education, the local TAFE, other training providers, local industry and the local learning exchange and are implementing a model to increase trade pathways for young people. The Bracks Labor government has funded a technical centre for school-age young people at the TAFE to improve pathways into trade training.
If the government were really serious about assisting industry and employers to do something about the skills crisis, it would invest in the existing structures and programs in Ballarat—not seek to create or duplicate those that do exist. It would fund our secondary schools better so that they could have better trade training facilities. It would invest in TAFE and ensure that other training providers had better opportunities to develop. It would not seek to impose what is proving to be an unworkable model on a local community and pitting providers and schools against each other. Rather it would look at what already exists and assist the community in developing a model that provides better funding and coordination of existing activities.
The minister has been on ABC radio telling the people of Ballarat that he will be considering them for an Australian technical college. He has raised hopes and expectations in the Ballarat community. I am not holding my breath on that, I have to say. It is unfortunate that, if we get an Australian technical college, it will be at the expense of another community that has not managed to convince the government that, despite local interest, they have a proposal that the government deigns to fund in their local community.
I look forward to the government’s announcement. If the minister is going to make an announcement about a technical college in Ballarat, which he said on ABC radio he is seriously considering, then let us make sure that it is a proper announcement that builds on the existing structures and existing programs that many people have worked very hard to establish to provide trade pathways in my electorate.
The real problem with the Australian technical colleges is that they are based on a policy that was poorly thought through from the start. The policy was cobbled together in an election context. The department—and I feel very sorry for them—have very little experience in this area. They have been scrabbling around ever since the announcement of this policy, trying to implement it and to make sense of what was, in essence, a sound grab—a very limited sound grab in the context of an election policy. The department have been charged with the task of making it real. I have not envied them that task at all.
We see in this the failure of the government to get more than four colleges up and running, the low numbers of students who are enrolled in them and the rejection of proposals from local groups where the need for a college is clear. The minister has threatened to withdraw the promised colleges in some areas, possibly to Ballarat’s advantage—but, as I said, I am not holding my breath. Colleges have been held up because they do not want to comply with the government’s extreme industrial relations agenda or because it involves the local TAFE. What we have seen with this cobbled together policy is the government unable to implement it in the time frame that it had hoped to do so. There has been a lot of hot air coming from the minister on the Australian technical colleges, but he has delivered very little.
The policy was totally bereft of substance in the first place. It failed to address important issues relating to incentives for students to complete training or to gain meaningful employment following training. We are now seeing the results of that. Where was the foresight to ensure that enough young people were supported to fulfil their training requirements in the first place and to graduate as skilled workers? Where was the government’s policy on enhancing relationships between employer groups and Australian technical colleges so as to ensure appropriate employment at the end of training? Where was the commitment to work with states and territories in order to achieve the skilled worker goals that this nation must have in order to compete with the rest of the world? Where was the commitment to work with the states and territories and to build upon the funding that was available from the states and territories for technical trade colleges for the VCAL and the VET programs that they are implementing within their areas?
Where was the idea to use federal funding as a bit of leverage to increase state funding and the availability of what was around in local areas? Where was the acknowledgement that our young people need and deserve better choices, and that our current education system needs and deserves better facilities and better structures to train them in vocational and educational training? We will not find any of these things in the Howard government’s Australian technical colleges policy and, because of that, we now see only four of the colleges up and running.
The government has not even been transparent about the funding provided to the technical colleges. Whilst this bill brings forward the funding for the proposed 25 Australian technical colleges, at the end of this month just how much of the $185 million that has been committed to the colleges will have been spent? The government has in fact dramatically underspent on these colleges. It has refused to reveal funding details for each of the colleges—and no wonder. It is more than likely too embarrassed to do so. To underspend in a program designed to revolutionise vocational and educational training—a program that is at the centrepiece of the Liberal Party’s response to the skills crisis—at the time of massive skills shortages and chronic teenage unemployment across the country shows chronic incompetence and the government’s complete inability to deal with the skills crisis.
The government has failed to address Australia’s growing skills crisis—and the Australian technical colleges with their 300 enrolled students are merely a drop in the ocean as to what is needed to fix this problem. The skills crisis is not new; it is not as though it should have come as a surprise to the government.
The skilled vacancy index, produced by the government’s own department, has consistently shown a rise in skilled vacancies, with vacancies in trades rising dramatically. Vacancies in electrical and electronics trades, construction, the automotive industry, hospitality and hairdressing have been on the skilled vacancy index not just for 12 months but, in some cases, for 10 years. What this country needs is a nationally coordinated approach to addressing Australia’s skills crisis, not a hastily cobbled together policy that still leaves this country 100,000 skilled workers short by 2010.
There are no excuses for the government. It has had years to develop an innovative approach to the skills crisis. It had years to listen to employer groups, unions and the media warning about the skills crisis. You would think that this government would have heeded those warnings and supported the TAFE sector, but instead the government decided to starve the TAFE sector of funds. It was deaf to the employer groups, unions and the media. The government was also blind to the cumulative result of declining numbers of Australians engaging in trade apprenticeships.
Instead the government again—all spin, no substance—was more obsessed with how the apprenticeship numbers were reported by the media to the public. It created New Apprenticeships. New Apprenticeships effectively counted trade apprenticeships and one-year traineeships together. This new system obscured the fact that trade apprenticeships were declining.
New Apprenticeships provided the smokescreen that the government needed to hide the fact that they were heading for a skills crisis. Instead of spin and smokescreens, the government would have done better to consult with the states and territories about developing a national plan to address training and skills needs. Instead of cutting the training guarantee, the government should have realised that it provided a significant incentive to employers to provide continual upskilling of their workforce, which in turn allowed us to stay ahead of the problems of the workforce as it was ageing.
We can do much better in this country in relation to the skills crisis—and Labor has planned to do this. Our skills blueprint, which was released in 2005, provides a program for getting skills into our schools. It includes: offering young people better choices by teaching trades, technology and science in first-class facilities; establishing a trade-in-schools scheme to double the number of school based apprenticeships in areas of skill shortage; and providing extra funding per place. It establishes specialist schools for the senior years of schooling in areas such as trades, technology and science and it establishes a trades taster program so year 9 and year 10 students can experience a range of trade options that could also lead to pre-apprenticeship programs.
In my own electorate—and, I know, in many other electorates—the Mindshop Excellence Program has been running for some time. It is actually running at the moment as part of the Australian Industry Group’s Ballarat ‘manufacturing 31 days’. It used to be Manufacturing Week, but we now have Manufacturing Month—and a bit. The Mindshop Excellence Program is a great example of what you can do. It takes young people into the manufacturing sector and they get to experience not just trades across the manufacturing sector but also the real problems that they can face in trying to come up with innovative solutions to manufacturing problems. These young people are integrated into the businesses and learn what manufacturing can offer them. They get to come away, provide a presentation to leaders in the local community and present these solutions to companies such as FMP, McCain and MasterFoods. It provides people with a real taste of what it is like to be in a trade but, more specifically, in a trade in manufacturing. I think that is certainly a program that Labor will look at very seriously.
We have also planned to increase the number of young Australians completing apprenticeships, through incentives such as an $800 a year skills account which would abolish up-front TAFE fees. The money, which would be paid directly into a skills account for every traditional trade apprentice, could be spent on TAFE fees, textbooks or materials. We have also introduced a $2,000 trade completion bonus, under which traditional apprentices would receive a $1,000 payment halfway through their training and a further $1,000 payment at the completion of their apprenticeship. This scheme aims to achieve an 80 per cent completion rate, compared to the abysmal 40 per cent completion rate that we have now.
That is just the start of our skills blueprint. We came up with that in September 2005. The government has done very little. Its two policy solutions—the Australian technical colleges and importing apprentices from overseas—are the only two measures that it has introduced to deal with this massive skills crisis. I supported the previous bill on the Australian technical colleges and I will support this bill because, frankly, I think something is better than nothing when trying to assist young people into trades that better match industry needs. But when you look at the government’s incompetence in introducing this initiative, an initiative designed to see 7½ thousand enrolled in trades but that only sees 300 to date and 25 technical colleges but only four open for business to date, you have to ask yourself, ‘What has the government been doing in relation to the skills crisis?’ When you see the incompetence that has been exhibited in the way in which they have introduced these Australian technical colleges, you have to really worry about what this government is doing to deal with the skills crisis in this country.
60
18:20:00
Wilkie, Kim, MP
84G
Swan
ALP
0
0
Mr WILKIE
—I rise to speak in favour of the amendment to the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, moved by the shadow minister for education, training, science and research, the member for Jagajaga.
Many of us here tonight will recall the coalition’s campaign launch in the last election in Brisbane, when the Prime Minister announced what he described as the centrepiece of the coalition party’s response to the skills crisis. In fact, on that day, 26 September 2004, the Prime Minister said that this centrepiece would ‘revolutionise’ vocational education and training throughout Australia. It was truly revolutionary; no other PM in history has been so stupid at a time of great skill shortage to propose duplicating a system that already existed. In this instance the words ‘revolutionary’ and ‘stupid’ could be interchanged.
The centrepiece, of course, was the establishment of 24 Australian technical colleges. The bill being debated tonight will bring forward some funding from future allocations to enable the colleges to be established more quickly. This bill, in itself, is a confession of abject failure by this arrogant and out-of-touch government. Almost two years after the Prime Minister announced this centrepiece, the government’s progress in getting these colleges up running has been nothing short of disgraceful. So much for the revolution promised by the Prime Minister.
If the government were genuinely interested in training and addressing our chronic skills shortage, the very funds which have been allocated to these colleges could have been spent through existing vocational education programs, and more Australians could have already been beneficiaries of new training and work opportunities. But no. Because of its ideological hang-ups, the government was intent on bypassing the TAFE sector run by those nasty socialist state governments and establishing its own centrepiece colleges.
This is typical of the approach of this government. Far from supporting the principle of federalism, this government has attempted to centralise all government programs in Canberra because it does not trust the states to deliver. If any of the states had been Liberal or coalition states, I wonder whether this would have been the case. I doubt it. Obviously, this is just an attempt to try and bring discredit to states which are actually delivering a very good outcome for their people.
Indeed, in the case of vocational education and training, in his speech on 26 September 2004 the Prime Minister makes much of the fact that these centrepiece colleges will be run independently of the state education system. He obviously sees this as a plus. Yet, if the proof is in the pudding, the fact that the Commonwealth has so far failed to deliver on its promise to establish 24 colleges is now an indictment of that whole approach. And so, two years after the announcement of this plan, we have the government hastily bringing forward funds in this legislation because it realises that this centrepiece will be seen as nothing short of a sideshow if it is not more fully established by the time of the next election.
Let us examine progress to date. Only four of the proposed 24 colleges have been established, enrolling only 300 students in total across Australia rather than the 300 per college announced by the Prime Minister. In other words, at present only 4.2 per cent of the total number of students which the Prime Minister announced would be taught in the colleges are actually in attendance at them. The four colleges so far established are in Gladstone, Port Macquarie, eastern Melbourne and the Gold Coast. And in the infamous case of the Gladstone college there is only one student enrolled.
Two hundred and twenty of the total 300 students benefiting from this prime ministerial initiative are attending the college at Port Macquarie. It is worth noting that, of the 220 students at Port Macquarie, 185 were enrolled at St Joseph’s vocational college in Port Macquarie last year. In effect this means that the net gain for Port Macquarie in having the new prime ministerial college is 35 students. So much for the revolution. This point goes to emphasise the fact that Australia would have been significantly better off if the additional funds for vocational education and training which are tied up in these colleges could have been allocated to increase the size and scope of existing vocational education infrastructure.
Part and parcel of this ‘revolutionary’ policy approach is that teachers can only be employed at these colleges—aha, here is the catch—if they sign up to the brave new world of Howard government industrial relations. Given the government’s failure to implement the Prime Minister’s vision for these colleges, it is not surprising that, of the $343 million allocated over four years, only $18 million had been spent as of this May. If I were the Prime Minister, I am sure I would wonder whether the minister really had his heart in what the Prime Minister clearly thinks is an excellent initiative. Perhaps the minister actually thinks this program is a prime ministerial indulgence and, indeed, a crock.
Personally, I am concerned for the single student in Gladstone, as he or she must be feeling pretty lonely. Perhaps they sympathise with the sole occupant of the refugee camp at Manus Island, who was surrounded by a contingent of guards and cost taxpayers more than $200,000 a month. Perhaps the lone student also yearns to play team sports and talk to fellow students—opportunities denied to him or her. The movie Cast Away should give the lone student some tips on survival. Remember the volleyball that Tom Hanks found and named Wilson? Perhaps the budget at Gladstone college could enable a volleyball to be purchased so that the student could have someone to talk to. I guess, on the plus side, presumably there are excellent opportunities for one-on-one education—but not many for anonymous assessments of teachers.
Unfortunately, when you list these aspects of the implementation of this college initiative so far, there is a sense of the shambolic about it. But that diverts attention from the severity of the skills crisis in which Australia finds itself. As members of the House know, the Reserve Bank has repeatedly warned that the skills crisis is a major constraint on economic growth and is causing inflationary pressures and therefore pushing interest rates up. We have all seen evidence of these interest rate pressures in the last few months. According to the OECD, skills shortages in Australia are a critical hindrance to future economic growth.
Even the government’s cheerleader in draconian industrial relations, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, states that the skills shortage is the No. 1 complaint from businesses. Heather Ridout, from the Australian Industry Group, has also highlighted the skills crisis and pointed to the fact that we should take advantage of the current minerals boom to put in place the necessary policies to protect our economy when the minerals boom fades. In fact, at the recent minerals industry dinner here in Parliament House, the Prime Minister announced that one of these technical colleges would be established at Newman in Western Australia to train people in the mining industry—an excellent initiative, but one which could already have been up and running if the existing TAFE networks in Western Australia had been used. The Australian Industry Group estimates that by 2010 Australia will need an extra 100,000 skilled workers. Even if these colleges were fully up and running, they would only cater for 7,200 students, barely a drop in the ocean compared to what is required.
The truth of the matter is that Australia is the only developed country to reduce public investment in our TAFEs and universities over the last 10 years. More training opportunities for Australians are vital if our economy is to experience non-inflationary economic growth. Our skills shortage is directly related to the government’s failure to put in place effective training policies. I believe that we should allocate more funding to meet our skills needs. The cruel hoax behind the Prime Minister’s college indulgence is that the $343 million allocated could have already been put to good use to train more Australians into work.
At present, our economy is riding to a large degree on the success of the minerals boom—thanks, of course, to my home state of Western Australia. We should be taking advantage of this situation by putting in place the training and infrastructure policies to ensure that our economy can be competitive in the absence of such benign conditions. Unfortunately, this bill is indicative of the government’s ideological hang-ups in not using already existing TAFE infrastructure as a vehicle for vocational training, and it is further evidence of the government’s indulgence of prime ministerial whims in election campaigns.
Unlike the government, Labor has a plan to address the chronic skills shortage. We will work with the states and territories to ensure effective training policies. Our skills blueprint involves teaching trades, technology and science in first-class facilities. We will establish a trades in schools scheme to double the number of school based apprenticeships in areas of skills shortage. We will establish specialist schools for the senior years of school in areas such as trades, technology and science, as well as a trades taster program enabling years 9 and 10 to experience a range of trade options, which could also lead to pre-apprenticeship programs.
Labor will also overhaul the failed New Apprenticeships scheme and ensure that it is substantially funded and effective in meeting industry needs. It is vital that we ensure that apprentices complete their training. Currently 40 per cent of apprentices do not complete their courses, and this figure must be reduced if we are going to improve our training performance. We will also introduce an $800-a-year skills account to abolish up-front TAFE fees. We will also introduce a $2,000 trade completion bonus, which would involve traditional apprentices receiving a $1,000 bonus halfway through their program, with an additional $1,000 to be paid at the end of the course.
These initiatives will enable a Labor government to address Australia’s skills shortage in a meaningful and effective way, unlike the failed technical colleges program of this tired and out-of-touch government. Labor understands these issues, and the very fact that this bill is here today is evidence of the Howard government’s abject failure. Given the snorting going on by the minister at the table, I can understand his frustration in not being able to adequately address the very issues we need to address here: skills shortage and the problems in our TAFE system.
63
18:31:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
0
0
Mr RIPOLL
—I will start my remarks on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 by saying that I support the bill. I support the bill out of frustration that this government cannot find it in its heart to do more. I support the bill because, in the absence of anything of greater significance, I have to support the little bit that I, my state or, for that matter, the Australian people and young people across this nation are offered. I do support the bill, but I remain concerned about its intent, its direction, its implementation and a number of issues within Australian technical colleges and what it will mean for developing skills.
Labor has supported this bill fully, without amendment. Without taking that away, while we give our support, we also have a second reading amendment as was proposed by the member for Jagajaga:
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 through 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”.
These are significant concerns and significant failings of this government in the most important area of skills and training. Skills and training is an important area to the continued growth of the economy and, if we want to remain globally competitive, efficient and productive—if we want to continue the good economy that this government lauds so much—the government needs to actually do something about it to continue the 15 years of economic growth we have had that were delivered by a past Labor government.
This government has been the beneficiary of difficult but necessary reforms made by the Hawke and Keating governments. But now, while it enjoys the benefit of those reforms in a strong economy, we are just starting to see the cracks open in the economy—cracks in skills and training in this country—and a government that is not prepared to act. The government is prepared to receive the benefits of a great economy—without question, one that it inherited because of 15 years of year-on-year growth after the good work that Labor did—but I will be surprised if we have a further 15 years of strong economic growth based on the actions, programs and policies of this government. In fact, after 10 long years of ruining this economy—10 long years of tax-and-spend policies and politicised campaigns for its own re-election and survival, about being the government born to rule rather than a government born to do something for the Australian economy and the Australian people—we are now starting to see the opening up of the deficiencies of this government and what that will do to the economy. I will speak a bit more about that, how it relates to the Australian technical colleges and what that means for Australia more broadly.
I also want to note and comment on the lack of government speakers that have put their names on the list to speak on this most important bill. I think that as well is a reflection of this government’s lack of identity with the community—a lack of real understanding about the issues that impact on average Australians, on the so-called battlers. I have been thinking for many, many years: ‘Where are the Howard battlers?’ The Howard battlers are battling harder than they have ever had to battle because of this government’s policies. Young people today struggle. They struggle to gain the skills they need, they struggle to save money and they struggle—almost with impossibility today—to afford to buy a home because of the policies of this government. So, in the same sense that we have two economies in this country, we also have two training systems—two skills systems—and I will also talk about that a bit more.
This government’s approach to date on delivering something in the form of skills and training was a last-minute effort, a last-ditch attempt, in the heat of a campaign at the last election. It was an ill thought out and ill thought through program. We still support it, because we think we do have to do something. The government must do something. At least we can take the very little that it offers, but if only it had genuinely sat down and systematically thought through a plan for dealing with the skills crisis, I would be less critical of what the government is doing.
I am critical because, when you take a closer look and examine how this program was put together you will see it was with very little detail, almost on a wing and a prayer, with the government saying, ‘It’ll be okay, we’ll just throw buckets of money at it,’ and then after the election they could work out the detail. Of course, the problem with that type of approach in developing policy is that it is often bad policy. What we are seeing as a result is that, while the government said they would throw a bucket of money at it, so far the states and the Australian technical colleges have received nothing bar a trickle of money. That is also disappointing to see. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states a number of things. In particular, it states:
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005 (the Act), which provides for the establishment and operation of Australian Technical Colleges. The Act provides funding for the Colleges over the period 2005 to 2009.
Again, that is as a result of this government not sitting down and properly thinking this through and being more intent on political outcomes rather than training and skills outcomes. It further states:
The Bill will amend Column 2 of the table in subsection 18(4) of the Act. Funding from 2008 and 2009 will be brought forward into 2006 and 2007 to meet the expected expenditure for the Australian Technical Colleges initiative over those years. The … amount of funds appropriated under the Act will remain unchanged.
So while the government is playing at the edges with some of the funding, as I said earlier, we are yet to see much of that actually being delivered. If you look at the 20 million people and the number of regional and rural areas that we need to work on with the states, and the local authorities for that matter, you will see the government is proposing a solution—I would say barely a paragraph—in trying to meet some sort of need: only 25 technical colleges, but that is the government’s answer. It is a small number: 25. Twenty-two successful proposals have been announced, so there are still some outstanding. Of those, only 12 funding agreements have been signed to date.
What is more disturbing, though, is that the government in their slow approach to dealing with the crisis to date have only four technical colleges which are open, with a total enrolment, as many members on this side of the House have said, of only 300 students. You would have to question, without doubt, whether those 300 students are in addition to what would normally have transpired had those students not had access to the ATCs but instead decided to go to TAFE. Have the government delivered something new, something concrete, something above and beyond what would have taken place anyway? Maybe they have; maybe they have not. I will leave that for other people to judge. But my concern is that, with only 300 students and with colleges only in a certain number of areas—Port Macquarie, Gladstone, eastern Melbourne and the Gold Coast—it just leaves a glaring gap, such a large hole in showing how much more the government could have done had they been genuinely interested in the heat of an election period in dealing with the skills crisis. My view on this is that a skills crisis unacknowledged or denied is a skills crisis not fixed. That is where we are at: the government refuse to acknowledge that we even have a skills crisis. While everyone in business, everyone in the community, all the peak bodies—you do not have to go very far to find the evidence of it—screams out for help and assistance in terms of the skills crisis, the government barely scratch the surface and barely attempt to show they are actually interested.
Another thing that concerns me about the government’s approach to this is that we already have a system for delivering skills training in this country, a system that has delivered well over many years. But if the truth be told, it is under some pressure and struggling, and that is our state based TAFE system. In my view, the government would have been much better rewarded more generally and certainly would have delivered more instantaneous results and better outcomes for a whole range of young people across the country had they sat down in a demonstration of goodwill with the states and said: ‘We want to deliver some extra training, some skills. We understand there is a skills crisis and we think that the best way to do it would be to work hand-in-hand in partnership with the states,’ regardless of their politically elected bodies. The efficiencies of working with the states would have been enormous and they also would have delivered almost instantaneous results.
One only has to look at the requirements that were put forward in the original proposals for those who would be interested in setting up an Australian technical college. In fact, I think the first criterion was that there would be no need for building new infrastructure; they could use the existing TAFE infrastructure. For me, that was the punchline. This is not about the government trying to deliver something new, something extra, something on top of, something beneficial to the country; it is about rebadging and taking over part or all of the state system, if it could. It is a sort of roundabout way of saying: ‘We’ll just use your current system, we’ll use your buildings. We’ll actually pump some money into it for once. We’ll actually assist you in trying to deliver something positive for young people in terms of skills, but it has to have our badge on it. It has to have the Commonwealth logo, it has to have the stamp of John Howard and the government on it.’ That is the real point of this; that is the real purpose. So forget about timing and how many skilled people we are going to deliver out of this, because that is a side issue for the government. The real issue is about badging and the election promise. The real issue is about how the government can make this look good or appear as though they are actually paying some attention to this skills crisis. That really concerns me.
The setting up of a duopoly as it were—it is not quite a duopoly but it is a two-tiered system or dual system—will prove in the end to be highly inefficient and probably confusing for young people in terms of where they should go. They will wonder whether one system is better than the other or whether one system has more resources. They will ask themselves, ‘How come we’re at a particular TAFE college but it’s called an ATC?’. They will wonder about the value of actually going down that path. All of that really does concern me.
The money committed by this government for the Australian technical colleges as at 30 May was $185 million, but only $18 million has actually been spent out of a total budget of $343 million over the next five years. Again it seems to me that there is little drive or incentive from this government to actually deliver on its promises. This is almost identical to the continual rubbish we hear from the government about an issue in my electorate: the Ipswich Motorway. They keep saying that they have committed funds. Committing them is great, but what we need is the actual delivery. We need to have the money not on the table in Canberra locked behind Treasury doors but on the ground with infrastructure in place. That is where we need the money. We need outcomes from this. Young people in this country need to know that there is somebody out there backing them through skills and training but we are seeing very little from this government. We have heard a lot of promises made but seen very little in the outcome and delivery areas. In fact the Department of Education, Science and Training has refused to provide any individual funding information for the colleges. Why would it do that? Why would it refuse to provide that information? Obviously it has something to hide.
Staff to be employed by Australian technical colleges must be offered Australian workplace agreements. They must be offered choice. Too bad if they wanted to make a choice using their own initiative—they must be offered choice. It is a case of saying: ‘Here’s your choice. Take this or take nothing else.’ Again this whole concept of choice is more about an ideological agenda of this government than about delivering real outcomes and delivering something for young people—or for the economy for that matter. Had the government been more intent on and interested in delivering real outcomes for the economy, we would have seen that reflected in the model and its partnership for the states. We see none of that, because the government is not interested.
The government has proposed that just 24 colleges be in operation by 2008. By the time you actually deliver the qualified, skilled people from these colleges in 2010, the world may have been reshaped. There might be a different type of skill requirement. There could be a whole range of different issues. The lag in this government’s approach to a skills crisis today is frightening. The government intends that each one of these colleges will accommodate up to 300 year 11 and 12 students. If you do the math on this, this gives a total of 7,200 students when fully operational. But what have they delivered today? Very little. What this clearly demonstrates is that this government is more intent on the politics and on winning elections. There is a general incompetence and an inconsistency in the way it approaches things. The only consistent thing is its no holds barred approach to spending money where it sees an electoral outcome rather than an economic, national interest or skills outcome. This is gross inaction in the face of a real, serious skills crisis in Australia.
The government has refused for years to invest in skills and training. The figures speak for themselves. Look at the decrease in real spend and investment in our skills, our education and our means of productivity and efficiency—our ports and our infrastructure, the drivers of the economy. We have seen very little to nothing in most cases. The government has been happy to reap the rewards of a strong economy—and to reap the rewards of a mining boom in Western Australia and in my home state of Queensland—but very reluctant to reinvest in people, to reinvest in skills, and to reinvest in the next 15 years in the drivers of the economy that are so essential for a strong economy to enable us to continue the living standards that we are now so accustomed to. The Prime Minister cannot run and hide. He cannot hide behind so-called low interest rates when, compared to the rest of the world, they are actually quite high. There is a body of evidence now that actually says they are higher in terms of the financial pressure put on families than they were at the highest peak under Labor. They are actually putting more pressure on families. If people are so asset rich, then why are they so financially poor? These are the questions that this government just refuses to discuss or answer, and this is another failing. This is another failing in the critical area of skills and training, where this government refuses to do anything real. It is happy to engage in politics but not so happy to deliver the outcomes.
I have a particular example of how this government approaches things in my electorate. One of the greatest developments—and one of the greatest examples of master planning and vision—in all of Australia is happening in the Springfield development in my electorate. On completion it will be home to about 90,000 people. It is also home to a new university in Queensland, the University of Southern Queensland, and a number of other key educational providers. One of the best submissions put in to the government about the delivery of an ATC came from my electorate. It could have been done very quickly with existing infrastructure and with a commitment from not only government and developers but also local councils and a whole range of other skilled people. It was probably one of the best submissions in terms of needs. If you really look at a needs scale, where do we need to build Australian technical colleges, if that is the best model? Where do we need to provide the skills? You do not have to look much further than the electorate of Oxley. It is a high-needs area. It is somewhere where we need skills. Growth and development are through the roof. It is one of the fastest-growing electorates in the country. Yet there is silence from the government because it simply does not care. It is more interested in putting ATCs where it thinks it has some electoral advantage.
Labor on the other hand actually do have a plan. Labor have a plan to do something about this. We want to increase the number of young Australians completing apprenticeships. We have talked a lot about how that can be done through financial incentives and proper programs for investing in young people, investing in skills and investing in training. We want to do the right thing not only by the young people of this country but also by the economy in the national interest. It is not about political interest, the interest of saving the bacon of government ministers or saving the electoral hopes of this Prime Minister. It is about time that this government was taken to task on its real responsibility to Australians. (Time expired)
68
18:52:00
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
0
0
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—I refer to the rather oddly named Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. It is oddly titled, because its flexibility is very questionable. One of the fundamentals of this bill is an attempt to, in a draconian fashion, force people to adopt AWAs. Those sectors that are unwilling to participate and that have different points of view on Australia’s industrial relations processes are essentially marginalised and ignored in this process. Its flexibility is questionable because it is also an attempt to centralise education in this country. The seat of Parramatta, which is adjacent to my seat of Reid, has been represented by Sir Garfield Barwick and Sir Nigel Bowen. They and other great jurists on the opposite side of politics, such as Sir John Latham, would be quaking in their shoes at these proposals, for this bill represents a fundamental derogation of conservative political views in this country for the last century.
The opposition supports the bill not through any great enthusiasm but in the context of the second reading amendment, which points out the skills crisis after 10 years of the current government, alludes to the failure to provide the necessary training opportunities for Australians and speaks of the reduced overall percentage of the budget spent on vocational education and training. On that point, many speakers have pointed out that the OECD has been critical of the effort made in this country and says that we are essentially on the bottom rung in that group of advanced Western nations on expenditure on education, particularly in the tertiary and TAFE sectors. The second reading amendment also refers to the incompetent fashion in which this new ATC project is being wheeled out, and it points out—and the Australian Industry Group has very strongly made the same point—that there will be a dearth of 100,000 skilled workers in this country by 2010.
Finally, there is the question of transparency. The government and, in particular, the minister have not been open and accountable in the way they have presented these changes. We know that, throughout the country, the changes are behind schedule in a very obvious fashion. Promises of 7½ thousand students, promises of 300 students per college and promises of 25 colleges now look more distant. We do of course support the early expenditure of money on this program, because it is in dire straits. One government member from rural Victoria has said this evening that she is pleased that her area is being touted as a possibility for one of these colleges. But the only reason for that is that so many suggestions have apparently been rejected in a secretive fashion—whether it is because they will not proffer AWAs or whatever. It is unclear why so many proposals have been knocked on the head.
During the election campaign, in one of his more grandiose pronouncements, the Prime Minister said:
... the technical colleges are the centrepiece of our drive to tackle skills shortages and to revolutionise vocational education in Australia ...
I guess that we should be kind to him, because he certainly needed fine words. This was preceded by the government’s total failure to recognise the skills crisis in this country over the term of the previous parliament. The contribution of the then Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Nelson, was to constantly belittle our TAFE system, to constantly belittle our universities, to attack the ‘too wide’ provision of courses and to run around the country and spend hours of his staff’s research time to find the most ridiculous-sounding courses that might be taught at Woop Woop. His contribution was basically to belittle and dumb-down this country. He said there was no need for people to have skills, and that education is not something that should be esteemed and valued. The Prime Minister did need grandiose measures but, given the performance of the minister in wheeling this out, I do not think talk of revolution is ringing in his ears by any means.
The Australian government’s latest vacancy report from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations said there was a 1.2 per cent fall in skilled vacancies in this country in July. However, that has to be viewed in the context of the more important figure that, over the year, the vacancy rate in that sector was 17.7 per cent. So, whilst there may have been a fall in skilled vacancies in the DEWR ICT vacancy index, the actual overall figure in this country shows an increasing requirement for skilled workers.
I note, as have others, the dearth of speakers from the government side in this debate. Frankly, the government has many more graduates of Granville TAFE College in my electorate than the opposition has. I can think of two of them straightaway. But they are not here defending this measure, because they know that this is essentially an assault on the structure of TAFE in New South Wales. The government is engaging in petty politics to attack the efforts of state governments on TAFE and, as I said earlier, to enforce a particular set of industrial relations on those organisations that might be interested in participating in this scheme.
Granville is the second oldest TAFE college in New South Wales. It is a very venerable institution, it is still one of the largest colleges and it is respected as a provider throughout the state. I feel some passion about these matters because, whilst we have the skills shortage in this country, we have local unemployment. I refer to the Parliamentary Library’s research note of 31 October 2005 on the pattern of unemployment of particular groups in this country. It noted that the unemployment rate at that time was 5.3 per cent, among single parents it was 12 per cent, among the overseas born—particularly North African and Middle Eastern residents—it was 12.1 per cent, amongst the recently arrived it was 10.9 per cent and among non-English-speaking people it was 13.2 per cent. I cite those figures because each of those groups is characteristic of my electorate. Whilst we have skills shortages in this country, we have pockets of very serious unemployment in my electorate—and, in that area, we have a TAFE college. I would prefer that those resources went into an institution that is respected and has been successful for many generations, rather than into a costly and, at this stage, totally failed alternative. It is also interesting to note that 76.4 per cent of people in my electorate depend on wages and salaries, compared to the national figure of 71.1 per cent.
Also on the unemployment front, in the June 2006 quarter, whilst the New South Wales state figure was 5.4 per cent, in the central west district of Sydney it was 7.9 per cent—half as high again. In teenage unemployment, the state figure of 23.3 per cent was contrasted with the figure of 27.3 per cent in the central west of Sydney, which includes my electorate. Looking at actual municipalities, in March this year the Auburn municipality had an unemployment rate of 12 per cent, Holroyd was 7.2 per cent and Parramatta was 5.9 per cent, which contrasts with the national figure of 5.6 per cent. All three municipalities had rates above the state and national averages. So I feel very strongly that we should be out there supporting the TAFE system and trying to make sure that people get skills that are necessary to this country. It is not only the opposition that has expressed frustration at the skills shortage in this country; the Reserve Bank has constantly referred to it as a fundamental problem in the country at the moment. As I said earlier, the OECD and Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group have spoken about it. They are all saying that something has to be done, and I do not think they are referring to the measures in this bill.
With skilled migration the government went for the easy option, with a massive increase in numbers of skilled migrants to this country. Government members can talk till the cows come home about our position being racist or xenophobic. I put my credentials in the area of multiculturalism and those matters on the line for all those who might be critical of the opposition, but I am concerned that in the current year there will be 129,000 workers entering the country under the skills category. If we were to go back to 1995-96, we would see a figure of around 25,000. Of course, one has to be reasonable. There is a skills shortage in this country, some of which the government cannot overcome. We have seen changing technology, new requirements and demands, a changing balance in our manufacturing sectors and a spurt in mining which no-one accurately predicted. There are areas where we have to have skilled migrants—we have to look overseas; we have to make that effort—but one has to question what kind of solution it is if we are so reliant upon skilled migration. What employer is going to actually bother to train people if they have an easy way out with skilled migration?
I think we all know that it is not only a question of permanent migration; there has also been a significant expansion in short-term business visas, which is another name for short-term work visas. In 2004-05, for example, nearly 340,000 short-stay business visas were granted, which was an increase of 14 per cent over the previous financial year, which itself showed an increase over previous years. And, of course, large numbers of people have entered on multiple entry visas. The government’s solution to this skills shortage is to rely almost totally upon migration. That brings with it challenges such as whether the people who enter the country are actually employable in their area of skill and whether their skills are equal to what we officially require in this country.
This bill has been criticised in the Bills Digest for having received a lack of parliamentary scrutiny. We have a situation where enhanced power will be given to the minister, who will have more discretion with regard to how this system will operate. At a local level throughout this country there is obviously disillusionment and frustration at our being unable to know what is happening in this process. Today even further power will be given to the minister in a situation where he is already under assault for not being transparent enough.
The opposition’s position is also influenced by the outcomes of the inquiry by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee. Opposition members of that committee were concerned, as we are today, about the slow progress of these measures, the fact that only four of the colleges are up and running, the fact that the total number of students enrolled nationally is not as large as the number the Prime Minister promised would be enrolled in one college alone, the lack of financial transparency surrounding the measures and the geographic location of the colleges. I have heard no comment from any government member or from the minister about the criteria for selection of areas. One has to question whether they are being chosen because of the marginality of the electorates or because the electorates are held by a particular member of parliament or a particular party. No material has been presented as to why we need an ATC in a particular area—whether it is related to the nature of local industry, the unemployment level or expected changes in the demography or economy of an area. That is of extreme concern. The Senate committee also raised the issue I spoke about a moment ago: the lack of parliamentary oversight.
In conclusion, these measures represent an attempt to establish an alternative system—an attempt which at this stage is well behind time, is not transparent and is causing grave disillusionment amongst a large number of communities in this country. There is no evidence whatsoever that these new colleges are going to contribute in any way to the fundamental skills shortage problems in the country. These are problems that the OECD has made very clear, as I said earlier. The government is always confidently relying upon the OECD in so many areas. When the OECD talks about deregulation of the labour market or opening up the economy, it is often quoted by the government. But here, in a fundamental area that will influence the future of young people and the economy overall in this country, the OECD sees differently to the government. The opposition joins with the OECD in saying that the solution cannot be found through the simple utilisation of a short-term policy of migration.
71
19:06:00
Byrne, Anthony, MP
008K0
Holt
ALP
0
0
Mr BYRNE
—I rise tonight to discuss the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, which relates to the funding of Australian technical colleges. As we have heard tonight from a number of contributors on our side, Labor supports the bill but also supports the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms Macklin. They relate to some of our concerns about the implementation of these technical colleges and in reality what their effect will be on the elimination of the skills shortages in this country. I understand that the purpose of the bill that we are debating tonight is to bring forward the funding for the 25 Australian technical colleges for 2008-09 to 2006-07, but the total level of funding remains unchanged. I also understand that this bill establishes a regulation-making power to allow for funding to be carried over or to be brought forward into another calendar year, removing in future the need for recourse to legislation such as this to alter the timing of the funding. As I have already said, we support this bill.
The colleges are being funded by the bill we are debating tonight in an environment of a skills crisis in our country. We in this country, particularly those in the region that I represent, are crying out for skilled tradespeople: manufacturing workers, carpenters, boilermakers, welders, land managers and horticulturalists. In fact, we are debating this bill in an environment in which we are going to need about 100,000 extra skilled workers by the year 2010. We also find that this is the year that the first tradesperson is going to be produced by the technical colleges that have been funded by the government. I also understand that, out of the 25 technical colleges that have been put forward by the government, only four are in operation and that, in those four, currently fewer than 100 people are enrolled.
So, whatever the motivating factor behind these colleges is, my concern is this: how is this system, which already appears to be flawed in its implementation, going to reduce the capacity constraints that have been created? We know, as sure as night follows day, that, if you have capacity constraints in areas like this within our economy, what is going to happen is that you are going to have inflation. We are already seeing some of that wash its way through the system at present. This is an area and an issue that we need to address, because if we do not, it will be a further push in terms of demand inflation.
What concerns me in addressing this issue is that this is not new. We have known about the skills crisis for some period of time. The government, in its election document that was taken to the 2004 election, speaks about how they have been creating more apprenticeships. But there is nothing in it about our great need to move to fill the crisis of the lack of skilled tradespeople in our local area, our region—particularly my region—and our country, so there has been inactivity on this.
The other thing about the Australian technical colleges is that while the theory is good it ignores one thing: that the tasks that are mooted to be performed by these technical colleges are in fact already being undertaken by TAFEs, private schools and government schools in the region. There is a lot of talk about waste and the level of duplication between state and federal governments. But, in this era of governments trying to eliminate waste and duplication, why does the federal government ignore this by trying to supplant the state system and plant in its place a technical colleges system which appears to be fundamentally flawed, as is evidenced by the limited enrolments and the take-up rate? The government document that talks about these technical colleges speaks about 7,200 students ultimately washing through them in the next four years. That is clearly not going to be the case. There is quite clearly a problem here with the implementation of this system.
As I said previously, we do have an existing system. It is called TAFE. It does in fact work and it works very well in our region. My question as to skilled employment is: why have over 300,000 Australians been turned away from these TAFEs because of the lack of funding, while the government has imported over 270,000 skilled migrants over the past 10 years in those areas? Why is that the case? Why are we turning away young Australians who could take up a trade while we are bringing in foreign workers to take their place? This is unsustainable. This is not the Australia that I remember. I remember that when I was at school a kid wanting to do a trade could go to a TAFE and that person would get a trade. Why are people being turned away? Why are foreign workers being brought into this country in their place? It is unacceptable, and I can tell you it is a major issue in the electorate that I represent.
I would also ask this: instead of spending money to invest in our skills base through a strong education and training system, why has this government been denuding our TAFEs and our universities with cuts to funding in real terms? In fact, public investment in our universities and TAFEs has fallen by eight per cent since 1995 whilst the OECD average in comparable areas, in terms of spending by governments, has been a 38 per cent increase. Why is that the case, particularly given that we operate in a very hostile global trading environment?
The lack of funding for TAFEs and universities is quite clearly having a significant impact on our particular community. I know that there is an ATC in the eastern-south-eastern region, in Ringwood. It is in the electorates of both Phil Barresi, the member for Deakin, and Jason Wood, the member for La Trobe. But I would ask this particular question. The government spoke about putting Australian technical colleges in areas of need. Let me talk to you about the city of Casey and its population and ask why it is not an area of need. Its current population is estimated to be about 224,000. Its expected future population is expected to be about 350,000 in 10 years time, making it as big as Canberra is today. Currently, according to the latest estimates, we have about 55 families moving in every week, or 8,700 people moving in per year.
The really interesting demographic is that children aged zero to four make up about 18,000 people, or about 8.2 per cent of the city’s population, and there are approximately 38,000 students in primary and secondary schools. There are about 47,573 young people in the city of Casey aged between 10 and 24. Explain to me, given those population statistics, why the city of Casey has not been judged by the government to be an area of need. I can assure you that a lot of those kids will want to go to a TAFE or a technical college, however flawed it is; they want to have options.
What is happening in the city of Casey at the present time is that there is a tidal wave of young people who are coming through without the social infrastructure to support such rapid population growth. They need funded TAFEs. They need funded university spots. They could even have done with a government contemplating putting a technical college in the area. When the government first called for tenders for these Australian technical colleges, two consortiums in the region put their bids in to the government. One was to be a consortium that would be based in Berwick; another was to be a consortium based in Pakenham. Both were rejected. I do not know the exact statistics about the population in Ringwood, but I can say this for a fact: there is no way that it would have the same number of young people who would be seeking to perform a trade, looking in that environment or seeking to access TAFE. If we are looking at this as being based on an area of need, the statistics overwhelmingly argue in favour of the technical college being put in this area.
Notwithstanding the fact that we do not have a technical college in our area, why isn’t appropriate government funding going into institutes like the Chisholm TAFE? One thing I have forgotten to mention is that the Chisholm TAFE and my electorate border the manufacturing suburb of Dandenong. In fact, 25 per cent of employment in my electorate is generated out of manufacturing. This is an electorate—a region—that depends upon manufacturing and tradespeople as its lifeblood.
People who want to do a trade will generally go to TAFE. There are three TAFE campuses that I deal with that do great work for the community but that in my view are not sufficiently funded to perform the task that they are required to perform by government. Those TAFEs are Berwick, Cranbourne and Dandenong. In looking at Australian technical colleges, people talk about an enrolment of about 300 people per technical college. That is interesting. Let us have a look at the enrolments at each of the TAFE campuses I have just mentioned. The Berwick TAFE has a course enrolment of 3,056, the Cranbourne TAFE has a course enrolment of 1,803 and the Dandenong TAFE has a course enrolment of 13,041. That is a total of 17,900 enrolments in that area. Clearly there is a demand for a service in a facility like a Chisholm TAFE.
I would like to acknowledge that the federal government does in some small way recognise the importance of these TAFEs, because it has funded them. For example, it has funded capital works of $9.6 million for the Dandenong access and language building. There was $5.6 million for an enterprise centre in Frankston. And there was $13.1 million for the Dandenong Centre for Integrated Engineering and Science; it will be commencing soon. So the government has given some level of recognition to the performance of this particular TAFE. But if it is going to do that why doesn’t it provide additional funding for some of the courses? The waiting lists for people trying to get into these courses are huge.
Let me give an example of some of the waiting lists and the numbers for some of the apprenticeships—apprenticeships that we need to have so that people can graduate and get out there in the workforce. We are looking at areas like electrical, building and construction, automotive vehicle mechanics, automotive panelbeating, automotive paint and plumbing. There we are looking at a waiting list of 119 last year—119 people trying to get into the course.
Then there is building and construction. Our area is powered by the construction of houses. We have a huge uptake of housing construction in the area, so there is a huge demand for skilled apprentices and skilled tradesmen. If we look at building and construction apprentices and plumbing, we see that in certified plumbing we have a shortfall—about 472 people who have been on the waiting list, and another subcomponent of 48. All up, in a particular year, just for those two or three areas, we have waiting lists of 639 people. What is happening here? Why isn’t the government funding this to deal with the shortfall?
In addition, community leaders who talk to business leaders in this area say that there is a serious skill shortage in the area. There has been a skill shortage for some time. My question is this: if the government cannot even afford to put a technical college in my area, why can’t it fund this demand? Why can’t we offer our young people an opportunity to go to these three Chisholm TAFEs, graduate and get out there in the workforce? I would prefer young people who live in my area to be given the opportunity rather than their jobs being taken by imported labour. If you think that I am speaking out of tune, go and ask a lot of people in my electorate.
Labor has a plan to address this skills crisis. The skills blueprint was released in September 2005. We want to offer young people better choices by teaching trades, technology and science in first-class facilities and rid our schools of dusty and Dickensian workshops. We want to establish a ‘trades in schools’ scheme to double the number of school based apprenticeships in areas of skill shortage and provide extra funding per place—which is obviously needed in my area, as I have just said. We want to establish specialist schools for senior years of schooling in areas such as trades, technology and science. We want to establish a ‘trades taster’ program so that year 9 and year 10 students can experience a range of trade options which could also lead to preapprenticeship programs. We would also overhaul the failed New Apprenticeships scheme.
We would increase the number of young Australians completing apprenticeships, through incentives such as the $800 a year skills account which would abolish up-front TAFE fees. That is particularly important given the cost of living increases that my region has experienced. The money would be paid directly into a skills account for every traditional trade apprentice and could be spent on TAFE fees, textbooks and materials. We would also provide a $2,000 trade completion bonus under which traditional apprentices would receive a $1,000 payment halfway through their training and a further $1,000 payment at the completion of their apprenticeship. This scheme aims to achieve an 80 per cent completion rate.
Statistics indicate that in my electorate of Holt about 320 people commenced an apprenticeship in 2004. The national dropout rate is about 40 per cent, so 128 people who started their apprenticeship that year could drop out. We want to give them incentives to complete their programs. This country needs skilled tradespeople, and the fact is that we are not getting them. I do not believe we should import skilled tradespeople. I think it is un-Australian, particularly when we are turning young people—and potentially masses of people in the city of Casey—away from our TAFEs and facilities that their parents have paid for with their taxes. They have a right to access these facilities. It is their right to have a job and to not see it taken away by someone who has come in from overseas under a very suspect visa category and who is generally paid under award wages, which is what I have been told by people who have some experience of this. It is not Australian. It is not the Australia I grew up in; that is for sure.
We have to offer our kids opportunities. The proposal for the Australian Technical Colleges, however well meaning, is clearly not up to the mark. Only four colleges are operating, each with fewer than 100 enrolments. Clearly the system is not working. Labor support this system, the technical colleges and the amendments that have been moved, but if the government is serious about addressing these issues I ask that it funds the TAFEs, that it talks to the state governments and that it thinks about their kids’ and our kids’ futures rather than playing petty politics.
75
19:24:00
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
0
0
Mrs ELLIOT
—I rise to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. The training of our young people is a very important issue—certainly so in my electorate in Richmond, which has a very high teenage youth unemployment rate. Locals speak to me all the time about the lack of training for our young people and I support the amendments moved by the member for Jagajaga, which are as follows:
... 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”.
This bill brings forward the funding for the proposed Technical Colleges from 2008-09 to 2006-07. This is too little too late. Less than a handful of colleges have opened, each with a less than impressive enrolment. No tech colleges have opened in my electorate of Richmond, which has a very high level of teenage unemployment, and at this stage none have been promised. That is very disappointing, particularly for the regional areas, because we need to train our young people.
The Northern Rivers area of New South Wales is desperate for trade training. There is a massive shortage of local tradespersons such as carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers and electricians. The electorate of Richmond is directly affected by the skills shortage and it also has very high levels of teenage youth unemployment due to the government’s failure to train our local youth. Just south of the electorate of Richmond is the electorate of Page, in the Lismore-Ballina area. The electorate of Page was promised a technical college by the Prime Minister back in September 2004 but now, in August 2006, there is not even a preferred tenderer and the minister is threatening to scrap the idea altogether. Many young people around the Lismore-Ballina area desperately need that training. Hopefully many people from Richmond would also have access to it but, years and years later, there is still no word on a technical college there.
When the technical college for the Lismore-Ballina region was announced way back in 2004, the local schools, the TAFE and local businesses got together and came up with some really good local ideas that built on their own local expertise and knowledge. These proposals were put to the government back in May 2005 but, well over a year later, the locals in the Lismore and Ballina areas are still waiting for an announcement. The minister has rejected local proposals and threatened to take away the college.
One of the rejected proposals came from a local consortium that included the local high school and TAFE. Ballina High School won the 2004 National VET in Schools Excellence Award and the North Coast Institute of TAFE won the 2004 national Large Training Provider of the Year Award, but their proposal to run an Australian technical college was rejected by the Howard government. It was good to hear the news recently that the New South Wales government has stepped in and announced that Ballina High School will be funded under the state’s new trade school program, so we will see some additional trade training happening in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales. It is certainly good to see a commitment from the state government to step up to the mark, whereas the Howard government has left those people high and dry.
In this country we do indeed have a massive skills crisis. Quite simply, this skills crisis has been caused by the failure of the Howard government to train our youth. The government purport that the introduction of these technical colleges, along with importing foreign workers and apprentices, will address this issue. The Prime Minister has said that technical colleges are to be the centrepiece of our drive to tackle skills shortages, and now they want to bring that forward. If this is the best they have to offer, then it is far too little and far too late, particularly when I talk to locals in my electorate who desperately need to be trained now.
The young people in my electorate are facing a future of limited choice because of the Howard government’s refusal to address the skills crisis in this country right now. It has to be addressed right now so that these young people can have a future. The government should be focusing on training young Australians now. As I mentioned, we have one of the highest rates of regional unemployment in the electorate of Richmond, where unemployment generally is at 8.4 per cent and youth unemployment is at 32.8 per cent. That is almost a third of young people aged between 15 and 19 who are looking for full-time work but cannot get it. That is an outrageous figure, particularly in a regional area. That high figure has had impacts upon many locals that I have spoken to, particularly parents who are desperate for their kids to get decent training.
So we do have a skills crisis, but why aren’t our local youth being trained? It seems that the Prime Minister is not interested in decreasing this high youth unemployment rate in Richmond. He is not interested in training young Australians. What is he doing instead? He is importing apprentices from overseas. The skills shortage problem and one of the solutions—apprenticeships for Aussie kids—I believe is nowhere more important than in regional Australia, where we are seeing these high rates of youth unemployment.
This government cut $13.7 million from an incentive program to encourage rural and regional businesses to take on apprentices. Let’s just have a look at the current situation: this government is willing to spend millions to advertise and promote itself, as we constantly see. The government has spent millions of dollars trying to convince workers that they are better off having no rights at all. This is a government that will spend an absolute fortune on propaganda but nothing on real training for youth in regional areas such as Richmond. This arrogant, short-sighted government has continually ignored warnings from the Reserve Bank and many industry groups about the massive skills crisis in our country. It is our young people who are bearing the brunt of it and who are suffering. But the government is obsessed with spending money on propaganda and obsessed with all the infighting going on at the moment. We need to see a focus on getting our skills crisis fixed and giving our young people opportunities for the future by providing them with proper training.
There has not been the massive investment in education and training that is needed to ensure our kids’ future prosperity, indeed our nation’s future prosperity. The introduction of the technical colleges will not solve this crisis and will not benefit the 32.8 per cent of young people who are unemployed in the Richmond area.
For 10 long years the Howard government has failed to adequately fund our existing institutions. The government has turned away almost 300 Australians from TAFE and instead has been importing skilled workers. I do not have any opposition to migration, but I certainly say that migration is no substitute for training our young people. We should be training young Australians and training them now. That is where our focus and investment should be. We need to make an investment in our children in order to build a future for them and for our nation.
We on this side of the chamber say that we should be addressing the skills crisis through training our young people. Our education and training systems should be set up to support and prepare our young people to reach their full potential in their adult working lives. This government has systematically ripped funding and investment out of this system, making it harder for our kids to access the education and training they need to prepare them for the future. Under this government, Australia has had one of the largest declines in public investment in universities and TAFEs of any OECD country. That is a shameful record. We have dropped our investment by 8.7 per cent while the majority of our competitors have increased their investment. So it is no wonder that we are at the point where we have a serious shortage of skilled workers, which is really hurting Australian businesses who desperately need to have qualified tradespeople.
In its first two budgets the Howard government slashed $240 million from the vocational education and training sector and then froze funding until 2000, so is it any wonder that we are now faced with this massive skills shortage? These funding cuts and the subsequent freeze have meant that more and more TAFE colleges have had to close many of their training facilities.
The introduction of these tech colleges seems to be a bit of a parallel to, and they are certainly very much inferior to, the TAFE system. It really is a kick in the guts for TAFE, particularly in northern New South Wales. The funding for these tech colleges could indeed have been better spent by increasing funding to TAFEs—for example, in areas such as Wollongbar, Kingscliff and Murwillumbah in the Richmond electorate. That is where the money should have gone: into TAFEs.
I know that the member for Page agrees with me on this. He was reported in his local paper as commenting that the technical colleges should have been ditched in favour of putting desperately needed funding into the local Wollongbar TAFE. In the Northern Star of 18 October 2004 it was reported that the member for Page said: ‘I’m not into duplication. We need to talk carefully with the state government about this. I know the Prime Minister made the announcement but I think it came more out of frustration. We have a very good centre at Wollongbar.’ And we certainly have. We have a fantastic TAFE at Wollongbar, yet Wollongbar TAFE has been forced to turn away people from courses in construction, carpentry and joinery, and welding and metal fabrication. It could produce a lot more skilled tradespeople for our local area if it had more funding.
So investing in institutions and programs designed to give our young people the skills they need to get a job will address not only the skills crisis but also youth unemployment, and it will ensure our future prosperity as a nation. The sad truth is that, instead of investing in education and training, the Prime Minister has denied some regional areas a tech college through their draconian insistence that all staff be on unfair AWAs. Ballina High School was rejected for a tech college because it did not want to be tied to the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations requirements. This government is insisting on mixing up industrial relations conditions with the delivery of training. At the government’s insistence, all staff employed at an Australian technical college must be offered an individual contract. If a local school or TAFE does not want to implement the government’s extreme industrial relations agenda, it just gets cut off from the technical college program.
The government is denying local youth training and skills because it does not want the teachers at these colleges to have any rights at work. The introduction of these technical colleges will not solve the skills crisis. The government has had 10 long years to address the problem, but it has failed to do so. The wide-reaching damage caused by the government’s failure to address this is indeed outstanding.
Tourism is an important industry in my electorate. Currently in the tourism industry there is a shortage of 7,000 positions and a forecast of an additional deficit of up to 15,000 people a year. A lack of trained workers represents a long-term threat to the tourism industry in Australia and a very real and present threat to local businesses in Richmond. Technical colleges will not fix this or other shortages. These colleges do nothing to address the immediate problem. There will be no additional tradespeople for years. Businesses will have to wait a long time to see a result. But we need to see action on the skills crisis now. Again, this legislation is all too little too late. That is why I support the amendments.
It is disappointing to see the very limited number of members on the government’s side of the House this evening speaking on the legislation. I think it is a mark of how little this government cares about training our youth and about developing real solutions to the skills crisis. We on this side of the House believe that technical colleges duplicate programs and infrastructure that already exist in our TAFEs and schools. We should invest in what is already in place and working. We should be building on what we have, rather than reinventing the wheel.
Federal Labor are serious about education and have a vision for our future. We need to compete with developing economies overseas by addressing our skills crisis and building the skills of Australian workers. Labor are designing strong, practical measures to ensure our kids have affordable education and training choices by providing free TAFE for traditional apprenticeships, creating more real additional apprenticeships, providing more incentives to train apprentices in areas of skills shortages and offering young people better choices by teaching trades, technology and science in first-class facilities.
We will establish a trades in schools scheme to double the number of school based apprenticeships and provide extra funding per place. We will establish specialist schools for the senior years of schooling in such areas as trades, technology and science. We will establish a trades program so that year 9 and 10 students can experience a range of trade options that can lead to pre-apprenticeship programs. We will introduce an $800 per year skills account, which would abolish up-front TAFE fees for traditional trades, so that many more people can access training. We will also give a $2,000 trade completion bonus to those undertaking traditional trades. Investing in institutions and programs designed to give our young people the skills they need to get a job addresses not only the skills crisis but also youth unemployment and it ensures our future prosperity as a nation.
I again focus on tourism and on how important this is in the federal electorate of Richmond. Indeed, tourism is one of its major industries. The National Tourism Investment Strategy identified the need for 130,000 workers over the next decade with its current share of employment growth. Tourism would secure 45,000 workers. A lack of trained workers represents a long-term threat to the tourism industry in Australia. It also represents a very real and present threat, as does the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations changes, to many local businesses in Richmond.
When you look at areas like Richmond, you see that tourism is one of its major industries. If we are going to see people right across Australia trading off their annual leave every year, how is that going to impact on our local industries and the number of people coming to our areas? There is great difficulty in getting people who are trained in tourism, so we certainly need to address that as a major issue. In an area like the electorate of Richmond, which has such a large tourism industry, it is certainly important to make sure that many young people are trained in tourism.
In conclusion, the regional area of the Northern Rivers of New South Wales in the federal electorate of Richmond has, as I said, a rate of 32.8 per cent teenage unemployment. It is an absolutely shameful record for this government that regional areas have a rate of youth unemployment like that. The fact that the government has failed to invest in training in this area is outrageous. As I explained, local areas like Ballina and Lismore have been waiting many years for their technical college, but they do not see any sign of one. Where does that leave the young people in those areas now? What are they going to do? How much longer is the government going to delay this? Many of the people in the electorate of Richmond might be able to access a technical college, but so far all we have seen is the government dragging its feet on the establishment of some sort of technical college in either Lismore or Ballina.
It shows just how out of touch and arrogant this government is. People tell me all the time that they have been forgotten by the Howard government. Local seniors, local families and local young people are telling me that. They are disillusioned and angry with the Howard government for not investing funding in providing a future for them. What does it say about us as a nation that we are not providing training for our young people, that we are not putting in funding for it?
It is a shameful record of the Howard government. They are just too obsessed with their in-fighting, which we are constantly hearing about, to focus on the major issues impacting on our nation—and one of those is the skills crisis. Again, businesses are telling me how difficult it is to get local tradespeople and how hard it is to find them. This has impacted even more in those regional areas. That, coupled with the fact that we are not providing kids with a future, is absolutely shameful. It is shameful of the Howard government that they are forgetting about these young people. They are leaving them behind. We are looking at 32.8 per cent—more than one in three—of young people unemployed. That is just a huge number. (Time expired).
80
19:44:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
0
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise tonight to place on the record my comments regarding the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. This bill, as we have heard previously in the debate, proposes to reallocate funding for Australian technical colleges from 2008-09 forward into 2006-07. I have no problem with bringing that money forward, but I am concerned when funds that could be much better spent on fixing our skills crisis are squandered for little real return. What we have seen so far of these Australian technical colleges does very little to inspire confidence that the government has real answers to the skills shortage that is confronting our country.
While my colleagues and I do support the passage of this bill, we are certainly not going to gloss over the skills shortage that we now have in this country and the reasons for that skills shortage. We supported the government on the technical colleges bill the first time it went through the parliament, but we used that opportunity to criticise the government for not doing enough in the area of skills. Sadly, this remains the case today. The government is yet to announce any significant measures to address the skills shortage.
The funding for Australian technical colleges that the government put forward as a centrepiece of its re-election campaign is a case of too little too late. Our nation needed national leadership on skills years ago, and these colleges—even if all 25 of them get off the ground—will not produce a qualified tradesperson until 2010 at best. The government failed to do anything about the impending shortage. Its own experts, industry groups and others were continuously saying that the shortage was coming, and still it failed to invest in training and education. The subsequent results of the skills shortage are abundant and potentially damaging to Australia’s economy. But what is the Howard government’s solution to the skills shortage? What has been its response so far? Bringing in temporary overseas workers in their thousands. The answer for the Howard government was not to increase funding to TAFEs and universities so that they could train Australia’s future skills requirements; instead it chose to utilise a short-term approach that was cheap and expedient. I guess this should come as no surprise to any of us, because we are all aware that short-term solutions are the hallmark of this out-of-touch government.
Last year in the House I discussed a matter regarding the Lakes Creek meatworks in Rockhampton and a plan by local businesspeople and organisations to utilise this facility as a training centre for young Australians wanting to get a start in the meat industry. That initiative is relevant to this debate, and there is a need to refresh members’ memories about it. As members may recall, I informed the House of a plan hatched in 1999 by Rockhampton business groups to create a trainee meat processing facility. This project was supported by the local meat processing industry, which knew back then, in 1999, that a shortage of skilled workers was on the horizon. The project had my full support and I wrote letters to the then Deputy Prime Minister seeking his support for the project as well. Successive ministers gave the proposal lip-service and, in the end, despite plenty of effort from the Rockhampton community, nothing came of the plan. The government simply ignored a plan that would have had an impact on the meatworker skills shortage currently being experienced not only by Rockhampton but also by Australia as a whole. We had an answer for it but the government just ignored it.
Surely there can be no better example of the real failure of the Howard government to listen to an industry and a local community and provide training for our young people than the one I have just given. Here we are now, in 2006, seven years down the track, and the meatworks currently employs several hundred imported meatworkers, predominantly from Brazil and Vietnam, due to this government’s inaction. Had Rockhampton received the support from this government that this project so richly deserved, we would not be in this situation. We would have young local people working in that meatworks as fully trained and qualified meatworkers.
With examples like that, members on this side can be excused for seeing the Australian technical colleges as just a drop in the ocean and as sidelining, in some ways, other real solutions to the skills shortage that could have been taken up by the government. The ATCs are a start but they are far from the investment in Australia that Labor would like to see. We need a strong education and training system that allows Australia’s young people every chance to learn a trade or further their education. We need to increase our investment in this sector, not reduce it as this government has done for the past 10 long years. This government is responsible for significantly cutting public investment in our higher education sector, which stands in huge contrast to the OECD average of a 38 per cent increase. As we have heard in the debate already, there can be no more shameful indictment of the legacy of this government for Australia’s future than the fact that our competitor nations have spent on average 38 per cent extra on education and training in the past 10 years while in Australia we have seen an eight per cent decline. That is an eight per cent decline in investment in our future.
Labor does not want to see young Australians left without opportunities because this government has failed to do anything about this problem. How can the government call themselves good economic managers when they cannot plan properly for Australia’s future? Anyone can tell you that you cannot live off the reforms of the Hawke-Keating years forever, yet this is exactly what the government is doing. The previous government put in the hard work. They undertook the necessary reforms to ensure that the economy was heading in the right direction. This government has spent the last 10 years coasting and happily accepting the credit for the work of its predecessor.
The cracks in this government’s economic credentials are beginning to show. We have just had the third rise in interest rates since John Howard’s 2004 election promise of record low rates. We now have the highest interest rates that we have seen in 5½ years. The results of the lack of action on skills, the lack of action on infrastructure and the lack of action on petrol—the triple whammy—are starting to bite. These issues have all contributed to last week’s interest rate hike and can all be sourced back to the Howard government’s complacency and arrogance.
For 10 long years, those on the other side of this chamber have ridden the coat-tails of Labor’s reforms. They have not continued the hard work of preparing Australia for the future. Instead they have chosen to run with a litany of ideological issues that have no real bearing on the needs of the nation. The best examples of this that we have seen recently are the voluntary student unionism policy and Work Choices. We are seeing that the government is using the Work Choices legislation to try to impede the establishment of these Australian technical colleges at the same time that we are trying to train young Australians in those colleges.
The embarrassingly low enrolments at the technical colleges that currently operate surely must show this government that it is not doing enough in this area. They simply highlight that this government lacks the initiative to tackle the real issues in the area of skills and training and highlight the lack of initiative to reverse the 40 per cent of people who commence a new apprenticeship but do not complete it, the lack of initiative to ensure that our youth understand the value of a trade—the lack of initiative in addressing the skills shortage in any meaningful way. These are indicative of a government that has no direction and either does not know or does not care about the needs of Australians.
This government should instead take notice of Labor’s skills blueprint, of which we on this side of the House are very proud. That blueprint outlines Labor’s comprehensive plan to tackle the skills shortage head on. It is about investment in training and building a skilled workforce, and those are classic Labor policies. It is about the future, it is about creating opportunities and it is about nation building. That blueprint outlines our plan to offer young people greater choices and flexibility in training, expand school based apprenticeships, establish specialist schools and provide greater education and promotion of trades. Our skills account and trade completion bonus schemes are aimed at assisting and providing incentives for Australians to complete their training. The trade completion bonus aims to increase the completion rate of traditional apprenticeships to 80 per cent. Labor has a plan to tackle the skills shortage, while the government’s only real concern is who its leader is going to be this time next year.
In contrast, a Labor government would work constructively with the states to ensure that our education and training systems operate at their peak. This stands in stark contrast to the coalition’s approach of blaming the states for its own deficiencies in policy making. The notion of injecting funds into training is a noble idea and a welcome one. However, surely this money would have been better spent in our existing TAFE system rather than in trying to duplicate their existing work. Our state based TAFE network is the obvious choice for any program to increase trade training. The simple fact is that this government is not interested in solving the skills shortage but more in designing policies aimed at receiving media attention.
So here we have the government trying to put out the public perception that they are doing something to address the skills shortage, but in reality they have done next to nothing, and the hollowness of the ATC policy is catching up with them. The Australian technical colleges are not being built on schedule, and students are not enrolling in anything like the numbers that the government predicted. This policy is missing the mark, and still the skills shortage goes on unaddressed. Various groups have shown that Australia will have a need for an extra 100,000 skilled workers by 2010. That is only three years away. As the government’s technical colleges will not even show their first graduates until 2010, this would appear to be a sure sign of the government’s indifferent attitude to the shortage.
In Capricornia the skills shortage is having a direct effect on the coalmining communities. These mines, one of the main reasons for the current economic climate, are facing the same lack of skilled workers as other areas. However, the huge boom in mining at the present time has led to an increased demand for workers to set up new mines and expand existing ones. Due to the superior wages that tradespeople can earn in the mining towns, many of them have flocked there, leaving their previous centres with an even greater shortage. Of course, no-one can blame the tradespeople for their actions; after all, they have to pay for their increased fuel bills and higher mortgage interest rates somehow. But, even with this influx of workers, more are still needed in the mining regions.
This government has known for years that people were dropping out of traditional apprenticeships or avoiding them in the first place, and it took no action. We must put in place measures that educate Australia’s youth to the value of a trade. Greater action needs to be taken to ensure that our youth place the same importance on trades as was once the case. While the technical colleges are a weak, first attempt at doing this, much more needs to be done.
In yet another sign that the government are not serious in approaching this issue, in the original bill they placed a condition that the technical colleges must utilise their extreme and unfair industrial relations changes. We have heard from other members about examples around Australia where this crazy ideological obsession that the government have is impeding this much-needed policy to address the skills shortage. The government just cannot let go of their ideological obsession in order to fix what is shaping up as a very real threat to Australia’s prosperity right now and into the future.
This government has presided over one of the biggest failures in the education and training sector that this nation has ever seen. The Howard government has consistently seen fit to deny funds to cash-strapped universities and TAFEs as well as cutting the number of available places at these institutions. It now has the gall to come out and say, ‘This is not our fault.’ It sounds just like last week’s interest rate rise. If the government could blame this on the bananas, it would.
I would also like to focus on another aspect of the skills shortage and what it means to the people trying to live and work in the Central Queensland mining towns which make up a large part of my electorate. The skills shortage is exacerbating the serious housing crisis in our mining towns. You only have to read the local papers like the Miners Midweek or the Central Queensland News to find stories of people unable to find accommodation. The jobs are there in these mining towns, but people cannot take up the jobs because they cannot find places to live.
The Central Queensland housing situation is at breaking point, with residents being forced to leave. And there appears to be no end in sight as the mining boom continues to escalate. With next to no rental properties available, it is a gloomy future as the mining business sector outruns the accommodation sector. The region is crying out for affordable accommodation for workers, both to rent and to buy. If you are just a normal worker around those towns and not on a mining industry wage then it is very difficult to find affordable accommodation. The Emerald shire’s youth development officer, for example, has said: ‘Due to the rapid growth and cost of housing, young people are having to leave town, even after getting a job. There’s plenty of work in these mining towns, but the rent is just too much for them.’
We have seen examples in my electorate recently where this is happening and really making it very difficult to attract workers into jobs that are not associated with the mining industry. There are jobs in essential services in towns and it is very difficult to fill those positions because people are deterred by the extremely high cost of housing or just the straight-out lack of housing. For example, the postal delivery contract in Blackwater took many, many months to fill. Australia Post was beside itself, trying to figure out how it was going to fill this position, because how can you offer someone a job in one of these towns on $50,000 a year when housing costs are anywhere up to $1,000 a week just to have a roof over your head?
The situation is even worse when it comes to people taking up apprenticeships on lower wages. The people we would hope to be young apprentices in our mining towns are being forced to leave by this housing shortage. They are really put off by the housing crisis. The work is there and the need for apprentices is obvious but, on those lower wages, they have to live somewhere more affordable. I was at a function in Moranbah just a couple of weeks ago, and I was speaking to two different sets of parents who have elected to stay in the town just so their children could take up apprenticeships. There was no way those children could take up apprenticeships and make a start for themselves in the mining sector unless their parents stayed in town to give them a roof over their heads.
But it is not just the mine workers and other workers having difficulties. I have this week received a letter from a Moranbah GP, Dr Scholtz. The doctor advises me that there are currently only two GPs in Moranbah, and those doctors also assist the nearby towns of Coppabella, Nebo and Glenden. With the population of this district predicted to double in the next five years, Moranbah urgently needs another GP immediately and more GPs in the future. But, as Dr Scholtz writes:
Due to the mining boom, finding appropriate housing has become a major problem. The rental prices for houses in Moranbah now range from $700 to $1,000 per week. Therefore, realistically, no GP will relocate to Moranbah if he or she is not provided with adequate room to work from and reasonable accommodation to rent.
In our Central Queensland mining towns, the skills shortage begets the housing crisis, which then feeds into the skills shortage—and around and around we go. The Howard government has failed to provide the necessary circuit-breaker for our mining communities to address this problem.
This is not the only merry-go-round the Howard government has put us on. The ANZ’s chief economist, Saul Eslake, made comment in last Friday’s Financial Review about a possible cycle of interest rate rises and tax cuts. Mr Eslake said:
The government is, to some extent, causing a bit of a bind for itself by establishing a policy of handing over to households the windfall from mining companies.
The Howard government is more interested in giving tax cuts to Toorak than in nation building. I ask: where are the skilled workers, the infrastructure and the housing needed to keep our great mining industry in Central Queensland going? It is obvious that the Prime Minister has no idea the effect that the skills shortage, the lack of infrastructure and a shortage of housing is having on the working men and women in our Central Queensland mining towns. Those men and women, through their hard work, have given Australia this mining boom and, as Saul Eslake pointed out, have really given other Australians their tax cuts.
In conclusion, I invite the Prime Minister to visit the mining towns of Central Queensland before Christmas this year so that he can better appreciate his government’s policy failures in those areas critical to the future of the mining industry and of the men and women who work in our mining communities.
85
20:03:00
Jenkins, Harry, MP
HH4
Scullin
ALP
0
0
Mr JENKINS
—I rise to join the debate on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. I indicate my support for the second reading amendment proposed by the member for Jagajaga, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The bill before the House further amends the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005 by way of the reallocation of funding from 2008-09 to 2006-07 and the insertion of a new provision in the current act to enable the minister to distribute program funds between particular years by regulation instead of by legislative amendment. As has been said earlier in this debate, it is not the opposition’s intention to oppose this bill. Rather, we have made quite clear our attitude to the matters that arise from this amendment bill by way of a second reading amendment.
The greatest concern that this bill gives us is, of course, that it is a very mealy-mouthed response to the burgeoning skills shortages that confront Australia as a nation. It is not as if the government should have been unaware of the problems that confronted it. It regrettably has been distracted by some of its internal machinations. It also has been distracted by the fact that it believes that it is in control of an economy that is running well. This has blinded it to the need to take action as a government to ensure that we have an economy that is sustainable and that is robust in not only the short term but the longer term. Of course, last week’s interest rate rises and the comments of the Reserve Bank in its statement on monetary policy are of great concern, because they have underscored the things that the opposition, the Australian Labor Party, have been emphasising for quite some time.
It is clear to any observer that there is a strengthened labour demand that has led to labour shortages. But, underlying that, the important aspect that has not gained enough attention is that these are labour shortages not only in numbers but in the quality of that labour. In that, we are not talking about the people themselves; we are talking about the investment in those people by way of training and ensuring that their skill levels are at the optimum to ensure that Australia’s progress is able to be continued in the longer term.
What do we see happening? We see a response from government that leads to quite extraordinary things like special visas to allow apprentices from overseas to come to Australia and take apprenticeships. For goodness sake, this is not really a form of skilled migration. By definition, the government is saying to us that it is willing to bring in people that then require training as apprentices. Where is the logic in that?
Why is it when the opposition raises this that it can then be construed that in some way the opposition is taking a very narrow view about bringing in people from overseas to fill skills shortages? That is a nonsense. It is not that one cannot conjure up the need for people to come in in the short term or that we cannot of our own will ensure we cover the skills shortages but, for goodness sake, to bring in people from overseas to be trained up, when there are Australians willing to take the places if they are available!
It then gets back to having a look at what the government’s performance has been in ensuring that we are investing in our human resources. And that performance is appalling. That performance, when compared to the performance of the countries that we compete against in global trade, is appalling. We only have to go to the OECD figures that have been produced to see the damning evidence of the way in which this government is willing, for whatever reason, to drop the ball in this area. At a time when China and India are producing a staggering four million graduates a year, the performance of the Howard government with respect to university funding shows a staggering $5 billion cut since 1997. Public investment in our universities and TAFEs has fallen by eight per cent since 1995. In comparison, the OECD average is in fact a 38 per cent increase. We come in last. The country that is coming in second last—the next worst performing country—gets there by actually increasing its investment by six per cent. These are damning statistics, and there is nothing that the government can say that justifies Australia being in a position like this. When we dissect the outcomes from the proposal that is included in this bill, we see that the efforts of the government are miniscule. In fact, in comparison to OECD countries, we are now one of only three countries where public expenditure on universities and TAFEs is less than half of all spending and, in terms of public expenditure per student, we are well below the average of comparable developed countries.
One of the concerns that Labor has about the proposed new Australian technical colleges system is that it is very much driven by an ideological bent of a single minister who has now moved on. What is my evidence for this? Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I attend question time every day. When Minister Nelson was in charge of this portfolio, one of the things that he liked to do was to rail against state administrations and their technical and other forms of training. So, at the conclusion of this, despite further debate about forms of new federalism and the way in which the federal government should cooperate with state governments, we in fact had a minister who proposed a system that is a dual system—a duplicate of something that the states do—whereby they actually go in and compete against the states, without any recognition of what had been achieved as a result of the cooperation between state and federal governments in this area. It is a decision that was taken as though this had not been an area where work had been done.
If we really look at the area of training we see that this is a classic area where great advances have been made by what we now know as the COAG processes, but back in the early 1990s it was known as the Ministerial and Premiers Council. We had the creation of ANTA, as an overarching authority, which gave a national approach to training matters. That then led to greater cooperation between the states and the federal government, where in fact we saw the Commonwealth government contributing by way of resources to the effort but, in an agreed fashion, allowing the states and territories to preserve their control over this sector. We on this side of the House, in the long tradition of the way the Australian Labor Party has tackled these issues, can say that that has been the basis of the way that we see Australia going forward in these areas.
Back in the Whitlam era, the Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education was established, chaired by Myer Kangan, which led to the creation of the first Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. So we have had a 30-year tradition of the way in which the TAFE system has developed across Australia. Each one of us as local members can come into this place and talk about how their local TAFE has impacted upon the way in which regional skills levels have been increased, because at a local level TAFEs reflect the sorts of things that are important to their local area.
So I can come in here and say that the Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE has been a significant training provider for the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Why is that so? Because of the expansion that we saw throughout the eighties. We saw the creation of campuses of the northern metro TAFE at Epping and Greensborough. We saw northern metro TAFE venture into the member for McEwen’s electorate by way of its work at Yan Yean and the different things it has done at Eden Park. In fact these TAFEs became very much partners in local communities. They were deciding not only where the skills shortages were but also the way to tackle those skill shortages. The northern metro TAFE is interesting because the region that it serves goes from the manufacturing heartland of the northern suburbs of Melbourne right through to the rural fringe. It has done great work in making sure that the shortages that were there have been tackled.
What do we have here in this decision by the present government? We have duplication—a system that is thrown at different places around Australia. I do not stand here being churlish in my criticism of this system simply because the northern suburbs of Melbourne, the electorate of Scullin, missed out. The outcome of putting in place this investment in skills training might be that 1,000 people come out of the sausage factory with additional skills and qualifications in 2010. The simple fact is that if this money had been invested in the existing systems we could have seen a greater outcome. If the government was critical of the way in which those systems were operating, it could have been innovative in sitting down with the states and territories and deciding the types of projects that it might like to have assisted. In an area like Scullin, where the unemployed still number in the thousands—there are four or five thousand unemployed—and where people are looking for a way to get back into employment, skills acquisition is important. There are innovative ways in which the Commonwealth government could have come on board.
Let us have a look at Northland Secondary College in East Preston. It is a training provider to the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Some decades ago I think it was called the East Preston technical school. It then changed its name to the Northland Secondary College, when there was a change in the way that state governments decided to deliver their secondary education. As that secondary education system has evolved, not only in Victoria but also in other states—and this is something that the Commonwealth government does not acknowledge—there has been a recognition that there are groups of students that need assistance with the old trade type education. There has been a movement back to ensuring that special things are done for those students. We have seen in fact the development of avenues for getting qualifications outside of VCE. We have seen the development in states like Victoria of qualifications such as VCAL, which is an important avenue for students to gain education in skills that they can use to give them fulfilling employment in the outside world.
When this particular policy was hobbled together for ideological reasons in the run-up to the last election, there was no acknowledgement of that. It was decided that a number of these new technical colleges would be put in place. There was no transparency in the way that that was decided. It was a simple sop done on an ideological basis, because this was supposed to be one of those barbecue stoppers where the type of people who support the present government stand around and say, ‘The present system’s not doing the job.’ There was no investigation of what sort of job the present system was actually doing; it was a case of, ‘We’ll find a bucket of money and we’ll start our own system.’ What a waste. What unnecessary duplication. It is not going to give the outcomes that will turn around the types of skills shortages that confront Australia, the types of skills shortages that are leading to the foreign debt crisis that confronts Australia—that is not mentioned when economic matters are talked about in this chamber.
All we hear is the government harking back to the late eighties and early nineties and interest rates under the Hawke-Keating government. What a vacuous argument. We hear the argument that Australians have never had it so good, because their assets are so highly valued. But there is no acknowledgement that the problem in that justification for the level of household debt that people confront is that basically the punters do not own any more. They are actually not better off; it is the banks that actually have the greater value, because they are lending more. The point we have to get back to is that this government as a national government should see that what is required is a national approach to the skills shortages.
This delayed discussion of this piece of legislation has allowed the Leader of the Opposition to deliver his blueprint for Australian schools and training in the winter recess. He outlined the lethargy that this government has shown towards these issues and the way in which this government has ignored the skills shortages. This government has not even listened to people like the Australian Industry Group, which estimates that our economy will soon be short of at least 100,000 skilled tradespeople. If there had not been a decline of seven per cent in the past decade of people in training—which equates to 122,000 people—we would not be confronting this problem. So where has the government been? Where have the ministers who want to accept the glory for things that they imagine about the economy been when these things have been discussed? These things are important.
Labor’s approach is not that we have to reinvent the wheel but that we have to go into partnership with those who deliver the training at the moment and give them the resources that will allow them to produce the outcomes that are required to rectify the problems we confront. The Australian Labor Party has suggested a ‘trade in schools’ scheme which would increase the number of places available for people in years 11 and 12 who want to complete school based apprenticeships. We have a system in which we have not given the support and understanding that is required not only by the individuals themselves but also by those employers that can assist. We need a ‘trade taster’ program at years 9 and 10 that will encourage our young kids to take up these trades. We need a cooperative approach to these problems to save Australia’s economy. (Time expired)
89
20:23:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
0
0
Dr EMERSON
—The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 is a belated and feeble attempt to address the problem of chronic skills shortages in Australia. You do not have to be Nostradamus to have foretold the acute skills shortages that are now apparent right across the Australian economy. Those skills shortages are a direct contributor to the inflationary pressures that have resulted in three interest rate rises since the election in 2004, despite the government promising to follow policies that would keep interest rates at record low levels. In the economy, everything is related to everything else—and I will traverse the litany of Labor and official warnings about impending skills shortages and the relationship of those skills shortages to the other pressures that are so evident in the Australian economy today.
When this government assumed office, one of its early decisions in the 1996-97 budget was to cut training programs. I have just taken the opportunity to read The Victory. It is made plain in that book that the cut in training programs was poll driven. The coalition was in possession of research which showed, in those polls, that the Australian people considered training programs to have a ‘revolving door’ dimension to them—that is, people were not put into meaningful jobs, but continued in these training programs. So the government opportunistically cut funding for TAFE, cut funding for training programs, because it thought it was an easy thing to cut—that there would not be a community reaction. This is evidence yet again of the coalition’s behaviour of making short-term, opportunistic decisions at the long-term cost of this nation. That decision was the first of many decisions that have led to public investment in our universities and TAFEs falling by eight per cent since 1995, whereas in the rest of the OECD, the rest of the developed world, public investment in universities and TAFEs has increased by 38 per cent. We are now paying a very high price for this government’s refusal to invest in the skills of our people and the nation’s future.
But it is not the case that there were no warnings. A search of the Hansard will reveal, for example, that as early as 1999 the member for Batman was warning of skills shortages in Australia. Indeed, in a speech that I made on 20 August 2001, I said:
But the fact is that, without investing in the nation’s future, companies and industries will face dramatic skills shortages in the future.
Fast forward from 2001 to the Reserve Bank statement issued just last Friday, which said labour shortages are broad based across industries and skill levels. So, between 1999 and August 2006, the warnings were delivered, one after another, by the Australian Labor Party, by the OECD, by the International Monetary Fund, by the Reserve Bank and by the Commonwealth Treasury. They were all ignored by this government, to the point where, at the last election, the government obviously felt that it needed to do something, even if it was not much more than tokenistic—and that is why we have this legislation before us tonight.
Back in 2001, I pointed to the problem of the government spending for today and refusing to invest in the nation’s future. On 6 March 2001, I said of the government:
They are spending like drunken sailors.
I also said:
… the government has not done anything substantial to continue the improvements in productivity that are required in this economy.
That was an early warning of the extravagance of this government and the lack of any productivity-raising reform agenda to build on the reforms of the previous Labor government. Come forward to 17 November 2004 and the government had engaged in a $66 billion spending spree to get re-elected, of which only seven per cent could genuinely be considered as an investment in the nation’s future, and the rest was a big public stimulus to consumer spending. In a speech in the House, I referred to the ‘coalition government policy of promoting consumer spending as the government lets the good times roll, especially in the lead-up to federal elections’. I said:
Instead of hosing down consumption spending, the government has fuelled the fire through its massive budget and pre-election spending spree …
Labor was warning of the problem of this government’s extravagant spending and its unwillingness to take a long-term view and invest in the nation’s future.
In that same speech I said:
Where is the Howard government in all of this? That answer is that it is fuelling the consumption boom and neglecting Australia’s export problems. Australia should not have been spending all of the lift in national income from our historically favourable terms of trade ... Some of this temporary increase in national income should have been put aside by the Commonwealth for the inevitable rainy days.
I went on to say:
To avert damaging interest rate rises, the federal government should have been reining in Commonwealth spending instead of engaging in this consumption spending spree.
I also said:
Why should we be surprised that there are such huge skill shortages in Australia? The government’s only response is to seek to bypass the states and in two or three years time to have some technical colleges in place but, by then, the skill shortages in this country will be acute and we will have forgone the sorts of increases in productivity growth that would have been available from a vigilant government investing in the skills of this nation ... instead of spending so much of the budget surplus on fuelling the consumption fire instead of investing in our future.
There was warning after warning from Labor, and that was on 17 November 2004. On 7 February 2005 the Reserve Bank issued a monetary policy statement, which stated:
For the past couple of years, underlying inflation has been held down by the lagged effects of the exchange rate appreciation that took place during 2002 and 2003, but the maximum impact from that source has now passed. Hence it is likely that underlying inflation has now reached its low point and that it will start rising during 2005. Domestically-sourced inflation has been running faster over the past couple of years ...
Professor Ross Garnaut was saying the same thing. On 29 July 2004 he said:
The real domestic demand expansion of recent years is at least as virulent as that which precipitated the extreme monetary tightening of the late ’80s.
I said:
The Treasurer knew, when he was signing off on that budget and on those pre-election commitments, that what the government giveth in a pre-election spending spree, the Reserve Bank taketh away in the form of high interest rates later.
The warnings could not have been clearer, but the government’s practice of ignoring them could not have been clearer either. It is so arrogant that it believed that it would be able to canter along, based on the productivity surge created by the reforms of the previous Labor government and on the back of the commodities boom, and never have to make any decisions for the long-term good of this country. Instead it wanted to get involved in pre-election spending sprees, get itself re-elected and let the good times roll.
Of course, the chickens were going to come home to roost. After a 15-year economic expansion, it is inevitable that, ultimately, Australia’s domestic demand would smash up against capacity constraints, which means it has to have a vent somewhere. That vent is either into imports or higher domestic prices. In fact, in Australia’s case both of those have occurred. We have now had a record 50 successive trade deficits because of the pressure on imports, our deteriorating, appalling export performance—in spite of the best terms of trade in 50 years—and domestic price pressures brought about because this government has failed to ease those capacity constraints, the skills shortages and the infrastructure bottlenecks in this country.
Instead of doing those things, in the May 2005 budget after the last election, when it did have an opportunity to save for a rainy day and invest in the nation’s future, it increased the $66 billion spending spree to $103 billion. I said in a speech on 24 May 2005:
If a $66 billion spending spree puts upward pressure on interest rates, then a $103 billion spending spree surely does.
I asked of people who were receiving the miserly $6 a week tax cuts:
Will they be grateful if and when their mortgages go up by another quarter of a percentage point—and perhaps even beyond that? Those tax cuts will be gone, and they will not thank this government for embarking on an irresponsible spending spree that took away the tax cuts—and far more—in the form of higher mortgage interest repayments.
It just goes on and on. On 31 May 2005 in a speech to the parliament, I said:
I am putting on record again tonight that we do not support the budget on the grounds of macroeconomic management ...
… … …
Put all those pieces together and you see the preconditions for an interest rate rise.
What happened? We had two interest rate rises. We had an intervening increase in the price of petrol, which performed the function of an interest rate rise by slowing down consumer demand, but it only deferred the inevitable—an interest rate rise followed by yet another one in August this year. That is three interest rate increases since the last election because this government has failed to invest in skills and ease the other capacity constraints created by its neglect of the Australian economy.
On 24 May 2006, again in a speech on the budget, I said that I did not support the previous budget on the grounds of macro-economic management:
That was because that budget contributed so much to consumer spending, which would exacerbate inflationary pressures and lead to that interest rate rise—all of which did happen.
I went on to say:
There will, in all likelihood, be yet another interest rate rise towards the end of this year.
That rise happened at the beginning of August. I pointed out:
... this budget again has laid the preconditions for a further interest rate rise.
On 31 May 2006, I said:
The way in which the government could have done something this time to alleviate the prospect of an interest rate rise as a result of the fiscal stimulus would have been to cut government spending.
There is a novel idea! But in the budget the government did not cut government spending. Instead it prevailed over an expansionary budget—a point acknowledged in the Reserve Bank statement issued last Friday. When the government is saying that it was not fuelling consumer demand or adding to inflationary pressures, it was and that budget did. It again failed to invest in our nation’s future.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—It would be helpful if the member for Rankin could link this back to the bill before the chair.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. The way around it would have been to rein in spending, the extravagant spending that this government has continued to embark upon, and instead invest some of the budget surplus in skills creation, so easing the capacity constraints on the Australian economy. It is those capacity constraints that have led to interest rate pressures. This legislation before us tonight is a belated, feeble attempt to do as little as possible about the acute skills shortages in this country. Only four of these technical colleges now look like they are up and running, there are huge problems in the implementation of this measure and the first graduates of those technical colleges will not be coming out for several years.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—That is not right. There are not four; there are five.
8T4
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
Mr Laurie Ferguson
—He said there are five now!
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—So there are now five, and the first graduates will be coming out very slowly. The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, who is at the table, believes that this is more than enough to ease the skills crisis in Australia—a pathetic attempt to establish a few technical colleges because he and the former minister for education could not get on with the states. They abolished the Australian National Training Authority. They turned their backs on cooperative federalism, because they are so arrogant that they believe that they can run the entire Australian economy, every aspect of the Australian economy, and that the states are ill equipped to do so. But the states are well equipped to do this, and it was Labor’s creation of the Australian National Training Authority, a shining example of cooperative federalism, that showed the way to the future.
If this government had not been so arrogant, so combative and so politically motivated, it would have continued to cooperate with the states in increasing TAFE funding and training more generally. But the former minister for education, now the Minister for Defence, wanted to show his cabinet colleagues how tough he was, how he did not need to get on with the states, how he could roll over the top of the states. While he might think that he is a great man for doing that and that he got a promotion to the Defence portfolio for doing that, the Australian people are suffering through acute skills shortages that are putting enormous pressure on inflation and interest rates. I need only refer to the Reserve Bank’s statement issued on 4 August, which says:
… the recent tax cuts and other fiscal measures announced in the Australian Government Budget, are expected to support growth in household income and consumption in the second half of this year. Despite the expected growth in disposable income, the household debt-servicing ratio is likely to rise further in the period ahead, since household debt has been growing at an even faster pace than income. Together with the recent increases in interest rates, this is likely to boost households’ interest payments.
So it is the mortgage holders and the people who are trying to get into a home who are paying the price of the government’s slothful neglect of the challenge of easing the skills shortage in this country. It is a challenge that was identified by the member for Batman as early as 1999, by me as early as 2001 and by official report after official report from the IMF, the OECD, the Reserve Bank and the Treasury, to name but a few. But the government, in its arrogance, has ignored all of those warnings and that is why we have got this pathetic bill in front of us. That is why the Reserve Bank concluded, just a few days ago, that labour shortages are now ‘broad based across industries and skill levels’.
That is putting enormous pressure on prices and enormous pressure on interest rates. That pressure on prices is so acute now that the Reserve Bank has estimated that, even with the latest interest rate rise, the underlying inflation rate—take out all the extraneous factors—for the next two years will be three per cent. What is significant about three per cent? It is at the top of the Reserve Bank’s range, and if it goes above three per cent the Reserve Bank’s hand will be forced. That means that there will be in all likelihood another interest rate rise before the end of the year. If I look at a graph prepared by the ANZ Bank on the probability of two interest rate rises in the next six months, that probability appears to me to come in at about 85 per cent. This is the market predicting two interest rate rises within the next six months with an 85 per cent probability.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you say that the member for Rankin should relate his remarks to the bill before us tonight. I am, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am saying that the Australian people who are borrowing for a home, trying to get into a home, are paying the price of this government’s wilful neglect of skills shortages that have accumulated in this country since 1999 despite warnings from Labor and despite all other official warnings. The OECD has just released a country report on Australia and it says that any further increases in revenue as a result of the record mineral prices should be saved because we cannot afford any more pressure on interest rates. I wonder if this extravagant government knows the meaning of ‘saving’. That is the link. That is why we have such acute skills shortages in this country. (Time expired)
93
20:43:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—in reply—The member for Rankin has given a very considered but somewhat whacky contribution to the debate on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. This bill is about bringing funds forward from later years to support the establishment of the Australian technical colleges through this calendar year and next calendar year, a program that was announced by the government in the September 2004 campaign policy launch by the Prime Minister and a program that is now being delivered at a faster rate and a more complete rate than had originally been proposed. The member for Rankin is a lot more comfortable talking in a very academic way about his understanding of the economy—and good luck to him—but even people on his own back bench and indeed front bench do not have much confidence in his skills or ability in this regard.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—There’s nothing academic about high interest rates, Mr Hardgrave, the soon-to-be-ex-member for Moreton.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)— The member for Rankin might be removed very quickly if he does not stop interjecting.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—This particular bill is an important nation-building initiative. It has been enthusiastically embraced by the community, by industry and by employers. It is offering education and training that has not been previously available to students.
The initiative is one of many, which demonstrates the government’s commitment to addressing skills and the skills needs of this nation. It is also raising the profile of vocational technical education. It is part of a record expenditure by this government. In fact, no other government in Australia’s history has spent as much money on vocational and technical education as this government has—over $2½ billion in this calendar year and some $10.8 billion in the current quadrennium, and rising.
This government is now giving more money to state governments than ever before. A lot of the distribution issues about how much money goes to TAFE are in the hands of state governments, and a lot of well-founded complaints by some on the other side are about funding for state government owned TAFE institutes in the hands of state governments, who show a preference for building large supportive bureaucracies rather than actually providing education and training opportunities. State governments are the ones who decide that at their local TAFE, if they do not have sufficient numbers, they will not start a course. If a TAFE needs, say, 15 to start a course but only 12 sign up, the 12 are turned away. It is called unmet demand. That is what state governments do day in and day out in their ongoing management of TAFE.
Another thing is forgotten in this discussion. I refer back to the principal act that we are amending here tonight. The bill is about bringing the funding forward to provide greater flexibility in the execution of the Australian technical college program. The key thing that those opposite forget is that the Australian technical college program is a ‘before you leave school’ experience; it is for year 11 and year 12 students.
JH5
George, Jennie, MP
Ms George interjecting—
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—They do not. The member for Throsby is simply wrong. She is embarrassed by the fact that she said she would never get the Australian Technical College—Illawarra. Of course, we were there. She was not, but we were there with community members last Thursday. There is $19.6 million going into the electorate of Throsby, the electorate of Cunningham and all around the Illawarra.
But let me go on to the substance of this debate rather than discuss the nonsense of those opposite. The bill provides for flexibility in the management of the appropriation by introducing a regulation-making power which allows funding appropriated for a particular calendar year to be carried over to a future year or to be brought forward to an earlier year. There is no change to the $346.3 million funding allocated for the establishment of these technical colleges up to the end of the year 2009.
Since the ATC policy was announced, our achievements in establishing these colleges have exceeded all expectations—certainly the expectations of those opposite. Twenty-two of the 25 colleges have been announced. Funding agreements for 16 of these colleges are now in place. Five Australian technical colleges are now operational. Given that the opposition was instrumental in delaying the passage of the original legislation appropriating the funding until late October 2005, this is an outstanding achievement—that these colleges have been able to operate this year given the time that was available. At least 20 of the 25 colleges are expected to be operational in 2007, with approximately 2,000 Australian school based apprentices in those colleges. The remainder will be operational in 2008. This is entirely in accord with our stated intention—the time frames for the establishment of Australian technical colleges and also that 7,500 Australian school based apprentices would attend these 25 ATCs each year when fully operational.
The member for Jagajaga needs to understand that it was her party, the Australian Labor Party, which delayed the original bill by having it referred to a Senate committee—thereby delaying the passage of the original legislation by over three months, restricting the ability of the government to provide industry and community consortiums with funding and the opportunity to establish an Australian technical college in 2006. Media reports attributed to the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition in early May and on ABC radio on 10 May suggested that she suggested that the Australian technical colleges were in disarray. Of course, that was totally false. Let me make it quite clear for those opposite—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—There are 350, and you would have had zero if you had been elected. Let me make it very clear to those opposite: this bill allowed the bringing forward of funds. We need to do this as a result of our achievements in establishing these colleges exceeding all expectations. The member for Jagajaga does not appear to care about, or indeed understand, the difference between the total commitments for funding arrangements—so far over $250 million has been committed and signed off on—and, indeed, cash flow.
The commitments relate to funding up to the end of 2009. I am wondering whether the member is suggesting that we should be providing all that funding in advance instead of providing it in accordance with the agreed payment schedules. This government believes in good financial management. We believe that this practice should not include providing funding until it is actually needed. Nevertheless, the money is there for it.
The Australian technical colleges are all receiving their agreed funding amounts in accordance with the agreed timing of payments, which has been spelled out in each of the individual funding agreements. This is based on the timing of the Australian technical college’s requirements in each case. These are requirements which they have requested—for example, for land acquisition, for progressive payments for construction works and so forth. Expenditure will increase significantly from now until the end of this calendar year as the Australian technical colleges ramp up their own activities for 2007 school openings. This bill greatly increases the funding available in 2006 to meet the speed of implementing this initiative, which has exceeded all estimates.
I think all members opposite would have contributed to this, but they followed the lead of the member for Jagajaga in making this unfortunate confusion on so many levels about the progress in establishing the Australian technical colleges. The member for Jagajaga is guilty of a continual denigration of the Australian technical colleges. This flies in the face of the overwhelming support of the community and industries they are serving throughout Australia.
For instance, the member for Kingston strongly supported his community and industry consortium seeking to establish an ATC in Adelaide south. Recently the consortium called for a community meeting to gauge the local support for the establishment of an ATC and possible enrolments from the area. Over 400 parents and industry representatives attended on one night. The college’s initial intake for students in year 11 in 2007 may need to be revised as a result of this amazing surge of interest amongst people in Adelaide south. It is anticipated that when fully operational this college will now need to cater for at least 425 students, not the original 300. This is significantly greater than the commitment the government originally gave for the college in that area.
Residents of the electorate of Hindmarsh would have every right to be worried about the logic expressed by their current member and to be disappointed with his speech. Following the member for Jagajaga’s approach, the member for Hindmarsh has taken a stand in the face of his own community’s support for this technical college in Adelaide south, so close to his electorate. The new member for Prospect has clearly come out to denigrate Australian technical colleges. I invite him to state his position to industry employers and to the community in his electorate, where young Australians will be given the opportunity to attend an Australian technical college. The member for Prospect’s failure to appreciate the widespread support for the project within his own community in the wider Western Sydney area portrays his arrogance and is a demonstration of his incompetence and inability to understand the program. He should not follow the advice of the member for Jagajaga.
The member for Prospect and all of those opposite have not bothered to read the Australian technical college election policy document in respect of the phased implementation of this program between 2006 and 2008. In addition, the member for Jagajaga is in total ignorance of the difficulties of establishing ATCs in a number of states—for example, Western Australia and New South Wales. At any time, the member for Jagajaga could have contacted her state Labor colleagues and union mates to remove the industrial and award impediments that have stood in the way of establishing Australian technical colleges in those states.
New South Wales regions have been allocated eight ATCs, five of which have been announced but none of which have been supported by the New South Wales government. Non-government schools have had to step up to the plate where the New South Wales government has failed, and local industry and community have worked together with these non-government schools to build an ATC in their region to their specifications. Despite this, the New South Wales government continues to stand in the way of local communities and young Australians who are being provided with a real choice in respect of traditional trade apprenticeships.
The member for Jagajaga continues to misrepresent the situation in respect of vocational and technical education in schools and the Australian technical colleges in general. New South Wales schools have not offered their students school based apprenticeships at certificate III level, which is a cornerstone of Australian technical colleges; rather, they have given students opportunities to undertake traineeships, mostly at a certificate II level. These are not apprenticeships. The member for Jagajaga’s complete confusion about this is an embarrassment. Her reference to St Joseph’s College in Port Macquarie further demonstrates her complete confusion about vocational and technical education in schools and about the purposes of Australian technical colleges.
For the benefit of the member for Jagajaga—and for the benefit of those opposite who, sadly, seem to listen to her—Australian technical colleges are about combining academic study at year 11 and 12 with a school based, trade based apprenticeship linked to a local employer in a traditional trade. Also for the benefit of the member for Jagajaga, study at senior secondary high schools commenced at year 11 and is completed at the end of year 12. The expectation of the normal course of events is that year 11 students will go forward to year 12 and that in the following year colleges will receive another cohort of year 11 students to allow a college to be fully operational. It is not a hard process, but the member for Jagajaga has difficulty with it.
Based on current achievements, it is anticipated that at least 20 Australian technical colleges will be operational in 2007. Five of these will be fully operational, with year 11 and year 12 students. It is expected that the total enrolments in the 2007 school year could be 2,000 or more. Passage of this bill will ensure the progression of the Australian technical colleges initiative which over time will enable 7,500 Australians per year to undertake high quality education and training relevant to a nation-building trade career. This government is committed to raising the profile of vocational and technical education, not to talking it down. Attracting young people to the trades is vital for Australia’s future. It is an important step in addressing our skills needs across a number of industries. These colleges will promote trade qualifications as a highly valued alternative to a university degree. The colleges will develop a reputation that will show students and parents that vocational and technical education provides access to careers that are secure, lucrative and rewarding.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The member for Jagajaga is testing the chair. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that these words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question put.
21:01:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
82
AYES
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Downer, A.J.G.
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Hunt, G.A.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
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.
Robb, A.
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.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
58
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G.*
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Quick, H.V.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Question agreed to.
Third Reading
98
Mr HARDGRAVE
(Moreton
—Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister)
21:09:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9.10 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Mobile Phone Towers
98
98
21:10:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
0
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I rise this evening to speak again on the issue of mobile phone towers and how the current statutory regime and the government’s ineffective public information campaign are causing widespread concern and anxiety amongst my local community.
Members may be aware that a recent Age poll, published in May this year, reported that some 77 per cent of Australians are concerned about the possible health impacts caused by mobile phone towers. Certainly, this level of public concern reflects what I have seen in my own electorate of Adelaide, where many residents have expressed fear about living and working in such close proximity to the towers. These concerns were heightened by the very public cases earlier this year of cancer clusters, with the tragic spate of 16 tumours found amongst staff working at RMIT and the 12 cases in as many years at the ABC studios in Brisbane.
In contrast to the public’s concerns, the government continues to operate on the basis that no link between mobile phone towers and adverse health effects has yet been established. It is a belief which is reflected in their policy, which requires very little public consultation in the deployment of towers and which does not restrict the location of towers in areas including schools, kindergartens and childcare centres.
This contrast between the public’s concerns and the government’s policy is having serious impacts on the community. I have spoken with a growing number of residents who are deeply concerned about the impact of living so close to these towers. I have had a child ring up my office in tears because he is worried about a tower across the road from his bedroom. I have spoken to pensioners who are so afraid that they do not want to have their grandkids around in case nearby towers cause them harm. Residents have reported severe drops in real estate prices due to the proximity of mobile phone towers.
This situation has not been helped by the government’s fact sheets on the issue. The fact sheet entitled ‘Government action on electromagnetic energy public health issues’ states:
The weight of national and international scientific opinion is that there is no substantiated evidence that living near a mobile phone base station ... causes adverse health effects.
But in the same publication it is acknowledged:
However, there are gaps in the knowledge that have been identified for further research to better assess health risks.
This is hardly a reassuring argument. It is an admission that should lead to a more precautionary approach than the one that is currently being applied.
I am certainly not claiming that there is a link between phone towers and adverse health effects, but the reality is that this is a widespread belief in the community and it has not been addressed by the government. What is needed is clear leadership on this issue and steps taken to reassure the community. These steps should include a national health audit of mobile phone towers to monitor the health of those living and working nearby to high- and low- impact towers, the strengthening of public consultation requirements in the deployment of towers and, in the immediate term, the empowerment of local councils to make planning decisions with respect to facilities located in close proximity to schools, kindergartens and hospitals.
I will finish by highlighting a case in my electorate at the Northgate Life Centre to illustrate how the current situation is impacting upon the local community. A number of visually obtrusive towers have been constructed on the church, without the permission of the local council, without the permission of the residents and without the permission even of the church leaders themselves. They claim to have been locked into a leasing arrangement with the telcos at the time they purchased the premises. I have seen the towers firsthand, and they are inarguably extremely noticeable and prominent in this residential area. But, because the government defines the towers—each under five metres in length—as ‘low impact’, they are exempt from local council planning processes and hence from democratic control.
Residents in the area are rightly worried about the visual impact of the towers, the potential health impacts and the impact that these towers are already having on property prices in the area. They have no assurances from government that there will not be more towers constructed at the church. The government’s definition of ‘low impact’ is clearly inadequate when a large-scale development such as this can fall within that definition.
The statutory regime governing the deployment of mobile phone towers and the government’s approach to informing the public on this issue clearly need to be urgently revisited. I will continue to work with residents in my constituency to expose the weaknesses in the current legislation and call, once again, for the government to take urgent action to address these issues for the sake of all of my constituents living near the Northgate Life Centre and, indeed, for all Australians.
Water
99
99
21:15:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
0
Mr NEVILLE
—Water is the word on everyone’s lips these days. Do you think we are making the best use of our existing water resources? No, we are not. How can we make sure we have enough water for the future? What are our priorities and how do we balance the needs of domestic and industrial users while doing the right thing by the environment? Toowoomba’s recent referendum on using recycled water for domestic consumption has put the matter at the top of the public’s agenda. The Queensland Labor government’s mismanagement of the entire water issue is aptly summed up in what happened in Toowoomba.
For decades it seemed that water was only of crucial interest to those on the land, who rely so heavily on rainwater and artesian supplies to keep their farms and their families going. That is to say nothing of the need for dams where those two resources are not available. But now that the issue is starting to bite in urban areas, with heavy water restrictions and dwindling dam levels, it has become a matter of national importance.
The Queensland Labor government has been all talk and no action on water and, for days now, Peter Beattie has thrown one almighty tantrum at local councils, who are sick of his spin. Last Thursday, 3 August, Mr Beattie tried to intimidate local authorities into giving his government control of their water infrastructure, and as of today he has appointed himself Queensland’s minister for water in an attempt to wrest power from councils. His exact words were:
I just say to the councils if you’re worried about water ... then hand it over to the state government.
… … …
I’m very happy to take it over and fix it up because frankly ... I’m sick to death of Liberal politicians playing Liberal politics and National Party mayors with National Party agendas.
What breathtaking hypocrisy! When were major dams ever the responsibility of local authorities? Never. Over the years, it is the Beattie government that has politicised water—even so far as making grand statements such as:
... the Beattie Government’s approach to water resource planning is responsible and based on solid science, careful planning and community involvement in the development of water resource plans for individual catchments.
Are they kidding? This is the government that just proposed the Traveston Dam on the Mary River. That is a super dam—and it is good to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister at the table tonight; he has had plenty to say about this—that no-one wants and that will take somewhere between 450 and 600 farms. God only knows what the compensation for that alone would be. They are building a dam on a sandy base that is going to require enormous foundations, and then it will be a dam with twice the surface area, which will be an absolute doozy when it comes to evaporation. There is good Labor planning.
The Beattie government says that it has ‘done more for Queensland water reform in six years than the National Party did in 30 years’. Rubbish! When Joh Bjelke-Petersen was Premier we had a major dam under construction in Queensland every 18 months. Every 18 months there was a major dam—they were from one end of Queensland to the other.
The dams are not being built in tandem with the growth of Queensland and now we have a drought and the cupboard is bare. There is no water. So what do we do? We say that we are the great achievers. Rubbish! They have only built one major dam since the Goss and Beattie governments have been in power. In addition to that, they have left Queensland in a state of extraordinary difficulty coming up on level 4 restrictions.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll
—Every time we propose a dam, you oppose it!
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr NEVILLE
—I hope, for the honourable member, that it does not drift into Ipswich.
This is a very frightening scenario. I think Queenslanders have just about had enough of it. Mr Beattie is also aware that councils’ commitment to improving their water efficiency is quite marked, with local authorities having lifted their spending on water and sewerage by a massive 55 per cent in the last five years. That is 11 per cent a year. Pray tell what the state government was doing. I think the people of my electorate would like to know. I raise these matters tonight because they are of crucial importance to Queenslanders, and the Beattie government— (Time expired)
Australian Liberal Students Federation
101
101
21:20:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
0
0
Ms KING
—On 3 July this year the Prime Minister was interviewed on the Ray Hadley show on Sydney’s 2GB radio station. He was asked about Channel 10’s Big Brother and responded by saying the program should be axed on the grounds of ‘good taste’. The Prime Minister called on Channel 10 to ‘get this stupid program off the air’. Like the Prime Minister, I watched a bit of television over the winter recess. My viewing included the ABC Lateline program on 18 July, which featured a segment titled ‘Racist Young Liberals not uncommon’. The report focused on the disgraceful behaviour of Young Liberals at the national student conference in my electorate of Ballarat. Among other outrages, the representatives of the Australian Liberal Students Federation are shown interrupting the welcome to country by local Indigenous elder Mr Ted Lovett, a man who normally engenders great respect in our community; loudly chanting ‘We’re racist, we’re sexist, we’re homophobic’; and wearing T-shirts with a photograph of the Prime Minister on the front and an obscenity printed on the back—an obscenity I cannot and would not repeat in this House. According to the report, Liberal representatives have had to be removed from the national student conference for two years running.
Lest this behaviour be dismissed as having no real connection to the Liberal Party, let me refer honourable members to the web page of the Australian Liberal Students Federation. If you visit www.alsf.org.au, you will find that the Prime Minister is no less than the federal patron of this organisation. Alongside a photograph of the Prime Minister is an extract of a recent speech in which he affirms his ‘very strong interest in and support for the ALSF’. The Prime Minister is not just the patron of the organisation; he maintains a strong interest in its activities. Yet he has been silent about the conduct of its representatives that far exceeds the bounds of good taste. There is nothing good or tasteful about humiliating an Indigenous elder invited to welcome visitors to his country—and I cannot tell you how distressed he still is to this day about his treatment by the Liberal Students Federation. There is nothing good or tasteful about bigotry. There is nothing good or tasteful about boorish behaviour that forces security guards to act to protect the safety of others.
Tonight I ask the Prime Minister why he has failed to apply the same standard to Liberal students as he applies to the Big Brother television program. Why is my constituent Mr Lovett still waiting for an apology? Surely it is not because the Prime Minister himself has trouble saying sorry to Indigenous Australians? Why have we heard no prime ministerial admonishment for those who boast that the modern Liberal Party is racist, sexist and homophobic? Surely it is not because the description is accurate.
The Prime Minister came to office promising to lift standards in public life. It is generally recognised that he has not lived up to that pledge. But if he fails to take action against those who espouse bigotry in the name of his party then he can truly be said to have failed. The Prime Minister has chosen to give advice on taste to Channel 10 program schedulers, but he has remained mute in the wake of documented outrages by representatives of his own party.
These young people are not just twits of the lowest order. They are, in the words of Liberal author John Hyde Page, ‘people who will one day become senior politicians in the Liberal Party’. Tonight I am calling on the current senior politician in the Liberal Party to apply his Big Brother standard and get these stupid people out of his organisation, fast.
Wakefield Electorate: Two Wells Returned and Services League Branch
Australian Defence Force
102
102
21:24:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I rise tonight to talk about the topic of history. History has been very topical recently, with people talking about what should or should not be taught in our schools, but I guess the practical lessons of history came home to me on Friday night when I had the pleasure of going out to Two Wells in the electorate of Wakefield and working with the RSL branch there, which had just reopened after 35 years of being closed. At a time when many people are concerned about the fact that branches in organisations such as the RSL are declining in membership, here is a branch which is growing, which has restarted thanks to Tony Flaherty. On this particular evening, they had some 300-plus people at the Two Wells Community Centre to celebrate the opening of the branch as well as the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan.
One of the things that brought people to this was not only the fact that the RSL branch was reopening but the fact that the event was combined with a Rolling Thunder event. Rolling Thunder is an organisation which originated in the United States but has an Australian chapter, which is looking at the memory and making sure we do not forget the lessons of those people who were missing in action, prisoners of war or killed in action during the Vietnam War in particular. This event was well supported by acts such as James Blundell, Acoustic Juice and others who provided good entertainment. But, importantly, particularly James provided very good support—and has done so over a number of years—as an ambassador for Vietnam veterans.
So this was an evening where we remembered and where we could also remember the lessons of history to apply them into the future. It was an evening where people celebrated the characteristics that were exemplified during the Battle of Long Tan. I am sure I do not need to tell people in this place about the history of 6RAR and Nui Dat, the battle they fought against the 275th VC regiment and the significant effort that was made by members of Delta Company as they stuck by their mates through the night in torrential rain and awful conditions. At the end of that night, with some 18 killed and some 24 wounded, they realised that they had taken on a sizeable force of well over 2,000 and inflicted considerable casualties on the enemy. But it was an effort of the Air Force, with air support from the Iroquois, and the artillery as well as the support from A Company and APCs, who worked together to make sure that they did not leave their mates there. It was that emphasis on teamwork, on mateship, on supporting each other, that was being celebrated last Friday night at Two Wells.
But I draw the lesson of history from the fact that many of the veterans who were there talked to me about how it has taken some time for them to heal from the fact that, when they came back from that conflict—they had served the country; they had done what had been asked of them—but they were treated shamefully. I think it is appropriate that at this time, when we have a number of conflicts occurring overseas where our members of the Defence Force are deployed, some for their second or third rotation through theatres, and where some sections of the community are not in support of those conflicts, we look back to Vietnam and make sure that we learn the lessons of that. Regardless of your perspective on whether it is right to be in places like Iraq or other theatres, regardless of your agreement or otherwise with the government and its decisions, it is really important that we support our members of the Defence Force who are over there—and not only the members of the Defence Force who are there but, importantly, their families, who are making sacrifices back here in Australia while they are away.
I had the privilege during the winter recess to travel to the Middle East to visit some of our troops over there. I can report with great confidence that they are doing us proud in how they are serving. The quality of their service is recognised not only through their achievements but also by the coalition partners. I think it is important that we as a community learn from the history of Vietnam and that we make sure that these people and their families receive our unfailing admiration and support.
Question agreed to.
103
21:30:00
House adjourned at 9.30 pm
REQUEST FOR DETAILED INFORMATION
103
REQUESTS FOR DETAILED INFORMATION
Hansard
103
103
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
0
Mr Price
asked the Speaker:
-
Have any bound Hansards been produced for this Parliament; if not why not.
-
What are the guidelines for the production of bound Hansards and have they been met; if not why not.
-
If no guidelines exist for the production of bound Hansards, what is the reason for this.
NOTICES
103
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
to move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Perth’s private Members’ business notice relating to the disallowance of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) (Consequential Amendments) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 50 and made under the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, the Public Service Act 1999, and the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Act 1999, being called on immediately.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr Crean
to move:
XS4
Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP
Dr Lawrence
to move:
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
to move:
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr Fitzgibbon
to move:
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms Owens
to move:
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
to move:
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
106
Answers to Questions on Notice
Defence: Contracted Staff
106
106
964
106
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
Mr Bevis
asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 10 May 2005:
-
Is the Department of Defence planning to rewrite the Defence Instruction relating to the engagement of contracted staff.
-
In respect of the department’s tendering process for health practitioners, pharmacists and dentists, is Defence now favouring incorporated entities over individuals.
-
For each year since 2001, how many tenders for the delivery of health, pharmacy and dental services were let to (a) incorporated entities and (b) individuals
-
Is the department aware of contractor disquiet over the tender process for these services, in particular, with claims of irregularities such as (a) documents requesting incorrect qualifications for particular positions, (b) the required business and professional insurances being difficult to arrange, and (c) information at public meetings addressed by Area Health Service (AHS) South Queensland personnel being inconsistent.
-
Is the department aware that some practitioners currently doing the work have refused to participate in the tendering process because the process was so poor.
-
Is the department aware that even some applicants who were identified as preferred tenderers resigned in disgust and refused to participate further in the process.
-
Is the department aware that some applicants, on receiving the letters of the successful tenderers resigned immediately, disgusted with the process.
-
Has the department sought to cover these sudden vacancies by sourcing staff from employment agencies; if so, (a) which agencies provided staff, (b) how many staff have been placed by agencies, and (c) how many new staff needed to be trained in Defence procedures.
-
Did the AHS assure contractors that if they had the technical experience but their price was too high, the AHS would negotiate first with those identified as being the most technically able to provide the service; if not, why not.
-
Why did the AHS tell contractors in South Queensland that they should sign up with an agency prior to tendering submissions as well as putting in individual tenders.
-
Is it the case that companies that are in negotiations with the AHS are applying pressure to staff to sign with them for $3 to $4 per hour less than they are currently receiving with the threat that, if they reject the proposal, they will not be considered for Defence employment; if so, how does the Minister justify this.
-
Can the Minister confirm that the mandatory qualifications for the employment of general and other medical practitioners by the AHS South Queensland are (a) qualifications as a Medial Practitioner and eligible for unrestricted registration in the State or Territory of application, (b) vocational registration, undergoing an appropriate program of medical training or able to show evidence of active participation in continuing professional development, and (c) strong oral and written communication skills and the ability to communicate at all levels of the organisation.
-
Since 1 September 2003, have all medical practitioners employed by the AHS South Queensland directly or by a firm contracted by the AHS South Queensland to provide medical practitioners met these mandatory qualifications; if not, why were they employed.
-
Since 1 September 2003, have any firms been contracted by the AHS South Queensland to provide medical practitioners; is so, what are the names of those firms.
107
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
Mr Billson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
No. Defence is planning to withdraw the instruction as it no longer meets Commonwealth and Defence policy requirements. Future contracting for civilian health practitioners will be undertaken using current approved Defence contracting templates.
-
Chapter 4.10 of the Defence Procurement Policy Manual states “…wherever possible, it is strongly recommended that contracts not be entered into with natural persons.” A natural person is defined as an individual rather than a company or partnership, who contracts to provide goods or services to Defence.
-
The information requested is not readily available. Collation of the information requested would involve an unreasonable use of Defence resources to manually search through thousands of contract files around the country.
-
, (b), (c) Defence is aware that a number of contractors were unhappy with the tender process and some have claimed irregularities with various aspects of the tender process.
-
Defence is aware that some contractors were unhappy with the tender process and chose not to submit a tender.
-
and (7) Defence is aware that some tenderers voluntarily withdrew from the tender process prior to the awarding of contracts. Information on their reasons for withdrawal from the tender process is not available. Defence is not aware of existing contractors ‘resigning’ because of the tender process. Contractors are unable to ‘resign’ per se, and have a contractual obligation to provide services until their contract expires. Contracts may be terminated early through mutual agreement between the contractor and Defence. This occurs from time to time for a variety of reasons. Defence does not keep information on the reasons for contractors seeking an early termination of their contract. Known reasons include poor health, changed family commitments, pregnancy, further education, and alternative full-time work.
-
, (b), (c) Vacancies caused by tenderers not proceeding to contract or terminating their contracts prior to their expiry date are filled either through accessing companies on the National Standing Offer Panel to provide the required services, or through an open tender process. All staff engaged by Defence are provided assistance at the local level to familiarise them with Defence procedures and documentation. It is not possible to separately identify information relating to tenderers terminating their contracts as a result of the National Standing Offer tender process.
-
No. The overarching requirement for all Commonwealth procurement is value for money. Tenders with high technical merit and high prices may not represent good value for money. Defence enters negotiations with those tenderers that represent best value for money, and is under no obligation to enter negotiations with all tenderers.
-
Individual health providers may improve their chances of gaining contract work with Defence if they tender through multiple entities. There were no formal discussions to this effect by Defence or Area Health Service South Queensland.
-
Defence is not a party to negotiations between tenderers and their employees or potential employees over employment conditions, and is unable to comment on the matter raised in this question.
-
No. However, the Statement of Work used in the recent tender process for medical officers, includes the mandatory qualifications and experience stated in the question.
-
Yes.
-
Yes. Incorporated entities that have provided medical practitioners to Area Health Service South Queensland since 2003 are as follows:
-
A&M Patel Medical Pty Ltd;
-
Australian Aeromedical Specialist Services;
-
B McGowan Medical Pty Ltd;
-
CJ Price Medical Pty Ltd;
-
Dr T M Casey Medical Pty Ltd;
-
Fine, Dr S. & Dr G Shar Pty Ltd;
-
Geoffery Tilse (Medical) Pty Ltd;
-
JE & EB Evans (Medical) Pty Ltd;
-
John Arthur Allan Pty Ltd;
-
John Teh Medical Pty Ltd;
-
LE McDowell Pty Ltd;
-
Malcolm Ash Medical Pty Ltd;
-
Malcolm Wallace Pty Ltd;
-
Medical Recruitment Pty Ltd;
-
Naughton Medical Pty Ltd;
-
Navmed Consulting Pty Ltd;
-
O'Loan Medical Pty Ltd;
-
Overgrove Pty Ltd;
-
P.F. Sharwood Medical Pty Ltd;
-
Paul Atkins Medical Pty Ltd;
-
Paul V Alexander Pty Ltd;
-
Peter Rowan Medical Pty Ltd;
-
PF Wheatley Medical Pty Ltd;
-
S. Kumar Medical Pty Ltd;
-
Shearing Medical Pty Ltd;
-
SM Fairbairn Medical Pty Ltd;
-
TCG Careers & Management Pty Ltd;
-
Uniting Health Care Group; and
-
VG Bampton Pty Ltd.
Commonwealth Funded Programs
108
108
2257
108
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
Ms Grierson
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 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 programme (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.
109
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
-
Yes. The Department administers the Community Settlement Services Scheme (CSSS) and the Living in Harmony initiative under which not-for-profit, incorporated organisations and local government authorities are eligible to apply for funding. The portfolio also administers Commonwealth funding for Migrant Resource Centres and Migrant Service Agencies (MRCs/MSAs).
From 1 July 2006 the CSSS and MRC/MSA funding will be combined into the new Settlement Grants Programme. Not-for-profit, incorporated organisations, local government authorities and organisations currently funded to deliver services under the Adult Migrant English Programme will be eligible to apply.
Within the period in question, the department also administered the Indigenous Women’s Programme and (Indigenous) Public Information Programme for which community organisations of Newcastle could apply for funding. These programs have since been transferred to the renamed Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio under Administrative Arrangements Order on 27 January 2006.
-
and (3) Attachment A below contains the list of programmes, their purpose, authority responsible for allocation of funds and advertisement details for these programmes.
-
8
-
4
-
Nil.
-
Nil.
-
-
$487,617 (Five Grants). Migrant Resource Centre of Newcastle and the Hunter Region Inc., 8 Chaucer Street, Hamilton, NSW 2303.
-
$500. Awabakal LALC, PO Box 437, Hamilton, NSW 2303.
-
$1,000 Awabakal Co-op, 64 Hannel Street, Wickham NSW 2203.
-
$500. Arwarbukarl, PO Box 240, Broadmeadow, NSW 2292.
-
$300. Yarnteen, PO Box 34, Broadmeadow, NSW 2292.
-
$500. Hunter Aboriginal Child Services, Suite 3, 292 Maitland Road, Mayfield, NSW 2304.
-
$500. Wandiyali, 156 Maitland Road, Mayfield, NSW 2304.
-
$500. Wolltuka, Newcastle University, Newcastle NSW 2308.
-
$600,975 (Six Grants). Migrant Resource Centre of Newcastle and the Hunter Region Inc., 8 Chaucer Street, Hamilton, NSW 2303.
-
$1,200. Awabakal, 64 Hannel Street, Wickham NSW 2203.
-
$500. Hunter Aboriginal Child Services, Suite 3, 292 Maitland Road, Mayfield, NSW 2304.
-
$500. Wandiyali, 156 Maitland Road, Mayfield, NSW 2304.
Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC)
The Indigenous Land Corporation was part of this portfolio within the period in question (2003-2005).
-
The ILC operates land acquisition and land management programs for and on behalf of Indigenous Australians. These programs are available nationwide, including within the electoral division of Newcastle.
-
No.
-
-
To assist Indigenous people to acquire land and to manage Indigenous held land so as to generate cultural, social, environmental and economic benefits for themselves and future generations.
-
Responsibility for allocating funds rests with the ILC Board, which is appointed by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
-
The ILC did not fund any programs in the electorate of Newcastle during the financial years 2003-04 nor 2004-05.
-
Not applicable.
Attachment A
Programme Title
Programme Description / Purpose
Allocated by
Advertised Y/N
Print/other media outlets used
Were these paid advertisements Y/N
Settlement Services - Community Settlement Services Scheme (CSSS)
The Community Settlement Services Scheme provides grants to not-for-profit community and service organisations to deliver settlement assistance to refugees, humanitarian entrants and migrants.
The CSSS is a discretionary, application-based grants programme. Decisions to award CSSS grants are made by the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.
Y
Adelaide Advertiser, Murray Pioneer, Waikerie River News, Hobart Mercury, Launceston Examiner, Burnie Advocate, West Australian, Wagga Daily Advertiser, Griffith Area News, Canberra Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Telegraph, Newcastle Herald, Albury Border Mail, Illawarra Mercury, Brisbane Courier Mail, Toowoomba Chronicle, Gold Coast Bulletin, Cairns Post, Townsville Bulletin, NT News, Melbourne Age, Herald Sun, Geelong Advocate, Warrnambool Standard, Shepparton News, Shepparton Advisor, El Massry (The Editor), Magazine Bosna, Croatian Herald, Indo Media, Jewish News National, Maltese Herald, Philippine Community Herald, Panorama, Ngoui Viet.
Y
Migrant Resource Centre (MRC)/Migrant Service Agency (MSA) Network
The Migrant Resource Centre (MRC)/Migrant Service Agency (MSA) network assists in meeting the settlement needs of overseas born residents, particularly those who have recently arrived in Australia
The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs is responsible for allocating funds.
N
N/A
N/A
Living In Harmony
To promote community harmony and address racism issues through the implementation of the Living in Harmony initiative. Funding includes all Living in Harmony grants and projects.
The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs is responsible for allocating funds
Y
Australian Financial Review, Australian (weekend), Adelaide Advertiser, Brisbane Courier Mail, Sydney Morning Herald, The West Australian, Sydney Daily Telegraph, Canberra Times, Melbourne Herald -Sun, Hobart Mercury, Melbourne Age, Northern Territory News, Albury Border Mail, Bathurst Western Advocate, Bourke Western Herald, Broken Hill - Barrier Daily Truth, Daily Liberal (Dubbo), Daily Northern Star, Glenn Innes Examiner, Grafton Daily, Illawarra Mercury, Lismore Northern Star, Moree Champion, Mudgee Guardian, Newcastle Herald, Orange Central Western Daily, Port Macquarie News, The Area News, Tweed Heads Daily, Western Herald, Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser, Ballarat Courier, Bairnsdale Advertiser, Bendigo Advertiser, Geelong Advertiser, Horsham Wimmera, La Trobe Valley Express, Maryborough Advertiser, Mildura Sunraysia Daily, Riverina Herald, Sale Gippsland Times, Shepparton News, Warrnambool Standard, Cairns Post, Mt Isa North West Star, Charleville Western Times, Rockhampton Morning Bulletin, Fraser Coast Chronicle, Toowoomba Chronicle, Gold Coast Bulletin, Townsville Bulletin, Mackay Daily Mercury, Mt Gambier Border Watch, Whyalla News, Port Augusta Transcontinental, Port Lincoln Times, Albany Advertiser, Broome Advertiser, Busselton Margaret River Times, Geraldton Guardian, Kalgoorlie Miner, Kimberley Echo, Manjimup Bridgetown News, Southern Western Times, Burnie Advocate, Launceston Examiner, Alice Springs News, Katherine Times, Centralian Advocate, Tenant and District Times, An Nahar, Neos Kosmos, Australian Chinese Daily, El Telegraph, Horizon News, Il Globo, Koori Mail, Maltese Herald, National Indigenous Times, Sydney Korean Herald, Thai Oz Newspaper, The Jewish News, Today Denes, Yeni Vatan, Bunbury Herald and Vesti.
Y
Indigenous Women’s Programme
To enhance Indigenous women’s leadership, representation, safety, well being and economic status.
Relevant Programme Managers in OIPC National Office, Canberra.
Y
The Indigenous Women’s Programme is advertised as part of the whole-of-government funding submission process. Ads are placed in capital city majors, local newspapers and the Koori Mail.
Y
Public Information Programme
Funds initiatives that raise public awareness of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues in the wider community.
Relevant Programme Managers in OIPC National Office, Canberra.
Y
Most Public Information Programme funds are allocated through the Indigenous Coordination Centres to community-based activities for NAIDOC Week activities. (NAIDOC stands for National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee.) For 2003-04 and 2004-05 the local Indigenous Coordination Centre (located in Coffs Harbour) placed advertisements in the two main Indigenous newspapers, and faxed and emailed flyers to Indigenous communities and organisations in the region, including in the Newcastle electorate.
Y
Commonwealth Funded Programs
112
112
2259
112
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
Ms Grierson
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 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.
112
Brough, Mal, MP
2K6
Longman
LP
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs
1
Mr Brough
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs administers a wide variety of programs to assist communities, many of which are routinely advertised and have quite comprehensive guidelines.
Information is publicly available at
www.facsia.gov.au
and in Annual Reports.
I consider that the preparation of answers to the questions placed on notice would involve a significant diversion of resources and, in the circumstances, I do not consider that the additional work can be justified.
Commonwealth Funded Programs
112
112
2260
112
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
Ms Grierson
asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, 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.
113
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes, a number of programs are available to community organisations, businesses or individuals in the federal electorate of Newcastle. In some cases eligibility will depend on the entity meeting specific criteria under the program. Programs available include:
Innovation
Commercial Ready Program
R&D Tax Concession (including 175% Premium R&D Tax Concession and R&D Tax Offset)
Renewable Energy Development Fund
Industry Cooperative Innovation Program
Low Emissions Technology Development Fund
National Innovation Awareness Strategy
Venture Capital
Commercialising Emerging Technologies Program
Innovation Investment Fund
Pooled Development Funds Program
Pre-Seed Fund
Renewable Energy Equity Fund
Venture Capital Limited Partnerships Program
Sectoral
Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme
Australian Tourism Development Program
Business Ready Program for Indigenous Tourism
Ethanol Production Grants Program
Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme
Pharmaceutical Partnerships Program
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Corporatewear Register
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Expanded Overseas Assembly Provisions Scheme
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Strategic Investment Program
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Product Diversification Scheme
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Small Business Program
Small Business
Small Business Entrepreneurship Program
Small Business Field Officers Program
General Industry
Certain Inputs to Manufacture Scheme
Enhanced Project By-Laws Scheme
Space Concession Scheme
Tradex Scheme
-
Yes. The majority of the programs listed above are delivered by AusIndustry, the program delivery division of the Department. AusIndustry’s national marketing strategy directs the promotional efforts for AusIndustry programs. This strategy utilises a range of communication channels including:
- the AusIndustry website (www.ausindustry.gov.au);
- the AusIndustry hotline (13 28 46);
- the AusIndustry e-bulletin;
- advertising and editorial opportunities;
- sponsorships and strategic partnerships;
- Ministerial and customer events;
- media relations;
- 26 state and regional offices (including the Newcastle/Hunter regional office);
- over 55 Small Business Field Officers (two officers servicing the Hunter region including the Newcastle electorate); and
- publications and merchandise.
AusIndustry’s advertisements appear in both print and on-line publications. These are paid advertisements (although sometimes editorial content is able to be leveraged). Print advertising includes advertising in major daily newspapers, trade and industry publications and regional newspapers such as the Newcastle Herald, while on-line advertisements primarily focus on industry portals.
-
Information on the programs listed above is available on the Department’s website www.industry.gov.au, the AusIndustry’s website www.ausindustry.gov.au, and through the AusIndustry Hotline on 132846. (b) In most cases, delegated officers within AusIndustry approve funding proposals
-
and (5) Information on funding/assistance provided to businesses in the electorate of Newcastle during 2003-04 and 2004-05 is provided below.
Biotechnology Innovation Fund
(replaced by Commercial Ready Program)
Company
Financial Year
Benefits Provided
(Estimate)
Hunter Immunology Pty Ltd
2003-04
2004-05
$84,000
$121,000
INTER-K Pty Ltd
2003-04
2004-05
$56,000
$74,000
Probiotic Health Pty Ltd
2003-04
2004-05
$55,000
$11,000
Therappy Pty Ltd
2003-04
2004-05
$128,000
72,000
ViroTarg Pty Ltd
2003-04
2004-05
$152,000
$91,000
R&D Start Program
(replaced by Commercial Ready Program)
Company
Financial Year
Benefits Provided
(Estimate)
CCI Pope Pty Ltd
2003-04
2004-05
$30,000
$107,000
R&D Tax Concession
Company
Financial Year
Total R&D Expenditure
Aggregate information provided
2003-04
$43,542,000
Aggregate information provided
2004-05
$54,229,000
Note 1. Aggregate information for the program has been provided rather than individual details for particular customers. Confidentiality restrictions prevent disclosure of detailed information.
Note 2. ‘Total R&D Expenditure’ is not the value of assistance provided. This figure represents the total level of R&D expenditure reported by companies that have registered for that financial year.
Small Business Answers Program
(replaced by Small Business Field Officers Program)
Company
Financial Year
Benefits Provided
(Estimate)
Hunter Area Consultative Committee Inc
2004-05
$220,000
Small Business Enterprise Culture Program
(replaced by Small Business Entrepreneurship Program)
Company
Date
Benefits Provided
(Estimate)
Samaritans Foundation Diocese of Newcastle
2003-04
$15,000
Small Business Incubator Program
(replaced by Small Business Entrepreneurship Program)
Company
Financial Year
Benefits Provided
(Estimate)
Hunter Small Business Incubator Ltd
2003-04
$585,000
Tradex Scheme
Company
Financial Year
Benefits Provided
(Estimate)
Aggregate information provided
2003-04
$74,000
Aggregate information provided
2004-05
$34,000
Note 1. Aggregate information for the program has been provided rather than individual details for particular customers. Confidentiality restrictions prevent disclosure of detailed information.
Note 2. ‘Benefits Provided’ represents the estimated value of import duty forgone during the financial year.
Commonwealth Funded Programs
115
115
2263
115
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
Ms Grierson
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 6 September 2005:
-
Does the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio administer any Commonwealth funded programmes 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 programmes identified in part (1) advertised; if so, in respect of each programme (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 programmes 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 programmes referred to in part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) businesses and (c) individuals in the electorate 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.
116
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:
(1), (2) and (3) Yes, details as follows:
Programme
Current/ Lapsed
Advertising *
Paid
Purpose
Approver
Australian Antarctic Science (AAS) Grants
Current
The Australian / The Weekend Australian
Yes to both
Provides support for high-quality research projects that will make a significant contribution to Australia’s Antarctic research programme.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
ABRS Participatory Programme
Current
The Australian / Annual Biologue Newsletter
Yes / No (
internal publication
)
Supports research on the Australian Biota, and the development or design of products that aid in the dissemination of taxonomic information.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Australian Government Community Water Grants
Current
Newcastle Herald / Newcastle and Lake Macquarie Post / Newcastle Star
Yes to all
To help local community organisations save, reuse or improve the health of their local water sources.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Commemoration of Historic Events and Famous Persons Grant-in-Aid
Current
No
-
Commemorates people, events and places of national historical significance. The programme provides funds for the graves of former Australian Prime Ministers and, where appropriate and necessary, for erecting suitable plaques. Its scope has grown to include other kinds of commemorative projects, exhibitions, surveys of historical sites and curatorial work etc, all of historical significance.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Cultural Heritage Projects Programme
Lapsed (2003-04)
No
-
To restore and conserve significant cultural heritage places, and identify and protect significant Indigenous places.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Envirofund
Current
Various print media
Yes
The local action component of the Natural Heritage Trust, helping communities undertake local, on-the-ground projects aimed at conserving biodiversity and promoting sustainable resource use.
Natural Heritage Ministerial Board (Ministers for the Environment & Heritage and Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry)
Environmental Education Grants
Current
No
-
Provides funds for activities that support the Australian Government’s objective of improving the community’s capacity to protect the environment.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations
Current
The Weekend Australian
Yes
Assists eligible environment and heritage organisations to value, conserve and protect Australia’s natural environment and historic heritage by assisting with their administrative funding.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Indigenous Heritage Programme
Current
The Australian and Indigenous specific radio broadcast
Yes to both
To support the identification, conservation and promotion of the Indigenous heritage values of places important to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Indigenous Land Management Facilitators
Current
No
-
To help Indigenous Australians to address their land management needs, contribute to national objectives and to gain access to Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) funding.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Indigenous Protected Area Programme
Current
No
-
Indigenous landowners are being supported to manage their lands for the protection of natural and cultural features.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
National Heritage Investment Initiative
Current
Sydney Morning Herald / The Weekend Australian / Architecture Review Australia
Yes to all
To restore and conserve Australia’s most important historic heritage places.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
National Reserve System
Current
No
-
Buying high priority land for establishing a national park or privately owned and managed protected area, or establishing a private protected area of high priority land already owned by an organisation.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Photovoltaic Rebate Programme
Current
No
-
Providing cash rebates to householders and owners of community use buildings who install grid-connected or stand-alone photovoltaic systems.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Preservation and Protection of Indigenous Heritage
Lapsed (2004-05)
Unable to determine (previously administered by ATSIC/ ATSIS)
-
Preservation and protection of Indigenous heritage.
Minister for Immigration, Indigenous and Multicultural Affairs
Sharing Australia’s Stories
Current
The Australian/ Sydney Morning Herald / Koori Mail / The Land / Local Government Focus / New Indigenous Times
Yes to all
To support projects that contribute to an understanding of the great events and themes that characterise Australia’s national heritage.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Solar Cities Programme
Current
The Australian / Financial Review / Newcastle Herald / Sydney Morning Herald
Yes to all
To: 1) demonstrate the economic and environmental impacts of integrating cost reflective pricing with the concentrated uptake of solar, energy efficiency and smart metering technologies; and 2) identify and implement options for addressing barriers to distributed solar generation, energy efficiency and electricity demand management for grid connected urban areas.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
* print or other media outlets of relevance to the electoral division of Newcastle.
The Australian Government also delivers part of its Natural Heritage Trust through regional delivery arrangements. Under these arrangements in New South Wales, Catchment Management Authorities (CMA) develop investment strategies, which are the basis for Australian Government investment from this component of the Trust.
The electoral division of Newcastle falls within the responsibilities of the Hunter/Central Rivers CMA. While community groups may be the ultimate beneficiaries of funding provided to CMAs through investment strategies, they do not apply directly to the Australian Government for these funds. The CMAs are responsible for allocating funding they receive amongst regional stakeholders according to regional priorities.
(4) and (5)
2003 – 2004
Programme
Recipient
Address
Amount ($)
Australian Antarctic Science Grants
Professor Brian Fraser
(individual)
University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan 2308
21,907.00
Australian Antarctic Science Grants
Professor Brian Fraser
(individual)
University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan 2308
13,037.00
Australian Antarctic Science Grants
Dr Ian Goodwin
(individual)
University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan 2308
21,375.00
Envirofund
Merewether Landcare
(community group)
23 Charlotte Street, Merewether 2291
23,587.00
Envirofund
Hunter Bird Observers Club Incorporated
(community group)
PO Box 24, New Lambton 2305
30,000.00
Envirofund
Shortland Wetlands Centre Ltd
(community group)
PO Box 292, Wallsend 2287
23,687.00
Envirofund
Shortland to Wallsend Landcare Group
(community group)
7 Long Crescent, Shortland 2307
8,927.00
Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations
Shortland Wetlands Centre Ltd
(community group)
PO Box 292, Wallsend 2287
4,000.00
Photovoltaic Rebate Programme
1 Householder
(individual)
-
4,000.00
Photovoltaic Rebate Programme
St Phillips Christian College
(community group)
11 Bridge St, Waratah 2298
4,000.00
2004 – 2005
Programme
Recipient
Address
Amount ($)
Australian Antarctic Science Grants
Professor Brian Fraser
(individual)
University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan 2308
18,000.00
Australian Antarctic Science Grants
Professor Brian Fraser
(individual)
University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan 2308
7,000.00
Envirofund
Trees in Newcastle Incorporated
(community group)
252 Parry Street, Hamilton 2303
9,845.00
Envirofund
Society of Frogs and Reptiles Incorporated
(community group)
Private Bag 2010, Paterson 2421
11,800.00
Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations
Shortland Wetlands Centre Ltd
(community group)
PO Box 292, Wallsend 2287
5,000.00
Note: Natural Heritage Trust funding provided through regional delivery arrangements is only recorded at the Catchment Management Authority (CMA) level, and hence financial information is not available by electorate.
Commonwealth Funded Programs
118
118
2265
118
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
Ms Grierson
asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 6 September 2005:
-
Does the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle can apply for funding; if so, what are the details.
-
Are the programs identified in part (1) advertised; if so, in respect of each program (a) what print and other media outlets have been used to advertise it and (b) were these paid advertisements.
-
In respect of each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), (a) what is its purpose and (b) who is responsible for allocating funds.
-
With respect to each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) businesses and (c) individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle received funding in (i) 2003-2004 and (ii) 2004-2005.
-
What sum of Commonwealth funding did each recipient receive in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005 and what are their names and addresses.
118
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
Mr Hockey
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Department of Human Services was established on 26 October 2004.
Core Department
-
No
-
N/A
-
N/A
-
N/A
-
N/A
Child Support Agency
-
Yes. Newcastle Family Support Services were initially contracted (through a select tender process) to undertake a pilot to explore the best approach to align job seeker activities with building parenting and relationship skills through the Being Connected Program. The contract was for the period 17 September 2004 to 31 December 2004. This contract was subsequently extended to 30 March 2005.
Dads in Distress (DiDS) also delivered several Being Connected programs in the Newcastle area in 2005 after responding to a media advertised expression of interest in August 2004.
DiDS were one of six community service organisations that were invited to join in partnership with the CSA to assist in the development of an accreditation process, undertake the accreditation and once accredited pilot a face to face group program entitled Being Connected group programs for newly separated unemployed parents.
-
The programs identified in part (1) were not advertised through print and media outlets. Posters and fliers promoting the program were distributed directly to eligible customers by CSA through bulk mail out.
-
In respect of the Commonwealth funded program referred to in question (1),
-
the 3 aims of the Being Connected Group Programs are to;
· help unemployed fathers stay connected with their children;
· help unemployed fathers develop a business like relationship with the other parent; and
· help unemployed fathers better look after themselves following separation.
-
The Child Support Agency is responsible for allocating funding for the Being Connected Group program under the 2003/2004 Newly Separated Unemployed Parents Budget Initiative. $11.9 million was allocated in the May 2003 Budget to support newly separated non resident parents on Newstart Allowance between July 2003 and June 2007.
-
Dads in Distress Inc – PO Box J395 Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450; and
-
Newcastle Family Support Services – 558 Hunter Street Newcastle West 2302
CRS Australia
-
No
-
N/A
-
N/A
-
N/A
-
N/A
Centrelink
-
No
-
N/A
-
N/A
-
N/A
-
N/A
Medicare Australia
Medicare Australia does not collect data at the electorate level. The statistics provided are based on postcodes that appear within the electorate of Newcastle and are therefore approximate as some postcodes span more than one electorate.
-
i. Home Medicines Review;
ii. Home Medicines Review Rural Loading Payment;
iii. Quality Care Pharmacy Program;
iv. Aboriginal Health Services Pharmacy Support Payment; and
v. Training Incentives for Pharmacy Assistants
vi. Broadband for Health (General Practitioners and Pharmacy programs)
vii. Special Assistance Scheme (Consumer)
viii. Practice Incentives Program (General Practice)
ix. General Practice Immunisation Incentives (General Practice)
-
-
Information regarding programs under the Fourth Pharmacy Agreement (i to v) is primarily provided to pharmacy by Medicare Australia during the pharmacy approval process. Information is also located on the Medicare Australia website or by calling Medicare Australia. Information is also provided to pharmacy via their peak bodies (Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia), and the Department of Health and Ageing.
Information regarding Broadband for Health GPs was provided through a Department of Health and Ageing mailout in August 2004.
Information for Broadband for Health (Pharmacy) was provided through a mailout in April 2005.
Information for the Special Assistance Scheme (Consumer) was provided in a direct mailout of an information kit to victims and their families. Communication of the assistance schemes was directed by the other agencies such as the Department of Health and Ageing.
Information regarding GP Incentive Programs (viii and ix) is available on the Medicare Australia web site, from the Department of Health and Ageing and the Divisions of General Practices.
-
None of these were paid advertisements.
-
The purpose of each of these programs is as follows:
Program
Description
Home Medicines Review (HMR)
Designed to allow patients’ medication regimes to be reviewed on the request of the patient, medical practitioner or carer.
Home Medicines Review Rural Loading Payment
Designed to reimburse pharmacies in rural and remote areas of Australia (PhARIA category 2–6) for travel costs incurred when conducting home medicines reviews.
Quality Care Pharmacy Program (QCPP)
A quality payment for achieving and maintaining QCPP accreditation that will enhance professional and business practices to ensure the delivery of quality services to the community and the government.
Aboriginal Health Services (AHS)Pharmacy Support Payment
A financial incentive for pharmacy proprietors to provide support services to Aboriginal Health Services in rural and remote locations in Australia.
Training Incentive Payment for Pharmacy Assistants (TIPA)
A financial incentive, available for a limited time, to encourage pharmacy assistants to undertake the Certificate III in Community Pharmacy
Broadband for Health (General Practioners and Pharmacy programs)
To encourage GPs, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services and Pharmacies to connect to broadband as it is envisaged that broadband will help streamline both clinical and business processes, maximising the use of time and allow the business to operate more efficiently
Special Assistance Scheme (Consumer)
Assistance to Australians and eligible foreign nationals requiring healthcare assistance as a direct result of an adverse event/disaster. The Special Assistance Schemes currently cover: -
Balimed – from the Bali bombings disaster on 12 October 2002
Tsunami Healthcare Assistance – from the Indian Ocean tsunamis disaster on 26 December 2004
London Assist – from the London bombings disasters on 7 July 2005
Bali 2005 – from the Bali bombings disasters on 1 October 2005
Practice Incentive Program (PIP)
Provides financial incentives to general practices who provide comprehensive quality care, and which are either accredited or working towards accreditation against the RACGP Standards of General Practice.
General Practice Immunisation Incentives Scheme (GPII)
Provides financial incentives to GPs who monitor, promote and provide immunisation services to children under the age of seven years.
-
-
Medicare Australia administers funds for each of these programs according to the eligibility rules provided by the Department of Health and Ageing.
-
-
In the 2003-04 financial year, within the Newcastle electorate:
-
$182,424 was paid to 56 pharmacies for the following programs under the Third Pharmacy Agreement:
-
HMR (including rural loading component) $39,424
-
QCPP $143,000
-
$8.32 million was paid to 58 practices for PIP,
-
$0.49 million was paid to 67 practices for GPII.
The Broadband for Health Initiative was not operational in 2003/2004.
-
In the 2004-05 financial year, within the Newcastle electorate:
-
$81,466 was paid to 58 pharmacies for the following programs under the Third Pharmacy Agreement;
-
HMR (including rural loading component) $42,966
-
QCPP $38,500
-
$8.27 million was paid to 58 practices for PIP;
-
$0.44 million was paid to 67 practices for GPII;
-
$78,293 was paid to 49 GP practices under the Broadband for Health (general practitioners) program; and
-
$93,558 was paid to 40 pharmacies under the Broadband for Health (Pharmacy) program.
Individual statistics for the Special Assistance Scheme (consumer) cannot be released due to the small number of recipients. A high proportion of medical services were provided through the public system therefore no figures are held by Medicare Australia. Funds paid by Medicare Australia for treatment not covered under the Medicare Benefits Schedule were as follows:
-
2003/2004 – nil payments
-
2004/2005 – less than $1,000
-
In accordance with the secrecy provisions contained in section 130 of the Health Insurance Act 1973, Medicare Australia will not release the names and addresses of funding recipients.
Australian Hearing
Australian Hearing has not administered any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle can apply for funding.
Health Services Australia
-
No
-
N/A
-
N/A
-
N/A
-
N/A
To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 38 hours and 50 minutes at an estimated cost of $1,640.
Commonwealth Funded Programs
122
122
2492
122
Hoare, Kelly, MP
83Y
Charlton
ALP
0
Ms Hoare
asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 13 October 2005:
-
Does the Minister’s department administer any Commonwealth funded programs to which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Charlton can apply for funding; if so, what are the programs.
-
Does the Minister’s department advertise these funding opportunities; if so, (a) what print or other media outlets have been used for the advertising of each of these programs, and (b) were these paid advertisements, if so, what were the costs of each advertisement.
-
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.
-
In respect of 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 Charlton received funding in (i) 2003, and (ii) 2004 and what was the name and address of each recipient.
122
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr Howard
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I am advised that:
-
No
-
Not applicable
-
Not applicable
-
Not applicable
Commonwealth Funded Programs
123
123
2501
123
Hoare, Kelly, MP
83Y
Charlton
ALP
0
Ms Hoare
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 13 October 2005:
-
Does the Minister’s department administer any Commonwealth funded programmes to which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Charlton can apply for funding; if so, what are the programmes.
-
Does the Minister’s department advertise these funding opportunities; if so, (a) what print or other media outlets have been used for the advertising of each of these programmes, and (b) were these paid advertisements, if so, what were the costs of each advertisement.
-
In respect of each of the Commonwealth funded programmes referred to in part (1), (a) what is its purpose and (b) who is responsible for allocating funds.
-
In respect of each of the Commonwealth funded programmes referred to in part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) businesses, and (c) individuals in the electoral division of Charlton received funding in (i) 2003, and (ii) 2004 and what was the name and address of each recipient.
123
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
Yes. The Minister’s portfolio administers the Community Settlement Services Scheme (CSSS) and the Living in Harmony initiative under which not-for-profit, incorporated organisations and local government authorities are eligible to apply for funding. The portfolio also administers Commonwealth funding for Migrant Resource Centres and Migrant Service Agencies (MRCs/MSAs).
From 1 July 2006 the CSSS and MRC/MSA funding will be combined into the new Settlement Grants Programme. Not-for-profit, incorporated organisations, local government authorities and organisations currently funded to deliver services under the Adult Migrant English Programme will be eligible to apply.
Within the period in question, the department also administered the Indigenous Women’s Programme for which community organisations of Charlton could apply for funding. This programme has since been transferred to the renamed Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio under Administrative Arrangements Order on 27 January 2006.
-
Attachment A below contains the advertisement details for these programmes including:
-
print or other media outlets used for advertising; and
-
where these were paid advertisements, the cost of each advertisement.
-
Attachment A below contains the list of programmes including:
-
their purpose; and
-
the authority responsible for allocation of funds.
-
-
The number of organisations funded in the electoral division of Charlton in 2003 was:
-
Community Organisations 1
-
Businesses Nil
-
Individuals Nil
The name and address of the recipient is:
-
Yulawirri Nurai Indigenous Association
43 Dora Street, Morisset NSW.
-
The number of organisations funded in the electoral division of Charlton in 2004 was:
-
Community Organisations 2
-
Businesses Nil
-
Individuals Nil
The names and addresses of the recipients are:
-
Yulawirri Nurai Indigenous Association
43 Dora Street, Morisset NSW.
-
Youloe-ta Indigenous Development Association
PO Box 610, Cardiff NSW.
Attachment A
Programme Title (1)
Programme Description / Purpose (3a)
Allocated by (3b)
Advertised Y/N (2)
Print/other media outlets used (2a)
Were these paid advertise-ments Y/N (2b)
Cost of each advertisement (2b)
Indigenous Women’s Programme
To enhance Indigenous women’s leadership, representation, safety, well being and economic status
Regional/ICC Manager
Yes
National and local papers
Yes
Not readily available
Community Settlement Services Scheme (CSSS)
The CSSS provides funding to not-for profit community organisations and local bodies to deliver settlement services to permanent residents, who have arrived in the last five years as humanitarian programme entrants or family stream migrants with low English proficiency, who require assistance to access mainstream services and participate in the community.
The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.
Yes
Adelaide Advertiser
Murray Pioneer
Waikerie River News
Hobart Mercury
Launceston Examiner
Burnie Advocate
West Australian
Wagga Daily Advertiser
Griffith Area News
Canberra Times
SMH
Daily Telegraph
Newcastle Herald
Albury Border Mail
Illawarra Mercury
Brisbane Courier Mail
Toowoomba Chronicle
Gold Coast Bulletin
Cairns Post
Townsville Bulletin
NT News
Melbourne Age
Herald Sun
Geelong Advocate
Warrnambool Standard
Shepparton News
Shepparton Advisor
El Massry (The Editor)
Magazin Bosna
Croatian Herald
Indo Media
Jewish News National
Sydney Korean Herald
Maltese Herald
Philippine Community Herald
Panorama
Ngoui Viet
Yes
$2,232.36
$209.04
$189.54
$797.16
$625.56
$645.06
$2,980.80
$405.00
$360.00
$890.25
$4,293.45
$4,192.20
$1,584.00
$736.89
$1,611.00
$3,336.84
$651.84
$1,004.64
$975.24
$847.56
$882.84
$3,539.70
$5,433.96
$577.92
$381.42
$426.72
$448.74
$405.00
$243.00
$445.50
$264.60
$1,514.70
$297.00
$351.00
$486.00
$445.50
$280.08
Settlement Grants Programme
The aim of the Settlement Grants Programme is to deliver services which assist clients (individuals or groups) and communities in the Settlement Services Target Group to become self-reliant and participate equitably in Australian society as soon as possible after arrival.
The programme also funds services for dependants of skilled migrants in rural and regional areas who have low English proficiency.
The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.
Yes
Weekend Australia
Adelaide Advertiser
Murray Pioneer
Waikerie River News
Hobart Mercury
Launceston Examiner
Burnie Advocate
West Australian
Wagga Daily Advertiser
Griffith Area News
Canberra Times
SMH
Daily Telegraph
Newcastle Herald
Albury Border Mail
Illawarra Mercury
Brisbane Courier Mail
Toowoomba Chronicle
Gold Coast Bulletin
Cairns Post
Townsville Bulletin
NT News
Melbourne Age
Herald Sun
Geelong Advocate
Shepparton News
Shepparton Advisor
African, The
Ambassador, The
An Nahar
El Telegraph
Magazin Bosna
Smaradey Khmer
Australian Chinese Daily (Sat)
Croatian Herald
Indian Downunder, The
Indo Media
Bamdad Weekly
Jewish News National
Today Denes
Philippine Community Herald,
TheHorizon
Vesti
World Serban Voice
Thai Oz News
Dünya
Free Thought, The
Chieu Duong - Sunrise Daily
Ethnic Dispatch Fee
Yes
$4,024.80
$1,785.60
$163.80
$193.44
$637.80
$490.80
$506.40
$2,340.00
$330.60
$300.00
$726.60
$3,072.00
$2,906.40
$889.80
$518.40
$1,117.20
$2,669.40
$474.60
$739.20
$956.80
$623.40
$874.40
$2,752.80
$4,036.80
$425.40
$310.80
$339.00
$267.15
$666.90
$360.12
$366.79
$300.10
$433.48
$273.42
$672.23
$400.14
$326.78
$433.48
$1,283.11
$400.14
$433.48
$333.45
$500.17
$466.83
$300.10
$354.79
$233.41
$1,000.35
$550
Living in Harmony community grants
The objectives of the Living in Harmony initiative are to encourage all Australians to contribute to and build upon Australia's social harmony, promote harmony and generate better understanding, respect and cooperation among people of different cultural backgrounds, reinforce Australia's common values, focusing on what makes us all Australians, and make it clear there is no place for racism in Australia, tackle racial intolerance and bigotry and address any pockets of intolerance there might be. The Living in Harmony community grants programme provides funding to non-profit community organizations for projects to raise awareness of the benefits of community harmony, and to address issues of racism.
Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
Yes
In 2005, the Living in Harmony community grants were advertised
in the following media outlets:
Australian Financial Review
Australian (weekend)
Adelaide Advertiser
Brisbane Courier Mail
Sydney Morning Herald
The West Australian
Sydney Daily Telegraph
Canberra Times
Melbourne Herald -Sun,
Hobart Mercury
Melbourne Age
Northern Territory News
Albury Border Mail
Bathurst Western Advocate
Bourke Western Herald
Broken Hill - Barrier Daily Truth
Bunbury Herald
Daily Liberal (Dubbo)
Daily Northern Star
Glenn Innes Examiner
Grafton Daily
Illawarra Mercury
Lismore Northern Star
Moree Champion
Mudgee Guardian
Newcastle Herald
Orange Central Western Daily
Port Macquarie News
The Area News
Tweed Heads Daily
Western Herald
Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser, Ballarat Courier
Bairnsdale Advertiser
Bendigo Advertiser
Geelong Advertiser
Horsham Wimmera
La Trobe Valley Express
Maryborough Advertiser
Mildura Sunraysia Daily
Riverina Herald
Sale Gippsland Times
Shepparton News
Warrnambool Standard
Cairns Post
Mt Isa North West Star
Charleville Western Times
Rockhampton Morning Bulletin
Fraser Coast Chronicle
Toowoomba Chronicle
Gold Coast Bulletin
Townsville Bulletin
Mackay Daily Mercury
Mt Gambier Border Watch
Whyalla News
Port Augusta Transcontinental
Port Lincoln Times
Albany Advertiser
Broome Advertiser
Busselton Margaret River Times
Geraldton Guardian
Kalgoorlie Miner
Kimberley Echo
Manjimup Bridgetown News
Southern Western Times
Burnie Advocate
Launceston Examiner
Alice Springs News
Katherine Times
Centralian Advocate
Tenant and District Times
An Nahar
Neos Kosmos
Australian Chinese Daily
El Telegraph
Greek Herald
Horizon News
Il Globo
Koori Mail
Maltese Herald
National Indigenous Times
Sydney Korean Herald
Thai Oz Newspaper
The Jewish News
Today Denes
Yeni Vatan
Vesti
The Living in Harmony community gran grants rounds in 2003 and 2004 were advertised in a very similar range of media outlets.
Yes
In 2005, the total cost of these print advertisements was $61,314.00. To provide the cost of each advertisement would require an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources. The cost of advertising the 2005 Living in Harmony community grants round in the Newcastle Herald was $859.80.
Commonwealth Funded Programs
127
127
2503
127
Hoare, Kelly, MP
83Y
Charlton
ALP
0
Ms Hoare
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 13 October 2005:
-
Does the Minister’s department administer any Commonwealth funded programs to which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Charlton can apply for funding; if so, what are the programs.
-
Does the Minister’s department advertise these funding opportunities; if so, (a) what print or other media outlets have been used for the advertising of each of these programs, and (b) were these paid advertisements, if so, what were the costs of each advertisement.
-
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.
-
In respect of 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 Charlton received funding in (i) 2003, and (ii) 2004 and what was the name and address of each recipient.
127
Brough, Mal, MP
2K6
Longman
LP
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs
1
Mr Brough
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs administers a wide variety of programs to assist communities, many of which are routinely advertised and have quite comprehensive guidelines.
Information is publicly available at
www.facsia.gov.au
and in Annual Reports.
I consider that the preparation of answers to the questions placed on notice would involve a significant diversion of resources and, in the circumstances, I do not consider that the additional work can be justified.
Commonwealth Funded Programs
127
127
2504
127
Hoare, Kelly, MP
83Y
Charlton
ALP
0
Ms Hoare
asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 13 October 2005:
-
Does the Minister’s department administer any Commonwealth funded programs to which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Charlton can apply for funding; if so, what are the programs.
-
Does the Minister’s department advertise these funding opportunities; if so, (a) what print or other media outlets have been used for the advertising of each of these programs, and (b) were these paid advertisements, if so, what were the costs of each advertisement.
-
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.
-
In respect of 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 Charlton received funding in (i) 2003, and (ii) 2004 and what was the name and address of each recipient.
127
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes, a number of programs are available to community organisations, businesses or individuals in the federal electorate of Charlton. In some cases eligibility for applying will depend on the entity meeting specific criteria under the program. Programs currently available include:
Innovation
Commercial Ready Program
R&D Tax Concession (including 175% Premium R&D Tax Concession and R&D Tax Offset)
Renewable Energy Development Fund
Industry Cooperative Innovation Program
Low Emissions Technology Development Fund
National Innovation Awareness Strategy
Venture Capital
Commercialising Emerging Technologies Program
Innovation Investment Fund
Pooled Development Funds Program
Pre-Seed Fund
Renewable Energy Equity Fund
Venture Capital Limited Partnerships Program
Sectoral
Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme
Australian Tourism Development Program
Business Ready Program for Indigenous Tourism
Ethanol Production Grants Program
Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme
Pharmaceutical Partnerships Program
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Corporatewear Register
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Expanded Overseas Assembly Provisions Scheme
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Strategic Investment Program
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Product Diversification Scheme
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (TCF) Small Business Program
Small Business
Small Business Entrepreneurship Program
Small Business Field Officers Program
General Industry
Certain Inputs to Manufacture Scheme
Enhanced Project By-Laws Scheme
Space Concession Scheme
Tradex Scheme
-
Yes. The majority of the programs listed above are delivered by AusIndustry, the program delivery division of the Department. AusIndustry’s national marketing strategy directs the promotional efforts for AusIndustry programs. This strategy utilises a range of communication channels including:
-
the AusIndustry website (www.ausindustry.gov.au);
-
the AusIndustry hotline (13 28 46);
-
the AusIndustry e-bulletin;
-
advertising and editorial opportunities;
-
sponsorships and strategic partnerships;
-
Ministerial and customer events;
-
media relations;
-
26 state and regional offices (including the Newcastle/Hunter regional office);
-
over 55 Small Business Field Officers (including two officers servicing the Hunter region including the Charlton electorate); and
-
publications and merchandise.
-
AusIndustry’s advertisements appear in both print and on-line publications. These are paid advertisements (although sometimes editorial content is able to be leveraged). Print advertising includes advertising in major daily newspapers, trade and industry publications and regional newspapers such as the Maitland Mercury, while on-line advertisements primarily focus on industry portals.
-
Information on the costs of specific advertisements is not readily available. There are no advertising costs during 2003 and 2004 that can be attributed directly to the Charlton electorate.
-
-
(3) (a) Information on the programs listed above is available on the Department’s website www.industry.gov.au, the AusIndustry’s website www.ausindustry.gov.au, and through the AusIndustry Hotline on 132846.
-
(b) In most cases, delegated officers within AusIndustry approve funding proposals.
-
(4) and (5) Information on funding/assistance provided to businesses in the electorate of Charlton during 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 is provided below. (Calendar year information is not readily available.)
Biotechnology Innovation Fund
(replaced by Commercial Ready Program)
Company
Financial Year
Benefits Provided (Estimate)
Keystone Product Developments Pty Ltd
2004-05
$80,000
Commercialising Emerging Technologies Program
Company
Financial Year
Benefits Provided (Estimate)
Liquid Composites Australia Pty Ltd
2002-03
2003-04
$20,000
$80,000
Enhanced Printing Industry Competitiveness Scheme
(program closed)
Company
Financial Year
Benefits Provided (Estimate)
Nightingale Press Pty Ltd
2003-04
$4,000
R&D Start Program
(replaced by Commercial Ready Program)
Company
Financial Year
Benefits Provided (Estimate)
Liquid Composites Australia Pty Ltd
2003-04
2004-05
$62,000
$105,000
R&D Tax Concession
Company
Financial Year
Total R&D
Expenditure
Aggregate information provided
2002-03
$9,500,000
Aggregate information provided
2003-04
$12,579,000
Aggregate information provided
2004-05
$7,325,000
Note 1. Aggregate information for the program has been provided rather than individual details for particular customers. Confidentiality restrictions prevent disclosure of detailed information.
Note 2. ‘Total R&D Expenditure’ is not the value of assistance provided. This figure represents the total level of R&D expenditure reported by companies that have registered for that financial year.
Tradex Scheme
Company
Financial Year
Benefits Provided (Estimate)
Aggregate information provided
2002-03
$9,000
Aggregate information provided
2003-04
$12,000
Aggregate information provided
2004-05
$14,000
Note 1. Aggregate information for the program has been provided rather than individual details for particular customers. Confidentiality restrictions prevent disclosure of detailed information.
Note 2. ‘Benefits Provided’ represents the estimated value of import duty forgone during the financial year.
Status of Forces Agreement
130
130
2575
130
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 November 2005:
-
Is the Minister aware of the article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 20 October 2005 which quoted Dr Kit Collier, a Philippines expert from the International Crisis Group, as saying that President Gloria Arroyo is in a very weakened position and that she is going to find it very hard to get the two thirds majority in the Philippines Senate for the ratification of the status of forces agreement (SOFA) with Australia.
-
Is it the Government’s assessment that President Gloria Arroyo will be able to get the required two thirds majority in the Philippines’ Senate for ratification of the SOFA with Australia; if not, how does the Australian Government intend to progress cooperation with respect to confronting terrorists in the Southern Philippines.
-
Is it the case that the United States took three years to negotiate its SOFA with the Philippines; if so, why is the Minister so confident that Australia’s agreement is likely to be finalised before Christmas 2005.
-
Will Australian and Philippine forces conduct joint ground troop operations.
-
Will it be possible for Australian troops to be permanently based in the Philippines once the SOFA is signed; if so, what legal rights and immunities will Australian troops based in the Philippines (a) have and (b) forgo.
-
What sum has been (a) allocated and (b) spent this year on counter-terrorism assistance to the Philippines.
-
Are there terrorist organisations, other than Jemaah Islamiah and Abu Sayyaf, that may be operating in Mindanao in the Southern Philippines; if so, what are they and are they prescribed terrorist organisations in Australia.
-
What is Australia currently doing to assist the Government of (a) Indonesia, (b) Malaysia, and (c) Singapore to secure the Malacca Straits from piracy and terrorist attack.
131
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
Ratification of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the Philippines legislature is a matter for the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to comment on. In the meantime, Australia will continue to progress Defence cooperation activities with the Philippines such as training, education, seminars and professional exchanges.
-
The conduct of any negotiations between the Governments of the Philippines and the United States is a matter for those two Governments to comment on. The Philippines first raised the possibility of a SOFA in February 2004 and formal negotiations commenced in December 2004. The current status of the negotiations is that the Philippines provided a counter-draft on 31 May 2006. Face-to-face negotiations aiming to agree a draft text can now follow. Formal approvals and legislative ratification will take longer.
-
No.
-
and (b) The purpose of the proposed reciprocal SOFA is to provide a more comprehensive legal framework for administrative arrangements to support Australian Defence Force and Armed Forces of the Philippines personnel engaged in Defence Cooperation training and exercise activities in our respective countries. The detailed provisions of the SOFA are still subject to negotiation, but there are no plans to permanently base Australian troops in the Philippines.
-
and (b) Expenditure on counter terrorism assistance to the Philippines involves a range of Government agencies, coordinated through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), of which Defence provides one element. DFAT advise that for financial year 2005-06, $5,527,750 is currently allocated in total by Government agencies for counter terrorism support projects to the Philippines, with $3,672,392 having been spent in the current financial year to 31 March 2006.
-
The Government cannot be sure of what terrorist organisations might be operating beyond those referred to in the question.
-
and (b) The Malacca Strait is the sovereign territory of the littoral states. As such, they will determine the most appropriate method of securing the Strait from piracy and terrorist attack, and advise what assistance they would welcome from countries such as Australia. Australia will consider any request for assistance from the littoral states, and has provided advice based on our own experience with maritime security activities. At this stage, Defence is not providing any direct assistance. Nonetheless, it should be noted that Australia does promote security in the Strait, and more broadly in the region, by helping these countries improve their defence and security capabilities through a wide range of cooperative defence activities. These activities include training, education, seminars and bilateral and multilateral exercises.
Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs: Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
131
131
2588
131
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
Mr Martin Ferguson
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 7 November 2005:
For each of the last nine financial years, what sum has been granted by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry or its predecessor.
131
Brough, Mal, MP
2K6
Longman
LP
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs
1
Mr Brough
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
In May 2005, under the Business Services Assistance package, my Department agreed to fund a National Manager, Disability Employment Services in the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry for a period of one year.
The total value of the funding agreement is $145,000 gst inclusive. $57,200 was paid in the 04-05 financial year and to date $44,000 has been paid during this financial year.
There have been no other grants by my Department or agencies in my portfolio to the Australian Chamber of Commerce in the financial years in question.
Workplace Relations
132
132
2611
132
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 9 November 2005:
-
Has he read the article titled ‘PM big on WorkChoices hype, but economists have doubts about the reality’ in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 October 2005 which reported that economists cannot see where all the employment and productivity improvements are supposed to come from and that most economists would be hoping the big employment gains come from lowering the minimum wage.
-
What economic modelling has been undertaken by his department to determine the effect of the changes contained in the Work Choices Bill 2005 on (a) employment levels and (b) wage levels in Australia.
-
Can he confirm that the only economic gains from the Work Choices Bill 2005 will come from lowering the minimum wage; if not, why not.
132
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
Mr Andrews
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
I am aware of the issues raised in the article.
-
My Department engaged the Centre of Policy Studies (CoPS) at Monash University to undertake economic modelling of the impact of aspects of the workplace relations reforms on key economic variables such as productivity, wages, employment and GDP. The aspects of workplace reform considered were changes to unfair dismissal laws, the benefits of moving to a national system and the changed wage-setting arrangements.
-
Minimum wages can not fall under the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 – (the Act). Under the Act, minimum wages will be protected at the level set after the inclusion of the increase from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission’s 2005 Safety Net Review and can not fall below this level.
A number of economic gains are expected from WorkChoices such as increased productivity.
Productivity improvements are expected to be driven by:
-
the shift of workers reliant on awards to other methods of pay setting such as collective and individual agreements. A number of studies have indicated that workers on agreements exhibit higher productivity than those on awards; and
-
firms no longer having to divert as many resources to compliance tasks associated with two systems of industrial relations (federal and state).
-
Employment growth will be stimulated by changes to the unfair dismissal laws which represented a barrier to employment. Further growth is expected through the simplification of procedures that employers must undertake to comply with workplace laws.
-
The negative impact of the previous unfair dismissal laws was demonstrated by a study titled ‘The Effect of Unfair Dismissal Laws on Small and Medium Sized Businesses’ for the Department by Dr Don Harding of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research using the (then) Yellow Pages Business Index survey. The study was publicly released on 29 October 2002. It found that:
-
the estimated costs to small to medium sized enterprises of complying with unfair dismissal laws amounted to $1.3 billion per year; and
-
11.1 per cent of small to medium sized employers that did not have employees but previously did, were influenced by the unfair dismissal laws in deciding to reduce the number of workers they employed. This translated to the loss of 77,842 jobs in which unfair dismissal played some role (35,000 of those in which unfair dismissal laws played a major role).
Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs: Small Business Payments
133
133
2667
133
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 28 November 2005:
(a) how many and (b) what proportion of payments made by the Minister’s department to small business were not made within (i) 30 and (ii) 60 days of receipt of the goods or services and a proper invoice in accordance with Government procurement policy.
133
Brough, Mal, MP
2K6
Longman
LP
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs
1
Mr Brough
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
In the financial year 2004-2005 the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs made 14,990 payments of which 95.99% (14,389) were made within 60 days and 76.47% (11,455) were made within 30 days.
133
133
2674
133
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 28 November 2005:
For 2004-05, (a) how many and (b) what proportion of payments made by the Minister’s department to small business were not made within (i) 30 and (ii) 60 days of receipt of the goods or services and a proper invoice in accordance with Government procurement policy.
133
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
Mr Billson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
1,010
-
306
-
4.66 per cent
-
1.41 per cent
Legal Services
133
133
2709
133
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
0
Ms Roxon
asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 28 November 2005:
-
What sum did the Minister’s department spend during 2004-05 on external (a) barristers and (b) solicitors (including private firms, the Australian Government Solicitor and any others).
-
What sum did the Minister’s department spend on internal legal services.
-
What is the Minister’s department’s projected expenditure on legal services for 2005-06.
133
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
Mr Billson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
-
and (b) $8 443 876 (including GST). It is not possible to distinguish between monies spent on barristers and solicitors.
-
$2.432m.
-
$11.5m.
Student Assistance
134
134
2711
134
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 29 November 2005:
-
What Commonwealth Government programs are intended to assist students who speak English as a second language.
-
In respect of each program identified in part (1), what sum was spent in each of the last five calendar years.
134
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
Ms Julie Bishop
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The Australian Government assists through a number of programmes. The three main programmes are the General Recurrent Grants (GRG) Programme, the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs (LNSLN) Programme, and the English as a Second Language – New Arrivals (ESL-NA) Programme.
-
Total expenditure ($ million) for the GRG Programme, the LNSLN Programme are set out below. Expenditures on ESL students from the GRG Programme and the LNSLN Programme are not available. The table also provides expenditures from the ESL-NA Programme over the last five years ($ million).
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
GRG Programme
4,394.6
4,727.7
5,175.0
5,737.1
6,208.0
LNSLN Programme
353.8
374.1
395.8
437.7
460.3
ESL-NA Programme
36.0
39.5
48.0
51.9
61.5
Note: From 2005 the LNSLN programme was formed by merging of three programmes (Strategic Assistance for Improving Student Outcomes Programme (SAISO), Grants for Literacy Numeracy Strategies and Projects, and Special Education Non-Government Centre Support Programme). To ensure comparison with the 2005 LNSLN, these three programmes’ expenditure has been amalgamated to provide expenditure for 2001-4.
Superannuation
134
134
2715
134
Hoare, Kelly, MP
83Y
Charlton
ALP
0
Ms Hoare
asked the former Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 29 November 2005:
-
Can he confirm that when a working Australian reaches the age of 70 years their employer is no longer permitted to make contributions to the worker’s superannuation.
-
Can he explain the rationale for the Government’s policy which prevents employees over the age of 70 years receiving employer contributions to their superannuation funds.
-
Can he confirm it is the Government’s intention to encourage Australians to work beyond the retirement age of 65 years.
-
Has the Government considered changing the legislation to ensure all Australian workers receive employer contributions to their superannuation regardless of their age; if not, why not.
-
Has the Government considered retrospective legislation so that Australians who have worked beyond the age of 70 years will be entitled to back payment of forgone superannuation contributions; if not, why not.
134
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:
-
A maximum age limit of 70 currently applies to all employer contributions on behalf of a person (that is, employer contributions under the superannuation guarantee arrangements and other deductible employer superannuation contributions such as salary sacrifice contributions), with the exception of employer contributions which are required under an award or industrial agreement.
In A Plan to Simplify and Streamline Superannuation released on 9 May 2006, the Government announced a proposal to allow employers to make contributions on behalf of their employees up to age 75. An employer will be able to claim a full deduction for such contributions.
-
Refer to the answer for question 1.
-
The Government is committed to providing enhanced opportunities and greater choice for mature age workers, recognising that their skills, experience and ongoing contribution to the labour force will play a vital part in securing Australia’s future economic strength.
As part of this commitment, the Government has introduced a new Mature Age Worker Tax Offset for workers aged 55 and over. The offset provides a maximum annual tax rebate of $500 with effect from the 2004‑05 income year. Eligibility for the offset is based solely on income from working, so that mature age Australians with income from working who also derive significant income from passive sources, such as superannuation and shares, can still benefit from the offset.
To further encourage participation among mature aged workers, from 1 July 2005 individuals who have reached their superannuation preservation age and are still working can access their superannuation as a non-commutable income stream. This change recognises that older Australians may prefer to remain in the workforce but reduce their hours of work as they approach retirement. It allows people who wish to reduce their hours of work to supplement their employment income with income from superannuation. In A Plan to Simplify and Streamline Superannuation the Government has proposed that from 1 July 2007 superannuation benefits paid from a taxed fund for people aged 60 and over would be free of tax. This proposal would boost incentives to work.
In addition, the Government has changed the superannuation contribution rules for persons aged 65 to 74. As a result, with effect from 1 July 2004, a person does not have to work every week to make contributions into an account with a superannuation provider. This change recognises that Australians aged 65 to 74, who wish to work, may prefer irregular part-time or short term contract work rather than working every week.
-
The Government increased the maximum employee age limit for employer contributions from age 65 to age 70 from 1 July 1997.
In A Plan to Simplify and Streamline Superannuation released on 9 May 2006, the Government announced a proposal to allow employers to make contributions on behalf of their employees up to age 75. An employer will be able to claim a full deduction for such contributions.
-
It would be inappropriate to apply any increase in the maximum employee age limit retrospectively. All taxpayers require certainty in their application of the law, and retrospective application would reduce this certainty.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Contracts
135
135
2721
135
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
Mr Brendan O’Connor
asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 29 November 2005:
How many times since 1 July 2005 has his Department entered into contracts with firms for which the description of the contract is stated as ‘contractors’ and in respect of each occasion, what was (a) the name of the firm, (b) the cost of the services provided and (c) the specific service provided under the terms of the contract.
136
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGauran
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(a) to (c) Details relating to contracts over $100,000 for which the description of the contract is stated as ‘contractors’ are currently with the tabling office and will be available on the Department’s internet site at (http://www.daff.gov.au). Details include the name of the firm, the cost of the services provided and the specific services provided under the contract.
Contracts more than $10,000 are listed on Gazette Publishing System (GAPS) however the available information does not include details of the specific service provided.
Note: For contracts with a value less than $100,000 the Department does not maintain the detailed information that is necessary to provide an answer to the honourable member’s question.
Environment and Heritage: Staffing
136
136
2739
136
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
Ms Macklin
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 29 November 2005:
-
For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, what was the total staffing level in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004 and (e) 2005.
-
For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio for (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004 and (e) 2005 how many New Apprentices (i) had commenced and (ii) were employed.
-
How many of the New Apprenticeships referred to in part (2) were traditional apprenticeships (as defined by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research as an apprenticeship in an occupation in Australian Standard Classification of Occupations Group 4 – Tradespersons and Related Workers - at AQF level 3 or above with an expected duration of more than 2 years full time.)
-
How many traditional apprenticeships does the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio intend to offer to commence in 2006.
136
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr Truss
—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
The total staffing levels for the department and each agency in the portfolio for the period 2001-2005 are set out in their respective annual reports for each financial year.
-
New Apprenticeships
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Bureau of Meteorology
0
1
0
0
1
Parks Australia
4
2
10
8
6
-
Total Apprentices employed
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Bureau of Meteorology
0
1
1
1
0
Parks Australia
4
6
12
15
14
-
Traditional Apprenticeships
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Bureau of Meteorology
0
1
1
1
1
Parks Australia
0
0
0
0
0
-
The portfolio does not expect to employ any traditional apprentices in 2006.
Veterans’ Affairs: Staffing
137
137
2742
137
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
Ms Macklin
asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 29 November 2005:
-
For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, what was the total staffing level in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005.
-
For the Department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio for (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005 how many New Apprentices (i) had commenced and (ii) were employed.
-
How many of the New Apprenticeships referred to in part (2) were traditional apprenticeships (as defined by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research as an apprenticeship in an occupation in Australian Standard Classification of Occupations Group 4 – Tradespersons and Related Workers – at AQF level 3 or above with an expected duration of more than 2 years full time).
-
How many traditional apprenticeships does the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio intend to offer to commence in 2006.
137
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
Mr Billson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
Australian War Memorial
1(a)
Available from Annual Report
Available from Annual Report
1(b)
Available from Annual Report
Available from Annual Report
1(c)
Available from Annual Report
Available from Annual Report
1(d)
Available from Annual Report
Available from Annual Report
1(e)
Available from Annual Report
Available from Annual Report
2(a)(i)
Nil
Nil
2(a)(ii)
Nil
Nil
2(b)(i)
Nil
Nil
2(b)(ii)
Nil
Nil
2(c)(i)
Nil
Nil
2(c)(ii)
Nil
Nil
2(d)(i)
Nil
Nil
2(d)(ii)
Nil
Nil
2(e)(i)
Nil
Nil
2(e)(ii)
Nil
Nil
(3)
Not applicable
Not applicable
(4)
None
None
Legal Services
137
137
2917
137
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
0
Ms Roxon
asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 8 December 2005:
-
For 2004-2005, what sum did the Minister’s department and portfolio agencies pay to (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blake Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors for legal services.
-
Which partners or principals of (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blake Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors were responsible for undertaking or supervising legal services supplied by the firm to the department or agency in 2004-2005.
-
For each partner or principal listed in response to part (3), what was the total amount billed to the department or agency for services undertaken or supervised by that partner or principal in 2004-2005.
-
What are the details of the legal services provided to the department or portfolio agencies by (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blake Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors in 2004-2005.
138
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
Mr Andrews
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
For 2004-2005, the sums paid (GST inclusive) for legal services, including training and probity advice, to each law firm listed in the question by each agency within my portfolio, including the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, were as follows:
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
(a)
Clayton Utz
$119,811.55
(b)
Blake Dawson Waldron
$974,086.81
(c)
Philips Fox
$315,648.88
(d)
Sparke Helmore
$0.00
(e)
Freehills
$922,696.67
(f)
Minter Ellison
$483,671.87
(g)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
$0.00
(h)
Mallesons Stephens Jaques
$0.00
(i)
Deacons
$65,481.47
(j)
Craddock Murray Neumann
$0.00
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner
(a)
Clayton Utz
$0.00
(b)
Blake Dawson Waldron
$413,548.44
(c)
Philips Fox
$156,463.09
(d)
Sparke Helmore
$0.00
(e)
Freehills
$479,058.80
(f)
Minter Ellison
$387,998.82
(g)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
$0.00
(h)
Mallesons Stephens Jaques
$0.00
(i)
Deacons
$47,028.53
(j)
Craddock Murray Neumann
$0.00
Comcare
(a)
Clayton Utz
$0.00
(b)
Blake Dawson Waldron
$82,946.00
(c)
Philips Fox
$2,838,939.00
(d)
Sparke Helmore
$2,438,902.00
(e)
Freehills
$0.00
(f)
Minter Ellison
$0.00
(g)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
$0.00
(h)
Mallesons Stephens Jaques
$0.00
(i)
Deacons
$0.00
(j)
Craddock Murray Neumann
$0.00
Indigenous Business Australia
(a)
Clayton Utz
$0.00
(b)
Blake Dawson Waldron
$0.00
(c)
Philips Fox
$0.00
(d)
Sparke Helmore
$0.00
(e)
Freehills
$0.00
(f)
Minter Ellison
$12,434.00
(g)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
$0.00
(h)
Mallesons Stephens Jaques
$596,326.98
(i)
Deacons
$0.00
(j)
Craddock Murray Neumann
$0.00
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission
(a)
Clayton Utz
$0.00
(b)
Blake Dawson Waldron
$0.00
(c)
Philips Fox
$2,609.97
(d)
Sparke Helmore
$0.00
(e)
Freehills
$0.00
(f)
Minter Ellison
$0.00
(g)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
$0.00
(h)
Mallesons Stephens Jaques
$13,378.20
(i)
Deacons
$0.00
(j)
Craddock Murray Neumann
$0.00
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner;
Developing an answer to this question involves an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily ascertainable.
Comcare
Firm
Partners/Principals
(a)
Clayton Utz
(b)
Blake Dawson Waldron
Mr John Odbert
(c)
Philips Fox
Mr Norman Abrams, Mr Adrian D’amico, Mr Richard Garnett, Mr Grant Hooper, Ms Caroline Knight, Mr Simon Lusk, Ms Bettina Mangan, Mr Matthew Pokarier, Dr Gary Rumble, Mr Bastiaan Sparreboom.
(d)
Sparke Helmore
Ms Mary Brennan, Ms Robyn Brewster, Mr David Davies, Mr Mark Hickey, Ms Julie McIntire, Mr Paul Mentor, Ms Kristina Miller, Mr Michael Snell, Ms Rosemary Waldron-Hartfield, Mr Michael Will.
(e)
Freehills
(f)
Minter Ellison
(g)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
(h)
Mallesons Stephens Jaques
(i)
Deacons
Ms Janean Richards, Mr Barry Richardson, Mr Vince Sharma.
(j)
Craddock Murray Neumann
NOTE: Comcare was able to provide this information as it is a small agency and legal issues dealt with by Comcare concern the single issue of workers compensation.
Indigenous Business Australia;
Developing an answer to this question involves an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily ascertainable.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Office of the Employment Advocate;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
-
For each partner or principal listed in response to part (2), the total amount billed to the Department or agency in 2004-2005 is as follows:
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner;
Developing an answer to this question involves an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily ascertainable.
Comcare;
Comcare’s current financial system does not cost legal expenditure against individual members of law firms. Responding to this question would require an audit of all legal accounts on a one on one basis, which would involve and unreasonable diversion of resources.
Indigenous Business Australia;
Developing an answer to this question involves an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily ascertainable.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Office of the Employment Advocate;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
-
Details of the legal services provided to the Department and its portfolio agencies in 2004‑2005 are as follows:
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner;
Developing an answer to this question involves an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily ascertainable.
Comcare;
Comcare’s legal panel is required to provide a range of services in accordance with its Statement of Requirement and Principles of Agreement, which include:
-
Legal advice and representation in relation to matters before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Federal Court of Australia and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission;
-
Legal advice in relation to Commonwealth workers’ compensation, occupational health and safety, third party claims, reconsiderations, appeals, negotiations and settlements.
To ascertain the particular details of the legal services provided to Comcare by individual law firms would require an audit of all legal files and accounts on a one on one basis, which would involve and unreasonable diversion of resources.
Indigenous Business Australia;
Developing an answer to this question involves an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily ascertainable.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Office of the Employment Advocate;
Answering this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources as the information sought is not readily available.
Legal Services
142
142
2922
142
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
0
Ms Roxon
asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005
-
For 2004-05, what sum did the Minister’s department and portfolio agencies pay to (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors for legal services.
-
Which partners or principals of (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors were responsible for undertaking or supervising legal services supplied by the firm to the department or agency in 2004-05.
-
For each partner or principal listed in response to part (3), what was the total amount billed to the department or agency for services undertaken or supervised by that partner or principal in 2004-05.
-
What are the details of the legal services provided to the department or portfolio agencies by (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors in 2004-05.
142
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
Mr Billson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
For 2004-05, the sums paid to each law firm listed in the question by each agency within my portfolio, including the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, were as follows:
(All figures are GST exclusive)
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
(a)
Clayton Utz
$7 260.56
(b)
Blakes Dawson Waldron
$113 011.67
(c)
Philips Fox
$1 493 985.50
(d)
Sparke Helmore
$1 551 051.50
(e)
Freehills
$0.00
(f)
Minter Ellison
$21 927.10
(g)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
$0.00
(h)
Mallesons Stephens Jaques
$0.00
(i)
Deacons
$17 992.80
(j)
Craddock Murray Neumann
$0.00
Australian War Memorial
(a)
Clayton Utz
$0.00
(b)
Blakes Dawson Waldron
$0.00
(c)
Philips Fox
$0.00
(d)
Sparke Helmore
$1 200.00
(e)
Freehills
$0.00
(f)
Minter Ellison
$0.00
(g)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
$0.00
(h)
Mallesons Stephens Jaques
$0.00
(i)
Deacons
$0.00
(j)
Craddock Murray Neumann
$0.00
Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund Project
144
144
2951
144
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 7 February 2006:
Did his department engage Universal McCann for the launch of press advertisements for the LETDF project; if so, what is the LETDF project and what specific services were provided under the terms of this contract.
144
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Yes – Universal McCann was contracted to place advertisements in the national press announcing the opening of Round 1 of the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF).
For information regarding LETDF see the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources website.
Lowe Electorate: Australian Vocational Student Prize
144
144
2998
144
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 7 February 2006:
-
Did the former Minister, Dr Nelson, send a letter to the Principal of any High School in the Electoral Division of Lowe which:
-
advised them that one of their students will be receiving an Australian Vocational Student Prize;
-
encouraged them to arrange an award presentation ceremony and invite Senator the Hon Helen Coonan;
-
described Senator Coonan as “your local Federal Member of Parliament”; and
-
advised the alternative would be for the prize to be sent directly to the student; if so, which schools received this letter and when were the letters sent.
-
Did the former Minister advise each Member of the House of Representatives of the names of Australian Vocational Student Prize winners in their electoral divisions and the schools they attended; if so, when; if not, why not.
144
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:
-
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
-
Yes, the letter incorrectly referred to Senator Coonan as “your local Federal Member of Parliament” rather than as “Senator for New South Wales”.
-
Yes. The following schools in the electorate of Lowe received this letter:
-
Burwood Girls High School
-
Homebush Boys’ High School
-
Rosebank College
-
Santa Sabina College
-
St Patrick’s College
-
Strathfield Girls High School
-
The letters were mailed on 25 November 2005.
-
(2) On 18 November 2005 the former Minister, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP, wrote to all Australian Government Members of the House of Representatives with names of prize winners in their electorates and the schools attended.
Consultancy Services
145
145
3007
145
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 9 February 2006:
Did the Minister’s department engage Chalgrove Projects Management Consultants at a cost of $33,000; if so, what services were obtained under the terms of this contract.
145
Brough, Mal, MP
2K6
Longman
LP
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs
1
Mr Brough
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) engaged, on behalf of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations, Chalgrove Project Management consultants for management consultancy services for statutory appointments made under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (the ACA Act). This arrangement transferred across to the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA) as a result of Machinery of Government changes on 27 January 2006
Consultancy Services
145
145
3008
145
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 9 February 2006:
Did the Minister’s department engage Lindsay J Roberts management consultants at a cost of $49,500; if so, what services were obtained under the terms of this contract.
145
Brough, Mal, MP
2K6
Longman
LP
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs
1
Mr Brough
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) engaged, on behalf of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations, Lindsay J Roberts management consultants for management consultancy services for statutory appointments made under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (the ACA Act). This arrangement transferred across to the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA) as a result of Machinery of Government changes on 27 January 2006.
Detention Health Strategy
145
145
3016
145
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 9 February 2006:
Further to the answer to question No. 588 (Hansard, 7 February 2006, page 74), when will the Detention Health Services Taskforce detention strategy be made public?
145
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
The Detention Health Strategy is now a public document and a copy is attached.
Future Detention Health Strategy
Why is a new Detention Health Strategy needed?
The reports of Mr Palmer into the Cornelia Rau matter, Mr Comrie into the Vivian Alvarez matter and the recent Ombudsman’s report on the case of Mr T, leveled a number of criticisms at the Department about how it related to people it came into contact regarding some enforcement provisions of the Migration Act 1958. Issues identified included the management of the mental health and wellbeing of people in immigration detention centres and in compliance activity. Following these reports the Australian Government has developed programs to improve health and mental health for people detained under the Migration Act 1958.
The delivery of appropriate and culturally responsive physical and psychological health services, including social support programs, is an essential component in the exercise of powers under the Migration Act 1958 to detain people who are suspected of being in Australia unlawfully. The observations of both Australian courts and recent inquiries into the operations of the Department, accepted in principle by the Australian Government, provide a clear mandate to significant improvements and change.
The need for a future Detention Health Strategy has arisen because of identified weaknesses in the current provision of health care for people in immigration detention and the need to improve:
-
The provision of mental health screening, access to specialist services, and knowledge and awareness of mental illness across a range of departmental staff and staff employed by the Detention Service Provider;
-
An understanding of procedures that address both the impact of mental illness on people in immigration detention and how they may relate to the Department;
-
Understanding the effect detention and other enforcement transactions by the Department has on the health and emotional well being of people in immigration detention;
-
Expanding the focus of health services from almost being exclusively focused on clinical care to paying attention to other aspects that impact on well being such as the environment, attitudes and practices of staff as well as psychosocial factors that people bring to their interactions; and
-
Separating the delivery of health services from being part of the security and enforcement arrangements for persons detained, so as to remove perceptions amongst external stakeholders that health care may be compromised.
As a result of consultations within the Department and with external stakeholders other issues have been identified that a future Detention Health Strategy should address. These include:
-
Providing a greater emphasis on documenting what are fair and reasonable practices, responsibilities, training and support services that should be available across a range of immigration detention situations so the Department meets its duty of care responsibilities. Detention health provisions do not currently cover all types of detention situations;
-
Having a more appropriate, efficient and less intrusive health assessment process. Health assessment processes that currently exist on entry/exit to detention are the same regardless of where, or how the client has become unlawful, or the circumstances of detention;
-
Using an ‘evidence based risk assessment approach’ to health assessments in regard to both what is considered, the frequency, purpose and circumstances of such assessments, and the need for an assessment;
-
Specifying the standard and level of health care a client should have access to across a range of detention settings and situations. This should encompass both an analysis of public health risk and an assessment of what is fair and reasonable and should reflect similar policies of provision and choice in the broader Australian community; and
-
Providing the broad spectrum of a health framework which is not only concerned with disease management but with influencing positively some of the known determinants of poor health outcomes. This should encompass a range of health considerations from promotion and prevention to rehabilitation and future care.
Future Health Strategy - Summary
In light of the Department’s duty of care responsibilities the future Detention Health Strategy will ensure people in immigration detention have access to health screening, physical examinations, primary and specialised care and emergency services. The future Detention Health Strategy will be based around the core principles of being open and accountable and will specify in the health assessment process the reasons for procedures and actions to be associated with findings; treatments that should always be available and those for which elective advice may be given; and how continuity of health care will be protected for people detained and when people leave detention.
Specific objectives of the Detention Health Strategy will be to:
-
Outline an appropriate and targeted health framework which sets strategies to ensure that both physical and mental health needs of people in all types of immigration detention are addressed across the spectrum of health promotion and prevention, early intervention, treatment and rehabilitation;
-
Develop a risk assessment approach to screening for disease symptoms across the various types of situations in which people are in immigration detention;
-
Provide care and management of physical and mental health problems in an individual context, taking into account health assessments and advice, cultural understanding of health needs, particularly past experiences of torture and/or trauma;
-
Provide people in immigration detention with a description of the range and standard of health care they can expect when detained;
-
Provide people in immigration detention with health services that are fair, reasonable, and commensurate with Australia’s international obligations and available to the Australian community;
-
Recognise the potential negative impacts on physical and psychosocial well-being of the detention event and of the uncertain outcome of visa applications;
-
Be based on a professional health and mental health service being separate from the Detention Services contract;
-
Be independently monitored and evaluated; and
-
Have a funding program that is transparent and appropriate to providing access to a defined standard of health and mental health services.
Funding
Year
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2008-09
$,000
$2,652
$2,049
$1,567
$1,586
Funding for the future Detention Health Strategy will support the Detention Health Branch and ensure that DIMA fulfils its responsibility to deal fairly and responsibly with all people detained under the Migration Act 1958, not just those in detention centres and includes a more appropriately targeted health program.
Novation of the health contracts will bring all payment and costing for the provision of health and mental health care under direct management of the Department. This will allow further work to take place to examine a variety of health funding mechanisms for small, but heterogenous populations in order that a more effective, transparent funding program can be established for the future detention health program.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation
148
148
3064
148
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 15 February 2006
For each financial year from 1996-1997 to 2004-2005, has the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) provided financial assistance to companies under the National Interest Account; if so, in respect of each grant of assistance (a) what was the name and postal address of the company, (b) what was the value of the assistance provided, (c) what form of assistance was provided, (d) to which country was the company exporting, (e) who were the counterparties, (f) on what date did the Minister direct EFIC to provide the assistance, (g) on what date did EFIC carry out the transaction, and (h) on what national interest grounds was it provide.
148
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr Vaile
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
to (g) Details of major transactions on the National Interest Account are published in EFIC's Annual Report. Certain particulars of all contracts entered into, and guarantees and loans given under the National Interest Account are published in the Government Notice Gazette in accordance with Section 30 (1) of the EFIC Act.
-
All facilities were provided in accordance with the EFIC Act. In particular, facilities were provided where there was sufficient trade or wider benefits to Australia. Under the EFIC Act, National Interest facilities may be provided under Ministerial Direction or Ministerial Approval. In some instances the Minister has directed EFIC to enter into facilities where transactions fell within parameters contained in the relevant Ministerial Direction. EFIC’s Unsecured Advance Payment and Performance Bond Facility, former Export Working Capital Guarantee Facility and a Credit Insurance facility provided during the late-1990s north Asian economic crisis were implemented in this way. Other facilities were the subject of individual Ministerial approvals.
Defence Highway Rest Program
148
148
3070
148
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 16 February 2006:
How many military bases participated in the “Defence Highway Rest Program” during the December 2005-January 2006 Christmas holiday period and how many personnel accessed that program at each of the bases which participated.
148
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
Mr Billson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
A total of 15 military bases participated in the “Defence Highway Rest Program” during the December 2005-January 2006 Christmas holiday period. A total of 100 serving personnel and 163 dependants accessed the program. The breakdown of personnel per base is:
Service Personnel
Dependants
HMAS Harman
5
0
HMAS Albatross
2
1
HMAS Stirling
0
0
Puckapunyal
0
0
Oakey Army Aviation Centre
0
0
Albury Wodonga Military Area
14
43
RAAF Base Amberley
3
0
RAAF Base Richmond
3
0
RAAF Base Edinburgh
0
0
RAAF Base Williamtown
23
49
RAAF Base Wagga
18
37
RAAF Base Townsville
7
4
RAAF Base Tindal
5
9
RAAF Base East Sale
8
5
CSI Rockhampton
12
15
Redundancy Payments
149
149
3110
149
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 27 January 2006:
-
What is the rationale for the restriction that recipients of redundancy payments have to be aged under 65 years of age.
-
Is his department currently reviewing the operation of this provision.
149
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Redundancy payments can be made to a person of any age. However, the taxation treatment of these payments varies depending on the recipient’s age and length of service, and whether the payment qualifies as a bona fide redundancy payment.
All lump sum payments made by employers upon termination of employment are eligible for concessional tax treatment, particularly if the recipient is aged 55 or over. Only five per cent of the pre-July 1983 component of a lump sum payment is subject to tax at a taxpayer’s marginal tax rate while the remainder of this component is tax free. The post-June 1983 component up to an individual’s relevant reasonable benefit limit (RBL) is taxed at a maximum rate of 30 per cent plus the Medicare levy. Where the recipient is aged 55 or over, the first $129,751 (in 2005-06) of the post-June 1983 component is taxed at a maximum rate of 15 per cent plus the Medicare levy.
Where such payments qualify as bona fide redundancy payments, they are eligible for additional concessional tax treatment. Specifically, in 2005-06 the first $6,491 plus $3,246 for each year of completed service is tax free.
Payments made by employers to individuals aged 65 or more do not qualify as bona fide redundancy payments. This treatment has applied since the provision was introduced in 1984 and reflects the fact that people aged 65 or over who are made redundant generally have ready access to other sources of income, such as the age pension.
-
On 9 May 2006, the Government announced a plan to remove the complex tax arrangements and restrictions that apply to people’s superannuation benefits. The proposals contained in A Plan to Simplify and Streamline Superannuation would simplify superannuation for retirees making it easier to understand, improve incentives to work and save, and provide greater flexibility over how superannuation savings can be drawn down in retirement.
The plan does not propose to change the taxation treatment for bona-fide redundancy payments, approved early retirement scheme payments, or unused leave.
However the plan does propose new arrangements for the taxing of employer eligible termination payments (ETPs). Under the plan it is proposed that employer ETPs would be comprised of two components. Firstly, the exempt component would be made up of any post-June 1994 invalidity amount and any pre-July 1983 amount. This component would be exempt from tax.
Secondly, the taxable component would be the post-June 1983 amount. This would be taxed at 15 per cent for amounts up to $140,000 for recipients aged 55 and over and at 30 per cent for those aged under 55. Amounts in excess of $140,000 would be taxed at the top marginal tax rate.
The Government will be consulting on the details of the plan until Wednesday, 9 August 2006.
Operation Wickenby
150
150
3120
150
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 27 February 2006:
-
Will he provide an update on Operation Wickenby.
-
What sum has been spent on investigating the $400 million that has been lost due to these schemes.
-
How did this fraud emerge and grow without the ATO becoming aware of it and taking action earlier.
-
How many prosecutions does the ATO expect to make and does the ATO intend to prosecute participants as well as the scheme’s promoters.
-
In respect of the phone taps that have been used by the Australian Crime Commission in relation to this case, (a) how many phones have been tapped and (b) have taxpayers’ phones been taped as well as those of the schemes organisers.
150
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
Mr Dutton
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The Government announced an allocation of $305 million over six years across five agencies in February 2006 to address the tax mischief identified under Operation Wickenby. There are now over 100 officers working on Operation Wickenby. It is expected that this will rise to 250 by September 2006.
At this stage, there are nine potentially criminal matters (involving 38 individuals) being investigated by the Australian Crime Commission.
The vast majority of cases are still being profiled prior to audit or investigation activity. Tax audits have commenced on a small number of cases.
There have been a number of court challenges to Australian Crime Commission processes. Overwhelmingly, these are being resolved in favour of the Commission, but they are causing some delays in the process of investigation.
-
The amount that has been spent by the ATO on Operation Wickenby up until the end of May 2006 is approximately $7.4 million. This is an estimate because costs associated with people working on Operation Wickenby in the early stages were not separately accounted for.
-
Operation Wickenby has its origin in action by the ATO in 2003. The ATO referred potential criminal activity in respect of suspicious tax haven transactions to the Australian Crime Commission (ACC). The ACC then commenced an investigation into money laundering and tax fraud under its Board-approved determination. Subsequent intelligence and information gathered by the Australian Crime Commission through the use of its coercive powers led to information identifying numerous promoters and participants, including a number of prominent Australians, who are allegedly utilising offshore services to avoid tax liabilities and commit fraud against the Australian taxation system.
-
The ATO is continuing to investigate, and gather evidence in relation to, the initial promoter of the arrangements that are at the centre of Operation Wickenby. The ATO in liaison with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and law enforcement agencies will determine which cases to prosecute in accordance with its prosecution policy and the prosecution policy of the Commonwealth.
-
The ATO does not undertake any phone tap activity.
Media Ownership
151
151
3159
151
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 1 March 2006:
-
Did the Minister see the report titled ‘Coonan’s law could halve media ownership’ in The Sydney Morning Herald on 27 February 2006.
-
In respect of that part of the report which said the Minister expected to have a month of community and industry consultation, can the Minister explain why the public will have only a month to consider and provide feedback to the Government about the proposed changes to Australia’s media ownership laws when the Government has been consulting with the major media companies for more than four years.
151
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGauran
—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
Yes.
-
On the 14 March 2006, the Government released a discussion paper on a range of media reform issues entitled Discussion Paper on Media Reform Options.
The discussion paper is another step in an ongoing process of consultation. The components of the package have been canvassed publicly over an extended period. On this basis, I consider that five weeks is an appropriate period of time for individuals and stakeholders to express their views on the contents of the discussion paper.
Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport
151
151
3165
151
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
Mr Albanese
asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 1 March 2006:
-
For each week of 2005, will he provide a list of the commercial aircraft movements between the hours of 5 am and 6 am at Sydney’s Kingsford-Smith Airport indicating for each movement its direction and whether it was a take-off or landing.
-
Will he explain how ICAO noise standards are monitored for commercial jet aircraft movements at Kingsford-Smith Airport.
-
Will he provide a list of commercial jet aircraft movements that did not meet ICAO standards.”
151
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr Truss
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
In relation to part (1) of the question, a list of the commercial jet aircraft movements between the hours of 5am and 6am at Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport is attached.
Parts (2) and (3) of the question relate to ICAO aircraft noise certification levels. ICAO noise certification is based on a type certification process that is laid down in Volume I of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention. Under this system once an aircraft type (eg B747-400, B737-800, etc) is noise certificated all aircraft of that type are deemed to meet the standard. Individual aircraft cannot be tested against the standard using in-service noise and flight path monitoring systems. Nevertheless, broad correlations between in-service and certification noise levels are to be expected.
ATTACHMENT
List of Commercial Jet Operations During the
Curfew Shoulder Period (5am to 6am)
Note: All aircraft are commercial jet aircraft.
Week
Aircraft Type
Operation
Runway
Day
1
2
GLF4
Departure
16R
Sunday, 09 January 2005
3
4
5
6
B463
D
16R
Wednesday, 02 February 2005
B461
D
16R
Friday, 04 February 2005
BE40
D
16R
Friday, 04 February 2005
7
WW24
D
16R
Thursday, 10 February 2005
8
GLF4
Arrival
34L
Wednesday, 16 February 2005
9
WW24
A
34L
Thursday, 24 February 2005
10
F900
A
34L
Wednesday, 02 March 2005
11
12
B461
A
34L
Thursday, 17 March 2005
B461
D
16R
Thursday, 17 March 2005
13
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 27 March 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 27 March 2005
14
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 29 March 2005
H25B
D
16R
Tuesday, 29 March 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 29 March 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 29 March 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 30 March 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 30 March 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 30 March 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 31 March 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 31 March 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 01 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 01 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 01 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 02 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 02 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 02 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 02 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 03 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 03 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 03 April 2005
15
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 05 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 05 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 05 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 06 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 06 April 2005
WW24
D
16R
Wednesday, 06 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 06 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 07 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 07 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 07 April 2005
B461
D
16R
Thursday, 07 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 07 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 08 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 08 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 09 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 09 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 09 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 09 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 10 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 10 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 10 April 2005
16
B744
A
34L
Monday, 11 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 11 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 11 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 11 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 12 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 12 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 12 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 13 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 13 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 13 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 14 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 14 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 14 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 14 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 15 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 15 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 16 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 16 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 16 April 2005
LJ35
A
16R
Saturday, 16 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 16 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 17 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 17 April 2005
GLF4
A
34L
Sunday, 17 April 2005
17
B744
A
34L
Monday, 18 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 18 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 18 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 18 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 19 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 19 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 19 April 2005
A345
A
16R
Tuesday, 19 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 20 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 20 April 2005
WW24
A
34L
Wednesday, 20 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 20 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 21 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 21 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 21 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 21 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 22 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 22 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 22 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 23 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 23 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 23 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 23 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 24 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 24 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 24 April 2005
18
B744
A
34L
Monday, 25 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 25 April 2005
A345
A
34L
Monday, 25 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 26 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 26 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 26 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 27 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 27 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 27 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 28 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 28 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 28 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 28 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 29 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 29 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 29 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 30 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 30 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 30 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 30 April 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 01 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 01 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 01 May 2005
19
B744
A
34L
Monday, 02 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 02 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 02 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 03 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 03 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 03 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 04 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 04 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 04 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 05 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 05 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 05 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 05 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 06 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 06 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 06 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 07 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 07 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 08 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 08 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 08 May 2005
20
B744
A
34L
Monday, 09 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 09 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 09 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 09 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 10 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 10 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 10 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 11 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 11 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 11 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 12 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 12 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 12 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 12 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 13 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 13 May 2005
B463
D
16R
Friday, 13 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 13 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 15 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 15 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 15 May 2005
21
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 17 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 18 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 18 May 2005
WW24
A
34L
Wednesday, 18 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 19 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 19 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 19 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 20 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 20 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 21 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 21 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 21 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 21 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 22 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 22 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 22 May 2005
22
B744
A
34L
Monday, 23 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 23 May 2005
B737
A
34R
Monday, 23 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 24 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 24 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 25 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 25 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 25 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 26 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 26 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 26 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 26 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 27 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 27 May 2005
WW24
A
34L
Friday, 27 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 27 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 28 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 28 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 28 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 28 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 29 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 29 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 29 May 2005
23
B744
A
34L
Monday, 30 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 30 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 30 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 30 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 31 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 31 May 2005
WW24
A
34L
Tuesday, 31 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 31 May 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 01 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 01 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 01 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 02 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 02 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 02 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 02 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 03 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 03 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 03 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 04 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 04 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 04 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 05 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 05 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 05 June 2005
24
B744
A
34L
Monday, 06 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 06 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 06 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 06 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 07 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 07 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 07 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 08 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 08 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 08 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 09 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 09 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 09 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 09 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 10 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 10 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 10 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 11 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 11 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 11 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 12 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 12 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 12 June 2005
WW24
D
25
Sunday, 12 June 2005
25
B744
A
34L
Monday, 13 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 13 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 13 June 2005
BE40
A
7
Monday, 13 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 14 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 14 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 14 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 15 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 15 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 15 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 16 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 16 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 16 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 16 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 17 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 17 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 17 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 18 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 18 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 18 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 18 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 19 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 19 June 2005
26
B744
A
34L
Monday, 20 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 20 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 20 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 20 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 21 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 21 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 21 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 22 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 22 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 22 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 23 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 23 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 23 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 23 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 25 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 25 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 25 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 25 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 26 June 2005
27
B744
A
34L
Monday, 27 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 27 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 27 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 27 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 28 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 28 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 28 June 2005
WW24
A
34L
Wednesday, 29 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 29 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 29 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 29 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 30 June 2005
LJ60
D
16R
Thursday, 30 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 30 June 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 01 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 01 July 2005
B461
D
16R
Friday, 01 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 01 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 02 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 02 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 02 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 02 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 03 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 03 July 2005
28
B744
A
34L
Monday, 04 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 04 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 04 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 04 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 05 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 05 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 05 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 06 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 06 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 06 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 07 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 07 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 07 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 07 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 08 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 08 July 2005
B463
D
16R
Friday, 08 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 08 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 09 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 09 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 09 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 09 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 10 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 10 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 10 July 2005
29
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 12 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 12 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 12 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 13 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 13 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 13 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 14 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 14 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 14 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 14 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 15 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 15 July 2005
WW24
A
34L
Saturday, 16 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 16 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 16 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 16 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 16 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 17 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 17 July 2005
30
B744
A
34L
Monday, 18 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 18 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 18 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 18 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 19 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 19 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 19 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 20 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 21 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 21 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 22 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 22 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 22 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 23 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 23 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 23 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 24 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 24 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 24 July 2005
31
B744
A
34L
Monday, 25 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 25 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 25 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 25 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 26 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 26 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 27 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 27 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 27 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 28 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 28 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 28 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 29 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 29 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 29 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 30 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 30 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 30 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 30 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 31 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 31 July 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 31 July 2005
32
B744
A
34L
Monday, 01 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 01 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 01 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 01 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 02 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 02 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 02 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 03 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 03 August 2005
B461
A
34L
Wednesday, 03 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 03 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 04 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 04 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 04 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 04 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 05 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 05 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 06 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 06 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 06 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 07 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 07 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 07 August 2005
33
B744
A
34L
Monday, 08 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 08 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 08 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 08 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 09 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 09 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 09 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 10 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 10 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 10 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 11 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 11 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 11 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 11 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 12 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 12 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 12 August 2005
WW24
D
16R
Saturday, 13 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 13 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 13 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 14 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 14 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 14 August 2005
34
B744
A
34L
Monday, 15 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 15 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 15 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 15 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 16 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 16 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 17 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 17 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 17 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 18 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 18 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 18 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 18 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 19 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 19 August 2005
LJ45
D
16R
Friday, 19 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 19 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 20 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 20 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 20 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 20 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 21 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 21 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 21 August 2005
35
B744
A
34L
Monday, 22 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 22 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 22 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 22 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 23 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 23 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 23 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 24 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 24 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 25 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 25 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 25 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 25 August 2005
C525
A
34L
Thursday, 25 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 26 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 26 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 26 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 27 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 27 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 27 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 28 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 28 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 28 August 2005
36
B744
A
34L
Monday, 29 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 29 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 29 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 29 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 30 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 30 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 30 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 31 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 31 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 31 August 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 01 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 01 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 01 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 01 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 02 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 02 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 02 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 03 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 03 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 03 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 03 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 04 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 04 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 04 September 2005
37
B744
A
34L
Monday, 05 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 05 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 05 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 05 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 06 September 2005
B738
A
34L
Tuesday, 06 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 06 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 06 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 07 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 07 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 07 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 08 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 08 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 08 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 08 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 09 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 09 September 2005
B463
A
34L
Friday, 09 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 09 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 10 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 10 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 10 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 10 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 11 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 11 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 11 September 2005
38
B744
A
34L
Monday, 12 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 12 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 12 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 12 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 13 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 13 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 13 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 14 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 14 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 14 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 15 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 15 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 15 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 15 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 16 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 16 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 16 September 2005
A345
A
16R
Friday, 16 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 17 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 17 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 17 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 17 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 18 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 18 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 18 September 2005
39
B744
A
34L
Monday, 19 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 19 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 19 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 19 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 20 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 20 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 21 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 21 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 22 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 22 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 22 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 22 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 23 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 23 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 23 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 24 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 24 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 24 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 24 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 25 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 25 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 25 September 2005
40
B744
A
34L
Monday, 26 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 26 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 26 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 26 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 28 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 28 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 28 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 29 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 29 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 29 September 2005
WW24
D
34L
Thursday, 29 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 30 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 30 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 30 September 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 01 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 01 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 01 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 01 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 02 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 02 October 2005
41
B744
A
34L
Monday, 03 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 03 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 03 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 03 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 04 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 04 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 05 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 05 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 05 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 06 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 07 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 07 October 2005
B461
D
16R
Friday, 07 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 07 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 08 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 08 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 08 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 08 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 09 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 09 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 09 October 2005
42
B744
A
34L
Monday, 10 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 10 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 10 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 10 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 11 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 11 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 11 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 12 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 12 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 13 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 13 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 13 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 13 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 14 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 14 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 14 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 15 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 15 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 15 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 15 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 16 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 16 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 16 October 2005
43
B744
A
34L
Monday, 17 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 17 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 17 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 17 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 19 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 19 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 19 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 20 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 20 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 20 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 21 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 21 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 21 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 22 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 22 October 2005
WW24
D
16R
Saturday, 22 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 22 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 23 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 23 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Sunday, 23 October 2005
CL60
A
34L
Sunday, 23 October 2005
44
B744
A
34L
Monday, 24 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 24 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 24 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Monday, 24 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 25 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 25 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Tuesday, 25 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 26 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 26 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Wednesday, 26 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 27 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 27 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Thursday, 27 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 28 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 28 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Friday, 28 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 29 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 29 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 29 October 2005
B744
A
34L
Saturday, 29 October 2005
45
46
B463
D
16R
Tuesday, 08 November 2005
LJ45
D
16R
Thursday, 10 November 2005
47
B461
A
34L
Tuesday, 15 November 2005
LJ45
D
16R
Thursday, 17 November 2005
48
LJ35
A
16R
Wednesday, 23 November 2005
C525
A
34L
Thursday, 24 November 2005
49
B461
D
16R
Tuesday, 29 November 2005
50
WW24
A
25
Monday, 05 December 2005
51
52
B461
D
16R
Tuesday, 20 December 2005
WW24
A
34L
Tuesday, 20 December 2005
WW24
A
34L
Wednesday, 21 December 2005
B463
A
34L
Thursday, 22 December 2005
B463
D
16R
Thursday, 22 December 2005
53
GLF4
D
16R
Monday, 26 December 2005