2006-10-17
41
1
7
REPS
0
0
2006-10-17
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers.
LONG SERVICE LEAVE (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
1
BILLS
R2639
Second Reading
1
Debate resumed from 11 October, on motion by Mr Andrews:
That this bill be now read a second time.
1
12:31:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Labor supports the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Amendment Bill 2006, which was introduced into the parliament last week, because, while Labor does not support the sale of Telstra, Labor does support protecting those employees who are at risk of being adversely affected by the sale. The purpose of the bill is to extend the operation of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act coverage of Telstra employees for three years from the date on which the Commonwealth ceases to have a controlling interest in Telstra. Telstra employees currently accrue long service leave entitlements—three months long service leave after 10 years of service—under the Commonwealth long service leave act. However, the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Act 2005, the transition act, overrides this—which means Telstra employees will stop accruing benefits under the long service leave act from the day the Commonwealth ceases to have a controlling interest in Telstra—and includes savings provisions for Telstra employee long service leave entitlements accrued up to that date.
The proposed amendments to the Commonwealth long service leave act would defer the operation of the substantive and savings provisions for three years after the day upon which the Commonwealth ceases to have a controlling interest in Telstra, to provide Telstra employees with some degree of certainty about their accrued and future long service leave entitlements. The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Act 2005 already protects preprivatisation long service leave entitlements accrued by Telstra employees. This bill does not affect that.
The intention of extending the coverage of Telstra employees under the long service leave act for a period of three years from the day when the Commonwealth ceases to have a controlling interest in Telstra is to provide certainty to Telstra and those employees who have not yet concluded alternative long service leave arrangements post privatisation. While Labor remains opposed to the sale of Telstra, this bill seeks to minimise any negative impact of the sale on Telstra employees, so far as long service leave entitlements are concerned, by providing a three-year transition period for employees and Telstra to come to alternative arrangements.
While ultimately the form of arrangement that Telstra and its employees decide upon is up to them, Labor would encourage Telstra to continue to offer employees long service leave entitlements at the existing levels once the transitional period has expired, unless Telstra employees agree otherwise. Telstra staff are currently employed either under a certified agreement, which expires in August 2008 and provides for long service leave at the Commonwealth LSL act rate, or under AWAs, which provide that long service leave will be paid in accordance with Telstra policy but cannot be lower than the relevant state-legislated minimum. The amendment will provide certainty to employees beyond the term of the existing certified agreement and, for those who are currently engaged under AWAs, their entitlements will not fall below current levels for the next three years.
Unfortunately, this approach is not replicated in the government’s approach to the superannuation entitlements of Telstra employees. The government has failed to guarantee, and continues to fail to guarantee, the rights of 1,800 Telstra employees who, as a result of the sale of the Commonwealth’s majority interest, can no longer be members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme—the CSS. On 7 September last year the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Minchin, the minister responsible for oversighting the sale of Telstra, explicitly said in respect of Telstra employees that ‘superannuation conditions would continue once the company was sold by the government’. But this misleading statement has been comprehensively exposed by the Telstra 3 prospectus, which at page 51 states:
Telstra employees who are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) will cease to be “eligible employees” for the purpose of the Superannuation Act 1976, and will no longer be entitled to contribute to the CSS.
This will have adverse financial consequences for many Telstra employees. There is of course precedent in this area. In 1992, the Department of Finance and Administration, Qantas and staff associations determined a solution to shield members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme from superannuation losses triggered by the Qantas sale and loss of active CSS membership. That solution was in two parts. The first part, the ‘delayed updated pensions’ option, or DUP, was added to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme subordinate legislation to cater for those with a shorter career but aged close to 55. The normal preservation option was available for longer serving members, as well as immediate withdrawal of a lump sum for CSS. The second part was in the form of a Qantas Superannuation Trust deed, which provided ongoing benefits for CSS members that broadly topped up the preserved or delayed CSS benefits to give the same pension benefits or lump sum benefits to staff as though CSS membership had continued until normal resignation, retirement or redundancy exit from Qantas.
Given this precedent, it should be no surprise to those listening that Labor was surprised to see that the government saw fit to extend long service leave protections to Telstra employees but has not sought to extend similar protections in the area of superannuation. In spite of its promise, the government has failed to protect the superannuation pension promise made to up to 1,800 Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme Telstra employees.
At the conclusion of my remarks, I will formally move a second reading amendment in the following terms:
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 and while welcoming the fact that the Government has extended long service leave protections to Telstra employees for a period of 3 years following the time that the Commonwealth ceases to have a controlling interest in Telstra, the House;
-
regrets the fact that the Government has offered no such protections to the up to 1800 existing Telstra employees who are currently members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) who will have that membership terminated as a result of the Telstra 3 privatisation;
-
considers the fact that the cessation of CSS membership will mean the Government’s pension promise made to Telstra CSS members will not be kept;
-
notes that no comparable provision has been made to ensure the pension promise is met, as occurred in the Qantas privatisation;
-
notes that no other compensation is provided for;
-
condemns the Government for its failure in this regard; and
-
calls on the Government to immediately rectify the position for these disadvantaged Telstra employees”.
That the government has neglected to provide protections for superannuation entitlements as it has done for long service leave entitlements should be unsurprising. This government’s handling of the Telstra privatisation is as inept and fumbled as it is wrong public policy. It should be unsurprising then that the government is clearly keen to move this legislation through the parliament as quickly as possible, having introduced it only on Wednesday of last week. There is, however, good reason for the government to seek to do so: every time there is a focus on Telstra this government is exposed. It is exposed here because on the one hand it has given Telstra employees certainty with their long service leave arrangements but on the other it has stripped certainty—money—from Telstra employees’ superannuation entitlements.
Labor opposed and continues to oppose the sale of the remaining parts of Telstra in Commonwealth hands. Labor has voted against the sale of Telstra on every occasion that the Howard government has tried to force it through the parliament. Labor promised the Australian public at the last three federal elections that it would oppose the sale of Telstra. The reasons Labor opposes the sale are well known. Labor believes that a fully privatised Telstra will inevitably increase prices, slash services and desert communities where a profit could not be made. Labor believes that a fully privatised Telstra would leave town faster than the banks. Labor believes that Telstra should be kept in public ownership to ensure that it invests in the telecommunications infrastructure needed by the Australian economy and needed to deliver new telecommunications services to Australian consumers.
In contrast to Labor’s position, the Howard government’s obsession with the privatisation of Telstra, which it has pursued since it was elected in 1996, has worked against our international competitiveness, particularly when it comes to broadband utility; against our national interest; against the interests of the Australian community; against the interests of rural and regional Australia; against the interests of Australians who live in the outer metropolitan areas of capital cities; against the interests of Telstra itself; and against the interests of Telstra shareholders. The government—and the Prime Minister—actively encouraged many small shareholders and investors to invest in the first privatisation and the second privatisation of Telstra. It actively encouraged them to purchase shares in Telstra, particularly in T2. And we saw what happened: investors lost money hand over fist, courtesy of the Prime Minister’s advice that the share offer was a very good deal and should be taken up. That advice has now come back to haunt the Prime Minister, so much so that he is now hiding from offering a similar view on the current Telstra sale.
Labor remains implacably opposed to the sale of Telstra. But we recognise that the current political reality means that we are now unable to do anything to prevent the sale from occurring. As a consequence, Labor considers this particular amendment to be a sensible move. As a consequence of that, we recognise that it is incumbent upon the House to ameliorate the worst impacts of that sale on Telstra employees. The most appropriate way of ensuring that is by providing certainty. That is what the bill seeks to do. I formally move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:
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 and while welcoming the fact that the Government has extended long service leave protections to Telstra employees for a period of 3 years following the time that the Commonwealth ceases to have a controlling interest in Telstra, the House;
-
regrets the fact that the Government has offered no such protections to the up to 1800 existing Telstra employees who are currently members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) who will have that membership terminated as a result of the Telstra 3 privatisation;
-
considers the fact that the cessation of CSS membership will mean the Government’s pension promise made to Telstra CSS members will not be kept;
-
notes that no comparable provision has been made to ensure the pension promise is met, as occurred in the Qantas privatisation;
-
notes that no other compensation is provided for;
-
condemns the Government for its failure in this regard; and
-
calls on the Government to immediately rectify the position for these disadvantaged Telstra employees”.
I commend the amendment and the bill to the House.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the amendment seconded?
4
12:42:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I formally second the amendment, Mr Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to support the comments of the shadow minister for industrial relations and member for Perth concerning the rights and entitlements of Telstra employees. In doing so, it is with some pleasure that I second his second reading amendment. I say that because the amendment focuses the House’s attention on the issues before the House this afternoon that go to the future entitlements and the working conditions of Telstra employees. As the member for Perth has informed the House, the opposition will support the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Amendment Bill 2006. But, while supporting the bill, I express some concerns as to the intention of the government towards the ongoing long service leave entitlements of Telstra employees, and this afternoon I intend to make some comments about the superannuation entitlements of Telstra employees.
Whenever the Howard government introduces legislation of this kind, it highlights, unfortunately, its inability to have a greater vision for Australia—and that is what is happening with this bill before the House. The passing of the bill will provide a transitional period of three years for Telstra employees to remain covered by the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act from the day on which the Commonwealth ceases to have a controlling interest. That is going to be a black day in Australia’s history, and we know that day is not far into the future. The government is well down the path of its $20 million advertising blitz to try to encourage, through radio and television, unsuspecting Australians to purchase Telstra shares. This advertising blitz coincided with the launch of the prospectus earlier this month.
We all appreciate that actually getting that prospectus together and finally making it available for public consumption was the outcome of a huge fight between the government and the Telstra board. Putting that aside, the bill today is about providing Telstra employees with some degree of certainty about their accrued and future long service leave entitlements. Hopefully it will minimise any negative impact of the sale of Telstra with respect to Telstra employees and their families. I simply say that bills such as this are very important. Workers give employers great support, and historically Telstra has been a well-respected Australian employer. People actually wanted to work for Telstra. The history of Telstra also shows that it was a good trainer. It was a terrific trainer of technicians and apprentices, with highly respected and recognised apprenticeship training opportunities around Australia. It is therefore only appropriate that, with the potential sale of Telstra and the walking away from its responsibilities by the Howard government, those loyal, longstanding employees are actually given some protection; and that is what this bill is about.
This bill appropriately allows Telstra time to arrange an alternative process. In saying this, I urge Telstra to continue, at a minimum, to offer employees long service leave entitlements at the existing levels once the transitional period has expired. There is no good reason why the existing Telstra employees’ long service leave entitlements should be reduced at some point in the future. I think that is appropriate, because one of the biggest problems in Australia at the moment, given the wages surge occurring in some sectors because of a huge shortage of skilled tradespeople, is trying to encourage workers to remain with a particular employer for an extended period of time. Decent superannuation and long service leave are part of a package to assist employers such as Telstra in retaining the loyal service of workers, who historically never thought about leaving. The truth is that, with the privatisation of Telstra and a change in culture, there is every reason to suspect that, at some point in the future, rather than being forced to take redundancies, some of these workers may choose to leave because they do not see the same sense of loyalty that previously existed at a Telstra management level and at a government level—when it was clearly a government mentality.
With respect to the rights of the Telstra employees, I simply say that the three-year transitional period appears adequate. It reportedly has the support of Telstra and its workforce. It will not change the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Act 2005, which protects preprivatisation long service leave entitlements accrued by Telstra employees. That act also provides for a three-year transitional period. Telstra staff are currently employed either under a certified agreement or an AWA, both of which provide for long service leave. Today’s amendment will provide much-needed certainty for employees on both arrangements, beyond the term of the existing certified agreement and for those who are currently engaged on AWAs. It will ensure that their entitlements will not fall below current levels for the next three years—an interim solution. That is a good and fair outcome for workers in the immediate future. It reflects the fact that this is a sensible bill, a bill that will provide some consolation for the employees of Telstra, who face much uncertainty in their short- and long-term future thanks to the Howard government’s absolute obsession with privatisation.
Labor continues to oppose the government’s sale of Telstra, and in doing so echoes the sentiments of many Australians across the nation, especially those in rural, remote and regional Australia. I also express some concerns with this bill as I believe it highlights the government’s short-sightedness. We would not be standing here today debating this bill if the Howard government recognised the fact that Australians want to continue to own Telstra. We are all shareholders at the moment. That is the truth of it: we are all, as Australians, shareholders in Telstra at the moment and there is no good reason to actually change that share ownership provision as it currently exists in government hands. The problem is that the Howard government wants to see Telstra no longer in government ownership—no longer with a public focus. Without good reason, it is consumed with full privatisation. For good reason, the Australian community see Telstra not as a privatisation opportunity but rather in the same way as the Labor Party does—that is, an essential building block for the future of Australia. I say that because nearly all Australians depend on the Telstra network in one way or another, whether it be for business, industry, health, education or simply as a resident.
The fact that the government treats the sale of Telstra as a political plaything is a disgrace. Its sale is, first and foremost, in the Liberal Party’s interest, not in the interest of the Australian people, and that is not good enough. This is an outfit worth billions that should be used to position Australia for the future. It will be worth an estimated $8 billion if the float goes ahead as the government has planned, but the reality is that it would be worth so much more if we used it strategically to position Australia for the future. It is an outfit the world would love to have as it currently exists in Australia. It is the key to our competitive position as a nation in the future, not just in the telecommunications industry but in many industries which depend on reliable telecommunications services being provided to Australian consumers and businesspeople at a reasonable cost. It is about making sure that we invest in our future with respect to broadband improvement to guarantee that we are able to secure our economic prosperity in the decades ahead.
Anyone who reads the papers or watches the news on television understands why Telstra needs to be retained in public ownership. It is a critical component of our economy that underpins industries across the board. Its privatisation provides no guarantees for its future or sensible management in the nation’s best interest. We are already unfortunately seeing the effects of the looming sale. Only in July this year the media reported that the telco was to slash up to 12,000 jobs nationally over five years, with New South Wales to feel the brunt of the cull. The job losses continue a sliding trend. According to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Telstra currently employs about 40,000 workers, a figure that has been on a downturn over the last 10 years. That has coincided with a decade of government under Prime Minister Howard.
The fact is that this government has only ever had one telecommunications policy in 10 years of government, and that is selling Telstra—the full privatisation of Telstra, step by step. A lot of ordinary mums and dads and small shareholders are now suffering as a result of the previous sale of Telstra in shares. The fact that the Prime Minister spruiked what a good investment the shares were at the time means they are now suffering the impact of a dud investment encouraged by the Prime Minister. The result has been a slow-down, as a result of government action, in investment in both the infrastructure and the skills base that Australia needs to provide advanced communications services.
Historically the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and their instrumentalities were actually at the forefront of apprenticeship training in Australia. The full sale of Telstra effectively is a further step down the track. The result is that the Commonwealth will make no direct contribution towards apprenticeship training to any government department or instrumentality in the years to come. The biggest losers in that context—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I would ask the member to link his remarks to the bill.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Obviously I raise these issues because they go to the entitlements of workers and apprentices. In days gone by, a young person left school, went to work for Telstra as a 16-, 17- or 18-year-old and spent the rest of their working life there because it was a good, secure job with decent entitlements, such as long service leave and superannuation. That is the crux of the debate this afternoon.
It goes to the issue that, 10 years ago, in June 1996, Telstra alone employed 76,522 full-time people entitled to these long service leave entitlements. Optus employed another 4,000. Total industry employment with access to decent long service leave entitlements was 85,000 to 90,000. However, the figures now reveal that there are only approximately 67,750 people employed in the telecommunications industry—a loss of around 20,000 jobs. It is a trend that the government have foisted on the Australian community and it is significant given the government’s frequency in touting that they are responsible for employment growth whilst they themselves downsize—and in doing so seek to create an opportunity to reduce workers’ long service leave entitlements over time. Looking at these figures, the question needs to be asked: where is the growth in telecommunications employment?
There is no growth, only a loss of jobs through the casualisation of the workforce, often without long service leave entitlements, and the export offshore of labour intensive jobs to cheaper call centres. Is this what we want to become of one of our most important nation-building tools: to be manipulated according to political will, with jobs sacrificed to meet privatisation demands and short-term horizons? Can the country and the industries that underpin our economy afford a further deterioration of the network, further job cuts, loss of workers’ entitlements and a further running down of our infrastructure base, which is the key to our economic future? I simply say the answer is no. It would be a step backwards for working Australians. It is a backward step for Telstra. It is a backward step for the quality of telecommunication services across the nation.
The government has said that the job losses are regrettable. The Prime Minister has come out and said that he would ‘like to try to guarantee job security for Telstra workers once the company is sold but cannot’. It would have resolved issues on the long service entitlements of these workers if he could have given an ironclad guarantee. I believe the government has only itself to blame. The call centre closures and job cuts are a response to continuing market pressures for cost reductions which are in turn a consequence of privatisation. It is the government’s policies that have brought the job losses about, and the issue has been returned squarely to its door. Yes, Telstra’s recent $3 billion profit will add to the shine of the sale, but it is a profit that has been bought through a shedding of staff and it cannot continue forever. Obviously this bill is about potentially creating an opportunity in the future to reduce costs by reducing long service leave entitlements after the three-year transitional period. These cuts are unsustainable and, I believe, not worth it if the true cost of privatisation is Australian jobs.
The pressures of privatisation are likely to leave the telco operating on a shoestring budget with respect to staff. This week in the media, Telstra came under fire from the tourism industry on workers’ entitlements after confirming that it had introduced a holiday ban in the lead-up to Christmas for some staff in certain divisions. While it is not clear which sections will be affected by the ban, Telstra has forced certain staff to suspend annual leave until Christmas. This is an important issue. It is at a time when the domestic tourism industry continues to slump. This is hardly a move that acts in the nation’s best interest and it begs the question: would company policy be different if the telco were in full public ownership?
I raise these issues because a recent survey by the tourism industry, which is dependent on an efficient telecommunications industry, revealed that Australians had accrued 70 million annual leave days owing to them, at an estimated worth of around $11 billion to the economy. The federal government tourism body has even been forced to launch a campaign trying to convince companies to get employees to take a break—using long service leave, as currently provided, to do so—as an opportunity to assist the Australian tourism industry. This is an important matter, because it is about seeking leadership from large companies such as Telstra to set the example and get their staff to take a holiday or long service leave to enhance their health and to maintain their capacity to do the job for Telstra.
It is a commonly understood fact that well-rested employees contribute far more and have higher productivity levels if they can take a rejuvenating break in the form of annual leave or long service leave. Taking a holiday should not be just seen as an optional extra. Long service leave is not an optional extra. It has historically played an important role in developing an acceptable overall package of employment conditions in addition to a salary for Australian workers. It is a vital part of our wellbeing as a nation. It is a vital part of what is required by families to survive in a very stressful world. It is a vital part of securing our future.
In conclusion, can I say that my concerns go one step further. I raised my concern about the bill’s short-sightedness. My concern applies not only to the sale of the telco but to the government’s failure to also protect the superannuation pension promise made to up to 1,800 Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme Telstra employees. Perhaps the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations would like to comment on this issue in his response this afternoon. Their membership of the Superannuation Scheme will be terminated as a result of Telstra’s full privatisation and it is an unfair act in what is increasingly becoming an unfair workplace. It is another promise broken by the government—and a cruel one at that, with no compensation provided for these workers.
I stand with my colleagues in condemning the government for its failure in this regard, especially as no comparable provision has been made to ensure the pension promise is delivered, as was the case with the full privatisation of Qantas. I also support the second reading amendment, moved by the member for Perth, condemning the government for its failure to guarantee the rights of Telstra workers who are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. As we all appreciate, when we have these responsibilities to make some changes—putting aside whether they are the right changes with respect to the sale of Telstra—we must have regard to the entitlements of workers and their families. Long service leave is important, but just as important is the right of workers to retire with some dignity. These workers joined the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme in good faith. They expected to see out their working life as full members of the scheme with appropriate entitlements.
The failure of the Howard government to provide in a similar way to which a Labor government provided for the entitlements of Qantas workers when Qantas was privatised just shows the unhealthy attitude of the Howard government to the needs and aspirations of Australian workers and their families. I commend the second reading amendment to the House and simply say to the Howard government: it is about time you started to think more about not only the rights of workers and their families with respect to long service leave entitlements and guarantees into the future but also the existing superannuation entitlements of some Telstra employees. I commend the second reading amendment to the House.
8
13:02:00
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
0
Mr ANDREWS
—I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate, and I shall not delay the House with a lengthy summing-up. Telstra employees currently accrue long service leave entitlements under the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976. Long service leave entitlements accrued up to the date that the Commonwealth ceases to have a controlling interest in Telstra are already protected by the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Act 2005. Telstra has requested that they be allowed to remain under the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act provisions for a further three years and the government has agreed to meet the request; hence this bill.
In relation to the in-principle amendment, moved by the honourable member for Perth, the Minister for Finance and Administration has previously announced that the government would not be maintaining Commonwealth Superannuation Act coverage of Telstra employees after Telstra is sold. As Minister Minchin advised the Senate on 11 October 2006:
The Commonwealth is clearly entirely within its rights—as was the then Labor government—to stop membership of the CSS. Once the company is in majority private hands, that responsibility should no longer fall on taxpayers but on the new owners of the business.
The Australian government has already paid out in full its liabilities to Telstra Super to the tune of $3.125 billion. When the Australian government majority ownership of Telstra ceases, superannuation arrangements for Telstra employees will be a matter for Telstra and its workforce.
Finally, in closing, the previous speaker, the honourable member for Batman, was talking about job losses in Australia. Can I remind him and the House that, in the last 10 years, 1.9 million new jobs have been created in Australia. Indeed, in the last six months, 205,000 jobs have been created, 184,000 of which are full-time jobs. I commend the bill to the House.
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth has moved an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question put.
13:09:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins)
79
AYES
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Downer, A.J.G.
Draper, P.
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.
Hunt, G.A.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Katter, R.C.
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.
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.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
55
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
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.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
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.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Question agreed to.
Third Reading
10
Mr ANDREWS
(Menzies
—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service)
13:15:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DIGITAL TELEVISION) BILL 2006
10
BILLS
R2634
Cognate bill:
BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT (MEDIA OWNERSHIP) BILL 2006
10
BILLS
R2635
Second Reading
10
Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Hunt:
That this bill be now read a second time.
10
13:16:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
1
0
Mr TUCKEY
—Great coincidences occur from time to time. In his presentation last night, the member for Lowe was really concerned that the legislation relevant to media ownership, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006, was going to immediately facilitate a massive Packer-Murdoch monopoly across the media, and there was some suggestion that every journalist so employed would knuckle their foreheads. When I spoke previously on this legislation, I pointed out that I thought that the Packer interests were more interested, for a start, in getting out of media than getting into it, because their new business direction seems to be in overseas casinos. It is amazing that, when we picked up the Financial Review this morning, we found that that is exactly what the Packer group are going to do. They are putting up half of their media properties for sale, for a very substantial amount of money, and, what is more, it is more than likely that the purchasers will be private equity people who, as we know, are very focused on business and not on influencing the country in any way. I also pointed out that the Murdoch enterprises have a few difficulties to resolve in the United States and may or may not be major participants in purchasing further media assets in Australia anyway.
So the first thing we have to understand in this business world regards the suggestion that people sit at home, as they might have once, seeking to buy media assets for the power that might apply. They have a much tougher and more business oriented approach to these things these days. I think those predictions—made quite genuinely by the member for Lowe—are unlikely to materialise. However, I have a point of agreement with him, and I am not sure if he was expounding Labor Party policy at the time: I cannot see why, in making these decisions, we continue to limit the number of commercial television stations from which people can provide a service. If spectrum is available for them to transmit their signal, I cannot see any reason why they cannot start in business. I would hope and I would think that there is not much chance that they would just regurgitate other variations of Neighbours, Desperate Housewives or whatever—notwithstanding that I presume they broadcast these things because the community wants to watch them. I would hope that there would be some true diversity in the type of programming that other media licensees might provide.
Of course, outside of the issues of spectrum, radio media is much less regulated, particularly with regard to numbers. We see new players coming in and we see overseas investors coming in, bringing new technologies and new formats, some of which have been responded to very sincerely and significantly by the listening audiences of Australia, and it really starts to smarten up other providers. Many of them do not have shock jocks and do not interfere with driving around the place, as I do, while listening to the radio. I start with ABC NewsRadio to make sure that I find out what we did yesterday, after which I go to a station in Perth that just provides music—pop music of a few years gone by—and I enjoy listening to that as I drive along; it allows me to not have to think too much. All of those options are here already. ‘The end of the world will occur tomorrow’ type arguments that will be raised in this debate have no standing.
I also made the point that I think it is a bit of an insult to the journalism profession to suggest that it will always be the media proprietor who dictates their policies. I think that a free press resides within the principles of journalism. I am aware of that sometimes in complaining about the journalistic policy, for instance, of the West Australian newspaper, more when it fails by default to put what I think are important issues into its pages. My correspondence with the board always gets the same answer: ‘That’s none of our business. We run the business, but we’re not interested particularly in what the journalists say, provided they stay within the laws of defamation et cetera.’
I might add, as an example, that I provided a press release to the West Australian newspaper in response to the Premier of Western Australia, who wanted to tell all natural gas development companies who wish to liquefy the gas and export it—because that is the most profitable marketplace—that he wants to keep 20 per cent for Western Australia. That has not been well received. I think he has now come back to 15 per cent. But if he were to promote the tides of the Kimberleys as a source of electrical generation, that would reduce by 10 per cent the amount of gas being consumed by these companies as energy to liquefy the gas they sell to foreign purchasers. It takes 100,000 tonnes of gas to produce one million tonnes of liquid gas. That electricity could be provided by a renewable resource of huge magnitude in the vicinity of these gas deposits—namely, the tides of the Kimberleys. That was treated with absolute contempt by the West Australian. They did not think that was a matter that anybody would want to read about—yet, when you see some of their front page stories, you wonder who would want to read some of the things they put there.
That is not going to change because of this legislation. That is the choice of journalists. They make the judgements as to what is interesting to the community. I think sometimes in the present environment they let people down in not challenging them on these debates. I think there is still a principle in journalism that, as long as you can get two people to say the opposite thing, you have a story. I think that some of those other matters that seem so logical are ignored accordingly.
One of these bills also provides for some improvements to the digital service. It is going to create two new digital channels which will be open for competition, I understand, from both the free-to-air providers and others. My plea is that they do not just become another means of distributing soap operas and things of that nature. There is a desperate need in my electorate for data on the world price of rural commodities, for example. I think that should be the sort of information that goes on some of these new channels. There are many other examples. There are people significantly interested in what is going on in the Stock Exchange and things of that nature. Let us hope that, when people bid for these particular new channels, those who make the final decision look at the content as well as the bid price.
I am encouraged, by the way, because I became deeply concerned that through our party room some changes not recommended by the minister were made which imposed local content provisions on all rural and regional radio stations. Some, of course, in the pursuit of customers and advertisers, do exactly that today because it attracts a listening audience. But when others, for instance, as I am advised, operate as a remote station in a network simply because their advertising revenue is $50,000 or $60,000 per annum, they clearly cannot meet the sorts of costs involved—which may be even up to $300,000—to employ journalists and others at each locality.
In fact, after we took this decision, the Macquarie Radio Network announced that they would probably close about nine regional stations. One of them is in Esperance, in the electorate of Kalgoorlie, which I have represented in the past. That was originally a radio station owned by the local people. I think I bought some shares in it at the time just to see if they got the money to get it off the ground. Katanning is in my electorate. Narrogin, Merredin and Northam are also typical. I think Merredin is in the Kalgoorlie electorate and the others are in the Pearce electorate.
Anyway, I can inform the House that there was a further amendment passed in the Senate which says that, whilst that provision applies in general, there is now a review process that allows ACMA to make some decisions about whether or not local content, to the extent recommended in the legislation, is feasible for those stations. Clearly it is not. We cannot ask people to provide a service that is in excess of their available revenue. That revenue is restricted by the businesses within the listening area. On the other hand, they value the service as much as those people who listen to them because they want the opportunity to promote their goods and services. I think we have a reasonable balance there. I was quite concerned about it. I have not experienced the difficulties that some others described in having those sorts of stations operating within my electorate.
There is generally a great improvement in this legislation in terms of media ownership. It makes it available to overseas interests. This is a global economy. In a global economy, money flows all over the place. We as Australians are investing all over the world in people’s tollways and other infrastructure programs. Australians can go and buy shares on overseas stock markets. That is all really a great improvement. I would reject any suggestion that there are negatives in this legislation. (Time expired)
13
13:29:00
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
0
0
Mr CREAN
—I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 because I have a very strong view that media diversity in a democracy is essential to that democracy’s functioning. The problem with the media ownership bill is that it lessens diversity and allows a much greater concentration of media ownership. It will result in fewer outlets and fewer media players. It will be a disaster for diversity. And it is particularly bad for regional Australia.
All countries have to deal with this issue of media diversity, because the media is not just another market for goods and services. It is also a market for ideas, for values and for culture. It is about defining us and it is about strengthening us as a democracy. We know that the media has the power to form opinions. But the truth is that, if you restrict the outlets and concentrate the ownership, you dry up the sources of those ideas and values. Diversity of media is therefore a public good, and it requires public interest tests and protections.
Labor have long understood this. We have been the champions for media diversity; we remain the only champions in this parliament. Labor are the only party to ever establish rules and policies to ensure diversity in the protection of the public interest. Our commitment to the ABC, to SBS and to community broadcasting has been strong, consistent, generous and innovative. In 1987, Labor introduced cross-media rules to prevent owners of print media also owning the electronic media. The famous expression at the time was that they could choose to be either a prince of print or a queen of the screen. This is not a policy whose time has come, yet the bill, with little debate in the parliament, abolishes the cross-media rules. It is true that the proliferation of technology and platforms means that we need to adjust our media laws, but not in a way that dilutes diversity. Labor are opposed to this bill. The cross-media laws should be retained, and we also need to strengthen other avenues to promote media diversity.
The other areas of action that I believe are required include, firstly, the introduction of a public interest test to apply to media mergers under the new laws, with the capacity for divestiture as a sanction if need be; secondly, the utilisation of both a strengthened Australian Communications and Media Authority, otherwise known as ACMA, and a strengthened Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to ensure that the public interest test is met; thirdly, the encouragement of new entrants through incentives, if necessary, to enter the field; fourthly, recognition of the fundamental role telecommunications policy plays in driving diversity in our media; and, fifthly, the essential requirement to, in turn, connect the whole of the nation to fast, affordable broadband access over the internet.
On the question of the public interest test, I believe that a strengthened public interest test is essential. This was a recommendation of the Productivity Commission in its report into broadcasting back in 2000. I note that over the weekend the current Chairman of the ACCC, Graeme Samuel, said that observers had ‘underestimated the impact of section 50’ of the Trade Practices Act in, essentially, safeguarding democracy and diversity. I welcome his optimism. The trouble is, I do not share it. I believe that Mr Samuel will have a huge task ahead of him assessing future mergers, given the greater capacity for more concentration. It is not only Labor that does not share his optimism—neither do the Productivity Commission. In 2000, in the report I have referred to, they found:
... the Trade Practices Act as it stands would be unable to prevent many cross media mergers or acquisitions which may reduce diversity.
The fact is the Trade Practices Act is equipped to deal only with threats to competition due to the concentration of market power. It is, if you like, an economic test. It does not have the capacity to deal with threats to our democracy and culture through the concentration of media ownership. Nor does the ACCC have the powers to preserve or enhance diversity in media content or media ownership. These are the powers which are deficient in the ACCC; it should be given those powers. Also, with the advent of media convergence, the ACCC must focus on the concentration of content rather than on looking solely at the mediums—that is, it must focus on the content, which is news, sport or music, not just the mediums by which that content is conveyed.
But this is not the only concern in responding to the media diversity question. The Productivity Commission recommended a public interest test be inserted into the Trade Practices Act to encourage competition in and entry into an increasingly convergent environment. Under that test, significant media acquisitions or mergers would not be permitted unless it could be demonstrated that the merger or acquisition was not contrary to the public interest. It would be a test that adequately addressed the public interest in promoting diversity of ownership and diversity in sources of opinion and information. Each case would be required to involve public consultation and would therefore reach out to the community and find out what their desires and needs are for media diversity.
The Productivity Commission also saw a role for the relevant communications authority in this process. At the time, the Australian Communications and Media Authority did not exist. It resulted from a merger of the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Communications Authority. But the Productivity Commission, in recommending the public interest test, recommended that the precursor of ACMA, which was then the Australian Broadcasting Authority, should be consulted by the ACCC in considering media mergers. We believe, given ACMA’s role as the independent broadcast regulator, that it should be consulted by the ACCC in applying the new public interest test. Indeed, the inquiry into media ownership by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts strongly supported that role for ACMA of enforcing an enhanced public interest test and giving ACMA ‘stronger powers to enforce by way of injunction or divestiture orders, breaches of the provisions aimed at greater diversity’. That was what the Senate committee, including government members, recommended as part of its majority recommendations.
But there is a question as to the sanctions that ACMA or the ACCC have. At the moment, the ACCC already has many powers—including divestiture—to enforce decisions, including the power to reject proposed mergers. The problem with the TPA is that the government has not acted on the recommendations of the Dawson report and the Senate Standing Committee on Economics which found several deficiencies in the legislation back in 2004, most noticeably that the ACCC does not have the power to use the divestiture power in cases of abuse of market power—they are section 46 abuses under the act—or for ‘creeping acquisitions’. Divestiture is a sanction, but it is not a sanction for identified and proven abuses of market power. Labor believe it should be. We recognise that divestiture is a severe power, but, if we believe in the importance and value of diversity and are committed to ensuring it for the sake of democracy, we should ensure that there is an instrument in place to protect that diversity.
Divestiture is a power, I remind the House, that is available in other circumstances—a power which in its exercise does not expose the government to compensation claims. For example, it does not expose the government to compensation for section 50 breaches which relate to mergers. In the case of the Trade Practices Commission v Gillette, the courts exercised divestiture powers under section 81A for media mergers, but there was no compensation required. In my view, the question of divestiture does require some further legal advice, but it could prove an important mechanism for ensuring greater diversity, and if it does we should pursue it.
We recognise that there would need to be a code of compliance for business to ensure that they are aware of their obligations under the act. This too was supported by Labor senators in the majority report of the Senate committee inquiry. Labor have consistently called for the granting of power of divestiture of assets in cases of repeated abuse of market power. This has been so particularly since the Dawson report. The government has not embraced the recommendation, even though its own representatives on the Senate inquiry supported it.
I turn to the question of supporting and enhancing new platforms. I believe that new entrants must be encouraged and supported in both traditional and new media platforms. The digital age offers huge potential for advanced diversity in our media choices, but it should not be compromised by simply allowing the existing players to also compete for the new opportunities. Under the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill, the minister has the decision-making power to grant digital television licences. Previously this was a power that rested with the regulatory authority. The switch to the minister is bad policy. It opens up the possibility that the minister will be lobbied by the main media conglomerates, who pander to vested interests. The power to grant the digital television licences must be retained, in our view, by the independent regulator, ACMA.
But the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts involved herself in this debate in another backflip. It relates to the question of who can bid. Back in July, the minister was quite clear: existing players cannot bid for the digital television channel B licence. But that has now been reversed. Why has this decision been taken? What is the rationale for awarding it to the highest bidder and closing it to new entrants? What is the rationale for creating a new barrier to entry for new entrants? There was no explanation by the minister, and I would hope that her representative, in the summing-up of this legislation, will give us the benefit of that rationale. We believe it is bad policy; it should not be persisted with.
Given the circumstances in the Senate, we forced the government to ensure an access regime under the new spectrum, but this can only be described as a second-best option. If this is the case for more concentrated power, it will strangle diversity, it will strangle choice, it will strangle local news and it will strangle the dissemination of information—and that is a huge problem for the nation and a particular problem for regional Australia.
Back in 2000, the Productivity Commission recommended that regulatory barriers that prevent new entrants be removed and that the increased spectrum available be essentially for new broadcasters. The spirit of that recommendation has not been carried out in this legislation. It would create a more competitive atmosphere for Australian media and enable many more players to emerge and enhance the pool of possible owners with media experience.
The other problem in this legislation is that there is nothing in it to drive the early switch-over to digital. If that does not happen and the spectrum stays on analog, there will not be the opportunity for new spectrum for a new licence entrant. This bill is terribly deficient in many ways, not only in relation to the scrapping of the cross-media laws. If it is necessary we may need to consider new incentives for new players emerging in media markets. It may require particular attention in the regions, where I believe diversity is most threatened.
In a country of our size and diversity, the need for local news and information such as weather, stock prices, events and road conditions is essential—it is the local news. Concentrated media ownership threatens diversity and localism particularly severely in regional Australia. Localism has already decreased through aggregation policies and the creation of larger markets for commercial television and the consolidation of regional radio.
The National Party have not saved the day for media diversity and choice in regional Australia, nor have they effectively protected local content. They have again sold out their constituency. Despite the member for Hinkler’s strong interest in this as an advocate for diversity, he buckled at the last minute. Only Senator Joyce was prepared to be courageous enough to vote against the bill within the National Party.
The amendments that have been put forward will not and cannot prevent a massive concentration of regional media markets. There are currently up to seven independent media owners in each regional media market. Under the new laws, this could be reduced by more than a third to just four under the five-four voices test. For example, it would see a fall from seven to four in Cairns, Mackay, Nambour and Newcastle. The number of owners would fall from six to four in Ballarat, Bundaberg and Murwillumbah amongst other places, and from five to four in Grafton, Bendigo, Lismore and Tamworth. Nor will the two out of three ownership rule protect diversity in regional markets because it allows just one of those four remaining voices to dominate. The other three could be quite insignificant voices because the government determines what a voice is, not the community. The fact remains that a media company that is allowed to own a newspaper and a television station in local markets will exert an extraordinary degree of influence on regional markets.
The five-four voices test pays lip-service to protecting regional diversity. The government has not asked the people in regional Australia if four voices are acceptable to them and if they will meet their requirements. As I said before, the test gives no weighting to the relative influence of the media. It fails to guarantee that the five-four test, the local content rules, will also be enforced. It is now emerging from the industry that there is no guarantee that the government’s local content requirements on regional licences will be implemented once the government has finished a yearlong inquiry—convenient, isn’t it: an inquiry into how we implement the local content rules that reports after the next election. You have heard it all before in terms of broken and core promises. That is what the National Party have signed up to.
The ABC maintains local content and local news in radio but it is continually up against funding constraints. Likewise, SBS is restricted by funding allocation. The encouragement of community and local networks is important and we want to see encouragement of that, and in particular local content rules, become important. This could include community radio, use of online local message sharing and ensuring local government has resources through local libraries. Communities and localism are essential ingredients.
So diversity of opinion, ideas and variety of information are fundamental to our democratic principles. We need to strengthen other avenues to promote media diversity. It is vital for our social and cultural development as a nation. This bill is a disaster for media diversity in this country. Not only should the cross-media rules be retained; we need to strengthen those other avenues of activity, in particular the introduction of an enforceable public interest test to ensure that the damage that this government is doing in terms of protecting our diversity does not proceed. (Time expired)
17
13:50:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
1
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—I rise this afternoon to comment on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and cognate bill. Firstly, as members of the House and representatives of our constituency, we talk about the needs of our electorate. I want to outline some of the ways that people in my electorate see media ownership and also talk about the media outlets that are in my electorate of Maranoa. My electorate covers something like 50 per cent of the land mass of Queensland. It is an electorate that stretches from the outback of Queensland to the inner Darling Downs. There is nowhere within my electorate where there are any more than two voices in any one of those markets—in other words, if there is a newspaper in a town, the only other option for media service is the local radio. I want to talk about those issues in my contribution.
It is important that we acknowledge that in some parts of Australia the need for media ownership change in capital cities and the large provincial areas will differ from that in rural electorates like mine. There is not one centre in my electorate where we meet the minimum number of voices, and that is just a feature of the market that has been there for generations.
The only media owners with outlets in my electorate are in either newspapers or radio. Television comes via satellite in the west of my electorate through Seven Central or Imparja, which are sourced out of Alice Springs, so it is an entirely different market. Quite often people complain to me that the fact that their television is coming from Alice Springs, which covers the central part of Australia, means they certainly know what is going on in Darwin, they know what is going on in Ceduna, halfway across the Nullarbor Plain, but they have very little news content about things that are happening in western Queensland in my electorate of Maranoa. That is just a feature of the geography and the obvious difficulty in servicing very small markets. Those television services, Seven Central and Imparja, are certainly valuable and do provide some diversity in programs, although not so much in the area of news that is relevant to these communities.
I want to talk about the fact that no one size fits all. It is particularly pertinent to my electorate. I have concerns for the small radio stations of 4VL in Charleville and 4ZR in the town of Roma in relation to the minimum content for live and local and 12½ minutes of local news each day. I have spoken extensively to the journalists and owners at these two stations and they are already basically complying with that sort of provision in their own markets. They do so because they know that if they have local news and are broadcasting live and local content—sometimes it may be from down the street, or it may be from the local show, or it may be from the local football match on a Sunday—local businesses will be prepared to advertise in that market. They know that if they are not broadcasting live and local content they will not get the support of the business community for advertising. So it really is a market that works, and these owners know best how to meet that market as it exists in their communities. Radio 4VL in Charleville, a town of about 3,000 people, broadcasts to a wide area but to a very, very small market indeed. When it comes to the commercial side of that market, the owners tell me—and I understand completely—that trying to raise advertising revenue in a town like Charleville as opposed to Brisbane is like chalk and cheese; there is no comparison. The live and local and local content that they report out there is often all about the nature of roads. Whether it is in dry times or in flood times, local rainfall is always of interest to anyone in a rural community. They broadcast daily where the Royal Flying Doctor Service might be flying for the day and the clinics that will be held. That is local content and it is of local interest, and that is what is important in those markets.
I have spoken to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts about the bill and I obviously have had concerns about the implications of this bill for those small media markets where we do not even meet the minimum number of voices in those communities. They work well today, and I share the concerns of the proprietors of those two small radio stations which are vital to the community and which have become institutions in those communities. I can reflect back many years to when the local radio station of 4ZR used to broadcast live from the local debutante ball on a Saturday evening. That is the way they have held their market and you will never find that sort of live and local broadcast from a provincial city or from a capital city. So it really is horses for courses and it is a reflection of what the community needs and what the community is interested in.
Having spoken with the minister’s office, there will be a review of the live and local content—and I know that it is an amendment that we as a party and as a coalition have sought and which has been agreed to—and ACMA will do that review. I support that and it is one of the conditions that I wanted to ensure was in the bill before it had my support. I want to see ACMA come out into those rural communities—into those Charlevilles, Longreaches, Romas and the back of Bourke—to take some of their evidence as they do this inquiry. It is no good their going to the large provincial cities, the capital cities, to do that review. They must go to these communities to gain an understanding of the market and listen to the local people so that when they complete the review and bring forward their recommendations they will know whether some modifications to the elements of this bill relating to the 4½ hours of local content need to be put in place—which the minister can do by way of a disallowable instrument in the Senate.
In supporting this bill I recognise that the changes that are going to be made are, on balance, good—it is a good bill. I do have concerns as to the implications for live and local radio in these small rural markets. I certainly accept that the minister is committed to ensuring that the review, with ACMA taking evidence and having to complete the review by 30 June next year, will be able to recognise where there might be difficulties or where these local radio stations might find it impossible to comply without breaking the bank. ACMA will talk to the proprietors, talk to the journalists and talk to the local people so that they get an understanding of the difficulties that the 4½ hours of live and local content might place on the economic viability of these radio stations in my electorate.
I am looking forward to the inquiry and I certainly will be making sure that I am around in those towns when ACMA comes to town, because I know it is a very live issue for the communities out there. It means a great deal to a local community to have a local radio station that is prepared to give that vital community information—local news that is relevant to us in our local communities. Local radio has been an institution in many of these communities, and I want to ensure when the bill is passed that the review takes place. I will certainly make sure that the views of my community are known to ACMA.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being almost 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
19
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
19
14:00:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Health and Ageing will be absent from question time today. He is in Brisbane for Exercise Cumpston. The Minister for Education, Science and Training will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs will be absent from question time today. He is officially opening the War Widows Guild national biannual conference in Tweed Heads. The Minister for Defence will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
19
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Small Business Interest Rate Relief Program
19
19
14:00:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that under the 2002 Small Business Interest Rate Relief Program the government promised to deliver $70 million to 14,000 struggling regional businesses? Is it not the case that the program only delivered $1.1 million to 182 applicants? Is the reason the program has been axed that it cost $790,000 to deliver $1.1 million in grant money?
19
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Deputy Prime Minister
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. One thing that our government is all about is helping small business. My understanding of that program is that it was demand driven, but I will check the statistics because we never take as a given the statistics quoted by the Leader of the Opposition or other members of the Labor Party. I will check those statistics and come back to him.
Workplace Relations
19
19
14:02:00
Thompson, Cameron, MP
84C
Blair
LP
1
Mr CAMERON THOMPSON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House how Australian workplaces are using choice to make arrangements which best suit their needs? Is the Prime Minister aware of proposals which would roll back this choice?
19
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—As I said in answer to a question without notice I was asked yesterday, choice is a golden thread that runs through the policies of the Liberal and National parties. It is not a golden thread that runs through either the policies or the practices of the Australian Labor Party, as we were reminded of in such an absurd fashion in South Australia at the weekend. Let me say in answer to the member for Blair that under Work Choices there is enormous choice available to Australian employers and employees. Let me illustrate this: since Work Choices began, over 400,000 people, in a little over six months, have entered into Work Choices agreements. Some of them are AWAs, some of them are non-union collective agreements and some of them are union collective agreements.
I regrettably have to inform the House that, if Labor were to win the next election, that choice would disappear. There would be two hammer blows struck against choice by a Labor government. The first is that, under Labor’s compulsory union collective bargaining policy, the choice for people to stand out and have AWAs would disappear.
Opposition members interjecting—
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—There are laughs from the frontbench of the opposition. Are they seriously disputing that it is the policy of the Labor Party to abolish Australian workplace agreements? It is the central pillar of the Australian Labor Party’s assault on the choice that now exists in the Australian workplace.
Above the compulsory union collective bargaining policy, if Labor are elected, they will also allow so-called union bargaining fees. This is where unions can insert clauses into collective agreements which force all non-union members to pay for the privilege of being covered by that agreement. This is compulsory unionism by stealth, and, if the Labor Party pretend that they are not in favour of this, let me remind them that prior to 30 June last year the government tried on numerous occasions, by presenting legislation to the parliament, to outlaw the imposition of bargaining fees, and that legislation was defeated by the then opposition majority in the Senate.
It is only since 30 June last year and the passage of Work Choices that we have been able to get off the statute books of this country any possibility of the introduction of bargaining fees. So, on two counts—the imposition of Labor’s policy of compulsory union collective bargaining and the introduction of union bargaining fees, which is compulsory unionism by stealth—you would see a marked reduction in choice available in Australian workplaces.
Let me end by saying this: it is the policy of the coalition that every Australian has the right to join a union without penalty or recrimination, and every Australian should have the right not to join a union without penalty or discrimination. We saw at the weekend the failure of Labor to enforce that principle. It showed that, if Labor wins, choice in the workplace will go, compulsory unionism will be back and Greg Combet’s dream of unions once again running Australia will become a reality for him and a nightmare for the nation.
Oil for Food Program
20
20
14:06:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party. Did the New South Wales branch of The Nationals put forward the following motion at the national federal conference on the weekend:
That this federal conference of The Nationals requests that, in the climate arising from the ongoing Cole inquiry into the AWB—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question is quite out of order. That is nothing to do with the public responsibility of the minister concerned. I ask that you rule it out of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I say in response to the member for Mackellar that I am listening closely to the member for Griffith. He would be aware that requests on party matters as such are not in order, but I will listen to his question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The motion put at The Nationals federal conference at the weekend was:
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the standing orders there is no way that can be in order. None of that question has anything to do with the public responsibility of the minister concerned.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I note the point of order made by the member for Mackellar. As I have already indicated to her, I am listening carefully. I have indicated already to the member for Griffith that the first part of his question appears to be out of order, but I am waiting to hear the rest of his question.
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr Southcott
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to page 538 of House of Representatives Practice, which says specifically:
There is a whole raft of precedents to support that. I put it to you that the preamble of this question is out of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Boothby will resume his seat. I have already ruled on a similar point of order. I have called the member for Griffith and I am listening carefully to his question.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion deals with matters that we have been discussing in this parliament for the best part of a year. It goes to the terms of reference relating to the Cole commission. If this is out of order then this parliament has no role.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have ruled on this point. I am listening carefully to the member for Griffith’s question and I have indicated to him that I expect that he will get to his question. I ask the member for Griffith to come to his question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The end of the motion was:
... the Australian federal government be asked to openly and vigorously investigate allegations of misconduct by persons representing or effectively representing the Australian people.
Minister, why was this motion pulled from your federal conference?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! That question is out of order.
Birthrate
21
21
14:09:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
1
Mr KEENAN
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the standing orders, which define those matters for which ministers are responsible, the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for previous statements he has made concerning the Cole inquiry.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Griffith will resume his seat. I have ruled his question out of order and I have called the member for Stirling.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—You are seeking to gag this parliament.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Griffith will resume his seat or I will deal with him. The member for Stirling has the call.
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr KEENAN
—Would the Treasurer inform the House of the latest ABS statistics on—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last week in this House you allowed questions to the Deputy Prime Minister—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—What is the point of order?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I am raising a point of order as to your ruling that question out of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler is not making a point of order.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Last week you allowed questions to the Deputy Prime Minister about these very matters.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler is debating an issue.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—On what basis have you ruled the question out of order?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler would be well aware that questions need to be linked to statements that were made in the House, not to party matters.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Member for Grayndler, I have ruled on this point of order.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—On the point of order—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I have to be allowed to make a point of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat or I will deal with him.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—So you can’t make a point of order?
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How can it be in order for the Prime Minister to be asked a question about a Labor Party conference and not in order for the National Party to be asked a question about a National Party conference?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I remind the member for Fraser that if he wishes to ask questions of the Speaker he should do so after question time.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the matter with which you are dealing. I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that there are two ways in which this question is in order. One is in accordance with your very own precedent in this place on 29 May 2006, when you ruled a question to the National Party leader—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume her seat. I have ruled on this matter and I am calling the next question. I call the member for Stirling.
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr KEENAN
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the latest ABS statistics on fertility? What measures has the government put in place to assist families—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Firstly, I point out that my point of order is made under standing order 86, which gives me a right to raise a point of order. That is the first point I want to make.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler will get straight to his point of order.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Then, on the substance of the point of order, I refer you to page 163 of House of Representatives Practice, which points out, on the issue ‘Impartiality of the Chair’, that it is important there is consistency in your rulings—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have ruled on this point of order. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat or I will deal with him.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler is warned! I call the member for Stirling.
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr KEENAN
—Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the latest ABS statistics on fertility? What measures has the government put in place to assist families with children?
UK6
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Member for Wills!
UK6
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Wills is warned!
23
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. The Australian Bureau of Statistics today released its publication on births in 2005 and reported that the number of births registered was 259,791—a 2.2 per cent increase over 2004 and the highest level since 1993. The publication also disclosed the total fertility rate, the number of live births per female over their reproductive life. The total fertility rate in 2005 was 1.81, up from 1.77 in 2004 and up from the long-term low of 1.73 in 2001. This means that Australia is one of the few countries in the world that has managed to increase its total fertility rate in recent decades. The fertility rate went into long-term decline in 1961, falling from 3.55 to a low of 1.73. Now it has recovered to 1.81. Australia compares favourably with countries such as Spain, Italy, Greece, Germany and Japan, which have total fertility rates of 1.3. Our total fertility rate is slightly higher than that of the United Kingdom but lower than that of the United States, which is at 2.0.
Although that is welcome, the fact of the matter is that unless the total fertility rate is 2.1 we are still below replacement level. Because we are below replacement level, the ageing of the population continues. The proportion of those of retirement age compared with those of working age continues to grow. But, as I said earlier, the good news is that Australia’s total fertility rate has increased and we are one of the few countries in the Western world that has managed to do that. That occurred in calendar year 2005, precisely seven months after the May 2004 budget. That budget introduced the maternity payment, which is a payment now of $4,000 on the birth of each child, and it is warmly welcomed by parents around Australia. In addition, in July 2004 the government increased the rates of family benefits, we provided additional childcare places and subsequently we announced the introduction of the childcare rebate. It was during that budget that Australians were urged to have ‘one for mum, one for dad and one for the country’, and it appears that some Australians have taken up the challenge.
I should also say that one of the things that was introduced as part of the More Help for Families package back in 2004 was an annual payment of $600 in family allowance to each child in respect of every year. Even today, every family that qualifies for family allowance on an annual basis is eligible for $600 per child. For two children a family get $1,200 and for three children they get $1,800. What is more, that is real money. It is money that goes into the bank, it is money that comes out of the bank, it is money that can buy goods and services and it is money the Australian Labor Party tried to abolish. Few will forget when, during the 2004 election, the member for Lilley—Mr Gilligan over there—ran around Australia claiming that abolishing the $600 payment would not matter, because it was not real money. This is real money, alright, and the families of Australia know it to be the case.
Australian Wheat Board
24
24
14:18:00
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
WU5
Corio
ALP
0
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister confirm that, under the present law, wheat growers transfer the ownership of their grain to AWB at the time it is delivered to the company? Can he confirm that AWB charges growers a total of $65 million for selling the wheat, irrespective of the price AWB pays to growers? Can he confirm that, because of the drought, each grower who delivers to AWB will be faced with an increased share of the $65 million bill? Can the minister confirm the statement on Saturday by the Minister for Trade that the government will not act to relieve this burden on growers in the middle of the worst drought in a century?
24
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGAURAN
—I thank the honourable member for his question. With respect to the last part of his question, I will not take at face value his statement regarding my colleague’s own comments. I have met with Western Australian wheat growers as well as their representatives. I have conveyed their views strongly to the new Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Wheat Board, Gordon Davis. He is considering the matters and is fully cognisant of the fact that he must win the confidence and support of Western Australian wheat growers to maintain the national pool.
Farms
24
24
14:20:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
1
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister explain to the House the importance for electorates like my electorate of Maranoa of the government’s support for farmers and for rural communities across Australia during this drought? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any other views?
24
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the member for Maranoa for his question and recognise that a significant proportion of his electorate has been drought declared and has also been receiving assistance from the federal government because of that circumstance. It is critically important at this time that all of Australia, through the federal government, stand by Australia’s farming community. The announcement that was made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in terms of the rollover of exceptional circumstances has been widely welcomed because it will give comfort to those farming families across regional Australia who are suffering at the moment from almost the driest and hottest drought that we have had in the history of records being kept in Australia. As the Prime Minister has made very clear, we will continue to support these families and communities.
The member asked if there were other views. Unfortunately there have been a few views expressed, with regard to the viability of farmers across Australia, that the government should not be propping up unviable farmers. The government does not prop up unviable farmers. What we have announced is assistance for exceptional circumstances, and that is exactly what it is: assistance for exceptional circumstances. These people cannot help that it has not rained.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner interjecting—
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr VAILE
—We have people like the executive director—
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Melbourne!
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr VAILE
—of the left-wing organisation the Australia Institute—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Melbourne is warned!
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr VAILE
—running around and saying that we should not be supporting the farming community in their time of need, which is just outrageous. To support that, the facts are very clear. The OECD indicates that agricultural support from governments across some of the major agricultural producers is very low in Australia. Listen to these figures on government support for agriculture, the income at the farm from government. In Japan it is 56 per cent, in the European Union it is 32 per cent, in the United States it is 16 per cent and in Australia it is five per cent. We do not prop up unviable farmers in Australia. Australia’s farmers are very competitive and they are facing dire circumstances.
In an article in the Australian today Mr George Davis of southern Victoria, a grain grower, says that his drought relief payment ‘is the difference between eating and not eating’. That is not propping up an unviable business; that is helping a family survive this drought. I think it is outrageous when you have someone like Dr Hamilton from the left-wing Australia Institute making comments in the media like, ‘By repeatedly bailing out farmers through drought relief, which is erroneously called exceptional circumstances relief, we are only making the problem worse.’ I would invite Dr Hamilton to go and talk to some of the families suffering in areas of exceptional circumstance from drought through no fault of their own and to say that this is erroneous support that we are giving the farmers of Australia. Australia’s farmers are amongst the most efficient and competitive in the world, given decent climatic circumstances, and it goes without saying that we will continue to support them.
It is interesting to look at who else is on the board of the Australia Institute, which holds this view about Australia’s farmers, because Dr Hamilton was speaking on behalf of the Australia Institute. Of course, none other than the President of the ACTU, Sharan Burrow, sits on the board of the institute. So maybe the next thing we are going to hear is not just comments about unviable farmers. We are going to hear them say, ‘They shouldn’t be in farming unless they hold a union ticket.’
Oil for Food Program
25
25
14:25:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question again is to the Deputy Prime Minister and relates to his most recent statements, including on 15 October this year, on the Cole inquiry—statements which he has made since leaving the trade portfolio. Did the New South Wales branch of The Nationals put forward the following motion at The Nationals federal conference on the weekend that—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 98(c) specifically says:
A Minister can only be questioned on the following matters, for which he or she is responsible or officially connected:
-
public affairs;
-
administration; or
-
proceedings pending in the House.
The question is quite out of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I am listening carefully to the member for Griffith. I call the member for Griffith.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Did they put forward the motion:
That this federal conference of The Nationals requests that, in the climate arising from the ongoing Cole inquiry into the AWB, the Australian federal government be asked to openly and vigorously investigate allegations of misconduct by persons representing or effectively representing the Australian people.
Given that statements the minister has made in defence of the Cole inquiry as a transparent process have been made as recently as 15 October, in the period since he left the trade portfolio, will the minister explain how those statements are compatible with the decision to have this motion pulled at the National Party conference?
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That question being asked by the member opposite is the same as the one you have already ruled out of order. I ask you to rule it out again.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have been listening carefully to the member for Griffith. His question is in order as it was linked to statements made by the minister.
26
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr VAILE
—I am pleased that the member for Griffith is taking such interest in the democratic processes of the National Party of Australia and the conference that we held in full view of the Australian media in Canberra last weekend. On the substantive issue that the member for Griffith raises, there were a range of motions about Australian wheat growers, the Australian grain industry and export industry. The motion was not pulled. They were consolidated and there was a great debate about the overall issue of the management of the Australian wheat industry and the future of Australian wheat growers. The most important point to make out of this is that the only reason the member for Griffith has the information to ask the question—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Griffith is warned!
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr VAILE
—is that we let the media come into our conference and report everything that was debated, unlike the Australian Labor Party in Adelaide, which forced Old Skip to go and do his media conference in the car park.
Drought
26
26
14:28:00
Schultz, Alby, MP
83Q
Hume
LP
1
Mr SCHULTZ
—My very constructive question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister advise the House of the government’s assistance to drought-affected farmers, including in my electorate of Hume?
26
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGAURAN
—I thank the honourable member for Hume for his question. He is a strong advocate for farmers in his electorate, and we deal on an almost daily basis on agriculture and drought issues. So he was very buoyed by the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday that all eligible producers in exceptional circumstances declared areas in his electorate—including Young, Yass, Braidwood and Goulburn—will be able to access much-needed support for at least another 18 months. This was part of the government’s first instalment of additional measures in response to the increasingly devastating drought.
Farmers battling drought in 18 exceptional circumstances declared areas will receive an additional $350 million in drought support. This will bring the government’s commitment to date, as of today, to the current drought to $1½ billion. The assistance will be extended to all eligible producers, be they pastoralists, irrigators, dairy farmers or horticulturalists, in each of the regions until 31 March 2008. This is a very significant policy announcement by the government—the importance of which is not lost upon anybody in the rural community. The areas that we extended yesterday were coming to the end of their declarations, and there remain approximately another 38 regions which the government will be examining shortly.
I remind the House of the important role that farmers play in our local, state and national economies. Despite the severe drought of the last six years, Australian farmers have achieved record levels of production. Their exports account for a quarter of our export earnings and more than 350,000 Australians are directly employed in agriculture. Farming underpins a great many rural communities which would be lost to Australia without the farming income. On top of that, a great many small businesses service the farming sector. So by government, on behalf of the taxpayer and the wider community, supporting farmers we are also supporting those small businesses to the greatest extent possible through this drought. Also bear in mind that farmers have stewardship of 60 per cent of Australia’s landmass and, therefore, they play a very important role.
I make these obvious points to those critics who believe that drought assistance is not warranted. On economic and environmental grounds—let alone social grounds—it is vitally important. For that reason, our government will support farmers who make that vital contribution and we will continue to do so into the future.
Mining
27
27
14:31:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
Mr WINDSOR
—My question is to the Prime Minister and relates to BHP Billiton’s feasibility study into mining a 500 million tonne coal deposit on the Liverpool Plains west of Werris Creek. Is the Prime Minister aware that not only does the area proposed include some of the best black soils in the world but also mining could involve damage to precious groundwater aquifers which are part of an interlinked groundwater system in the Murray-Darling Basin? Prime Minister, given that there is virtually no research in Australia or globally into mining in the high water bearing gravels and, as your parliamentary secretary has indicated recently, there is little knowledge of the linkages between groundwater and surface water systems and that this mine could be the forerunner of many in the Murray-Darling groundwater system, would you give due consideration to supporting an application for funding to the National Water Initiative being made by catchment groups for an objective, independent assessment of mining in water bearing gravels?
27
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I will not pretend, in answer to the member for New England, to be across all the details of this; I am not. I will take the question on notice and make some inquiries. I will consider what the member has put. We are interested in mining and we are also interested in understanding the impact of mining on aquifers and water systems—and certainly those that are linked to the Murray-Darling system, which is so important to eastern Australia and in relation to which there has been too little progress made over a long period of time. I will take the question on notice and get back to the member for New England as soon as I can.
Iraq
27
27
14:33:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
Mr SLIPPER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on Australia’s policy in relation to Iraq and our contribution to building democracy there? Is the minister aware of any criticism of Australia’s policy?
27
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr DOWNER
—Firstly, I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest. The Australian Defence Force has a deployment at the request of the Iraqi government, along with other international forces, of about 1,400, who have been transferring responsibility as time has gone on to the Iraqis in Al Muthanna province. In the process, they have been training up Iraqi forces and they have been helping, in Dhi Qar province, to provide security for the Iraqis. We also have the Navy involved, heading a coalition naval force of 10 ships, including the Royal Australian Naval vessel, Warramunga, which are protecting oil platforms. We have committed over $173 million to help with rehabilitation, reconstruction, elections, the Iraqi Special Tribunal and establishing electricity and water systems.
This is a country with millions of people who risked their lives to vote for a democratically elected government. It wants coalition forces to remain for the time being, and we are staying there and helping them for the time being. We on this side of the House are proud of what we do. Are there any criticisms? Yes; the Labor Party, in particular, is the chief critic of the government on this issue and argues that the more appropriate course of action would be to surrender. On this side of the House we do not warm to the notion of surrender or hauling up the white flag. One of the reasons that we are not in favour of surrender is that we believe it would only enhance the terrorist movement internationally, including in our own region. The Labor Party likes to quote from the American National Intelligence Estimate global terrorism report. I will also quote from it. That report said:
... perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
I think that pretty much sums it up.
On ABC radio this morning, the member for Griffith admitted, ‘Jihadists flow into that country’—being Iraq—‘from all directions.’ The interviewer asked the member for Griffith not once, not twice—I cannot keep going on—but eight times on AM this morning what the consequences would be if international forces just fled from Iraq, and the member for Griffith refused to answer that question eight times. Eight times he refused to answer a simple question about what the consequences would be of the Leader of the Opposition’s cut-and-run policy in Iraq. Of course, when the Leader of the Opposition was on the Jon Faine program, it was exactly the same story. Quizzed on that program about how quickly he would pull the troops out, the Leader of the Opposition said that he would discuss that with the Americans and went on to say: ‘How long is it going to take you’—that is, the Americans—‘to put in people to replace us?’
In other words, the Leader of the Opposition’s proposition is that this great country would pull out its forces and ask others to do the job for us. We would go to our ally, the Americans, in the morally bankrupt way that the Leader of the Opposition proposes and say to the Americans, ‘Find someone else to do this job. We are too weak to continue with it.’ Not in the history of this country have we been governed by people as weak as that and this government would never do that sort of thing. The fact is that the Labor Party has the view that it is onto a winner with its cut-and-run policy from Iraq. But it cannot answer the question and it will not answer the question: what are the consequences in the war against terrorism? What are the consequences for international security and what are the consequences for the people of Iraq of the Labor Party’s weak and gutless policy?
Iraq
28
28
14:38:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and it goes to the basis of his abusive answers in this place which he persistently delivers. I refer the minister to previous statements on Iraq in this place and his arrogant and extreme remarks on his government’s decision to take Australia to war. Aren’t the minister’s remarks all about compensating for his guilty conscience on Iraq: guilty of taking Australia to the wrong war, guilty of making Australians a bigger target for terrorists, guilty of constantly shifting the goalposts on our troops and guilty of turning a blind eye while Australian money bought bullets fired on our troops?
Opposition members—Guilty!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I say to the Leader of the Opposition that to accuse a minister of guilt requires a substantive motion. I will allow him to rephrase his question if he wishes to ask the question again.
29
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr DOWNER
—I am quite happy to answer the question. The Labor Party says, ‘Guilty!’ Indeed! Guilty of standing up for the free people of Iraq, guilty of getting rid of Saddam Hussein’s evil regime—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have allowed the minister to answer the question. He will be heard.
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—As I was saying, I am guilty of standing up for the people of Iraq, the people who had the courage to go and vote in those elections and the people who had the courage to put in place a democratic government. Yes, I am a guilty man standing up for those people.
Opposition members interjecting—
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—I am guilty of helping to get rid of Saddam Hussein’s evil regime. I am guilty of that. A man who started a war with his neighbours and killed a million people in that war, a man who slaughtered the Shia majority—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The level of interjections is far too high. The minister will be heard.
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—The Labor Party is guilty. The Labor Party is guilty of being weak. The Labor Party is guilty of pursuing a policy which would lead to a victory for terrorists. The Labor Party is guilty of wanting to keep in place Saddam Hussein’s regime.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will you ask Saddam’s biggest bagman to return to the question?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Griffith has already been warned. That was not a point of order. He will excuse himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—Finally, the Leader of the Opposition is guilty of grossly misleading this House yesterday when he said that the government had lied about weapons of mass destruction. Yet he himself said on 7 February 2003:
No foreign office or defence department official anywhere on the globe entertains the view that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction.
The Leader of the Opposition—if ever there were somebody guilty—is guilty of misleading this House.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Lilley!
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—And his greatest failing of all—
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Lilley is warned!
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—is that he is a weak man.
Workplace Relations
29
29
14:43:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
1
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister advise the House how workplace reform is ensuring the Australian economy stays strong and is the minister aware of any threats to our economy?
29
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 Casey for his question. I note that the unemployment rate in Casey stands at 4.2 per cent; 4.2 per cent is very good news for the people who live in Croydon, Lilydale and the other suburbs that the member for Casey so well represents in this place. Indeed I can also inform him that, since the introduction of Work Choices on 27 March, we have seen the creation of 205,000 jobs in Australia and significantly 184,000 of those jobs are full-time jobs for Australians. Also in the last six months we have seen some other interesting developments—for example, the signing in Adelaide of the one millionth Australian workplace agreement and more than 2,000 employee and union collective agreements entered into.
What this does is contradict, with factual data, the false and misleading claim that the Leader of the Opposition makes that Australians cannot enter into a collective agreement. Two thousand collective agreements have been entered into. What this illustrates once again is what this government believes, and that is that Australian employers and employees should have choice in relation to their industrial arrangements in the workplace. This stands in stark contrast to what the Leader of the Opposition has reconfirmed as one of the central planks of the ALP’s workplace relations policy on the weekend: the no ticket, no start part of that policy. Indeed, one of the ALP stalwarts—in fact, one of the new ALP presidents—Mike Rann, the Premier of South Australia, was supporting the ban on non-union journalists from reporting on the Australian Labor Party conference. This is what Mr Rann said—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I am listening carefully to the minister. I believe he is in order.
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr ANDREWS
—Obviously, the member for Grayndler does not want this heard. As I recall, he was one of those at the doorstop who had not heard and feigned ignorance about this yesterday. Can I tell him what Mr Rann said? I am sure he would like to hear what an ALP president says.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I remind the member for Grayndler that I have just ruled on a point of order.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I go to the point of order, under standing order 86. Under standing order 104, in what way is this minister responsible for Premier Mike Rann?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I will make two comments to the member for Grayndler. Firstly, if he wishes to ask the Speaker questions, he will do so at the end of question time. Secondly, the minister was asked about workplace reform and the minister is in order.
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr ANDREWS
—When Mr Rann was asked about this ban on non-union members of the media reporting on the ALP conference in Adelaide, Mr Rann said: ‘If you join a union, you’ll be allowed in.’ That is a closed shop. It is illegal now, but this is a harbinger of what we would expect to see if the ALP were elected to government in Australia. It is equally weak of the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. All the Leader of the Opposition could say about this ridiculous ban was: ‘We stand shoulder to shoulder with the union movement in our struggle for industrial relations.’ The Leader of the Opposition said about Mr Rann on Sunday: ‘If the future has a face, it’s Mike’s.’ If this is the face of the future, heaven help the economy of Australia! This is a return to the closed shop; a return to no ticket, no start; a return to compulsory unionism in Australia. Indeed, if Mr Rann and the Leader of the Opposition get their way, then the only choice for employees and workers in Australia will be: ‘Join a union if you want to get a job’—and that is absolutely no choice for Australian workers. It is very simple: a future under Mr Rann and under this weak Leader of the Opposition is a future in which there is no choice.
Terrorism
31
31
14:48:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It relates to the $300 million kickback that his ministry and he turned a blind eye to and its relationship to terrorism. Given Australia’s anti-terrorist-financing laws, has the foreign minister asked the governments of Israel and Jordan to investigate whether the money paid by AWB into Saddam Hussein’s bank account at the Rafidain Bank in Amman was used by the Iraqi dictator to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?
31
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr DOWNER
—I will tell the House one thing—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will be heard.
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—From March 2003, Saddam Hussein was not paying any money into any account anywhere. Saddam Hussein was overthrown and there was no risk after March 2003 of Saddam Hussein funding terrorists.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The opposition wants to know if money that this government allowed—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If the Leader of the Opposition is raising a point of order, he will come to his point of order.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—to go across to Saddam Hussein was paid to the family of suicide bombers.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise a point of order, he will come to his point of order.
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—Since March 2003, Saddam Hussein has paid no money to terrorists, and he has not paid money to terrorists—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—What about before that?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Lalor!
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—because Saddam Hussein’s regime was overthrown and, subsequently, towards the end of 2003, he was arrested.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. The question asked whether the minister had asked two governments to investigate.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister is answering the substance of the question.
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—I do not need to ask any government whether getting rid of Saddam Hussein stopped Saddam Hussein funding terrorism, because it did. But I do know that if the Leader of the Opposition’s policy had remained in place Saddam Hussein would still be funding terrorism, and you would have that on your conscience.
84G
Wilkie, Kim, MP
Mr Wilkie interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Swan is warned!
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Members are holding up their own question time.
31
Pacific Relations
31
14:51:00
Washer, Dr Mal, MP
84F
Moore
LP
1
Dr WASHER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister advise the House on Australia’s approach to improving governance in our region? Are there any alternative approaches?
31
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr DOWNER
—I thank the honourable member for his question. I do not think members of the opposition have ever asked me a question on the South Pacific since the Bougainville crisis, which we helped to resolve. I do not think they have, but I could be being unfair. I am sure that the member for Maribyrnong, the shadow minister, has never asked me a question. The South Pacific has never been important enough for the member for Maribyrnong to ask a question about.
There was an alternative approach, which was the Labor approach. That was to pay hundreds of millions of dollars every year in aid and not focus on governance, not express any concern about poor quality of governance and not run strong and decisive anticorruption programs. When we came to government we had to deal with the legacy of that.
This government is determined to provide not just assistance to the ordinary people of countries such as the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. I think we have demonstrated that in spades through the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands and also through the Papua New Guinea Enhanced Cooperation Program. But we are not going to do so in a way which allows a continuation of poor governance and corruption where that may exist. Where we fear that that does exist we will obviously respond to it and try to deal with it.
Very specifically, it is hardly surprising that this government is totally opposed to the whole concept of child sex tourism. The Hawke government introduced the laws, by the way, to make it an international offence in relation to Australian citizens. Where an Australian citizen is facing charges of that kind then, regardless of his or her occupation, it is right and proper that that person be pursued vigorously. In the case of Mr Julian Moti, the Australian Federal Police want him back in Australia. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions wants him to face charges. In circumstances where another government flies such a person on a government aircraft to sanctuary—in this case, to the Solomon Islands—we regard that as an extremely serious matter. It is not a matter where we would just turn a blind eye. We will not show ourselves to lack interest or concern about this. It is hardly surprising that this government has taken a strong stand.
There are many people in Papua New Guinea and, for that matter, in the Solomon Islands who agree with what we are saying and doing. There are many good people in politics, in government generally and in the defence force of Papua New Guinea—honest and honourable people. But there are some who are not. The fact is that this government will continue to show strength and determination in dealing with that problem because the opposition will show what it always shows: the weak approach.
Skills Shortage
32
32
14:55:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
Ms MACKLIN
—My question is to the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. Can the minister inform the House just how long welders have been on the national skills shortage list?
32
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question. I am happy to check the exact date and time and let her know.
Renewable Energy
32
32
14:56:00
Vasta, Ross, MP
E0D
Bonner
LP
1
Mr VASTA
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Would the minister update the House on government initiatives to encourage renewable energy generation in Australia? Are there any alternative approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 100(d)(vi) says clearly that questions are out of order if they are ironical.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I think the member for Grayndler would be well aware that, if I were to enforce that rule strictly, most questions would probably be ruled out of order. I call the minister.
32
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—I thank the member for Bonner for his question and his ongoing support of government policies to ensure not only that the economy continues to grow but also that we continue to address our renewable and environmental issues. Since this government came to power, we can stand tall on our record on renewable energy investment. Government policies are currently seeing $123 million placed into the expansion and extension of the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, $100 million into the Renewable Energy Development Initiative and $75 million into the Solar Cities program, which I had the pleasure of launching the Queensland leg of with the member for Herbert. That was extraordinarily well received by the people of Townsville. As well, there is the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, which is accessible to renewable energy technologies. We should not forget the mandatory renewable energy target, which is expected to see some $3 billion worth of investment in the renewable energy sector.
The results speak for themselves. Under this government, wind energy capacity has increased in Australia by 7,000 per cent—from 10 megawatts in 2000 to 700 megawatts in 2005. Solar energy has also grown, with the number of solar hot-water system sales doubling since 2000-01 and extra capacity in solar photovoltaic also being installed. These are impressive gains, but the government has not been putting all of our eggs in one basket. We are focusing on a broad range of technologies that include renewables, clean coal technology and potentially nuclear technology.
But I was asked about alternative greenhouse policies. Unfortunately, from the Labor Party there is nothing that could be considered credible. Despite what those opposite will tell you, taxes and targets do not constitute a credible greenhouse policy. Without the technology in the first place, taxes and targets simply mean that Australian industries and jobs will be exported.
But there is light on the other side, as there always is, from the member for Batman. In the Australian newspaper earlier this year, when talking about Labor Party emissions targets, the member for Batman said:
The problem for countries, not just Australia, is fronting up to how we’re going to achieve those targets.
He went on to say:
You can’t just think up some harebrained idea and impose it on industry if you want to keep jobs in Australia. You have got to work out the detail.
I could not agree more. And that is exactly what this government is doing: working out the details and finding technology based solutions to greenhouse gas emissions.
Skilled Migration
33
33
15:01:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
0
Mr RIPOLL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the minimum 457 visa salary being paid to the 40 Filipino welders at Dartbridge Welding is at least 20 per cent below the market rates for welders in Brisbane? Isn’t this yet another example of your 457 visa program being used to drive down pay rates and conditions?
33
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—As indicated last night by the minister for immigration, the allegations made in relation to Dartbridge Welding and Filipino workers are being investigated. I will await that investigation before passing judgement on the allegations that have been made. There is some suggestion that they are being paid the market rates, but let us have all of the facts.
Of one thing we can be absolutely certain, and it is this: in investigating that issue, the government will consistently uphold the principle of freedom of association. We will make sure that, if people have suffered a penalty because they joined the union, there will be some redress as a result of that—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sydney!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—unlike those poor journalists on Saturday—
83M
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sydney is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—who were told that they could not come into that conference unless they joined the relevant union.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a very simple question, and straight to the point, about lowering wages 20 per cent below the going rate in Brisbane. These workers are being robbed. The Prime Minister should address the question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is in order.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Mr Speaker, let me resume from where I was interrupted. We are going to vigorously enforce the principle of freedom of association. As far as we are concerned it is an inalienable right of any Australian to join or not to join an association. Every man and woman on this side of the House holds to that—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The question was about welders’ wages.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be well aware, there was more to the question than that, including visas. The Prime Minister is very much in order.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Mr Speaker, I thought the question was about the rights of people in Australia—their rights, whether they are of Filipino extraction or whether they are a journalist, a welder, a businessman or a businesswoman. What it is about is whether, under a future government of this country, if it were to be Labor, people would lose the right to join or not to join an organisation.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Lyons!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—It is a very simple principle and it is a principle that I am going to see enforced. I say to the member for Lyons, for whom I have some regard—
BV5
Adams, Dick, MP
Mr Adams interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Lyons is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—that it is a very simple principle. Are you for or against freedom of association? We on this side of the House are for it; those on that side of the House—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 104. This was a very simple question. The question asked about wages. The Prime Minister is belittling what is a serious issue.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is in order. I have been listening carefully to his answer and it is certainly relevant to the question.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Can I say, I agree with the member for Grayndler that it is a very simple question: are you for freedom or are you against it? That is the question in relation to this issue, as it is in relation to a matter dealt with by the Minister for Foreign Affairs—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. Is the Prime Minister for lower wages or against them?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is very much in order. Members would be aware that if frivolous points of order are being taken I will deal with them.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I will make sure and the government will make sure during this investigation that the right of freedom of association is upheld. And if that has in any way been abrogated then there would be a consequence of that abrogation. But let me make it clear, in the course of answering this question, that this is a principle that has to be applied with equal force on both sides of the argument. If it is all right to punish a company for imposing a penalty on somebody who has joined a union, it ought to be equally right to impose a like penalty on those who are forced to join a union. That is the difference: we are for freedom of choice; Labor is against it.
ADI Munitions Factory
35
35
15:07:00
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
1
Mrs MIRABELLA
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister update the House on the status of the ADI munitions factory at Mulwala?
35
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr NELSON
—I thank the member for Indi for her question. She has a very intense interest in defence and local issues in her community. In 1942—which is arguably the most important year in Australia’s history since European settlement—as the battle for Australia raged through New Guinea and the Pacific, the then Australian government made a decision to build a propellent factory at Mulwala on the Murray River. That propellent factory, essentially producing and manufacturing the explosive materials for our munitions, has for more than 60 years produced propellents for Australia so that we can be independent. Under no circumstances would Australia accept the position of fully importing our own ammo.
There are some in Australia who argue that Australia should close this factory, which is ageing, and instead import propellents from other parts of the world. The members for Farrer, Indi and Murray stood up very firmly for their communities, supported by the Prime Minister, and argued that the government should instead rebuild the propellent factory at Mulwala. To that end, some $300 million will be directly invested with Bovis Lend Lease to build the propellent factory. The Public Works Committee of the parliament will shortly consider the project. We expect to sign an agreement with the company in the first half of next year, and the graders and bulldozers will be in there early in 2008 to rebuild the factory.
I say to the 320 people who are employed at the ADI factory at Mulwala: your jobs and your families who rely upon those jobs are safe and secure. As for the 350 people in the communities who rely also on the factory, their jobs are secure, and the 300 people who work at Benalla building munitions from those propellents, their jobs also are secure. As the Albury-Wodonga Border Mail put it on Friday:
For the residents of Yarrawonga and Mulwala …
… … …
Yesterday’s announcement will provide much comfort to the two towns, as well as to Wangaratta, Benalla and centres in between.
And when the work actually starts there will be a further massive spin-off to the local economy.
In fact, there will be 200 people employed on the project itself. The paper said:
The announcement is a tribute to the effort put in to saving the … plant by the district.
I particularly give credit to the member for Farrer, the member for Indi and the member for Murray.
Skilled Migration
35
35
15:09:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, when will the government adopt Labor’s plan for comprehensive spot audits—that include full checks of wages, documents and payslips, and audits of advertising actually carried out in Australia—to stop the 457 visa rorts once and for all?
36
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I do not accept that ‘rorting’ of the 457 visa system is a proper description of the way the system in its totality is operated. If I had to prosecute a case on this, the first witness for the prosecution against the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition would be the New South Wales Minister for Health, because the New South Wales health department has used the 457 visa system more than anybody else. The second witness for the prosecution would be Mr Eric Ripper, the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, who has practically pleaded with the minister for immigration to let more people in. Mr Speaker, if ever you have seen hypocrisy on an issue, it is this lot opposite in relation to 457 visas. At a state level, they have got ministers running around the country wringing their hands and saying, ‘We can’t get enough workers to run our meatworks, to run the resource industries in Western Australia—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—to run the booming industries of Queensland.’ Yet at a federal level you have got the Labor Party running around saying there is mass exploitation. It is as plain as the nose on your face that this country at the present time is suffering the consequences of an exuberant, prosperous, high-employment economy. As the Treasurer said the other day, ‘It’s a terrific problem to have.’
For the 32 years that I have been in this place, the holy grail has been to have near full employment, and we have now achieved it. We have a 30-year low in unemployment. We have a situation where we do not face a shortage of jobs; we in fact face a shortage of workers. That is a magnificent problem to have, when I think of the problems we had with high unemployment—when I think back to when the man who asked me this question, the Leader of the Opposition, was the minister for unemployment in the early 1990s. He basically gave up on trying to get unemployment down. He basically said that the problem was beyond him and that really people should stop complaining. I can remember when my predecessor was Prime Minister, when unemployment was 8½ per cent, the Leader of the Opposition went on the John Laws program and said, ‘You’ve never had it so good.’ That was the measure, Mr Speaker. And now, fast forward to 2006 and, gee, do we have a problem! We have the problem that the economy is strong—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Lalor is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—and it is prosperous. And it is a strength and a prosperity of which this government is unquestionably proud. Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr Laming interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Bowman is warned!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
36
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL answers
Skilled Migration
36
36
15:13:00
Mr HOWARD,MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister may proceed.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—For the benefit of the House, I should add to the answer I have just given. It was an incomplete answer. I am informed that in 2005-06 the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs monitored 6,471 sponsors and visited the sites of 1,790 sponsors. So I think the policy to which the Leader of the Opposition referred is already being carried out.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
37
Questions to the Speaker
Standing Orders
37
37
15:14:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Mr Speaker, my question to you goes to the application of the standing orders—specifically standing order 64, which requires members, in referring to other members, to refer to them by their ministerial office, their parliamentary office or their electoral division. This is a very serious issue going to the management of this House. I go to House of Representatives Practice and, at page 500, in referring to the application of the standing order, it says:
The purpose of this rule is to make debate less personal and avoid the direct confrontation of Members …
It then goes on to say:
A degree of formality helps the House remain more dignified and tolerant when political views—
are expressed.
In answering a question today, the Treasurer appropriately referred to a member by his constituency name and then added the term ‘Mr Gilligan’. On the basis of your failure to act, is it therefore appropriate in the future when posing a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that we simply pose it to the member for Mayo, ‘Dolly,’ or to the Treasurer as the member for Higgins ‘Dog’ or ‘Chicken’? If this is unacceptable, I ask you to reflect on your failure to take action with respect to the requirement and also require the Treasurer to apply the standing orders.
37
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Batman and the spirit in which he raises that question. He raises a very valid point and, as he would be aware, occupiers of the chair repeatedly pull members from both sides up for not observing that particular standing order. In relation to the point that he specifically raises about question time—I have to say, I did not catch it at the time and it would also help if members raised those points at the time—it is too late to deal with now, but I remind all members that they are expected to uphold the standing orders, including the one that the member for Batman has just raised.
37
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Further to your ruling, Mr Speaker, I did seek to raise this question in an informal way by drawing your attention to it during the Treasurer’s response. I was led by your failure to take action to believe that the manner in which the Treasurer answered the question is now appropriate. If not, I ask you to reflect on your failure to act and make it clear to all members of the House at the start of question time tomorrow that this is the way you expect all members of the House to conduct themselves.
37
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Batman for his question. I remind the member for Batman that today’s question time was particularly noisy. It would assist the chair and it would assist all members if we were able to conduct question time with fewer interruptions.
Question Time
37
37
15:17:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
—Mr Speaker, I direct your attention to page 553 of House of Representatives Practice—and I am making the assumption that we are still applying House of Representatives Practice and still using the standing orders, though it was not apparent in question time today.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will not reflect on the chair.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I direct your attention, Mr Speaker, to the statement in relation to relevance for answers by ministers to questions. It says:
The interpretation of ‘relevant’ has at times been very wide, with a basic requirement being that an answer must maintain a link to the substance of the question.
Mr Speaker, I ask you to review the tape of today’s question time, where you will find on more than one occasion that the basic requirement that an answer must maintain a link to the substance of the question was breached repeatedly without you intervening, despite the opposition drawing the matter to your attention. The construction of the standing orders and the practice cannot mean that if you are asked about an immigration issue you can answer on an industrial relations point—which is what happened in question time today.
38
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for her question. I would add that following the quotation she takes from page 553, it says:
In practice the word—
that is, relevance—
has been frequently accepted by the Chair as meaning relevant in some way or relevant in part, rather than directly or completely relevant.
I believe that as it also—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I will finish. I also draw the honourable member’s attention to the bottom of the previous page, where it says:
The latitude permitted to Ministers has often been quite considerable in the House of Representatives. Speakers have ruled consistently that provided the answer is relevant and is not couched in unparliamentary language Ministers may virtually answer questions without notice in any way they choose.
38
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
—Mr Speaker, I urge you to review today’s question time. I put it to you that there is no relevance at all to answering a question about 457 visas, which is necessarily an immigration question with an answer about industrial relations. That does not pass the test of being relevant in whole or in part; it is strictly irrelevant and it was allowed. I am asking you to review that as an inappropriate ruling and to ensure that in future question times, ministers and the Prime Minister—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will not reflect on the chair.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—need to be relevant to the question asked.
38
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I am always happy to—and, in fact I do—review question time after it has occurred but can I make it very clear that, as I heard the question, there was a lot more to it than just a question about visas. But I will review it as I always do.
Question Time
38
38
15:20:00
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
SE4
Mackellar
LP
1
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—Mr Speaker, in light of the questions being asked by the Manager of Opposition Business, will you make a ruling as to whether or not you intend to allow questions to yourself after question time to be used as a mechanism for reflecting on the rulings you have made during question time?
Opposition members interjecting—
38
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—Order! I will respond to the member for Mackellar. I thank the member for Mackellar and can I make it quite clear that I will endeavour to uphold the standing orders, as have all previous occupiers of this chair, as they are provided and agreed to by the House.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As you would be aware as recently as question time today, members have been threatened with ejection from the chamber for raising what you view to be frivolous points. I trust the same standard will be applied to the member for Mackellar and very shortly.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business would be aware that previous occupiers of the chair have acted where they believe frivolous points of order are being taken. I will continue to review behaviour on that basis.
Questions in Writing
39
39
15:22:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
Mr ALBANESE
—Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), I would ask that you write to the Prime Minister. I asked on 31 May 2006 question No. 3592, which is about whether he would rule out locating a nuclear reactor in the federal electoral divisions of Adelaide, Aston, Ballarat, Banks, Barker, Barton, Bass et cetera—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member has identified his question.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—right through the 150 electorates. People are worried about this, Mr Speaker.
39
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I am happy to follow up the request of the member for Grayndler.
Laptop Computer
39
39
15:22:00
Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP
XS4
Fremantle
ALP
0
Dr LAWRENCE
—Mr Speaker, I have noted the innovation of the laptop computer in the Speaker’s chair, and I presume it is to provide helpful information from the Clerk in a timely way. I have noticed you from time to time glancing at the screen, presuming you are reading the information provided there. I wonder why the same facility has not been made available to other members of the Speaker’s panel?
39
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Fremantle for her question. I believe that, if other members requested it, it would be available.
PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE COMMISSIONER
39
DOCUMENTS
Annual Report
39
39
15:23:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I present the annual report of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner for 2005-06.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
39
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
Report No. 7 of 2006-07
39
39
15:23:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 7 of 2006-07 entitled Visa management: working holidaymakers, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
39
DOCUMENTS
Mr ANDREWS
(Menzies
—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service)
15:24:00
—Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Australian Communications and Media Authority—Report for 2005-06.
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)—Report for 2005-06.
Department of Transport and Regional Services—Report for 2005-06.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Report for 2005-06.
Industrial Relations Court of Australia—Report for 2005-06.
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Report for 2005-06.
National Water Commission—Report for 2005-06.
Ms GILLARD
(Lalor
—Manager of Opposition Business)
15:24:00
—In the absence of the Leader of the House and Deputy Leader of the House, I thank the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for moving the motion. I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
40
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Pacific Relations
40
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Maribyrnong proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The petulance of the Government in its conduct of Australia’s relationship with our Pacific neighbours.
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—
40
15:24:00
Sercombe, Bob, MP
QK6
Maribyrnong
ALP
0
0
Mr SERCOMBE
—Australia’s most fundamental interest in the Pacific is reflected in names like Kokoda, Milne Bay, Buna and Gona in Papua New Guinea, and Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, and a very considerable warmth continues to resonate in the Australian community towards Pacific islanders for the support offered to our troops and our allies’ troops during the Second World War. Australia, however, has other very basic interests in the region. We have asymmetric threats in our part of the world. We have health issues. There are issues in relation to transnational crime on which we need to work in close partnership with the governments of the region. The issues of crime were illustrated recently when six foreign nationals were charged in Guam with smuggling $1.2 million worth of arms. We have very significant economic interests in the region. Investment, especially in the resources sector, is highlighted by the forthcoming PNG mining and petroleum conference to be held in Sydney, which will be attended by four Papua New Guinean ministers—unless they have their travel restricted by the government. The point remains that PNG, in particular, and other places in the Pacific are of very great economic importance to Australia.
There are very substantial people-to-people links. Tens of thousands of Australians visit the region on an annual basis or live in the region. We have made a huge investment to date in partnerships in the region, such as RAMSI. Our global partners clearly look to Australia to provide some sort of lead in the region, and they frankly must be awfully bewildered at the moment by the downward spiral of relationships in the region. We also have a close interest in closer integration of the region through the Pacific Plan and other initiatives, but this government simply cannot get a balanced policy. This government is unable to strike an appropriate balance in its approach to the region. It is either hands-off or it is heavy-handed.
When we look at the hands-off approach of the government, we see the Prime Minister’s failure often to attend meetings of forum leaders in the region. We see the failure, perhaps on a lesser scale, of any ministers from this government to attend important business forums such as the PNG business forum earlier this year where a delegation of four PNG ministers, led by their then Deputy Prime Minister, was in attendance. Just last week there was the Fiji forum, led by the Prime Minister of Fiji and attended by a number of ministers, but no Australian minister deigned to go to it. I have to concede that the Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) came but, with the greatest respect to the parliamentary secretary, she is hardly an appropriate measure diplomatically to the Prime Minister of Fiji.
However, the granddaddy of them all is the hands-off approach that the Minister for Foreign Affairs took up until 2003 in relation to the Solomon Islands and the repeated requests from the Solomon Islands for intervention. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is at the table, was saying right up until only months before the RAMSI intervention:
An intervention would be widely resented in the Pacific region. It would be difficult to justify to Australian taxpayers.
He went on:
The real showstopper is that it would not work, no matter how dressed up it is.
So much for the minister’s judgement about the necessity and the success of intervention in the Solomon Islands.
Then we oscillate to the heavy-handed approach of the government, and we see that in full force at the moment where we see headlines in the Herald Sun such as ‘PM: we will dictate terms’. We have seen the contemptuous comments over recent times by the foreign minister in particular in terms of the Pacific where he said things like, ‘RAMSI stands between Solomon Islands politicians and the honey pot,’ or when talking about the restrictions he said—and now he is grinning—
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr Downer
—So it is not true?
QK6
Sercombe, Bob, MP
Mr SERCOMBE
—You did say it. When talking about travel restrictions on Solomon Islanders he said—
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr Downer interjecting—
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The Minister for Foreign Affairs can reply.
QK6
Sercombe, Bob, MP
Mr SERCOMBE
—that Solomon Islanders ‘will “reflect” because they like to come here’. What a patronising, arrogant way to talk about our neighbours. Then he talks about ‘shovelling aid’. He says the last thing the Solomon Islands can afford is to get into an argument with major donors—once again, an arrogant, patronising approach which underpins so much of the difficulty in the relationships in the region. We now have a crisis spreading from the Solomon Islands to Papua New Guinea and, tragically, I think possibly to next week’s forum meeting, which is a critical meeting because of the importance of advancing important regional initiatives. I know that the Fijians, who are the hosts of that forum, are quite concerned about this.
Let us be quite clear. The opposition have always readily acknowledged that there are significant and serious governance issues in some parts of the Pacific. That is why we were so critical of the government’s delay in relation to the Solomon Islands intervention. That is why we supported the Enhanced Cooperation Program with Papua New Guinea, the police component of which the government incompetently allowed to collapse when it had not done its homework in relation to legal and constitutional issues in PNG.
The present issues regarding Julian Moti are matters properly for the law and for the courts and not for politicians, whether Pacific island politicians or Australian politicians. As the minister indicated in his answer to a question earlier, it was in fact a Labor government that introduced the child sex tourism legislation, which we clearly support. But the government’s petulance, particularly over recent days, is not what is needed. It is, frankly, counterproductive. It sets us back from the serious, assiduous, competent work that improved governance in the region requires.
We do not need reinforcement of some of the negative perceptions about Australia’s role in the region—perceptions of arrogance, bullying and contempt. We do not need inflammatory comments, megaphone diplomacy or, frankly, Minister, hissy fits. This is not a recent phenomenon. Back in 2003 the very respected ANU academic on the Pacific, Professor Ron May, wrote:
The Prime Minister is not well attuned to the Pacific and Australia’s interests are not going to be helped by him rampaging around talking about weak states and intervening and getting people off side. What they don’t need is a Prime Minister coming in and making insulting comments.
Regrettably, Professor May’s comments have not been taken note of by the government. We do not need the threats to the aid program that are implied by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs or references to ‘shovelling’ aid.
As the Canberra Times stated just this morning on this question of aid:
But such plain diplomatic talking can backfire, especially when, as in the case of PNG, there are other governments willing to step in to fill the vacuum created by the withdrawal of Australian funding—governments with fewer scruples or concerns about the long-term viability or economic health of their client states.
I think that illustrates the difficulty we have. If money is wasted, let us remember that the Australian government, through AusAID, is responsible for the program. The government’s agency is directly involved in joint processes of allocating funds for programs and projects. There is no longer any block budget funding. Is the minister therefore admitting his negligence on aid by his implied threats to withdraw it? As I mentioned earlier, we do not need disruption of the forum. It is no joke, but in today’s Australian—
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley interjecting—
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr Downer interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will cease discussing things across the table.
QK6
Sercombe, Bob, MP
Mr SERCOMBE
—There is a cartoon of the Prime Minister rigged up in armour and Mrs Howard asking him: ‘Have you found something practical to wear to the forum in Fiji, dear?’ I think that unfortunately illustrates some of the problems that those at the Australian have in mind. But it certainly is not a joke, and it is certainly not a joke when the foreign minister of Fiji says, as he recently has, that the present row is a major setback for regional security.
We do not need counterproductive outbursts that make the necessary cooperation to improve governance much more difficult. Indeed, cooperation must be built on respectful relationships if it is to succeed, not on hectoring and certainly not on pulling down the shutters and refusing to meet ministers from countries like Papua New Guinea. How puerile is that? The Sydney Morning Herald once again bells the cat on that. This morning it said, amongst other things:
The only PNG minister scheduled to visit Australia soon is the Defence Minister ... If details of the defence force flight that carried Moti remain cloudy, surely it would be better to have the minister responsible here for a robust grilling than not.
Indeed. That simply illustrates once again the counterproductive nature—which the media in Australia are picking up on—of this government’s approach.
We always have to remember that language and tone in diplomacy set the parameters of the relationship. Similarly, limitations on Solomon Islands politicians make dialogue about improved governance that much more difficult. So the government’s petulance makes getting results so much harder. There is a widespread perception in the region that the minister and the Prime Minister just do not understand the region, and cannot handle the relationships that are fundamental to engaging the region. They probably prefer Paris and London.
As the Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Greg Urwin, said not so long ago in comparing Australia to New Zealand, New Zealand takes a fundamentally different approach to the Pacific when compared to Australia. That is this: New Zealand regards itself as a Pacific nation. It does not regard itself as in the region. It regards itself as of the region.
Other important events are scheduled. Let us hope that the petulance does not prevent the ministerial forum taking place at Kokopo later this year, because there are certainly important issues to discuss at that ministerial forum, including the potential return of Australian police to Papua New Guinea. That is very important for our security as well as PNG’s security.
In these circumstances we need to find a way forward. There is a strong Pacific tradition of eminent persons groups—respected senior leaders—to work through issues. One of the very few Liberals who is widely respected in the region is Andrew Peacock. Andrew Peacock was a foreign affairs minister who we would not unqualifiedly endorse, but certainly in the Pacific he was widely respected. He was also a territories minister. An eminent persons group led by someone like Andrew Peacock to engage on the now expanding dispute is a real option that the government ought to consider and consider quickly to prevent these rows snowballing further and further corroding the fundamentally important relationships we need in the region.
Relationships need to be got back on track quickly. A continuation of the problems may well call further into question the RAMSI initiative in the Solomon Islands. Frankly, that would be a disaster for the whole region and particularly for the Solomon Islands. However, it is clear from media coverage recently and from comments from the Solomon Islands government that if this dispute continues to escalate then that particular initiative may well be in serious doubt.
There is to be a national election in Papua New Guinea next year. Based on the election held in 2002, one can anticipate that that process is likely to be interesting to say the least. It may generate serious issues for the relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea and it may well develop into serious constitutional issues on bases that I will talk about on some other occasion.
Australia’s vital interests are involved in the region. We need much more than petulance to achieve results, including, I might say, results on advancing the process of repatriating to Australia individuals who should face court in Australia. But where you have an increasingly poisonous atmosphere it is destabilising, counterproductive and very much inimical to Australia’s interests.
43
15:38:00
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
0
Mr DOWNER
—I thank the House for the opportunity to talk on this matter of public importance. It is quite good news that yesterday we had a debate on Iraq and today we can have a debate on the Pacific. I notice that the shadow minister for overseas aid and Pacific island affairs cannot even fill up his time to discuss the issues of the Pacific. He cannot even fill a full 15 minutes.
Several things are interesting about the Labor Party. The first is that the Labor Party does not take the Pacific very seriously. Apparently, the ever-talkative shadow minister for foreign affairs and trade is too senior to deal with the Pacific. So the Pacific is relegated not just to a junior shadow minister but to a junior shadow minister who has been deselected by the Labor Party. That is how important the Pacific is to the Labor Party. Even the garrulous shadow minister for foreign affairs—saying the word ‘garrulous’ reminds me of Gareth Evans—who is often described as ‘Gareth Evans without the charm’, you would think would want to participate in the Pacific debate and be involved in bagging the government constantly on Pacific affairs. But apparently the Pacific is not quite important enough for him, so it has all been relegated. Labor’s interest in the Pacific is false.
The second observation I have made about the Labor Party over the years—and I do have a bit of experience in this parliament—is that it has a bit of a chip on its shoulder about Australia. We always have to apologise to other countries. We always have to go cravenly to the rest of the world to try to win their approbation. And if anybody in the rest of the world, even in the Pacific, criticises Australia, the Labor Party regards it as—you know what?—a failure of Australia. If anyone criticises Australia, it is our fault. I think this is a psychological issue. I think a person with self-confidence is a person who can stand up for what they believe in, and a person who loves this country is a person who will stand up for this country and its interests and will not always think that because we are criticised by foreigners somehow those foreigners are always right.
I know the shadow minister does not know anything about the Solomon Islands Prime Minister, but people who do know about him will know a lot about his background, and we do. In this particular case, when somebody like that kicks our high commissioner out of the Solomon Islands for talking with the opposition, you would think that all members of this parliament would say that that was a shameful thing to do and would stand up for Australia. But what did the Labor Party do? The junior shadow minister—not the senior shadow minister—came out and bagged Australia. It was our fault. It was a failure of Australia that Mr Sogavare kicked out Patrick Cole. Those with whom I work on this issue day by day could not believe that press release. We were absolutely aghast. The only people who back Mr Sogavare are a handful of his people—not the people of the Solomon Islands, who are appalled—and the Labor Party in Australia, because if Australia is ever criticised it is always Australia’s fault.
Mr Sogavare chooses to appoint as his Attorney-General somebody who, as it turns out, is wanted by the Australian Federal Police. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions thinks charges should be brought against this person. Not only is that relevant in a legal sense but there is more to it than that. The allegations against this person—and they are just allegations until they are tested in court—I think are especially egregious. I think they are incredibly serious allegations. But there are two countries which have not helped to send this person back to Australia, and we got into an argument with them. Surprise, surprise! Not even for one minute do I regret getting into an argument with somebody about something as serious as that.
I am a father of four children. I know a lot about children. I care a lot about children, and I think allegations like that—and it is just an allegation; it is not proven—should be tested in court. I feel strongly about people who try to protect that kind of person. I do not care what the Sydney Morning Herald says or whoever else the member for Maribyrnong may quote. For me, it is a very important issue. It is not an issue that I think lends itself to some puerile party political game from the Australian Labor Party, from its defunct shadow minister. The Labor Party do not even think he is worth re-endorsing and they get him to introduce an MPI on an issue like this because they are just a tiny bit embarrassed about it—and so they should be. I feel strongly about this and I do not mind what people say about me. I think we are a proud, strong, great country and we should stand up for good values and good things.
For the Labor Party to criticise the government over this is typical of the kind of stab in the back that we get from the Labor Party whenever we get into a dispute with another country. It is always our fault. Even when other countries decide to deliberately not repatriate to our country someone who has been charged with child sex offences, it is our fault for being unhappy about it. No wonder I never joined a weak show like the Australian Labor Party. What a weak and pathetic show it is. The shadow minister thinks it is all terribly funny, because for him it is just a little game—another opportunity, another day to have a crack at the Liberals. We heard all sorts of cant and nonsense from the shadow minister about how we do not care about the Pacific, and we heard about some academic from the Australian National University, or wherever it was, who does not like John Howard. I mean, seriously! This government has been in power for 10 years, and we appreciate that we are patronised every day and accused of blithering incompetence and utter stupidity, but we happen to have been on the Pacific beat for 10 full years. We know a lot about the Pacific, and we read a lot about the Pacific—and we have access to information that the opposition do not ask for. They do not ask for briefings, although we would be happy to give briefings sometimes if they would choose not to make party political points the whole time, and if they wanted to get across the subject. I do not recall—I stand to be corrected, so I look to the advisers box—receiving a letter from the opposition asking for a briefing on the flight of Mr Moti from Papua New Guinea to the Solomon Islands.
I think that if the opposition knew what we know they would be ashamed of the position they have taken on this sensitive issue. They would be ashamed of themselves. I think that the position they have taken is absolutely disgraceful. If they knew all the facts, maybe they would not play party politics with such joy and relish or take comfort, for goodness sake, from the Sydney Morning Herald. I do not have anything against the Sydney Morning Herald, but if the Labor Party think it should be their guide why don’t they just elect the Sydney Morning Herald to lead them? At least it has a consistent point of view, which is more than you can say for the weak Leader of the Opposition.
The Labor Party say we have not done much in the Pacific. They were in government for 13 years. I know Gordon Bilney. He is not a bad bloke, but the fact is that he was a junior minister. Gareth Evans was all so grand and mighty he could not be bothered to deal with small countries in the Pacific. He wanted to re-engineer the United Nations. I do not mind Gareth, by the way, but he was not interested in the Pacific. Everybody knows that. After all, I became the minister after him, and I know what the department said about his attitude to the Pacific. He was not interested in it. It was not where he wanted to operate. It was not the big stage. So Paul Keating put Gordon Bilney in to do the job. Gordon is a well-meaning sort of bumbler, and not much happened. We shovelled aid into the Pacific, but we did not do anything about the problems of corruption and governance, and—surprise, surprise—not very much happened.
When I became the foreign minister, there was a civil war in Bougainville. I never blamed the Labor Party for the civil war in Bougainville when I was in opposition. I did not make pathetic points like that. The Labor Party tried. Gareth Evans, Gordon Bilney and Paul Keating were concerned about this issue, and I did not think it was worth making some puerile party political point about it. But when I became the foreign minister I had already visited Bougainville as the shadow minister—not for Pacific islands affairs but for foreign affairs. I had actually bothered to go there myself. We worked with the New Zealand government—which did a great job, by the way—in the form of Don McKinnon to put together a peace settlement in Bougainville. More than four times as many people died in the civil war in Bougainville as have died in Northern Ireland since the so-called troubles began in 1969. Okay, there are no TV stations there, and it was not an issue that people wanted to debate much in this parliament—except during the Sandline affair, when the Labor Party said it was all our fault. There was not much debate or discussion. We contributed, in a very major way, to bringing that terrible civil war to an end.
The deselected junior shadow minister has got the audacity to say that we do not care about the Pacific. That just shows what a fool he is. He is a fool to take sides with a bunch of people who are protecting and harbouring someone who is facing child sex tourism charges in this country, and he is a fool to overlook something like the Bougainville civil war and the role Australia played in helping to bring that to an end. We have indeed done our best for the Solomon Islands, and I think that the ordinary people of the Solomon Islands are delighted with what we have done over the years. RAMSI has been a very big success. I go to Papua New Guinea a lot, and I know that a lot of the ordinary people of Papua New Guinea are enormously grateful for what Australia has done.
There is a problem in the Pacific with corruption, and the Labor Party think that the best way to deal with that is to continue with this policy of always cuddling up to the elites and having little gabfests and chats with the elites. Now they want to set up an eminent persons group of elites to somehow negotiate away Australia’s interests. It is all about the elites. That is all it is about. We spare a thought for the ordinary people of Papua New Guinea, and we spare a thought for the ordinary people of the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Tuvalu and Kiribati. Those people have, in some cases, been well served by their leaders—and, frankly, everybody knows it in Australia. The people in the gallery know it only too well. The elites in those countries, in some cases, have done a good job, but in some cases they have not done a good job. If we get into an argument with those elites, the Labor Party says that it is our fault. No, it is not. It is not our fault. We are going to stand up for what we think is right and, if that means having some arguments with other people who we think are wrong, we will do it.
I said in question time that there are people in the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea who are very good, decent and educated people and who are excellent leaders of their country, and they are very unhappy about the Moti issue and very concerned about issues like corruption. And the people who let those people down are people like the member opposite, the member for Maribyrnong, who bags the Australian government because of the concerns it has about a very serious issue. It is our fault!
What a spineless political party the Labor Party is. It has not always been. I always say Andrew Fisher—the member for Maribyrnong would not have even heard of Andrew Fisher—was one of the very best Labor Australian prime ministers. In fact, I got the High Commission in London to make sure that his grave was being properly looked after because I am concerned that in Highgate Cemetery it has not been. He was a good man because he was strong. And Bob Hawke was quite a strong leader. But what a pitiful, pathetic outfit there is sitting opposite today. They are always on the side of the foreigner. Guess whose side we are on on this side of the House? We are on Australia’s side. That is our team. Foreigners may be your team, but our team is Australia.
47
15:53:00
McMullan, Bob, MP
5I4
Fraser
ALP
0
0
Mr McMULLAN
—The Howard government’s relationships with our Pacific neighbours have reflected a continuing pattern of inattention and failure interspersed with occasional bursts of belated and sometimes unsuccessful frenetic activity. We hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs trying to reshape the question to say that our criticism of the way he has handled the matter equals support for the actions of people overseas—that we are supporting the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea against Australia. Our concern is not that the Australian government has acted, but that it has acted incompetently. Our concern is not that the Australian government has spoken up about matters, but that it has spoken up in a manner that has been counterproductive.
The speech we have just heard epitomises the core of the problem—foreign policy as a matter of domestic partisan advantage: how can I debate a foreign policy issue in this parliament to score a cheap political point here? Who was it who raised all the domestic partisan political points? It was the foreign minister, every time. When he debated Iraq, who was it who spoke about appeasement? One of the lowest standards of public debate of a major international issue in Australian history was when this foreign minister talked about appeasement because we had the temerity to suggest, before it happened, that the invasion of Iraq might not be a good idea. Now we are saying not that we support somebody else’s policies but that we want Australia’s policy implemented more effectively.
What we want to look at in the Pacific is not just, ‘How can I play it for domestic political advantage?’ or ‘How do I react to this immediate problem?’ We want to look at where there is a long-term strategic, economic or humanitarian framework for our relationship. A proper relationship should have all three, but I am prepared to be more modest. I would settle for one. Where is the strategic framework? Where is the economic development framework? Where is the humanitarian framework? A proper policy would have all three, but I would like to find just one.
Those opposite have been in government for 10 years—the foreign minister was at least correct in saying that—and the state of our relationship is right down to them. The chickens are coming home to roost, and it is most obvious in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The tragedy is that those are the two countries in which our policy needs to be the best. World Vision recently put out an excellent document called How are the neighbours? in which they assess all the countries in this region against the Millennium Development Goals. Do you know which two countries come out with the worst standards? Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, the two places where our capacity to provide support is least effective, for a variety of complex reasons, one of which is the incompetent handling of the relationship by the foreign minister. It is not that he has stood up but how he has done it. It is not that he has spoken but the manner of his speaking. It is not that he has engaged in the relationship but that he has mismanaged the relationship.
The two countries where there are no Millennium Development Goals assessed as being on track to be achieved—that is, zero out of the seven listed here—are Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. They are the two countries where our relationship needs to be best. Of course it is even more so in Papua New Guinea because of its significance as our neighbour and because of the great issue that hangs over Australia, which we fail to address time and again, which is the crisis of AIDS in Papua New Guinea, where we need a close, effective relationship. And what we are saying is that the health minister cannot even come to the country! There is nothing that we need more than a good relationship with Papua New Guinea to work on, amongst other things, the crisis of AIDS there.
But it goes beyond that. It is not about whether we did the right thing yesterday. Over the last 10 years this government has failed the Pacific on climate change. I know it is a terrible thing but I am going to quote the Sydney Morning Herald. It is shocking. I really ought to ask somebody’s permission. They correctly said in January 2006—quoting, amongst others, I might say, the shadow minister for overseas aid and Pacific island affairs, whose comments I will come to in a moment—that the problem with climate change is such that a number of Pacific islands could be rendered uninhabitable within a decade. The article stated that New Zealand and Canada had already responded and that Australia was said to be ‘missing in action’. That remains the case today. Of the three countries that should be in the lead, two are there and one is missing—and that is us. The article said:
“It’s the most significant problem the Pacific faces at the moment and the Australian Government is missing in action,” said the Opposition’s Pacific Islands affairs spokesman, Bob Sercombe.
That is exactly right, Member for Maribyrnong. You nailed it on the head. That is why the minister is attacking the shadow minister: because he nailed his failure right on the head. The biggest issue facing the Pacific is climate change, and we go round with petulant performances but no policies. We go round lecturing them about governance and corruption, which we should, but we leave them on their own when they are in danger of being inundated. There has been absolutely no positive reaction by the government to the discussion paper put out by the shadow minister and the shadow minister for environment, Our drowning neighbours. It is a discussion paper raising important questions—the most fundamental question about the future of this region—and there is nothing from the government. They fail on the key test of economic development.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs talks about problems of governance in the region. Commentators and the World Bank are saying that, whether it is organised crime or terrorism, there are growing numbers of unemployed youth in the region who are increasingly vulnerable to organised criminal elements. Recently the World Bank estimated that by 2015 there will be more than 4.5 million people in the Pacific region without formal employment. The New Zealand government, advancing its interests and the interests of the Pacific countries, is trying to assist with the employment needs of Pacific islanders by instituting a trial scheme of labour mobility for Pacific islanders. The World Bank has recommended it and New Zealand is taking it up on a trial basis.
The Senate committee under the chairmanship of our former colleague Senator Cook recommended in an excellent report that we should trial such a scheme. The NFF supports it, the tourism industry supports it and the ACTU is prepared to support it. Most recently, the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign put out an excellent document, once again showing our relative failure to act. That campaign said that the government should trial a ‘well-regulated and carefully monitored Pacific island migrant worker scheme’ along the lines of Canada’s scheme with the Caribbean. Other countries know how to do this. It is not about supporting others and bagging Australia when we say, ‘Other countries have worked out a solution to this problem; why can’t we?’ Why can’t we take a stance? Everybody knows that it cannot be done until a fair and decent industrial relations law is established in Australia, so that the interests of those who come here and the interests of Australian workers are protected.
There are 100,000 people who come here on working holiday visas. We should make something similar available for Pacific islanders. It is not as if we do not have people coming in temporarily to meet the needs of the farming industry and other industries. The government’s argument is that we do not do that, but 100,000 people do come in on working holiday visas. We do not even have to go down the complicated issue of section 457 on this matter. The World Bank says that it would be good for the Pacific island countries. It would also be good for the Australian economy. It would give us the chance to offer hope instead of offering despair—and despair is the breeding ground for crime and terrorism.
As the shadow minister for overseas aid and Pacific island affairs said in his opening remarks, this crisis that we are confronting, which has been building up over the last 10 years—it did not appear yesterday or the day before or in the last few weeks—shows that our relationships have really deteriorated. Why have they deteriorated so badly? It is because of the approach of this foreign minister in his dealings with our neighbours now and in recent years. His approach casts a pall over relationships and exacerbates the problem. The way in which he delivers Australia’s message is counterproductive. He sounds like a parent speaking to a naughty child. He lectures the Pacific, and they are supposed to stand to attention to receive the lecture.
Everybody knows that corruption needs to be addressed, and the best people in those countries want to address it. Everyone knows that there needs to be a focus on governance, and the best people in those countries want to deal with it. Everyone knows Australia’s aid has to be focused and not wasted, and the best people in those countries want that to happen. We need to be supporting those people, but the government has failed to grasp the importance of our relationship in the region. It has oscillated between an unwillingness to become involved and an extreme overreaction. (Time expired)
49
16:03:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
1
0
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—The shadow minister for overseas aid and Pacific island affairs in opening the matter of public importance spoke of Kokoda, Milne Bay and Buna—names which are redolent in Australian history, names which people would associate with some of the attributes that Australia would like to identify with. But where I am confused about the position of the Australian Labor Party is: how is it consistent to turn a blind eye to someone who is wanted by the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for child sex offences? Is the Labor Party suggesting that, when the Papua New Guinea government uses a Papua New Guinea defence force plane to transport Julian Moti from Papua New Guinea to the Solomon Islands, we should say nothing, or we should say that this is okay? When the problem in the Pacific islands is in maintaining the rule of law, addressing and reducing corruption and making sure that they have strong governance so that aid and development assistance is effective, the Labor Party criticises and makes a personal attack on the Minister for Foreign Affairs for saying that this is not on.
As I said, the shadow minister mentioned some places of importance. I have some new names that people will remember from the last 10 years: Bougainville and the peace monitoring group; East Timor and INTERFET, the Solomon Islands and RAMSI. These are examples of the interest that Australia takes in the South Pacific and the help that we are prepared to offer when needed. They are examples which Australians should be very proud of. They are examples that have given the people of Bougainville, East Timor and the Solomon Islands the chance for a new beginning.
Australia is the largest donor to the Pacific. It is estimated that we will be giving $766 million in aid in 2006-07: $332 million going to Papua New Guinea and $434 million going to Pacific island countries, including $223 million to the Solomon Islands. It is a lot of money. Our constituents expect that we will make sure that this money is spent effectively and they expect that we will do what we can to reduce corruption and improve governance in these countries.
As outlined in the white paper on foreign aid, in East Timor half of children under the age of five years old are so malnourished that they will have their growth permanently stunted. In Papua New Guinea, life expectancy is 56 and there is a serious HIV-AIDS problem. Australia’s values are reflected in our aid program. We are a compassionate and generous country and we believe that people should have a fair go. Some of the countries in the South Pacific face great challenges. For example, if Papua New Guinea grows over the next 20 years at about 3½ per cent per year, in 20 years it will have a per capita income where it was 15 years ago. If the Solomon Islands grows for the next 20 years at the rate it has over the last couple of years, it will have a per capita income where it was in the early 1980s.
I support the Prime Minister who, in September 2005, announced at the United Nations that Australia would be doubling the amount of overseas aid that it spends to $4 billion by 2010. When we look at our aid, we see that over the last 20 years half a billion people have come out of poverty in the Asia-Pacific area. The most stunning increases have been in East Asia with countries like China, Vietnam and Thailand, which all saw dramatic increases in the proportion of their population coming out of poverty.
Sadly, that is not the case in the South Pacific. What we have seen, if anything, is that these countries’ performance has actually gone backwards. Governance and corruption are serious problems. When the Labor Party were in office, they had budget aid. They would just give the money to Papua New Guinea and in the end it was hard to see where the money was being spent. The Australian government—the Howard government—does have a good track record in the South Pacific. With the involvement of the peace monitoring group, we have now had peace in Bougainville since late 1997. INTERFET, of course, was also very important in seeing that that country had an opportunity to become a new country. In Papua New Guinea, we have the Enhanced Cooperation Program, which was originally to provide Australian police in Papua New Guinea. That treaty was struck out by the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea but, even so, there are 40 Australian officials working under this program to ensure that these governance and corruption concerns are addressed.
The Howard government takes the Pacific Islands Forum very seriously and sees this as the appropriate way for addressing efficiencies between smaller countries, making sure that there is mobility of labour and that technical assistance can be provided where those countries want it. The appointment of Greg Urwin as Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum secretariat is a very significant appointment and it shows how seriously Australia does address the issue of the Pacific islands. Last year I had the opportunity to be the parliamentary adviser to the Australian mission at the United Nations and in that forum, the various committees—the second and third committees—and the General Assembly, it was Australia and New Zealand who were always raising examples from the South Pacific. We talked about women in the peace building process: in the peace monitoring group in Bougainville, in the Solomon Islands and in East Timor. It was something that we were very focused on. Rick Nimmo, one of the deputies, went to Georgetown to speak about RAMSI. This is something that Australia is very focused on and which we are seen internationally as being very focused on.
If you look around the region, what has been the reaction to this? The Acting Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Don Polye, said that the suspension of ministerial contacts by Australia was ‘understandable but regrettable’. We have had two ministers resign from the Sogavare government after differences with Sogavare over his handling of the spat with Australia. We have these ministers saying:
I am not happy with how the Prime Minister is handling things. It’s like he’s pulling things backwards.
So what we have are members of the governments in these countries who are more supportive than the Australian Labor Party of the Australian government’s decision. I cannot understand the position of members of the Australian Labor Party on this. It is almost like they want to go to Suva or to Waigani and say, ‘We are really on your side. We would handle things much better.’ But, in the end, we have a good track record and a good story to sell. Australia has been very effective in cooperating with countries in the region on a whole range of issues, such as counter-terrorism, people trafficking and drug smuggling. This is something that we are very proud of. But it is not acceptable to have someone who is wanted for child sex offences spirited out of a country with the help of the Papua New Guinea government and a Papua New Guinea Defence Force aircraft. That is not acceptable, and when it is not acceptable, you should say so.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The discussion is concluded.
COMMITTEES
51
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
51
Report
51
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 30 October 2006. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business on Monday, 30 October 2006
Pursuant to standing order 222, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business on Monday, 30 October 2006. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows:
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS
Presentation and statements
1
JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
Report 408: Annual report 2005-2006
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 12:40pm
Speech time limits —
Each Member — 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Order of precedence
Notices
1 Mr Albanese to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to provide for an extension of the boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef Region. (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Protecting the Great Barrier Reef from Oil Drilling and Exploration) Amendment Bill 2006). (Notice given 11 October 2006.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41.
Ms Bird to move:
That the House:
-
recognises the damaging impact upon Australian working women as a result of the federal Government’s WorkChoices legislation;
-
recognises in particular the contribution Australian women make to workplaces and households across the country;
-
takes immediate action to restore employment protection for women in the workforce;
-
takes particular action to provide employment protection to women adversely affected by the WorkChoices legislation; and
-
notes the Howard Government’s agenda to reduce employment conditions and employment security for women in the workforce. (Notice given 16 October 2006.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mover of motion — 5 minutes.
First Government Member speaking — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
3
Mr M. D. Ferguson to move:
That the House
-
notes as unacceptable Australia having eight different, and often inconsistent, sets of school curriculum;
-
calls on the Commonwealth to work cooperatively with the State and Territory governments for greater consistency in both school curricula and standards for every Australian school student; and
-
supports initiatives which will improve the education standards and accountability of educational authorities across the country, both government and non-government. (Notice given 9 October 2006.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members’ business time prior to 1.45 pm
Speech time limits —
Mover of motion — 5 minutes.
First Opposition Member speaking — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
4
Ms A. E. Burke to move:
That this House:
-
notes that it is estimated that anaphylaxis effects up to 380 000 Australians who experience a food allergy, 5-8 per cent of whom are children;
-
recognises that tragically, three Australian students died between March 2002 and April 2003 during school hours as a result of an anaphylactic reaction;
-
acknowledges that a simple medical treatment is all that is needed to treat an anaphylactic reaction, prevent loss of life and provide the necessary time to transport the victim to hospital for further medical treatment; and
-
asks that the Government introduces legislation, devised in a COAG capacity, to ensure all preschools, primary and secondary schools:
-
have necessary policies and procedures to provide effective response to a student who experiences an anaphylactic reaction;
-
include policies that reduce the exposure to causative agents in the classroom environment;
-
ensure staff members are appropriately trained to support life in the event of an anaphylactic reaction; and
-
develop an individual action plan for each student that has an anaphylactic allergy that comprises treatment plans from the student's physician. (Notice given 25 May 2006.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mover of motion — 5 minutes.
First Government Member speaking — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
5
Mr Baker to move:
That the House:
-
notes that 15‑21 October is Carers’ Week;
-
notes that the theme of this year’s Carers’ Week is “Anyone, Anytime”, the objective of which is identifying carers and empowering them to access support services;
-
recognises that there are approximately 2.6 million carers in Australia who provide unpaid help and assistance to a relative or friend, who could not otherwise manage because of disability, mental illness, chronic condition or frailty;
-
notes that almost everyone will provide care at some time during their life;
-
notes that around 1.2 billion hours of informal care are currently provided by family carers (as recently found by Access Economics in its report Economic Value of Informal Care);
-
acknowledges the enormous contribution made by carers to Australian society, often at great personal cost; and
-
calls on all levels of government, businesses and schools to consider adopting carer-friendly work practices and learning environments. (Notice given 16 October 2006.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members’ business time.
Speech time limits —
Mover of motion — 5 minutes.
First Opposition Member speaking — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
CRIMES ACT AMENDMENT (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) BILL (NO. 1) 2006
53
BILLS
R2603
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BILL 2006
53
BILLS
R2595
Referred to Main Committee
53
Mr BARTLETT
(Macquarie)
16:13:00
—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
AGED CARE AMENDMENT (RESIDENTIAL CARE) BILL 2006
53
BILLS
R2624
First Reading
53
Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
BUSINESS
53
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
53
Ms GAMBARO
(Petrie
—Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs))
16:15:00
—I move:
That Main Committee order of the day No. 1, government business, be returned to the House for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The matter will be set down for consideration at a later hour this day.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
54
MOTIONS
Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Lloyd:
That the House:
-
recognises that local government is part of the governance of Australia, serving communities through locally elected councils;
-
values the rich diversity of councils around Australia, reflecting the varied communities they serve;
-
acknowledges the role of local government in governance, advocacy, the provision of infrastructure, service delivery, planning, community development and regulation;
-
acknowledges the importance of cooperating with and consulting with local government on the priorities of their local communities;
-
acknowledges the significant Australian Government funding that is provided to local government to spend on locally determined priorities, such as roads and other local government services; and
-
commends local government elected officials who give their time to serve their communities.
upon which Mr Albanese moved by way of amendment:
That paragraph (1) be omitted and the following paragraph substituted;
-
“(1) supports a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government in recognition of the essential role it plays in the governance of Australia.”.
54
16:16:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
0
Mr ALBANESE
—by leave—The Labor Party support this parliamentary motion on local government. We support it because it is a small step in the direction of giving appropriate recognition to the important role that local government plays in the delivery of services at the local level. Local government is a particularly important tier of government because it is the tier that is closest to the people.
This motion of the federal parliament is essentially a symbolic statement, and that is why I have moved an amendment which would take this recognition of local government beyond simply a symbolic resolution of this House. That is why I have moved that all words in paragraph (1) be deleted and substituted by the following:
... supports a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government in recognition of the essential role it plays in the governance of Australia.
Labor has a longstanding policy of support for constitutional recognition of local government. The House of Representatives Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee inquired into local government and was chaired by the current Speaker of the House of Representatives, David Hawker. The Hawker inquiry received a number of submissions from right around the nation and local government made it very clear that they do seek constitutional recognition. They seek constitutional recognition as an acknowledgement of the critical role that they play in providing local infrastructure and local services, and in ensuring that there is democratic accountability. This is important because of the absolutely critical role that local government play.
Any of us who attend local branches of our respective political parties would know that local issues often dominate people’s concerns: what is happening with local swimming pools, local cleaning services and, in an electorate such as mine, support for multicultural services to the community. There is the celebration of local communities that occurs in my electorate through important functions such as the Carnival of Cultures that I attended which was hosted by Ashfield Council some three weeks ago; the Marrickville Festival, which was held a couple of weeks before that; the Norton Street Festival, particularly with its celebration of the Italian community in Leichhardt; the Bairro Português Festival in Petersham, which is a celebration of the local Portuguese community; and, indeed, in a couple of weeks time, the Newtown Festival, which is a very colourful festival celebrating the diversity which exists in the inner western suburbs of Sydney.
So I would ask the government to support my amendment and come together with Labor in recognising, in a real way—not in just a symbolic way—the important role that local government plays. That could right some of the wrongs, it must be said, that have occurred in previous times when referendums asking for the recognition of local government in the Constitution were put before the Australian public and defeated.
I want to address the argument put by the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads in opposing Labor’s amendment. It was essentially: ‘The reason why we will not seek constitutional recognition of local government is that it would not be successful.’ I say this to the government: it will be successful if they join with Labor in supporting it. The only reason it was opposed was due to the opportunistic, cynical attitude of the current Prime Minister and the former member Peter Reith who pushed the no vote and ensured that the constitutional referendum was indeed not successful. It is quite clear that unless both of the major sides of politics in Australia agree on a constitutional proposition it will not be successful. I call upon the government to take the first step and support Labor’s amendment to this motion on local government. It will indicate to all of those hard-working mayors, councillors, local government workers and, indeed, electors out there that we recognise in a true and practical way the work that they do on behalf of the Australian community.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Albanese’s amendment) stand part of the question.
56
16:33:00
Gambaro, Teresa, MP
9K6
Petrie
LP
Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs)
1
0
Ms GAMBARO
—It is no surprise that the government does not support the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. I remember only too well the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, because I was on that committee with the member for Grayndler. One of the recommendations of that particular committee report was that the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads proposed, as a precursor to the summit on intergovernmental relations, a resolution that the House of Representatives recognises local government as an integral level of governance in Australia and that that would be put forward in both chambers of parliament.
What the member for Grayndler has done today has gone even further and we do not support his amendment. That is not because we do not support local government. We feel that local government does a tremendous job in this country—and I am pleased to have the minister at the table at the moment. The objective of the motion before the House and the Senate is to recognise the contribution that has been made by local government to democratic governance in Australia. That is what the original House of Representatives committee recommended. The Australian government has consulted widely with local government on the terms of the motion and we received wholehearted endorsement of the words that were originally moved. Constitutional recognition was not a recommendation of the Hawker report. It was a unanimous bipartisan report. I and the member for Grayndler worked on that report. In fact, the report recognised that to provide constitutional recognition for government was not likely to ever succeed or be fully successful. The Hawker report recommended that, instead of a referendum on constitutional recognition, the government should move a motion in parliament to recognise local government as an integral level of governance in this country. That is exactly what we said we would do and we have done it. We have done it in the Senate and we have done it in the House of Representatives.
Constitutional recognition has been rejected by the Australian people on two previous occasions, in 1974 and 1988, and the member for Grayndler knows that only too well. He has come in here and is pulling another one of his stunts. The Australian government believes that there is a substantial number of issues that really do need to be addressed before a recommendation to change the Constitution to recognise local government could be again put to the Australian people. The Australian government does not want to see constitutional recognition used as a means for the states again to shuffle their responsibilities for local government, which they have a habit of doing. That report had many instances of where that was occurring in areas such as the police and health services. I remember it quite well.
Local government is a constitutional responsibility of the states and territories and is recognised in state constitutions, and the Australian government is not prepared to take on additional responsibility for the Commonwealth without a proper demarcation of the roles of states and territories in funding and regulating local government.
I want to place on record my great support for local government and the work that many of its officers around the country do; for supporting each and every one of us in this parliament and for the essential services they provide. Many times they do it for little or no financial reward. This motion recognises the time they give to serve their wonderful communities, and that their great commitment is above and beyond their elected fiduciary responsibilities.
It is a great honour to be here making the concluding remarks on this historic occasion. It is the first time ever that the Commonwealth parliament has considered a motion recognising that local government has a legitimate place in the governance of Australia. Again, I want to place on record my sincere appreciation of the great role that it plays. The motion celebrates the achievements of local government, it applauds the efforts of these people who work to represent their communities day and night and it marks the special relationship that we as the Australian government have with local government.
I commend all of the efforts of the Australian Local Government Association in their representation of local government interests in many forums. I know that they have a very high regard for the minister here, because I was at a women’s local government conference just a short while ago where they put that on the record.
It is unfortunate that, on this occasion, bipartisan support for the motion was not possible. The members opposite know only too well that constitutional recognition of local government was not a recommendation, as I said, of the Hawker report; it was a recommendation in the unanimous report of the bipartisan House of Representatives committee that a resolution in the form of the government’s motion be adopted by the House. This motion is a further step by the government towards meeting the commitments it gave. As I said, those full commitments were given at the time of the Hawker report, and we have undertaken to meet them.
A number of speakers, both in the Main Committee and today in the House, have used this opportunity to bring the special efforts and contributions of local government to our attention. For that, I thank each and every one of those who have spoken on local government to date. But the motion does not mean the Australian government have completed its consideration of local government issues. There are still several high-profile issues on which both levels of government need to work together, to make sure that we do what is right for the time ahead. The Australian government look forward to working with local government and making sure that we have this long, enduring and fruitful relationship.
Question agreed to.
16:27:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. IR Causley)
79
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
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.
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.
Hunt, G.A.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Katter, R.C.
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.
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.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
56
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Beazley, K.C.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
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.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Livermore, K.F.
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.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Question agreed to.
BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DIGITAL TELEVISION) BILL 2006
58
BILLS
R2634
Cognate bill:
BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT (MEDIA OWNERSHIP) BILL 2006
58
BILLS
R2635
Second Reading
58
Debate resumed.
58
16:40:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
0
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006. In doing so, I will be arguing against any increase in the concentration of media ownership amongst Australia’s dominant media outlets.
The purpose of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 is to dismantle cross-media ownership laws. It does so by allowing media owners to buy into other means of communication. The main purpose of this bill is to scrap restrictions that have guaranteed that the major metropolitan newspapers are not controlled by the same people who control the television stations or the comparatively few opinion-setting radio stations. How can the concentration of ownership of TV, daily newspapers and radio businesses within any one company do anything but decrease media diversity?
Analysts all over the country have identified the result of this bill—that is, a reduction in the number of media owners in Australia’s major media markets from 11 to five. As a result of this government’s assault on Australian journalism, we will see the largest players buying up media and making the notion of diversity within Australian journalistic media a global joke. There may be some countries with less media diversity than this government has planned for Australia. They are countries such as Cuba, North Korea, maybe Burma, and the old Soviet Union of the fifties through to the eighties. This is the company we, a free and open democracy, will be keeping with a minimal number of media outlets with a millennium of media dominance to play with.
This debate is taking place in a context of open warfare between this government and the ABC—the diminishing budgets, the accusations of bias, the threats of commercialism. Whether or not there is diversity of media ownership is of secondary interest to this government. Its absolute focus can be seen in this media bill’s Castroesque aversion to diversity of opinion and content.
Monopoly profits enjoyed by some proprietors are quite insignificant compared to the political effect of content control—opinion dominance and hence, as some would hope, something approximating social control and, ultimately, voter preference control. Australia being a democratic nation, let me ask this: who called for this bill? Who lobbied for it? Who supports it in the community, at the kitchen tables and in the lounge rooms and workplaces around the country? Where is the democratic push for the increased concentration of media ownership in this country which already has one of the most concentrated markets among comparable countries? Television stations have a guaranteed business and profitability; they do not need to buy into radio to be commercially viable.
There is a notion that this bill is necessary to enable regional radio stations to achieve greater economies of scale, thus enabling increased returns to be altruistically reinvested in the region through local news production. However, regional radio stations are doing fine. They are not going bust. They are able to cope with the demands of their markets. Where the market demands local content, they provide it. The proposed amendments are not necessary to save them from their own population bases.
In short, this government is out of control. We have seen this in its extreme industrial relations legislation. We have seen this in its delusional dismissal of global warming. We have seen this in its preference for cheaper, overseas workers taking jobs for which Australians should be receiving training. And we see it in this media ownership bill—how this supposedly modern government is delivering the nation’s media to media owners, shoring up the oligarchic industry.
Within my home state of South Australia, specifically Adelaide, we only have one newspaper and, apart from the ABC, only one radio station focused on opinion, news, the progression of ideas and the like—that is 5AA. The single newspaper, the single talkback radio station, the ABC and a few channels are not an awful lot of players to be going on with. But, if there is consolidation in the Adelaide market and even fewer players, it would be yet another indictment of this government’s disregard for the desires of the public and the needs of our nation.
Regarding the digital TV amendment, I want to make a few points on the provision of television services, which every household in my electorate would like to see improved. Whatever any government of the day decides is the best use of available spectrum, it is a finite resource and free-to-air television will always operate within constraints. Apart from any qualitative improvements inherent in digital television, the greater utilisation of spectrum made available to television stations and viewers is certainly in the interests of my constituents and I look forward to a day on which we see full multichannelling by each broadcaster. This day has been drawing nearer for six years. It could have been no later than 1 January 2009 but, unfortunately, it is apparent that the will is not there to make it so.
All free-to-air broadcasters have provided digital services in metropolitan areas since January 2001 and in regional areas since at least January 2004. In this implementation phase, analog programming has been simulcast in digital—same content, same viewing, same everything but perhaps noise or snow. By the end of 2005, ABC digital services reached over 96 per cent of the population and SBS have expected their roll-out to be completed by the end of 2006. Digital Broadcasting Australia have claimed that approximately 87 per cent of the Australian population had all free-to-air television services available to them in digital last year. Given this encouragement, the fact that digital TV had been adopted by something in the vicinity of only 13 per cent of households up to the end of 2005, with the anticipated analog switch-off in metropolitan areas being just three years later, has more than a deflationary effect; it is a ridiculously low figure.
So, digital TV is available to an overwhelming proportion of the Australian population right now, but people have not been sold on the idea of converting to digital. Expert advice is very simple, whether it be from the Seven or Ten network, any other provider or interested party—even the ACCC: give people a reason to invest in new technology. Give them access to something in addition to what they are currently getting or they have no incentive to take it up—no underlying personal gain, no invisible hand, no digital take-up.
Before being motivated to take up digital, you naturally need to know it exists. Two years after digital’s commencement, 21.8 per cent of Perth households had never even heard of digital TV. This is in 2003, with an analog cut-off in 2008. Wouldn’t it have been a different story if the government had put half of its Work Choices advertisements—just half of its $55 million worth of industrial relations propaganda—towards digital take-up, advertising analog’s switch-off date and the benefits of digital free-to-air television, and put something to people that they may have actually been able to learn something from, some accurate information for their benefit?
The government is obviously obsessed at this point in time with other things. Instead of advancing digital take-up, the minister decides to effectively drop it. Instead of pushing forward, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts retreated, admitting her preference to Senate estimates in May 2005 saying that the way the government was progressing the issue of a 2008 switch-off in metropolitan areas seemed unachievable. So maybe we will just leave the date hanging—to be determined maybe sooner or probably later. So, what is the situation now? Ask anyone in the street and they would not have the foggiest. So why would they feel inclined to spend their hard earned money on new technology?
Despite this government’s apparent lack of interest in advancing digital take-up, the inquiry into the uptake of digital television in Australia conducted by the House Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts recommended programming restrictions on multichannelling for national free-to-air networks as soon as possible and no later than 1 January 2007 and for commercial free-to-air networks on 1 January 2008, so that at least those who knew of digital could see some value in it. This bill lifts restrictions on the national broadcasters but only allows commercial free TV to provide a multichannel from January 2009. Restrictions on the number of multichannels a commercial free-to-air broadcaster can transmit will not be lifted until analog is switched off—whether that will be 2010 or 2012. But even with the limited gains regarding viewing choice over the next few years, one restriction remains: no broadcasting of anti-siphoning listed events on multichannels unless it is a repeat or simulcast—that is, no transmission by use of a multichannel that could work around standard programming on analog be played live on a multichannel and increase event viewing. I think this is particularly relevant given the proposed use it or lose it reaction.
We have had interested parties complaining about the proportion of listed events that are transmitted at game time. They complain that it is late, incomplete or omitted from programming. The idea in avoiding such scenarios is to make it inaccessible to anyone without access to a particular subscription service, probably worth $600 per year. So, in order to increase viewing, the suggestion is to take it off free to air and make it available to subscribers of a particular pay-for-view service. The government have wanted to minimise competition for the relatively new subscription TV industry, and their efforts have, I would expect, gone a long way to making subscription TV profitable at this time. But this deliberate and purposeful manipulation of the market to achieve subscription viability is not enough.
The government wants to continue the development of a pay TV skewed sport TV market: a market where free-to-air TV is hamstrung and purposefully prevented from using existing technology and capacity to program events—even certain games within overall events—on multichannel, giving sport fans nationwide an exceptionally good reason to convert to digital and keeping the event on the anti-siphoning list for a long time to come. In a few more years, we will all be digital and wanting to watch the event free to air. But, no, this government wants the anti-siphoning listed games taken off the list and sold to subscription TV: better to have people not be able to watch a game on pay TV than on digital free to air—this is the government’s view.
When the minister says that the antisiphoning list is for protecting events of national importance or cultural significance, I would like to ask her what she is thinking of. I cannot say I agree with every suggestion that has been made by the old Australian Broadcasting Authority on this matter, but even they have recommended, repeatedly, that all games involving Australia’s international soccer team, the Socceroos, should be included on the antisiphoning list. This is the advice that the Australia Broadcasting Authority gave to the minister for more than five years. Most international one-day cricket matches and tests Australia plays here are on the list, every international rugby test is on the list, but every international soccer game, other than the World Cup finals, is not. I would like to ask the minister why not.
Evidently, the ascension of the Socceroos to the world game, Australia’s standing within the international soccer community and the pride that Australians felt seeing the green and gold take it up to some of the best teams in the world—and in fact beat some of the best teams in the world—are not, in the minister’s view, of national importance or cultural significance. As I said earlier, I think two of the criteria for events going on that list are those of national importance and cultural significance. A question that has to be asked of the minister—and she must explain this to Australia’s soccer fans and other sports-loving fans—is why she thinks the Australian Socceroos on the international scale are not of national importance or cultural significance. Time and time again I have asked her to answer this question, but I have yet to hear any answers. It is ridiculous, narrow-minded and insulting to Australian soccer fans, as I have been hearing in the last few weeks since this issue was raised.
The effect of the minister’s view—a view which I must say is wrong—is the public’s loss of our Socceroos, the public’s loss of international games such as the Asian Cup and the loss by SBS and free-to-air to pay TV until 2013. Just at the time that Australia as a nation has witnessed our own team achieve success in the World Cup, just as it has seen young Australians mixing it with the best in the world, the Brazilians and the Italians, and just as the game is getting the attention it both deserves and has seriously lacked over many years—at this crucial point—the Socceroos are taken off the antisiphoning list and lost to free-to-air TV. People are very upset about this and, as I mentioned earlier, many people have contacted my office via email and phone calls about the Socceroos being taken off the free-to-air list and want it back on there at the earliest possible time.
This action of the Howard government shows its ignorance of what the Australian public demand, and it shows its incompetence in dismissing the Socceroos’ national significance. It also shows the Howard government is out of touch. When the Socceroos were playing in the World Cup we all saw the Prime Minister dressed up in his green and gold in front of his TV in his lounge room cheering the Socceroos on and jumping on board—in fact, everyone wanted to jump on board at that time—but where is the Prime Minister now when soccer fans really need his help to ensure that they can continue to see on free-to-air television the Socceroos play on the international stage? Where is he? Nowhere. This government does not value soccer, it does not value Australian soccer and it does not value the right of soccer-loving Australian families to watch our national team on the international stage.
Cricket and rugby lovers do comparatively better with the antisiphoning list and free-to-air guarantees, such as they are. Aussie Rules, on the other hand, is worth taking a look at. AFL games are on the antisiphoning list, so a free-to-air network gets preferential rights to air and Channels 7 and 10 have done a deal to secure those rights. But whether it was the Channel 7 and Channel 10 bid or the joint Channel 9 and Fox Sports bid, we will not see many more games played—live or delayed. Sporting competitions can be cherry-picked by the free-to-air networks and, because they cannot televise all games on their analog stations and are prohibited from televising on a multichannel, they attempt to effectively onsell the games to a subscription service.
Here we have another example of how the government’s restrictions on multichannelling are giving networks no choice but to deprive the viewing public of free-to-air sport. Again in this context, prohibiting sport on multichannels but threatening them with ‘use it or lose it’ penalties is forcing the free-to-air network to increasingly lose sporting competitions central to Australians’ social engagement to pay-for-view subscription services. I fear that AFL, cricket, rugby and soccer—the most popular sports in Australia—have all been targeted. Already many international cricket games have been lost to the antisiphoning list and free-to-air television. More international cricket is shown on subscription TV than on free-to-air TV. This is only because of the anti free TV motif of this government and its prohibition on multichannelling. This is a waste of available technology, a waste of available spectrum and a crime against all young sports fans who have enjoyed seeing their heroes on television and listening to commentaries from Ian Chappell and like greats who impart so much cricket wisdom to those willing to learn.
What we have seen with the Socceroos being lost from SBS to Fox Sports or to pay TV is going to continue with the ongoing restrictions on digital free-to-air multichannelling. Let this be a warning to the other codes, because what has happened to the Socceroos can happen to the AFL, to rugby and to cricket. It will be a devastating day when we cannot see our beloved AFL teams, our national cricket team or our national rugby teams on free-to-air. The sporting public demands more, and it is an indictment of this government that it has not advanced what is clearly in the best interests of the public and the sports. What is in their best interests is to be on free-to-air for all the public to be able to view them—for all the people who do not have the ability to pay the minimum $600 per year for pay TV or to attend sporting games. That is why football was on TV. It was for people who could not attend those games. Many pensioners cannot afford to go to the football and they cannot afford pay TV. Their only enjoyment, particularly in Adelaide, is to watch teams such as the Adelaide Crows or Port Power on a Sunday afternoon on TV. So it will be a sad day when we lose those sports from free-to-air.
These bills are not about the public’s best interests; they are about bleeding the public’s content for the good of a very few companies who are moguls in Australian media and still demand that the government gives them more. Our democracy is at stake on this issue. These bills are not in the best interests of the Australian public. The passage of these bills will reduce media ownership and media diversity. The new legislation will allow ownership of our media outlets to be in the hands of very few, stifling our democracy. We need to encourage media diversity, not constrain the media with fewer players. Australia’s media should not be seen as a commodity, which is what this government sees it as.
In my home city of Adelaide, with only one newspaper and two news radio stations, we will feel the impact greatly when these very few media outlets fall into the hands of the very few. Again, I ask: how can the concentration of ownership of TV and daily newspaper and radio businesses within any one company do anything but decrease media diversity? These bills pay lip-service to the regional areas of Australia. Therefore, I cannot support these bills and I encourage members to vote against them. (Time expired)
63
17:00:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
0
Mr NEVILLE
—The two bills before us today, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006, will determine the character of the media in Australia for the next two decades and perhaps beyond. I have drawn heavily on my submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, because I believe in this matter passionately and I argued my case passionately before that committee. I am hell-bent on three things: competition, diversity and a return to localism. Overriding even those things are the notions of freedom of the press, of diversity of opinion and of an informed community, which are not some esoteric concepts. They are real and integral parts of the democratic process. People in regional Australia are just as entitled to engagement with the fourth estate as people in the capital cities are.
The proposed changes under the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill will bring competition and allow media companies to achieve better efficiency while still protecting the diversity of the Australian media. The bills will remove the broadcasting-specific restrictions on foreign investment in the Australian media sector, but they will retain the media’s standing as a ‘sensitive sector’ under the foreign investment policy as well as under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. That means that all direct media investment and all portfolio investment over five per cent will be required to be notified to and approved by the Treasurer.
The laissez-faire attitude that has developed under the current Broadcasting Services Act, administered initially by the ABA and, more recently—and, might I say, in a better form—by the Australian Communications and Media Authority has contributed to the deterioration in the quality and diversity of services as well as a concentration of radio ownership. Under the old regime of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, a prospective broadcaster had to convince the tribunal that he or she was a person of good character and repute, had financial capacity, had the skills and expertise to run a radio or television station and could demonstrate an engagement with the community that was to be served. Note that last one: they had to be able to engage with the community that they were to serve.
The auction system that has been introduced more recently has fuelled an unfulfilled commercial expectation, and in the process it has driven up to a ridiculous level the price of radio stations. This in turn has led to excessive networking, a reduction in services and the disingenuous argument from some proprietors that they really cannot afford to have local newsrooms. With regard to that latter point, after paying up to $15 million in a regional market or $105 million, as occurred once in a capital city market, it is farcical for broadcasters to turn around and cry poor about the provision of a newsroom. Even small country stations have changed hands for figures of around $2 million.
Those factors have led to a concentration of ownership of radio stations, not necessarily in individual markets, but rather generically across Australia in specific regional districts. That leads me to my basic premise. If we allow some form of concentration of ownership, what are the trade-offs? If a proprietor can afford to purchase an additional form of media in a market, there should be a requirement to re-establish a newsroom as a demonstration of a serious commitment to that market. How do we avoid the continuation of the current situation? Or should we see this as an opportunity for a renaissance of regional media, rather than a meaningless concentration?
Under the Broadcasting Services Act there was no real control on foreign ownership of radio stations. In fact, other than the two-station rule—that is, two stations in the market—there has been no brake on the number and concentration of radio services that can be held by one organisation. Section 67 of the act has not been used for emergent or unusual episodes but rather as a commercial facilitatory process. Perhaps more importantly, I believe that the ABA failed to uphold the key objectives of the act, which section 3 specifically states as being, in part:
... to encourage diversity in control of the more influential broadcasting services;
and:
... to encourage providers of commercial and community broadcasting services to be responsive to the need for a fair and accurate coverage of matters of public interest and for an appropriate coverage of matters of local significance.
Clearly, that has not been happening—certainly not in regional Australia. These two points are pivotal, in my view, in maintaining and protecting the diversity of opinion and guaranteeing a degree of localism in regional markets. This is particularly crucial in the radio sector.
Another reason for my keen focus on radio is that in the terms of the bill local markets are determined by the footprint of the radio station rather than those of the newspaper or the television station. So, if you like, the pivotal medium is radio. I fundamentally believe that the holding of a radio or TV licence is a privilege, and it carries with it responsibilities. Content must be more than generic, piped, network programming. It should be part of the culture of the region it serves, expressing its ambitions, its expectations and opinions, as well as interacting with the activities in the community and with the community itself—the community of which it is a part. Sadly, much has been lost over the last 15 years, and it is simply not acceptable that people in regional and rural centres should be subjected to a second-class engagement with the fourth estate.
I am pleased that the concept of local content plans has been adopted by the minister. I am also pleased that with those local content plans radio stations, as part of their annual reporting of their statistics and finances, will give a report to ACMA on how they serve their local market. Every three years they will be submitted to the parliament for review so that we can see whether there is localism and whether people are taking the treatment of country people seriously. I believe that these should be not prescriptive documents but simple statements of how the station will engage or has engaged with the community.
In the future, commercial television licensees in regional Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania will be required from 1 January 2008 to provide minimum levels of content on matters of local significance. Local content licence conditions and local content plans would also be required of regional commercial radio licensees where a commercial radio licence is transferred or becomes part of a merged media group, if the format of a commercial radio service is narrowed or where the minister directs ACMA to consider imposing local content provisions. Licensees will have to demonstrate via their local content plan how they intend to meet the local content licence condition and what resources they will have in place to achieve that requirement. Regional commercial radio licensees that have a local content plan in force, as I said before, will report annually. Every three years we will have the capacity to review that in the parliament. Obviously, ACMA will temper its intervention in accordance with the size and capacity of the market. ACMA will also assess compliance of regional radio licensees with licence conditions. That commitment, as I said before, will be reviewed every three years.
The control provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act will be amended to include issues such as the sharing of production and transmission facilities, the sharing of staff, content agreements and financial relationships. I applaud the new emphasis which will be applied to content. That will be further bolstered by ACMA’s new powers. In extreme cases of noncompliance, ACMA will have the authority to issue a new licence. With a serial offender you can have that person fined $10,000 or $15,000 or $20,000 and, if it is a big organisation, it is one day’s embarrassment and a slap on the wrist. But if you end up with another radio station in a market then you may well affect the value of the other radio station by anything as much as $2 million, $3 million or $4 million. That is when people do need to take notice.
I believe it is reasonable that radio stations be required also to broadcast live and local for a set minimum number of hours per day. Before these arrangements come into effect, ACMA will investigate the current levels of local content in regional radio, the impact of the proposed minimum level on licensees and how different types of regional broadcasters will be affected by the requirement. I recognise that this may cause problems in some very small markets. Some of them have spoken to me and my colleagues. There are radio stations making less than $50,000 a year. Some of these new provisions may be difficult for them. As this review goes ahead I would be happy to support a lower threshold of compliance for those in small markets.
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr Fitzgibbon
—Might be too late then, Paul.
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr NEVILLE
—No, it would not. The whole idea of the review is to test how these limits will work. The review will give the minister the necessary background to adjust the levels and the requirement for differential usage across Australia, if it is deemed appropriate.
I think 4½ hours of a 24-hour broadcasting schedule is not unreasonable. That means coming in in the morning and broadcasting from 5.30 or six o’clock, perhaps through to nine or 10 o’clock, when you might put on John Laws, Charles Wooley or Hadley or one of the other network programs from Sydney, then perhaps broadcasting for an hour or two at midday. It is not a huge requirement; 4½ hours is barely one shift for one announcer. Again, I think some of the stations have been quite disingenuous to say, ‘That will force us to close our station.’ I find that very hard to take seriously, quite frankly, especially with one or two of the big networks. But let us say the requirement is 4½ hours.
The other requirement we wish to place on radio stations is to broadcast 12½ minutes a day of locally derived and presented news. That would be five bulletins of 2½ minutes or perhaps six bulletins of two minutes. You would find that most ABC regional stations do that without any trouble at all. On ABC radio in the country at six, seven, eight, nine and 10 o’clock every day you can get a local bulletin. In some of the bigger ABC stations you get them at drive time as well.
What would that mean? We have heard, ‘That will mean we’ve got to put two journalists in every station, and we’ve got to do this and we’ve got to do that.’ I know three stations where there is a part-time female journalist. She starts at about 5.30 in the morning; she does bulletins on the hour at six, seven, eight, nine, 10 and, I think 11 o’clock; and she probably puts one in the can for the midday news before she goes home. She probably does 5½ hours a day, five days a week. That is 27½ hours of a journalist. That is not a huge requirement by any standard, because 27½ hours of a journalist’s wage will not cripple any station—or very few. What it will do is to give people in some of those markets a chance to hear local news, not just to listen to endless piped music or news bulletins of, in many cases, doubtful significance to that community. We have seen some of that on programs like Media Watch in recent times where any sort of thing goes for the bush. The particular girl I was talking about does the news for three radio stations at about 27½ hours a week. So I think we are being handed up a lot of scare tactics.
We are also going to require that those news bulletins cannot be just endlessly repeated. There needs to be an effort to look for news stories around the town: what happened in court that day, what the city and shire councils are doing, what the police have been up to, what is the latest from the local hospital, what is happening in the rural and regional areas, what is happening in local sport and so on. There is no end of sources for local content if people are serious. The minister’s bill requires only five weather bulletins a week. I presume that means a larger bulletin where, if you are on the coast, you would get surf conditions, wind conditions, fishing conditions and all those sorts of things, and the weather and rainfall reports for the various regions in the district.
I would like to return briefly to a point that the member for Hindmarsh raised in his speech. I think that the nub of this legislation is the number of voices in any given media market. I think it would have been intolerable to allow any person in a regional market of six or seven voices to have control of the newspaper, the two radio stations—which constitute one voice—and the newspaper. That would have been, to me, oppressively wrong. It would have given an interventionist proprietor or a zealot editor a chance to really influence three forms of media. It would also have had implications for how diverse and competitive advertising rates are in a particular market. For that reason, I fought very hard right through this whole campaign for two out of three in the country. In other words, you could have any two of those mediums but not all three.
The government, through its party room and in its wisdom, decided to extend that to the capital cities, and I thought that was a great measure. While it will allow some concentration, it will not allow anyone to become a dominant player. Using the case of Adelaide, as the member for Hindmarsh did, there is the Adelaide Advertiser, the three TV stations, radio 5AA, one other news station and a number of music stations. It would have been intolerable for someone to own the Advertiser, the TV station and, say, the talk station or the other news station. Two out of three puts the brake on excesses in those markets—Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth in particular.
Diversity of sources of opinion on our airwaves, particularly in regional areas, is paramount. It is totally unacceptable for one proprietor to own the triple—as I talked about before—and to perhaps exchange news between the three mediums. Imagine what sort of two-dimensional biased media that could be if someone had control of it or if you had an interventionist proprietor. So I support the four voices view in country areas and five in the capital cities—but with that overriding three out of four rule.
Probity is the final issue. I believe that all companies and proprietors holding radio or television licences must be able to demonstrate a clear and transparent ownership structure. So I applaud the planned introduction of a register of controllers to be maintained by ACMA. The register will identify the controllers of commercial radio and television licences and associated newspapers in each licence area in the event of any ownership changes. It should not be possible for one company or proprietor to exercise, by way of financial or programming control, influence over another proprietor or company. I hope that those things which the minister will be taking on board after the Elmie case will lead to greater probity and will, in turn, ensure that we end up with competition, diversity and localism out of these bills. I commend these bills to the House.
67
17:20:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I deliberately took the time to come into the House to listen to the contribution of the member for Hinkler, because I know that he is very genuine in his concerns about protecting diversity in the media, particularly in regional Australia—as I am. We are both from regional seats. I do not question his genuineness in that regard, but I do question his methods. I note that he puts enormous faith in the Australian Communications and Media Authority, but he does not seem to put a lot of faith in the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 per se. His speech was full of caveats, hanging big hopes on reviews. He is now an expert on local radio stations and whether or not a local radio station can afford an extra employee for so many hours a week. I am very pleased he has become so expert in that regard. But, with respect to the member for Hinkler, I do not have a lot of confidence in his expertise on these issues. Anyone who really knows anything about regional radio knows that, without question, local news is revenue negative for a radio station. So already they are behind the eight ball, and one dollar in additional cost puts enormous pressure on the viability of that local radio operation.
This just underscores the government’s approach to public policy and the dysfunctionality of the government at this point in time. You have Barnaby Joyce running off on one tangent and members like the member for Hinkler now fearful of their preselection and therefore muscling up to the government. What happens as a consequence? The government rolls. What happens when it rolls? We get extreme responses, like we have had in radio. No-one is more of a protector of local content in regional radio than I am, but there is a real question of the viability of the new local content obligations this government is placing on those radio stations.
We are talking about 200 radio stations competing in a market not much bigger than the size of Sydney. I think Sydney has 10 radio stations in aggregate. So it is a significant issue for them. Again, while we are already defenders of local content, this is the sort of knee-jerk reaction you get and it is going to put enormous pressure on those radio stations. The member for Hinkler is delighted there is going to be a review, but for some the review might come all too late. So I ask him to reflect on that and I ask his colleagues in the National Party to reflect on that also.
In my own area there is not any problem with local content. Local radio stations like KO FM already rack up about 24 minutes of local news on any given day, and 2HD racks up some 65 minutes. Of course, they are working in a pretty substantial market, the market known as the Hunter region. People in more far-flung areas of New South Wales would not have a market anywhere near that size and will struggle to meet the obligations that the government has imposed as a knee-jerk reaction to the complaints of National Party members.
I intend to devote most of my time in this debate to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. The bill broadly proposes four things. The first is to permit cross-media merges in any given licence area in this country—in other words, it will unravel the laws put in place by Paul Keating to maintain media diversity in this country. It purports to replace those restrictions with the so-called five-four rule, which, as the member for Hinkler indicated, requires a minimum of five voices, as the government likes to call them, in the four biggest capital cities and four voices in the remaining capital cities and country regions.
The first thing I have to say about that is that it will put a big question mark over the concept of what constitutes a voice. As has been borne out in the Senate committee inquiry, a voice can simply be a music-playing station or a racing station, stations that do not add to diversity in any given market. I will return to those points. The second is to remove specific foreign ownership restrictions in the Australian media sector. The opposition does not have any degree of concern about that concept and would be more than willing to accept that if it were put forward as a separate item in a separate bill rather than being tied to the abolition of the cross-media rules, which of course we oppose.
The bill also purports to put in place additional disclosure laws that are supposedly to add more transparency to media ownership in this country. Fourth, it purports to introduce so-called regional protections, which again is a reaction to the pressure the government has come under from its rural constituency and National Party members in this place. The explanatory memorandum is at pains to point out that all mergers post this law will remain subject to the considerations of the ACCC, and that is a point I want to return to later.
If I did a survey of this place and asked members what the most important public policy issue was for them, you would be pretty certain that they would rate health, education and matters economic—keeping the economy healthy and strong, providing a low interest rate environment, a low inflation rate environment and a high-growth environment for the country. They might nominate other things like specific rural and regional concerns, but if they gave it some thought they would nominate media law. They would nominate media law because, arguably, media law dictates everything that happens in this place. I thank the Prime Minister for reminding us recently about the importance of media diversity when he said:
The strength and vitality of Australian democracy rests on three great institutional pillars …
The first is:
… our parliament with its tradition of robust debate …
The second is:
… the rule of law upheld by an independent and admirably incorruptible judiciary …
And the third, of course, is:
… a free and sceptical press …
Sometimes we do not like to admit it publicly but just about everything that happens in this place is guided by what happens in the media. I can give you a few examples. Not long after the GST was introduced and petrol prices were spiralling upwards, it became apparent that the GST, a tax on a tax on fuel, was adding to the cost of fuel and the burden on Australian families. What did the government do? It now regularly boasts that it further reduced the excise and froze indexation.
Do you think the government would have done that if the Daily Telegraph or the Sun-Herald were not running regular front pages about the prices on bowsers? Of course it would not have. The government would have held fast. It would have dug in and ridden out what would have been a relatively smaller storm. More recently, we saw the so-called energy blueprint. There was this big idea that petrol prices could be held down by the introduction of an LPG scheme. We know how unsuccessful and inadequate that was, but would we have seen a fuels blueprint if petrol at $1.40, approaching $1.50, had not been on the front pages on a daily basis? Of course we would not have. The government would have ridden out the storm.
Even more recently, on the skills crisis, something we on this side have been talking about for many years, would we have seen a statement from the Prime Minister—again, as inadequate as it was—if the media had not played such a significant role in publicising to the Australian community the effect that skills crisis is having on the Australian economy? No, we would not have.
We all know that the role of the media in this place is absolutely critical. Flowing naturally from that, we all know that diversity in the media is absolutely critical. I heard one of my colleagues reminding us yesterday that one particular media organisation could fairly claim credit for both the election and the dismissal of the Whitlam Labor government, and no-one in this place could deny that.
The fact is that Australia already has a very high concentration of media ownership. We already have one of the greatest concentrations of media ownership of any country that calls itself a democracy. News Ltd and Fairfax currently control over 80 per cent of Australia’s metropolitan newspapers. Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, owner of Channel 9, currently has television coverage reaching 52 per cent of Australia’s population and has a 40 per cent market share of Australia’s top-selling magazines. This of course is not to mention News Ltd’s and Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd’s 25 per cent each share in Australia’s monopoly pay TV network, Foxtel, and a 33 per cent share in Sky News as well as an interest in Australian Associated Press.
I am grateful to the member for Lowe, whom you can rely upon for research on this issue—because, as we all know, the member for Lowe is quite passionate about media law and its direction in this place—for his analysis of what the passage of this particular bill could mean to media diversity. He says—and I am sure he is absolutely accurate—that the passage of this bill will allow News Ltd and PBL:
... to own every major metropolitan newspaper … most suburban newspapers; virtually every magazine; Channel 9 and Channel 10; Sky News; Australian Associated Press; monopoly pay television Foxtel; and more than 70 per cent of the news and information sites on the internet ...
I note that the second reading speech—and I am sure it was the same speech in both houses—starts by saying:
The communications environment, in Australia and across the world, is experiencing a period of rapid and accelerating change. New platforms are emerging, along with new forms of content and greater levels of interactivity. Media content is now available in multiple forms, on-demand, and to fixed or mobile receivers, providing Australians with an unprecedented level of choice and control in their media usage.
Who really believes any of that? How many people in this country rely on the internet, let alone their mobile phone, as their key source of news information? Very few. And, in any case, as the member for Lowe has pointed out, more than 70 per cent of the news and information sites on the internet will be owned by the two major players. So it is a furphy. It does make the point that the industry has moved on since the introduction of the cross-media laws, but it does not justify, by any stretch of the imagination, putting in place law that allows the low level of diversity we can expect as a result of the passage of this legislation.
In my region, we have seven players in the media now—and the floor is four. Of course, no shortage of experts have predicted a race to that floor. The government is introducing this as a minimum, and there will be a race to that floor. That is what we can expect in the Hunter in the not too distant future—and that is of course bad for media diversity. Since the passage of this legislation in the Senate the CEO of Rural Press has expressed a public interest in both the Newcastle Herald and the Illawarra Mercury—and I welcome the member for Throsby who is walking into the House now, as she has a strong interest in the Illawarra Mercury.
The Newcastle Herald and the Illawarra Mercury are, of course, part of the Fairfax stable—and we all know the emotional attachment between JB Fairfax of Rural Press and the former family empire. It is worth pointing out to the House and acknowledging—in fact, conceding—that there is nothing in current laws that would prevent Rural Pressfrom making a play for the Newcastle Herald. But it is interesting that they have been emboldened since the passage of this legislation through the Senate and the inevitability, unfortunately, of the passage of this legislation through this place.
What would be the scenario be in my region after reducing from, say, seven to five? What would happen, for example, in Maitland, the largest city in my electorate, which now enjoys two daily newspapers—the Newcastle Herald, which is Fairfax owned, and the Maitland Mercury, which is owned by Rural Press? Potentially, there could be a merger and less diversity in news sheet news in the Maitland area. Of course, another potential consequence of that could be the loss of a significant number of jobs. I think the Newcastle Herald employs about 300 people and I suspect that the Maitland Mercury would be fast approaching 100 people. I should say that the Maitland Mercury is the oldest regional newspaper in New South Wales—if not the country. It would be a great shame if that masthead ever disappeared.
I return to my point that the explanatory memorandum is at great pains to remind us that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission remains in this game. How much confidence can we have in that? How much confidence can we have that section 50 of the Trade Practices Act will prove sufficiently effective to stop mergers that lead to too low a level of diversity in this country? I do not think we can have any confidence at all. It was interesting to note that the Chairman of the ACCC, Graeme Samuel, I think on Saturday, came out—muscling up—to remind the media barons that he is still there on guard. But why would he feel the need to warn the media barons that he is on guard? If he has any confidence in the new laws being introduced by the government, why would he feel the need to come out and say that? If he was confident that the test being put in place by the government was going to be sufficient to protect media diversity, he would not have felt the need to do that.
We have seen the difficulty that the ACCC has in determining definitions. What is a ‘market’? What is a ‘substantial lessening of competition in any given market’? It is very difficult. We have additional concerns now and those concerns are contained within the Dawson bill, which is currently in the Senate. It was subject to media publicity today over some apparent deal that the Treasurer is trying to stitch up with certain sections of the business community.
What the Dawson bill proposes is a watering down of the merger provisions that we have in this country. It does so in two ways. Firstly, it intends to get rid of the informal process for clearance under section 50, which is a competition test. Currently, the applicant goes to the ACCC and informally seeks immunity from prosecution for an arrangement that could be seen to reduce competition. If he gets that immunity, he goes off and operates. The government’s proposal is to have a formal clearance process which will, of course, give the applicant something to appeal. The appeal goes to the Australian Competition Tribunal, a body which I could argue—given that the Treasurer has now had 10 years to appoint and reappoint every member of the committee—does not instil great confidence in the community regarding its willingness to protect competition.
Secondly, the government is proposing a new authorisation test. Authorisation is the path you go down if the ACCC decides that you do not clear the hurdle of the competition test under section 50. You make your application on the basis that it is in the public interest to allow the merger to go ahead in any case. The government, under the Dawson bill, intends to do away with the ACCC in that process and allow the applicant to go straight to the Australian Competition Tribunal—a body that I am not too confident is going to give the sort of defence of competition in this country that we would like to see it provide. The Dawson bill has become very important. Now that we have a weaker media law, it is very important to ensure that, if we do not have a stronger Trade Practices Act, we do not allow ourselves to be in a position where we have a weaker Trade Practices Act.
There has been a lot of debate in the papers this week about what Labor might do in response to these laws upon coming to office. There is one thing that is very clear and unequivocal: we will not sit by and allow the sort of lack of diversity in this country that we fear as a result of these bills. We will not stand by and allow a couple of media moguls to monopolise media and news comment in this country. We are prepared to use all of the mechanisms available to us—legislative and otherwise—to restore that diversity if our predictions come true and diversity of media ownership in this country falls to below acceptable standards. Diversity of media goes to the very heart of our democracy. That is why I began by suggesting to members of this place that this is more important than health, education or the economy. If we do not get the media providing fair comment on these issues, we will not have the power to do anything about them in this place.
71
17:40:00
George, Jennie, MP
JH5
Throsby
ALP
0
0
Ms GEORGE
—I am pleased to be able to participate in this cognate debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. As a member of parliament, I am really surprised that I am debating a bill where the rationale for the changes that have been introduced, particularly in the media ownership bill, has not come to this parliament based on any clamour by the community nor on any empirical evidence which would suggest that the carriage of this legislation would be in the national interest. It seems to me that no-one—other than a handful of media owners—has asked for the changes that we are debating. There is no remotely discernible demand from the Australian people—nor from the people whom I represent—for this parliament to now be debating a change to the existing cross-media rules, nor is there any independent evidence to show that the passage of this legislation is in our national interest. It is quite to the contrary. In the comments I make tonight, I want to show precisely why these changes are not in our national interest.
The government and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts have failed to advance any convincing justification for why they are pursuing these changes, save to satisfy the interests of some of our noted media moguls. I have heard two arguments advanced in support of the changes. The minister argues that the media ownership bill is designed to allow media companies to realise economies of scale. One might ask: to whose benefit would that be? The media sector in this country, as we know, is highly profitable and it certainly does not require mergers to remain viable. The only result that you could contemplate from these economies of scale, in my view, is a loss of journalists’ jobs in the industry and putting localism at risk.
The other argument that I have heard is that our current cross-media regulation is anachronistic; we are told that the so-called ‘new media’ is rapidly assuming dominance over old media forms. This argument is absolute rubbish. The arrival of websites, the internet and blogs are minute blips on the information radar compared with the influence of traditional media outlets. Labor is not opposing these bills for the sake of opposition. There have been changes in media form and content in this country, but if we were genuine about media reform I think there would be principles that would underpin the changes that we would bring to the parliament rather than just a pandering to the media moguls.
There are several principles that would guide our view of media reform, and I will outline those which I think would be important. First of all, Labor, as a government, would want to promote and protect diversity of opinion by preventing an excessive concentration of ownership. Secondly, we would want to enhance consumer choice and competition in media services. Very importantly, into the future, we would want to provide the industry with a platform to grow and with the capacity to deliver the full benefits of digital technology to Australian consumers across the board.
In all respects, the bills before us fail these fundamental tests of principle. The government argues that diversity is being driven by the proliferation of new media sources and it is using this as a justification for weakening our existing cross-media laws. The concept of diversity, as we have known it in our community, has been refashioned by the government. Traditionally, diversity has been seen in terms of structural regulation of media ownership through cross-media rules, but the government now argues that the concentration of ownership argument is of lesser concern because news and information are more freely available. It is true that media information and news are available more freely elsewhere, and certainly the younger generation, unlike me, avail themselves of these new forms of communication and information gathering. However, that is not to suggest that we should be conflating the issue of content choice with the diversity of viewpoints available to the community at large.
I think a lot of this current debate is really about the refashioning of the use of the word ‘diversity’. I found a quote, which I think sums up the debate we are having on this bill quite effectively. It states:
Some argue for mechanisms to increase content diversity as a trade-off for more relaxed media ownership regulation. In recent debate, this definition of diversity based on content choice has been conflated with the more traditional understanding of diversity based on ensuring a range of opinions and viewpoints in media output. There is certainly a need for mechanisms that promote a diversity of cultural content ... however this is a different policy objective from the promotion of diversity in news, views and opinion through a plurality of ownership and control of the more influential media forms.
In my view, and in the view of those who have participated in the debate already in this House, the issue of Australia’s media concentration is well known. We know for a fact that Australia has one of the highest levels of media concentration among comparable developed democratic countries. The importance of our current cross-media rules is in the number of media outlets which have the power to influence the public debate. The substantial ‘media of influence’ in our country remain the daily newspapers, which set the news agenda, publish editorials, run campaigns and are highly influential in our communities, together with a handful of TV current affairs and radio talkback programs. Any reduction in the number of owners of these important outlets will of course concentrate power in even fewer hands. In November last year a poll conducted by Roy Morgan found that, in the Australian community, 48 per cent of Australians use television as their main source of information, 22 per cent use newspapers, 19 per cent use radio and only eight per cent get information from the internet—so much for the argument that the new forms of media are making our existing cross-media laws redundant.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of these changes on the community that I represent, the Illawarra. We know also from the evidence that regional media in Australia is already highly concentrated. In mid-2005, four companies controlled all but seven of our 36 regional daily newspapers, three regional TV networks held all but four of the 39 non-metropolitan commercial TV licences, and three networks accounted for 61 per cent of our regional commercial radio licences. That is the situation today, where in regions like mine we already have very high levels of concentration.
The bill before us abolishes the existing cross-media rules and replaces them with new tests. But, unfortunately, these tests would allow an even further concentration of ownership. The tests are commonly referred to as the five-four and the two out of three rules. Let us take the first rule—the diversity of voices test. We are told that this will protect diversity by establishing that at least five media groups in the capital cities and four in the regional centres can operate and that no media group, under the two out of three rule, will be able to own more than two out of the three platforms. But it is a very simplistic test which will inevitably restrict diversity and impact on localism in regions like mine.
Let us look at the nature and the effects of these possible mergers under these new tests. I take two hypothetical scenarios. In Sydney, for example, a merger of Channel 9 and the Sydney Morning Herald, while still meeting the five-four voices test, would be given exactly the same weight as a voice as the owners holding the licence for radio station 2KY. You do not have to be a genius to know which merger and which owner would have the decided influence in shaping public opinion, especially political opinion. In my own region, for example, a merger between WIN TV—the only existing television station that produces a nightly news report—and our daily newspaper, the Illawarra Mercury, would hypothetically have the same weight as the radio station, WAVE FM, that operates in our region.
So you can see—and I am really surprised that the Nationals have fallen for this—that these tests will not protect diversity. In fact, they will see a greater concentration that will restrict the variety of opinions and voices we hear locally. They will have a significant impact on the way that the media operates and they will no doubt lead to a reduction in quality journalism. The greatest limitation of the new diversity test, the five-four rule, is that it gives no weighting to the relative influence of various media players. I think that just in those two hypothetical examples you can see that a simplistic five-four rule does not deal with the real issue of diversity.
On top of that, we are told by the minister and the government that the ACCC can act as an additional safeguard against excessive concentration. I have to say that that is open to debate and conjecture and, as we know from earlier proceedings, decisions in the Federal Court. From what I understand of the tests that apply, the relevant market has traditionally been defined as print and TV operating in separate markets. Under the Trade Practices Act, the ACCC is tasked with protecting competition. The commission has no responsibility today for the protection of diversity in media markets. It is not able to take public interest consideration into account in assessing the impact of mergers under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. This point has been made previously by the inquiry conducted by the Productivity Commission, and I think it has been commented on in much greater detail in earlier contributions both by the member for Hotham and by the member for Hunter.
I am opposed to the weakening of cross-media rules. I do not believe, as the Prime Minister has said, that somehow it is a second order issue. I think it is a vital issue to the functioning of an open and vibrant market for ideas, which underpins a healthy democratic system. The function of media ownership regulation has until now been the promotion of free expression of a diverse range of views. Let me quote the words of the Australian Press Council, which in its submission to the Senate said:
For the effective functioning of Australian democracy, there must be sufficient and sufficiently diverse sources of news and comment to ensure that members of the public are always promptly and well enough informed to make their own judgements about governance, regulation, sport, entertainment or other matters.
The great danger of the bills before us is that the government’s changes to cross-media rules will have the potential to give even more power to some of the most powerful people in Australia. Media diversity is too important to be left to chance. We believe that preservation of media diversity should remain the responsibility of the parliament and its elected members, rather than living in hope that somehow the ACCC or the courts will define that problem for us. People want and need a variety of views and opinions—and the public understand the importance of this issue. In all the surveys I have read, Australians oppose further concentration of media ownership. The owners of the most influential media in our country are in a very unique position to influence public debate and even election outcomes by controlling what people see, hear and watch. These bills are not in the national interest. It is simply not possible to maintain a healthy democratic system without a vibrant, diverse and competitive media sector.
Let me now deal with the argument that the existing laws are anachronistic. I acknowledge that there has been a huge change in modes of communication in this sector but, even so, we know the traditional media forms remain the most significant source of local and national news and political commentary. Today, for example, more than one million people will read the Daily Telegraph and more than 800,000 of them will watch the news on Channel 7 or Channel 9 tonight.
The same companies that control TV and newspapers also dominate the major internet websites. The internet is overwhelmingly a way to source news from known and trusted media companies, so it is not surprising to find that of those who have used the internet 57 per cent visited ninemsn.com, 51 per cent went to the Sydney Morning Herald website, 31 per cent used a News Ltd site and only two per cent visited new media sites like Crikey or Google for their news. So the justification for relaxing existing cross-media rules on the basis that these new media forms are providing the diversity is shown to be a sham by all the evidence before us.
In the time I have left, I want to make a few points about the transition to digital TV. One of the most disappointing aspects of these so-called reforms is the deferring of the difficult digital decisions—postponing the switch-off of analog broadcasting from the end of 2008 until 2010-12. Achieving analog switch-off is a very important public policy issue that has not been given the priority it deserves. One might say that, in all the changes proposed, it seems that the major winners have been the proprietors of the free-to-air programs, who will be able to sit on their spectrum waiting for the analog switch-off, which, on some estimates, might not occur until 2015. They are absolutely terrified of the possibility that new free-to-air players might enter the market.
Australia has made very disappointing progress towards digital conversion, because consumers have not been provided with significant incentives in terms of additional content. The decision to lift the restrictions on ABC and SBS digital channels is very welcome, but we all know that the ABC and SBS both need greater investment of resources and funding so that they can create new content and do what the BBC has managed to do in the UK, where the government has given it the task of building digital Britain. Extra channels and interactive services offered by the BBC in Britain have made an important contribution in generating consumer demand for digital services.
Unfortunately, the new rules contained in this bill continue to limit consumer choice and stifle the development of new digital services. It is a very disappointing and tardy response. Unfortunately, the networks, too, have shown little interest in showcasing the benefits of digital by offering interactive services. These services have largely been quarantined to pay TV. The blow-out in the time frame for achieving analog switch-off provides the existing free-to-air players with the opportunity to rest on their laurels and to have protection from the possibility of a new free-to-air service player.
Relaxing the media ownership laws in the way proposed by the bill not only will have the effect of increasing concentration of ownership but will also lead to a sharp concentration in the ownership of the most influential news and opinion content accessed by Australians in terms of the old media and on the new media platforms. This will harm our democracy. The removal of our existing cross-media rules will result in fewer owners of the media that determine and set the national agenda.
By consolidating political and societal power in the hands of a tiny number of individuals, this bill will see public debate in this country curtailed, thus making our country less democratic. The laws will create an unprecedented threat to the fabric of serious journalism, and the role of the media as the scrutineer of government will also be weakened in this process.
It is for these reasons that I have come to the conclusions that the legislation is not in the national interest and should be opposed. And I urge the government, and particularly the members of the National Party, to reconsider their position and to think seriously about the implications of this legislation, and hopefully support the opposition move to oppose the legislation.
76
18:00:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—I rise to support the comments made by the member for Throsby, and oppose the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and accompanying bill because the government has not outlined a cogent case for change. Again we see the parliament filled with opposition members explaining to the people, via this chamber, why the government has not explained sufficiently the reason for changing the cross-media ownership laws in this country.
In fact, if you were to look at the list of speakers for these particular bills you would see that there are more than 20 opposition members compared with four government members, none of whom are frontbenchers of the government. So, you see, the government is not interested in debating the change. I have to explain to Tories in this place—I have to explain to the conservatives—that if they want to radically alter the laws of this country, their job is to explain why.
If they want to maintain the laws of this country, they may get away with not explaining themselves to the people of Australia, but when they want to radically alter very important laws that regulate media ownership in this country it is incumbent upon them to explain why. They have chosen not to come into this place long enough to do so. That is, in itself, an indictment of this government—a government that is arrogant and has no regard for this place or for the people of Australia—because, as the member for Throsby clearly indicated, this legislation does not arise from a groundswell of concern amongst community members who are suggesting we need to respond to the technological change in media. That is not the reason for the change that has been sought by the government.
This is the third occasion that I have spoken on cross-media ownership laws since being elected to this place. In 2002 and 2003 I rose in this chamber and explained why I did not support the changes that were sought by the government. Of course, the fundamental difference between then and now is that the government has a majority, with the support of Senator Fielding, in the Senate. It has managed to secure that majority and, as a result, it is seeking to ram these extreme laws through both houses of parliament. It is, unfortunately, a travesty.
I agree with all of the comments made by the members on this side of the chamber so far in this debate, but I think it is important to note that, whilst not one member of the executive government wants to enter into the debate on this, there have been comments by ministers in the past about these laws. I would like to make some reference to a couple of comments made by the member for Moreton—now a minister of this government—who is on the record as saying:
My concern is simple. I think people are best served by a diverse range of choices in the media. Diversity is not something that is guaranteed in a deregulated environment because a natural consequence of free enterprise is acquisition. My fear is that if you bring it down to two or three proprietors, you could find the next stage is two proprietors and then the next stage is one.
That was clearly a view held by the member for Moreton when he was a backbencher. We have not heard from him with respect to this bill on this occasion, and we certainly have not heard from him about why he would now hold a different view. I would also like to refer to some comments made by the Minister for Defence. When he was a backbencher, he made a number of comments with respect to these particular laws and his concerns about the concentration of media ownership. He said:
I have no concern at all about Mr Packer gaining control of Fairfax. My concern is that if he does that, without relinquishing some of his other media assets. The average Australian feels uncomfortable with the concentration of media ownership.
That was what the Minister for Defence was willing to say on the record. And he has not chosen to distance himself from those comments and tell us why there is a need for him to vote for these bills. He also said, in a column in his local newspaper the North Shore Times:
A proprietor with a considerable domestic political agenda controlling a television station and a newspaper in both Sydney and Melbourne, not to mention all the outlets for credible business commentary, is not a legacy we should wish to leave our children.
That is what the now Minister for Defence said with respect to these laws. In fact, if these laws are enacted that is exactly what could happen. A proprietor will be able to own, effectively, a newspaper in Melbourne and/or Sydney and a television station. Therefore, clearly, if the minister was correct, it would be something that we would be bequeathing future generations and it is something we should not be proud of. But, of course, we have not heard from the Minister for Defence or any of the other ministers who have been on the record opposing the concentration of the media, to explain why they will come into this place sometime soon and support the bills that we are currently debating.
It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the efforts of Senator Fielding, because Senator Fielding, unfortunately, chose to support the legislation last Wednesday. At noon on Wednesday, Senator Fielding came into the Senate chamber to justify why he would support this legislation. I would like to quote some of the comments made by Senator Fielding, because I find his reasoning questionable at best.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr Bowen
—It’s bizarre, isn’t it?
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—The member for Prospect said ‘bizarre’. I think it is a fair construction to suggest that there were certainly some bizarre comments in his contribution on that day. One I would like to refer to is this:
You see, ordinary Australians are busy getting on with their lives. They are working hard to get the mortgages paid, struggling to keep on top of the bills and doing their best to raise their kids and put them through school.
I have no problems with the comments made by the senator there. He goes on to say:
Debates in parliament about who owns what in the media simply do not feature in the day-to-day lives of the Australians we represent.
He goes on to conclude that, because the bulk of the Australian population are too busy, too distracted looking after their children and with the daily requirements of ordinary life, somehow we should not be so concerned. In fact, we represent those people to look after their interests, and just because they are not in a position on occasion to focus on the consequences of legislation in this place it does not remove our obligations to consider the consequences ourselves as their representatives in this place or the other place. Senator Fielding’s reasoning—that somehow because people’s lives are so inundated with the pressures of paying the bills, of looking after the kids and indeed of paying higher interest rates or of being concerned about the extreme industrial relations laws that they cannot consider the consequences of these laws—shows he has no understanding of his obligations as a senator of Victoria to represent their interests.
Which families are beneficiaries of these laws? I can only think of two. Two come to mind at the moment. There might be some others, but the fact remains that Senator Fielding has no understanding of his obligations as a senator if he cannot understand that it is not the job of ordinary Australians to be debating fully the public policies of this country. It is their expectation, however, that we actually look after their interests in this place and the other place. I have to say, Senator Fielding’s reasoning is certainly wanting with respect to that particular matter. He also went on to say:
Are we concerned about greater media concentration because it will boost profits of media barons?
That is not my main concern, but there is an issue there. He goes on:
The concern about ownership is based on the assumption that ownership is the dominant factor which determines content and editorial priorities.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Those who own the media outlets, if they wish, can have a very strong and very influential effect upon what is determined both in copy and in editorials of print and electronic media. I think for Senator Fielding not to understand the causal link between ownership and output of media outlets shows at best a naivety on his part. Deregulating the market ensures that one media proprietor can have, for example, the Age in Melbourne, the Sydney Morning Herald in Sydney and Channel 9, and for him not to understand that that is going to cause problems for this country shows his lack of understanding. Therefore, it is a travesty that he, in the end, was one of the reasons why these bills will pass the houses of parliament.
I would also like to take up the argument that he makes further in his contribution, where he says:
Another point that is important to make is that, increasingly, news is becoming entertaining. Our talk show hosts and columnists are as much there to entertain as to run any editorial line imposed from above. As I said earlier, the media industry is driven by dollars. This is all commerce.
‘This is all commerce,’ he says. I would have to again disagree with the senator. This is not all commerce. The fact is that there is a big difference between some other businesses and the media. That is why we have laws specifically regulating their interests. I quote the member for Lowe’s comments, because I think he responded very well to the senator’s assertion that it is all about commerce. He said:
Australia’s media should not merely be seen as a commodity that can simply be bought and sold for the purposes of reaching economies of scale or economies of scope. We are not just talking about any commodity but something that strikes at the heart of our democracy.
I think the member for Lowe understands the issue of the concentration of media ownership in a way which Senator Fielding unfortunately does not.
It is very unfortunate that at noon on Wednesday last week the senator representing Family First chose to support the big end of town against the little person in the street. That is the reality that occurred on Wednesday. After some deliberation, I am told, the senator went into the Senate and gave what I think are quite illogical reasons for voting for the bills. The fact is, if I could use a cinematic metaphor, it was high noon. It was High Noon but, unfortunately, unlike the main character in that great classic film, he chose not to stand up to the bandit that returned to town. The bandit, of course, will now be those media proprietors that have the wherewithal to purchase those businesses that will be up for sale. He chose not to stand up for the little person. He chose instead to support the ranchers and the bandits. Unfortunately, he cannot depict himself, I believe, as the representative of the ordinary person in the street, because instead of defending their interests he chose to support the views and intentions of the large media proprietors.
We know that Senator Fielding has sought to cultivate his image since arriving in this place. Senator Fielding would like you to believe that somehow he is there to listen to the arguments purely on their merits, that he will determine them without doing deals. I have to say that there are many questions being asked about why Senator Fielding chose to support the government of the day. There are concerns that some arrangements have been made with respect to his own electoral support, with either media proprietors or the government.
Can I say this on Senator Fielding’s efforts to put himself in a position where he is somehow—to use another cinematic metaphor—‘Mr Smith goes to Washington’: if he thinks he will be depicted as ‘Senator Fielding goes to Canberra’, looking after the little person, then I think, after his display last Wednesday, it is all over. It is all over because, when he was put in a position to determine whether we were going to maintain a set of regulations that would provide diversity in this country, both in the city and in the country, he chose to support the big moguls instead of the citizens of this land. That is the choice he made in turning up in the Senate last Wednesday and voting with the government in order to allow for further control by large proprietors of our media.
The fact remains that Australia will have one of the highest concentrations of media ownership compared with other comparable nations. That is the reality. Senator Fielding certainly managed to assist in that regard by coming into the Senate last Wednesday and determining effectively that the bills will now pass both houses. I think he should hang his head in shame. He has shown no respect for the people he represents. I think that about four or five per cent of the constituents of Gorton voted for Family First, and you would have to say that was a pretty good effort in getting that vote in their first election. And I know quite a few of them—I have spoken with them. I have to say that they gave Senator Fielding the benefit of the doubt. I think that is a fair enough thing. I can understand why, on occasion, people might not want to vote for the major political parties, or choose the Greens or other smaller parties—but I have to say, he has really trashed his brand. He has really trashed the Family First brand by supporting the government with respect to these particular bills.
Senator Fielding is not alone, of course. I know I have given him a bit of stick over the last five or 10 minutes, because I think he has been let off the hook too many times to date. But I think it is also important to note that The Nationals have again shown that they will abandon the bush, that they will abandon the concerns that people have across Australia when the pressure is on. We know what occurred on that fateful day last Wednesday. We know that, yes, Senator Joyce decided to stick with the opposition—and, for that, I will applaud his strength and resilience in maintaining a principled position on media regulation—but where were his colleagues? Where was Senator Boswell when Senator Joyce was quite rightly defending the diversity of media ownership in this country? Senator Boswell was being carpeted by the Prime Minister. Senator Boswell was being dragged into the Prime Minister’s office and effectively was told to vote this bill up. And of course, in the end, for all the talk we get from Senator Boswell at every doorstop he does, we know that he will buckle, as he did. He buckled like every other Nationals senator chose to do on that day—including, of course, Senator Nash, who sought to make a name for herself, making some comments that somehow she was involved in providing some amendments that in some way mitigated the adverse effects of these particular bills—but, of course, in the end, she had a negligible effect on the outcome of this proposed legislation. Indeed, she buckled and sold out the bush, like the rest of them.
In the end, along with the Liberal Party, The Nationals have chosen to support the big end of town. They have not even bothered to come into this place to explain the reasons why change is required, to properly articulate the cogent arguments that are required, I would argue, if you want to radically alter national laws in this land. They have not even bothered to do that. I think that says it all. This government is arrogant and aloof. It is out of touch. It does not understand that, if you want to radically alter the country’s laws, you should come into this place and explain yourself. The fact is that not one member of the executive government has chosen to do so.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr Bowen
—Not one of them!
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—Not one of them has chosen to do so. There are four government members on the speakers list to more than 20 from the opposition. You just watch them: the reality is that debate on these bills will be gagged by the government. They will not allow it and they will ram these bills through this House. But, in the end, the Australian people will not forget this—like they will not forget the IR laws, those extreme laws that are affecting the working people of this country. I think the government will pay in the end, as they should, come election time.
80
18:20:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I oppose the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 because they reduce media diversity in this country for no good reason and because they have very serious ramifications. The honourable member for Gorton referred to the appalling process that this government has undertaken in the House. I support those remarks and I want to spend a few minutes on them. I also want to spend a few minutes on the appalling process that the government undertook in the other place.
These bills are being rushed through with minimum opportunity for members of the public to make a contribution. They were referred to a Senate committee. That Senate committee was a complete farce. I read in the Hansard that a Liberal senator, Senator Ian Macdonald, agreed that the Senate committee process was rushed. He said that senators on the government side got 90 seconds of questions. I know that Senator Macdonald has recently been relieved of ministerial office, and probably no longer feels restrained to support the government line.
Is it any wonder that you find Liberal senators agreeing that the process was rushed and that the length of questioning was inappropriate when you find that the minister gave the committee just three weeks to conduct its inquiry into these very important bills? Members of the public were given one week to make a submission. This has been in discussion with media proprietors for 12 months, and I do not have a quarrel with that but, if it has been in discussion with media proprietors for 12 months, I would have thought that members of the public, academics, interest groups and think tanks who might be interested in this area of public policy could be given more than a week to make their contribution to the public policy debate.
The committee heard from 30 witnesses in two days. All of us have been to committee hearings. All of us know how long it takes to give a witness a proper hearing. All of us know that a witness should be invited to make a substantial contribution and then have substantial questioning. You cannot do that when you have 30 witnesses going through the process in just two days.
I mention this because it is symptomatic of this government’s approach. This government, having been in office now for more than 10 years, finds it convenient to rush legislation through the parliament with hardly any reference to public debate. I went back and had a look at the last very significant changes that were made to media ownership laws, which were piloted through this House by then Minister Duffy. In 1985 Minister Duffy announced that his department would conduct a study into media ownership laws. In 1986 that report was tabled in the parliament. It was not until 1987 that it was debated and went through the House—a very different process from this government rushing its laws through the Senate committee process and, indeed, not finalising the bills until during the committee’s process. So for part of the committee’s hearings they did not even know the details of the legislation they were meant to be examining.
I have been looking through the government’s arguments to find a coherent rationale for these changes, and I have been searching in vain. Two reasons have been put up by the government to abolish the cross-media ownership laws. The first one is that technology has improved since 1987, that is true, and that people can now access their news through a variety of mechanisms—not only television, newspaper and radio but also the internet, mobile phones and any number of other platforms—and therefore the cross-media ownership laws are anachronistic and no longer required. It is true that the technology has improved but the vast majority of people still access their news through the more traditional mechanisms—television, radio and newspapers.
Last year Roy Morgan Research examined the primary source of news for the Australian population. Forty-eight per cent said television, 22 per cent said newspapers, 19 per cent said radio and eight per cent said the internet. I do not say that the internet is not important and I do not say that it is not a growing mechanism for people to get their news and information from, but nobody would suggest that it has yet rivalled television, newspapers and radio as the day-to-day source of news and information for the Australian people.
But even looking at this internet platform, it is a fallacy to say that people are now getting their news and media from different sources. They are getting it through a different mechanism, not from different sources. The same Roy Morgan survey found that the most popular news internet site was Fairfax, which of course is the publisher of the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and other important newspapers. Second was the News Ltd site, the publisher of the Daily Telegraph, the Herald Sun, the Australian and others. Next was Ninemsn, which we all know. Fourth was abc.net.au, with 785,000 hits. Then there is daylight. Then comes Yahoo! News, which is run in conjunction with Channel 7, at 290,000 hits. In sixth place comes crikey.com—the only, if you like, new media outlet to have any substantial impact on people getting news and information from the internet. So as important as Crikey, Mumble and other innovative news and political commentary sites are, I do not think even they would suggest that they would rival the likes of Channel 9, PBL and News Ltd as sources of news and information for the vast majority of people.
This is not just my view. Graeme Samuel, the Chairman of the ACCC—one of the few witnesses who actually got to make a contribution to the inquiry—said:
We think the internet is simply a distribution channel. It has not shown any significant signs at this point in time of providing a greater diversity of credible information and news and commentary.
I agree with him. The internet has not shown any signs of that. While it is a growing source, it does not provide the rationale for the abolition of the cross-media ownership laws. I agree with that respected commentator Mr Brian Toohey, who said that news collection and distribution is an expensive and labour intensive process, and that no internet provider in the foreseeable future is likely to have the resources to effectively challenge the existing major media proprietors.
I then searched for other reasons that the government put up to support this legislation. I saw that Minister Coonan argued in the other place that this would enable economies of scale to be realised and that media proprietors would be able to make their operations more efficient. That may be true but at what cost? If two media providers merge and amalgamate their newsrooms, that would no doubt be more efficient, but what does that do for diversity in this country? What does it do for the sources of news and information in regional areas if you have a newspaper and a radio station, for example, having a common newsroom and having common journalists—not having independent thought and analysis but having one set of information given to the public?
What would the impact of this bill be on that diversity? Of course we have the famous voices test. Now there must be five voices in metropolitan areas and four in regional areas. But as other honourable members have commented, this test is absurd. Channel 9 is given the same weight as, for example, the racing station in Sydney, 2KY. They are both regarded as equal voices. What a ridiculous proposition. At the moment in Sydney we have 12 voices, in Melbourne we have 11, in Brisbane we have 10, in Perth we have eight and in Adelaide we have seven. All will be able to be reduced to five under this legislation. In 19 major regional cities and centres throughout Australia, there are six or seven voices. All could be reduced to four under this legislation.
What is the reason for doing this? Do we have a particularly diverse media? Do we have a plethora of outlets and owners? Again I looked at the debate relating to the 1987 changes. Many of us in this House are interested in political history, so I read the Hansard of that debate and came across the views of a small ‘l’ liberal, which are very hard to find these days; you have to look in the history books to find them. Twenty years ago, Ian Macphee, the former member for Goldstein, said:
Now we have the greatest concentration of media ownership of any country in the world—certainly any country that calls itself a democracy.
That was 20 years ago when media diversity was greater in this country than it is now. We had a member of the other side, then in opposition, complaining that we had the greatest concentration of media ownership of any country in the world. He went on to say:
Certainly, we need cross-media laws, of course ... trade practice laws and cross-media laws are necessary to safeguard the freedom of speech.
He went on to cite the example of Kerry Packer owning the Bulletin, a TV station and a radio station, where the views expressed were all identical. Of course, that would be perfectly allowable under this government’s proposed law.
The honourable member for Gorton dealt with Senator Fielding, and he did so very eloquently, so I will not dwell on the matter. But I do want to deal with a particular argument that Senator Fielding put up to justify his support for this bill. He raised what I would consider the furphy that media proprietors do not determine the editorial content in their media, that the Packer family does not determine the editorial views of Channel 9, that Rupert Murdoch does not determine the editorial views of his range of newspapers and other media outlets—for example, Fox News. It is a very courageous view to suggest that the channel that Rupert Murdoch established, Fox News, to particularly push his point of view on political matters of the day does not reflect his views. It is a bizarre view for Senator Fielding to put.
A reality check—a survey by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance—found that 50 per cent of journalists have been required to report in line with their proprietor’s point of view. Other surveys have shown that journalists, even if they are not specifically required, feel some sort of obligation or requirement, even if it is not explicitly expressed, to support their proprietor’s point of view. That might be a political point of view or it might relate to the other businesses owned by the proprietor, where conflicts of interest arise and perhaps a full and fierce exposition of that individual’s business activities is not undertaken by a particular media outlet because it would not be considered to be in line with the boss’s wishes.
Of course, one of the best reference points for this debate comes from the Productivity Commission—a free-market oriented body that traditionally supports less government regulation rather than more. The Productivity Commission looked at this matter in the year 2000. They undertook a very substantial hearing process—they heard from many witnesses and had 300 submissions—and came to the conclusion that cross-media laws should not be abolished unless and until three things happened: one, the removal of regulatory barriers to entry in broadcasting; two, the abolition of foreign interest controls; and, three, the amendment of the Trade Practices Act to provide for media-specific public interest tests to apply to mergers and acquisitions. How many of those things have happened? One out of the three has happened in this bill: the foreign interest controls are removed. The other two have not moved at all. So the Productivity Commission looked at this matter in detail and recommended those three things happen and the government has arrogantly ignored their recommendations.
This brings me to a point about the ACCC. We have heard—not from many people in this House but in the other place—government members argue: ‘It’s okay, the ACCC will be there to protect against inappropriate mergers. The ACCC are the appropriate body to work out who should be allowed to merge and who should not—not this parliament.’ That is what the government say. But, of course, the ACCC have no power to do so. The ACCC can only impose an economic test. They have no public interest test. The ACCC are not authorised to examine diversity in any meaningful manner which takes into account the health of our democracy and the health of the diversity of the media market. They can only examine the matter on a pure economic test. They have to apply a pricing test to say how likely it is that people will convert from newspapers and radio to television et cetera. If you read through Mr Samuel’s evidence, I would suggest that any objective reading of that evidence would bring you to the conclusion that even the ACCC believe that they have no meaningful power to deal with media mergers in any way which takes into account public interest—only that strict economic test. That is why the Productivity Commission recommended that a specific media public interest test be placed in the bill, which this government have not adopted.
In the couple of minutes remaining to me, I want to deal with some related matters in this bill which are not specifically related to cross-media ownership. The first of those is the antisiphoning provisions. I must say that, in my electorate, this is the matter on which I have received more correspondence than any other. Many members of the public are concerned about the government’s attempts to transfer major sporting events from free television to pay television.
There actually would be a way forward on this, I would suggest, that all members could agree on. In fairness, I hope and would like to think that all members in this House would agree that, where possible, major sporting events should be on free-to-air TV. If free to air refuses to show those programs live or close to live then there should be a capacity for pay TV to show them. That is a principle which most of us would agree with, I would suggest.
But the government have indicated that they will be changing the law without reference to this parliament—they do not need to bring it to this parliament—and in a manner which lacks transparency. The minister has refused to indicate what would meet the ‘use it or lose it’ test and has refused to report to this House or the other house on what criteria will be put into place. There is a complete lack of transparency about which programs will stay on the free-to-air list and which ones will be allowed to move to pay TV.
No wonder I have received something like 40 emails from my constituents in the last two days about this. They are very concerned and they have a right to be concerned, because this government and this minister have been less than open and transparent about how this will work. I remain concerned. While I strongly agree with the principle that, if a free-to-air station refuses to show a major sporting event live or close to live and if they buy up the rights just to stop somebody else showing it, of course that should be made available to pay television to try to pressure the free-to-air station into showing it. But we need to be clear and open about how that is occurring. The minister has failed miserably in that test.
There are two other matters I want to refer to. The first is the removal of the restrictions on the ABC’s multichannelling operation. I think that is a welcome thing. This is something that could encourage more people to move to digital television—and that is something in which progress has been very disappointing. The government’s targets have not been met. I think that, if the ABC and SBS were allowed to show more programs on the second station through digital television, that could be something which could encourage more people to move to digital television.
There are very real public benefits in moving to digital television. It opens up more spectrum. It provides savings, and it provides opportunities for other media to come in and use that spectrum. That is something we should welcome and it is something that this government should be encouraging. They have failed to do so. The evidence from the United Kingdom, where the BBC is allowed to broadcast a wide range of programs on its second channel, is that it has played a role in encouraging the move to digital television.
The second matter I want to refer to very briefly is the capacity for commercial stations to go into multichannelling. I fail to understand why that has been restricted to high definition only. All of the evidence is that free-to-air stations would be very interested in multichannelling with standard definition, but the economies of scale do not justify broadcasting in high definition. The government have not justified their restrictions in this regard. I oppose this bill, as we on this side of the House do. It is bad for democracy and it cannot be supported. (Time expired)
85
18:40:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
0
Mr HAYES
—The government attempts to sell these laws as reform. I have to say that they are nothing of the sort. Reform is the last thing that the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 should be described as. These bills before us today reduce media diversity, competition and choice. They simply cannot be described as good public policy.
It is often said that variety is the spice of life. I have to say in that case that, if these bills are passed in the House, life will become considerably less spicy with the passage of these bills. These bills will reduce media diversity. Diversity, quite frankly, is essential for the proper functioning of Australian democracy.
When considering the impact of the provisions of these bills, I considered the changes that have taken place in the delivery of media in the decades since the introduction of Australia’s cross-media laws. Since that time, certainly the internet has gone from strength to strength and mobile phones can now receive television programs. Who knows where technology is going to take us next? Also, I think we should have some regard for the speed at which innovation and ideas are now coming to the market and being adopted.
The development of alternative platforms since the days when there was only television, radio and print begs the question: has diversity increased? While many would argue that it has, I certainly do not believe that the addition of new platforms in itself amounts to diversity. Sure, the means by which you consume the media—the platform on which it is delivered—has certainly changed. The diversity increase simply has not occurred just because you can now watch Neighbours on your TV or your mobile phone, or you can access it over the net on your computer. The fact is that the program remains the same—it is only the delivery mechanism that has changed.
The member for Prospect referred to the ACCC’s chairman, Graeme Samuel, who addressed the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I too would like to quote Graeme Samuel in this regard. He said:
We think the internet is simply a distribution channel. It has not shown any significant signs at this point in time of providing a greater diversity of credible information and news and commentary.
This is further borne out when considering the share of news and advertising on our websites. The top four sites in Australia account for 84 per cent of news and information hits. Fairfax receives about one-third, News Ltd receives just under one-quarter, the ABC receives about 14 per cent and PBL receives nearly 13 per cent of the hits. So the suggestion that the internet provides diversity simply does not stack up. While this may change through time, the question must be asked: will the provisions of these bills effectively create too high a barrier to entry for prospective new media entrants into the Australian media market? Will those entrants actually be curtailed forever? I hope that members opposite bear this in mind when they vote on these bills.
I consider it very fortunate that in the communities of the Liverpool and Macarthur areas we are served by a number of media outlets. In addition to the newspaper, radio and television stations that serve the greater Sydney and suburban areas, the electorate of Werriwa is served by the Macarthur Chronicle, the Campbelltown-Macarthur Advertiser, the Liverpool City Champion, the Liverpool Leader and the Southwest Rural Advertiser, together with radio stations C91.3, 2MCR and 2GLF. These are important sources of local news for communities in the Liverpool and Macarthur areas. It is my view that they do an excellent job of providing high-quality local content. All these media outlets have a very strong and longstanding commitment to their readerships and listenerships. They have become more than the local paper or radio station. They are active in their sponsorship of local charities and local sporting activities. They make sure that local events are certainly given the highest priority as they are reported to the local community.
I raise the case of these local media outlets because I am concerned for their future following the passage of these bills. Much like the prospects of the larger media organisations, it is difficult to predict with any accuracy what might happen over the next few years. But I am concerned that there is a real danger that the newsrooms for local papers, such as these throughout the metropolitan area of Sydney and possibly some throughout New South Wales—or anywhere else for that matter—will go through a process of mergers simply to cut costs. Newsroom mergers have two main implications: the loss of jobs and the loss of local reporting. I have to say, I am concerned about both. I am concerned that there is a possibility that in suburban areas the consolidation of outlets could conceivably result in what once was an excellent local newspaper or local radio station being systematically downgraded until it becomes nothing more than a masthead or station name with little local content at all. These bills could result in, for instance, the Campbelltown-Macarthur Advertiser having nothing more than a front page covering local issues, with the rest of the paper being mass-produced material consisting primarily of advertising. I do not like that sort of possibility, and I am sure that when it comes to this issue local readerships and listenerships would also be similarly disgusted with a downgrade of our media services and support, if that were ever to occur.
The passage of these bills through the Senate has resulted in much speculation about the advent of mergers and takeovers in the media sector and the prospect of anticompetitive behaviour. I have spoken about these aspects on many occasions in this place, but speculation was rife in the media over the weekend about what might happen, who might buy what and so forth. Only today, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase, as you no doubt appreciate from your own reading of the papers, there is speculation about one significant media player and the prospects of the sale of its particular media interests.
At this stage, no-one can reasonably predict the exact outcome in terms of ownership of Australian media assets. However, it is clear that these changes will result in the greater concentration of media ownership both in metropolitan and in regional areas. Australia already has a relatively concentrated media market, certainly by international comparisons. With the passage of these bills it is only set to get worse. In Sydney and Melbourne, the number of owners could, quite frankly, halve and in many parts of regional Australia they could fall by one-third. As I outlined earlier, central to the operation of a fully-functioning democracy is a free and diverse media. These bills are a body blow to diversity and, as such, they are a body blow to Australian democracy.
Australia has had a sound set of media ownership laws for many years now. Australia has not been alone in this. When you look at many other democracies, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Korea and the Netherlands, you see that all have cross-media ownership laws. The removal of these laws will mean that the Australian public, and Australian democracy for that matter, will become dependent on the protection of the ACCC. Speaking personally, I have little faith in this approach to the protection of media diversity. I have little faith in the abuse of market power that will not occur in the media markets, and I do not think the ACCC has the appropriate level of power to prevent this from occurring. We have all just seen, not all that long ago, that the federal government would not allow the ACCC to have additional powers for policing or, at least, conducting an advanced state of monitoring of petrol prices, particularly when petrol prices are rocketing. We have also seen that the changes for small businesses included in the Dawson bill have not found their way into the powers of the ACCC. One wonders whether this government will ever give the ACCC the powers that it might require in the future to protect the Australian economy from abuses of market power and to protect our democracy, particularly as it will now stand under the terms of these proposed laws and as the vanguard of protecting diversity.
Put simply, the ACCC should not be the organisation tasked with protecting Australian democracy. We would not be relying on it for the future if these laws had not been proposed—because, presumably, they will be passed—by this government. Quite frankly, this media ownership bill is an active display of this government very forcefully abrogating its responsibility with respect to media ownership. Senator Fielding described these changes as moving to a ‘different system of regulation’. I agree it is a different system but, far from being a good system, it could only be described as a fundamentally bad approach.
One of the greatest concerns that residents of my electorate have when it comes to the changes to media laws—in addition to their concern about real local content which I spoke about a little earlier—is the antisiphoning list. Ever since the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts announced her intention to prune the antisiphoning list and introduce the ‘use it or lose it’ regime for free-to-air television, a great number of constituents have contacted me to express their concern over the potential loss of major sporting events from free-to-air television. They are concerned that the minister’s pruning of the list may mean that they will be forced to subscribe to pay television in order to continue to watch their football team or cricket team, or any iconic sporting event.
The minister has yet to provide the details of her plan, and I have to say that does ring alarm bells. When members of this government refuse to give details, you have got to be wary, because this is not the first time they have brought down legislation without the full detail in it, basically saying, ‘Trust us; we will deliver.’ In the past, that has not proven to be the case with many of the other pieces of legislation that have come before us in this place. When we are told that the details will be worked out later, we do have something to fear.
On behalf of the constituents who have contacted me and my office—and, by the way, those who have not but are concerned about the prospect of a wholesale transfer of sporting events to pay television—I would like to indicate to the minister that it is absolutely essential that the ‘use it or lose it’ mechanism does not become the backdoor means of slashing the antisiphoning list. As I have indicated, many people in my electorate, and no doubt across the country, do not have a desire to subscribe to pay television or cannot afford it. They basically rely on the antisiphoning list to be able to continue to watch a range of major sporting events.
Senator Fielding said in his contribution to the Senate debate on these bills last week:
More and more families are not reading newspapers and cannot afford them.
While many of the views that he expressed seem entirely at odds with his eventual support of these bills, his point about the affordability of media and entertainment should not be lost: if Australians cannot read newspapers because they cannot afford them, then what hope do they have of being able to afford pay TV to view their preferred sporting events?
To date, the minister has refused to give a guarantee that her plan will not see Australian families having to pay hundreds of dollars a year to watch sporting events that are currently televised on free-to-air TV. I call on the minister to give such a guarantee and to make sure the ‘use it or lose it’ approach to the antisiphoning list will protect the rights of Australians to see major sporting events on free-to-air television. I also call on the minister to make any changes to the regulations subject to disallowance by the parliament. I do not want to see a situation emerge where the antisiphoning list is slashed, possibly back to nothing, with no recourse for the public.
While the negative implications of the changes to the cross-media ownership laws are significant, there are some positive elements, particularly in relation to digital television. I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts that was involved in the inquiry into digital television in Australia, during which we considered the means available to encourage the take-up of digital television. Digital TV transmission began in Australia in 2001 and, despite 95 per cent of households now being able to access digital services, depending on their geographic location, the take-up has been extraordinarily slow. The provisions of this bill change the current switch-off date for the analog television system to between 2010 and 2012.
In addition, I welcome the provisions of the bill that free up the genre restrictions on the ABC and the SBS multichannels, something the committee also recommended. But it is a disappointment, to me at least, that in the medium term restrictions will remain on televising sport on the antisiphoning list unless it has already been shown on the main ABC or SBS channel, or is being shown simultaneously on the main channels.
The bill has other aspects that are positive for consumers, but it also reflects some compromises designed to appease powerful commercial interests. I am not convinced that the provisions of this bill will dramatically lift the take-up of digital television before commercial broadcasters are able to commence standard definition multichannelling somewhere in the vicinity of 2009.
National Party members seriously believe that they have protected regional media by selling out for a few minutes of local news content. They were also under the mistaken impression that they had protected regional Australia from the ravages of the sale of Telstra and, similarly, that they had gained great concessions on industrial relations. All have proved to be worth nought. Why then should anyone believe that what they have achieved here is any different? If National Party members value diversity, local content and regional media outlets then they should do what their conscience dictates on this; they should join with Labor members and oppose this bill.
I believe in diversity and a vibrant media. I do not believe that the minister should be able to use the review of the antisiphoning list to exclude people from watching major sporting events on television, and I am concerned about the future of suburban media outlets and the role that they play in our local communities. The content of these bills is a threat to Australia’s democracy and culture. I agree that media laws cannot remain static, particularly if technology continues to advance at its current pace. While media laws, like any other laws, need to evolve, I do not believe that the time has come that the Australian media is diverse enough to justify the provisions we have before us. For those reasons, I oppose the bill.
89
19:01:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
0
0
Ms KING
—I rise to speak against the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. This bill would remove the current rules which prevent the common ownership of newspapers, radio and television stations in the same media market. People listening to this debate might wonder: what on earth is all the fuss about; why is Labor so adamantly opposed to changes to the cross-media ownership laws? Any change to media ownership in this country, any concentration of media ownership in this country, changes what happens and what is said in our media. It changes editorial opinion, it changes views and it concentrates views and opinions in our media. The less media opinion, the fewer voices you have speaking to the Australian public and the less opportunity for the Australian public to participate in our democracy and learn about what is happening within this parliament. If you only have the concentration of a few voices and a few editorial opinions, you do not necessarily get the full picture of what is happening across a number of issues.
This bill tries to impose a five voices in metropolitan media test and a four voices in regional centres test for media mergers. Media mergers will be allowed as long as five commercial media voices remain in mainland state capital markets or four voices in regional markets. But the definition of what constitutes a voice is extremely broad. It includes a television licensee, a radio licensee, a newspaper associated with that radio licence area or a company that includes any combination of those assets. The practicality of this in some areas is that a voice could include, for example, a racing broadcaster—that is all that particular licensee does—a sports broadcaster or they could just have a licence for a music station.
Whilst I support the need for race calls for people in the electorate of Ballarat, as someone who supports and likes the racing industry, it is hardly a diverse source of news or current affairs. The government’s two out of three rule coupled with the idea that racing broadcasters constitute a current affairs or news voice mean that a media owner could theoretically own the only general news media in a community by merging the newspaper and a television station.
In exchange for this weakening of diversity, the Howard government is proposing new licensee conditions that relate to local content. The National Party, whose support has been bought for this bill, have agreed to these new conditions, and, quite frankly, have been sold a pup. The government has tried to sell them a pup on the issue of local content to get them to support this bill.
This bill also seeks to abolish the foreign ownership provisions in the current Broadcasting Services Act. There are five main reasons why I oppose this bill and its radical changes to Australia’s media industry. Firstly, the bill is not about media diversity. Despite the government’s rhetoric about diversity, this bill does nothing to protect media diversity; it is more about cosying up to the big media interests and getting them on side before the next election. Secondly, the bill will, in fact, reduce diversity. That anyone could possibly argue that going from 12 to six owners in Sydney, or six to four in the case of my own electorate of Ballarat, would increase diversity is a disgraceful misrepresentation of reality. That reduction in our diversity is bad for our democracy.
Thirdly, under this bill we will see a reduction of local content. While schedule 2 imposes obligations on regional radio broadcasters to broadcast minimum levels of local news and other types of local content, the reality once again diverges from the rhetoric. Local content will suffer as fewer owners mean greater consolidation of newsrooms, fewer journalists and less competition in local markets. Fourthly, this bill is bad for regional areas. It will have a significant impact on media diversity in regional areas. A reduction in media owners will see newsrooms close—and the associated advertising and employment that it generates will be reduced—radio stations potentially merged and newspapers slashing both their administrative and their journalistic staff. These are highly specialised and well paid jobs and they are not easily replaced in regional communities.
Finally, I stand against this bill in the hope that it may encourage some of the members of the National Party who claim to represent regional Australia to develop a backbone for once. The electors in rural and regional Australia deserve better representation in this House than what they have got from the Nationals currently, who have done nothing for regional Australia by supporting this bill in the Senate.
To return to my first point, this bill is not about increasing or even protecting diversity in the Australian media market. We should remember that this is not the first time that we have debated this bill in this place. It is not the first time that the Howard government has tried to change the cross-media ownership laws. It is in fact not even the second time. For many of us who have spoken in this debate previously, it feels a little like groundhog day yet again. The first two times that we debated this sort of bill in this place, the Senate saw through the government’s smokescreen and ended the Howard government’s attempts to consolidate the Australian media market in the hands of two main operators. The Senate proposed significant amendments to the legislation and it did not get through.
The difference this time is that the Howard government has managed to buy off the support of the National Party and the so-called independent Family First senator Stephen Fielding. Senator Fielding’s naive belief that media ownership and editorial opinion have no relationship to one another is touching in its absolute innocence. If this were not such a serious issue it would be touching to think that Senator Fielding actually believes that media ownership and editorial opinion are two different things. I wish the world was like that, Senator Fielding, but it is not. The National Party has decided to sell out regional Australians to keep grasping at what little power it can within the coalition, and Senator Fielding is simply continuing down his chosen path of kowtowing to the Liberal Party.
The government should be honest about what they are trying to achieve with this bill. Rather than trying to fool the Australian people into believing that they have the best interests of media diversity at heart, they should come out and tell people that their big business mates do not like having to share the advertising revenue pie with smaller players in the market. Where competition for the advertising dollar is fierce, this bill is really about reducing the number of owners in a market and consolidating advertising revenue in the hands of a few large companies.
The real purpose of this bill is to water down the cross-media ownership rules. It is aimed at providing the two big media players in Australia with an opportunity to tighten their stranglehold on Australia’s media outlets—a stranglehold that continues to use its influence in making and shaping opinion in the way that we as a community view aspects of local, national and world events. The government changes will lead to a massive concentration of media ownership in regional and metropolitan markets. The government’s five-four test does not protect diversity, and the number of owners could essentially be halved in Sydney and reduced by a third in my own electorate of Ballarat.
This brings me to my second point. This bill reduces the diversity of media in Australia. These changes are not in the public’s interest. There is no case to be made that reducing the number of owners of media in Australia will improve the range of views and opinions that Australians have access to. This bill in fact does completely the opposite. Media diversity is an essential part of our democracy. It makes sure that a wide range of views and opinions are put before the Australian public. Currently in my own electorate of Ballarat we have a diverse range of commercial media outlets, including the Ballarat Courier, owned by Rural Press; 3BA and Power FM, owned by Grant Broadcasters, one of a few independent broadcasters left in this country; WIN TV; Southern Cross TV; and 3BT, a sport broadcaster owned by a Sydney based company. Prime TV continues to have a small presence.
If the Howard government gets its way, there will be a reduction of outlets in the media market in my electorate. The largest will survive and the smallest will simply be merged. The provisions of this bill, under schedule 1, would allow, for example, Rural Press to buy a TV or radio station in Ballarat. This would be an unhealthy consolidation of media power in my electorate. The morning newspaper could be running exactly the same news and editorial opinion as the evening TV bulletin. When you consider that talkback radio is already dominated locally by issues that are run in the local newspapers and on TV news, a clear picture emerges of just how dominant these single players could possibly be. I understand that Rural Press support these changes, and it is no wonder that they support these changes. Rural Press are very keen to get their hands on as much advertising revenue as they possibly can. I understand that it is in their interest to do so. It is not in the interests of Australian democracy that they do so.
By world standards we already have a highly concentrated media market. What the Prime Minister has done with these laws is concentrate even more power in the hands of some of the most powerful people in this country, and that cannot be good for Australia’s democracy. The Howard government has claimed that the internet allows for diversity of opinion to exist regardless of these changes. The reality is that the research just does not support this proposition. Recent figures showed that big established media players dominate the internet media market. In terms of internet use and advertising, they have 70 per cent of the total market, with Fairfax at 33 per cent, News Ltd at 24 per cent and PBL at 13 per cent. The ACCC Chairman, Graeme Samuel, has told the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts:
The internet is simply a distribution channel. It has not shown any significant signs at this point in time of providing a greater diversity of credible information, news and commentary.
Normally we, in this House, would look to the Senate to provide an in-depth inquiry into such large-scale reforms so that their impact could be truly tested. However, those National senators, not keen on having the truth about their position exposed to the cold light of day, helped the Howard government to severely limit the inquiry into this bill. As Senator Wortley pointed out in the other place:
The issue of time was raised by a number of witnesses, including the Screen Producers Association of Australia, Premier Media Group, Commercial Radio Australia, the ACCC and the Communications Law Centre. We provided reasons why two days were not long enough to hear and question the witnesses, but again the government’s arrogance won the day.
The limited inquiry did hear from Private Media Partners, who said:
We do not believe there is any justification on public policy grounds for the government to abolish or amend the current cross-media restrictions.
Such a change, in our view, could result in a dangerous increase in the power of existing media companies to influence Australia’s public and political agenda.
Mr Beecher said in his submission to the inquiry:
The new laws are constructed for industry consolidation, which is likely to result in acquisitions by existing media owners of existing Australian media assets.
We have already seen the speculation in the media of this being exactly the case. The bill has not even passed this parliament, the ink is not even dry on the Governor-General’s signature, and speculation about those major consolidations is already out there in the media.
So there is strong evidence to suggest that diversity will be weakened rather than improved by this bill. The National Party’s support for limiting the time available to the Senate inquiry speaks volumes about the third reason why I am opposed to this bill. As Mr Beecher told the Senate inquiry:
Removing or weakening the cross-media rules will result in fewer journalists and diminished journalism.
Fewer journalists in regional areas mean job losses. Highly skilled and highly specialised jobs will be stripped out of regional communities with no hope of being replaced. In an attempt to placate the communities who have cried out against these changes the government has included mandated local content. The provisions of this bill on mandated local content are an absolute fraud. They are subject to an inquiry which was agreed to by the government as a sop to the National Party to get this bill up. If the National Party honestly think they will get a fair dinkum inquiry on local content from this government then they are bigger mugs than I thought they were. The government is already going around behind the scenes saying that it will ditch the local content rules.
This knee-jerk reaction has occurred without industry consultation and is already leading to confusion. Alison O’Neill, a director of Grant Broadcasters, the owners of 3BA in my electorate, told us that they were of the belief that they would need to broadcast at least four hours of matters of local importance everyday. The intention is to try and keep local radio in local areas, not to simply fill the airwaves. To quote Ms O’Neill, ‘We won’t be able to play music because it’s hardly a matter of local importance.’ This potentially will make them commercially unappealing to advertisers. This local content law does not compensate for the concentration of media owners, which is what the government appears to have tried to do. There is apprehension in local media outlets about what the future will be when this bill comes into law. Which outlets will close and which will remain open is a major concern that hangs over the regional media companies, like Grant Broadcasters, and their staff. For the sake of a law that is confusing and poorly conceived, local communities stand to lose valuable local jobs and important local voices.
Local people’s involvement in media provides a valuable way for our communities to get involved in policy debate and our democracy more widely. The differences of opinion expressed in the Ballarat Courier, on 3BA radio and on our TV stations help to stimulate the lively debates we have on politics in Ballarat. Letters to the editor on issues as diverse as water and skills shortages are often debated on talkback radio and then discussed on local television. We have already seen a reduction in local content. People from my electorate who travel around this country will be somewhat bemused by the fact that, on one TV media outlet, their local newsreader in Ballarat, who basically reads out press releases—sometimes the ones I send in, which is a great thing—is also the local newsreader here in Canberra. I am pretty sure she is the local newsreader in pretty much every other regional, country and metropolitan town across the country. She is a very mobile newsreader. I do not know how she does it; she gets around a fair bit. These laws will only further serve to reduce local content.
My final point relates to the cowardice shown by the members of the National Party in not rejecting this bill and in not standing up to the Howard government on this bill in the Senate. The bill is bad for regional Australia, it is bad for regional communities and it is bad for regional democracy. Yet the National Party, the self-proclaimed defenders of regional Australia, have pledged to support this bill. National Party senators could have torpedoed this bill by doing the honourable thing and standing with Labor Party senators when the bill was voted on in the Senate. Instead, they went weak at the knees and caved in when the government offered them a sop on local content and media ownership which will not protect regional media from the big media players. The National Party has yet again failed to provide regional Australians with the representation they deserve. The Nationals have failed to protect regional media outlets, they have failed to protect regional voices and they have failed to protect regional jobs.
No-one representing a regional area should be supporting this bill. I cannot support this bill because it is not about preserving media diversity; it is about reducing it. It is about the Howard government concentrating media ownership in the hands of a small number of media owners. This bill reduces the number of outlets that the community has in which to debate ideas and opinions and to form views. That can only be bad for our democracy. Despite the attempts to protect local content, this bill will see a reduction in genuine local content and no number of government inquiries will prevent this. There has been no consultation with the media industry and the proposed regulations on local content are vague at best while being counterproductive at worst for some media outlets.
The National Party’s complete failure to stand up for regional Australia has once again meant that they have put the interests of their political masters in the Liberal Party ahead of the interests of regional Australians. It is a disgrace and all members of the National Party should be ashamed for thinking that, by accepting the amendments that the government has sold them, they are doing anything other than selling out our regional communities. In a country where we have such great thinkers, speakers and ideas, the Howard government is asking us to support a bill that will limit the ability of people to have those ideas disseminated and expressed. I oppose this bill and encourage other members of this place to do the same.
94
19:20:00
Ellis, Annette, MP
5K6
Canberra
ALP
0
0
Ms ANNETTE ELLIS
—I rise today as well to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. Like my colleagues, I am strongly opposed to the legislation which will repeal the current cross-media ownership rules. Currently, companies can only control a newspaper, a commercial television licence or a radio licence in any one market. The media ownership bill will repeal these rules. This will most likely lead to a massive concentration of media ownership in both the metropolitan and the regional areas of Australia.
Before I go to the reasons for opposing these particular changes, I would like to raise the question as to why the Howard government has introduced them. I ask: does the concentration of media ownership benefit the public in any way? Does it improve our democracy in any way? The answer to these questions has to be no. These changes are not in any public interest. So what arguments has the government used to justify the introduction of these changes? It argues that the current media rules are too prescriptive and that they create an inflexible regulatory framework which does not account for changes in the media industry, such as the emergence of new media on the market. It also argues that lifting restrictions on cross-media ownership will allow companies to be more efficient and will help them compete in the rise of the new media. Clearly, the changes are not going to benefit the general public at all. They are going to benefit large media corporations and they are, in my opinion, the antithesis of good democracy.
Australia already has a concentrated media market by world standards. News Ltd and Fairfax currently control over 80 per cent of Australia’s metropolitan newspapers. Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, PBL, which currently own Channel 9—as of this evening; the news broadcaster is telling us something may be changing—have television coverage of 52 per cent of Australia’s population and a 40 per cent market share of Australia’s top selling magazines; again, as of now. We are not quite sure what will happen in that area tomorrow. As the previous speaker, the member for Ballarat, said, it is already starting to happen. These are just a few examples. Now our media market will become even more concentrated. It is outrageous, in my opinion, that the Prime Minister is planning to give even more power to some of the most powerful people in our country. These changes have the potential to halve the number of owners of the major media in our bigger cities and reduce the numbers of owners by one-third in many regional areas—for example, the current number of media owners in Sydney can go from 12 to six; in Brisbane, from 10 to five; and in Newcastle, from seven to four.
Let us look at some hypotheticals that have been outlined by previous speakers in this debate. I fear that not many of these are really hypothetical. PBL and News Ltd would, for example, be able to own every major metropolitan newspaper under this legislation; most suburban newspapers; virtually every magazine; Channel 9 and Channel 10; Sky News; Australian Associated Press, AAP; monopoly pay television Foxtel; and more than 70 per cent of the news and information sites on the internet. Thanks to the Prime Minister, we will be living in a brave new world, perhaps a little like that described by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four. I would love to get his opinion right now on what he would see as our democratic processes.
I have no doubt that these changes are a major threat to our basic democracy and freedom. It is only logical that, if there is a higher concentration of media ownership, free and open speech will be limited accordingly. The government is treating our media like a standard business without taking into account its vital role in influencing the information flow in our society and, therefore, public opinion. In their book, Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman state the following:
The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.
Having a concentrated media market makes systematic propaganda so much easier. True democracy requires true media diversity.
Those who argue in support of these changes say that people can access their information from a whole range of sources in today’s high-tech society. So, they argue, concentration of media ownership does not threaten free speech at all. They argue that it does not threaten diversity of information in our society. I have some major problems with this argument. First of all, the ‘new media’, which are supposed to provide diversity of sources and opinion, are controlled by the traditional media. For example, the only significant new Australian news service provided by pay television is Sky News Australia, which is owned by the networks Seven and Nine and British Sky Broadcasting.
Research by Roy Morgan shows that the most popular internet news sites are controlled by existing media operators, including Fairfax, News Ltd, Channel 9 and the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The reality is that most people are busy getting on with their lives, trying to manage their jobs, paying off their mortgages and looking after their children. They do not generally use the new media or alternative news sources as their major information source. Some may do so but, in general terms, most do not. A Morgan poll has shown that, for information about general events in Australia, 56 per cent of people use free-to-air television, 18 per cent turn to the radio and 11 per cent rely on newspapers. That is a total of 85 per cent. In relation to political news and analysis, 41 per cent turn to free-to-air television, 27 per cent turn to newspapers and 13 per cent rely on the radio. That is a total of 81 per cent. An ACNielsen poll shows that the top four most used internet news and advertising sites account for 85 per cent of hits. What are they? They are: Fairfax, 33 per cent; News Ltd, 24 per cent; ABC, 14 per cent; and PBL, 13 per cent.
Clearly most people turn to traditional media sources for current affairs information and analysis. Many do not have the time or the resources to find those alternative information sources. I note very carefully that it has been very easy for some commentators to claim that the internet or these other sources of news can provide a diversity of views. In other words, why get hot under the collar about these changes, because there are other alternatives? I have two problems with this argument. Firstly, not everyone has the luxury of access to a computer in their home or at work—many do, but not everyone does. Those who are disadvantaged and who should have access to objective analytical information are least likely to have it. Secondly, information on the internet is not always credible, so it cannot always be relied on to provide accurate information.
I want to refer briefly to something that happened a few years ago nationally when there were changes to the way some of the networks were deciding to provide local news. From memory, it was early in 2002 when the ABA held a series of inquiries around the country, seeking the views of the public as to how they felt about local news content and the diversity of that local news content and availability within their own communities. It had become evident that in certain areas of the country—and they did it here in Canberra—some of the major TV networks were going to close down their local news broadcasts and rely on taking up their news from Sydney. There was a series of public inquiries held here in Canberra, which I went to. I listened very carefully to the very high number of people who represented themselves at those public hearings—in some cases, there were small sporting clubs and community organisations. What was very clear was the degree of value these members of the community put on the local content of news, the local content of sporting news and the diversity of being able to go to more than one source to get the news. The people were very anxious and very upset to see a major television broadcaster remove that local news service from their community. They did not like it at all, and they were not at all enamoured of the fact that this was going to be the brave new world of news. That happened in 2002. The local news services I am referring to were removed but I was impressed by the very broad number of people from the community who took the trouble to go to those hearings and make their views known. It was a very high number.
I wonder how they are going to feel about these particular changes. How are those same people, and more, going to feel about not having diversity and access to a wide range of news broadcasts and solid, strong information available to them? Some people obviously are going to say that we are acting like Chicken Little, running around and saying that the sky is going to fall. The sky may not fall tomorrow, but this legislation is certainly going to have a dramatic effect on the dissemination of information in this country. It is going to change dramatically the way information and news is available to people.
People rely on television news, radio news and the newspapers, and there are those who are able to access the internet, but at the end of the day it is going to be owned by a small number of very powerful owners. As I said, half an hour ago I was watching a news broadcast on the television in my office here. We do not quite know what PBL is up to but if the predictions on the news wires tonight are true, they are going to make an enormous amount of money before the bill has even gone through this place.
The previous speaker mentioned—and I agree with her—that we have not even passed the legislation and yet dramatic shifts and changes are already occurring in the media landscape of this country. I worry about that. I take our free, wide expression of speech, information and news in this country very seriously and I worry very much about exactly what is going to happen in the future.
The member for Ballarat also made reference to Senator Fielding, and I want to endorse what she said. My understanding also is that he naively believes that maybe there is a bit of a stretch of distance between ownership of broad media in this country and content within the media. I fear for his naivety because that is not quite how it always works. One of the most important things that we should value and hold onto in this country is that breadth of diversity and opinion. I am seriously concerned for what is going to happen in the future as a result of this legislation.
I also object very strongly to these bills. Obviously, on numbers, they are going to be passed in this House but it is incumbent on people on this side of the chamber to make the views of those who hold another opinion very widely known in relation to these bills. I am not hesitating at all to do that here this evening. I object very strongly to this legislation and I would like to see, by some miracle, a change to it.
97
19:33:00
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
WU5
Corio
ALP
0
0
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 represent one of the most disgraceful cave-ins of any Australian government in recent memory to the commercial interests of media barons in this country. Under the guise of media reform the Howard government, in pandering to those interests, has struck an enormous blow to media diversity in this country, and to Australian democracy in the process. As this hypocritical government lectures the rest of the world, particularly countries in the Middle East, on the virtues of democracy, it brings into this parliament a piece of legislation that seeks to diminish democracy in this country.
There is nothing more nauseating, in a political sense, than this Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs ranting about our noble purpose in Iraq and their quest to bring democracy to the Middle East region, and then seeing this sort of legislation being brought into the Australian parliament. What is even more nauseating is that they are prepared to send Australians to die in that conflict on the basis of a political lie, while they undermine democratic practice in this country.
Diversity is the lifeblood of our democracy. Because we live in a stable, advanced democracy we ought to have put before us legislation that enhances and strengthens that diversity, not legislation that concentrates more media power in fewer hands. As my colleague the member for Perth so eloquently put in his speech in the second reading debate:
The government’s media ownership bill will reduce media diversity, reduce competition and reduce consumer choice.
Labor introduced the cross-media laws in this country to protect diversity in the Australian media. It is a policy that has stood the test of time in the face of a virtual revolution in mass communications in this country and around the globe. It is a policy that major democracies around the world—and I include the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, France and a whole list of others—have in place to achieve and maintain media diversity in their own countries. They do it simply because there is a fundamental belief that media diversity is one of the cornerstones of a working democracy.
This is not the first time the Prime Minister has grovelled before the media magnates of this country by putting up legislation that enhances their interests at the expense of the Australian people and their great democracy. It is the third time in a decade that this Prime Minister has attempted to attack media diversity and pander to sectional commercial interests in the media. I think it is reasonable to ask whether the Prime Minister and members of the government have any real commitment to an Australian democracy at all.
It has always historically been the case that the greatest assault on democratic practice in this country has come from the Liberal and National parties, and this media ownership bill is but one example of that assault on democratic values, processes and institutions in this country. Witness the abandonment of any standards of ministerial conduct as members of the government lie their way through issue after issue: children overboard and Iraq are just two. Witness the concentration of political power by the executive over the processes of this parliament and the massive assault on parliamentary scrutiny as the government reduces the capacity of the Senate committee system to provide an appropriate check and balance to the abuse of power by members of the executive. Witness the assault of this government on the right of its citizens to freedom of information. Witness the stripping away of the fundamental rights of citizens of this country all in the name of the war on terror. Witness the attack by this government on individual judges and the independence of the judiciary. Witness the politicisation of our great Public Service. Witness the relative ease by which ministers have been able to insulate themselves from political accountability in issues such as the wheat for weapons AWB scandal. It is not a pleasant political landscape as far as our great Australian democracy is concerned. And now we have a remaining assault on the integrity of the regulatory regime governing the concentration of power in the fourth estate.
Given the contentious nature of this legislation, I am absolutely appalled that it is being rammed through the parliament with limited debate and scrutiny. This whole area of public policy is a complex one. For the citizens of this country who are not familiar with its complexity and the potential political impacts on their democracy, finding their way through these complexities to a reasonable understanding of the legislation’s import is very difficult indeed. For members of parliament it can be daunting and difficult also. It is through the democratic process of parliamentary debate and public discussion that information is obtained, views are challenged, understandings developed and appropriate positions formed by people in this parliament and outside of it.
For the public record, the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts was only given three weeks to conduct its inquiry into these bills. The general public, I am informed by my Senate colleagues, only had one week to make submissions. The committee had only two days of public hearings to consider these bills and the time of the opposition to question witnesses was severely limited. It is an extraordinary perversion of democratic practice on such an important matter of public policy, but when you examine this bill you can understand why.
Let us deal first with the issue of cross-media ownership. Under the current legislative provisions, companies can only control a newspaper or a radio licence or a commercial TV licence in any one market. The government’s legislation will now permit mergers between commercial TV, commercial radio and associated newspaper businesses operating in the same market. Distilled down to its basics, this is a bill that allows further concentration of media ownership in this country. Under the government’s five-four rule, it is allowing greater concentration of media assets and power, particularly in regional areas.
There is a grave doubt that the ACCC will have the necessary power to prevent mergers that it might consider to be anticompetitive, and that view is based on recent Federal Court judgements that limit the potential of the ACCC to exercise its powers around mergers it considers to be anticompetitive. In addition, the Productivity Commission in its broadcasting report had this to say:
It is clear that the Trade Practices Act as it stands would be unable to prevent many cross-media mergers or acquisitions which may reduce diversity. It is also clear that the adoption by the ACCC of a broader definition of the media market would not adequately address the social dimensions of the policy problem, and would be open to legal challenge.
I would not have thought that the Productivity Commission was one of the most left wing of organisations in this society, but we in this place do rely from time to time on the views expressed by a commission that stands at arms-length from the government and opposition of the day and conducts its inquiries into these matters in what it perceives under its charter to be the public interest. Part of that public interest, as far as the Productivity Commission’s charter is concerned, is to engender a competitive regime in the commercial marketplace. Here is the Productivity Commission sounding a very significant warning that the Trade Practices Act may not be able to prevent the sorts of mergers and acquisitions that will see enormous concentration of media power in this country.
The impacts of this legislation will be far reaching on journalists, on local content programming, on the diversity of the news and information available to the public, on the diversity of regional media and on the health of our democracy. In my own electorate, the great regional centre of Geelong exists in the media footprint of Melbourne. In contrast to Ballarat and Bendigo, where at least there is an electronic TV outlet that is able to focus on local news and events, we do not have that particular facility in Geelong at all. Even recently we had an attempt by certain media interests to take over some independent media outlets that were providing an alternative source of information and news to the people of Geelong.
Whilst we might have some degree of diversity in our radio programming, I think it is fair to say that Geelong is not particularly well serviced by a diverse media market, in a local sense. One of my concerns is that this particular legislation will allow an even greater concentration of media ownership in the Geelong region, down from six to four. That is not in the healthy interests of the local community in Geelong. It is certainly not in the interests of good democratic practice in my electorate and locality.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—We have recently gone through some really interesting public debate on the ground in Geelong on matters relating to the functions and operations of the City of Greater Geelong. It would horrify the member for Paterson to know that, in my electorate, there has been an unholy alliance between some Liberal interests and the right wing of the Labor Party. I will say no more about that. But I would have thought a regional member like the member for Paterson, who is here with me in the chamber tonight, would have an interest in broader media diversity in his region. Obviously, he does not. We know he is an incumbent, rushing like a lemming to the cliff on the back of the Prime Minister’s Work Choices legislation. Indeed, the member for Paterson will follow his Prime Minister into political oblivion at the next election. Part of that will be because of his slavish adherence to the dictates of his Prime Minister, who cannot go to bed without sucking the toes of the media barons of this country. He is a lickspittle and a toe-sucker from way back. The media legislation we are debating here tonight in this parliament is ample evidence of this.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—I find it extraordinary that the member for Paterson can sit here with a smile on his face when he has to negotiate on this particular piece of legislation with his coalition partners, the National Party. We know of the great love within the coalition for the National Party. I know of this great enduring love because all the rural Liberals tell me about how they want to do in members of the National Party out in the sticks. I have to say that I am happy to join them in that pursuit. I am happy to go hunting, simply because you would not get a greater bunch of Judases in the Australian political system than the members of the National Party.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—I am surprised that the member for Paterson continually prostrates himself before the National Party, the junior member of the coalition, over these sorts of issues. I said that the members of the National Party are probably the greatest bunch of Judases this parliament has seen, as far as defending the interests of country people are concerned. We have seen the betrayal on Telstra.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! The member for Paterson will cease interjecting.
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—We have seen the betrayal of the National Party on the United States free trade agreement, when the National Party and the Liberal Party dumped the sugar producers of this nation. We have seen the betrayal on the mandatory retail grocery code of conduct. We have seen the betrayal of working people in regional and country areas, farmers included, in the government’s draconian Work Choices legislation. We have seen the betrayal of country people and wheat growers over the AWB scandal, which is now rocking rural industry in this country. And now we have this. Now we have this shoddy piece of legislation, as the lickspittlers and the toe-suckers in the coalition mosey on up to the media barons of this country, leaving behind the great democratic traditions and practices that we have enjoyed in over a century of Federation.
In conclusion, I must say that I am absolutely staggered by the position of the Family First senator on this legislation. What a bitter disappointment this senator has been on this particular piece of legislation. I have watched Senator Fielding and his attitude on many issues. I have to say that I was encouraged by the views that he was taking and his independence on a whole range of social issues, where he was looking coolly at the propositions before him and was being suitably horrified at their import as far as their implications for the people of Australia were concerned. I think the key question for Senator Fielding is: why have you caved in as a Family First senator on a piece of legislation that the families of Australia certainly cannot rely on to maintain media diversity in this country? I am bitterly disappointed, and so will be the Family First members and people in the Geelong region who have supported the philosophies of Senator Fielding in this place.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—I say one thing for the member for Paterson. He has had a chequered history in this place. He has been in and out of this place, and he is now on the way out again.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Paterson!
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—Once again he is following the Prime Minister, like a lemming over the political cliff. The fate of the member for Paterson will be political oblivion. Let me tell you this, member for Paterson; I will just leave you with this parting thought: while you slip over that political cliff, I will still be here, mark my words.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
WU5
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—I will still be here in this place. While you support this sort of legislation in this place, you have only one political destiny: your political demise. (Time expired)
100
19:53:00
Andren, Peter, MP
KL6
Calare
IND
0
0
Mr ANDREN
—That certainly was a colourful contribution to the debate, plus some sort of insinuation of plans beyond the Labor Party perhaps. The past few weeks have seen much activity by the National Party to win concessions on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. I commend the member for Hinkler for his commitment to regional broadcasting matters over many years and his driving of whatever amendments have been achieved. However, the cynic in me sees this exercise as a relevance re-establishment program for the National Party to allow them to reclaim some of their lost claim, indeed, to represent the interests of rural Australia—interests that have been betrayed on so many fronts, as the former speaker, the member for Corio, so colourfully portrayed.
The minister’s first effort to try to allow media operators to own as many licences as they liked was never going to get up. It was the ambit claim, if you like. In fact, the two out of three media in one market was the preferred option of the government in earlier manifestations of this legislation. So there was nothing new in this outcome—these bills—except the urgency to restore some relevance to the Nationals.
Let me begin with the foreign ownership provisions of the legislation. Item 4 of schedule 2 repeals division 4 of part 5 of the current legislation, which limits foreign ownership of Australian media. Under existing laws, no one foreign person can hold a controlling share in a commercial television licence, and two or more foreign persons must not have company interests in a commercial television broadcasting licence exceeding 20 per cent. The removal of this legislated limitation and transfer of determination of foreign investment to the Treasurer is completely contrary to the public interest. In all this debate over the media, it must be stressed—as I have done consistently in this place over a decade—that a broadcasting licence is a privilege, not a commercial right, and, at the very least, levels of foreign investment should be enshrined in legislation determined by the parliament, not a minister.
Apart from this, these provisions to remove legislated restrictions on foreign ownership of Australian broadcast media will inevitably have a negative impact on the production and broadcasting of Australian current affairs and ultimately impact on the independence of that very news and current affairs. We already have the situation, before this bill is fully debated, where plans are well underway for PBL to exploit the new legislation. Reports suggest that they are preparing to sell around 60 per cent of the Nine Network, the ACP magazines and Ninemsn to an American private equity group. The rush, indeed, has started before the Governor-General’s signature is on the legislation, let alone the ink being dry.
Could it be that a favourable outcome was sought from some senators through heavy lobbying in recent weeks? That is not a crime yet, as we know, but it would be immoral. It should be illegal if election donations in multiples of up to just short of $10,000 appear on the returns—in fact, they will not appear on the returns if they are under $10,000—if indeed they are simply made at the next election, completely hidden from public gaze. If ever there were a need for a cap on campaign spending by individual candidates—as I moved unsuccessfully during the debate on that bill—it may be because lobbying of this nature underlines the impression and the perception that our democratic processes are available for negotiation by way of promises of donations up to the point where they are not discernible by any other party if they are under the threshold that has been built into legislation in recent times. I think the so-called electoral integrity laws passed by this parliament earlier this year are an indictment on our democratic processes. The perception, if not the reality, of the sorts of processes that can be put in place to achieve crucial votes in crucial situations to benefit the business sector and others in our community is demonstrated by the perception that can be built around circumstances such as these.
The existing cross-media ownership restrictions have guaranteed a separation of editorial and commercial control and diversity of ownership for the past 14 years. They have also, importantly, removed the temptation for the sort of lobbying that could occur—it may not have occurred to this point but it can and will occur—to further allow the concentration of the media ownership in this country. The irony in all of this is that the former one licence per region for television and one AM radio licence prior to the 1990s delivered more local content and hundreds more jobs than does the aggregated, so-called more choice regional media post 1990. The irony is that, under benign local ownership with local management and local loyalties, the former benign monopoly ownership of pre-aggregation days ensured a far richer line-up of local programs than we have seen since or are likely to see in the future.
Aggregation of regional television in 1988 saw the shrinking of local content on the incumbent local station to the bare half-hour news and little else, from a base of news, current affairs, agriculture, children’s programs and many more community service announcements. Aggregation provided more choice, that is true, but more choice of the often mediocre fare on offer from the three networks. So much for choice and diversity. It can be what governments want to spin it to mean. The existing cross-media ownership laws have not guaranteed local content, especially in radio, but they have guaranteed separate control of broadcast and print in each market, and that is the basic foundation on which a government should build localism requirements.
Let me turn to the submission of my former employer Prime Television to the Senate inquiry on this legislation. Supporting the legislation, Prime said:
If the proposed legislation were passed, and Prime was allowed to acquire a radio station in Bunbury (in addition to Prime’s television station that covers the Bunbury area), local radio news for Bunbury could be sourced from Prime’s Bunbury newsroom ...
Herein lies the very weakness of these cross-media relaxations. While Prime’s submission rightly argues that currently the Bunbury radio station gets so-called local news from Queensland based syndication services, the alternative Prime suggests is just as flawed.
It is true that the threat of a national television satellite footprint delivering network programs prompted the regional stations to significantly ramp up their localism after a decade or more of living on network material alone throughout the seventies. The rebirth of localism in regional TV in the eighties, driven by local owners with local loyalties, was an outstanding example of what a local broadcast licence holder can and should do to service the expectations of its market. There were current affairs shows, 30 minutes of local TV news, children’s shows, weekend magazine programs, outside sporting broadcasts and numerous news specials. From memory, at the height of the renaissance of regional television in the eighties, there were something like 120 employees at a complex in Orange. You could currently fit the workforce into a minivan.
Sadly, aggregation led to a severe diminishing of that local content, basically to little more than the five-day-a-week news, yet the government of the day argued that it provided more. More choice in broadcasting, with the issuing of many more licences, delivered less localism, not more, and the hubbing we have seen in recent years. So, if we are to now allow regional ownerships to merge, quite apart from the Clayton’s localism of hubbing, only the professionalism of individual journalists and editors who would stand up to management and refuse to use generic material stands between diversity of opinion and common editorial policy. I know which is likely to win out, with largely absentee owners looking at profits rather than public interest.
The Prime TV example is exactly what will occur. Radio and TV will not only see a crossover of material but also cross-promotion and cross-media sales deals that will offer economies of scale, with radio and TV commercials sold by the same person at the same time and with bulk deals that will make it extremely hard for any solo medium operation in that market. Apart from that, common news will be just that—common. When an advertiser wants a special deal, including editorial coverage, that will inevitably creep into the equation as well. If pressure is applied to drop an embarrassing story, not one outlet but both radio and TV journalists will potentially be compromised.
Prime TV is right when it says in its submission that a wide range of media access is available across regional Australia and is likely to improve with advances in broadband technology, with online publishing, community radio, pay TV, ABC services and the like thrown in. However, free-to-air television, radio and mass circulation daily or biweekly newspapers remain the dominant sources of local news and commercial advertising.
Back in 2003, when we were debating the media ownership bill mark II, when the government did not have the carte blanche of Senate control and was frustrated in passing legislation like this, I quoted Dr Kim Jackson’s work from the Parliamentary Library. With cross-media ownership relaxation provisions exactly the same as those in these new bills, she said then:
The impact of these relaxed cross-media ... owners in places like Bathurst, Orange and Tamworth and major regional centres, which is a forty per cent reduction in minimum possible ownership, diversity of control and possible opinion, further exacerbated by the likely converging of editorial management and content under such reduced ownership.
That is exactly the case now. Whether it is one of all three media initially proposed by the minister, and opposed so heroically by The Nationals, or whether it is two of three, now the outcome will be basically the same.
Orange, with six commercial operators, two radio owners, three television operators and a newspaper, will now be able to have, say, Rural Press also controlling a TV licence, another TV licensee taking over the second radio operation, and the remaining TV owner taking control of the second radio licence. That is the potential. Only the vague four voices rule in this legislation stands in the way of a contraction to three players in the Orange market. How long will it be before the clamour for three, not four, voices is heard from regional markets, because the third and fourth solo voices in such a market will be at a severe disadvantage in competing against the big two? From six to four, and likely three, the strongest morning radio station and newspaper will be powerful players in that market, while potentially two other mergers allow for common news production, common advertising schemes and so on—concentration of control, reduction of diversity. The same applies to two out of three in city markets.
Former Senator Brian Harradine introduced the famous Packer-Murdoch amendments to similar legislation in 2003 which effectively stymied the bill. It flushed out the intent of those bills which was to hand more free media control to the media moguls. Harradine moved an amendment to preclude newspaper owners from operating a television station in the same capital city. This legislation, of course, will allow that. Senator Harradine rightly said that his key amendment was ‘to protect against media proprietors having undue influence’, particularly in a city, by owning both a TV licence and a newspaper in that city. Hey, here we are, back exactly at that point.
I said back in December 2003 that the lessons of the sixties, seventies and eighties are clear. Those lessons were learnt through the common ownership of TV, radio and newspaper by the Packer, Fairfax and Murdoch media empires, where I had personal experience with hands-on influence on the content of news bulletins, cross-media newsrooms and common editorial policies when it suited the political imperatives or, indeed, the commercial imperatives of the owners.
We can look back to things like the famous soap inquiry of the seventies. Also, throughout the 1972 election campaign, there was a tightly constructed editorial process put in place to coordinate the positions of three media in markets right around Australia, deliberately designed to achieve a political outcome. This could impact on anyone and any government at any time if we have concentrated media determining that that is the position they will take at any particular time.
We have in recent years also seen the moves—thankfully dumped after public outcry—by 2UE and 2GB for colocated radio news services servicing competing radio stations. That was suggested under existing legislation. Nothing in this legislation suggests that similar moves as those which occur in radio news syndication for regional radio will not simply flourish. It is absolutely essential to require editorial separation for commonly owned media operations in a licence area in order to maintain editorial and news separation. I notice the Macquarie Regional Radio Works network complaining about the onerous nature of these legislative changes. It will cost them money to establish independent news services. So it should! Perhaps some of the petty cash allowances of its super funded executives could pay for it.
The 12½ minutes of local news daily per station and the 4½ hours of live and local broadcasting for radio seem impressive. But I know how such provisions can be circumvented. Generic stories on general topics such as sunscreen application in summer, as important as it is, can be easily syndicated across many stations. There are numerous examples of the sort of material that can be said to be local when in fact it is churned out of a news sausage factory somewhere in a market and delivered to the complying editor at the point of use.
However, the minimum content requirements for local radio are at least an advance on what we have had to date, with hubbing of programming far too popular an option for network operators more concerned with profit than the public; more concerned with loot than local. In the absence of local owners living and thinking locally, there will always be a commercial imperative to cut costs to a bare minimum. The maximising of technology and hubbing of programs, commercial production and news production, are the way things will go in the absence of specific regulation.
If new section 43A requires licensing conditions on TV stations to ensure a minimum level of material of local significance then surely the new division 5C, which requires minimum local news, information, community and emergency announcements in addition to news and weather, is nothing onerous for radio operators. In fact, it should be essential in any market claiming to represent and broadcast to its local audience. However, section 43A provides only that ACMA determines the specifics of the local content licence conditions for television broadcasters. Such conditions should be included for both radio and television in legislation, and thus be subject to regulation and amendment under the Broadcasting Services Act.
Let me quote briefly the words of Postmaster-General Mr Davidson in 1956, exactly 50 years ago, as television began in this country. He said:
Television stations—
and you could put in local radio and city radio as well—
are in a position to exercise a constant and cumulative effect on public taste and standards of conduct, because of the influence they can bring to bear on the community, the business interests of licensees must at all times be subordinated to the overriding principle that the possession of a licence is a ... public trust for the benefit of all members of our society.
I would suggest that this legislation is completely contrary to the tenor of those remarks of Mr Davidson 50 years ago. He, a member of a conservative government, would have been appalled at this move to deliver up to media owners the control of the media that, to this point, has been well served by the cross-media ownership restrictions.
105
20:13:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
0
0
Ms HALL
—I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 with a heavy heart. I believe that the legislation that we are considering in the parliament today is a retrograde step. I believe it has the ability to influence and impact on our democracy here in Australia. I also seriously believe that it will lead to less diversity and remove from media the role that I believe it has traditionally played. I believe that media is about informing the community and engendering debate and discussion. I believe that these laws have the potential to operate in the opposite way.
These bills are the centrepiece of the government’s so-called media reforms. They will implement the most significant changes to media laws in 20 years. The government would like the people of Australia to believe that the legislation is really all about media reform, but the government’s plan does not deserve that description. It is not about reform, as I have already indicated. It is definitely a retrograde step.
The legislation repeals the current cross-media rules, which prevent the common ownership of newspaper, radio and television assets in the same market. Media mergers will be subject to a requirement that at least six commercial media voices remain in Sydney and Melbourne, five in the other cities and four in regional Australia. Mergers will also be subject to the scrutiny of the ACCC—later in my contribution I will indicate that I have some concerns about the power of the ACCC to actually oversee this in a proper way.
In the region that I represent in this parliament, the Newcastle-Hunter region, the current number of owners is seven. Under the new media plan that can be reduced to four. Previously we had Prime Television working out of the Hunter. Since they stopped operating and broadcasting in the Hunter, I have noticed a significant change in the media in our local area. The media is not quite as vigilant as it previously was, because of the lack of competition. Prime has resumed a skeleton type of service in the Hunter, but I have noticed the difference with just that small change. I believe that the reduction from seven to four, which can happen without too much trouble at all, will not benefit the region that I represent and the people that live in my electorate.
The other part of my electorate is on the Central Coast. It is very difficult to really pinpoint the number of media owners that currently operate out of that area. One could say there are channels 7, 9 and 10 and radio stations CFM, which is Macquarie; Star FM; and 2GO. But it is not quite that simple. Channels 7, 9 and 10 operate out of Sydney, so I would be much more comfortable being conservative about it and saying that currently there are five media outlets and that that number will go to four. But the impact already of the Sydney market on the Central Coast is very apparent. The comparison between the local coverage that you get in the Hunter and the Central Coast is, I think, very stark. That example, to me, only reinforces the concerns that I have.
The legislation also abolishes foreign ownership and control provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 relating to commercial television and subscription television. Foreign ownership will continue to be subject to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and the Treasurer will be able to block transactions not in the national interest. The bill seeks to address concerns about the loss of local content from regional television and radio by strengthening licensing conditions. The proposed changes have the potential to impact very significantly, as I have already indicated, on the media diversity in regional Australia.
We in this parliament owe some thanks to the National Party that there is now to be the two out of three limit placed on media ownership—although if that is all they can deliver, it does not say much for them. That would never have happened if it had been left to the government. They were quite happy to just go along with their original provisions; it concerns me greatly that the government were prepared to allow investment under such restrictions on the ownership of media. The cross-media rules that limit owners to newspaper, television and radio assets in one market are repealed by the bill, and that is where the two out of three limit comes into play.
The bill inserts new rules whereby media mergers, including cross-media mergers, will be permitted under the BSA as long as at least five voices remain in the mainland state capitals, four voices in regional areas and, as I mentioned, six in Melbourne and Sydney. The bill should be amended to delete the changes to cross-media ownership. They just do not quite work. It has the potential to halve the number of owners of the major media in our biggest cities and reduce the number of owners by a third in many regional areas. There is the likelihood that proprietors’ business and editorial interests will influence the content and opinion of their media outlets, which is of major significance in a democracy.
At the start of my comments in this debate, I said that one of my greatest concerns about this legislation is the way it may impact on how democracy operates in this country. A true democracy is not one where you hear just one side of the story or where what you hear is influenced by your relationship with a particular media owner or media magnate. Democracy is about presenting the true picture, the whole picture—not half a picture. True democracy is about putting the facts before the people and allowing them to make a decision based on all the facts, not just the facts that have been coloured by the influence of the media bosses, where restricted information is being given and there is editorial interference in the information being provided to the people of Australia.
The government’s media ownership bill will definitely reduce media diversity, reduce competition and reduce consumer choice. The abolition of the existing cross-media ownership laws has the potential to benefit media owners, but it offers nothing to the Australian people. All it offers the Australian people is less choice. Day after day, I sit in this parliament and I listen to the Prime Minister and members on the other side talk about choice. Well, where are they now? Why aren’t they standing up in this parliament and arguing for greater choice? They are not. They are silent when it comes to the cross-media laws because, I believe, they are quite beholden to some of the media bosses.
This is the third time that the Prime Minister has tried to ram these changes through the parliament, and I do not think that it does him any credit whatsoever. Australia does not need to sacrifice media diversity in order to benefit from the digital age, but that is going to happen. These laws will do absolutely nothing to ensure that we benefit in that way. The UK and the US are rapidly moving to embrace digital broadcasting, yet they have strong cross-media ownership laws to promote diversity of opinion. Why are the government scared of a diversity of opinion? Why won’t they embrace it and why won’t they ensure that people are able to access the information that they need to make an informed choice?
The Howard government maintain that the benefit of digital TV can be obtained only if the incumbent media players receive a quid pro quo in the form of a repeal of the cross-media ownership laws. I completely reject that. We on this side of the House completely reject that. I think the facts speak for themselves: there is absolutely nothing there to support that. The legislation is being rammed through this parliament so the government’s plans are subject to only minimal scrutiny and debate.
We on this side of the House are very used to that happening. Legislation is introduced here and pushed through the parliament, and quite often the debate is guillotined, although not in this case. The government does not like legislation to be scrutinised. It does not like to be accountable. It likes to just ram legislation through without debate. I think that the Australian people are beginning to recognise this for what it is: arrogance—blatant arrogance. The government is so determined to get a package that accommodates the industry’s interests that many amendments that would have been quite useful were not considered because debate was guillotined in the Senate, just as I mentioned a moment ago. This government guillotines debate on legislation all the time, preventing proper scrutiny.
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 makes two key changes to the media ownership laws. First, it repeals the significant foreign ownership provision in the Broadcasting Services Act that relates to commercial and subscription television. In a democracy it is important, as I have already stated, to prevent a concentration in the power to influence public opinion. But this is what these laws will do; they will lead to a concentration of power. I am not naive enough to discount the possibility that this is one of the benefits the government seeks through this legislation. The proposal does nothing to protect diversity in the 17 regional markets.
There is no doubt what will happen if the government’s cross-media ownership laws are passed: a takeover frenzy will be unleashed and there will be a massive concentration in the ownership of the most influential media in Australia. It will make it harder for diverse voices to be heard, much harder. It will be harder for people to get the information that they need to form opinions. Fewer journalists will report on stories of local interest and hold members of parliament and industry to account—and that is the role of the media. The role of the media is to hold all of us in this parliament to account, as well as industry. But if they become the lap-dogs of the government then that is something that we as a nation will lose. There is absolutely no logical basis for the changes that the government has proposed. Even the explanatory memoranda to the bill plainly state that the benefits of cross-media ownership reform are ‘unclear’.
Australia’s democracy and freedom of speech are really at stake with this legislation. Diversity in news and current affairs, and in journalistic commentary, is critical to Australian people being aware of all the different opinions on a matter and being able to draw their own conclusions, to make their own judgements, as I have already said.
Second, this legislation allows for 4.5 hours per day of local content. On the face of it, that does not sound like a bad deal. But this local content provision will not apply until 2008. It is also going to be reviewed by ACMA, which could lead to them signing up for fewer hours. Following the review, ACMA could come back and say that 4.5 hours was excessive and recommend that maybe two hours is more appropriate.
This is an interesting aspect: the minister has the power to override the 4.5 hours of local content aspect of this legislation. It can be overwritten by regulation. There is no need whatsoever to bring it back to the parliament. It means that if there is a decision to lower the number of hours of local content it can be done at the minister’s behest without any debate in this House. I believe that the minister threw that in to placate the National Party and she feels that following the review, given that it is not due to be introduced until 2008, it is not something she has to deal with immediately.
I have real fears that if the government wins the next election—and that is something I hope, in the interests of the Australian people, that they do not do—that the 4.5 hours per day of local content will be reduced. So we have an election, ACMA completes its review, the 4.5 hours are not due to be implemented until 2008 and the government reneges by not even bringing it back to parliament—this is the way of the Howard government. The way of the Howard government is to arrogantly push its legislation through. The way of the Howard government is to disregard public comment, and this legislation will enable it to have more freedom to do this. It will cater to the media bosses. The Howard government will be subservient to them. They will have complete disregard for democracy, and everything will be about the Howard government’s agenda.
I believe the government are quite frightened of the media. One of the reasons I think that this legislation has been supported so readily and embraced by the government is their fear of the media. They want to embrace the media and get it on side so it will support them and say the right things about them and help the government in the lead-up to the next election. The government’s distortion of events and coloured vision of the world are the messages being put to the Australian people.
This is bad legislation. It is not reforming legislation; it is legislation that is about concentration of media ownership and restriction of information to the Australian people. It is about less democracy, not more democracy. I believe that the House should vote against this legislation, because it is not in the interests of the Australian people.
108
20:33:00
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
0
0
Mrs ELLIOT
—This legislation will have a major impact on those living in rural and regional Australia, and that is what I am going to be speaking about to tonight. No doubt right across Australia the impacts of it will be massive but it will certainly be very harshly felt for those people living in rural areas.
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 repeals the current cross-media laws and inserts new provisions, which are described and claimed as diversity safeguards. That certainly is not true: these safeguards are very weak and ineffective. The real effect of these changes is that the government’s media ownership bill will reduce media diversity, competition and consumer choice. While the abolition of the cross-media laws may potentially benefit some media owners, it offers nothing for the general public and it is especially detrimental to rural and regional Australia.
In short, this is another metrocentric piece of legislation from this very metrocentric government. With this legislation we see how the National Party have failed to protect the interests of their constituents yet again. We have seen it before, whether it is rolling over on Telstra or industrial relations and, again, they have rolled over on this legislation. Let no person in rural or regional Australia be deceived: this legislation and all the effects and ramifications of it will be passed as a result of the National Party’s failure to stand up to their Liberal masters. They have rolled over, and that is why this deal was done. It is nothing more than a shonky deal and the National Party have allowed it to happen. They got this legislation through the Senate with the deal that they did which ultimately will sell out those people from regional and rural Australia.
This legislation is this government’s way of buying positive media from the media moguls. Mark my words: it will be at the expense of independent media in this country and, again, it will be at the expense of those people in rural and regional Australia, and those media outlets. Tonight the National Party are proudly responsible for the eventual demise of local content in our community media because the deal they did will offer absolutely no protection at all.
In the regulation impact statement, the government acknowledges the removal of cross-media ownership restrictions may reduce local content, yet only regional radio licensees that change ownership will have any additional requirements placed on them, and those requirements are deliberately and blatantly vague. The arrangements in respect of local media content are very weak and the provisions of schedule 2 relate to material of local significance. The proposal is for the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, to insert a condition into a television or radio broadcasting licence in relation to retaining a minimum level of material of local significance.
In terms of ACMA’s development of the definition of material of local significance, the proposed legislation says:
The definition of material of local significance must be broad enough to cover news that relates directly to the local area concerned.
It sounds rather vague and the legislation requires that the definition of material of local significance needs to be broad. In other words, there is very clear legislative intention for ACMA to provide a vague definition in their conditions. There are no guarantees that this will not be exploited, and the legislation borders on asking for exploitation by requiring this very vague definition. Also, in relation to radio, there is no comfort at all. The proposed legislation states:
... the licensee must maintain at least the existing level of local presence.
Who directs ACMA on the supposed protection in this section? It is the minister. ACMA must comply with the direction of the minister—a minister who has willingly and somewhat gleefully sold out the bush and will cause the death of diversity in rural and regional Australia with this legislation. As we have heard from previous speakers, the minister can review the local content provisions. These can be totally up in the air or reduced from what may have been in the initial legislation, which impacts on those people in regional areas.
All of this news about local content is definitely not comforting for those in regional Australia, many of whom are already concerned about the low levels of local content in their areas. In some areas, local content has been given over to bought packaged programs that are produced outside the local area. There is no requirement that local content be produced locally; it could be produced anywhere in the country. It is an absurd situation where we will see further centralisation of news and the end result will be that local journalists in those regional areas will lose their jobs.
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts drew attention to the decline of local radio programming back in 2001. One of the submissions in relation to local content being produced locally pointed out that computers could actually insert local content into the programming from anywhere. The submission also pointed out, quite importantly, what a distant computer cannot do:
It can’t answer the phone from the local sporting group informing us of a cancellation or a bus running late from a sporting function out of town. It can’t read the fax from the Weather Bureau informing of an approaching storm or from the City Council informing of a closed road or the local police searching for a motorist.
In 2003, the ABA imposed the additional licence condition on regional broadcasters that minimum amounts of local content were to be broadcast. In many rural and regional areas, people have been concerned that these arrangements have not provided sufficient local content, just as the formalisation of this arrangement will not ensure sufficient ongoing local content. Many rural and regional communities remain concerned about the lack of local content on their televisions and radios. The passing of this legislation would only give them further concern about their current situation and how even that may decline.
In many areas, there is a vast array of local content. In my electorate at the moment there certainly is, and I will be speaking more about that in a minute. It is important to have local voices, particularly in times of tragedy. On 30 June 2005 in Northern Rivers, New South Wales, we had some major storms and flooding right throughout our area. It was very catastrophic and major towns were cut off. I would like to tell a story of a local radio announcer, Barry Coleman, who is the daily breakfast announcer from Radio 97 from six until nine. He came into work that morning at three o’clock, as he normally does, and torrential rain and flooding had started then. Between 3.30 and four, he was unable to leave the station. Later in the day, all of South Tweed Heads, where his office is based, was shut off.
He was in there and he did his radio show from six until nine, and he was able to take calls and broadcast information about closed roads and keep people informed. It was really important for locals to have that local voice there all the time. At the same time, the ABC in Lismore were able to broadcast quite a few concerns about the situations they had. But back to Barry Coleman: his program ran from six until nine, but he actually stayed on air until about five o’clock that afternoon. He could not leave because all of South Tweed was flooded but, as he said, he stayed there because it was important that local people heard local news about a local event that was impacting on them. It certainly was of great reassurance to so many people, because in an event like that—major flooding in regional areas—to have a local voice and to be able to phone up and perhaps help somebody out is really important. I know that in many areas this does not happen. Those people have real concern that this legislation is only going to make their situation worse.
I believe this legislation should really be renamed the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Death of Diversity) Bill 2006 because diversity of sources and opinion will totally disappear with the removal of existing media regulations. The reality is that these changes will have a significant impact on the quality and the content of local news, particularly in rural and regional Australia. Diversity in media is crucial to those regional areas. My electorate of Richmond is an incredibly diverse electorate and the issues that are important to locals in Byron Bay in the south of my electorate are often vastly different to the issues that are important to locals in Tweed Heads. This diversity is throughout the electorate.
In Richmond, we are very fortunate at the moment to have a great diversity of local media throughout the entire electorate. In a lot of cases, the content of local radio stations is driven by local interests, local concerns and local issues. If we have a homogenous media source, we will get homogenous content—that is all we will end up with. As I said, in my electorate of Richmond we certainly have diversity. I would like to explain just how diverse the media is in that area. In Tweed Heads, in the northern part of the electorate—which is, of course, on the border with Queensland—many people source their information from the Gold Coast. We have radio stations including ABC Gold and Tweed Coasts, Sea FM, Gold FM and Hot Tomato. We have the Gold Coast Bulletin newspaper, which a lot of people from the Tweed use to source their information. Within Tweed Heads itself, we have Radio 97, to which I referred before. At the moment, that has a large amount of local content and many locals listen to that station specifically for local information. We also have the Tweed Daily News, which is the only daily newspaper for the Tweed, Tweed Coast and Murwillumbah area, serving locals who want to be able to find out what is happening in their area.
We also have weekly papers in the Tweed area—the Border Mail and the Tweed Sun—which are obviously, again, servicing the needs of locals and providing important local information. Further south in the electorate we have the Byron Bay area within Byron Shire. There are some great papers down there. There is the Byron Echo, which is a weekly paper. It certainly is a great local paper in its content and views. There is also the Byron Shire News, another weekly paper. There is also a fantastic community radio station, Bay FM. It is run wholly by volunteers. They are in there all the time talking about a huge range of diverse issues, whether they be local, state, national, international and how any of those issues impact on them locally in the Byron area. Further south, there are a number of media outlets based in Lismore, which is just south of the Richmond electorate but a lot of people within Richmond listen to ABC Lismore. There is 2LM Radio as well.
Newspaper wise, there is the Northern Star and the Northern Rivers Echo. Again, they are very specific local media outlets that service a need in their area. Throughout the electorate there are a lot of smaller publications as well. There is the Banora Point Newsletter, the Lennox Wave, Better Business and the Tweed Weekly. Then, if we move onto some of the regional television stations in the electorate of Richmond, there is NBN, Prime, and Gold Coast Channel 9. That is a long list of diverse local media outlets and they really are specific to certain areas. There is a huge amount there because people in those areas want to hear about the issues that are important to them in their local area. For all that to be destroyed would be catastrophic because local issues are important. As I say, it may be national or international issues and how they impact on them locally. That is what our local media do. We need to have diverse media to represent diverse views and local issues as well.
What is some of the spin we have heard from the government about the justification for killing off diversity? They say that it is because of the rise in internet media. The internet is not a replacement for real local content or genuine local media diversity. There is no evidence to suggest that the internet is increasing the diversity of news. Around 84 per cent of hits on news sites occur on the websites of the major media players. Roy Morgan Research also indicates that the most popular internet news sites are controlled by existing media operators, including Fairfax, News Ltd, Channel 9 and the ABC. The existing major media players completely dominate the market for online news.
But what is really important in this argument about the rise in internet media is: what about all those Australians who still cannot access the internet? What about those in rural and regional Australia who cannot access broadband? The latest OECD broadband statistics show Australia’s ranking in the use of broadband remains at 17 out of 37 surveyed countries in the developed world. That is unchanged from the previous year. Richmond is certainly not the most remote of electorates, yet, as an example, there are constituents who live in Bray Park, only a 20-minute drive from Tweed Heads, who cannot access broadband. There are people who live in certain areas of Tweed Heads who cannot access broadband. If the rise of media on the internet is to be bandied about as the saving grace of media diversity, then what do you say to all those people who cannot access it? It is a double whammy for those people in regional areas when we hear these arguments put forward.
Any threat to media diversity is a clear and direct threat to democracy. The Productivity Commission’s broadcasting inquiry concluded that the business and editorial interests of media proprietors may influence the content and opinion of their media outlets. In the 2000 report it said:
The likelihood that a proprietor’s business and editorial interests will influence the content and opinion of their media outlets is of major significance.
Locals turn to media for information. If that information is skewed by the beliefs of media moguls then people are not able to make informed decisions, especially in the political sphere. A concentration of power in the hands of a few media owners can potentially limit not only diversity of opinion but also free speech. It is a basic tenet of democracy that a diverse range of views be aired. Labor adheres to the principle that regulation promotes the free expression of a diverse range of views.
Of course, the government claims that its package has safeguards to prevent excessive concentration. In truth, these safeguards are completely inadequate. The first alleged safeguard is the five-four voices test. Under this test, a media merger will not be allowed to occur unless there will remain a minimum of five media voices in metropolitan markets and four in regional Australia. The two out of three rule will prevent proprietors from owning newspaper, radio and television assets in the same market. The proposal does nothing to protect diversity in the 17 regional markets where there are only five commercial voices. The revised test will still take no account of the relative influence of different voices.
The other alleged safeguard in the package is the ACCC’s power to examine cross-media mergers to see if they substantially lessen competition. Section 50 of the Trade Practices Act cannot be relied upon as a substitute for the current cross-media laws. The ACCC is a competition regulator; it has no responsibility for protecting diversity. It is not able to take public interest considerations into account in assessing mergers under section 50. In its report on broadcasting, the Productivity Commission stated:
It is clear that the Trade Practices Act as it stands would be unable to prevent many cross media mergers or acquisitions which may reduce diversity.
While the National Party is running around saying that this is a great concession, in reality it offers little additional protection for media diversity. In both metropolitan and regional markets a person in control of a newspaper and a television station would still be able to exercise an unhealthy degree of influence.
One more thing that merits mention is the way in which the government has rammed this legislation through. The bills before the House were the subject of more than 12 months consultation by the minister with the media. The public had just one week to make a submission on the four bills in this package. The Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee was given just three weeks to conduct its inquiry into the legislation, and the government’s rush job on this package continued last week until debate in the Senate was gagged last Thursday. This is indicative of how little the government cares for the opinions of all those people out there or for any constructive debate on this matter. I will certainly answer one question that should have been posed when considering media reform, and that is: what benefit is this legislation to the people of rural and regional Australia? The answer is none. That is all—absolutely none.
This House should be in no doubt about what will happen if the government’s cross-media ownership laws are passed. The end result will be a massive concentration in the ownership of the most influential media in Australia, and it will become harder for diverse voices to be heard. There will be fewer journalists to report on stories of local interest, and that will have a huge impact upon local regional areas.
Again, these bills are destroying the interests of rural and regional Australia. Again, it is left to this side of the House to put forward all the arguments on behalf of rural and regional Australians. We are not hearing those arguments from the other side of the House. Instead, we are hearing time and time again how the government are selling out the people of regional areas. These bills will have a catastrophic effect on the people in regional areas. Within the electorate of Richmond is a vast diversity of local voices, which is one of the many reasons people in my electorate are able to express their opinions in a whole variety of forums right across the board. To see all that disappear and how that will impact upon locals will be devastating, not to mention the impact upon the jobs of locals if we are going to outsource a lot of the news and pull in local content from all over Australia. It will have a huge impact upon those people. (Time expired)
113
20:53:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
0
Mr GARRETT
—I want to support the comments made by my colleague the member for Richmond and other members who have spoken in this every important debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. As we speak about the diversity of opinions and views in the parliament, we cannot help but notice the lack of government voices on this issue. I must say that I am astonished that we have a very one-sided speakers list on a piece of legislation as significant as this. Perhaps that reflects the complacency that comes with incumbency. Perhaps that reflects the fault line in the different ideologies and approaches of the Liberal-National Party and us when it comes to the question of the public interest.
Without any shadow of a doubt the media is important to us in this place as politicians, whether in opposition or in government. In government, media management would be one of the most important tools a modern political party could have. Ministerial offices in this building are full of media advisers. We sit and read our media clippings, sometimes without much joy; nevertheless, we concentrate on the media very strongly, because we recognise its signal importance in the lifeblood of the democracy and in our prospects of securing government or otherwise. Very simply, media serves as a conduit of ideas, a conduit sometimes of policies. It is one of the main means by which the country engages in a conversation about itself and about what is going on in the world around it. So I am particularly disappointed that so few government members have seen fit to stand up and defend these changes and to take on and respond to some of the arguments that have been made by Labor members speaking on the legislation.
There is no doubt that the media landscape is changing rapidly. The technology driving media is digital in origination and in delivery through the web, through the possible, and definitely coming, different sets of delivery devices for information. This means that the media landscape we look at now will be vastly different in the future, and these changes will happen very quickly. So the challenge to the parliament when it comes to considering legislation of this kind, and to the minister when it comes to drafting it, is not only to secure what it sees to be the best position at this time for guaranteeing diversity and competition in the media but also to try to get some sense of the shape of where the media will be in years to come. There is no doubt that by the test of the public interest or by the test of exploring what the situation is now and identifying any deficiencies that it may or may not have and, finally, by the test of trying to ascertain where we are going to be in 10 or 15 years time in relation to media, this legislation fails on all counts of having considered that seriously.
But we still cannot underestimate the significance of what has been described as the ‘media reform package’. It was rushed through the Senate last week, and I think it represents the most significant alteration to the media landscape that we have seen in the last two decades and its ramifications will undoubtedly be profound. The government says that the changes or reforms will help to strengthen the industry and improve service delivery to the public. But we argue very strongly here that in fact it is the community and the public that will be the losers, not the beneficiaries, because on the issue of diversity of choice there is no doubt whatsoever that this legislation delivers not only a reduction in diversity of choice but also a reduction in diversity of opinion.
The centrepiece of the government’s media laws is the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006, which repeals the cross-media laws that have been in place since the late 1980s and abolishes foreign ownership and control provisions. Labor believe that a liberalisation of the foreign ownership rules has the potential to increase media diversity. We accept that there is the prospect for an increase in diversity if you allow other than Australian entities to have an ownership role in the media. But by removing the cross-media rules—those rules which limit owners to one newspaper, radio station or television licence in any one market—the government is doing something altogether different. It is threatening the very diversity it wants to encourage. It is nothing less than an insult to the intelligence of the Australian people for the government to say that it wants to achieve real reform by getting rid of both the foreign ownership laws and the cross-media laws at once, thereby tying the two together in some kind of sell-off which can really only satisfy larger media interests—and we have already seen significant activity on the share register of PBL in anticipation of this legislation passing through the parliament.
The members who have spoken previously, including the member for Richmond and the member for Lowe, have remarked that by allowing only three weeks for the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to conduct its inquiry into these proposed changes; by allowing only about a one-week window of opportunity for the public to make submissions, with two days for public hearings and very little time for questions from opposition senators; and by having the final coup de grace, the gag applied last Thursday in the Senate, the guillotine—all wheeled out on cue—on the very issue we are here to discuss in the most thorough and robust way we can, the issue about the expression of ideas, media diversity and an examination of legislation of this kind, the Senate process has been truncated and brought to a close prematurely. I think that is a very great pity.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
115
ADJOURNMENT
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Waste Watch
115
115
21:00:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—I rise in this adjournment debate to comment upon Labor’s Waste Watch committee’s annual report into Howard government waste. As deputy chair of the task force that was set up by Kim Beazley and caucus, I am delighted to indicate that the second report has been issued under my name and the name of the member for Prospect. Can I make it very clear that the members of the committee include the members for Prospect, Chisholm, Adelaide, and Parramatta and also Bernie Ripoll, who is a very important member as well as being a shadow parliamentary secretary.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Would the member refer to members by their seat.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—Yes, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The report is a very important one. It has involved an enormous amount of work. Whilst I am happy to talk about some of the issues raised in the report, I want to pay particular tribute to the chair of the committee, the member for Prospect, and his staff who, I have no doubt, have forensically examined the way in which the government has expended money wastefully.
The report, Waste watch: investigating Howard government waste, is a very important document. It should be read by all of—
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr Truss
—It’s not very thick, I notice.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—It is very succinct, Minister. We have decided to do it in shorthand and we do not have waffling contributions such as those that you make in question time, I assure you. Actually, they are to the point, direct and honest.
The report’s main finding was that this government continues to spend record amounts of taxpayer funds on government advertising, public relations, market research and leadership coaching. It is estimated the Howard government has cracked $1.5 billion on advertising since 1996. You can add that to the $20 million tax funded advertising blitz on the T3 sale as the federal government attempts to sell the public more of its own asset.
Also, there is the $2.6 million spent on advertising the LPG vehicle scheme. The government LPG conversion package received wall-to-wall free media coverage when it was announced but, no, that was not enough, and the government pushed ahead with another big taxpayer funded advertising spree. Answers to questions placed on the Notice Paper by the member for Prospect—the chair of Waste Watch—revealed that $2.6 million of LPG scheme advertising included 809 advertisements in 302 newspapers across the country and 7,200 advertisements on 127 different radio stations. All this begs the question: what use is a $2.6 million advertising campaign to car owners while they wait for up to six months for an LPG conversion?
The forward estimates in the 2006 budget show over a quarter of a billion dollars being allocated for spending on 13 advertising campaigns in the lead-up to next year’s federal election. One of these campaigns is a $13 million financial literacy advertising campaign, which I must say is particularly insulting to families who are coping with seven straight interest rate rises under this government, not to mention high petrol prices and other rises in the cost of living.
In 2005-06, 14 government departments spent $863,780 on leadership coaching for senior bureaucrats. This will more than likely reach $1 million after all the answers from the other departments are in. Senior bureaucrats are, frankly, very well paid and the taxpayer should not be forking out for leadership coaches to encourage better performance from them. The cost of leadership coaches varied from $250 per hour in the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources up to $924 per session for the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.
In 2004, the Howard government spent over $26 million on opinion polls and market research. This year 10 government departments have answered Waste Watch’s questions on opinion polling, and already the figure has hit $22 million, with more departments yet to answer. Again, the worst offender in 2005 was—surprise, surprise!—the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, which registered a 1,468 per cent increase in its opinion polling bill. Effectively, we have had one wasteful expenditure after another in each government department. (Time expired)
Debt Relief
116
116
21:05:00
Vale, Danna, MP
VK6
Hughes
LP
1
0
Mrs VALE
—I wish to inform the House that over 350 people from Holy Family Parish, Menai in my electorate signed a petition related to debt relief for developing countries. The petition has been forwarded to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
This church has maintained a strong focus on the issue of debt relief for many years. In previous years the same number of people have sent postcards and signed petitions. For the past seven years they have invited expert speakers from both the Jubilee and TEAR organisations to raise awareness of the debt issue. It is truly uplifting to find such a group of people in a middle class suburb in Sydney who are concerned about the larger world.
The campaign for debt relief pursued by Holy Family Parish and the various NGOs finds its moral basis in the Old Testament of the Bible. There, citizens of the newly formed nation of Israel were told to regularly cancel debts of those who had fallen into hard times. The principle was that those indebted were to have the opportunity of a fresh start in life, unencumbered by the debt burden. This principle of practical justice and compassion is what underlies the bankruptcy laws of our nation. The petitioners of Holy Family Parish make the obvious point that such justice and compassion should be extended to nations as well as to individuals.
In June this year the social justice group comprised of parishioners of Holy Family Catholic Parish, Menai, invited Mr John McKinnon, the New South Wales coordinator of TEAR Australia—a Christian aid and development organisation—to address their congregation on Third World debt. Mr McKinnon not only highlighted the injustice of the world’s poorest nations paying money to the world’s richest nations but also spoke of the positive results achieved in Zambia and Tanzania as a result of debt relief already achieved.
Zambia, a moderately sized sub-Saharan country of over 10 million people, is one of the poorest in the world. Like many of its neighbours, it is plagued by unemployment, extreme poverty and disease. Today, Zambia’s major social indicators rank among the worst in Africa. Like many poor and heavily indebted countries, Zambia’s development and progress slowed and were worse during the 1990s than in any other previous decade. The average life expectancy in Zambia fell 15 years, from 54 years in 1990 to 39 years in 1999, before reaching 37 years in the period 2000 to 2005. The infant mortality rate increased slightly from 1990 to 1999, at a time of considerable improvement in such indices in other parts of the world.
Today Zambia has as much as 65 per cent of the population under the World Bank poverty line of a dollar a day. However, as a result of debt relief already granted to Zambia, the nation has been able to abolish health fees which, at between $5 and $10, were beyond most of the population. They were able to employ over 4,500 new teachers and 800 doctors and nurses. Change can come. Life can be improved for these suffering people. All it takes is for us in the privileged world to act with justice. The Australian government is to be congratulated for its part in this achievement through its involvement in the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative and the HIPC program.
However, as the petitioners point out, many countries are still saddled with unpayable debt that keeps their people in dire poverty. Even Australia’s near neighbours, Indonesia and the Philippines, have very large debt burdens. In Indonesia, the United Nations has estimated that expenditure on debt servicing is over seven times that on health and education. Indonesia is Australia’s largest bilateral debtor. The Indonesian government has requested that Australia offer debt relief. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade of this parliament recommended that Australia offer such debt relief.
Although neither Indonesia nor the Philippines fall inside current criteria for debt relief as defined by the Paris Club of bilateral creditors, some movement on this issue by the Australian government would be a magnificent gesture within our region and make a significant contribution to changing the lives of many impoverished people. There are various possible mechanisms, such as debt-for-development swaps, that would ensure the proceeds of such debt relief were spent on appropriate poverty reduction strategies.
It is an unfortunate fact that much of the debt owed by developing countries can be termed ‘odious’. If a despotic power incurs a debt not for the needs or in the interest of the state but to strengthen its despotic regime and to repress the population, then the debt is odious for the population of the state. For creditors to expect any protection in their loans to foreign states, their loans must be utilised for the needs and interests of the state. Otherwise, the loans belong to the power which contracted them and are therefore debts of the regime, not the state.
The lobby group Jubilee Australia estimate that up to 30 per cent of the debt owed by Indonesia and the Philippines falls into this category. It is fundamentally unjust that innocent citizens should bear the burden of servicing and repaying this debt when they receive no benefit at all. It is incumbent upon all members of the international creditor community, including Australia, to ensure that all such debt is cancelled immediately, whether multilateral or bilateral in nature. As a nation committed to giving others a fair go, we must do our fair share and all in our power and beyond to ensure that impoverished peoples around the world have the opportunity for a fresh start. (Time expired)
BlueScope Steel Ltd
118
118
21:10:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
0
0
Ms BIRD
—I rise with regret this evening to criticise BlueScope Steel. On 26 September BlueScope Steel’s chief financial officer, Mr Paul O’Malley, wrote to suppliers of his company and calmly advised that BlueScope would be moving to a new 62-day payment of invoices. Payment would be calculated as due at the end of the month in which the invoice was received. He also said, according to a letter which was reported in the Australian Financial Review on 9 October:
With annual purchases of over $5 billion … securing cost-effective and reliable supplies is of critical strategic importance to the financial wellbeing of BlueScope Steel.
That statement is most disappointing and most disingenuous. What are the small businesses and contractors who actually supply BlueScope Steel, who are of such ‘critical strategic importance’, supposed to think of this? Are they—more than 20,000 small businesses and contractors in the BlueScope supply chain—supposed to financially starve? Are they supposed to tell their workers and their own suppliers that they are also supposed to financially starve?
BlueScope Steel is a very big business. Its steel-making operations are, as is known, located in Wollongong and Port Kembla. The most efficient and cost competitive integrated steel-making plant in the Southern Hemisphere is found in my region. It exports to the world. For a very long time it was said that, if the then BHP sneezed, Illawarra caught a cold. Indeed, the same could have been said of Newcastle before BHP pulled the plug on that place. Over the last 20 years Wollongong has diversified its economy to move away from this overwhelming reliance on the steel and coal industry. In that time we have broadly succeeded in the fundamental task of economic restructuring—all of it painful to many thousands of people, it should be acknowledged. We have a world-class university and TAFE system, giving our students skills and training. We have broadened our service economy into tourism, financial and property services and cultural industries.
BlueScope used to employ nearly 20,000 people 20 years ago. As part of the Hawke government’s steel industry plan the industry was saved but the workforce was reduced to stand today at about 5,000. Many of those former workers are now tradespeople or contractors in their own small businesses. They and other supplier businesses make up the ‘critical strategic importance’ of BlueScope. All of these small businesses—an overwhelming majority in the Illawarra—have commitments. They have mortgages, overdrafts, workers to pay and fleet vehicles to run—not to mention their own families to financially support. A delay in their payment from BlueScope Steel can absolutely cripple them.
If BlueScope Steel is permitted to get away with this outrageous abuse of its market power, I am afraid other steel industry players will also move in the same direction. Already the financial press have indicated that Smorgon and OneSteel may move in the same direction. This will devastate small businesses and perhaps do serious damage to a critical supply chain in the nation’s economy. This decision, if permitted to stand, is estimated by industry sources to have already cost at least $100 million. That is $100 million sitting in BlueScope’s bank account earning interest at the expense of those small businesses and contractors, who are expected to wait, begging bowl in hand, for 62 days—and indeed perhaps longer if BlueScope can tweak the date it received the invoice from the small supplier.
I am certain that BlueScope representatives in the company’s Port Kembla headquarters would have put up a good fight in the boardroom to argue forcefully against this decision in support of the region they operate in. They are locals, based in Wollongong, living amongst us. They know exactly what the effect of this decision will be on local small business suppliers in Wollongong, Port Kembla and Unanderra. In the end, their strong voice in favour of standing up for local small businesses was defeated by the BlueScope chiefs in Melbourne. This corporate giant in making this decision has crushed through the goodwill that BlueScope Steel should and did enjoy and worked hard to receive in the Illawarra.
On 14 September BlueScope started its contribution to water saving by commissioning its tertiary treated water supply to BlueScope. That is 20 million litres a day to BlueScope, saving fresh water for other purposes. A week later BlueScope sent this pitiful letter to suppliers advising them that they would be paid effectively when BlueScope decides it is appropriate. (Time expired)
Vegvision 2020
119
119
21:15:00
Baker, Mark, MP
DYK
Braddon
LP
1
0
Mr BAKER
—Wednesday, 13 September 2006 was an exciting day for Australia’s vegetable industry. The release of a new strategic plan, Vegvision 2020, was officially launched by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Peter McGauran, and the Chairman of the Australian Vegetable Industry Development Group, Mr Richard Bovill. Vegvision 2020 provides a clear way forward for all parties to collaborate and invest in initiatives with the potential to shape and drive future industry growth. Its goal is to double the current value of fresh, processed and packaged Australian vegetables by 2020. This is an ambitious goal, but it is one that can be achieved, given the full support of the vegetable industry supply chain.
Last year the Fair Dinkum Food campaign tractor rally, which was ably led by Richard Bovill, and which I was extremely proud to have been involved with, brought the concerns of vegetable growers from all over the country to the nation’s capital. On a journey that started in Devonport in my electorate, and made its way through the countryside of Victoria, to Sydney and down to Canberra, the campaign succeeded in raising national awareness of the difficulties facing the Australian vegetable industry. As a result, there has been a strong Australian government commitment, with $3 million being allocated to implement the outcomes of the Taking Stock and Setting Directions project, completed in November last year.
Developing a strategic plan for the industry was the first of seven projects identified under Taking Stock and Setting Directions. Work is soon to begin on the remaining six projects identified through Taking Stock and Setting Directions. I have the utmost confidence in Richard and the Australian Vegetable Industry Development Group as they continue to work with others in the vegetable industry to roll out these projects. The Australian Vegetable Industry Development Group will use Vegvision 2020 when formulating and investing in projects to get the greatest gain for the whole of the industry.
Vegvision 2020 is the first time a whole-of-industry approach has been developed for the vegetable industry in this country. We have been able to develop an industry action plan that we know will enhance and strengthen the vegetable industry’s chances of success, because we have worked to bring together all the major players. Through the hard work of many, and with the assistance of the Australian government, the industry has the potential for sustained growth and a prosperous future.
There are some, particularly on the other side of this House, who continually seek to criticise this government over the challenges facing our vegetable growers. But unfortunately that is all they do—criticise. No plans of action are developed, no strategies agreed, no vision for the future of the industry is articulated. I would like to thank the minister, Mr McGauran, for his hard work and commitment to the vegetable industry. It is a commitment I share, because I understand the importance of a strong and viable vegetable industry to Australia, particularly to my electorate.
Tasmania is bounteous in its supply of fresh, high-quality food products. It is a major producer of potatoes, carrots, beans, peas and fruit. It packages more than 80 per cent of Australia’s frozen vegetables. North-west Tasmania has some of Australia’s richest soils and a well-deserved reputation for growing some of the highest quality produce you will find anywhere in the world. I am sure that those who ventured over to the Great Hall this evening will acknowledge that that rings true. Mr Speaker, that follows the produce from your electorate only two weeks ago. I congratulate you on organising such an event.
Agriculture remains the backbone of north-west Tasmania’s economy. I am determined, with the Australian government, to do everything I can to support the local vegetable growers to help them achieve a successful and sustainable industry. I am pleased to say that Vegvision 2020 outlines a strategy that will ultimately mean more jobs for Tasmanians and deliver a stronger future for the industry, not only in Tasmania but throughout Australia.
Australian Wheat Board
120
120
21:19:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
0
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—At the outset, I note that the Minister for Trade is in the House tonight. I am pleased that he is here to hear what I am about to say. I wish to once again draw to the attention of the House my concern about the complicity of the member for Wide Bay, the minister at the table, in the AWB ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal. In light of this complicity, his recent appointment to the trade portfolio is, you would have to say, more than ironic—it is quite a joke. What message is this sending to the international community and our trading partners?
The member for Wide Bay served as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry from July 1999 to July 2005, a period in which AWB rorted the UN oil for food program without restraint. It is important to note that the member for Wide Bay was not a distant observer of AWB’s activities. For one, he was responsible for the Wheat Export Authority, the body charged with overseeing AWB’s international wheat trading.
In 2004 this statutory body responded to the growing chorus of claims about corruption by AWB by launching its own investigation. In the clearest possible demonstration of incompetence, it failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing. When he received the secret monitoring report from the WEA, did the member for Wide Bay ask any questions about its findings? We know now that he did not. In fact, the member for Wide Bay did not ask a single question about the WEA’s findings—not one.
Did the member for Wide Bay insist that the WEA cooperate with the Volcker inquiry into the rorting of the UN oil for food program? No, he did not do that either. In fact, the WEA provided no assistance to the Volcker inquiry—which is no surprise, really, in the circumstances; after all, any competent examination of AWB’s relationship with the regime of Saddam Hussein would have embarrassed the minister. We now know that the member for Wide Bay ignored at least two diplomatic cables—in March and April 2001—warning him of sanctions busting. The minister ignored a direct warning from grain trader Ray Brooks in August 2002, and he ignored the evidence that prompted the incompetent WEA investigation.
The member for Wide Bay’s attitude to AWB reflects the company’s infestation with National Party mates, including mate No. 1 Mr Trevor Flugge. In fact, the member for Wide Bay was so enamoured of Mr Flugge that in 2003 he could not wait to issue a statement welcoming his appointment as a special agricultural advisor to the Iraqi government. The statement issued on 22 April 2003 was headlined ‘Truss welcomes Flugge Iraq appointment’ and positively gushed with praise. It expressed the minister’s delight with the appointment and claimed that Mr Flugge was ‘extremely well suited’ to the role. Mr Flugge cannot remember much these days but members should have no trouble recalling the truly remarkable photograph of him featuring his naked torso, a gun and a silly grin. No less remarkable was the member for Wide Bay’s claim that his mate was ‘extremely well suited’ to the task of helping Iraqis rebuild their lives.
During his undistinguished tenure as minister for agriculture, the member for Wide Bay appointed both Mr Flugge and AWB’s Murray Rogers to key advisory positions. He had an important and ongoing relationship with the company—this company that has disgraced Australia’s trading reputation. Documents released by the Cole commission include a letter drafted for Mr Flugge to Saddam’s minister for agriculture on 5 April 2000 in these terms:
You may recall that when we last met ... in Baghdad that I undertook to pass your comments regarding Iraq/Australia ... to our Government in Canberra and in particular to the Minister for Agriculture. This I have done and as such my comments met with a very positive response ...
… … …
It is our intention to remain committed to the terms of trade agreed between IGB and AWB. The Australian government equally supports this commitment to our trade.
What this letter suggests is that the member for Wide Bay was party to secret communications with Baghdad via his good friends at AWB and that he used this channel of communication to commit the government to the agreement between AWB and Saddam’s cronies. In other words, he gave the green light to AWB’s rorting of the UN oil for food program. The wilful neglect of his responsibilities as minister for agriculture make the member for Wide Bay an entirely unsuitable choice as Minister for Trade. This would be the case even without the responsibility he now has to enforce trade sanctions against North Korea. If he had any integrity, the member for Wide Bay would resign. (Time expired)
Vietnam War Memorial
122
122
21:24:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I rise to draw the attention of the House tonight to an event which took place this Sunday immediately past in Adelaide. I refer to the unveiling and dedication of a Vietnam war memorial at Torrens Parade Ground in Adelaide city. The memorial was unveiled by Lieutenant General Sir Donald Dunstan, who was the Commander of the Australian Force Vietnam in 1971 and 1972. It is the first dedicated memorial in South Australia to the Vietnam War—particularly to the veterans who served in that war and more specifically to the 58 South Australians who made the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives in the service of Australia during that conflict.
One of the significant things about this memorial is that this was a collaborative effort where a number of ex-service and veterans groups came together and worked very effectively, not only to come up with the concept but to raise the funds and gain the necessary approvals. I wish to congratulate the RSL, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia as well as the Vietnamese Veterans Association. There was strong support from each element of those communities to bring about this memorial.
In particular I wish to note the efforts of Mr Bill Denny and Dr Ngo, who were co-chairmen of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Committee, which did the hard yards over a number of years to bring about this memorial. The links with South Australia were further reinforced by the fact that the sculptor, Mr James Martin, lives and works in Adelaide and is himself a Vietnam veteran, having served in Vietnam as a member of the Royal Australian Navy. The memorial itself was financially supported by the Australian government through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, as well as the state government, the Adelaide City Council and a large number of private and corporate donors, who, over a period of time, supported the vision of having a memorial in South Australia.
The unveiling is particularly notable this year as we have celebrated the anniversary of Long Tan and as we have looked back on the decades that have passed since our veterans returned from Vietnam. Many of them are still struggling through some of the issues about how they were treated by Australians, ex-service organisations, members of the public and the press, who did not value what they did. In some cases they even said that the conflict they had fought in was not a real war. Unlike the gratitude that was expressed to generations that had gone before them and who had fought in other conflicts, they were very much pushed aside and, in some senses, despised by their country.
This has left a significant hurdle for many of them and their families to overcome. In some way, we certainly hope that the erection, unveiling and dedication of this memorial will be the closing of a chapter in this history of Australia and the start of some healing and closure for these veterans who can see that their service and their sacrifice has been recognised by a grateful nation.
Our servicemen yet again are involved in conflicts overseas, locally with RAMSI in the Solomons and East Timor, and in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. There is a great deal of public debate about how much we should be supporting some of those conflicts. Particularly when we look at the Solomons and we see the actions of that country, people start questioning whether we should have soldiers there putting their lives on the line. In East Timor we see soldiers, particularly people like army aviators with the Black Hawks, who yet again are having a high rotation rate and a high burnout rate, which has a big impact on their families as well as on those servicemen. With the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and the varying views in the community, the lesson we need to take out of Vietnam that was encapsulated by the unveiling of this memorial is that, whatever we think of the conflict, we need to give unfailing support to the men and women who serve in Australia’s defence forces and to their families.
GT4
SPEAKER, The
Mr Truss
—Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The debate may continue.
Ministerial Reply
123
123
21:29:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
0
Mr TRUSS
—It would be inappropriate for me to allow the comments made by the honourable member for Capricornia to go without a response. This is the second time she has come into this chamber, late in the evening, with a vile and personal attack on me, without substance. She has stormed out of the chamber—
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: it is entirely appropriate for the minister to respond, but he cannot reflect on the motives of the honourable member he is responding to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the Chief Opposition Whip. I am listening closely to the minister.
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr TRUSS
—Frankly, the advice of the Chief Opposition Whip could well be tendered to the honourable member for Capricornia whose personal insults very definitely reflected upon my motives and my integrity. Frankly, I take offence at her comments. The reality is that she read largely from a document, prepared by the member for Griffith, which has been utterly discredited on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, the member for Capricornia is not interested in the facts. She instead repeats these vile—
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I accept that the minister has a right to respond, and I welcome that, but he cannot imply that anyone other than the honourable member wrote that speech.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister is in order. I have been listening closely.
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr TRUSS
—By reference, she clearly referred to allegations in a publication put out by the member for Griffith and those allegations are without substance. Could I refer to each of those matters in detail. It would be clearly inappropriate for me to discuss these matters in great detail because the Cole commission is charged with investigating these sorts of issues, and I am more than happy to await its judgements.
In relation to the Wheat Export Authority, it is true that as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry it was part of my department. It was required to report every year on the way in which the Australian Wheat Board and its subsidiary, AWBI, administered the single desk. It provided a confidential report to the minister and then a public report to all wheat growers around Australia. They took it upon themselves to investigate some allegations that had been made by Americans, Canadians and others about the AWB’s activities in Iraq. Whilst the report is confidential, I offered a copy of it to the opposition. They did not choose to take up that offer at the time, but it has been publicly reported, by no less a figure than the chairman of that authority himself, that their investigations uncovered nothing untoward. The advice that they gave to the minister essentially gave the AWB’s activities a clean bill of health.
The honourable member for Capricornia says I should have questioned that expert body’s assessment of the situation. Their findings were broadly the same as those of the UN and other investigatory agents, which at that time could find nothing which required further investigation. She also claimed that the WEA did not cooperate with the Volcker inquiry. That is completely false and is contrary to the evidence. Indeed, the Wheat Export Authority held very few documents of their own and quite rightly advised the Volcker inquiry that they should obtain those documents directly from the source, namely the AWB.
The honourable member for Capricornia was then critical of my welcoming of the appointment of Mr Flugge to a key role in the new administration arrangements in Iraq. Perhaps she might like to look at the press releases put out by the honourable member for Griffith and the honourable member for Corio at that time and at other times in which they proclaim what an excellent choice Mr Flugge was for this work and laud his attributes. So if the honourable member for Capricornia wants to be honest, she will look at the statements of her own colleagues in relation to these matters.
A range of serious allegations have been made during the context of the Cole commission. This government set it up freely and openly, and with wide terms of reference. That commission is currently doing its work. It will report in due course and I am sure that all members will be interested in its findings. I would be much happier to await the expert judgement of the Cole commission than heed the vile and personal abuse of the member for Capricornia.
124
21:35:00
House adjourned at 9.35 pm
NOTICES
124
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 to enable the following to occur during the periods set aside in standing order 34 for government business on Wednesday 18 October 2006:
-
in relation to proceedings on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006, at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 11.00am, whichever is the earlier, a Minister to be called to sum up the second reading debate and thereafter, without delay, the immediate question before the House to be put, and when resolved the Bill then (if required) being considered in detail for up to 30 minutes and then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the Bill to be put without amendment or debate; and
-
immediately after proceedings on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 have concluded, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 to be called on and the immediate question then before the House to be put, and when resolved the Bill then (if required) being considered in detail for up to 30 minutes and then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the Bill to be put without amendment or debate; and
-
any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr Vaile
to present a bill for an act to provide for inquiry into transport security matters and offshore security matters, and for related purposes. (Inspector of Transport Security Bill 2006)
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr Vaile
to present a bill for an act to provide for consequential matters relating to the enactment of the Inspector of Transport Security Act 2006, and for related purposes. (Inspector of Transport Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2006)
OK6
Nairn, Gary, MP
Mr Nairn
to present a bill for an act about the sale of the Commonwealth’s equity in Medibank Private Limited, and for other purposes. (Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006)
A8W
Pearce, Christopher, MP
Mr Pearce
present a bill for an act to facilitate cooperative arrangements concerning audit oversight, and for other purposes. (Australian Securities and Investments Commission Amendment (Audit Inspection) Bill 2006)
OK6
Nairn, Gary, MP
Mr Nairn
to move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Wills’ private Members’ business notice relating to the disallowance of Schedules 1 and 3 to the Parliamentary Entitlements Amendment Regulations 2006 (No 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 211 and made under the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990, being called on immediately.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
126
Answers to Questions on Notice
Environment and Heritage: Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
126
126
2986
126
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
Mr Martin Ferguson
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 7 February 2006:
Further to the answer to question No, 2592 concerning payments to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry or its predecessor, what was (a) sum and (b) purpose of each payment made by his department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–2001, and (iii) 2001–2002.
126
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr Truss
—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Title
Purpose
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
Joint Project Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI)/Australian Business Limited
Development of voluntary environmental reporting by Australian companies leading to improved environmental performance
$70,000 *
$11,000 *
ACCI National Industry Policy Conference – The Impact of Greenhouse and Energy Policies on Economic Growth
The sponsorship of conference on greenhouse and energy policies, and impacts on economic growth.
$11,000
* Note: the amounts paid in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were for a joint project involving ACCI and other organisations.
Australian Taxation Office: Settlement Register
126
126
3115
126
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 27 February 2006:
-
How many tax cases were settled in (a) 2004-2005 and (b) 2005-2006 and recorded in the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO’s) Settlement Register.
-
How many cases in (1) were settled at the Commissioner level.
3910 No. 85-27 February 2006
-
How many cases in (1) have been subject to Technical Quality Reviews under the ATO Practice Statement Law Administration PS LA 2001/11 and what issues have been identified by the Technical Quality Reviews.
-
What are the names and positions of external consultants who have sat on Technical Quality Reviews in (a) 2004-2005 and (b) 2005-2006.
-
In respect of the Settlement Register, (a) is it maintained electronically, (b) who inputs information after the ATO has settled an audit with a taxpayer, (c) who has access to it, and (d) has it been subject to scrutiny by (i) the Inspector-General of Taxation, (ii) the Auditor-General, (iii) a Parliamentary Committee, and (iv) by any other authority outside the ATO.
-
Why are statistics such as the number and amount of settlements and the issues settled which are recorded in the Settlement Register published in the ATO Annual Report.
-
What revenue is forgone by accepting settlements, particularly large settlements.
-
Have there been any recent settlements with the ATO (including interest penalties) approaching a value of $100 million; if so, how many were there (a) in total and (b) involving (i) companies and (ii) individuals.
-
What was the highest penalty applied by the ATO in (a) 2004-2005 and (b) 2005-2006.
127
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:
-
to (9) Please refer to the Commissioner of Taxation’s answers to the questions raised in BET 140 at the Senate Economics Estimates hearing on 30 May 2006.
Supported Accommodation Assistance Program
127
127
3580
127
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
Mr Albanese
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 25 May 2006:
-
Did the Government’s evaluation of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) determine that an increase of 15% in base funding was required to maintain the level of operation of the system and that a 40% increase was required to meet unmet demand; if so, why did SAAP agencies in NSW receive no extra core funding from the Commonwealth Government in the negotiation of the 5-year SAAP V agreement.
-
What is the Government doing to increase the capacity of SAAP agencies targeting single homeless women to meet demand from the 80% of vulnerable women who request accommodation but are turned away each day.
-
Is it the case that, on average, 2 out of every 3 children needing accommodation are turned away from the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program each day.
-
What is the Government doing to increase the capacity of agencies to respond to the needs of our homeless children.
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 joint Commonwealth/State National Evaluation of the fourth Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP IV) provided a number of options for the future of SAAP.
Although responsibility for the day-to-day administration of SAAP, including the procurement and funding of services, rests with the NSW Government, the Australian Government is very serious about its commitment to support for homeless people. As a result, the Australian Government is making a substantial financial contribution to state and territory governments to assist them meet their obligations in this area. In fact, the Australian Government has committed an additional $100 million in funds for the next five years of the programme. In particular, the Australian Government’s overall contribution to NSW under SAAP V has increased by some $35 million. NSW is not contributing additional funds to SAAP V. However, they are always welcome to do so.
SAAP assists some 22,000 people daily with a range of support services, including providing accommodation for accompany children. However, some people are unable to be assisted with SAAP accommodation immediately. The National Data Collection shows that although some families with children are unable to be immediately accommodated in SAAP accommodation, they are assisted with finding alternative accommodation and/or with other support services. The ratio of unmet demand to total demand for accommodation for accompanying children was 2.6 to 100. This means that of the 4,600 children seeking accommodation each day, over 97% are accommodated on the day their parents or carers sought the accommodation.
Similarly, according to the Demand for SAAP 2003-04 Report, the ratio of unmet demand to total demand for single women was 1.10 to 100. This means that over 98% of all single women seeking accommodation each day were accommodated on that day. The data showed that most of those unable to be accommodated by SAAP received some kind of assistance such as referrals to other agencies, financial and material aid, transport and advice or information.
Almost $120 million will be available under the SAAP V Agreement for investment and innovation projects aimed at achieving the strategic directions of SAAP V which include providing better pre-crisis intervention, better service system linkages, especially for families and children and better post-crisis transition assistance to achieve lasting outcomes and reduce repeat use of SAAP services. The support provided by these services will enable families to access and maintain stable forms of housing and reduce the risk of longer term family and intergenerational homelessness.
As part of the package of mental health assistance measures announced recently by the Prime Minister, the Australian Government will also be providing $284.8 million over five years for 900 personal helpers and mentors to assist people living in the community to better manage their daily activities. As around 30 per cent of current SAAP clients have mental health issues, this additional support should help address some of the demand on SAAP service providers from this client group.
Child Care
128
128
3672 and 3674
128
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
0
Ms Plibersek
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 19 June 2006:
-
Do any agencies in the Minister’s portfolio offer childcare to employees; if so, which agencies.
-
In respect of agencies that offer childcare, (a) is the childcare (i) long day care, (ii) outside school hours care, or (iii) another type of care, (b) is the childcare facility located at the agency’s premises; if so, (i) what is the maximum capacity of the childcare facility, (ii) is enrolment at the facility available to children whose parents are not employees of the agency, and (iii) do the children of agency employees receive preferential enrolment over the children of non-employees; if so, what are the provisions of the preference rule; and (c) will the Minister provide a copy of the information sheet given to employees seeking employer assistance with childcare.
-
Are employees given the option of salary-sacrificing childcare offered by the agency.
-
How many employees within each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have made salary-sacrifice arrangements with the employing agency for childcare expenses.
-
In respect of the employees identified in the response to part (5), how many use on site-childcare.
-
Do any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have salary-sacrifice agreements relating to childcare with employees who do not use the on-site childcare centre; if so, how many agreements of this type are there?
-
Will the Minister provide a copy of the childcare benefits provisions from the Certified Agreements of each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies.
-
What financial assistance for childcare, other than salary-sacrificed fees, is available to employees (including those on AWAs) of each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies.
-
Have any agencies in the Minister’s portfolio sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office relating to childcare and fringe benefits tax; if so, when.
-
Do any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have arrangements with other Government agencies to provide childcare to employees, such as sharing childcare facility costs at a site within, or external to, one of the agencies.
128
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
DFAT
-
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) provides an on-site childcare facility to its employees.
-
-
Long day care.
-
Yes.
-
90 places
-
Yes
-
Yes. The childcare centre allocation policy is provided at Attachment A.
-
Information available to DFAT employees seeking employer assistance with childcare is included in the Collective Agreement 2006-2009, as outlined in (7) below. Additional information is provided at Attachment B.
-
Yes.
-
As of June 2006, 63 DFAT employees had salary-sacrifice arrangements in place for childcare expenses.
-
All of the employees identified in the previous question used on-site childcare.
-
No employees salary sacrifice childcare other than at the on-site centre.
-
Yes; the childcare benefits provisions from the DFAT Collective Agreement for 2006‑2009 follow:
“Child Care
3.1 The continued provision within the R.G. Casey Building of the Currawong Childcare Centre demonstrates the department’s commitment to assist employees balance professional and personal responsibilities. In order to enhance DFAT employees’ access to the Centre, DFAT employees have priority over employees from any other organisation in securing childcare places. Allocation of places at the Centre is managed by Centre management, in consultation with the department, through a system in which applicants are awarded points for a number of criteria. DFAT families returning unexpectedly from post for operational reasons and at the department’s initiative will receive higher priority access to the Centre in accordance with the allocation policy. In order to provide quality, affordable child care, the department will work with the operator of the Centre to ensure that fees will be maintained at market rates. The department offers salary packaging of childcare fees for its employees with children in care at the Currawong Childcare Centre, as well as salary packaging of childcare fees for its employees with children in care at childcare centres associated with other APS agencies, consistent with taxation legislation and rulings.
3.2 The department will reimburse additional childcare costs where employees are required by management to increase their hours of work to cover emergency situations or to meet short term work commitments, including short term missions.”
-
DFAT reimburses additional childcare costs that are incurred as a result of particular work obligations, as outlined in paragraph 3.2 of the Collective Agreement - see (7) above. To support staff located overseas in the effective discharge of their representational responsibilities, limited childminding costs can be reimbursed under representation allowance provisions. In some overseas locations household maintenance assistance is provided to staff, who can access a portion of that assistance to meet informal childcare costs.
-
Yes. DFAT obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office on childcare and fringe benefits tax in 1999.
-
No.
ACIAR
-
No
-
n/a
-
No
-
n/a
-
n/a
-
n/a
-
No; there is no reference to childcare benefits provisions in the current ACIAR Certified Agreement.
-
n/a
-
No
-
No
AusAID
-
No
-
n/a
-
No
-
n/a
-
n/a
-
n/a
-
n/a
-
AusAID employees on long-term postings may seek support for child care where official duties or representational responsibilities are required. In addition, AusAID employees may seek financial support for childcare whilst undertaking short-term missions overseas. Support in these circumstances is determined on a case-by-case basis. A daily subsidy is available to AusAID employees who utilise a Canberra-based school holiday program for children aged from 5 to 12 years.
-
No
-
No
Austrade
-
No
-
n/a
-
Austrade does not currently offer childcare but employees do have the option of salary sacrificing childcare costs when the childcare is on Commonwealth premises.
-
None
-
n/a
-
No
-
The Austrade Employee Collective Agreement 2006-2009 contains no relevant provisions.
-
None.
-
No.
-
No.
EFIC
-
No
-
n/a
-
n/a
-
n/a
-
n/a
-
No; n/a.
-
The current EFIC Certified Agreement contains no relevant provisions.
-
EFIC does not offer employees financial assistance for childcare.
-
No.
-
No.
———————————
ATTACHMENT A
CURRAWONG CHILDCARE CENTRE ALLOCATION POLICY
1. The Currawong Childcare Centre is a work-based childcare centre, run primarily for the benefit of employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). Therefore, first priority in the allocation of places will be given to DFAT employees.
2. To be eligible to be allocated a place in the centre, a DFAT employee or other person must complete an application for the centre’s external waiting list. In order to make the management of the allocation policy transparent, a points system will be used to determine the ranking of applicants on the external waiting list. All applicants will be awarded points for each priority criterion they meet. Applicants will then be given a cumulative score and ranked according to that score. At any point in time, the applicant with the highest score will be ranked first, the applicant with the second highest score will be ranked second, and so on. When a childcare place becomes available, the applicant ranked first will be offered any available place first. The person ranked second will be offered the next available place, and so on, until all available places are filled. In cases where two or more applicants have the same rank, the place will be offered to the applicant whose application was registered first by the director of the centre.
3. The points system is as follows:
Priority Criterion
Points
At least one parent/legal guardian is a DFAT employee
A DFAT family already has a child in the centre
Number of months on the waiting list (points accrue for each month)
40
20
2
4. In order to support DFAT employees who are asked to return to Canberra from an overseas post or state office at the department’s initiative, and at short notice, to meet the department’s operational requirements, the allocation policy will accord an additional priority to meet the childcare needs of these employees.
5. In accordance with guidelines issued by the Department of Family and Community Services on the allocation of places in childcare services, the director of the centre may give priority consideration on a case-by-case basis to departmental employees whose immediate family includes a person with a disability.
6. An application must include details of the child’s date of birth, an estimated date of birth, or proof of authorisation to adopt. The director of the centre will update the waiting list at least every six months. An applicant on the waiting list who is no longer pregnant, or who no longer has a child to enrol in the centre, forfeits the place on the waiting list but can reapply in accordance with this policy.
7. Applications from persons who are not DFAT employees will be considered only after demand for places in the centre from departmental employees have been met. Any places offered to non-DFAT applicants (including contractors engaged by DFAT) will be of limited duration. Places will be available until 31 December in the year they are offered and will then be subject to review and possible withdrawal should they be required by DFAT applicants.
8. The director of the Currawong Childcare Centre will offer a childcare place to an applicant by telephone or email, and will check to ensure the message is received without delay. If there is no sign that the message has been received, the centre will contact the applicant by other means. The department will assist if necessary. Applicants are requested to respond, if possible, within 24 hours of receiving an offer. If they need more time to consider the offer, they must seek an extension from the centre director. If no prior arrangement has been agreed for a late response, offers will be deemed lapsed 72 hours after receipt.
9. An applicant who does not receive the full number of days originally requested will go on a separate internal waiting list as of the date of registration of the original application. Priority for this list will be in accordance with the order of the date of application for the days sought. When days become available, they will be offered to DFAT applicants first. DFAT applicants whose childcare needs change after the original acceptance of a childcare place will be placed on the separate internal waiting list as of the day they notified the centre of their new care requirements. Priority will be in accordance with the date of application for the new care requirements.
10. In cases where a DFAT employee with a child/children in the centre separates permanently from the department, s/he will be required to notify the director and discuss mutually convenient arrangements for the possible withdrawal of the child from the centre. This should occur no later than 31 December in the year the parent separates from the department, if places are required by DFAT applicants on the waiting list.
11. To facilitate management of the waiting list, DFAT parents posted or transferred to a location outside Canberra are asked to notify the centre of their intended departure date as soon as possible.
12. In the first instance, the director of the centre is responsible for resolving any dispute that may arise in relation to the implementation of this allocation policy. Disputes which cannot be resolved by the director of the centre will be referred to the Assistant Secretary, Staff Development and Post Issues Branch, for consideration and decision. The Corporate Management Division of the department reserves the right to monitor at any time the management of the waiting list.
I have read and understood the allocation policy detailed above. I understand that available places at the Currawong Childcare Centre will be allocated according to this policy.
Applicant’s Signature ______________________________ Date ____/____/____
Director’s Signature ______________________________ Date
ATTACHMENT B
Administrative Circular Canberra ACT 0221
RETAIN AS POLICY DOCUMENT
Distribution: All staff to see
No: P0485
28 March 2003
File No.: 02/211615
Subject: Remuneration Packaging of Childcare Fees at the Currawong Child Care Centre: Entitlement of DFAT Employees to Claim Childcare Benefits (CCB)
This circular replaces A/C: P0174
Administrative Circular P0174 of 2 December 1998, informed employees that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) had provided a private ruling allowing Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) exemption for employer-sponsored childcare at the Currawong Childcare Centre (the Centre). It has been confirmed that this private ruling continues to correctly state the department’s position with respect to the FBT exemption and work-based childcare.
2. The private ruling concludes that the department is able to offer remuneration packaging of the Centre’s childcare fees. The ruling only refers to the Centre, not other forms of childcare (such as other centres, family day care or in-home care provided through an approved child care service). However, legal advice indicates that the FBT exemption would also apply to childcare centres provided at other Commonwealth agencies (i.e. another Commonwealth department or agency of the Commonwealth that cannot be made liable for taxation to the Commonwealth).
3. In paragraph 3 of Administrative Circular P0174, it was noted that employees who chose to package childcare costs at the Centre were not entitled to child care payments such as Child Care Assistance and the Child Care Cash Rebate. These payments have since been replaced by the Child Care Benefit (CCB), but the restrictions remain. It is not possible for DFAT employees to access FBT-exempt remuneration packaging for childcare centres and also be eligible for a CCB. This situation arises as a result of the department directly assuming liability for the fees under a remuneration packaging arrangement.
4. It is possible for employees to enter into a remuneration packaging arrangement where the employee incurs the liability for the childcare fees directly, and is also entitled to the CCB entitlement. However, such an arrangement will not attract the FBT exemption, and may not be cost effective for the employee.
5. Prior to contacting the department to discuss packaging childcare fees, employees should seek independent financial advice on the value of forgoing CCB in preference to utilising the FBT exempt remuneration packaging arrangements. For any matters relating to remuneration packaging you should contact the Executive Officer, Remuneration, Entitlements and Conditions of Service Section (Ext 3313).
Doug Chester
First Assistant Secretary
Corporate Management Division
Child Care
133
133
3686
133
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
0
Ms Plibersek
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 19 June 2006:
-
Do any agencies in the Minister’s portfolio offer childcare to employees; if so, which agencies.
-
In respect of agencies that offer childcare, (a) is the childcare (i) long day care, (ii) outside school hours care, or (iii) another type of care, (b) is the childcare facility located at the agency’s premises; if so, (i) what is the maximum capacity of the childcare facility, (ii) is enrolment at the facility available to children whose parents are not employees of the agency, and (iii) do the children of agency employees receive preferential enrolment over the children of non-employees; if so, what are the provisions of the preference rule; and (c) will the Minister provide a copy of the information sheet given to employees seeking employer assistance with childcare.
-
Are employees given the option of salary-sacrificing childcare offered by the agency.
-
How many employees within each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have made salary-sacrifice arrangements with the employing agency for childcare expenses.
-
In respect of the employees identified in the response to part (5), how many use on site-childcare.
-
Do any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have salary-sacrifice agreements relating to childcare with employees who do not use the on-site childcare centre; if so, how many agreements of this type are there?
-
Will the Minister provide a copy of the childcare benefits provisions from the Certified Agreements of each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies.
-
What financial assistance for childcare, other than salary-sacrificed fees, is available to employees (including those on AWAs) of each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies.
-
Have any agencies in the Minister’s portfolio sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office relating to childcare and fringe benefits tax; if so, when.
-
Do any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have arrangements with other Government agencies to provide childcare to employees, such as sharing childcare facility costs at a site within, or external to, one of the agencies.
134
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 Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
The FaCSIA portfolio does not offer childcare or childcare benefits to its staff, nor is childcare offered as a salary sacrificing option.
FaCSIA does reimburse the reasonable costs of additional family care where staff are required to be away from home. Staff may also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses such as additional family care in cases where approved leave has been cancelled due to operational reasons.
Assessment and Reporting Procedures
134
134
3724
134
Gibbons, Steve, MP
83X
Bendigo
ALP
0
Mr Gibbons
asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 19 June 2006:
-
Has the Government indicated to State and Territory Governments that funding will be withheld if they do not implement the Australian Government Assessment and Reporting procedures.
-
By what date are State and non-government schools expected to comply with the new assessment and reporting procedures.
-
What is the research base that has been used to inform the development of the five point A-E reporting scale.
-
Is the Minister aware that there is a wealth of research which clearly documents the inadequacies and shortcomings of standardised testing and reporting regimes and their negative effect on student learning and achievement.
-
What measures have been taken by the Government to ascertain the effectiveness, reliability and appropriateness of reporting against a very limited and highly specific five point A-E scale.
-
Is the Minister aware (a) that Victoria is currently implementing an innovative new curriculum, the Victorian Essential Learning Standards, following extensive consultation with, and acceptance by, Victorian School communities and (b) that the Government’s assessment and reporting requirements are counter to the flexible assessment principles required by the Victorian Learning Standards that are considered necessary to assure effective learning for every pupil.
-
Is the Minister aware of, and willing to acknowledge, that many teachers, school principals and parent bodies have grave reservations about the impact of the required five point A-E reporting system on student learning and achievement levels.
-
Is the Minister aware that (a) teachers in Victoria are already struggling to do justice to this system and report on just two areas, being Mathematics and English and (b) when all areas of the new Standards have to be reported on, teachers will be required to spend inordinate amounts of time just on meeting the reporting commitments, which will affect the quality of teaching that teachers will be able to deliver.
-
Does the Minister believe that the Government’s stated objective of “plain English reporting” will be achieved when schools will be required to report about Domains, Dimensions, Strands and Progression Points.
135
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:
-
Each education authority signed a Funding Agreement under the Schools Assistance (Learning Together – Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 (‘the Act’). Clause 3 of each Agreement states that the Australian Government may withhold or suspend a payment until the education authority has performed its obligations under the Agreement, the Act and the Regulations to the Act.
The Australian Government has referred to this clause in correspondence to education authorities.
-
The Australian Government requires all schools to provide parents with plain English student reports commencing in 2006.
-
Research by Professor Peter Cuttance and Ms Shirley Stokes of the University of Sydney in 2000 showed that parents want to receive report cards written in plain language that show their child’s achievement relative to objective standards and relative to the achievement of other students in the class. The results of this research are on the website of the Department of Education, Science and Training at this link:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/student_school_achievement_report.htm.
The Australian Government’s consultations with parents and educators have clearly shown that many parents want to be better informed about their child’s progress in terms they can understand.
-
The Australian Government has developed its policies concerning this issue after considering research and, in particular, after discussions with, and listening to the views of, parents.
Assessing students against standards is important to ensure that they are progressing at a suitable rate and that any areas that require development are identified.
These standardised assessments can be used for diagnostic purposes. Teachers can use the results to identify students’ strengths and areas of need. Programmes can be modified or developed to meet these needs.
Not all areas of learning can be assessed by standardised testing, which is complementary to class-based assessment and teacher judgements in providing a total picture of a student’s development and progress at school.
It is important that such reporting mechanisms be meaningfully communicated to parents.
-
The Australian Government’s requirements provide schools and education authorities with flexibility to build on good reporting practices they may be employing in conjunction with meeting the requirements for an assessment against achievement levels or bands labelled A-E or an equivalent. A five point scale (A-E grades or equivalent) tells parents whether their child has achieved well above, above, at, below, or well below the standard expected for their year.
For example, the Victorian Government has sought to ensure consistent interpretation of performance at each achievement level across all its government schools, and the Victorian Catholic school system has chosen to use the Victorian Government approach.
It has done this by defining A-E grades in terms of year levels. That is, an ‘A’ grade is equivalent to at least 12 months ahead of the year level being assessed, a ‘B’ grade is equivalent to at least 6 months ahead of the year level being assessed, a ‘C’ grade is at the expected standard for the year being assessed; a ‘D’ grade is equivalent to at least 6 months behind the year level being assessed; and an ‘E’ grade is equivalent to at least 12 months behind the year being assessed.
-
-
I am aware that Victoria is currently implementing the Victorian Essential Learning Standards.
-
Education authorities (including in Victoria) and/or schools are responsible for determining standards against which achievement levels or bands labelled A-E (or an equivalent) are defined. A‑E (or equivalent) summative reporting is supported by other forms of reporting which provide evidence of student achievement, and is complementary to prevailing school assessment and reporting practices.
I am keen to ensure that the new reporting requirements suit the needs of students and parents. The requirements for plain English student reports provide scope for schools to build on their existing reporting practices to suit their particular circumstances.
-
I am also aware, through the Australian Government’s consultations with parents and educators, that parents want to be better informed about their child’s progress in terms they can understand.
-
-
I am aware of reports that some teachers in Victoria are experiencing difficulty with reporting on English and Mathematics. I understand the significant challenges facing schools and systems as they implement large scale reforms to curriculum, assessment and reporting, in particular the Victorian Essential Learning Standards.
-
If a subject or key learning area is worth teaching, it is worth assessing and reporting on it. It is reasonable for parents to expect to be provided with good, clear feedback about their child’s progress.
-
Domains, Dimensions, Strands and Progression Points are Victorian government requirements, and are not part of the Australian Government’s plain English student report requirements as set out in either the principles for student reports in the Act or the Regulations to the Act.
The sample student reports on the website of the Victorian Department of Education and Training do not mention Domains, Dimensions, Strands and Progression Points.
The Australian Government will continue to work with the Victorian Government to ensure that Victoria’s student reports comply with the requirements for plain English reporting.
Abortion
136
136
3868
136
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 9 September 2006:
Further to his reply to part (5) of question No. 3194, why will he not act to amend the Medicare Item numbers so that it is possible, while preserving a woman’s privacy, to determine the exact number of Medicare-funded procedures occurring specifically for the purpose of procuring an abortion.
136
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
It is usual practice for items in the Medicare Benefits Schedule to describe the medical procedure rather than the reason for the procedure. As such there can often be more than one reason why a particular service is performed.
At this stage there is no consideration being given to amending the current arrangements for describing clinical services in the Medicare Benefits Schedule.
Medicare
136
136
3878
136
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
0
Mr Adams
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 10 August 2006:
Can he provide an update on elements of Medicare that assist (a) senior Australians, (b) rural and regional Australians and (c) the people of the federal electorate of Lyons.
136
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(a) (b) and (c) As part of the Strengthening Medicare package, the Australian Government introduced additional payments to encourage general practitioners (GPs) to bulk bill Commonwealth concession cardholders and children under 16 years of age. These incentives are currently $5.15 in metropolitan areas and $7.85 in rural areas, Tasmania, and eligible metropolitan areas with below average bulk billing rates and below average doctor-to-population ratios.
These incentives encourage GPs to bulk bill senior Australians who have pensioner concession cards, and also those who qualify for a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, including self-funded retirees.
GPs in the electorate of Lyons can access the higher incentive of $7.85 when they bulk bill eligible patients. This incentive adds income of around $20,500 each year to a GP who provides an average mix of services.
These measures were also complemented on 1 January 2005 by an increase in the rebate for all non-hospital GP attendances from 85% to 100% of the Medicare Schedule Fee. This increased the Medicare rebate for a standard GP consultation by $4.60.
Statistics for the June quarter 2006 show that bulk billing for non-referred GP attendances, excluding practice nurse items, has increased to 76.6% – up 10.1 percentage points since the December quarter 2003 (the last complete quarter prior to the introduction of the Strengthening Medicare initiatives). The bulk billing rate of 76.6% in the June quarter is the highest rate for five years. Bulk billing rates for non-referred GP attendances have now increased in 10 consecutive quarters.
The bulk billing rates for non-referred GP attendances for children under 16 years and for persons in rural and remote areas are now at record levels. The rate of bulk-billing for children under 16 years increased to 83.8% and the rate of bulk-billing for persons in rural and remote areas increased to 71.3%, in the June quarter 2006.
A nine-year high was also reached for bulk billing of non-referred GP attendances to persons aged 65 years and over in the June quarter 2006, with bulk-billing rates of 86.8% - the highest since the June quarter of 1997.
Increases in bulk-billing rates for GP attendances in the June quarter 2006, compared with the December 2003 quarter (the last complete quarter before the Strengthening Medicare initiatives), include:
-
New South Wales up 6.6 percentage points to 82.3%;
-
South Australia up 15.2 percentage points to 75.8%;
-
Victoria up 10.9 percentage points to 74.5%;
-
Queensland up 12.5 percentage points to 74.2%;
-
Western Australia up 9.7 percentage points to 72.2%;
-
Tasmania up 21.6 percentage points to 70%;
-
Northern Territory up 2.4 percentage points to 62.6%; and
-
Australian Capital Territory up 12 percentage points to 46.9%.
Medicare bulk billing statistics for non-referred GP attendances, by electorate, are published by the Department of Health and Ageing and Medicare Australia, on their respective web sites, on an annual calendar year basis in February/March each year.
In calendar year 2005 (year of processing), 76.1% of non-referred GP attendances (excluding practice nurse items) to patients with a Medicare enrolment postcode in the electorate of Lyons were bulk billed, an increase of 4.6 percentage points on calendar year 2004.
The Extended Medicare Safety Net was introduced in March 2004 and protects all Australians from high out-of-pocket medical costs incurred for Medicare services outside of hospital.
In calendar year 2005, over 4 million Australian families had registered for the Medicare safety nets.
In calendar year 2005 (year of processing), 3,682 persons (1,894 families) in the electorate of Lyons received a total of $433,611 in supplementary benefits under the Medicare safety nets.
Strengthening Medicare also introduced more services for aged care residents. A new Medicare item now covers comprehensive medical assessments for residents of aged care homes. As of 30 June 2006, over 56,000 of these comprehensive medical assessments had been conducted since their introduction on 1 July 2004. GPs are also being funded to work with aged care homes to improve access for residents of aged care homes and to improve the quality of care for all residents. Currently, every Division of General Practice in Australia has a GP aged care panel in operation.
The Supporting Rural and Remote Procedural GPs initiative under Strengthening Medicare provides support for doctors in rural areas to continue providing procedural services. Procedural GPs are being reimbursed up to $10,000 for the cost of two weeks of training each year, with this funding also reimbursing doctors for the costs of employing a locum as, in most cases, doctors would be required to leave their practice to attend training in capital cities.
In addition, GPs in rural and remote areas who provide anesthetic, surgical and obstetric procedural services are able to access payments of up to $10,000 a year through the Practice Incentive Program. Rural practices are provided with a rural loading of between 15% to 50% (depending on remoteness of the practice) on top of the procedural payment. From November 2006, the procedural payments for GPs delivering 20 or more babies a year will increase to $17,000 a year.
Increased rural retention payments have also been continued under Strengthening Medicare for another four years to recognise the commitment of GPs who provide services to rural and remote communities for extended periods of time.
Additionally, the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) includes a number of items that support primary medical care for patients, including older Australians and Australians living in rural and regional areas.
Chronic Disease Management
In addition to normal GP consultation items, specific items are available for Chronic Disease Management (CDM). In July 2005, new CDM items were added to the MBS which introduced a simplified way for GPs to assist patients in the management of a wide range of chronic (or terminal) conditions. These items are available to patients of any age. They enable the management of a patient’s chronic (or terminal) condition/s to be addressed in a structured format through the development of a GP Management Plan, which includes setting management goals for the patient and identifying the health and care services they require. Where a patient has complex needs the GP is able to coordinate the involvement of multiple health care providers involved in the patient’s care through the development of Team Care Arrangements.
Health Assessments for Older Australians (Medicare Items 700 to 706)
The Annual Health Assessment for Older Australians provides a Medicare rebate for GPs to undertake a comprehensive assessment of patients aged 75 years and over, or in the case of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients, 55 years and over. These items provide an opportunity to assess the patient’s physical, psychological and social function so that the GP can identify the need for any further intervention and plan preventative health care.
Medication Management Reviews (Medicare Items 900 & 903)
Medication Management Reviews provide a Medicare rebate for GP services where a GP works in collaboration with a pharmacist to review the medication management needs of patients, either in the community or in residential aged care facilities, who are at risk of medication related problems.
Allied Health and Dental Care Initiative (Medicare items 10950 – 10977)
The Medicare Allied Health and Dental Care initiative provides rebates for certain allied health and dental care services for patients who have a chronic condition and complex care needs and are managed under a Chronic Disease GP Management plan. Medicare rebates are available to eligible patients for a maximum of five allied health and three dental care services each calendar year.
Providers included under the initiative are: Aboriginal health workers; audiologists; chiropodists; chiropractors; dentists (through the dental care plan); diabetes educators; dietitians; exercise physiologists; mental health workers; occupational therapists; physiotherapists; podiatrists; psychologists; osteopaths; and speech pathologists. While the Allied Health and Dental Care initiative is not specifically targeted at older people, almost half of the allied health services have been accessed by people aged 65 years and older.
Case Conferences (Medicare Items 734 - 779)
The MBS Case Conference items further support GPs to organise and participate in the care of patients with chronic conditions. Multidisciplinary case conferences are available for patients with at least one chronic medical condition and complex care needs who require a range of different services to support them in the community, in residential aged care, or on discharge from hospital. Around half of all GP case conferences have been provided to people aged 65 years and over.
Notes to the Statistics
Medicare statistics relate to non-referred GP attendances, excluding practice nurse items, that were rendered on a ‘fee-for-service’ basis and for which claims were processed by Medicare Australia in calendar year 2005. Excluded are details of non-referred GP attendances to public patients in hospital, to Veterans’ Affairs patients and some compensation cases.
The Medicare bulk billing and safety net statistics by electorate are based on 2004 electorate boundaries.
The electorate statistics were compiled from Medicare data by patient enrolment (mailing address) postcode. Where a postcode overlapped electoral boundaries, data were allocated to electorate using a concordance file showing the proportion of the population of each postal area in each electorate. This can result in some data being erroneously allocated to an adjoining electorate. Data relating to post office box postcodes are excluded from electorate reporting as these cannot be appropriately allocated.
Medicare safety nets only apply to non-hospital patient billed services.
The statistics on the number of people who received safety net benefits include singles and people in families.
Where the patient does not pay the total fee charged by the doctor prior to submitting their account to Medicare for reimbursement through a ‘pay doctor cheque’, Medicare Australia is unable to verify, for safety net purposes, that the total charge has been paid. This is regarded as an unsubstantiated claim. Proof of payment of the full amount charged results in a substantiated claim. The number of people in the table who have received a benefit under the safety net includes only those patients who substantiated their claims and presented a subsequent claim to Medicare Australia. Note that this number is not equivalent to the number of people reaching the thresholds.
Medicare safety net information includes payments made under the original Medicare safety net and the Extended Medicare safety net.
It is important to note that some people would receive assistance from services outside this electorate, and similarly services located in this electorate may provide assistance to people living in other electorates.
Additional information and explanatory notes for bulk billing and safety net statistics are available on the Department’s web site at www.health.gov.au/electoratereports.
Medicare Safety Net
140
140
3880
140
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
0
Mr Snowdon
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 10 August 2006:
Can he (a) outline the Medicare Safety Net arrangements, (b) outline measures to ensure that Australians have affordable access to medicines, (c) outline existing measures which ensure that Australians have access to doctors after hours and (d) provide details of taxpayer support for the private health insurance system.
140
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
A Government-funded safety net to cover all Australians against high out-of-pocket medical costs outside the hospital system was introduced on 12 March 2004. It introduced for the first time a comprehensive Government-funded safety net to cover all Australians against high out-of-pocket medical costs for Medicare-claimable services provided outside hospital. Out-of-hospital services are defined as those services provided to non-admitted patients, such as services conducted in doctors’ rooms, private clinics and private hospital emergency departments.
The Australian Government was concerned at the level of out-of-pocket costs that some families and individuals face. Under the extended Medicare safety net, Medicare meets 80% of out-of-pocket costs for Medicare-claimable services provided outside hospital, once annual thresholds are reached. In 2006, the lower threshold is $500 for families entitled to receive Family Tax Benefit (A) and concession cardholders, and the upper threshold is $1,000 for all other individuals and families.
Out-of-pocket costs are defined as the difference between fees charged by the doctor and Medicare benefits paid. It should be noted that the safety net covers out-of-pocket expenses for a specific Medicare service, but does not cover other fees or charges levied by the doctor that are not directly associated with the service provided or are not claimable through Medicare.
The extended Medicare safety net operates in conjunction with the original Medicare safety net. The original Medicare safety net covers the difference between Medicare benefits paid and the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) fee for out-of-hospital services. Once out‑of-p ocket costs (representing the difference between these two) accumulate to a threshold of $345.50, Medicare benefits increase to 100% of the schedule fee, rather than the standard Medicare benefit of 85% of the schedule fee. Where the original safety net threshold of $345.50 is reached first, a patient will receive 100% of the schedule fee, and any remaining out‑of‑pocket costs will continue to accumulate towards the extended safety net threshold relevant to their circumstances.
In 2005, the first full calendar year of operation of the extended Medicare safety net, more than 4 million families were registered for the safety nets, and nearly 2 million qualified to receive safety net benefits. More than $280 million was spent through the safety nets helping almost 1.25 million people with higher Medicare rebates in 2005.
-
The Australian Government has introduced a number of policies to ensure that Australians continue to have affordable access to medicines, primarily through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). In 2004-05 the PBS subsidised the dispensing of 170.3 million scripts at a cost to Government of $6 billion.
Key features of the PBS that address affordable access to medicines include:
-
sponsors seeking to have drugs listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) must demonstrate that the treatments are clinically effective and cost effective;
-
patients pay co-payments towards the cost of PBS medicines, which balance the contributions of government and patients – the payment to government is currently $4.70 per dispensing for concession card holders and $29.50 for general patients;
-
PBS safety net arrangements protect patients who need very large numbers of prescriptions;
-
there are clear conditions on the use of restricted PBS medicines with particular emphasis on high cost medicine groups;
-
special access arrangements are in place for particular highly specialised drugs and their provision is managed in cooperation with state and territory governments through hospitals;
-
other special programs ensure affordable access, such as the Human Growth Hormone Program and a special Indigenous program;
-
the 12.5% price reduction policy, which took effect in August 2005, promotes value for the taxpayer when generic competition occurs. When the first new generic brand of a drug is introduced, all listed brands of that drug must take a 12.5% price cut and the price reduction flows on to other drugs in the reference price group; and
-
the prices of all PBS-listed medicines are reviewed annually by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority.
-
The Government has a range of programs to support the provision of GP services after hours.
Round the Clock Medicare: Investing in After Hours GP Services
As a result of the Government’s election 2004 policy “Round the Clock Medicare: Investing in After Hours GP Services”, the Government is providing $555.8 million over five years for:
-
new Medicare items from 1 January 2005 for after hours GP attendances, set at $10 higher than the corresponding in-hours items; and
-
three new grants (operating subsidies, start-up grants and supplementary grants), available through competitive annual funding rounds which commenced in 2004-05, to support both new and established after hours general practice services.
-
The 2006-07 round of Round the Clock Medicare grant funding was advertised in April 2006. (details about the 2006-07 round are available at www.health.gov.au.) More than 160 applications were received and are currently being assessed.
-
To date, some 46 grants across Australia including operating subsidies, start-up grants and supplementary grants have been announced from the 2005-06 and 2004-05 rounds of Round the Clock Medicare grant funding. More grants are expected to be announced in the future.
-
Medicare emergency after hours items
-
The Round the Clock Medicare after hours Medicare items outlined above are in addition to the Medicare items for emergency after hours attendances which were introduced in 1990. The emergency items are intended to remunerate GPs who have to return to their surgery or provide a home visit to a patient who requires immediate treatment, in the after hours period.
-
The $10 Round the Clock Medicare after hours loading introduced from 1 January 2005 was also added to the rebates for the emergency after-hours items.
-
After Hours Primary Medical Care (AHPMC) Program
-
The Round the Clock Medicare grant funding outlined above builds on the Government’s AHPMC Program, which was announced in the 2001-02 Budget. A number of after hours services across Australia continue to receive funding support through the AHPMC Program.
-
Practice Incentives Program (PIP)
-
The PIP After Hours Incentive aims to encourage GPs to provide quality after hours services.
-
There are three tiers of payments for the After Hours Incentive:
-
Tier 1 – The practice ensures all regular practice patients have access to 24 hour care, including access to out of hours visits (at home, in a residential aged care facility and in hospital) where it is safe and reasonable for these visits to be provided.
-
Tier 2 – Practices must meet Tier 1 requirements. Practices with less than 2,000 SWPEs (or Standardised Whole Patient Equivalents) must provide at least ten hours per week of after hours cover for practice patients, while practices with 2,000 SWPEs or more must provide at least 15 hours per week of after hours cover.
-
Tier 3 – The practice GPs must provide 24 hour cover, seven days a week, including out of hours visits (at home, in a residential aged care facility and in hospital), where it is safe and reasonable for these visits to be provided.
-
Around 21% of PIP payments are for the After Hours Incentive. This equates on average to around $12,000 per PIP practice. In 2005-06, the total expenditure on the PIP After Hours Incentive was around $56 million. In May 2006, 97% of practices were participating in Tier 1, 66% in Tier 2 and 27% in Tier 3.
-
National Health Call Centre Network (NHCCN)
-
The Government is also working with the states and territories to establish a NHCCN. Once established, the NHCCN will enable anyone, anywhere in Australia, to ring for health advice and information 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The NHCCN will provide callers with round-the-clock phone access to nurses who will assess their symptoms, how urgently they need to be seen and, if treatment is necessary, where they should be seen (e.g. at a hospital or by a GP). In regional areas, where medical services are not always easily accessible, the NHCCN will provide a readily available source of basic medical advice.
-
The NHCCN is expected to take first calls in July 2007, with national coverage achieved within four years.
-
(d) The Government provides the 30% rebate for all people aged under 65. The rebate is 35% for people aged 65 to 69 and 40% for people aged 70 and over. The rebate applicable to a health insurance policy is based on the age of the oldest person covered by the policy. The estimated total cost of the Private Health Insurance Rebates in 2005-06 was $3,179 million.
Medicare
142
142
3881
142
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
0
Ms Livermore
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 10 August 2006:
Can he outline how the Strengthening Medicare package is impacting upon (a) bulk-billing across Australia, including the federal electorate of Capricornia and (b) health care for (i) young Australians, (ii) older Australians and (iii) rural and regional Australians.
142
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(a) and (b) As part of the Strengthening Medicare package, the Australian Government introduced additional payments to encourage GPs to bulk bill Commonwealth concession cardholders and children under 16 years of age. These incentives are currently $5.15 in metropolitan areas and $7.85 in rural areas, Tasmania, and eligible metropolitan areas with below average bulk billing rates and below average doctor-to-population ratios.
These incentives encourage GPs to bulk bill senior Australians who have pensioner concession cards, and also those who qualify for a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, including self-funded retirees.
GPs in the electorate of Capricornia can access the higher incentive of $7.85 when they bulk bill eligible patients. This incentive adds income of around $20,500 each year to a GP who provides an average mix of services.
These measures were also complemented on 1 January 2005 by an increase in the rebate for all non-hospital GP attendances from 85% to 100% of the Medicare Schedule Fee. This increased the Medicare rebate for a standard GP consultation by $4.60.
Statistics for the June quarter 2006 show that bulk billing for non-referred GP attendances, excluding practice nurse items, has increased to 76.6% – up 10.1 percentage points since the December quarter 2003 (the last complete quarter prior to the introduction of the Strengthening Medicare initiatives). The bulk billing rate of 76.6% in the June quarter is the highest rate for five years. Bulk billing rates for non-referred GP attendances have now increased in 10 consecutive quarters.
The bulk billing rates for non-referred GP attendances for children under 16 years and for persons in rural and remote areas are now at record levels. The rate of bulk-billing for children under 16 years increased to 83.8% and the rate of bulk-billing for persons in rural and remote areas increased to 71.3% in the June quarter 2006.
A nine-year high was also reached for bulk billing of non-referred GP attendances to persons aged 65 years and over in the June quarter 2006, with bulk-billing rates of 86.8% - the highest since the June quarter of 1997.
Increases in bulk-billing rates for GP attendances in the June quarter 2006, compared with the December 2003 quarter (the last complete quarter before the Strengthening Medicare initiatives), include:
-
New South Wales up 6.6 percentage points to 82.3%;
-
South Australia up 15.2 percentage points to 75.8%;
-
Victoria up 10.9 percentage points to 74.5%;
-
Queensland up 12.5 percentage points to 74.2%;
-
Western Australia up 9.7 percentage points to 72.2%;
-
Tasmania up 21.6 percentage points to 70%;
-
Northern Territory up 2.4 percentage points to 62.6%; and
-
Australian Capital Territory up 12 percentage points to 46.9%.
Medicare bulk billing statistics for non-referred GP attendances, by electorate, are published by the Department of Health and Ageing and Medicare Australia, on their respective web sites, on an annual calendar year basis in February/March each year.
In calendar year 2005 (year of processing), 65.7% of non-referred GP attendances (excluding practice nurse items) to patients with a Medicare enrolment postcode in the electorate of Capricornia were bulk billed, an increase of 6.6 percentage points on calendar year 2004.
The Extended Medicare Safety Net was introduced in March 2004 and protects all Australians from high out-of-pocket medical costs incurred for Medicare services outside of hospital.
In caleandar year 2005, over 4 million Australian families had registered for the Medicare safety nets.
In calendar year 2005 (year of processing), 9,435 persons (4,577 families) in the electorate of Capricornia received a total of $1,427,021 in supplementary benefits under the Medicare safety nets.
Strengthening Medicare also introduced more services for aged care residents. A new Medicare item now covers comprehensive medical assessments for residents of aged care homes. As of 30 June 2006, over 56,000 of these comprehensive medical assessments had been conducted since their introduction on 1 July 2004. GPs are also being funded to work with aged care homes to improve access for residents of aged care homes and to improve the quality of care for all residents. Currently, every Division of General Practice in Australia has a GP aged care panel in operation.
The Supporting Rural and Remote Procedural GPs initiative under Strengthening Medicare provides support for doctors in rural areas to continue providing procedural services. Procedural GPs are being reimbursed up to $10,000 for the cost of two weeks of training each year, with this funding also reimbursing doctors for the costs of employing a locum as, in most cases, doctors would be required to leave their practice to attend training in capital cities.
In addition, GPs in rural and remote areas who provide anesthetic, surgical and obstetric procedural services are able to access payments of up to $10,000 a year through the Practice Incentive Program. Rural practices are provided with a rural loading of between 15% to 50% (depending on remoteness of the practice) on top of the procedural payment. From November 2006, the procedural payments for GPs delivering 20 or more babies a year will increase to $17,000 a year.
Increased rural retention payments have also been continued under Strengthening Medicare for another four years to recognise the commitment of GPs who provide services to rural and remote communities for extended periods of time.
Notes to the Statistics
Medicare statistics relate to non-referred GP attendances, excluding practice nurse items, that were rendered on a ‘fee-for-service’ basis and for which claims were processed by Medicare Australia in calendar year 2005. Excluded are details of non-referred GP attendances to public patients in hospital, to Veterans’ Affairs patients and some compensation cases.
The Medicare bulk billing and safety net statistics by electorate are based on 2004 electorate boundaries.
The electorate statistics were compiled from Medicare data by patient enrolment (mailing address) postcode. Where a postcode overlapped electoral boundaries, data were allocated to electorate using a concordance file showing the proportion of the population of each postal area in each electorate. This can result in some data being erroneously allocated to an adjoining electorate. Data relating to post office box postcodes are excluded from electorate reporting as these cannot be appropriately allocated.
Medicare safety nets only apply to non-hospital patient billed services.
The statistics on the number of people who received safety net benefits include singles and people in families.
Where the patient does not pay the total fee charged by the doctor prior to submitting their account to Medicare for reimbursement through a ‘pay doctor cheque’, Medicare Australia is unable to verify, for safety net purposes, that the total charge has been paid. This is regarded as an unsubstantiated claim. Proof of payment of the full amount charged results in a substantiated claim. The number of people in the table who have received a benefit under the safety net includes only those patients who substantiated their claims and presented a subsequent claim to Medicare Australia. Note that this number is not equivalent to the number of people reaching the thresholds.
Medicare safety net information includes payments made under the original Medicare safety net and the Extended Medicare safety net.
It is important to note that some people would receive assistance from services outside this electorate, and similarly services located in this electorate may provide assistance to people living in other electorates.
Additional information and explanatory notes for bulk billing and safety net statistics are available on the Department’s web site at www.health.gov.au/electoratereports.
Remuneration Tribunal
144
144
3883
144
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 10 August 2006:
-
How are members of the Remuneration Tribunal appointed and what qualifications are required for appointment.
-
Upon what basis was John Allen appointed as a member of the Remuneration Tribunal in 2003.
-
Is the Minister aware that Mr Allen was, and remains, an instrumental member of the Higgins 200 Club, a key fundraising vehicle for the Treasurer.
-
Was Mr Allen’s membership of the Higgins 200 Club a factor in the decision to appoint him as a member of the Remuneration Tribunal.
-
Is he aware that after the Treasurer assumed office in 1996, Mr Allen became Chairman of the Higgins Electorate Council.
-
Was Mr Allen’s Chairmanship of the Higgins Electorate Council a factor in the decision to appoint him as a member of the Remuneration Tribunal.
145
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:
-
to (6) The Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 sets out certain requirements for appointment to the Tribunal. The Australian Government’s appointment process is designed to ensure that appointments receive full and proper consideration, and that appointees are appropriately qualified, possess experience relevant to the position and meet any requirements that may be expressed in the relevant legislation.
Herceptin
145
145
3895
145
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 10 August 2006:
-
Can he confirm that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has recommended that Herceptin be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for women with early stage HER2 breast cancer; if not, why not.
-
Has he seen the article titled ‘Government in talks to put Herceptin on PBS’, which appeared in The Age on 17 July 2006 and in which he is reported as saying that Herceptin “will get expedited consideration by Cabinet”; if not, why not.
-
Will Cabinet make a decision to list Herceptin on the PBS for women with early stage HER2 breast cancer by October 2006; if not (a) why not and (b) when will a decision be made.
145
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
-
and (b) On 22 August 2006, I announced that the Government had accepted a recommendation from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) to list the drug trastuzumab (Herceptin®) on the PBS for the treatment of patients with HER-2 positive early stage breast cancer.
The drug will be listed from 1 October 2006. It will be used following surgery, commenced initially with adjuvant chemotherapy, and continued for a maximum period of 12 months.
Consultancy Services
145
145
3914
145
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 14 August 2006:
Has the Minister’s office, or any department or agency in the Minister’s portfolio, engaged any consultant or other form of external assistance in the preparation of any speech to be made by the Minister in the financial year 2005-06.
145
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
When a new federal judge or magistrate is appointed, and on occasion when a judge retires, the relevant court holds a ceremonial sitting at which I am invited to speak. During 2005-06, I spoke at three such sittings where the first draft of my speech had been prepared by a consultant engaged by the Attorney-General’s Department.
Consultancy Services
146
146
3918
146
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 14 August 2006:
Has the Minister’s office, or any department or agency in the Minister’s portfolio, engaged any consultant or other form of external assistance in the preparation of any speech to be made by the Minister in the financial year 2005-06.
146
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:
No.
Medicare: Bulk-Billing
146
146
3946
146
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 16 August 2006:
What is the current bulk billing rate for the federal electorate of Griffith.
146
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Medicare bulk billing statistics for non-referred GP attendances, by electorate, are published on an annual calendar year basis in February/March.
In 2005, 66% of non-referred GP attendances to persons in the federal electorate of Griffith were bulk billed.
Notes to the Statistics
This statistic relates to non-referred GP attendances, excluding practice nurse items, that were rendered on a ‘fee-for-service’ basis and for which claims were processed by Medicare Australia in 2005. Excluded are details of non-referred GP attendances to public patients in hospital, to Veterans’ Affairs patients and some compensation cases.
The statistic is based on 2004 electorate boundaries.
The statistic was compiled from Medicare data by patient enrolment (mailing address) postcode. Where a postcode overlapped electoral boundaries, data were allocated to electorate using a concordance file showing the proportion of the population of each postal area in each electorate. This can result in some data being erroneously allocated to an adjoining electorate. Data relating to post office box postcodes is excluded from electorate reporting as this cannot be appropriately allocated.
Additional information and explanatory notes for bulk billing statistics are available on the Department’s web site at www.health.gov.au/electoratereports.
Organ Harvesting
146
146
3975
146
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
Mr Danby
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 4 September 2006:
-
Has he seen the document titled Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China by Mr David Matas and former Canadian Cabinet Minister, Mr David Kilgour.
-
What information does he have regarding allegations made in this report that China is engaged in the systematic murder of imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners for the purpose of harvesting kidneys, livers, corneas and other organs, for profit.
-
What steps has he taken to ascertain the truth of the allegations referred to in Part 2.
-
Has he raised the issue of alleged organ harvesting with the Chinese authorities; if so, (a) when and in what circumstances and (b) what was the response of the Chinese authorities; if not, will he do so.
-
Has he raised the issue of the large-scale arrest and imprisonment of Falun Gong practitioners with the Chinese authorities; if so, (a) when and in what circumstances and (b) what was the response of the Chinese authorities; if not, will he do so.
-
Did he issue instructions that, in order not to offend the Chinese Embassy, no Government Members or Senators were to attend the briefing given on 16 August by Mr David Kilgour and Mr Edward McMillan-Scott MEP at Parliament House.
147
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
The Government is aware of differing assessments of the allegations of widespread organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners. Mr Kilgour and Mr Matas concluded the allegations were true, but others have come to different conclusions.
US Embassy and Consular officials visited Sujiatun, the location most frequently referred to in Falun Gong media reports, and found no evidence that the site was being used for any function other than as a normal public hospital.
Harry Wu, a renowned activist on human rights in China, had his contacts examine Sujiatun and the surrounding area over the course of three weeks from 12 March. These contacts produced several reports and photographs from their investigations, which Mr Wu says show no signs of a “concentration camp”.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Mr Manfred Nowak, said in March that he would look into the allegations and submit a report to the Chinese Government if he found that the allegations were well-founded. He has not so far submitted any report.
Reputable human rights organisations have issued no public comment to date.
-
My Department has sought information from and exchanged views with other governments, reputable human rights organisations, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. A senior DFAT official also met Mr Kilgour during his recent visit to Australia and discussed the report with him.
-
Yes.
-
My Department raised this issue with China during our annual human rights dialogue on 25 July 2006, and suggested that China address the allegations by allowing an independent, credible investigator unfettered access to facilities of his/her choosing. Australian officials have since reiterated this suggestion to the Chinese.
-
The Chinese said the allegations were fabrications.
-
Yes. The Government strongly opposes China’s ban on Falun Gong and its treatment of Falun Gong practitioners, which we consider breach fundamental human rights, including the rights of assembly and free expression.
-
We have raised China’s treatment of Falun Gong practitioners regularly since Falun Gong was banned in 1999. We have done this through our annual human rights dialogue, through our Embassy in Beijing and during high-level visits. I raised the issue myself during a meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Mr Li Zhaoxing, during his visit to Australia in April this year, and with the leader of the Chinese delegation to the human rights dialogue, Assistant Minister Cui Tiankai, in July.
-
China responds that practitioners who have been arrested and imprisoned have broken Chinese laws.
-
No.
Australia Post
148
148
3977
148
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
Mr Danby
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 4 September 2006:
-
Did the Minister approve Australia Post’s decision to abolish its economy air parcel service from September 2006; if so, what consultation, if any, was undertaken with export-oriented businesses, such as small publishers, about the effect of this decision upon their profitability; if no consultation was undertaken, why not.
-
If the Minister did not approve the decision referred to in Part 1, will the Minister ask Australia Post to review its decision.
148
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 based on information provided by Australia Post:
-
No. As a Government Business Enterprise, Australia Post’s board of directors and management are responsible for the day-to-day running of the organisation and do not require ministerial approval for changes such as this. Australia Post is required, as far as practicable, to perform its functions in a manner consistent with sound commercial practice. Australia Post’s board determines the terms and conditions, including rates of postage, of the services supplied by Australia Post.
Australia Post has advised that it undertook extensive market research before making its decision.
In relation to the possible impact of the decision on export-oriented businesses, Australia Post has advised that the international parcels business operates in a fully deregulated environment with Australia Post offering a commercial service in competition with a range of other service providers.
Post currently has a commercial agreement with the Australian Booksellers Association which provides significant discounts for members on published prices. The current agreement is due to expire at the end of October and negotiations on new contractual arrangements have begun.
Other export-oriented businesses with regular international parcel despatches may be in a position to negotiate special contract rates with Australia Post.
-
See the answer to part (1).
Sudan
148
148
3979
148
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
Mr Danby
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 4 September 2006:
-
Can he confirm reports that (a) China is the largest supplier of arms to Sudan, including assault helicopters, armoured vehicles, trucks and small arms and (b) Sudan continues to use these arms to attack civilian villages in the Darfur region.
-
Can he confirm reports that Chinese oil companies, such as the China National Petroleum Corporation, allow their airfields in Sudan to be used by Sudanese government forces in launching air attacks on villages in Sudan.
-
Can he confirm that China has consistently obstructed all efforts at the United Nations to impose sanctions on Sudan and all other efforts to stop the Sudanese regime’s campaign of genocide in Darfur, which has so far cost an estimated 450,000 lives.
-
What is the Government’s position on the reported actions of the Chinese government in respect of Sudan.
-
What steps has he taken to convey his Government’s views to the Chinese Government.
-
What actions has Australia taken at the United Nations, and elsewhere, to bring to an end the genocidal campaign of the Sudanese regime in Darfur.
149
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
I am aware of the reports, but cannot confirm the details. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, from 1995 to 2005 most of Sudan’s military arsenal came from Russia and not China. Nevertheless, China is a major arms exporter, and it is widely understood that China is the source, either directly or indirectly, of many of the weapons and other items of equipment employed in the ongoing conflict in Sudan.
-
I am aware of the reports, but cannot confirm them.
-
China has resisted efforts to apply international pressure on the Government of Sudan. But China has allowed the passage of a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions addressing the situation in Darfur by not exercising its veto power.
-
The Government is very concerned about the situation in Darfur. We would be disturbed by any activities which exacerbated the situation.
-
China is well aware of Australia’s views. The Australian Government is a strong advocate of responsible arms exports, including exports with assurances about the end-user and purpose for the export, and has regular exchanges with China on these issues through our bilateral arms control and regional security dialogue. Australia also conducts outreach activities with China on a range of arms control issues, including through the Wassenar Arrangement and the Australia group.
-
Australia is not a member of the United Nations Security Council but we did call for, and have supported, strong Security Council action on Darfur. Australia was active in ensuring the Security Council, through Resolution 1591 of 29 March 2005, implemented an arms embargo in Darfur, established a no-fly zone over Darfur and imposed travel bans and asset freezes on individuals who impede the peace process or commit crimes or atrocities. Australia also supported the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1593 of 31 March 2005 which referred crimes committed in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC), of which Australia was a key proponent. UN Security Council Resolution 1672 of 25 April 2006 imposed financial and travel sanctions on four individuals because of their activities in Darfur. One of those four is a Regional Commander in the Sudanese Air Force. Australia is in the process of implementing these sanctions against those four individuals.
The Government welcomes the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1706 of 31 August 2006 calling for the transition of the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) to a United Nations force by no later than 31 December 2006. We call on the Government of Sudan (GoS) to accept United Nations peacekeepers in Darfur and we call on the international community to urge the GoS to accept the transition of AMIS to a United Nations force.
Convention on Biological Diversity
149
149
3986 to 3988
149
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
0
Mr Price
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 4 September 2006:
Further to the reply by the Minister for Foreign affairs to question no. 3636 (Hansard, 10 August 2006, page 150):
-
Have there been any meetings to discuss the de facto ban placed on Terminator (seed sterilisation) Technology in 2000 as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity; if so (a) when and (b) did Australia participate; and if so, (i) which Australian departments and agencies participated and (ii) what, if any, instructions were given to Australian representatives;
-
Has Australia responded to the de facto ban on terminator technology, if not, why not; if so, in what way; and
-
Has Australia placed a permanent ban on the research, development and use of Terminator seeds; if not, why not.
150
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr Truss
—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
-
The issue of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs), sometimes referred to as terminator technologies, was most recently considered under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) during the eighth Conference of the Parties (COP 8), which was held in Brazil from 20-31 March 2006.
-
Yes. (i) The Australian delegation was led by the Department of the Environment and Heritage and included participation by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and the South Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage. (ii) In relation to GURTs, the Australian delegation’s position was to support the existing CBD recommendation made in 2000.
-
There is no international ban or moratorium on the technology under the CBD. COP 8 reaffirmed Decision V/5 of the Fifth CBD Conference of the Parties (COP 5) held in Nairobi, Kenya from 15 - 26 May 2000. The COP 5 decision recommended that products incorporating such technologies should not be approved by Parties for field testing until appropriate scientific data can justify such testing, and for commercial use until appropriate, authorized and strictly controlled scientific assessments have been carried out.
The Gene Technology Act 2000 provides a comprehensive system for regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Australia, to protect human health and the environment. Any application to release a GURT in Australia would be the subject of a scientific assessment of risks, on a case-by-case basis under the Gene Technology Act 2000, as is the case for any other GMO. This approach is consistent with the recommendations and decisions of the CBD.
-
No. See (2) above.
Commonwealth Seniors Health Card
150
150
4073
150
Hoare, Kelly, MP
83Y
Charlton
ALP
0
Ms Hoare
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 5 September 2006:
-
Can he confirm that since September 2001, the upper qualifying income threshold for non-Age Pension recipients for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (CSHC) has remained at $50,000 per annum for singles and $80,000 per annum for couples.
-
Is he aware that between the last increase in the upper income threshold for the CSHC in September 2001, and 2003-04, it is estimated that the income level of self-funded retirees rose by an average of 25 percent.
-
Can he confirm whether this rate of increase continued to 2005-06, resulting in an average 46 percent increase in the income of self funded retirees between 2000-01 and 2005-06.
-
Is he aware that recipients of the CSHC are losing their entitlement as their retirement incomes rise in line with the national average; if so, will he increase the upper qualifying income threshold for CSHC eligibility; if not, why not.
151
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 CSHC is one of a small number of Australian Government concession cards that can be issued to people who are not receiving a social security payment, and is intended to support and encourage self-provision in retirement. The current CSHC income thresholds are $50,000 for singles and $80,000 combined for couples, with no assets test. Almost 85 per cent of people over Age Pension age qualify for an Australian Government concession card under the current arrangements.
The CSHC income limits were indexed until 1999, when they were raised significantly, and indexation ceased. This increase to the limits was substantial – from $21,320 to $40,000 for singles, and from $35,620 to $67,000 combined for couples. In July 2001, the income limits were again increased to the current levels. If the CSHC income limits had remained linked to the CPI, they would now be $36,991 for a single person and $61,906 for a couple, far less than the current limits.
International Labour Office
151
151
4104
151
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
Mr Martin Ferguson
asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 6 September 2006:
In respect of the International Labour Office:(a) when did the department close its Geneva office; (b) why was the Geneva office closed; (c) when was the decision made to re-open the Geneva office; (d) why was the Geneva office re-opened; (e) how many staff will be employed in the new office; (f) where is the new office located; (g) how was the Director of the new office selected; (h) what is the period of appointment for the Director of the new office; (i) what is the projected operating cost of the new office for each of the next four financial years; and (j) what is the rent payable for the Director’s residence.
151
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:
-
and (b) The former Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) did not have an office in Geneva. Special Labour Advisers appointed by the Australian Government from 1973 to 1996 were officers of DIR seconded to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva. On 2 May 1996 the then Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon Peter Reith MP, informed the House of Representatives that the Special Labour Adviser would be withdrawn from Geneva as a budget saving measure.
-
and (f) The Department has not reopened or established an office in Geneva. The Australian Government decided in 2003 to engage more closely with the ILO. Against that background, funding was provided by Government through the 2005-06 additional estimates to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (the Department) for the attachment of a Departmental officer to Australia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva to represent Australia’s interests at the ILO. The funding formed part of the additional funding associated with the Government’s workplace relations reforms. The Departmental officer is attached to Australia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva.
-
No further staff have been engaged by Australia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva as a result of the Departmental officer being attached to the Mission.
-
Consistent with the practice adopted in respect of the appointment of Senior Labour Advisers between 1973 and 1996, the Department gave careful consideration to the skills and expertise of senior departmental officers before selecting an officer well qualified to represent Australia’s interests at the ILO.
-
The appointment is for an initial period of two years with an option to extend to three years. The Departmental officer took up the appointment in August 2006.
-
The projected annual operating cost of the Departmental officer attached to Australia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva for each of the next three financial years is AUD62,150 per annum (excluding capital establishment costs) or AUD66,250 per annum (including capital establishment costs amortised over a 3 year period). Figures are unavailable for the fourth year as the appointment is for a period of up to three years.
Other costs include the officer’s remuneration package and a range of conditions and allowances. These conditions and allowances are consistent with those paid by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to officers posted overseas and vary depending on the officer’s personal circumstances.
-
The annual rent payable for the Departmental officer’s residence is CHF 127,980, which at the current exchange rate is approximately AUD132,000 per annum. This provides accommodation of a standard commensurate with that provided for other Senior Executive Service officers at the Geneva post.
Commonwealth Trade Learning Scholarship
152
152
4112
152
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
Ms Macklin
asked the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, in writing, on 6 September 2006:
-
How many apprentices have received a Commonwealth Trade Learning Scholarship?
-
How many apprentices does the department expect will receive a Commonwealth Trade Learning Scholarship in (a) 2006, (b) 2007, (c) 2008, (d) 2009 and (e) 2010?
-
For the current Budget year, and for each year across the forward estimates period, what are the (a) administered and (b) departmental budget expenses for this initiative?
152
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
Mr Hardgrave
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
As at 15 September 2006, 30,052 Australian Apprentices had received a Commonwealth Trade Learning Scholarship.
-
The Department does not produce estimates for the Commonwealth Trade Learning Scholarship on a calendar year basis. Estimates of the number that are expected to receive a Commonwealth Trade Learning Scholarship on a financial year basis are provided in the table below:
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
58,706
63,162
65,804
68,112
-
The administered and departmental budget estimates for the Commonwealth Trade Learning Scholarship are:
2006-07 $(m)
2007-08 $(m)
2008-09 $(m)
2009-10 $(m)
Administered
29.4
31.6
32.9
34.1
Departmental
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
-
Media Monitoring and Clipping Services
152
152
4162
152
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 7 September 2006:
-
What sum was spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio in 2005-06;
-
Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio order newspaper clippings, television appearance transcripts or videos, radio transcripts or tapes on behalf of the Minister’s office in 2005-06; if so, what sum was spent by the department or agency on providing this service.
153
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 2005-06 the department and agencies in my portfolio spent $362,129 on media monitoring and clipping services. The department and agencies did not order newspaper clippings, television appearance transcripts or videos, radio transcripts or tapes on behalf of the Minister’s office in 2005-06.
China
153
153
4179
153
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
Mr Danby
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 12 September 2006:
-
Is he aware of the case of Chen Guangcheng, a blind human rights activist who was gaoled by China for documenting thousands of villagers’ claims of forced abortions.
-
Can he confirm that Chen Guangcheng was tried for committing damage to property at protests he did not attend because he was under house arrest at the time.
-
Is he aware that the China Family Planning Agency has admitted that some forced abortions were carried out by government officials, but have done nothing to punish those involved.
-
What steps has he taken to protest to the Chinese Government about the use of forced abortions.
-
What steps has he taken to convey to the Chinese Government Australia’s condemnation of alleged mock trials to silence shocking crimes; and of obtaining evidence through the torture of its citizens.
-
Will he raise the case of Chen Guangcheng at the next meeting of the Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue.
153
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
I am aware of Chen Guangcheng’s arrest and imprisonment in China.
-
China’s MFA has advised that Chen was tried for damaging property and blocking traffic in an incident on 11 March. I cannot confirm whether or not Chen in fact attended that protest.
-
I am aware that the China Family Planning Agency has admitted that some forced abortions were carried out by local officials. I understand the agency promised disciplinary action, but I am not aware whether any punishments have been carried out in these cases.
-
The Government regularly raises women’s and children’s rights during our annual human rights dialogues with China, including the issue of forced abortions.
-
The Government regularly expresses to China our concerns about continuing shortcomings in China’s legal system, including the lack of judicial independence. We do this through our annual human rights dialogues, and through our Embassy in Beijing.
We also regularly raise our concern about China’s use of torture, including to obtain evidence. We did this most recently at our human rights dialogue on 25 July 2006.
-
Australia will raise Chen’s case at the next human rights dialogue and on other appropriate occasions if it remains a case of concern. Australia raised Chen’s case at this year’s dialogue, and on two other occasions earlier this year.
Richmond Electorate: Programs and Grants
153
153
4312
153
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
0
Mrs Elliot
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 12 September 2006:
-
What programs have been administered by the Minister’s department in the federal electorate of Richmond since October 2004.
-
In respect of each project or program referred to in Part (1), (a) what is its name, (b) by whom is it operated and (c) what are its aims and objectives.
-
What grants have been provided to individuals, businesses and organisations by the Ministers’ department in the federal electorate of Richmond since October 2004.
154
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 individuals and communities. Information about programs administered by the department is regularly published on the department’s website and is publicly available at www.facsia.gov.au and in the department’s Annual Reports and Portfolio Budget Statements. In addition details of contracts, including funding agreements, to the value of $100,000 or more are published on the department’s website at regular intervals, in accordance with Senate Order 192.
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.
Child Care
154
154
4331
154
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
0
Ms Plibersek
asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 12 September 2006:
-
In respect of employees who salary-sacrifice income to pay for childcare: (a) does the agency know whether all such employees use childcare that is on Commonwealth business premises; (b) how many salary-sacrifice arrangements made by employees relating to childcare is for care not conducted on Commonwealth business premises; (c) how much fringe benefit tax did the agency pay in financial year (i) 2004-05 and (ii) 2005-06 sacrificed by employees for childcare that was not on Commonwealth business premises.
-
In respect of the vacation care program conducted during school holidays by, or on behalf of, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, is this only for school-aged children.
-
How many employees salary sacrifice income to pay part or all of the fees for the vacation care program.
-
Is fringe benefit tax paid in relation to the employees referred to in Part (3).
-
Will he provide a copy of any rulings made by the Australian Taxation Office in respect of salary sacrificing of childcare by employees of the agency.
-
How much reimbursement is given by the agency for additional costs incurred by employees in meeting childcare fees needed by the employee because of travel or extra duties.
-
Is the reimbursement referred to in Part (3) for approved care only, or can it be paid for any carer paid by the employee.
-
Is the reimbursement referred to in Part (3) reported as an allowance on employees’ group certificates; if not, what is the tax-status of the reimbursed amount
154
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:
-
-
Yes.
-
Nil.
-
Nil.
-
Nil.
-
Yes – The programme is for 5 to 12 year old children.
-
Nil.
-
No.
-
Yes.
-
Reimbursement of the actual additional costs incurred, when travelling only.
-
Both approved care and care paid for any carer paid by the employee.
-
No – the payment is an untaxed reimbursement of actual additional costs incurred by the employee.