2007-03-20
41
1
8
REPS
0
0
2007-03-20
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 2.50 pm and read prayers.
YOGYAKARTA AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT
1
Motions
1
14:51:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—I move:
That the House:
-
record its deep regret at the tragic loss of life and serious injuries that resulted from the aircraft accident in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, on 7 March 2007;
-
note that amongst the 21 people killed were 5 Australians serving their nation, working for:
the Australian Federal Police—Mark Scott and Brice Steele;
the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Liz O’Neill;
AusAid—Alison Sudradjat; and
the Fairfax Press—Morgan Mellish; and
record its deep appreciation of their meritorious public service;
-
tender its profound sympathy to the Government and people of Indonesia, and to the families of all the people killed and injured in the accident; and
-
extend its best wishes to all those injured for a speedy recovery, recalling particularly Cynthia Banham, Michael Hatton, Kyle Quinlan and Roger Tallboys.
It is appropriate at the commencement of this parliamentary sitting that we pause for a moment to express our sadness and offer our words of comfort to the loved ones of those who died in this tragic accident. Those that have been taken from us by this accident—those five Australians in different ways—were on service for their country. Because of that and because many of them in different ways, including those injured, were known to a number of us and were known to so many in the government, it is a particularly poignant moment and we should reflect on their contribution and reflect upon the tragedy that overtook them and their families.
When news was given to me in the outer suburbs of Melbourne on the morning of 7 March I immediately thought of how, in so many different ways, their lives had intertwined in the service of Australia and how the loss of people of this character took from our country and from our Public Service people who dedicated their lives to the betterment of Australia and the betterment of Australia’s relations with the rest of the world. I had the opportunity shortly after receiving the news of speaking to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was, as you know, in Indonesia and only a few hours earlier had spent time with many if not all of those who perished in this accident.
I and the Attorney-General and the Leader of the Opposition and the Assistant Treasurer a few moments ago attended a solemn and moving funeral service at St Andrew’s Cathedral here in Canberra to farewell Mark Scott and to honour his contribution to the Australian Federal Police. As the police chaplain remarked, one of the common links amongst all of those who died in this terrible accident was that in every case they were taken well before their time and the loss, because of that, is all the more grievous.
We also send our very best wishes to all of those who were injured, including two Defence Force personnel, an Australian businessman and Cynthia Banham, a well-loved and respected journalist for the Fairfax press. We admire her extraordinary courage in the face of this terrible accident and we send our thoughts particularly to her beloved, Michael Harvey of the Melbourne Herald Sun, who, together with Cynthia’s family, has maintained a bedside vigil at the Perth Hospital.
We again reflect on the extraordinary capacity of this country to mobilise, in partnership and goodwill, its emergency services. They do us proud. Again they were there. I particularly honour the contribution of the Federal Police towards organising the rescue effort, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Defence Force and all of the others associated with the effort not only to identify those who died but also to care for the injured.
It was an accident that claimed people on a common purpose. The common purpose was the better projection of this country within our region. For that we especially mourn their deaths and we particularly grieve for the terrible loss that their families have suffered. Those working for the police—and one of them I have had some contact with in the course of my official duties—were both highly regarded men properly honoured by their force. Liz O’Neill was a remarkably vivacious and popular officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and known to many of us. She was heavily involved in the arrangements to cope with the horrible aftermaths of the first and second Bali attacks, she organised and assisted in relation to the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta in 2004 and, of course, she was intimately involved in organising visits to Jakarta for me, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and many other senior members of the government and was known well to the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the opposition.
They were, as I say, all involved in the service of Australia, and so indeed were those of the press. In a way, an incident like this links us permanently with each other. The media of Australia, whilst they are not always in sympathy with the objectives and the goals of the government of the day or, indeed, the opposition of the day, are nonetheless a permanent and indelible part of the great democratic network of this country. We reflect upon the contribution that Allison Sudradjat made to the projection of Australia’s overseas aid effort, and on Morgan Mellish, a very talented young journalist. The obituaries that have been written so affectionately of him by his Fairfax press colleagues speak of a person full of life and hope and optimism, of incredible personal charm, of great adventure and with a love of the surf and a love of sport generally, but with all of that a very talented journalist, having won a Walkley award in relation to an examination of the taxation affairs of a former member of the board of the Reserve Bank. So to all of those relatives and friends, we convey our profound sympathy.
We also mark the reality that the nations of Australia and Indonesia have been joined yet again in tragedy. I had the opportunity the night after this terrible accident of addressing a gathering of the Global Foundation in Melbourne attended by the ambassador for Indonesia, and I said then that again our two countries had been joined in tragedy. The cooperation between the rescue forces of the two countries once again swung into action. And if any sense of comfort and optimism can be garnered from such a terrible event it is once again to remark on the goodwill, the sense of cooperation and the spontaneous willingness to work together that was evidenced by the authorities of the two countries.
We mourn the deaths of these five Australians. We thank them for their service to our country. We extend our love and our prayers to their loved ones. We wish a speedy recovery to those injured. We salute their courage and we admire their sense of hope and optimism. We look forward in our different ways to seeing them again and helping them on the road to fully resuming the lives that were so brutally interrupted by this terrible accident.
2
15:01:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr RUDD
—On behalf of the opposition I support the Prime Minister’s motion and I offer our thoughts and prayers for the Australian families and the Indonesian families who have lost loved ones in the Garuda Airlines accident two weeks ago. Words cannot fully describe the impact of these events on the families suffering bereavement. We can never appropriate their grief; grief is a deeply personal thing.
The five Australians who lost their lives—Australian embassy official Liz O’Neill, AusAID’s Allison Sudradjat, Australian Federal Police agent Brice Steele, Australian Federal Police agent Mark Scott and Australian Financial Review journalist Morgan Mellish—all dedicated themselves to public service. Beyond the grief felt by their families, they have left gaps in the lives of many who have had the privilege of working with them, of knowing them as colleagues and as friends. Whether it was in diplomacy, in humanitarian assistance, in security or in journalism, they chose to work in the service of others. They chose to work in public service, and public service is a good thing. They were all devoted to their work, and through their work they were all connected. So it is fitting that in this spirit and in this place, in this place of the nation’s work, we honour their lives and their work in the service of others.
On Wednesday, 7 March, shortly before 8 am in Yogyakarta, these Australians met an untimely death—well before their time. They still had much more to give. Together with the Acting Prime Minister, the foreign minister and others and, most importantly, their families, we welcomed home their bodies at Fairbairn RAAF Base last week. In the stillness of the wind that day and with the sound of muffled drums, and with the five Australian flags draped over their caskets, they were met with sorrow and mourning by their loved ones and they were met with deep respect by their colleagues.
Liz O’Neill was a humanitarian whose life was filled with love and compassion and service for others. Liz worked at the Jesuit Social Justice Centre in Sydney. She joined the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 1994, then worked for the Sydney 2000 Olympics and was awarded an Order of Australia for her work with the team dealing with the Bali bombings. In 2003 Liz was posted to Jakarta and was soon faced with another tragedy, the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. These were horrific tasks. It has been said that Liz demonstrated an inner equilibrium beyond her years. Bishop Greg Kelly said the other day that Liz was a woman of humour, competence, devotion and large-heartedness. All these sentiments certainly reflect the Liz O’Neill that I encountered over many visits to Jakarta. Her challenge was to meet, I remember, the formidable competing media requirements of a visiting foreign minister and a visiting shadow foreign minister at the same time. The fact that she was able to discharge those responsibilities with grace, with humour and with aplomb was itself worthy of some award. She did it with great effect and with great style. The world desperately needs more people like Liz O’Neill. As Liz’s husband, Wayne Adams, said:
The world is a lesser place. The grief and desolation we feel will not soon fade but her memory will live with us forever.
Our thoughts go to Wayne, their beautiful baby daughter, Lucinda, and their families.
Allison Sudradjat was known to many in this place through her role as the Indonesian head of AusAID. Allison played an integral role in coordinating the emergency relief effort in response to devastation wrought by the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004. As Deborah Cameron wrote, for Allison:
... a diplomat, aid worker and humanitarian—it was time to shine.
And in helping direct the $1 billion aid effort, Allison was deeply and completely committed to improving the lives of others as best she could. Allison loved Indonesia. She studied there. She learnt the language. She married in Jakarta. She was a great Australian humanitarian in the great tradition of Australian humanitarianism stretching back across the decades. She was a true friend of Indonesia, something recognised by the Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who wrote to the Prime Minister saying:
... we will forever appreciate her compassion and her good work for Australia-Indonesia relations.
In this difficult time our thoughts go to her husband, Ris, and their four children, Jamila, Imran, Zaini and Yasmin.
Brice Steele was the head of the Australian Federal Police operation in Jakarta. He had risen fast through the AFP ranks. Tributes for Brice have come from colleagues across the spectrum, from drivers and tea ladies, from ambassadors and departmental secretaries. He was a formidable man. They all paid tribute to his professionalism, integrity, intellect, kindness, generosity, humour and humility. The work of the AFP in Jakarta has been of critical importance in the Australia-Indonesia relationship. In combating people smuggling, terrorism and the narcotics trade, the AFP have been front and centre to that operation, and Brice was front and centre to that operation. Brice had met his wife, Kellie, when she was 14 years old and then again when she was in year 10, while he was studying in his first year of university. They dated briefly and then parted, only to be joined again a few years later, and married in November 1996. There have been many tributes to Brice and to his love for Kellie. As Catherine Armitage has reported, the many tributes have recounted how Brice established instant rapport with everyone he met, how he was largely teetotal yet always managed to be the life of the party and how at the embassy in Beijing he was adored by all the children. We extend our sincere condolences to Kellie and to Brice’s family.
Mark Scott had been a Federal Police officer since 1987 and had served in Burma, where he was posted in 2002, and in Indonesia, where he had been since last year. Mark also worked as a policeman in the ACT before being posted abroad. Mark’s work for the AFP in Indonesia was of the highest order—always able to cooperate effectively with his Indonesian counterparts, always serving the Australian interest, always building brick by brick the Australia-Indonesia security relationship. At a memorial service last week at the Federal Police offices in Canberra, Mark’s colleagues recalled his patience, his dedication, his kindness, his broad smile and his unique sense of humour. As Detective Sergeant Daryl Neit recalled:
We deal with the dead and the dying all the time, but this is one of those occasions for our family of police officers that has rattled the whole team.
His loss is also deeply felt. Our thoughts and our prayers are with Mark’s wife, Sally, and their three children.
Morgan Mellish was an award-winning journalist who had worked for the Sydney Morning Herald and most recently for the Australian Financial Review, for which he was the Jakarta based correspondent. Morgan was a fun, larrikin Aussie who revelled in being and excelled as a journalist. Geoff Thompson described him as a ‘handsome, sandy-haired grinning surfer charmer’. The Sydney Morning Herald’s Ian Verrender said that his colleagues and friends ‘will sorely miss his dry wit and permanent smile’. Morgan’s sister Caroline said:
“I don’t think there was ever a dull moment and he loved everything he did.”
She said:
“He had two goals in life and one was to be a foreign correspondent and one was to win a Walkley award. He did both of those in 2006 …
Morgan won a 2006 Walkley award for his investigative report into Robert Gerard. Our thoughts and our prayers and condolences go to his family, his friends and his many colleagues in this place.
In the middle of all the horrible carnage and wreckage and suffering and loss, there has also been a ray of hope, and that ray of hope is Cynthia Banham’s brave fight, unrelentingly fighting against the odds. With the help of our wonderful medical specialists at Royal Perth Hospital, including our very own Dr Fiona Wood, Cynthia is making progress. In her own time, I hope and we hope that Cynthia returns to journalism and continues to make a contribution to public life, to keep all of us in this place accountable.
Other Australians, including Michael Hatton, Kyle Quinlan and Roger Tallboys, and the Indonesians affected by this tragedy have suffered greatly. Our thoughts and our prayers also go out to them.
I want to pay tribute to all those who have aided the survivors, especially those who have formed specialist medical teams and travelled to help, and those who have assisted the families and made the arrangements for repatriation. This is difficult work; it is often heart-rending work.
The thoughts of all of us in this building are also with Michael Harvey, the Herald Sun reporter and Cynthia’s partner. It is a very tough profession. Michael is one of the truly nice guys that you come across in this place. He has been a tower of strength in this, Cynthia’s greatest time of need. I understand that Cynthia and Michael might be listening to these speeches today, so we just say directly to both of you that you are both loved and admired in this place, more than you will ever know, and the strength you are showing is an inspiration to us all. I know that you will both be with us here soon.
On behalf of the opposition and, I know, all of us in this place, our thoughts, our hearts and our prayers go out to the families, the loved ones, the friends and the colleagues at this very difficult time. The lives that have been lost are the nation’s loss as well.
5
15:10:00
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Deputy Prime Minister
1
0
Mr VAILE
—I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in recording our deep regret at the tragic loss of life that occurred when Garuda flight 200 overshot the runway at Yogyakarta on 7 March. Twenty-one people lost their lives in the accident, including five Australians who were travelling in connection with the visit to Indonesia by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General.
As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have indicated, a number of us welcomed—if you can put it that way—the repatriation of the five Australians at Fairbairn last week. It was one of the most difficult public duties that I have encountered in my public life. Trying to comfort the families who were struggling to rationalise their loss was almost impossible. As the nation tries to give them comfort, we keep them in our prayers and hope that they have the strength to be able to continue their lives without their loved ones who were so tragically taken away from them on 7 March.
The five Australians killed came from very different backgrounds but were all drawn to Indonesia by their commitment to serving the Australian people and the Australian nation. Morgan Mellish, from the Australian Financial Review, had the potential to be one of Australia’s great foreign correspondents. He had already won a Walkley award in 2006 and should have gone on to a long and distinguished journalistic career. Tragically, that has been cut short.
Federal Agent Brice Steele was the manager of the AFP’s Indonesian operations and was one of our foremost experts on Jemaah Islamiah. With him was Federal Agent Mark Scott, who started his career on the beat in Tuggeranong and Woden here in Canberra—you could not imagine a more typical part of suburban Australia in which to start a career as a policeman. His career took him to Cyprus and Burma and then on to Indonesia. It was serving his nation as a member of the AFP that found him on that tragic flight on 7 March.
Allison Sudradjat was the head of Australia’s aid program in Indonesia. She developed her interest in Indonesia when she was at school. She dedicated her life to working on Australia’s behalf for the Indonesian people.
Finally, we honour Elizabeth O’Neill OAM, Counsellor for Public Affairs at our Jakarta embassy. I worked with Liz for a number of years in my immediate past role as Australia’s Minister for Trade, particularly when, with my Indonesian counterpart, we started developing a trade and investment framework between our two countries, focused on improving the business environment between us. Liz was legendary for her professionalism, integrity and willingness to help journalists, even when she was under enormous pressure. She dealt with some harrowing situations, including the 2004 bombing of the embassy, and the tsunami and its aftermath. She was also a member of the emergency response team sent to Bali after the October 2002 terrorist attack and was awarded the Order of Australia for her work at that time.
All we can do now is to honour their memory and to make sure that we learn from the accident that took their lives. That is the job of the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee along with some technical assistance from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. We sent three investigators to Indonesia, including the Deputy Director of the ATSB, Alan Stray, to help with the investigation. The ATSB will continue working closely with the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee. In fact the ATSB recently gained funding from AusAID to enable an Indonesian investigator to train with the ATSB for 12 months from the middle of this year. Ironically, the AusAID officer who championed the project was Allison Sudradjat. Mr Speaker, I think we can speak on behalf of the entire nation in saying that our thoughts and prayers are with the families of all those who lost their lives, particularly the five Australians who lost their lives. We also need to keep in our thoughts and prayers those who were injured and who continue to fight a battle against those injuries, especially Cynthia Banham, Michael Hatton, Kyle Quinlan and Roger Tallboys.
6
15:16:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
0
Ms GILLARD
—I rise today to speak in support of the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. Today this parliament is honouring those five Australians whose lives were tragically lost when, on 7 March, Garuda flight 200 crashed. Today we demonstrate our grief. Now and forever there is a bond between Liz O’Neill, Allison Sudradjat, Brice Steele, Mark Scott and Morgan Mellish. They lost their lives together, far too soon, when they had too much left to live for, leaving grieving families and grieving friends behind.
But even as they stepped onto that Garuda flight they had something in common: they were going to work. And even though it was work in a far-flung destination they were doing what millions of Australians do every day. They said goodbye to their families and they went to work that day not knowing that it would be their last.
Many Australians have been touched deeply by this tragedy, particularly here in Canberra. I was particularly moved by an opinion piece written by Malcolm Farr in the Daily Telegraph on 9 March where he described a speech given by Laura Tingle about Morgan Mellish and this tragedy generally. He described the nature of its effect on Canberra in the following terms:
An unusual factor of the Garuda plane crash on Wednesday was that it struck to the core of three quite small communities, groups which are separate but interrelated in Canberra.
They were the communities of journalists, diplomats and federal police.
Each one of the groups is quite tiny and close-knit. Those in them know just about all the others personally or at a narrow remove. People retire but never really leave their community.
Members of each group spend much of their time tending to the tragedies of others, telling the stories of tragedy’s victims and easing the pain of those tragedy has left behind. In this case they were the ones left behind.
Let me echo those words.
Even Australians who did not know Liz or Allison or Brice or Mark or Morgan have been touched by this tragedy as well. Many Australians know what it is like to visit Indonesia, to jump on an internal flight, to run the gauntlet of the last-minute changes to flights, to nervously joke in a very Australian way about air safety even as you sit on the flight and then, behind the very Australian jokes, to really be just that little bit nervous, to pay just that little bit more attention to the air safety demonstration, to strap that seatbelt on just that little bit tighter. But even as we do those things we never really think that it is going to happen to us. Then it does happen to five Australians and we are left with the shock of unexpected death, the grief and of course the unanswerable question: why? The randomness of this tragedy really does take your breath away. If only that last-minute ticket swap had not occurred; if only that other flight had not been missed—if only. They are all questions we will never know the answers to.
My condolences go out to the relatives and friends of those who have tragically lost their lives. These are the people who have lost so much. My thoughts go to all of those who were injured in this tragedy. But may I pause, Mr Speaker, to specifically offer my best wishes to Cynthia Banham and all those close to her as she fights to survive and come back from her own ordeal. We know she used her extraordinary physical fitness to help her survive when others did not and to escape the inferno which erupted when the plane skidded to a stop in those rice paddies. I know the thoughts of many are with her, and with her partner and my friend, Michael Harvey, and I trust that we will see her back in the press gallery. Though we will never see Morgan Mellish again, I know he will be remembered.
7
15:21:00
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
0
Mr DOWNER
—First of all I would like to support strongly this motion moved by the Prime Minister and supported by the Leader of the Opposition and others. Obviously the events of 7 March deeply touched all Australians—most especially the people who are in the foremost of our minds today, the families and the loved ones of those who lost their lives, but also those in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, AusAID, the Australian Federal Police and the Fairfax organisation. For them the impact of losing close friends and colleagues will be permanent and profound. As I said to officers of DFAT and AusAID just last week, in the 11 years that I have been the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and certainly in my working life, there has never been a worse day for our portfolio than that day. To lose Liz, Allison, Brice Steele, Mark Scott and Morgan Mellish in one day is a cruel thing. So our hearts and our prayers are with their families and loved ones at this terrible time. All five touched so many of us in this House in different ways.
Others have spoken of Liz O’Neill, and my experiences of her were of course very similar. I had a good deal to do with her over a number of years. I remember her back at the time of the first Bali bombing in 2002. She got an Order of Australia for her performance then, for the excellent job that she did and the other work that she did to consolidate Australia-Indonesia relations, including corralling the extraordinarily difficult Indonesian media. Some members of the House, particularly government members, will be familiar with the modern-day Indonesian media. Liz could communicate with them in Bahasa Indonesian and she could seemingly keep them under a good deal of control. She was a tremendous asset at the embassy in Jakarta. She was also a great public servant. She served on the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group and at the embassy in Tokyo as well. She won enormous respect and great affection.
Allison Sudradjat, the head of AusAID in Indonesia, was simply an outstanding public servant and I know she will be deeply missed in AusAID. Many people in AusAID thought Allison would one day become the director-general. That is what people thought of her. She not only ran our aid operation in Indonesia—which is our biggest these days, bigger even than our program in Papua New Guinea—but also did work in Port Moresby with great distinction. But as others have said, she had a special passion for Indonesia. She knew Indonesia backwards. She did a wonderful job running that aid program. I knew her well; I respected her enormously. I saw her at a function the day before she died. I pay enormous tribute to her as a great Australian.
Brice Steele was the head of the AFP Liaison Office in Indonesia—the Minister-Counsellor (Police Liaison) at the embassy in Jakarta. One of the things that struck me about Brice Steele was that he was so young and so senior. For somebody to be so young and to be at such a senior level is an enormous tribute to him. Anybody who knew him thought the world of Brice Steele. He only recently arrived in Jakarta; he was just getting into the job. He had been involved with us in the counterterrorism conference on the Monday and the Tuesday before the tragic accident. Everyone you speak to in the Australian Federal Police speaks highly of him.
Federal agent Mark Scott was the team leader of the Regional Engagement Team in Jakarta and he played a very important role in engaging the Indonesian police on a range of particular counterterrorism initiatives. He had also served in Burma and in Cyprus, so he had had a distinguished career serving the Federal Police.
I did not know Morgan Mellish very well, but I knew him a little. I saw him in Jakarta during the days before his death, at the various doorstops that politicians have when they travel. I can only add to what others have said and say that he was a very distinguished journalist. He was also enormously popular and will be very much missed. I extend my profound sympathies to the families of all those who were killed. I also extend my profound sympathies to the many Indonesians who lost their lives or sustained serious injuries on that aircraft.
In responding to the tragedy of 7 March I would also like to pay tribute to the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. Ambassador Bill Farmer and the whole team there did a simply extraordinary job. It is important to remember that this is the embassy that was bombed on 9 September 2004, and some of the people working there today were there at that time. You can imagine the drama that this additional catastrophe was for them. The embassy staff responded just magnificently on 7 March. Fearing the worst for so many of their friends and colleagues, they nevertheless went about their work. It was quite extraordinary. I do not think anybody will ever quite know how extraordinarily professional they were. The Attorney-General and I know because we sat with them in the operations room and worked with them throughout 7 March and, in my case, also into the next day. I can only say that they showed great character and great courage, and they deserve to be honoured by the people of Australia for the professionalism they showed at that time.
Let me also publicly thank the staff of my department in the crisis centre in Canberra, in the consular and media areas and throughout the portfolio. They did a very good job. Also, in the Department of Defence so many people, both civilians and military, did an outstanding job in responding to this crisis.
The opportunity should not pass to acknowledge the generosity of Qantas, which provided an aircraft to fly the bereaved family members to and from Yogyakarta. This is pretty typical of the way Qantas responds when crises occur internationally. I do not want to advertise one airline over another—that is inappropriate—but they are a wonderful airline in that respect.
Let me add to the concerns expressed by others my words of concern for Cynthia Banham. My thoughts and prayers are very much with her. I went to see her in the hospital, as I did the others, on the day of the crash. I suppose I saw her about one o’clock in the afternoon. I am so pleased that she is recovering now. She did not look in very good shape, I have to tell the House, on that occasion. The doctor told me that she had a six per cent chance of survival. You can imagine how we all felt about that. But she has survived and that is wonderful to hear. I look forward to going over to Perth soon to see her myself. Michael Harvey has been a wonderful support to her as well. Good luck to Cynthia; I hope she gets much better very soon. Like others, I look forward to seeing her sitting up there in the press gallery and to reading her comments in the Sydney Morning Herald again before too long. I did say to her in that hospital in Yogyakarta that day—she was conscious; she was able to talk to me—that we in the federal parliament, both the government and the opposition, were all looking forward to seeing her back in Canberra. Imagine the pain she was in. But she managed to smile. It is great that she was able to do that, and it is great that she is getting better.
I also want to convey my best wishes for a full and successful recovery for Roger Tallboys. I saw him in the hospital as well. He was not as badly injured as Cynthia but he was pretty badly injured. He had burns to about 30 per cent of his body. He too is making a good recovery, in Singapore. I saw Flight Sergeant Michael Hatton and Leading Aircraftsman Kyle Quinlan. They were being traditional Australians with such courage and full of jokes while sitting in hospital somewhat injured. I remember Michael Hatton saying to me: ‘Mate, get me a ship to take me home. I don’t want to go back by plane.’ He is in the Royal Australian Air Force! They are both back, they are both fine and they were able to describe the circumstances of the accident.
In conclusion: from the point of view of my portfolio, we would like permanent memories of Liz and Allison. I am arranging for the department and AusAID to come up with ideas for a permanent memorial. I want not just some physical memorial but scholarships or some initiative of that kind—we have not worked out what it will be—because I do not think either of them should ever be forgotten in the context of my portfolio. They were really special people and I would not want them ever to be forgotten.
10
15:31:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief comments in support of the motion. Much has been said by the Prime Minister and other speakers of the aspect of service that we learn to respect. I suppose it is easy to denigrate public servants, but when you look at the work that is done by these people—and I include in that category journalists, members of the fourth estate—you see very talented and well-rounded people in so many aspects, who could earn thousands and thousands of dollars in the private sector doing all kinds of things but who give their service to their country, their agency, and ultimately their families, who are unquestionably proud of their achievements. I should also say that, from the point of view of being in politics, we tend to see our opponents as politicians, but when an event like this happens we note their humanity and decency, which we acknowledge and respect. I am sure that is appreciated by all Australians.
I would like to make some brief comments about those who lost their lives and say a little more about Cynthia Banham, with whom I became quite friendly in my portfolio capacity in the shadow ministry.
Allison Sudradjat was 41 and is survived by her husband and four children. She achieved, as has been said, an amazing amount during her short life. She was incredibly well rounded, a keen sportswoman, and she really devoted her enthusiasm and lust for life to improving the lives of countless others. Of particular comfort to her family and friends should be the next generation of Indonesian children, who will benefit from her focus on junior and secondary education in particular, as well as her life’s work generally.
The two Australian Federal Police officers who perished in the crash exemplified, as we have heard, the best characteristics of a modern international policeman. I understand that Brice Steele, who was 35, was the youngest person to ever graduate from the police academy in Canberra and served for 17 years, having been deployed to Beijing and Jakarta to provide vital expertise in counterterrorism. He will be sorely missed by the service as well as his family. I send our condolences to his young wife.
Fellow officer Mark Scott, aged 41 and survived by his wife and three children, was a good-natured larrikin by all reports, and his 20 years of service in the AFP saw many highlights, including a Police Overseas Service Medal, a United Nations medal for his work on the United Nations mission to Cyprus in 1999 and an ACT Community Policing Medal for his work in Canberra in 2003.
I knew Morgan Mellish a little—but I see Laura Tingle in the gallery and I know she had a particular fondness for Morgan. He also had a tremendous zest for life. He had previously worked with the Herald and, more recently, worked on the Australian Financial Review. He was highly regarded within the media and the wider community, and last year his experience earned him a well-deserved Walkley award.
Liz O’Neill was just 37. We have heard of Liz’s experience and contribution to our country. In particular, in 2002 she was part of the team that responded to the Bali bombings, and in that role she no doubt comforted and assisted a number of families who had also suffered loss. Her commitment earned her, as has been noted, an Order of Australia medal. Liz is survived by her husband, Wayne, her daughter, Lucinda, her parents, her brothers and her sister. Our best wishes also go to Kyle Quinlan, Roger Tallboys and Mike Hatton.
I will return in my comments to Cynthia Banham. Interestingly, and perhaps profoundly, I became quite close to Cynthia during her reporting of the Sea King accident. I know that during that investigation she became quite an advocate for the families who had suffered loss in that accident. Cynthia covered a broad range of views, but I think that in her writings we can see—more than with any other journalist in Australia, I think it is fair to say—a real passion for those who have suffered injustice. I note the Minister for Defence nodding in appreciation. Cynthia really was an advocate for those who perhaps had been afforded less justice than we as a community and a parliament would expect. She will forever have our respect in that regard.
I spoke to Michael Harvey about two hours ago to let him and Cynthia know that this motion was occurring, which he appreciated. He in fact phoned me back after I left that message to indicate that Cynthia also appreciated the motion. She wished to convey her sympathies to those Australian and Indonesian families who had suffered loss and those who have been injured.
If you get to know both Cynthia and Michael, you will not find two more gentle people. I think they are incredibly gentle but, I suspect, in their own way also incredibly determined. Their capacity to train for and run marathons is legendary. It is something that we are quite jealous, or even respectful, about. There is no doubt that the fitness that both of them worked on together and which egged them both on contributed to Cynthia’s survival in terms of her determination to get away from the aircraft. There is no doubt that their general lifestyle and determination, and the support they gave each other, contributed to that.
It is really instructive to talk to Michael. Michael—and you can sense the emotion in his voice—is amazed by Cynthia’s strength. He said that she really has that strength and spirit. In fact, we have all noticed, in our own way, words of encouragement from Cynthia. Michael said that before the accident, when someone was a bit downtrodden, Cynthia’s catchcry was, ‘Hey, listen: life’s a precious thing’—in other words, ‘Get on with it.’ She is showing that zest for life, which is unquestionably heading her in the right direction. Indeed, Michael said that she has now reached the point of discussing activities that both will be doing after her recovery. I suspect work may be a lower order priority, but from our point of view we would certainly welcome Cynthia back among us in the not too distant future.
11
15:39:00
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr RUDDOCK
—The tragedy of Wednesday, 7 March is very much etched in my mind and memory. As I sat in the terminal in Jakarta, waiting for others who were joining the party to travel to Yogyakarta, I first heard that a plane on which Australians were on board had overshot the runway in Yogyakarta. No further news was received at that time. A number of those amongst us—including Louise Hand, the Deputy Head of Mission, and Deputy Commissioner John Lawler—were on the phone endeavouring to see whether they could raise those they knew were on board. None of the phones were answered. We waited further and then heard that, as it was described to me, a fireball had surrounded the aircraft.
Bill Farmer and the Minister for Foreign Affairs were with us. Mention has been made of the way in which they immediately initiated arrangements at the embassy for a situation room and the collection of relevant information about the parties. Progressively over time, information came to us about who were thought to be missing, and there were reports of those who were thought to have survived. It became very apparent that we were going to suffer personal loss, as we did, with Liz O’Neill, Allison Sudradjat, Morgan Mellish, and Federal Agents Brice Steele and Mark Scott. We had all bonded together in the short time that we were there, as you would expect. The professionalism of each of them was there to be seen.
I was briefed by Brice Steele and Mark Scott on the work that they were doing—work that is of fundamental importance to the safety and security of Australians. The way in which they, as part of the Federal Police, built a relationship with the police of Indonesia will pay dividends in the future. I will not go into it further, save to say that it was a task that we asked them to undertake in the national interest. I have grieved with their families at the funerals that I have attended to date. I know that the performance of each of them is very much appreciated by their fellow Australians. I mourn for their families, for their children, for their wives, Kellie and Sally, and for all those that I have come to know over time—the families that I have dealt with. It may surprise people to know that, inevitably when you face a tragedy of the magnitude of this sort, you have had dealings with people in other aspects of your life, and that means that you focus very much on the loss that has occurred.
Finally, I would also like to add my personal good wishes to Cynthia Banham. Cynthia, if you are listening, we are all delighted to know that you are on the road to recovery. For those who have not yet had a chance to send their best wishes, I am told there is a message book for Cynthia in the Parliament House gym. We look forward to seeing her back. Prime Minister, I thank you for this condolence motion and the privilege of being able to be associated with it.
12
15:44:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
0
Mr BEVIS
—It is a privilege to join the other speakers, on both sides of this chamber, in saying a few words acknowledging the contribution of the five Australians, especially, whose lives were lost in the Garuda Indonesia airline crash on 7 March. At the end of last week a number of us on both sides of this chamber, at Fairbairn, respectfully witnessed the return to Australia of the five caskets and saw the families and others associated with this terrible tragedy firsthand—for the first time, for many of us, which brought the issue very much to our minds. The lives lost were those of Australian Federal Police agent Mark Scott, Australian Federal Police Commander Brice Steele, Allison Sudradjat, Liz O’Neill and Morgan Mellish. Morgan Mellish was known to many people in this parliament as a journalist. He was a vibrant person and a dedicated professional. Liz O’Neill became known to many of us after the 2002 Bali bombings, with the wonderful work she did there. That has been recognised appropriately and commented on by others here today. Allison Sudradjat was head of AusAID in Indonesia and, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs has pointed out, was one of the most prized and capable people within the organisation. For all these people it is a terrible loss to their families and loved ones and to the nation.
I particularly want to make mention of the two Federal Police officers, Agent Mark Scott and Commander Brice Steele. I think the foreign minister mentioned Brice Steele’s youthful age and senior rank—a sign of his enormous abilities. He joined the AFP as a 19-year-old. He was the youngest person in the intake, and graduated as one of the top of the class. He could already speak two other languages at that time. By the time he was 36 he had been promoted not just to the senior ranks but within the senior ranks. He was one of the senior commanders in the Federal Police, an extraordinarily talented police officer with dedication and a wide range of skills. Having listened to the tributes at his funeral from his family, friends and others, it was also clear that he was an enormously decent person. It was not just that he was a capable individual; he was a caring individual who truthfully and genuinely was concerned for those around him and the world in which he lived.
When Kellie spoke at that funeral, one could not help but be deeply moved. One of the things that struck me in that presentation was that Kellie took the opportunity—at a time when she could be forgiven for thinking of her own sorrow and loss—to ask us all to pause and think of the others who had suffered on that flight, not just Brice and her and her family. That, I thought, was indicative of a view of life and a spirit that permeates the characters of these people. Even in that darkest moment, their words to us were to consider others who had also suffered.
That spirit was reflected again today at the funeral of Mark Scott, when Mark’s brother made the same comment. Mark also was a Federal Police agent with great ability, having served across the breadth, as has been mentioned, starting as a community police officer here in Canberra, serving overseas in Cyprus and Myanmar and most recently in Indonesia. These are people who dedicated their lives to improving the communities in which they lived. It is a great loss for all of us that they are no longer here.
I also want to add my words of sympathy for Cynthia Banham. Like many in this place, I have had the pleasure of working with Cynthia at different times on projects. It is true that she always exhibited not just a professionalism that no-one could fault but a concern for those people to whom justice and decency have not been applied and a willingness to do what she could to deal with those issues. She is an outstanding journalist. We hope for her that the worst has now passed. I am encouraged by the comments of the foreign minister, who has had the opportunity to meet with her. We certainly wish her a speedy recovery and the opportunity to be back here working at Parliament House.
Finally, I think it is appropriate for the parliament to acknowledge occasions like this. There are tragedies that from time to time in our lives we have to contend with, but this is different. We are talking here about people whose lives have been lost in the service of the nation—and not just in any particular task in the service of our nation. These are people who have been involved in serving our nation and, in doing so, seeking to protect the lives of the rest of us, or seeking to advance our national image and our national presence on the world stage. They are special people who undertake an extraordinarily important role for us, which we tend in our daily lives to take too much for granted. It is thoroughly appropriate that the parliament should pause and acknowledge the contribution of those who have given their service to this nation for the security of others and, in doing so, have lost their lives. I extend my deep sympathy and condolences to their families and loved ones.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—As a mark of respect, I ask honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Abbott) adjourned.
MAIN COMMITTEE
14
Miscellaneous
Yogyakarta Aircraft Accident
14
Reference
14
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:51:00
—by leave—I move:
That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minster’s motion of condolence in connection with the Garuda 737 crash in Yogyakarta be referred to the Main Committee.
Question agreed to.
CYCLONE LARRY
14
Miscellaneous
CYCLONE GEORGE
14
Miscellaneous
14
15:52:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to briefly say something on the anniversary of tropical Cyclone Larry and also to make some comments on tropical Cyclone George.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister may proceed.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Today is the first anniversary of Cyclone Larry, which devastated Innisfail and other parts of Far North Queensland. In the condolence motion debate earlier we spoke of the remarkable capacity of emergency services in this country to come together—to come together without fuss and to come together in a spontaneous manner. This certainly proved to be the case in the wake of Cyclone Larry. The response of the local community, the extraordinary cooperation between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments and the rapid integration of the relief services is something of which the entire nation, particularly those affected by the cyclone, can be proud. I acknowledge the cooperative way in which the Queensland Premier worked with me and also the local government bodies and the two local members—the member for Leichhardt and the member for Kennedy.
I also pay tribute to the extraordinary leadership once again displayed by General Peter Cosgrove, who was appointed head of the Operation Recovery task force. He demonstrated that remarkable capacity he illustrated in his earlier calling to bring Australians of all walks of life together in a purposeful, cooperative effort.
I should record that the total contribution of the Commonwealth government to the relief of the impact of Cyclone Larry has been $277 million. It is an extraordinary sum of money. It is an illustration of the extent of the devastation. It is also an illustration of the appropriate—I stress ‘appropriate’—generosity of the arrangements which have been put in place by the Commonwealth government in these matters. That $277 million involved $236 million provided directly to affected communities in Far North Queensland, $40 million advanced to the Queensland government under the natural disaster relief arrangements and a $1.1 contribution to the Prime Minister’s and Premier’s Cyclone Larry relief appeal.
Finally, and most importantly, I pay tribute to the spirit, the resilience, the sense of hope and the optimism of the local community, so typical of the great capacity of Australians to pick themselves up and bounce back in the face of great challenges and great adversity.
In marking the first anniversary of Cyclone Larry, I draw attention to the terrible devastation caused by tropical Cyclone George earlier this month around Port Hedland in Western Australia. Tragically, three people died in this cyclone: Craig Raabe, Debra Till and Sydney Baker. We extend our condolences to their friends, to their families and to their workmates.
The Australian government has activated financial payments to help those who have lost their homes due to Cyclone George. To date, about 340 people have applied for this assistance and Centrelink is working to deliver it quickly to those in greatest need. As I indicated in a discussion with the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Alan Carpenter, the Commonwealth government stands ready to help the Western Australian government through the longstanding natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements. Once again, the spirit of the local community has been remarkable and underlines the great capacity of Australians to respond to and recover from these natural adversities.
15
15:56:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr RUDD
—I support the remarks made by the Prime Minister on this the first anniversary of Cyclone Larry and also in relation to Cyclone George. It is precisely one year ago that Cyclone Larry smashed its way into Innisfail and the surrounding areas of Far North Queensland. Cyclone Larry did enormous environmental damage, social damage and economic damage. Winds of up to 290 kilometres per hour left thousands of people homeless. The cyclone trashed businesses and all but wiped out the banana industry. As the relief effort continues, I would like, on behalf of the opposition, to pay tribute to the people of Far North Queensland for their inspiring spirit and for never wavering in their determination to rebuild that community. It is a great spirit to watch in action.
I also pay tribute to the relief works which have been coordinated by General Peter Cosgrove and for the leadership that he has shown. I also pay tribute to the contributions which have been made to the rebuilding effort by both the state government of Queensland and the Commonwealth government. In addition, I pay tribute to the remarkable representational vigour of the federal member for Kennedy in ensuring that neither federal nor state governments forget what happened in that natural disaster.
Another terrible tragedy befell the nation recently, as the Prime Minister has just remarked, and that was the death and destruction wrought by Cyclone George. Again on behalf of the opposition, I support the Prime Minister’s remarks in support of those who have lost their lives, the scores of Australians who have been injured and those who have had their homes destroyed.
The violent and stormy winds unleashed by the cyclone resulted in unimaginable and unbelievable havoc in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. With howling winds at over 250 kilometres an hour, it was the most violent storm to hit that region, I am told, in 30 years. Temporary accommodation at Fortescue’s Pilbara railway was smashed, power lines were severed, phone lines were mangled, sewerage was cut off, homes were destroyed, trees were uprooted, towns and communities were torn apart and many were injured. Most devastating of all was the loss of three lives. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the families of Craig Raabe, Debra Till and Sydney Baker.
Cyclones are not rare in this country but the intensity of Cyclone George was. These events bring home the all too clear and unmistakable reality that we are all subject to the elements in this country and there is often very little that we can do, other than to prepare, rebuild and move on as best we can.
On behalf of the opposition, I welcome the assistance which has been provided by the state government of Western Australia and by the Commonwealth government. Once again on behalf of the federal opposition, I extend our condolences to the families who have lost loved ones. We also offer our support and thanks to the relief workers who are now at work seeking to repair their community and to restore the lives of the people in those communities to the greatest extent that is humanly possible.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
16
Ministerial Arrangements
16
15:59:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—On 5 March I announced a number of changes to the ministry. On Friday, 9 March Senator the Hon. Chris Ellison was sworn in as Minister for Human Services and Senator the Hon. David Johnston was sworn in as Minister for Justice and Customs. Honourable members would be aware that I announced further changes to the ministry on 18 March. The Governor-General will conduct a swearing-in ceremony tomorrow morning, after which I will table a revised ministry list. I also inform the House that the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will be absent from question time today. He is attending the commemoration of the first anniversary of Cyclone Larry in Innisfail, Queensland. The Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions on his behalf.
SHADOW MINISTRY
16
Miscellaneous
16
16:00:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr RUDD
—On the issue of ministerial arrangements, following the resignation on 9 March 2007 of the member for Wills from the portfolio of shadow Attorney-General, I have made changes to the size and responsibilities of the opposition frontbench. For the information of the House I table a revised list of the opposition frontbench.
The document read as follows—
SHADOW MINISTRY
9 March 2007
PORTFOLIO
SHADOW MINISTER
OTHER CHAMBER
Leader
Kevin Rudd
Senator Chris Evans
Deputy Leader
Employment & Industrial Relations; Social Inclusion
Julia Gillard
Senator Penny Wong
Leader in the Senate
National Development, Resources & Energy
Senator Chris Evans
Bob McMullan
Deputy Leader in the Senate
Communications & Information Technology
Senator Stephen Conroy
Anthony Albanese
Infrastructure & Water
Manager of Opposition Business in the House
Anthony Albanese
Senator Penny Wong
Homeland Security; Justice & Customs;
Territories
Arch Bevis
Senator Joseph Ludwig (Homeland
Security; Justice & Customs)
Senator Kate Lundy (Territories)
Assistant Treasurer; Revenue & Competition Policy
Chris Bowen
Senator Nick Sherry (Assistant Treasurer; Revenue)
Senator Stephen Conroy (Competition)
Immigration, Integration & Citizenship
Tony Burke
Senator Joseph Ludwig
Industry; Innovation, Science & Research
Senator Kim Carr
Anthony Albanese
Trade; Regional Development
Simon Crean
Senator Kim Carr (Trade)
Senator Kerry O’Brien (Regional
Development)
Service Economy, Small Business & Independent
Contractors
Craig Emerson
Senator Stephen Conroy
Multicultural Affairs; Urban Development; Consumer Affairs
Laurie Ferguson
Senator Joseph Ludwig (Multicultural
Affairs)
Senator Kim Carr (Urban Development;
Consumer Affairs)
Transport & Roads; Tourism
Martin Ferguson
Senator Kerry O’Brien
Defence
Joel Fitzgibbon
Senator Chris Evans
Climate Change, Environment & Heritage; Arts
Peter Garrett
Senator Penny Wong (Climate Change,
Environment & Heritage)
Senator Stephen Conroy (Arts)
Veterans’ Affairs; Defence Science & Personnel; Special
Minister of State
Alan Griffin
Senator Kate Lundy (Veterans’ Affairs)
Senator Chris Evans (Defence Science &
Personnel)
Senator Penny Wong (Special Minister of
State)
Attorney-General; Manager of Opposition Business in the
Senate
Senator Joseph Ludwig
Nicola Roxon
Sport & Recreation; Health Promotion; Local Government
Senator Kate Lundy
Nicola Roxon (Health Promotion)
Laurie Ferguson (Sport & Recreation; Local
Government)
Families & Community Services; Indigenous Affairs & Reconciliation
Jenny Macklin
Senator Jan McLucas (Families and
Community Services)
Senator Kim Carr (Indigenous Affairs)
Foreign Affairs
Robert McClelland
Senator Chris Evans
Ageing, Disabilities and Carers
Senator Jan McLucas
Nicola Roxon
Federal/State Relations; International Development
Assistance; Deputy manager of Opposition Business in the House
Bob McMullan
Senator Stephen Conroy (Federal/State Relations)
Senator Joseph Ludwig (International Development Assistance)
Primary Industries, Fisheries & Forestry
Senator Kerry O’Brien
Simon Crean
Human Services; Housing; Youth; Women
Tanya Plibersek
Senator Kate Lundy
Health
Nicola Roxon
Senator Jan McLucas
Superannuation & Intergenerational Finance; Banking & Financial Services
Senator Nick Sherry
Chris Bowen
Education & Training
Stephen Smith
Senator Kim Carr
Treasurer
Wayne Swan
Senator Nick Sherry
Finance
Lindsay Tanner
Senator Nick Sherry
Public Administration & Accountability; Corporate Governance & Responsibility; Workforce Participation
Senator Penny Wong
Chris Bowen (Public Administration & Accountability; Corporate Governance & Responsibility)
Julia Gillard (Workforce Participation)
Parliamentary Secretaries
Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs
Anthony Byrne
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence & Veterans’ Affairs
Graham Edwards
Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage
Jennie George
Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury
Catherine King
Parliamentary Secretary for Education
Kirsten Livermore
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition
John Murphy
Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations
Brendan O’Connor
Parliamentary Secretary for Industry & Innovation
Bemie Ripoll
Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs
Warren Snowdon
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social & Community Affairs)
Ursula Stephens
Chief Opposition Whip
Roger Price
Senate Opposition Whip
Senator George Campbell
Whip in the House of Representatives
Jill Hall
Deputy Senate Whip
Senator Linda Kirk
Whip in the House of Representatives
Michael Danby
Deputy Senate Whip
Senator Ruth Webber
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
18
16:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Iraq
18
18
16:00:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm today, on this the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, that almost half of the total violent civilian deaths that have occurred in Iraq over the last four years have in fact occurred in the last 12 months alone, that mortar attacks that kill civilians in Iraq have quadrupled in the last 12 months alone, that massive bomb blasts killing more than 50 people at a time have nearly doubled in the last 12 months alone and that fatal suicide bombs, car bombs and roadside bombing attacks have also doubled in the last 12 months alone? At the beginning of this, the fifth year of the Iraq war, what is the Prime Minister’s strategy for winning the war, given that the previous strategy has demonstratively failed?
18
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I can confirm that there has been in the last year an upsurge in violence in Iraq—I think we are all aware of that. That upsurge was triggered by the bombing of a mosque which was particularly sacred to the Shiah section of the population. That unlocked a chain of reprisal attacks and, as a result, there has been an increase. I will not go into the precise figures, but I do not dispute that there has been an increase over the last year.
The Leader of the Opposition gives me the opportunity with his question on Iraq to simply report to the House the impressions I gained on a visit to both Tallil and Baghdad in the last few days. When in Baghdad I had the opportunity of a lengthy discussion with the new American commander, General David Petraeus, a different style of person from his predecessors—a very thoughtful man, a former economics professor as well as a very distinguished soldier. It was very clear from my discussion with him that in implementing the new plan to bring greater security to the Baghdad area the coalition forces in Baghdad—that really means the Americans and the Iraqis—were going to combine military strength with a more determined effort to relate to and win the confidence of the local population.
I do not want to read too much into just a few weeks—and what I am about to say is tinged with the utmost caution—but the early indications are promising. The early indications are that there has been some decline in sectarian violence. The early indications are that a determined effort is being made by the Iraqi brigades. He indicated to me that the brigades that have been brought in from other parts of the country were in some cases up to almost 100 per cent strength, which is unusual given the experience in recent times. General Petraeus, as did the Iraqi Prime Minister, indicated to me that there was no shortage of recruits for either the new Iraqi army or for the police. So the impression I took from General Petraeus was that, whilst he was not making any extravagant claims, some of the early indications—ever so cautious, let me stress—were on the optimistic and the hopeful side.
I came away from my meeting with the Iraqi Prime Minister impressed that I had spoken to a person who, although deeply devoted to the Shiah population of Iraq, saw his responsibilities as being truly those of a national leader. He was a more impressive man on meeting than I had perceived from reading newspapers, reading intelligence reports or watching him on television. He struck me as a man of authority, a man of some considerable courage, a person who was deeply grateful for the commitment of countries like Australia to Iraq’s future, a person who felt that there was a prospect that at long last, after a great deal of suffering and very considerable loss of life, the situation could be established where in time the Iraqis will be able to look after themselves.
So I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I came away from my meetings with both of those gentlemen more optimistic about the situation in Iraq. I commend that sense of marginally more optimism to the opposition and to the government’s critics on this issue. I will say two other things. Nobody can visit Australian forces in places like Iraq or Afghanistan without coming away with enormous regard for their professionalism, their sense of decency, their capacity to relate to the local population and the sheer enthusiasm they have for the job at hand. And I say that in a non-political sense, because they do what they are asked to do by the government in the name of the country, irrespective of which government is in office. No matter what your politics may be on this issue, when you go overseas and visit these men and women, you should be incredibly proud of the job that they are doing on behalf of the country. Colonel Rawlins, the commander of the Australian forces in Tallil, told me of the great strides they had made, the confidence of the locals that had been won, the feeling that they were doing an effective job in training the local Iraqis. Overall, I came away from that country feeling more optimistic than I had felt before I went there. So I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.
I simply conclude my remarks by saying that there remains in my mind a wonderment at the disconnect in the minds of those who attack the government on this issue between the fate of terrorism in Afghanistan and the fate of terrorism in Iraq. It is a common cause on both sides of the House that we should defeat terrorism in Afghanistan but, apparently, whilst it is good to defeat terrorism in Afghanistan, it is not good to defeat it in Iraq. I find that a puzzling disconnect.
Finally, I saw some very interesting remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She said that the thing about Afghanistan is that only a military operation is needed there. Can I remind her that that would seem passing strange to people, including Australians, involved in reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. The truth of the matter is that in both countries you need a combination of the two.
I do not for a moment argue that only a military solution is needed in Iraq. In fact the last thing I said to the Iraqi Prime Minister when I saw him in Baghdad was that he had a very solemn responsibility to make sure that he was a national leader and to make sure that he brought a sense of political reconciliation to Iraq. So, through you, Mr Speaker, I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she does not really understand what is happening in Afghanistan if she says that it is only a military operation. You need military success and political success in Afghanistan; you need military success and political success in Iraq. You need to defeat the terrorists in Iraq as well as defeating them in Afghanistan.
Education
19
19
16:08:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
Mr FAWCETT
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is supporting choice in education for Australian families? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative views?
20
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the member for Wakefield. As somebody who for 40 years both in the Liberal Party organisation before I entered parliament and in the parliament as a member, as a Treasurer, as an opposition leader, as a spokesman on various matters and for the last 11 years as Prime Minister, as somebody who has been for all of those years a true believer in choice in education, not a latter-day believer, not a political believer but a true believer in choice in education, I say to the member for Wakefield that the choice available for Australian parents is strong and real under this government.
I say that as a great admirer of the government education system and as a proud product of the government education system of New South Wales. I will always be grateful for the education I received in the government system in New South Wales in the 1940s and 1950s; nonetheless, I am great believer in choice. I can inform the member that almost one-third of all students in Australia are now attending non-government schools. That represents a 21.5 per cent growth in non-government school enrolments since 1996 and that compares to a one per cent growth in government school enrolments in the same period.
As I think honourable members know, much of the growth in the non-government school sector has occurred in what you might loosely call the low- or medium-fee independent sector rather than in the Catholic systemic sector or in the more traditional GPS sector, where, although there has been some growth, the growth has not been great. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has said that his party has abandoned the hit list policies of both the Beazley and Latham periods of Labor leadership. I think it is worth recalling for the House that the growth in the small independent school sector has largely resulted from the decision taken by this government in 1997, pursuant to a promise made in the 1996 election campaign, to abolish what was unusually and inappropriately described as Labor’s ‘new schools policy’. Although it is 11 years ago it is worth recalling that, under that policy, broadly speaking you could not establish a new independent school in an area already serviced by a government school or a Catholic school. Effectively, that meant you would not get the funding, and that particularly restricted the efforts of people in the outer metropolitan areas of the larger cities to establish new non-government schools.
We promised to change that, and we did. But we only got the change through as a result of the support we received from Senator Brian Harradine, and 10 years after the event I record my continuing gratitude to Senator Harradine for supporting us. When the parents of children at independent schools in the category I am referring to hear what the Leader of the Opposition says about his new policy, I think they should be reminded that Senator Carr, who is now the shadow minister for industry but who was then the spokesman on education, said during a debate on an amendment to reinsert the old restrictive approach of the previous policy:
We believe that, on the issue of choice, private schooling is an addition, not an alternative, in terms of providing reasonable access to quality government schooling.
It is also interesting to note that, on 4 September, during the debate on the bill to introduce the SES funding formula, the now Leader of the Opposition criticised the amount of funding that would go to category 1 schools under the new funding formula. This is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say when he was speaking in that debate:
... the proposal put forward by the shadow minister for education, Michael Lee, to instead dedicate this funding to special needs education is in fact a wise way to go.
He went on to describe funding to category 1 schools as a ‘windfall allocation to schools that do not need this money at the end of the day’. In other words, this newfound believer in freedom of choice does not really believe that category 1 schools should get any funding at all, that it is a windfall to those schools. So my advice to parents who want to exercise freedom of choice when they hear the Leader of the Opposition is that he is a Johnny-come-lately on this subject. He has never believed in it, whereas he is opposed by somebody who has been a true believer in choice in education all of my active political life.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
21
Distinguished Visitors
21
16:14:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Mongolia, led by the Chairman of the State Great Hural of Mongolia, His Excellency Mr Nyamdorj Tsend. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
21
Questions Without Notice
Iraq
21
21
16:15:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of reports of the preparation by the Pentagon of a plan for a phased withdrawal of United States troops in the event that the current ‘surge’ of United States troops fails to stop sectarian violence in Iraq? Does the Prime Minister have a similar contingency plan of phased withdrawal in place for Australian forces?
21
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—The answer is yes, it is normal for that contingency planning to be made.
Economy
21
21
16:15:00
Richardson, Kym, MP
E0B
Kingston
LP
1
Mr RICHARDSON
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of recent economic data? What does this data indicate about the strength of the Australian economy?
21
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Kingston for his question. Since the House last sat, the national accounts for the December quarter have been released. They show that GDP grew one per cent in the December quarter and that growth through the year was 2.8 per cent higher than a year ago. This comes at a time when the rural sector of Australia is in a very deep drought. In fact, rural production has fallen 22.8 per cent over the last year, an extraordinary fall, as a consequence of drought. The fact that the Australian economy continued to grow at all is testament to the strength in other sectors, particularly in relation to consumption, business investment and indeed exports, which, apart from rural exports, also grew during the course of the year.
In addition to that, we have seen recently the labour force figures released for February. The good news with the labour force figures is that the number of people in work in the month of February increased by 22,000. Twenty-two thousand new jobs were created in the month of February. Over the course of the last year in Australia there has been a net addition of 294,000 jobs. Think about that. In the last year there were 365 days and 294,000 jobs—that is nearly 1,000 jobs a day created in the Australian economy over the last year. Of course, nearly all of that was during the period of Work Choices. So whatever the opposition claimed about Work Choices destroying jobs, the reality is that we have seen during the last 12 months extraordinary employment growth in this country.
The opposition leader says that this is ‘Brutopia’, that there is something wrong with this economy. Can I remind him that, when his party was in power, unemployment stood at about 11 per cent and unemployment is now at 4.6 per cent. Unemployment has been below six per cent for 43 consecutive months in Australia. I can inform the House that, for the first time since the government was elected in 1996, there have been two million new jobs created in the Australian economy. This is a government which has now presided over two million new jobs in the Australian economy, which is job creation unparalleled in recent Australian history.
Iraq
22
22
16:19:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s answer to the previous question from the member for Barton, where the Prime Minister stated for the first time that the government has in place a contingency plan for the phased withdrawal of Australian forces from Iraq.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—No, I didn’t!
Government members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Members on my right!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Referring to the previous question by the member for Barton—which asked, ‘Does the Prime Minister have a similar contingency plan of phased withdrawal in place for Australian forces?’—the Prime Minister’s response was yes, he did. My question to the Prime Minister is: what is that plan?
22
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I was asked, if my memory serves me correctly, whether I was aware of an American plan and I said yes and that it is normal to have a contingency plan. The Leader of the Opposition is misrepresenting what I said.
Coal Industry
22
22
16:20:00
Anderson, John, MP
4K4
Gwydir
NATS
1
Mr ANDERSON
—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the government is supporting the jobs of working families in coalmining areas of regional Australia, including in my electorate of Gwydir? Can the Deputy Prime Minister advise of any threats to the livelihoods of those families?
22
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the member for Gwydir for his question and recognise his commitment to the working families whose livelihood is drawn from the coalmining industry in his electorate and to an industry that is growing in his electorate. Coal exports last year were worth $25 billion to the Australian economy. It is an incredibly important industry in Australia, particularly for those jobs generated from those exports—jobs that have made a contribution to the figure the Treasurer quoted of two million new jobs in the Australian economy over the last 11 years. A lot of those jobs are coming out of the coalmining and associated industries. Our government has continued to support the coal industry in Australia. We have invested in infrastructure to ensure it remains efficient and competitive with the rest of the world.
We also need to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. We have been doing that through investing in the development of new clean coal technology to help the coal industry maintain a sustainable base for coal, both within Australia as an energy generation product and also internationally as an export product for the Australian economy. We have allocated $410 million towards low-emissions technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Four of the six projects already announced relate to clean coal technology. I know the member for Gwydir would support those projects to ensure that the coal industry in his electorate maintains a sustainable base.
The practical measures that we have introduced will see Australian emissions reduced by 87 million tonnes by 2010. So investment in clean coal technology can see actual reductions in our emissions of carbon of 87 million tonnes. That is the equivalent of all the emissions from the transport sector in our economy.
The member for Gwydir asked if there were any threats to the livelihoods of those families, and there are some. They have been made very clear by the Australian Greens. We need only to look at the Shift Miner magazine, which has a quote from Senator Brown. He said:
I am talking about having a plan, within one term of government, for the phasing-out of coal.
He wants to phase out the coal industry altogether and do away with thousands of jobs in many electorates across Australia. We have seen quotes in the same magazine from the member for Kingsford Smith. He said: ‘Automatic expansion of the coal industry such as we have seen in the Hunter Valley over the past decade is a thing of the past.’ I know the member for Hunter is concerned about those quotes.
So there are some threats, but the threats are getting even closer. In recent days we have seen a preference deal done between the Australian Labor Party and the Greens in New South Wales.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr VAILE
—The member for Grayndler would know all about this one.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Melbourne is warned!
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr VAILE
—In a press release put out by the Greens, upper house candidate in New South Wales Lee Rhiannon is quoted as saying:
We have also agreed with Labor to establish a preferencing framework for the federal election in New South Wales …
I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to tell the voters not only in New South Wales but across Australia what deal he has done with the Greens in New South Wales and across Australia for the federal election later this year. Is it about closing down the coalmining industry in Australia? Is it about costing thousands of Australian coalminers their jobs? We need to hear from the Leader of the Opposition what deal he has done with the Greens in which they want to, as Bob Brown has said, close down or phase out the coal industry within one term of government.
They cannot walk away from this, because we all remember the preference deal the Australian Labor Party did with the Greens at the last election, which only surfaced in the last week of the campaign. If the then leader, the former member for Werriwa, was going to trash thousands of jobs in the timber industry, and that came to the surface as a result of the preference deal he had done with the Greens, what will be the cost to coalmining jobs across Australia, and particularly in New South Wales, as a result of the preference deal with the Greens done by the Leader of the Opposition?
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—Who do you give your preferences to?
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr VAILE
—We give them to the Liberal Party.
Ministerial Responsibility
23
23
16:26:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
—My question is to the Prime Minister.
Government members interjecting—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Yes, my question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister state whether or not his office became aware that Senator Santoro was engaged in share trading in December last year? So the question is: can the Prime Minister state whether or not his office became aware that Senator Santoro was engaged in share trading in December last year?
24
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I am aware that my office, through the person of my then principal private secretary and my now chief of staff, had a discussion with his opposite number in Senator Santoro’s office regarding the categorisation of some investments which had been referred to. I know exactly what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to, and she knows I know why she is referring to it. She knows exactly why and I have to assure her: forget the conspiracy; it was a very legitimate discussion about the categorisation.
While I am on my feet, can I say this: Senator Santo Santoro is no longer a minister for a very simple reason. He is no longer a minister because he failed to disclose, as he was required to do, to the Senate and also to me the share investments that he made and other investments which were first brought to my attention a few days ago. That is the reason why he is out.
Can I take the opportunity of saying again that it is the responsibility of all of you, on all sides, to comply with the resolutions of the House. Everybody has an obligation—all members and senators have an obligation of complying with the resolutions of the two houses of parliament. Senator Santoro did not do that. That is the reason why he is no longer a member of the ministry.
Taxation
24
24
16:30:00
Cadman, Alan, MP
SD4
Mitchell
LP
1
Mr CADMAN
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline the state of Commonwealth-state financial arrangements? What are the prospects for further reform to provide tax relief to business and to consumers?
24
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Mitchell for his question. I can tell him that in the five years from 2001 to 2005-06—really, six full years—the GST which has been paid to the states has totalled $187.2 billion, including a windfall of $4.7 billion. Everybody in Australia knows that the GST was introduced to replace other taxes. Many of those other taxes have been abolished, like the bank account debits tax, the financial institutions duty and stamp duties on shares. But now that the states are all in a windfall position, the Commonwealth requires the state governments to make good on the original deal and to abolish all of those taxes which have been slated for abolition as part of the intergovernmental agreement. That includes stamp duties on business conveyances and real property. The states have not yet agreed to a timetable in respect of that, even though the states will be getting a windfall in the next financial year of $3.3 billion; in the year after, $4.5 billion; and in the year after that, $4.9 billion.
I notice that Mr Iemma, the Premier of New South Wales, says that if only he can be given more GST he can observe the agreement in relation to the IGA. Let me point out that Mr Iemma and New South Wales are being given more GST year after year. This year they will be getting $10.9 billion; next year, $11.9 billion; the year after, $12.9 billion; and the year after that, $14 billion. And bear in mind that the New South Wales Labor government opposed the introduction of the GST, as did federal Labor, and now demand more and more of it. We say very simply that if the states want to take 100 per cent of the GST then the states can abolish 100 per cent of the taxes that it was introduced to get rid of. We in the federal government will maintain on behalf of the Australian people their entitlement to have those taxes abolished.
Who in this parliament do you think, Mr Speaker, would stand up for the state governments and try and justify the fact that they are not abolishing these taxes as agreed? None other than the state Labor patsies, the federal Labor Party, led by former Queensland public servant the Leader of the Opposition and his offsider, the member for Lilley. He comes into this place and he has every excuse under the sun for the state premiers because he will not stand up for the Australian people. Let me remind the House this government introduced the GST to get rid of other taxes. We will stand by the Australian people and we will demand that the Labor Party make good on that deal.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
25
Distinguished Visitors
25
16:34:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory parliament, the Hon. Jane Aagaard. On behalf of the House, I extend to her a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
25
Questions Without Notice
Ministerial Responsibility
25
25
16:34:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether or not in December last year his office instructed Senator Santoro to change the description of his activities on the Senate register of interests from ‘share trading’ to ‘share investment’?
25
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I have already indicated, in answer to the earlier question, there was a contact between Mr Nutt and his opposite number in the senator’s office and the categorisation was the subject of the contact. The reason why the discussion took place was that if you looked at the register then, manifestly, because of the small number of share investments recorded, there could not have been trading. That is why the categorisation was discussed. I know what the deputy is trying to get at—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—What is the answer?
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Hang on. I know exactly how the deputy found this out and I know why she is asking this question. The answer is that there was contact. Mr Nutt pointed out that, on the face of it, those shares held did not amount to trading and that was an incorrect categorisation. I indicated that in the previous answer. What the deputy leader is getting at is the suggestion that in December of last year Mr Nutt knew of the disclosures that were made a few days ago. He did not, and any suggestion of that is absolutely wrong.
Zimbabwe
25
25
16:36:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
1
Mrs MOYLAN
—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House what the Australian government has done in response to the latest crackdown in Zimbabwe?
25
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr DOWNER
—First, I would like to thank the honourable member for Pearce for her question and her interest; I know the honourable member is very focused on the problems of Zimbabwe. The government has been appalled at the barbaric actions of the Zimbabwe government in violently suppressing the activities of the political opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change, and some of their supporters. I have made my views very clear to the Zimbabwean charge d’affaires here in Canberra. My department also called in the charge d’affaires on 16 March, the day after I spoke to him, and made the government’s views clear again.
The Mugabe government, before this latest vicious and violent crackdown on their political opponents, had already been pursuing policies which have been disastrous for the people of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has the highest inflation rate in the world at 1,800 per cent, unemployment is at 80 per cent and life expectancy in Zimbabwe under President Mugabe has fallen from 61 in 1990 to 33 today. I think that statistic alone is the most shocking indictment of the Zimbabwean government and the President of Zimbabwe, Mr Mugabe.
Australia has imposed progressively strengthened travel bans and financial sanctions against members of the Zimbabwean government since 2002. A number of other countries have also done that, but we would like more countries to impose those types of so-called smart or targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe. The more countries that do that, the more effective the international community is going to be in addressing the problems of Zimbabwe.
Let me also say that the countries that have the greatest leverage in Zimbabwe are not Commonwealth countries, because Zimbabwe is not a member of the Commonwealth anymore. The countries that have the greatest leverage are the neighbouring countries, members of what is called SADC, the Southern African Development Community. Of course, South Africa is often talked about in this context. I spoke with the South African high commissioner this morning about the situation in Zimbabwe. I said to him we hope very much that South Africa, bilaterally and through SADC, would be able to do still more than they are already doing to place pressure on the Zimbabwean regime to adhere to international norms of human rights and start to restructure the economy. I think SADC is at least persuaded that the situation is dire, and I know from various contacts we have had with those countries that there is a growing mood in SADC and also the African Union to do more to address the problem of Zimbabwe.
We have also been pressing, within the United Nations system, for the United Nations Human Rights Council to pass a resolution putting still more pressure on the Zimbabwean government. Whether it is possible to get the United Nations to do something about this, though, is questionable, bearing in mind there are some countries in the United Nations which have been fairly solid and reliable supporters of President Mugabe.
Finally, I know that a number of members of the House are concerned about specific people who have been affected by this violent crackdown on the opposition. People in this House are concerned about Mrs Sekai Holland, who is married to an Australian and lived in Australia for quite some time. A number of members of the House, including me, have met her over the years. Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, is another person many will have met and will know of. Both of them have been in hospital. Our ambassador in Zimbabwe has visited them in hospital and he has been particularly solicitous in relation to Mrs Holland. We are providing maximum assistance for Sekai Holland and we urge the Zimbabwean government to permit those who are injured to obtain the necessary medical treatment. The Zimbabwean government will not let these people out of the country to get additional medical treatment, in particular Mrs Holland, because the government want to maintain political pressure on these people. They need medical help and they need to get out of Zimbabwe for that medical help, and the Zimbabwean government should let them go and obtain that medical assistance.
We will continue to do what we can, given the limited capacity we have to do so, to place pressure on Zimbabwe. We cannot impose economic sanctions on the country: it is bankrupt already. If we as an international community imposed complete economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, it would be a death sentence for millions of ordinary Zimbabweans. We cannot do that. But, Mr Speaker, we do need to keep the diplomatic pressure going, and the Australian government, you can rest assured, will do that.
Ministerial Responsibility
27
27
16:42:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Given Senator Santoro described himself as ‘share trading’ on his Senate register of interests in December last year, did the Prime Minister’s office ask Senator Santoro if he had engaged in any share trading that he had failed to disclose, before discussing with him changing the description in the register to ‘share investment’?
27
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—My advice from the relevant person in my office is that the pecuniary interest return to me and also what was on the Senate register did not, on the face of it, indicate that there had been any share trading and therefore it was an incorrect categorisation. That was pointed out. It is also my understanding that in the course of the discussion an inquiry was made as to whether the material disclosed accurately depicted the situation, and an affirmative answer was given to that.
Public Hospitals
27
27
16:43:00
Kelly, Jackie, MP
GK6
Lindsay
LP
1
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister inform the House how the federal government is supporting the delivery of public hospital services in New South Wales and Queensland? Are there any alternative policies?
27
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr ABBOTT
—I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. I note that the New South Wales government has only been able to open a GP after-hours clinic at Nepean Hospital because of the strong support of the federal government, including financial assistance that was obtained because of lobbying by, amongst other people, the member for Lindsay. Under the current Australian health care agreements, the Howard government will provide some $14 billion towards the funding of public hospitals in New South Wales, and that is a 16 per cent real increase over the previous agreement. As well, between 2006 and 2008, thanks to the GST, New South Wales will enjoy a revenue windfall of almost $2 billion.
Despite all this federal assistance, New South Wales public hospitals are still underperforming for one fundamental reason—namely, a lack of investment by the New South Wales government. In each of the five years to 2002, the Carr-Iemma government provided less money to public hospitals than in 1997. In 1997 the Carr-Iemma government provided $2.66 billion. It was less than that in each of the next five years and it was just $2.59 billion in 2002. And over the last few months the New South Wales government claims to have taken thousands of people off elective surgery waiting lists, not by doing more surgery but by extending the admission timetables from six months to 12 months in an absolutely shameless bit of pre-election fiddling.
But New South Wales is not the only state Labor government to run hospitals poorly. I am quoting now from a newspaper report which said that senior doctors at three of Queensland’s biggest public hospitals warned that ‘patients would continue to die while the government ignored pleas to solve the state’s health crisis’. That comes from the front page of the Courier-Mail in November 1994, when the Leader of the Opposition had already been the de facto Premier for five years. He can turn around but he cannot run from the hard questions about his own record. Why was it that public hospital funding per head was the lowest in Australia under the Rudd Christian socialist government of Queensland? Why was it that, under the gentleman opposite, 2,200 public hospital beds were closed? He has perfect recall of the events of 35 years ago, but challenge him on his own political record and all we get is bluster and changing the subject. Today he might have had Madam Muck asking the questions, but Mr Clean wrote them, and what we have had from members opposite for the last three or four questions is nothing but ‘Rudd mud’, authored, written and authorised by none other than the Leader of the Opposition. There is a clear message here.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker, concerning standing order 64.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister will refer to members by their title or their seat. I have been listening carefully. If I find that he is not doing that, I will pull him up for it.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—I simply make the point that, whether it is state Labor or federal Labor, when it comes to health you just cannot trust the Labor Party. I think that the Australian public are going to get a clear message in the run-up to the next election: don’t let the Leader of the Opposition wreck Medicare the way he wrecked the Queensland public hospital system.
Iraq
28
28
16:48:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall setting a time frame for the withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq in 2003, when he said that Australian troops would remain in Iraq for only a matter of months and not years? Why did the Prime Minister set a time frame for the withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq in 2003 but not set such a time frame today?
28
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—In answer to the member for Barton, I do recall using that expression. I used that expression in the context of the very early military operations in Iraq, when it did not appear at that time that the coalition would require forces to be in Iraq for the long period of time that has now elapsed. I will check the precise context, but my best recall is that I was asked this question at the end of the initial military phase and it was asked in relation to the forces including, I think, the FA18s and also the Special Forces that have been used in the initial military operation. My recall is that I spoke then of them being there for weeks and months rather than a longer period of time. I think that if the member for Barton, who normally has more regard for accuracy in these matters than some of his colleagues do, would go back and have a look at that context he would fairly conclude that the context for the question that I think I was asked was: when are the boys coming home from the initial phase? I said that I expected it to be weeks and not months. I think you will find that that is the context.
There is another point that is really relevant to the debate. The group of Australian forces that the opposition now says they would bring home, and the only ones that they say they would bring home, is in fact a battle group which is in southern Iraq. That is the only group that they are saying will come home. That battle group was not in Iraq when the question I answered in relation to weeks and months was asked. So, by your own definition, you should not be asking the question.
Coal Industry
28
28
16:51:00
Broadbent, Russell, MP
MT4
McMillan
LP
1
Mr BROADBENT
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Minister, after your successful visit to the Latrobe Valley, would you update the House on government efforts to build a sustainable future for Australia’s coal industry? Is the minister aware of any policies that would threaten the industry’s future?
28
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—I thank the member for McMillan for his question and also for his very strong support for the coal industry in Victoria. The minister for agriculture is also a strong supporter of the coal industry in Victoria and in fact the whole of Australia. Both of them have a number of workers and thousands of families, I would think, who rely on the coal industry for their income.
Around Australia we see around 30,000 Australian families relying on the coal industry. That is why this government, the Howard government, is making a long-term investment to ensure that coal remains a competitive power source both now and in a low carbon emission future. Last week the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and I jointly announced a $100 million grant to support HRL’s $750 million project for clean coal in the Latrobe Valley. The project will deliver coal-fired power with 30 per cent less emissions and use half the water of a conventional brown coal power plant. It is the fourth coal project supported under the government’s Low Emission Technology Demonstration Fund and brings the total investment by this government in lower emissions coal to $275 million in projects approaching $1 billion.
I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is not listening. Perhaps the member for Kingsford Smith can listen, because he and the Leader of the Opposition were both up in Queensland looking for friends in the coal industry last week. While they were there looking for those friends—I am not sure they found any—they should have taken the time to remind Peter Beattie that the Howard government has already put $125 million into coal projects in Queensland to lower emissions in those areas. That has not been acknowledged by the Premier. In fact, he must have had a lapse of memory, because he said that the federal government was putting nothing into the coal industry in Queensland. I know that Peter Beattie does not lie, so he must have just had a lapse of memory, because those projects are worth over $600 million. His Treasurer and his Minister for Mines and Energy are both shareholding ministers in those projects.
I was asked by the member for McMillan about the alternative policies of those opposite. Of course, we know the policy of the member for Kingsford Smith on the coal industry. He was quoted the other day—and I am sure he said this. He told us that the automatic expansion of the coal industry is a thing of the past. This is the Leader of the Opposition’s spokesman, who one day aspires to have control of the coal industry in Australia. If I were a coalminer in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia or any other state that has coal for power then I would be worried about my future as a coalminer under any Labor government.
Water
29
29
16:55:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
Mr WINDSOR
—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and relates to the upgrade of Chaffey Dam in my electorate. Given the Deputy Prime Minister’s recent statements that the Prime Minister’s $10 billion water plan will not affect dam upgrades for communities in the Murray-Darling system, and given that the New South Wales government and other stakeholders have committed $22 million to a safety and capacity upgrade costing a total of $28 million, will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to the $6 million requested by the Chaffey Dam reference panel for this much-needed project?
29
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr VAILE
—I am aware of the issue the member for New England raises. From what I have seen in the media, the New South Wales government today committed about $4 million for this project whereas the opposition in New South Wales has committed $14 million or $15 million to the upgrade of the Chaffey Dam. As this dam sits on the upper reaches of the Murray-Darling Basin system, the best way that the water can be found to put into the dam after it is upgraded is through the efficiency savings of the New South Wales, Victorian, South Australian and Queensland governments supporting our $10 billion water plan. We are going to invest $6 billion in efficiency savings throughout the network as well as $3 billion to address the issue of overallocation. It is important that the states shoulder their responsibilities in these areas.
I know the member for New England takes a great deal of interest in these things, but he really should stop being an apologist for the New South Wales Labor government. Urban water responsibilities belong to the states. Chaffey Dam supplies urban water to Tamworth, as he knows. The Labor government in New South Wales has committed only $4 million to this project; the opposition parties in New South Wales have committed all the money for this project.
School Funding
30
30
16:57:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
1
Mr HARTSUYKER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister update the House on the Howard government’s support for school infrastructure? Is the minister aware of alternative policies?
30
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I thank the member for Cowper for his question and note his great interest in schools policy in his electorate. The parents of Australian schoolchildren expect not only choice in schooling, as the Prime Minister indicated, but also higher standards in terms of teaching, learning and the physical environment—the infrastructure in our schools. The Howard government agrees that there should be higher standards in our schools. That is why at the 2004 election we committed to investing $1 billion in schools across Australia so that schools could apply directly to the federal government for infrastructure projects.
The Howard government is now exceeding that election commitment. On top of the $1 billion to invest in our schools we have added an additional $181 million, targeted to the more needy schools. We have exceeded our election commitment under the Investing in Our Schools program. What this program has highlighted is the chronic neglect of state government schools by state governments. Basic infrastructure needs such as shade cloth, toilet blocks and air conditioning are being funded by the federal government because the state governments have failed to fund their schools properly.
I am asked about alternative policies. Yesterday we witnessed the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition running away as fast as he could from the Mark Latham hit list policy. That had been Labor policy for as long as I can remember. The Labor Party is committed to taking funding away from some Catholic and independent schools. While the Leader of the Opposition said he was running away from that policy, not once did he guarantee to fund non-government schools at the same rate of increase as they receive under the Howard government.
In other words, when the Leader of the Opposition says, ‘No school will be worse off,’ that is code for ‘School funding will be frozen.’ That is Labor Party code. So on the one hand the Leader of the Opposition is running away from Mark Latham’s hit list policy while on the other hand he skulks out later in the day with a new policy. He says it is a brand-new policy—$62 million for schools to share resources. Some might be gullible enough to believe that it was a new policy, but if we go back to the old hit list policy, we find it on page 12—$62 million to share educational resources. This is Mark Latham’s failed 2004 policy.
What Labor is doing is finding old and failed policies, trotting them out with a brand-new cover and rebadging them as new policy. The Australian public are awake to this. Recycling old and failed policies is not policy development. Cutting and pasting Mark Latham’s old policies is not providing the kind of policy development leadership that we would expect even from the Labor Party. This is doing nothing to raise standards in our schools.
Afghanistan
31
31
17:01:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does he believe that our troops in Afghanistan have sufficient resources to deal with the dangerous challenges they face as a result of the reported upcoming Taliban spring offensive?
31
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the member for Hunter for that question. The answer is that we are examining at present the adequacy of the conditions in which our forces are currently operating. The defence minister has indicated that a group of defence people went to Afghanistan recently. I have said, and he has said, that we are looking at whether we might send some additional forces to provide additional support for the reconstruction group that is in Afghanistan. I had a discussion about this matter with the new ISAF commander, an American, General McNeill. I indicated that, if Australia were to send additional forces to Afghanistan, the principal task of those additional forces would be to provide additional protection to the existing Australian force.
The best way I can summarise it is to say that the defence department and the ADF, in light of the report and the analysis that has been brought back, are currently examining whether we should send some more forces. If those forces do go to Afghanistan, they will have as their principal task providing additional protection to the Australian forces that are already there. That is the most up-to-date and full information that I can provide to the honourable member. I would be very happy to continue to assist him in providing such information.
Workplace Relations
31
31
17:03:00
Baird, Bruce, MP
MP6
Cook
LP
1
Mr BAIRD
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House how the government’s workplace relations policies are helping to create a stronger economy? Is the minister aware of any proposals that could jeopardise this contribution?
31
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
Mr HOCKEY
—I thank the member for Cook for his question. I read with great interest his article in the Daily Telegraph today.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—A very good article.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—It was a very good and compelling argument in support of the government’s workplace relations reforms. I was convinced, having read that article. The Australian people are convinced as well. Sometimes when you are in government, if you want to keep the economy strong, you have to make some tough decisions. This government has not been afraid to make tough decisions to keep Australia competitive. In order to guarantee not just the jobs of today but the jobs of tomorrow, you sometimes have to make tough decisions such as getting the budget into surplus, which the Labor Party opposed; introducing taxation reform, which the Labor Party opposed; paying off government debt, which the Labor Party opposed; reform of the waterfront, which the Labor Party opposed; Welfare to Work, which the Labor Party also opposed; and, of course, industrial relations and workplace relations change, which the Labor Party opposed.
After nearly 12 months, we are starting to see some figures that indicate that our reforms are delivering real benefits. Only last week, it became clear that since the reforms started 263,000 new jobs have been created in Australia. Interestingly, nearly 90 per cent of those jobs are full-time jobs. I well remember the former Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and a range of union leaders predicting Armageddon. They said the world would end with these laws; there would be mass sackings; children would go to school without shoes; and a range of other things. Wages are up by 1.5 per cent since the introduction of our laws.
I was asked whether there are any proposals that could jeopardise this contribution. I noted on the Sunday program the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the Labor Party would avoid the flow-on impact of high wages in the mining industry by supporting collective agreements. I thought to myself, ‘That’s at odds with the Labor Party draft policy that says they want to introduce pattern bargaining.’ On one hand, on one side of the street, the Labor Party want to introduce pattern bargaining. They released their draft policy on a Friday night.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard interjecting—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—That’s an old trick, Julia. On a Friday night, they released their draft industrial relations policy, which, amongst many other things, stated that the Labor Party wanted to see a reintroduction of pattern bargaining. Then, to another audience, on the Sunday program, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, ‘But we’ll stop the flow-on impact of wage increases in the mining industry going to others.’
I am intrigued by this. If you have a mechanic employed by the mine, under the Labor Party’s policy how would you prevent other mechanics in Sydney or Melbourne from being caught up in the same wage net? That is what the Labor Party want to do. They want to endanger people’s jobs. They are going to introduce policies that put upward pressure on inflation. Of course, that puts upward pressure on interest rates.
It is again a case of the Labor Party trying to walk both sides of the street. On the one hand, they are giving one message to the union movement, saying, ‘Don’t worry, comrades, all will be okay—you’ll be marching into every workplace,’ on the dark day that the Leader of the Opposition ever gets elected. On the other hand, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trying to tell the business community and Australians that the economy will remain strong under Labor. We have caught them out again. The Labor Party’s industrial relations policy is bad for the economy and bad for Australian jobs.
School Funding
32
32
17:08:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training and it follows on from her previous answer. Can the minister tell the House how much money the Howard government has allocated over the past 11 years specifically to enable Catholic, independent and government schools to share school facilities?
32
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 Howard government has a number of programs in place that encourage schools to share resources. The Boys’ Education Lighthouse Schools project, the school chaplaincy project and the Investing in Our Schools project are all programs that are designed to ensure that schools can share resources in appropriate circumstances.
One of the proudest boasts of the Howard government in education policy is that we have increased funding to schools across Australia by 160 per cent since we have been in government and there has been a 118 per cent increase to government schools. So the Australian government is committed to ensuring that, wherever students go to school in this country, they have access to a high-quality education. That is highlighted by the Australian government’s commitment to increased funding. What do we get from the Labor Party? No guarantee that they will not freeze the funds to Catholic and independent schools. Until such time as the Leader of the Opposition stands up and gives that guarantee, Labor have no credibility on schools policies.
Climate Change
33
33
17:09:00
Markus, Louise, MP
E07
Greenway
LP
1
Mrs MARKUS
—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Would the minister update the House on the government’s efforts to manage climate change? Is the minister aware of any alternative views?
33
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources
1
Mr TURNBULL
—I thank the member for Greenway for her question. Australia is boxing well above its weight in the battle against climate change. Australia, unlike most of the developed countries that have ratified the Kyoto protocol, is on track to meet its Kyoto target. That is the factual measure of the government’s achievement and the test of its policies.
There are only 15 countries in the world today that are likely to come in below their Kyoto targets. Twelve of them are countries of the former Soviet Union. The benchmark was 1990. Their economies completely collapsed, and it is because of that that their emissions will be below their 1990 level. Crashing the economy is well within the capacity of the opposition, but it is not a method of reaching your Kyoto target that anyone would recommend.
There are another three countries that fit into that category. One is the United Kingdom, which will come in below its target because it shut down its coal industry. That will strike a warm glow in the heart of the member for Kingsford Smith. He does not believe there should be any automatic expansion of the coal industry. That is another way of meeting your Kyoto target. The remaining two countries are Sweden and Iceland. The Icelanders are very lucky to have an enormous endowment of geothermal energy. The Swedes rely on nuclear power for up to 45 per cent of their energy.
The Australian government is adopting an approach to Kyoto which is based on objective science, not on ideology. We recognise that the Kyoto protocol as it stands today is not the answer. It is not achieving a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because it is not global. It excludes the major emitters. It excludes the fastest growing emitters. We are seeking to engage those emitters in a practical way by developing the clean coal technologies that the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources spoke about earlier, which will enable the developing countries of the world—countries like China that are so heavily dependent on coal—to have the technology to deliver the energy they need for development and at the same time lower their carbon intensity and reduce the growth in their greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, we are working through the AP6 right across the Pacific through other fast-growing economies to develop the skills and technologies that will enable us to achieve this goal.
Unlike many of the countries that the opposition talks about and holds up—countries like Spain, which is going to miss its Kyoto target by 36 per cent, and Italy, which will miss it by 20 per cent; most of the countries that have ratified the protocol are not going to meet it—the Australian government measures its performance in the climate change battle by results, not rhetoric, and by substance, not symbols.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
34
Questions to the Speaker
Speakers’ Rulings
34
34
17:13:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
1
Mr RANDALL
—Mr Speaker, I have a question of you in relation to the conventions and processes of the House, to see if they were contravened on the last day of parliament before we got up a fortnight ago. Just to put it in context, I was critical of previous Speaker Neil Andrew and communicated that to him. He told me that, unless I withdrew it, he would name me. In the same vein he dealt with the member for Dunkley. He actually suspended him from the House for an hour for being critical of him.
After the last sitting fortnight, the opposition leader went outside this House and on TV said that he could not raise issues in this House because he felt that you had lost control of this House and he felt that you were not applying the rules fairly in this House.
As a result, I ask you, Mr Speaker: are you going to take action to deal with that criticism so as to conform with previous rulings by previous speakers, or are you going to allow the opposition leader to get away with the slur that he made on you outside this House?
34
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat. I am aware of the matter that the member for Canning has referred to. I did read a transcript on that carefully. I believe on balance that the point he raises is not one that I would take further action on.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
34
Personal Explanations
34
17:15:00
Prosser, Geoff, MP
RI4
Forrest
LP
1
0
Mr PROSSER
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
RI4
Prosser, Geoff, MP
Mr PROSSER
—Yes, on seven different occasions.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
RI4
Prosser, Geoff, MP
Mr PROSSER
—On Tuesday, 6 March, on The World Today—an ABC program hosted by Gillian Bradford—it was stated:
The Western Australian Liberal MP, Geoff Prosser, has actually paid to use Brian Burke’s services as a lobbyist.
That is false and misleading. I have not paid Brian Burke to do any work for me or my companies.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler is warned!
RI4
Prosser, Geoff, MP
Mr PROSSER
—Further, the article on the front page of the Australian on 3 March stated:
Mr Burke has also revealed to friends that West Australian Liberal MP Geoff Prosser has paid for lobbying services. Mr Prosser, a former federal small business minister [was] forced to resign for improper business dealings in 1997 ...
I was not forced to resign for improper business dealings. I have never been involved in improper business dealings. The article went on to say:
Mr Prosser’s business dealings with the controversial lobbyist—
referring to Brian Burke—
will embarrass the Prime Minister.
Again, I have not hired nor paid Brian Burke to do anything for me or for any company which I have a shareholding in or association with.
The Herald Sun, in an article from 4 March, states:
Federal cabinet minister Tony Abbott says anyone who might have had dealings with disgraced Western Australian premier Brian Burke ... was compromised.
The article states that Mr Abbott included me amongst those who had dealings with Mr Burke. The article continues:
News Ltd newspapers reported at the weekend that Mr Burke claimed he had been paid for lobbying services for one of Mr Prosser’s companies.
That is false and misleading. It goes on to say:
Mr Prosser is a former federal small business minister who was forced to resign for improper business dealings in 1997, and is retiring at this year’s election.
The remark about improper business dealings is false, misleading and libellous. Further, an article by Glenn Milne in the Sunday Telegraph on 18 March says: ‘Geoff Prosser has been tainted by the Brian Burke affair.’ Again, I have not had any dealings with Mr Burke. The Hobart Mercury on 6 March states, referring to Senator Ian Campbell:
The logic of the dismissal was compromised when Mr Howard offered no criticism of another coalition MP, former small business minister Geoff Prosser, who, it has been revealed, has had business dealings with Mr Burke.
Again, I have not had any business dealings with Mr Burke, nor have I hired or paid him to do anything.
The Gold Coast Bulletin of 6 March states:
Evidence has emerged of more government connections with Mr Burke, the former WA Premier who served jail time for fraud. Mr Burke has re-emerged as a lobbyist, which has led to three state Labor MPs losing their jobs. Prime Minister John Howard confirmed that WA federal Liberal MP Geoff Prosser has paid Mr Burke for lobbying services relating to his personal business affairs.
That is not true. Again I reiterate: neither I nor my company has hired or paid Brian Burke to do any work. Finally, an article from the Age of 6 March states:
John Howard admitted backbencher Geoff Prosser had actually hired Mr Burke as a lobbyist, but said, “So what?”, arguing that Mr Prosser was only a backbencher.
Again I reiterate: I have not hired Brian Burke nor have my companies hired Brian Burke to do any work. The articles are misleading and defamatory.
35
17:20:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
0
Mr GARRETT
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and others have consistently said my remarks about the automatic expansion of the coal industry being a thing of the past ceased there; they do not. The statement was followed immediately by the words: ‘But that doesn’t and shouldn’t mean we can’t have a sustainable coal industry.’ And I went on to say that we should have increasing support for clean coal technology, which is something that the Howard government seems to be particularly remiss in doing.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
35
Auditor-General's Reports
Report Nos 29 and 30 of 2006-2007
35
35
17:20:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 29 Implementation of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997, and Audit Report No. 30 The Australian Taxation Office’s management of its relationship with tax practitioners: follow-up audit—Australian Taxation Office.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
35
Documents
Mr HUNT
(Flinders
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs)
17:21:00
—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 Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Quarterly report of the Chief Executive Officer for the period 1 April to 30 June 2006.
Treaties—Bilateral—Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea—Reasons for invoking the National Interest Exemption.
Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
36
Matters of Public Importance
Iraq
36
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received letters from the honourable member for Barton and the honourable member for New England proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d) I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is that proposed by the honourable member for Barton, namely:
The Government’s failure to acknowledge the disastrous consequences of the invasion of Iraq, despite today marking the 4th anniversary of that invasion.
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—
36
17:22:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—This is an important matter. Today is the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Two days before that invasion occurred, the Prime Minister gave a speech to the parliament. One would expect that speech to have been appropriate, given that Australians are entitled to absolute precision and certainty when it comes to the deployment of young Australian men and women in the service of their nation. On 18 March, the Prime Minister said:
The engagement of our defence forces will be limited to the period of the conflict ...
I think any reasonable Australian would assume that the conflict he referred to there was the immediate invasion of Iraq and not its aftermath in terms of peacekeeping or stability operations. Indeed, that was confirmed on 4 May 2003, when the Prime Minister, who was then in New York, was interviewed and said that we would be bringing back the troops. He continued:
When we bring back the SAS and the Hornets and some other force elements, we will still have during the transitional period some 1,000 to 1,200 personnel in the area ...
He then said:
... the president reiterated his clear understanding all along we would not be providing a significant peacekeeping force.
Then he was asked, in that context:
Do you see it as months or years ...
He said:
Well I certainly don’t see it as years.
Here we are, four years after, with our combat forces still involved in Iraq. The Prime Minister says that in no way are those public statements of his misleading or inconsistent, because the Al Muthanna task group was deployed in Al Muthanna in March 2005, which corresponds with my recollection. But, on any reasonable analysis, statements by the Prime Minister and many statements by the Minister for Foreign Affairs confirm that it was never the intention that Australia be involved in a protracted occupancy of Iraq—and that is certainly what has occurred.
In terms of what the government’s plans are for Australian forces to be withdrawn from Iraq, quite frankly, it is anyone’s guess. I asked the Prime Minister a question today. The text of my question was:
Is the Prime Minister aware of reports of the preparation by the Pentagon of a plan for a phased withdrawal of United States troops in the event that the current ‘surge’ of United States troops fails to stop sectarian violence in Iraq?
I also asked:
Does the Prime Minister have a similar contingency plan of phased withdrawal in place for Australian forces?
Subject to the transcription of his answer, the Prime Minister, as I recall, said, ‘The answer is yes, it is normal for such a contingency plan to be prepared’—or words to that effect. In answer to the follow-up question asked by the Leader of the Opposition—which basically was, ‘What is that contingency plan?’—the Prime Minister accused the Leader of the Opposition of misleading him, because, he said, he had been asked about the United States plan.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt interjecting—
JK6
McClelland, Robert, MP
Mr McCLELLAND
—The minister at the table interjects that perhaps they are one and the same. Perhaps we have delegated our foreign policy responsibility on such an important issue to the United States administration and perhaps, in that context, their plan is our plan. The Labor Party are very strong allies of the United States—always have been and always will be—but we will never delegate our national security responsibility to any other regime.
Looking at the government’s strategy in respect of Iraq, you will see that it is delusional. We invaded Iraq for the purpose of ridding that country of weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, those weapons of mass destruction did not exist. The invasion occurred despite the fact that the United Nations inspectors had not completed their reporting on that matter.
Why was the invasion necessary? The invasion became necessary—as the Prime Minister said in a speech on 4 February 2003—because international sanctions had failed. He said:
The old policy of containment is eroding. Saddam Hussein has increasingly been able to subvert the sanctions.
He also accused Saddam Hussein of ‘cruelly and simply manipulating the oil for food program’. There is no doubt that that was occurring. The Prime Minister said:
Tragically for the Iraqi people, Saddam Hussein has rorted the program, violated its provisions and evaded its constraints.
Regrettably, again he was dead accurate—dead for many Iraqis and allied troops, indeed. He was quite correct. Saddam Hussein had bypassed the sanctions and rorted the oil for food program. And who were the biggest international rorters, the world champions of rorting, of that program that led to the invasion of Iraq, in the Prime Minister’s own words? Australia was. Australians have been disgraced in that it was our government—a government that was responsible for signing off the work of AWB—that was responsible for the greatest rorting of that oil for food program and for bypassing the sanctions regime.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt interjecting—
JK6
McClelland, Robert, MP
Mr McCLELLAND
—I pick up and note that admission. It is an admission that the government rorted the oil for food program and the sanctions against Iraq. That is why the invasion was necessary. The government is a disgrace in that respect. It is a disgrace that no charges have been laid relating to the oil for food program and the rorting carried out by AWB—no charges. We suspect that the Crown prosecutors will give a report after the next election. It is a disgrace that no public servants have been sacked as a result of AWB having rorted that program. In addition, it is a disgrace that ministers have not been held accountable for what—even taken in the very best of light—has been a gross neglect of their obligations in overseeing the work of AWB.
In effect, the invasion of Iraq occurred as a result of a falsehood. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations had not been permitted to exhaust and complete its weapons inspection. It became necessary because of the failure of the sanctions. The sanctions were unquestionably rorted and Australia, under this government, were the biggest rorters. But after four long years in Iraq, the government is yet to admit responsibility for this gross foreign policy failing—indeed, an outrageous abuse of power in the sense that those sanctions were rorted.
The Prime Minister says: ‘Look, forget the past. I’m not going to apologise, but forget the past. What we have to do is fight the terrorists who are in Iraq.’ Again, the representations in this respect are misrepresentations. Why do I say that? Firstly, before the invasion of Iraq, there was no evidence of a substantial presence of al-Qaeda in that country. Indeed, security reports have confirmed that. Secondly, the Prime Minister, with respect, is misrepresenting the nature of the conflict that is occurring in Iraq. Iraq is essentially facing a civil war, and that civil war is between a Shiite majority and a Sunni minority.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—And what are the consequences for people of your policy?
JK6
McClelland, Robert, MP
Mr McCLELLAND
—I again pick up the intervention. The consequences for people of our policy are to address the fact that the conflict exists and to admit that it is a conflict that exists. It is a civil war between warring Islamic factions, between Shiites and the Sunnis. Yes, there is a presence of insurgents supported by al-Qaeda. By and large, they are supporting the Sunnis. The Sunni minority is trying to take down the Shiites.
But, as the American ambassador acknowledged in July last year, the principal cause of instability in Iraq is sectarian violence, this conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites. To say that we are in there fighting terrorists as opposed to trying to police and babysit, if you like, two Islamic factions is a complete misrepresentation. Indeed, in the area where Australians are in southern Iraq, in the provinces of Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar, they are virtually totally Shiite. Indeed, the Shiite militias from Baghdad go there on holidays for a bit of a break from the hostilities. There is very little, if any, Sunni presence, and one can assume from that that there is very little likelihood—and the government can correct me if I am wrong on this—of an al-Qaeda presence at all in that area.
So the representation that Australians are there fighting terrorists is a complete misrepresentation; it is a misrepresentation of the nature of the conflict in Iraq. It is a civil war that even General Petraeus, who has been complimented by the Prime Minister today, acknowledges is only going to be solved by a political solution. So this representation that we have to have troops there because they are fighting terrorists is a complete misrepresentation.
On the other hand, our troops are most certainly fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. In the coming months they are going to come under all kinds of pressure. The government knows, we know, it is an extremely dangerous situation. There are approximately 10,000 Taliban fighters who have been trained in Pakistan by al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants, ready for a summer invasion of Afghanistan, and who our troops will be confronting. It is a very dangerous situation indeed. There is a substantial prospect of casualties, which of course we all hope and pray against. That is why we asked the Prime Minister in question time today, ‘Does the government have any additional plans to supplement our force structure in Afghanistan?’
But it is not simply a question of supplementing your force structure, your protective forces, in Afghanistan; it is a question of allocating your national security priorities. In that context, Mark Thompson, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that by focusing your resources on one battle location, you ‘double the resources that can be devoted to higher command, intelligence and policy, at the same time delivering a greater capacity for force protection and independent national command on the ground’. That is an expert saying, ‘If you’re in a combat situation, obviously if you can focus your resources on the one zone, you are doubling the resources that you can apply for that protection.’
No-one would ever say that anything our troops did was tokenistic or symbolic. Clearly our Australian troops are decent, talented, highly professional people. But the reality is they are in circumstances where they have not been called out as part of their civil call function or their security overwatch function; they have not been called out to assist the Iraqi police in that role. You have to question why we have them there. Why aren’t we focusing those resources where our troops are fighting terrorists, where they are facing an extremely dangerous period in the coming months? Why are we splitting our resources, including our intelligence resources? Why aren’t we backing up our troops in Afghanistan to ensure that casualties are minimised?
I would say to the Prime Minister, if he were here, that it is the responsibility of a Prime Minister in these circumstances not to think as a politician but to think as a warrior. And a warrior looks at outcomes, not symbolism. The outcomes that we can achieve in fighting the terrorists, the Taliban in Afghanistan, are real. That is where our resources should be focused. If we do not focus sufficient resources on protecting our troops in Afghanistan, then we are not doing the right thing by them. Clearly we are not doing the right thing by them, and, worse than that, we are exposing them to risk.
Our involvement in Iraq has been flawed from the start; we invaded Iraq on a false premise. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The invasion was necessary because the sanctions that had been imposed had been rorted. The Australian government and AWB under the control of the Australian government were the world’s leading rorters of that program. The government has absolutely no plans. It has not at any stage declared a mission statement for our troops. It is a disgrace and the government deserves to be condemned for this policy failure. (Time expired)
39
17:37:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
0
Mr HUNT
—This matter of public importance debate at this time in this place is about the consequences of a withdrawal from Iraq. It is about the consequences if the West and the coalition forces were to withdraw unilaterally without securing peace and security on the ground. Do we allow the door to open again to ethnic cleansing, at best, and to genocide, selectively, at worst? That is what this debate is about right now, at this point in history. It is also about the willingness to make decisions for the long-term security of Australia.
So there are two great consequences risked by the actions which the alternative government of Australia seeks to pursue. Those consequences are very simple. Firstly, there would be a human nightmare and catastrophe if the West were to withdraw now. On the timetable proposed, if the West were to withdraw without first achieving conditions of security across Iraq, what we will see is very simple: a return to the strategic and humanitarian nightmare which was Iraq in the past. But whereas then it was in the hands of a single strongman, who was responsible for the atrocities in Halabja in 1988, what we would see now is a country divided and destroyed, with a humanitarian nightmare which would be a return to the past and which would far exceed by an order of magnitude anything we see today.
So, when the question is raised, as it should be, about the consequences of where we are now, I want to draw a distinction between the past, the present and the future. The story of the past is a very simple one. The story of the past under Saddam Hussein is of genocide of the Marsh Arabs in the south, of the Kurds in the north and at Halabja on 16 March 1988, when he used chemical weapons against his own people, when 8,000 souls were taken. But more broadly it is the story of when hundreds of thousands of souls were taken in a brutal, slave state and totalitarian regime. That is what was brought to an end on 20 March 2003. It has not been pretty since, but let us never idealise or ignore it. (Quorum formed) The end of Saddam Hussein was the end of a prolonged period of ethnic cleansing, genocide, a totalitarian regime and a slave state. We make no apologies for bringing about the end of those circumstances. What we have seen since is a difficult situation—let us make no mistake about that—but what would occur if the policy of the Leader of the Opposition were adopted is genocide, ethnic cleansing and a strategic nightmare. That is what we face. It is a policy that has not acknowledged in any way at any time the consequences of walking out of Iraq. There is a myth being perpetrated that in some way we can do this without cost, without consequence and without bringing about a human tragedy. I believe that most members of the opposition know this but avert their eyes.
They know that their policy will bring about a human nightmare. It is a nightmare that I witnessed for myself when I was working for the United Nations in Geneva in 1993 recording the failure and inaction on the human tragedy in Bosnia—when we were not there and failed to take real steps to prevent what was occurring. It is a nightmare which would occur again under the policy proposed by the alternative government of Australia, and it would be a human tragedy as well as a strategic disaster.
Let me deal specifically with the three great myths of the policy put forward by the people who want to be the government. First is that there would be no consequences to walking out of Iraq if the West were to do that. Second is this absurd distinction between failure in Iraq and failure in Afghanistan. Let me be clear: if we fail in Afghanistan, as they say, then that will have enormous consequences on the ground in human terms, strategically and in security terms for Australia, but if we fail in Iraq there will be precisely the same consequences and it will open up a Pandora’s box that we will have to deal with for succeeding generations. The third great myth they have is that Australian troops do not really matter and that what we are doing in Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar in southern Iraq is not really making a difference. But, if you take away one of the legs of a stable stool, the others will not be enough. We are a critical part in the security of Tallil, Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar. That is absolutely the case.
The first of these great myths is that there will be no consequence to a precipitate withdrawal and that the West can walk out and it will be okay. There are people of goodwill who have put the case for withdrawal, but I put the position that they are clearly and absolutely wrong. The reason why is simple. It is that, although there is an incredibly difficult situation in Iraq now, there have been many areas of progress—whether it is the five million people who now have access to fresh water, the changes in the period of available electricity or the fact that six out of 10 divisions of the Iraqi army have been returned to Iraqi control, that 328,000 troops have been trained and that 135,000 police have been trained.
Whilst there is difficulty, there is progress at the same time. But without support we will see the two forces of Saddam Hussein’s legatees and those who are linked with or are supporting al-Qaeda wreak havoc on that country. What is occurring now is difficult and tragic, but it is better than it was under Saddam Hussein. As yesterday’s Australian newspaper reported, 5,000 Iraqis who were interviewed said, on a basis of two to one, it is better now than under Saddam Hussein. That is not us; that is the Iraqi people themselves in one of the most exhaustive public opinion polls ever conducted in Iraq.
We see then that the consequences will be real and human. If we walk out then we will see Shiite versus Sunni and Shiite versus Kurd, and perhaps we will see a risk to the Marsh Arabs again. On all of these fronts, we will see ethnic cleansing and potentially a return to selective genocide. That is the great charge and the great responsibility which is before us today. The opposition are right to raise the notion of consequences, but they are real and human consequences. Most of them know that but they fail to address the simple question: what will be the human consequences if we—not just Australia but the West—walk out today? They want the West to go, and if the West goes there will be ethnic cleansing and potentially genocide.
The second great consequence is that what we saw under the Taliban in Afghanistan will occur in Iraq. Iraq will be a platform for a strategic nightmare where maybe not all but enough of the country will be a base for terrorist action and training throughout the Middle East and potentially for those people who would work in our own region of Australia. Those are fundamental, long-term strategic consequences. It will not even be the opposition who will have to deal with it; it will be succeeding generations that will have to clean up the nightmare if we re-open the door to a slave state, or to parts of it, and to a Taliban style platform for the work of al-Qaeda and others. There can be no graver responsibility that we have for the rest of the world. We have the fear and the risk in the future, whether it is in five, 10 or 20 years, of some form of dirty bomb. There would never be a better place for this sort of preparation and activity to occur.
The second great myth they have is that it is okay if Iraq falls over but if Afghanistan falls over that would be a real problem. It would be a real problem, but the same applies to both. In fact, there are three great theatres of activity: Iraq, Afghanistan and the broader Middle East. We need to prevent the work of al-Qaeda and others who would bring forth an Islamic caliphate. They have a vision of the world which is a perversion of Islam, which is a perversion of the religion to which the vast majority of people in that region adhere, and which serves the same purpose as it did for the Oklahoma bombers when they misused their religion by claiming that they were acting in their religion. That battle has to be fought right across the Middle East in hearts and minds, and through diplomacy as well. If we fail in any of these theatres then it will be a problem. It will be not just a problem but a nightmare that our children and others will have to deal with because we walked out at the most important time. This is a critical juncture in history and to walk away from any one of these platforms is to walk away from our responsibility. To do so because it might be politically convenient is pure, venal, political opportunism. There are people on the other side who are better than that, but unfortunately the goodwill of one or two individuals does not prevail over a policy which is an impossibility—and that is to walk out and fail and let these consequences occur.
This brings me to my last point, about the importance of Australian actions. I want to deal firstly with the misrepresentation of the Prime Minister’s response in question time today. The Prime Minister responded very clearly on his position and understanding of the US system, and to try to shoehorn his answer into the confected response that the opposition pretend is an abuse of their position and an abuse of the processes in this House. He was very clear on his position in talking about the United States.
But what about the Australians? My last point is that the Australians play a critical role. We are involved in development, diplomacy and security. If our 520 troops in the Overwatch Battle Group in Tallil are withdrawn, what we will see is the disappearance of the prime support in Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar province for the work of local Iraqis, who are now beginning to take control. They are a fundamental leg in the platform of stability. If you take them away at this point in time, it will have real consequences: it will open the door for increased instability. Their presence alone is an important security guarantee. So we underestimate their contribution at our peril and at the peril of southern Iraq. Ultimately, this debate at this moment in history is about the consequences of action or inaction. Inaction is Australia and the West failing to play their parts. If we withdraw, there will be a humanitarian nightmare and a security nightmare for future generations.
42
17:53:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—What a patronising, ill-informed and inaccurate contribution we have just had from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There was plenty of patriotic fervour, but, sadly, it was ill informed and inaccurate. For a moment, I thought the Minister for Defence had turned up for the debate, such was the hand-on-heart approach in the contribution we have just heard from the parliamentary secretary. He is familiar with the approach from the Minister for Defence; we have seen it too often from him. Parliamentary Secretary, the people of Australia and our troops expect more from their Minister for Defence than hand-on-heart rhetoric. They need a government with the capacity to make real strategic decisions and put in place infrastructure that supports our troops.
This brings me to the point on the Minister for Defence. The Prime Minister and senior ministers of the government are very fond of the phrase ‘cut and run’, and here we are, on the fourth anniversary of the deployment of our troops to a dangerous theatre of war far away, and they cannot even come in here to debate the issue. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence are not even prepared to come in here and have this very important debate. They are not even prepared to come in here on this anniversary and acknowledge the very good work of the Australian troops: their bravery, their skills and their commitment to their country. At the very least, I am sure that the men and women of the ADF would have expected no less from these ministers, but alas we effectively get a backbencher contributing to this all-important debate on this all-important anniversary.
As each day passes, the Howard government’s case for remaining in Iraq—in the southern provinces in particular—grows weaker and weaker. As each day goes by, the Prime Minister grows increasingly lonely on this issue. I drove to Avalon Airport this morning for the Australian International Airshow—and I quickly congratulate the organisers of that event—and was listening to ABC radio on the way, as you do. The announcer lamented the fact that yesterday they had put considerable time and effort into organising a forum on the Iraq war and Australia’s participation in it and, alas, he was unable to find a single expert willing to participate in the forum in support of our intervention in Iraq.
Worse, the Brits are leaving. We learned that the US has a withdrawal plan. The only person in the international community without a withdrawal plan from Iraq is our own Prime Minister—and, of course, his government. So he becomes increasingly lonely—although we put a caveat on that following question time. Does the Prime Minister have a withdrawal plan? We have had a bit of a debate about the way he answered that question today. He was asked about the US contingency plan and he said, ‘The answer is yes.’ The question was: ‘Does the government have a contingency plan; does it have a phased withdrawal plan from Iraq?’ He answered, ‘Yes, it is normal for that contingency planning to be made.’ So we are in doubt about whether, in the face of current opinion polling, the Prime Minister is now developing a withdrawal strategy from Iraq. Hopefully tomorrow, during question time, he will get an opportunity to clarify that point.
When I arrived in this portfolio, only about three months ago, I thought my perspective on Iraq might change. I thought that, as I did the rounds with the experts—organisations like ASPI, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute; former deputy secretaries of the department; even the chiefs of our defence forces—and I wandered the corridors of the Australian National University, I might be convinced that I was wrong on Iraq, but, alas, I did not experience any road to Damascus; I have not been convinced I was wrong. In fact, if anything, I have been absolutely and overwhelmingly convinced that the Labor Party and the opposition generally has been right on this point all along and that it is right to say that this is one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions ever taken by this country.
Today, on this matter of public importance, we have given the government the opportunity to rebut the case—to state the reasons they intervened in Iraq in the first place and to give justification for our ongoing involvement in Iraq. Again, all we got from the parliamentary secretary was rubbish. Predictably, he started to roll out the view about almost the end of the world if we were to withdraw our Overwatch Battle Group from the southern provinces of Iraq. There would be all sorts of crises as a result, according to the parliamentary secretary.
Does the parliamentary secretary understand that Dhi Qar and Al Muthanna provinces are dominated by Shiites? Al-Qaeda is a Sunni based organisation. We are not finding al-Qaeda in the southern provinces of Dhi Qar and Al Muthanna; we never will. There is a very tenuous connection at best between our involvement in the southern provinces in Iraq and the fight against al-Qaeda. It is a point that the parliamentary secretary simply does not understand.
The first priority for any government is the safety and security of its country and its people. That requires sound strategic decision making in the first instance. After that, it requires a responsible use of our troops and our military assets. This means never putting our troops in harm’s way unnecessarily. That is exactly what the Howard government did when it took the decision to deploy our troops in a faraway war without the sanction of the United Nations. It has failed in its first commitment to the nation and to its citizens. Both the men and women of the ADF and Australians generally expect more from their Minister for Defence than that, they expect more from their Minister for Foreign Affairs than that and they expect more from their Prime Minister than that. The parliamentary secretary, again predictably, spent a fair bit of time trying to suggest that Labor were walking on both sides of the street: we have one position on Iraq and another position on Afghanistan. I have partly answered that question already by making the point that the role we are playing in the southern provinces has a tenuous link at best with the war against terror.
But Afghanistan, as the member for Barton has pointed out, is a very different proposition. Iraq has descended into a civil war between ethnic groups, a civil war which will not end with guns and bullets. It is time the government dusted off the bipartisan report of the Iraq Study Group, took on board its recommendations and heard the message about the solution in Iraq—if there is ever to be a solution. I remind the House that it was only a matter of weeks ago that the Minister for Defence told a conference in Canberra, organised by the Australian Defence magazine, that there is no victory in Iraq and it simply is not possible to impose a Western style democracy on a country like Iraq. It poses the question: why then are we there? First, it was about weapons of mass destruction, then it was about establishing a democratically elected government, and then it was about bedding down that government and the security of that country. But the minister tells us it is not possible to impose a Western style democracy on a country like Iraq, so why are we there?
But Afghanistan is a very different situation. It is the home of terrorism. All the Bali bombers were trained in Afghanistan. It is the home of drugs; a huge narcotics industry has its base in Afghanistan. We have a deployment in a war that can and must be won. Of course, the opposition supported our intervention in Afghanistan post 9-11 and we have supported it ever since. Indeed, we were rightly critical of the government when, in the lead-up to its intervention in Iraq, it withdrew our troops from Afghanistan rather than sticking it out and seeing the job through. So there is no argument. They are very different circumstances and the government stands condemned for its position on Iraq.
44
18:03:00
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
1
0
Mrs MIRABELLA
—It gives me no pleasure to follow the member for Hunter on this matter of public importance. I was quite disturbed to hear him lost for words. He referred to the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding the human and security consequences of withdrawal from Iraq as ‘goo’, whatever he might have meant by that, but to trivialise the human and security consequences really shows a lack of understanding and a superficial analysis of the situation and the possible consequences in Iraq. I quote from a National Intelligence Estimate of January 2007 which says:
... if such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF—
the Iraqi security forces—
would be unlikely to survive as a nonsectarian national institution; neighboring countries—invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable …
Perhaps the member for Hunter would call those comments ‘goo’ as well. He said that it was impossible to have a Western style democracy in Iraq. It reminds me of those very paternalistic, colonial approaches to non-Western nations which say: ‘If you are not Western, you can’t experience democracy. If you are not one of us, you can sit there and suffer.’ I for one in this government do not accept that. We believe in the importance of democracy and trying to assist that all over our globe.
The member for Barton has often been described as ‘a good bloke with a bad brief’ and he has not failed to live up to his reputation with this matter of public importance we are debating today. The only thing he did get right in this matter of public importance was that today is the fourth anniversary of military action getting underway against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—and, may I say, military action which saw the downfall of the brutal dictator for which the world is a better place. The government does not shy away from its original decision.
We have seen the Labor Party fly the white flag and give up on Iraq, and we have to ask why? Is it pandering to certain factional elements within its own party? Is it perhaps trying to be cute and populist? Whatever the reason, it really has not explained why we need to withdraw from Iraq. The member for Hunter talked about never putting our troops in harm’s way, but he failed to mention that there have been no troop casualties in Iraq. We have seen this quite artificial distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq and the terrorism in both nations. The fate of terrorism in Afghanistan is linked with the fate of terrorism in Iraq.
Both countries have had Australian troops both in a military manner and with reconstruction efforts, and it was very pleasing to see in a survey published on 18 March—the largest survey since troops entered Iraq in 2003—that Iraqis prefer the current leadership by two to one. In contradiction to what is being said by the opposition, most Iraqis do not believe they are in a civil war. So what are we to believe—a survey of Iraqis living in Iraq or the desperate assertions of the Labor Party that there is a civil war, when clearly those in that nation say there is not?
What happens if we withdraw, as the Labor Party wants us to do? Single-handedly we would give the worldwide terrorist cause a massive boost, and it would be a blow for the Australian-American alliance. As we all know, the Leader of the Opposition attempts to be all things to all people, including to our US allies. We are getting quite used to the image in our minds of him walking both sides of the street on almost every issue. He has had more policy positions on Iraq than one cares to remember.
When the war started, the Labor Party was opposed to sending troops. In 2003 Mr Rudd went to Iraq, said it was still a war zone and then said we should increase the number of troops to provide training and protection for the Iraqi security forces and people. What does he think our troops are currently doing in Iraq? They are still training Iraqi soldiers. They are doing an excellent job. Everywhere Australian soldiers go, they make friends and create new alliances. They have a positive impact in Iraq and in other nations. Our troops are very culturally adaptable, and you only need to speak to them to know.
How many members of the opposition have spoken to our service men and women who have been in Iraq and understood how positive our efforts and mission in Iraq have been and how good Australian soldiers feel about the significant contribution—contrary to the patronising comments of the member for Barton—that they have made? Whether it was training a local army or sponsoring and managing Australian aid in Al Muthanna, they have made a contribution far in excess of their actual numbers. I am proud of our troops still serving and of those who have been on their mission.
Where does Mr Rudd stand on Iraq? He has made confusing and contradictory statements when commenting on the matter. We know from The Latham Diaries that Mr Rudd pleaded with the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Latham, not to bring his troops home by Christmas. Now he says the first thing he would do if ever given the chance of governing Australia would be to start the process of withdrawal. It seems that it is not just education and health policies that are regurgitated from the Latham era; it is also diplomatic policies and attitudes towards Iraq.
When referring to weapons of mass destruction, the member for Barton failed to mention the words of the Leader of the Opposition back in 2002. Perhaps he conveniently omitted their inclusion. When he was not leader, Mr Rudd said:
Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. That is a matter of empirical fact. If you don’t believe the intelligence assessments, you simply read the most recent bulletin from the Federation of American Scientists ...
We have had bleating from the opposition this afternoon criticising the government for its initial reasons for sending troops to Iraq, referring to the fact that the claims of weapons of mass destruction did not live up to expectations, and yet the current Leader of the Opposition, at the time, had the same beliefs. But, of course, that was conveniently omitted.
But why withdraw, and what are the consequences to our alliance? What factions are the Labor leadership group pandering to? Are they preparing for the next federal election by attempting to secure Green preferences, like the Premier of New South Wales is doing now in the lead-up to the New South Wales election? What can we possibly achieve by withdrawing, other than contributing to the possibly disastrous human and security consequences for Iraq that have been outlined so far? We will be just another Western nation walking out on the US. That obviously pleases and delights those who are used to US bashing on a regular basis, but the mission in Iraq cannot be abandoned. We have a job to finish. Our troops are making an extraordinary contribution and will continue to do so.
The government are committed to helping the Iraqis rebuild a better nation. We have done positive things. The morale of our service men and women and of US service men and women is high. They know they are doing an important job. They know they have a job to continue and that it is not over.
I am not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has yet again changed his position on Iraq. I can imagine him speaking to representatives of the US government, saying: ‘Look, mate, don’t worry about this. We don’t really mean it. We still want to be your friends, but I’ve got to say one thing to the loonies in my party and to the loony Greens, who might help me win government. But we don’t really mean it.’ What does he really mean? We will never really know because his position changes on a daily basis.
All I have to say in closing is that our soldiers, our service men and women, have done an extraordinary job well beyond their numbers. They will continue to do so under this government. If the Labor Party do not understand the disastrous consequences of withdrawal, they do not even deserve to be considered as an alternative government. (Time expired)
46
18:14:00
Wilkie, Kim, MP
84G
Swan
ALP
0
0
Mr WILKIE
—I rise to support my colleagues the shadow ministers for foreign affairs and defence in this important debate. At the outset, I would like to say that the Australian Labor Party supports the service men and women who are serving our country in Iraq. They are the pride of Australia and do us all proud each and every day. In response to the member for Indi, who is running out of the chamber: in 2005 I along with other members of this parliament had the opportunity to visit our service personnel who are stationed in the Iraq theatre. I was honoured to have the chance to talk to many of them, and I conveyed to them, as did others, the support of all Australians. Those men and women deserve our enduring respect and admiration.
However, as my colleagues have said, we should not have embarked on this war in Iraq. The Australian government is deluding itself and trying to dupe all Australians when it continues to argue the case for war. It is hard to find even vociferous right-wing commentators in the United States and the United Kingdom who still believe that the stated reasons for the war remain valid. It is four years ago today since the invasion of Iraq officially began. Over that time 3,209 American personnel have been killed and many more injured. Along with this 6,294 Iraqi security force personnel have been killed, along with countless civilians. And the violence is growing.
Many reports and editorials have been written in the newspapers over the last few days about this anniversary. One of the most poignant was in the Guardian. Anas Altikriti wrote about the war from an Iraqi point of view. He said in the article:
Millions of Iraqis, indeed the vast majority of the population (myself included), regarded the Ba’athist regime as one of the most brutal and evil dictatorships in the world. We dreamt of seeing the back of it for decades while the US—
and Britain and other Western countries—
... provided it with unlimited military, economic and political support in return for ... commercial and financial gains. Now we find the country and its people facing times much worse than they ever were, even in those dark days.
So what have we achieved over the last four years? We have a situation in Iraq of civil war. We have compromised the war on terror in Afghanistan because we diverted crucial attention away from this, the main game against terror, because of an ideological and obsequious deference to the United States’s agenda on Iraq.
Put simply, we did not finish the job in Afghanistan and we now stand to pay a high price for this failure of judgement. We are risking the lives of our own service men and women in a dangerous war zone for a reason which has changed many times since the conflict began. This has been going on for four long years. While our men and women were fighting the fight the Howard government was giving Saddam Hussein’s government kickbacks in the form of payments under the oil for food program. In other words, Australia funded the very bullets that Saddam was using against us and other coalition troops.
At this point, I would like to refer members to an excellent speech given in this House by the member for Brand in a censure motion against the government last year. I would like to quote from his speech with regard to what Saddam Hussein did with the kickbacks he received from the Australian Wheat Board:
Saddam, as a result of our actions, was able to maintain the Scud missile launchers for which the SAS were asked to risk their lives to destroy. He was able to maintain the Iraqi soldiers in machine-gun-mounted four-wheel drives that the SAS fought running battles with early in the war. He was able to maintain a good proportion of the 50 aircraft that the Australian Special Forces Group captured at Al Asad air base west of Baghdad. He was able to maintain the sea mines which RAN boarding parties risked their lives to neutralise ... He was able to maintain the tanks, trucks, artillery bunkers and logistical support which RAAF Hornet pilots risked their lives to destroy in strike and close air support missions.
The government has no credibility left whatsoever. It turned a blind eye to the illegal activities of the AWB, which actively supported our enemies. It took us to a war we should never have been in. It risked and still risks the lives of our troops—good and decent Australian men and women—for its flawed foreign policy in Iraq. Let us not forget the reason the government gave originally for our military commitment to Iraq: weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, we know there were no such weapons.
Unfortunately arrogance will not do the government any good. When you look back, the Prime Minister originally said that regime change in Iraq was not an appropriate reason to commit Australian troops in Iraq. I wonder what he is doing about Zimbabwe, if that was the case for going to war. The Australian government has run out of excuses. It is discredited. It is playing with the lives of young men and women of Australia. The PM referred to terrorism against Afghanistan versus terrorism in Iraq. The reality is that the terror was based in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Remember September 11. We went to Afghanistan on the basis of the ANZUS alliance, and we need to be there. Iraq is primarily facing a challenge from the internal insurgency and our presence, many commentators state, is exacerbating the problem. It is time for us to realise that we need to be out of Iraq and out now. (Time expired)
48
18:19:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
1
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
)—I rise to speak to the proposition put forward by the shadow minister for foreign affairs in this MPI. I want to quote to the House the matter proposed for discussion before I continue my contribution:
The Government’s failure to acknowledge the disastrous consequences of the invasion of Iraq, despite today marking the 4th anniversary of that invasion
Clearly, the Labor Party are just playing cheap politics. There can be no other reason for a proposition that refers to ‘disastrous consequences’ as a result of the invasion in Iraq. What the Labor Party should be doing is acknowledging the invaluable assistance our troops have provided, and continue to provide, to the people of Iraq.
Let us have a look at the record of the past four years. Iraq now has a democracy. Approximately 70 per cent of eligible voters in Iraq were able to vote for their democracy in December 2005 at their national elections. They democratically elected a government that includes representatives from the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish populations. And it is a constitutional requirement, which was previously voted for, that women constitute 25 per cent of the total make-up of their parliament. The new security plan for Baghdad is designed, structured and led by Iraqis with the support of the United States. Is it a disastrous consequence to now have a democracy in Iraq representing the three major populations and women, as per their constitution?
Let us have a look at the record. Approximately 328,000 Iraqi police and soldiers have now been trained and equipped. Australia has been a vital part of that, helping to train the Iraqi police and military to keep law and order in their own country. Is that a disastrous consequence? I say it is not. The Iraqi Police Service is now responsible for security measures in over 130 districts, with nearly 1,000 stations throughout Iraq. The per capita GDP has increased by over 20 per cent since 2002. Is that a disastrous consequence, as the proposition from the opposition suggests? I say it is not. There has been a 27 per cent increase in the number of children enrolled in high schools since before the war. Is that a disastrous consequence? I say it is not a disastrous consequence. It is a wonderful outcome, having children able to go back to school. (Time expired)
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (NO. 2) 2006
49
Bills
R2675
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2473
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP (TRANSITIONALS AND CONSEQUENTIALS) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2470
ELECTORAL AND REFERENDUM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2663
FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE FEES VALIDATION) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2705
MARITIME LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PREVENTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2693
ACIS ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (UNEARNED CREDIT LIABILITY) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2703
AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA’S SKILLS NEEDS) AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2007
49
Bills
R2650
CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2677
BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2713
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLES AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2672
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2709
INCOME TAX (FORMER COMPLYING SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2708
INCOME TAX (FORMER NON-RESIDENT SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2704
INCOME TAX RATES AMENDMENT (SUPERANNUATION) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2707
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (SIMPLIFIED SUPERANNUATION) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2681
SUPERANNUATION (EXCESS CONCESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TAX) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2700
SUPERANNUATION (EXCESS NON-CONCESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TAX) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2690
SUPERANNUATION (EXCESS UNTAXED ROLL-OVER AMOUNTS TAX) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2688
SUPERANNUATION (DEPARTING AUSTRALIA SUPERANNUATION PAYMENTS TAX) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2689
SUPERANNUATION (SELF MANAGED SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) SUPERVISORY LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2696
SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SIMPLIFICATION) BILL 2007
49
Bills
R2712
Assent
49
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
AIRPORTS AMENDMENT BILL 2006
49
Bills
R2662
Second Reading
49
Debate resumed from 1 March, on motion by Mr Vaile:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Martin Ferguson moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act through approval decisions such as that relating to the Perth brickworks site, located opposite a residential area, and the Essendon direct factory outlet, proposed without regard to the impact on local road infrastructure”.
50
18:23:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
0
Mr GARRETT
—As I resume my speech on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006, I note the condolence motion earlier today when the House was reflecting on the tragic circumstances of the terrible accident of Garuda flight 200 in which a number of Australians, some well known to people in this House, lost their lives. I add my condolences on this very sad occasion.
In respect of the legislation before us, the amendment that has been moved by the member for the Batman and the concerns that Labor has about this bill, I should say that we support the recommendations of the Senate inquiry which considered this matter. One of the recommendations was that airport lessee companies advise relevant state and territory governments, as well as local councils, of the commencement of public consultation processes. This would ensure that they are fully aware of opportunities to engage in the consultation process. It would also mean that the relevant state and territory governments and others—in particular, local councils—did not find out about proposed developments in the newspaper.
In relation to the government’s airport development consultation guidelines, whilst it is better to have guidelines than not, the issue that the guidelines are non-binding on airport lessee companies remains. As a consequence, they actually cannot be enforced. When the guidelines were released by the minister late last year, the point was made that communities have an expectation that they will be consulted effectively on such intensely local issues. That is an absolutely legitimate expectation that communities have. But, if the guidelines themselves are non-binding, there would be a lack of public confidence as to the consultation processes of any kind having any weight, strength or force.
If we are talking about having effective consultation, the opportunity for community views to be heard does not mean simply hearing them and then doing nothing else. When we consider the nature of the amendments proposed in the legislation and when we note in particular our objection concerning the reduction in the amount of consultation time for airport master plans, major development plans and environmental strategies, that consideration raises yet again the very serious issue of the actual quality and nature of the consultations that are envisaged when proposals of any kind come here.
Whilst it is clear that the primary purpose of federally leased airports must be for aviation activity, and Labor does recognise that airport lessees can conduct non-aeronautical activity on airport land, the essential point is that these activities must take into account and consider local community concerns. Take an airport as busy as Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, Australia’s busiest airport, where any proposed development will have an impact not only on the management of the airport itself but also on the surrounding environment, the amenity of the area and the provision of infrastructure, particularly transport, in one of the busiest parts of Australia. Additionally, there are the likely consequences of threats to security from terrorism or accident. There is a range of issues, a plethora of issues, that arise particularly in relation to the proposals for the development of Sydney airport which the Minister for Transport and Regional Services ultimately did not approve. These make it very clear that this bill in its current state is unsatisfactory.
Should Labor’s amendments to be moved in consideration in detail be defeated, in government the Labor Party would revisit the amendments whilst undertaking a broader review of this legislation, taking particular note of its impact on local communities. I know the residents of the electorate of Kingsford Smith, particularly citizens in Botany, Eastlakes, Maroubra and Pagewood, and those in the surrounding areas, including the electorate of the member for Grayndler, would want to hear that we will definitely be taking specific notice of the kinds of impacts that developments that are mooted for airport land would have on local communities. I say, by way of conclusion, that the issue of the conduct of Kingsford Smith airport and the likely intersection of the frequency of aircraft movements and any potential developments that might take place there are matters of some concern, given that residents of the electorate of Kingsford Smith are still subject to a number of unauthorised movements that are clearly happening at the airport.
The Australian National Audit Office report Implementation of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 found that there had been a number of failings in relation to the act. They found:
... elements of the legislative scheme are unclear, do not operate in the way intended or are ineffective.
The Audit Office also found evidence that a high number of unauthorised movements—that is, movements without a slot and movements outside the slot tolerances—had occurred at Sydney airport, but that, since the scheme commenced in 1998, no infringement notices had been issued to operators or other penalties applied. Further, ANAO found that the compliance scheme chaired by DOTARS had not effectively applied the compliance scheme’s provision for identifying unauthorised aircraft movements and that there may have been as many as 357 additional breaches of the movement limit not reported to the minister or the parliament.
The pressure on communities living in and around Sydney airport is immense. People’s ability to have a reasonable night’s sleep and be well prepared for the activities of the day is constantly infringed by aircraft movements. Now we find that there is evidence of a high number of unauthorised movements taking place—some 357 additional breaches of the movement limit that have not been reported to the minister or the parliament. That is completely unacceptable to the people of Kingsford Smith. Frankly, the fact that the Australian National Audit Office has found a number of failings in relation to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act reflects really poorly on the management regime implementing that act.
It is clear that the government is not effectively maintaining and administering the legislation in relation to airports. There are a number of shortcomings that have been identified by Labor. There are a number of amendments to this bill which we believe need to be supported to enable local communities to have some confidence that they will be adequately consulted and have the opportunity for their voices to be heard in relation to developments that are proposed to take place in or around airports. The bill in front of us does not rectify the flaws that have been identified. It needs to be significantly improved. The amendments that we have proposed deserve the support of this House. (Time expired)
51
18:33:00
Wilkie, Kim, MP
84G
Swan
ALP
0
0
Mr WILKIE
—I rise to speak on this important bill and to support my colleague the shadow minister for transport. Once again the shadow minister has done an excellent job in analysing this bill and carefully crafting the opposition’s response to ensure a balance between economic and community considerations.
The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 makes a number of changes to airport development arrangements. The bill amends the Airports Act to loosen the restriction on airlines owning smaller non-core regulated airports; incorporates explicitly the right of airport lessees to undertake non-aeronautical development as long as it is consistent with relevant airport master plans; sets out a purpose statement for airport master plans, ensuring a strategic focus, public information about intentions and land use compatibility; requires Australian noise exposure forecasts and flight paths to be included in master plans, and new master plans to be developed if noise forecasts change; allows for noise forecasts to extend beyond the 20-year planning horizon; reduces time lines for public comment on drafts and minor variations of master plans and major development plans; reduces time lines for ministerial approval from just under 13 weeks to between 10 and 11 weeks; requires free availability of information on airport websites; introduces a stop-clock provision in the ministerial approval time line if the minister requires additional information from the airport lessee company; requires the airport lessee company to demonstrate how it has due regard to public comment rather than simply stating that it has due regard; requires the minister to have regard to the extent to which a plan achieves the purpose of a final master plan; lifts the dollar threshold for the definition of ‘major airport development’ from $10 million to $20 million, reflecting both the very substantial escalation in construction costs today compared with 1997 and the new requirement for site works to be included in project costs, includes an appropriate cost inflation index in regulations; allows the minister to determine that the combined cost of consecutive or concurrent projects or extensions be included when deciding whether the cost of a proposal exceeds the threshold for major development projects; sets out a purpose statement for major development plans to ensure they are consistent with the airport lease and master plan, and requires the plan to include information in this regard; requires the impact of a development on flight paths to be stated; brings Canberra airport into line with the governance of other airports and removes it from the jurisdiction of the National Capital Plan; sets out a purpose statement for a final environmental strategy to ensure all operations are carried out in accordance with relevant environmental legislation and standards; establishes a framework for assessing compliance and promotes continual improvement of environmental management; removes the requirement for all core regulated airports to prepare audited accounts and provide quality of service information to the ACCC, and requires this only of airports specified in regulations; broadens the definition of a gambling activity; and allows the Australian Defence Force or persons approved by CASA to supply air traffic and fire and rescue services where currently these are provided by or approved by Airservices Australia. The bill also covers related matters of a minor nature and transitional arrangements.
Airports are vital hubs for business and tourism. They have enjoyed extraordinary growth in the last 10 years. It could be said without exaggeration that having a well-functioning airport catering to the needs of passengers and business alike is vital to the growth of our cities and regional centres. While the privatisation of airports through leasing has occurred, and the benefits of such privatisation have been clear in many cases, it is my view that airport land should remain in Commonwealth ownership and control. This is important to ensure that airport developments are consistent with the long-term growth of airport capacity. For example, while some airport land may be leased today for commercial development, it is inappropriate for it to be sold for that purpose because it may be required in the long term for further aeronautical expansion.
I am sure that none of us could have anticipated the huge growth in commercial development at airports that we have witnessed around Australia over the last decade. In my view, the rapid growth in non-aviation development is much needed to generate funds for future expansion and replacement of aviation infrastructure and improved quality of service at Australian airports. The funds generated from commercial development at airports will certainly remove what would otherwise be an enormous burden on taxpayers to deliver the essential aviation services that underpin our national economy. Nonetheless, airport development is a contentious community issue and nowhere more so than at Perth Airport in my electorate of Swan.
In my comments in this debate, I will focus on two aspects of airport development and management which have particular and significant implications for Perth Airport: firstly, the government’s attitude to airport development, particularly with regard to the development of a brickworks at Perth Airport; and, secondly, the financial relationship between Perth Airport and Belmont City Council. Other members have spoken about the BGC brickworks at Perth Airport. This development is causing considerable concern in the local community because of the proximity of that development to residential housing. In the context of the consideration of this bill, it is difficult to explain to a local community why on earth they should trust the planning regime for airports when the government has delivered a decision to place a significant brickworks facility in Perth on airport land and opposite housing.
The government’s decision to approve the brickworks is made all the more curious when you compare that decision with the decision of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services on 12 February this year to reject an application for a retail development at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. At that time, the minister stated that he rejected the Sydney airport development because of traffic and safety concerns. I believe the minister made the right call with that development and I commend him for it. But that decision is totally inconsistent with the decision by the minister’s hapless predecessor to approve the brickworks development at Perth Airport. This development needs further and serious consideration, given the local community’s concerns. But this government has thumbed its nose at the concerns of local communities in an arrogant and out-of-touch fashion. In fact, the brickworks construction has already commenced.
The problem is not so much with the planning regime but with the poor judgement of the government in failing to consider surrounding land uses in its decisions about commercial developments at airports. The government’s record on airport development means that we in the Labor Party are not prepared to accept any reductions in consultation or approval time lines. This is because in many respects the government’s management of airport planning issues has provoked significant distrust of the process. I believe that the minister and the government must have due regard to the concerns of local communities and the land use and infrastructure plans of local government authorities. Part of the problem is that a department specialising in transport is trying to make planning decisions when it has no expertise in this area.
I wish to respond in part to some of the remarks made on this very subject in this debate two weeks ago by the members for Hasluck and Canning. First, both members suggested that the state members for Belmont and Midland, the Hon. Eric Ripper and the Hon. Michelle Roberts, were responsible for the brickworks being built on federal land at Perth Airport. I have heard some rubbish in my time from those opposite, but blaming state members who totally opposed the proposal for the brickworks at Perth Airport, who actively campaigned against it and who had no responsibility for its approval or refusal takes the cake. As the members for Hasluck and Canning know, the decision to approve the brickworks lay totally and entirely with the federal minister for transport. In fact, both members have completely failed in their duties to their past and present constituents through their abject failure in preventing the minister for transport from approving inappropriate building applications on land at Perth Airport. This includes the brickworks, in the case of the member for Hasluck, and the building of a bitumen plant in Hazelmere, which the then member for Swan, the current member for Canning, at the time said he actively opposed but strangely now professes to support.
In this debate, the member for Canning raised a number of issues which he professed to have dealt with when he was the member for Swan from 1996 to 1998. The truth is that the then member for Swan failed to address any of them. For example, he referred to the issue of aircraft noise at Perth Airport and made the observation that ‘airport issues are very quiet these days’ and that those raising concerns about the airport were the same old detractors raising the same old issues. On the issue of aircraft noise, I remind the member that this was a very important issue when he was the member for Swan. I vividly remember that a group in Queens Road in South Guildford, which at that time was located in the federal electorate of Perth, was arguing through the member for Perth for assistance with this problem because their homes were very close to the end of the main runway. The now member for Canning claimed that these residents had no claim to anything, that they purchased their homes knowing that they were in the flight path and that the person leading the fight for the residents was a Labor Party apparatchik.
The problem for the member for Canning was that not long after he had made these claims there was a redistribution of federal electoral boundaries around Queens Road and these residents were moved into the electorate of Swan. Oh, how he changed his tune then! In fact, the lady he claimed was a Labor Party apparatchik was not even a member of the Labor Party.
While noise still remains an issue, one of the reasons concerns about noise are not quite as acute as they were is that the Labor Party has made commitments that homes dramatically affected by noise, such as those in Queens Road, would be eligible for assistance under a noise amelioration program such as that which operates in Sydney. Perth Airport has a noise management committee which looks at all noise related issues, including aircraft flight paths. A number of years ago I successfully argued that representatives from local government and the community be included on that committee. I am pleased that the airport included those representatives and that the committee is operating effectively.
During his address on this bill, the now member for Canning also said he disagreed with the member for Hasluck over his opposition to the brickworks as it was located nowhere near houses. In fact, the brickworks are located approximately 150 metres from houses across the Great Eastern Highway bypass road. It should come as no surprise to any member of this House that the member for Canning lost the seat of Swan and then had to relocate to Canning in 2001.
The member for Canning also decided to criticise Senator Glenn Sterle, who has been actively campaigning against the brickworks, about the circumstances of his preselection. People in glass houses should not throw stones. The member for Canning’s own branch-stacking antics in the lead-up to the 1996 election are legendary. In the 1993 election, local Belmont vet Dr Bryan Hilbert ran for Swan for the Liberal Party. He came within some 200 votes of defeating the now member for Brand. But sensing that there could be a change in the Labor Party’s fortunes in 1996, Don Randall, assisted by his mate Noel Crichton-Browne, then decided to stack the branches in the Swan division of the Liberal Party and claim preselection for himself, despite the fact that Dr Hilbert still wanted to contest the seat and had put in the hard yards.
10000
Haase, Barry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Haase)—Order! The honourable member sails close to the wind. I would bring the honourable member back to the content of the debate.
84G
Wilkie, Kim, MP
Mr WILKIE
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am actually responding to claims made by the member for Canning in his speech on this very subject.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I do not have the content in front of me, but I remind the member for Swan to confine himself to the debate.
84G
Wilkie, Kim, MP
Mr WILKIE
—All right, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for that ruling. I will return to the subject. I will just make one statement in relation to preselections which the member for Canning was referring to: he is no stranger to controversy himself in this regard, so if he wants to get up and make comments about preselections he needs to look at exactly where he came from and how he got into this place.
Another aspect of the commercialisation of airports has been the financial relationship between airports and local governments. The government has historically failed to require some airport lessees to meet the terms of their leases in that it has not required lessees to make rate equivalent payments to local government authorities as clearly specified in leases. Perth Airport refused to pay its liability to the City of Belmont in my electorate for some time. I worked hard with the City of Belmont to ensure that Perth Airport coughed up. I am pleased to say that it has and that the council has received its rate equivalent payment both this year and for the outstanding period last year. But I am concerned that this saga will go on unless the government addresses this very real issue into the future. Despite repeated requests to do so, the government has still refused to require the airport to pay its liability. It keeps talking about negotiating with airport owners but, in reality, the lease does not allow for that; it insists on people making their payments.
The government took a deliberate decision not to require the airport to fulfil its obligations under the lease in this particular case; it just said it should negotiate. That needs to be sorted out. I believe that this inaction deserves to be condemned. It is no wonder that local governments have little confidence that the government will uphold the terms of the leases. The minister has the power to take action to redress this situation and he needs to do so. But I am not convinced that the government has done enough to address these sorts of conflicts between airport lessees and local councils when it comes to rate equivalent payments and the interpretation of the obligations in this regard when it comes to airport leases.
In conclusion, I again congratulate the shadow minister for transport on his balanced and sensible approach to this bill. He provides excellent leadership and direction to members of the House on important issues, and he and his staff should be congratulated. I share his view that, while we have some amendments which would act to improve the management of airports, there are many aspects of this bill which should be commended. We do have concerns about the appropriate use of airport land and the government’s approach to planning in this regard, and nowhere is this more strongly felt than in my electorate of Swan.
56
18:48:00
O’Connor, Gavan, MP
WU5
Corio
ALP
0
0
Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR
—For members who have airports in their electorates the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 is a very important piece of legislation. In my own instance, Avalon Airport—which is currently hosting the Avalon Air Show 2007, which commenced today; and I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be visiting my electorate to participate with us in that air show—is a significant community asset currently operated privately by the Linfox group. I do not propose to deal in minute detail with the technical amendments enshrined in this legislation but to canvass the more general propositions that, in my view, ought to underpin legislation of this type which governs the operation of the 22 federal airports that have been privatised.
It goes without saying that the domestic and international gateways that are Australia’s capital city and regional airports are crucial to the ongoing performance of the national and regional economies. Not only are these airports important to Australia’s domestic and international tourism industry; they are important to regional economic development and critical to connecting families throughout the length and breadth of this vast continent. They are significant employers in their own right and they are unique in the way they have developed to the important position they now occupy in the social and economic life of the nation. Therefore, the detailed matters contained in the bill are worthy of considerable scrutiny and I hope that the government takes on board the amendments that are being proposed by the opposition in the spirit in which they have been advanced by the shadow minister, the member for Batman. As was noted by the shadow minister in his speech in the second reading debate, this legislation is but another example of sloppy legislating by this tired government. Given the consultation with the industry that has occurred on these matters since 2004, it is somewhat surprisingly that it has taken the government till 2007 to bring this legislation before the parliament. I will leave the industry to draw its own conclusions about the competence of the government in this matter.
As I stated earlier, while the legislation deals with many detailed matters relating to the ongoing development of airports, there are several important propositions that should underpin the detail of the bill. Firstly, airport operators, the industry generally and the community ought not to lose sight of the fact that we are dealing here with community assets that have enormous economic and social impacts in their communities. Secondly, airport operators need to keep in mind that, although commercial and retail developments may be considered desirable for profitability reasons for the owner in the short term, the long-term future of such facilities for aeronautical related development should be paramount in view of the first point I have made. Thirdly, airports are an important part of communities and, as such, there must always be a high level of consultation by those airport operators with local communities and particularly local government authorities in relation to aircraft noise, retail developments, traffic flows and environmental matters. Fourthly, it is absolutely important that airport development master plans are integrated with local government land use and other planning in the airport area. Fifthly, there must be a firm but sensitive framework of regulation from the federal government and other local government bodies to ensure an appropriate balance is always kept between the community’s needs and the owner’s plans to grow. I am sure there are other propositions that might form the basis of discussion, but I am sure that if these ones form the framework for consideration of the technical detail then a measured and balanced outcome can be achieved, given the competing interests.
According to the information provided by the minister in introducing the legislation and the supplementary material accompanying the presentation of the bill to the House, the bill amends the Airports Act to loosen the restriction on airlines owning smaller non-core regulated airports; incorporates explicitly the right of airport lessees to undertake non-aeronautical development as long as it is consistent with relevant airport master plans; sets out a purpose statement for airport master plans, ensuring a strategic focus, public information about intentions and land use compatibility; requires Australian noise exposure forecasts and flight paths to be included in master plans, and new master plans to be developed if noise forecasts change; allows for noise forecasts to extend beyond the 20-year planning horizon; reduces time lines for public comment on drafts and minor variations of master plans, major development plans and environmental strategies, bringing them broadly into line with the planning and environmental approval processes in state, territory and local government jurisdictions; reduces time lines for ministerial approval from just under 13 weeks to between 10 and 11 weeks; requires free availability of information on airport websites; introduces a stop-clock provision in the ministerial approval time line if the minister requires additional information from the airport lessee company; requires the airport lessee company to demonstrate how it has due regard to public comment rather than simply stating that it has due regard; requires the minister to have regard to the extent to which a plan achieves the purpose of a final master plan; lifts the dollar threshold for a major airport development from $10 million to $20 million; allows the minister to determine that the combined cost of consecutive or concurrent projects or extensions be included when deciding whether the cost of a proposal exceeds the threshold for major developments; sets out a purpose statement for major development plans to ensure they are consistent with the airport lease and master plan, and requires the plan to include information in this regard; requires the impact of a development on flight paths to be stated; and sets out a purpose statement for a final environmental strategy to ensure all operations are carried out in accordance with relevant environmental legislation and standards.
I have outlined those amendments because there is much that is being proposed by the government in this bill that we would agree with. However, in our view, the government has not gone far enough in some of these provisions. Indeed, in amending some of the consultative provisions, we here on the floor of this House reflect the concern of our communities that this government is once again using legislation to weaken the process of consultation with local communities, local government and other jurisdictions in matters relating to planning and land use at airports. The shadow minister has already detailed some of our concerns in the amendments that we are proposing, and I would urge the government to consider those amendments in good faith, because they have been made with the interests of improving this legislation.
I note that the technical amendments that are being proposed by the shadow minister are to improve due process under the act and to make the minister more accountable for the decisions that he makes on these matters. Given the high degree of incompetence already displayed by the minister in this portfolio—and, I must say, in previous portfolios where I have had a close association with the minister—I view the amendments by the shadow minister and the opposition as timely and very necessary indeed. The reality is that the minister has failed to adequately consider local government land use plans in making recent decisions about commercial developments at airports. The member for Swan was on his feet previously in this debate and outlined in detail a litany of the minister’s sins in the state of Western Australia in that regard. So this legislation needs considerable tightening of the sort that is being proposed by the shadow minister.
As I stated earlier, airports are community assets and they must be managed by lessees within that framework. In Avalon Airport, in my electorate, the Geelong community has an asset that has the potential to substantially change the economic structure of the region. But I do regret that over the past decade not enough has been made of it in an economic sense for the region. Like all airports, the growth at Avalon has not come without its problems, and it is those matters that this legislation is attempting to address. As the local federal member, my office has at certain times borne the brunt of community concern and aggravation over certain operations at the airport in the past.
Concerns about consultative processes are why this bill is so important to people in my electorate. I commend the Lara community and the Avalon Airport management, ably led by Tim Anderson, for setting up consultative mechanisms that appear in recent years to have mitigated many of those concerns and resolved many issues surrounding the airport’s operations and use. The continued growth of Avalon Airport might be a central focus of the economic development of the region, but no-one must lose sight of the fact that working families live in its environs and they are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their homes as the primary place where they raise their children.
Avalon has grown quite dramatically in recent times, and I refer members to the many speeches I have made in this parliament relating to its potential. When one considers the growth of a community asset such as this airport, one must also balance that with the needs of the residents who live in close proximity to it. Avalon is situated at the juxtaposition of several critical regional infrastructure assets: the Port of Geelong, the national standard gauge railway, the Princes Freeway and other major Victorian road networks into the Western District.
We have seen recent developments at the airport that certainly relate to the provisions of this bill. The aircraft refurbishment and maintenance functions have been restored at Avalon Airport after this government came to power and decimated the workforce at the old AeroSpace Technologies of Australia, when we saw employment decline from about 1,000 until it almost disappeared altogether. The decision by Qantas to locate its maintenance facility there has seen the regrowth of that employment and we now have some 850 people directly employed in aircraft maintenance. That is why we view with some concern the bid by Airline Partners Australia, the consortium for Qantas, and the impacts that it might have on Jetstar and, of course, Qantas’s maintenance facilities at Avalon. These are very important matters of concern to the Geelong community.
The airport maintenance facilities might need to expand in the future. This bill is calling us to take cognisance of the view that airports are largely airport-driven; they are not large commercial developments on which supermarkets and other facilities ought to be built. That is the substance of this particular bill: concern that commercial developments might at some future stage impinge on the potential of an airport facility to grow and to service a community in employment and in a general sense.
We have been fortunate at Avalon in that Jetstar has located at Avalon. Once again, this would be the type of development that one would want at an airport facility, not so much a massive commercial and retail development but an airport related development, one which has already brought over a million people in passenger traffic through that passenger terminal at Avalon. It has placed Jetstar in a very important position in the medium- to low-budget market in the airline industry in Australia and in the region. We have airline pilot training and aerospace developments, with a significant rise in employment in the latter area. There is significant potential for Avalon as an airfreight facility and, of course, we have the Avalon air show, which opened today. This will play host to some 200,000 people and has exhibitors from all around the world coming to Avalon for the trade display and general defence and civil aviation displays at the airport.
It is an extremely important facility and it is one we hope to grow. The growth of that facility has not been according to the timetable I would have liked. Some 10 years ago I was talking about the potential of this facility and its capacity to generate employment and to substantially change the economic structure of the Geelong region from our dependence on textile, clothing and footwear manufacturing as well as car manufacturing. Unfortunately we lost the election in 1996 and with that loss went the plans that we already had in place to develop this facility in the manner which I have briefly outlined. I have visited other airports around the world and it makes logical sense to me that Avalon ought to be the second airport in Victoria. Along with Melbourne Airport and the infrastructure linkages—certainly the highway and the rail linkages—we ought to see the whole economic development of the region in terms of two airports rather than one in Melbourne.
This particular piece of legislation relates very specifically to the master plans that are in place for both Melbourne Airport, I guess, and Avalon Airport and how these airports can grow in consultation with their communities, taking account of their communities’ needs and concerns and the strategic planning that has already gone into land use around those airports. We have a wonderful asset. Very rarely do you have an airport located within some 35 minutes of the CBD of a major world city like Melbourne with many thousands of acres in its environs and with a runway which is—and don’t quote me on this—some 1,750 metres in length. It can certainly take the biggest airfreighters and passenger aircraft known to man. So we are strategically positioned to play our part in the economic growth of the nation. I am very pleased that we have at the moment an enlightened management at Avalon Airport who do take into account the community’s concerns in these matters. We will be supporting the legislation, but I ask the government to take cognisance of the amendment that we have proposed and to support it in the spirit in which it has been presented.
59
19:05:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Corio, who has always got something interesting and worth while to say. His remarks about Avalon Airport were well chosen. I myself have taken a bit of an interest in the future of Avalon Airport and its prospective role in meeting Melbourne’s aviation needs. I can also attest to the popularity of the air show at Avalon Airport. I remember teaching my son how to drive a manual car; there was such a traffic jam on the way down to Avalon Airport that he had to do several hundred gear changes and he learned how to drive a manual car. The air show continues to be very popular, and with good reason.
I want to support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Batman. I had the opportunity to second the amendment back when this issue was first debated on 1 March. That amendment says:
... whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act, through approval decisions such as that relating to the Perth Brickworks site, located opposite a residential area and the Essendon direct factory outlet, proposed without regard to the impact an local road infrastructure.
As member for Wills my own personal interest is in the Essendon Airport site and its future.
By way of background: we have had rapid growth in non-aviation development at Essendon Airport and at other airports in recent years in the wake of the privatisation and leasing-out arrangements which the government has entered into. That development has had some good features—and it is certainly my view that the Essendon Airport site has outlived its aviation usefulness and that its future lies in non-aviation activities—but it has not come without problems, and I think that some of those have been created through essentially poor implementation of the planning and approval process by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. If you look at Essendon, Adelaide and Perth, you will see that local communities have been sensitive to some of the commercial developments at airports, and rightfully so. It is indeed difficult to explain to a local community why they should trust the planning regime for airports—a regime in which they have no effective say—when successive ministers have delivered decisions like that in Perth of placing a brickworks on airport land opposite a residential development.
The government’s record on airport development with things like the Perth brickworks or retail developments at Adelaide and Essendon means that we need to be cautious. Frankly, on this side of the House we are not prepared to accept reductions in consultation or approval time lines. The minister and the government have to have due regard to the concerns of local communities and the land use and infrastructure plans of local government authorities. We hope the minister has learnt from things like Harbour Town in Adelaide and the Direct Factory Outlets, DFOs, at Essendon that he and the government need to take into account the impact of commercial development on surrounding infrastructure such as roads. Local councils, state governments and local communities expect and are entitled to serious consideration of these issues.
To give the House a flavour of how seriously this issue is taken within my electorate: just three weeks ago, on Wednesday, 7 March, I organised a community meeting at the Strathmore Heights Community Centre in Boeing Reserve, Strathmore. I invited local residents to meet with the private operators of Essendon Airport. Tim Anderson, whom the member for Corio referred to, is general manager at Avalon. He is also general manager at Essendon, so he has plenty of work to do. That meeting was attended by 120 local residents. Strathmore has a strong sense of local community, and Strathmore people have always turned out and been engaged in local community affairs. That is a fine thing. The fact that 120 people turned out just to have a discussion about the future of the airport site is testament to how seriously these issues are considered by local people. I take this opportunity through the forums of the House to draw to the attention of Strathmore people more broadly the things that were discussed at that meeting and how they relate to the future of the Essendon Airport site, and to use that as a backdrop for arguing that this second reading amendment we have moved ought to be supported in the House.
Mr Anderson gave a presentation to the meeting stating that the broad aim for the future of the site is to sustain it as an airport while developing a high-end office and shopping precinct. Obviously, local people are concerned that we do not get the worst of both worlds here—having both aviation activities and non-aviation activities being approved over which they have no say or control. Mr Anderson made clear that residential development was at no stage to be considered or proposed. He said that there are new hangars scheduled to be built to replace the old ones, which are well past their use-by date. He said that the old land where the hangars had previously been located would then be used as part of a management plan to attract high-end office facilities. These plans are for boutique office complexes. The central plan will include the development of a boulevard inside the airport where locals and residents from other surrounding areas can come to do their retail shopping, grocery shopping and things like motor vehicle purchase. The design of the shopfront buildings on the boulevard will integrate the site’s aviation history. For example, we were shown where angles of buildings are to be shaped in the form of an aeroplane wing.
Mr Anderson pointed out that the airport currently has only one access point and that management is now looking at introducing another access point. He noted that the car retailers currently located on Keilor Road are being invited to consider moving their dealerships to the airport site. Their current locations pose many customer parking issues, and the Essendon Airport Ltd proposal would see the dealerships located on the boulevard with a storage facility built behind properties located on the eastern border of the airport. The storage facility will also have a service road built off the airport’s existing perimeter road which will allow for efficient access to the storage facility. The proposed service road will be located closer to the backyards of properties on the eastern border, but Mr Anderson said that landscaping would be located between the service road and back fences with the intention of minimising noise and other disturbances.
He also discussed the proposed Australia Post mail-sorting facility, its location and factors associated with it. It is proposed to construct a small lane to go from the facility into Mascoma Street in Strathmore. He emphasised that there is no proposal to build a full-scale road into Mascoma Street and that the proposed lane would be just wide enough to allow the mail bikes to and from the facility. He also talked about a planned bike track to run from existing parkland over Mascoma Street and behind some properties and end up in the airport’s boulevard. The aim of the path is to encourage locals to either walk or ride to the retail facilities. He stated that future upgrade plans to the airport include construction of a new air controller deck, with the old one planned to be reconfigured as an observation deck, and that would be situated towards the end of the observation deck.
He also talked about the issue of the airport security. To date, $2 million has been spent by management on upgrading security through new fencing and new surveillance cameras. He noted that management is interested in pursuing land value creation and expressed the view that the planned developments have the potential to increase the value of surrounding properties. He believes that within four to five years there could be up to 5,000 people working inside the airport, providing jobs and creating a higher demand for housing in the area.
After this presentation there were many questions from residents and a vigorous discussion. That is a good thing. The first question was: are there any plans for an increase in air traffic for the airport? Mr Anderson responded by saying that for many years air movements at Essendon had been averaging around 65,000 per year. The figure has now significantly reduced to 55,000 movements per year. He says that no increase is foreseen because the airport is focused on high-end aviation, meaning that there are lower volumes of movements, and that most training flights have now been transferred to Moorabbin Airport.
There was a question asked as to whether the developments would result in an increase in traffic in Mascoma Street or other surrounding residential streets. Mr Anderson expressed the view that there would be very minimal impact on traffic flows in Mascoma Street and other surrounding residential streets because the airport’s blueprint is looking at introducing a second entrance along with the original entrance. The intention is to encourage individuals to access the airport and its future retail precinct via the freeway.
Mr Anderson was asked whether Essendon Airport management would repair and upgrade Mascoma Street where it passes underneath the Tullamarine Freeway and whether management would extend the sound barriers from the freeway as part of the construction of the new road for the access point. The response was that VicRoads control that particular stretch of road, that they controlled the design and that noise levels have been measured and it was suggested that there was no current need for sound barriers. I should report that there was a considerable concern expressed by the audience to this. Many residents believe that if Essendon Airport management can build all the developments they talked about in their presentation then they ought to be able to build sound barriers and provide better protection from noise for local residents.
The question was raised whether, if Australia Post moves to the new sorting facility inside the airport, this would mean a lot more postie bikes up and down Mascoma Street, seeing as the bike chute is to exit onto it. Mr Anderson’s response was that the number of bikes travelling up and down this passage would vary depending on the time of the year. Obviously Christmas, Easter and other significant days might mean more motorbikes travelling up and down Mascoma Street, but the general advice from Australia Post is that 40 motorbikes will be using the bike entrance onto Mascoma Street each day.
The issue of the emergency services air wing and helicopters residing at the airport was also raised. Concern was expressed about the amount of noise and smoke that they produce, and the question of the helicopter pad being moved closer to homes was raised. The response to this was that management is trying to design the airport so that planes and helicopters are centralised and located in a way which minimises disturbance to the residents. Mr Anderson said that the design incorporates the use of buildings as a sound-shielding device to minimise disturbances. There was quite a lot of concern expressed about the way in which emergency services helicopters conduct themselves. For example, the issue was raised as to why they do not use the flight paths designated for regular aircraft. Helicopters are more technically advanced and they do not have to use the flight paths, but local residents have made clear their view that they should use the flight paths designated for regular aircraft.
Issues were raised about damage to property from flooding and rainwater runoff. Management were asked whether they have any plans for more effective drainage systems and whether they can make an investment to protect the property of residents from runoff. Of course, runoff is a natural phenomenon, but Mr Anderson said that management is spending substantially on the construction of basic infrastructure within the airport, including on things like drainage, and there was a willingness expressed to discuss these issues further. A question was asked as to whether the airport should design a system to collect the rainwater runoff, noting that water these days is a very valuable thing and perhaps ought to be collected and harnessed at source. The response to this was that collecting rainwater above ground might attract waterbirds and the like, and obviously that is undesirable under federal air regulations and in trying to avoid bird strikes at airports, but Mr Anderson stated that underground tanks are being considered.
The issue of the proposed bike path and any implications it might have for the security of locals was raised. That will be followed up, but at present there are no formal proposals to secure the bike track or to prevent users climbing rear fences of residential properties and things like that. The issue was raised of connecting the DFO with the new developments and whether there were any plans to build a road. Mr Anderson said that a connecting path would be considered; however, it would most likely not allow for cars to travel down it and management is interested in encouraging more people to walk and ride rather than travel by car.
Another resident asked whether there would be public transport travelling to and from the airport once these developments were established. Essendon Airport management responded by saying they have been in extensive discussions with the state government and a number of bus services in order to establish a permanent and reliable public transport line to and from the airport, and they are interested in pursuing the idea of those developments and creating greater demand for the site.
The residents also raised the issue of a curfew on aircraft with respect to allowable times for landing and departures. Tim Anderson pointed out that there is currently a curfew on jet engine aircraft between the hours of 6 pm and 10 am and that there is no proposal for this to change. This is another sore point with local residents. People believe that the curfew is ineffectual, that it is frequently broken and that more needs to be done by airport management to ensure the curfew is adhered to.
Other issues raised by residents concerned noise prevention walls in Paljan Court; whether management could introduce double lines going towards Melrose Drive to prevent right-hand turns; and an increase in public transport to minimise potential traffic congestion. The response to those issues was that a lot of them fall within the jurisdiction and responsibility of VicRoads, but airport management is happy to continue talking about those issues.
Airport management were also asked whether they have any plans to build access roads from the Lebanon Street border into the airport. Management responded by saying that they had contributed $100,000 to the upgrading of Lebanon Street, which was previously a dirt road, but that there is not going to be any access into the airport. Moonee Valley City Council will not support that or provide approval for it. They had also given some consideration to building a service tunnel that would run underneath the airport, but they have scrapped that idea due to cost projections.
Residents also asked whether there was a possibility of relocating the helicopter pad to the rear of the existing water tanks. That issue has been looked at previously and there are no present plans to move it to that particular location. These and other issues were raised. The fact that so many people show up and raise so many issues shows just how important the question of proper consultation with local residents is, taking into account their genuine and legitimate concerns. That is why we have not only a second reading amendment but a number of amendments which we will move at the consideration in detail stage and which we believe could improve this bill. We hope that the government will take our amendments seriously and adopt them. (Time expired)
64
19:25:00
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
0
0
Mr CREAN
—I rise to support the amendment that has been moved by the member for Batman and to indicate that I have a couple of interests in relation to the Airports Amendment Bill 2006—firstly, as a local member, because the Moorabbin Airport is within my electorate, and, secondly, as the shadow minister for regional development, understanding the importance of airports in connecting the nation’s great regions.
The privatisation of Australia’s 22 federal airports—which are situated in not just the capital cities but the regional areas as well—has led to improved airport services for the good of the nation and the travelling population. The original act to sell the airports was introduced by Labor in 1995. I was a member of the government that brought in that legislation. At the time the rationale was clear and sensible: it was to enable the 22 airports in question to provide improved services without a significant call on new public investment. Under the arrangements, the Commonwealth would retain control over land use—the building and planning at major airports—so as to ensure a nationally consistent approach to the planning of airports. We considered that it was important that this remain under the Commonwealth minister because of the importance of airports to the national economy.
That has led to a growth in non-aviation developments at those airports which has enabled the replacement of aviation infrastructure and has significantly improved services at Australian airports. As I said, I was part of the government that introduced that legislation. We took the decision because, at the time, if the airports were left to public ownership, the competing pressures for limited resources would not have enabled them to grow in keeping with the demands of the regions, tourism and the travelling Australian population.
Airport infrastructure is vital in a nation our size for the long-term development of our economy. The Commonwealth is best placed to take a long-term view of the national strategic infrastructure. It was the right judgement at the time to introduce the legislation, but it was always dependent on ensuring that future airport development took account of local circumstances and local issues, particularly in dealing with land use. In the legislation that we introduced, we therefore provided for detailed provisions to ensure that such issues were properly considered. For example, we required the development of an airport master plan to provide a long-term land use plan to meet the demands over a 20-year period. We also argued that those development plans for major projects required an environmental impact statement. The legislation required that airport owners undertake public consultation on their master plans and it provided for the recognition of legitimate interests of states and territories in planning issues relating to airports to ensure their orderly planning—still under the control of the Commonwealth but having regard to local planning considerations.
As the federal member for Hotham—which includes, as I said before, the Moorabbin airport—since 1990, I have also had to deal with this issue from a local perspective. I accept the position of Moorabbin Airport which argues that the commercial development of airport sites subsidises the continuation of aviation activities. Moorabbin and most other small airports operate in a competitive environment with limited ability to extract rents from their tenants, in these cases flying schools and smaller commuter airlines. It is only the commercial activities which allow small airports to continue operating as airports, which of course they are required to do under the terms of their leases.
At the same time, Moorabbin is a good example of an airport which has taken the responsibility for consulting with its community. I take the opportunity to note that Mr Phil McConnell, the CEO of Moorabbin Airport Corporation, takes this area of activity very seriously, and I commend him and his staff for the commitment that they have made to their community. I also acknowledge the continuing work of Mr Tom Uren and the Moorabbin Airport Residents Association in representing the interests of residents who live around the airport. Down there we have an active interaction between the residents and the airport authority.
Over the years, many representations have been made to me on issues concerning airport development, in particular on land use. The Moorabbin Airport Corporation has also asked for consideration to be given to the regulatory arrangements for small general aviation airports to be different to those for the main airports in capital cities. I get a lot of representations about airport noise and about the aircraft that can actually use the airport. I have had a number of representations also on land use issues, particularly associated with traffic and the development at Moorabbin. However, in all of those representations I am not getting representations demanding a change in legislation which vests the control in the Commonwealth minister. I am not getting claims for that to change.
Kingston City Council, which is the relevant municipal authority, opposes the proposed reduction in statutory public comment and the assessment period for airport master plans as proposed by the bill, but the Kingston council is not arguing for a change in legislation which vests control with the Commonwealth minister. Neither, I might add, in my discussions with the Local Government Association, does it propose a change to that component. In its submission to the Senate inquiry, prior to this bill being introduced, the LGA expressed concern that non-aviation planning at airports takes place differently from other planning, but it did not propose taking planning power for federal airports away from the Commonwealth minister.
That being said, it is also true that over the past 12 years, since the decision to sell the leaseholds of the 22 federal airports was originally made, non-aviation development has led to a number of issues with land use and planning. Our view is that the issues could and should have been managed with more consultation and, in particular, greater consideration of local concerns and, significantly, greater ministerial accountability. How else does one explain the circumstances of the Perth Airport development which has seen the establishment and building of a brickworks at that airport? Certainly, it would not have been the intention back in 1995, when we were talking about the sorts of expansion envisaged on these leasehold lands, that such a development could have happened. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services should have been more in touch with the public opposition to that development.
Also, closer to home, we have the example where the minister failed to provide in advance for sufficient changes to the roadworks at Essendon Airport consequent upon the important commercial developments which have taken place at that airport. This is another example of the minister not properly considering the totality of the agreement to development plans. All of this means, with the public outrage and outcry, that public confidence in the Airports Act has been undermined. That is not because the original intention was bad but, in essence, because of poor implementation and because of the planning and approval processes overseen or supposedly overseen by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.
Even government MPs and senators have lobbied for amendments to extend the consultation period for decisions on airport development from 45 to 60 working days. If there had been greater confidence in the process, there may have been less urgency for the minister to move amendments to his own bill. The member for Batman has moved a second reading amendment and he will also be moving detailed amendments at a later stage in this debate. Whilst Labor has indicated its support for this bill, I support the second reading amendment of the member for Batman, which does give expression to Labor’s concerns with some of the ministerial decisions.
The minister must now ensure that public confidence in the system is retained. That will be enhanced, in our view, if he is prepared to adopt the amendments that we are proposing. Whilst not opposing the bill, we will seek to move amendments in the consideration in detail stage to give effect to improvements in the approvals regime. The fact is that we have to revisit the act and ensure it meets the original intention. We must strike that balance again—the proper balance between the conflicting interests of airport owners, airport users and the communities in which those airports are located. What is needed is a more robust framework to ensure that the minister takes the local community’s concerns into account in making decisions on airport developments and to rebuild confidence in the system.
In essence, our amendments will give effect to the recommendations laid out by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in its report tabled in early March this year. They include, first, the requirement that airport lessee companies advise state, territory and local governments of the commencement of the public consultation processes. This will provide full awareness and the opportunity to comment and be engaged early in the consultation process.
Second, at the moment there is no requirement that all submissions received on master plans be forwarded to the minister. Our amendment will ensure that that happens. Third, Labor has some concerns with the potential problems with deemed approval and will address this by way of amendment. Fourth, Labor would also like to see the act specifically require the department to utilise qualified town planners as one of the many disciplines involved in the assessment of airport development plans. Fifth, at the moment the minister is not required to give an explicit statement of reasons if recommendations from state and local authorities on developments are not accepted. Our amendment will ensure that the minister is required to give such a statement.
Sixth, Labor will also move amendments to require the minister to specify in approval conditions whether a proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure and to take into account rate-equivalent contributions. The minister will also be required to specify whether there is a reasonable requirement for the lessees to negotiate in good faith with state and local government authorities to reach agreements. More should be done to address the conflicts between airport lessees and local councils when it comes to rate-equivalent payments and obligations on airport leases. Seventh, Labor will move an amendment to ensure that it is not optional for the minister to require that consecutive and concurrent developments be included in the total cost, given that the threshold for major developments will be lifted from $10 million to $20 million.
We urge the government to adopt these amendments. They come from the process of inquiry and are about giving greater requirement for consultation and accountability, which was always the intention of the act when we first introduced it. If the amendments are defeated, Labor will not oppose the bill but, in government, will conduct a broader review of the legislation to minimise the impact on local communities. We are already flagging the sorts of directions in which we would be heading.
I would like to take the opportunity to talk about the significance of regional aviation services to their communities. Regional airports and aviation services are vital to the economic and social wellbeing of regional and remote communities. They are an essential part of a region’s transport infrastructure. They provide an opportunity and some guarantee for those communities to remain better connected. Regional airports also serve to promote regional development opportunities, including tourism, to assist the transportation of local products and to improve regional supply chain efficiencies. For remote communities they provide a lifeline in medical emergencies and for access to a range of other services.
Over the past 18 months, as shadow minister for regional development I have had the opportunity to visit a range of airports in our regions. No matter which region I visit, the airport is vital infrastructure for the local community. In the case of Hamilton in Victoria, a major mineral sands processing operation is underway supporting the zircon mining industry in Western Australia, along with an expanding blue-gum forestry industry. The airport enables these important industries to link directly with Melbourne and, in turn, the globe.
Further afield, the airport at Gladstone is providing a vital link to a region of significant growth, with potential for the world’s largest alumina refinery and Australia’s largest aluminium smelter. The region’s industry base also includes tourism, engineering, agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The Queensland government has taken significant steps to further develop Gladstone as a world-class major export hub, and ensuring the airport can meet those needs is terribly important.
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services found in its 2003 report into regional commercial aviation services that nearly all communities want to retain their local airport, despite their cost sometimes exceeding their direct income. Larger communities can generally support their airports, but some smaller communities are finding it difficult to support and maintain their airports. Some local airports need upgrading to meet current standards for aircraft and safety. With limited financial resources, these communities have difficult decisions to make on the future of their airports. The committee recommended additional Commonwealth assistance to smaller regional communities as a justifiable expense. While there has been no response from the government to date on this report, I urge all members, particularly those who have an interest in regional development, to consider the report’s recommendations.
In conclusion, whilst Labor support the bill, we believe that the planning and approvals process must provide a more robust framework to enable the minister to take local considerations into account when determining airport developments. That was the original intention of the legislation. In our view, it has not been carried out faithfully by the incumbent government. The original decision to privatise the 22 federal airports was the right one and has led to a vibrant industry meeting the growing needs of the Australian economy, but we have to get the balance right between the conflicting interests of airport owners, airport users, communities and particularly the areas in which the airports are located. We have to get the consultation process right, get greater accountability and require the minister to consult, listen and report on decisions finally taken. He has to act in the interests of local communities and not just be blindsided by a decision-making process in Canberra.
68
19:45:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
0
Mr ALBANESE
—The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 is an extension of the government’s position when it comes to airports, a position that says, ‘Hands off!’ as much as possible, a position which has undermined the community’s support for airports. In the last fortnight we have seen an Audit Office report which indicated that there are hundreds of breaches of the cap at Sydney airport that have not been reported to this parliament and that there is a failure by this government to enforce its own legislation.
Here, just like in its failure to enforce the curfew at Sydney airport, the Airport Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to make a number of changes that are quite frankly of great concern to my constituents and also to me in my role as the shadow minister for infrastructure. The opposition will be moving detailed amendments to this bill in the consideration in detail stage of this debate. We will revisit key issues in government in a broader review of the legislation to make sure that airports act in conjunction with local communities rather than disregarding them.
Although Australia’s significant airports have been privatised, the government continues to control planning and development at airport sites, making our federal airports an important part of Australia’s infrastructure assets. In her second reading speech De-Anne Kelly stated that the government wanted to ensure ‘genuine engagement’. Let us look at what genuine engagement looks like under the Howard government. This bill proposes a streamlined consultation process that allows development materials to be available electronically and free of charge. In its own right, this might appear like a worthy amendment, but the devil is in the detail.
Firstly, the original draft of the bill proposed to reduce the period for which preliminary draft major development plans are placed on public exhibition from the current period of 90 calendar days to 45 days. Following widespread community outrage, the minister announced on 13 February that he would amend the bill such that the consultation period is reduced from 90 days to 60 days. Whether it be 45 or 60, the reduced consultation period creates problems for many community groups and individuals, given the difficulties in examining large documents that make up airport planning proposals.
The second proposed amendment seeks to raise the dollar threshold for construction costs from $10 million to $20 million. The value of construction costs is one of the major considerations for whether a major development plan actually needs to be submitted. So this amendment has the effect of increasing the amount of development that can occur without the need for a major development plan. It is clear that this severely limits the opportunity for the plans to be exhibited publicly and for the public to comment. There is no use streamlining the process and making it free of charge if the process does not apply and, when it does apply, the time for public consultation is reduced from 90 days to 60 days. This is the Howard government’s definition of ‘genuine engagement’.
Other proposed amendments to the act have the effect of reducing opportunities for public comment upon minor variations to major development plans and preliminary environmental strategies. Despite its rhetoric, it is plainly obvious that this government is not serious about community consultation and that it is deaf to expert advice offered by local councils and state governments.
The bill also proposes to make possible development that is not related to the function of the airport provided that such development is consistent with the airport lease and approved master plan. The expansion of non-aviation uses, such as the megamall that was proposed at Sydney airport, has significant consequences for local councils and state governments, local businesses and the community, including many of my constituents. For example, local shops, businesses and communities suffer economically. Also, increased traffic congestion around the airport exacerbates existing traffic problems.
State and local governments’ development and planning laws do not apply to developments at federal airport sites. Yet it is these governments that bear the cost of improved traffic management and provision of public transport. On 12 February the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mark Vaile, finally rejected the draft development plan for Sydney airport. His publicly stated reason for blocking the proposal was that he was not satisfied with the assessment of all public safety issues. Let us be clear: the Australian Labor Party always supports putting safety before profit. But you have to ask why it took so long for the minister to arrive at this conclusion when state and local governments and local communities were all stating that this was the case.
I first objected to the proposal in parliament more than a year ago. It was clear from the outset that this proposed development was never about improving services to travellers. It was all about using a hole in Commonwealth legislation to make money for big developers. The plan, which included a 48,000-square-metre outlet centre, commercial buildings and thousands of parking spaces, would have created chaos for surrounding areas. It would have placed incredible strain on infrastructure, public transport systems, small businesses and residential developments.
Despite the minister’s decision, Sydney airport is unlikely to stop submitting in the future similar plans that would impact adversely on local communities. In fact, the airport company has already drawn up a draft development plan for a retail complex, including a cinema and a supermarket. It is plain that the laws exempting airport land from local and state government planning controls are flawed and that the amendments we are debating today do not take us any closer to fixing the problem. The Commonwealth government’s control of the development of federal airports also characterises the government’s failure when it comes to infrastructure. The proposed amendments simply fail to deal with the major planning issues that arise out of non-aviation development activity. They fail to put in place appropriate mechanisms to ensure that airport operators contribute to financing the development of the infrastructure required to support the proposed level of development. This government has no long-term plan for financing Australia’s infrastructure needs, let alone those short-term infrastructure needs created by federal government decision making. The only plan that the Howard government has to address the $90 billion shortfall in infrastructure, a figure estimated by the Business Council of Australia, is to blame the states.
The Airports Amendment Bill is yet another example of bad policy by a government that wants to seize control of state powers but take no responsibility for the consequences. The Commonwealth government has consistently refused to participate in discussions with state and territory governments over the need for a national policy for urban development. Yet the Commonwealth continues to control the planning and development of airport sites with little regard for the consequences this might have on local communities and how this might impact on surrounding infrastructure. The Howard government simply cannot have it both ways: they either get serious about developing a national policy for urban infrastructure development or get out of controlling non-aviation airport developments that have consequences for the urban areas that surround them.
The government claim in the explanatory memorandum that, to ‘respond to community concern about adequate information concerning flight paths and aircraft noise exposure patterns around airports’, they have proposed amendments requiring that an airport master plan released for public comment specify information such as the Australian noise exposure forecast and flight paths. Here is the clincher: this information must be provided ‘in accordance with any regulations’. This parliament will not see such regulations and therefore cannot make an informed judgement until this bill receives royal assent—when it is too late. If the government were serious about community consultation and ‘genuine engagement’, they would at the very least provide draft regulations so that elected members can assess what sorts of obligations would be imposed.
An equally obscure measure in this bill requires that a new master plan be developed if a new Australian noise exposure forecast is endorsed ‘in the manner approved by the minister’ for the relevant airport. Currently, responsibility for endorsing the technical accuracy of ANEFs lies within the Airspace and Environment Regulatory Unit of Airservices Australia. So exactly what does endorsement of an ANEF ‘in the manner approved by the minister’ mean?
These amendments raise more questions than they answer. But we know that this government is as serious about noise exposure as it is about enforcing its own legislation on curfews and caps, particularly those for Sydney airport. I have continued to express concern to a succession of transport ministers about the government’s failure to provide adequate support to residents around Sydney airport. I give the Deputy Prime Minister credit that when he was previously the transport minister he actually visited the area around Grayndler—unlike the member for Gwydir, who not once in all those years bothered to come to the area and have a look at the issues. The issues are familiar to anyone who goes and has a look at that area; such as, for example, the shadow minister for transport, the member for Batman, who has twice visited Fort Street High School with me. He was immediately convinced by the argument of students, teachers and parents at that school, which is at Taverner’s Hill in Petersham—and ‘hill’ implies that it is up high close to where the planes fly overhead—that those young people’s education was being disrupted by aircraft noise. Common sense tells you that there is nothing more important than people’s education and that it should not be constantly disrupted every 70 or 80 seconds by aircraft noise overhead. We have a noise amelioration project. That could be funded at no cost to the budget, so we could do the right thing if the government were serious about that. But the government is not serious about fulfilling its responsibility to the residents of the communities around Sydney airport.
Recent responses that I have received to questions on notice that I submitted have revealed that up to 25 flights a week arrive outside the curfew hours. This figure exceeds the 24 flights a week cap on landings before 6 am. Residents in my electorate are woken as aircraft arrive at Sydney airport between 5 am and 6 am. Indeed, the duty-free store at Sydney airport now opens at 5 am. They have a curfew between 11 pm and 6 am yet the store opens every day at 5 am.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—That’s because you’ve got to be out there one or two hours before your flight’s called.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—This is for arrivals—this is for the dingbat parliamentary secretary over there.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—For arrivals the duty-free store at Sydney airport is open at 5 am. That is what time the flights arrive; they do not leave then. As we have heard many times before, every single day many aircraft are allowed to land—you can log on to the Sydney airport website and see these flights, such as QF2, which arrives from London—in breach of the curfew. When the original legislation was brought in, there was, at the shoulder period, provision for occasional breaches. That was meant to be for an exceptional circumstance. It was not meant to be abused, which is what has occurred in recent years with scheduled flights and scheduled breaches.
We now have a government that is failing to insulate schools and other community buildings, and therefore young people’s educational circumstances are suffering. We have a curfew which is breached each and every day at Sydney airport; we have a cap which is breached. The Audit Office report indicates that the government is not even fulfilling its responsibilities to report to this parliament. The Airports Amendment Bill is totally inadequate in terms of what is required to ensure that proper processes are put in place around airports—in particular Sydney airport. That is why this bill is totally inadequate in so many ways, and that is why the opposition will be moving amendments in the consideration in detail stage of the debate.
We already know that this government is deaf to expert advice offered by local councils and state governments. Many concerns were raised during the Senate inquiry into this bill, but sadly those concerns have fallen on deaf ears too. In the same way, we expect the government will arrogantly ignore our amendments. Despite the rhetoric you are likely to hear from members on the other side, revising the reduced public consultation period from 90 days to 60 days instead of 45 is plainly useless if no public consultation is required by law. Failing to introduce a mechanism to meet infrastructure shortfalls around airport development sites that are created by federal government decision making is Howard government arrogance at its best.
We are dealing with a government that has no intention of working in partnership with state governments to improve community outcomes. We are dealing with a government that constantly resorts to blaming the states—the blame game—rather than taking a cooperative approach to federal-state relations. For the Howard government it is the blame game first and the community interests last.
On this side of the House we believe that the national interest is the same as community interests. We believe that by having proper consultation you can bring the community, who have a rational view about these issues, with you. I regard Sydney airport as a very important infrastructure asset. I resist the lunatic fringe in my electorate who want Sydney airport shut, because that would be a disaster for the economy locally and for jobs. You need infrastructure projects such as Sydney airport. But the support for that infrastructure is undermined if governments do not regulate their behaviour properly. That strengthens the case of those people who would argue an extreme position. The Greens position on these issues is to shut Sydney airport, but they will not say where a replacement airport should go. That might be fine, I say to them, because you could still get into Sydney, but you would have to parachute out of the plane!
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson
—Bob Brown does not mind going into and out of Sydney.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—But you would not be able to actually take-off.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—The member opposite raises Greens preference deals. I look forward to seeing the Liberal Party for once putting the Labor Party in my electorate before the Greens. If they do, it will be the first time they have ever done it.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—What happened in Victoria?
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson
—We know who is in bed with the Greens.
10000
Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Barresi)—Order! Member for Batman!
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—They are always, in spite of their rhetoric, determined to undermine the Labor Party in inner Sydney. I conclude my comments there. I commend the second reading amendment to the House.
72
20:04:00
Kelly, De-Anne, MP
FK6
Dawson
NATS
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
0
Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY
—The privatisation of the 22 leased federal airports has fostered a vibrant industry that has enabled airports to grow, through commercial businesses, with minimal government intervention. The network provided by the leased federal airports regulated under the Airports Act forms the backbone of this country’s aviation transport infrastructure. The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 preserves and enhances the open and transparent regulatory regime for land use planning, protection of the environment and control of on-airport building activity provided for by the Airports Act. However, the government acknowledges that a number of concerns have been raised during debate on this bill and by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport following its inquiry into this bill.
The government fully supports the two key recommendations arising from the committee’s report and will move amendments in the Senate to give effect to them. In addition, as indicated in the minister’s media release of 13 February 2007, the government intends to move an amendment in the Senate in response to specific concerns raised by government members on the proposed reduction in the time for public consultation on airport master plans, major development plans and environment strategies. This amendment will alter the original reduction in consultation from 90 calendar days to 45 business days to allow for a public consultation period of 60 business days.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—
FK6
Kelly, De-Anne, MP
Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY
—It is a very good initiative, achieved by the hard work of government members who have lobbied the minister. This ensures that the benchmark for the period of public consultation in the development of statutory planning documents at the leased federal airports is one of the longest, when compared with other jurisdictions.
Further amendments have been mooted during discussions with the opposition spokesman on the bill, which the government will not be supporting. One is a requirement that the Department of Transport and Regional Services employ town planners. The assessment of a major development requires a myriad of skills, including aviation and environment. While the minister’s department does employ some town planners, expert advice is also sought from external sources as and when appropriate.
With regard to issuing a statement of reasons when a local planning authority’s recommendations are overlooked, it should also be noted that there are established appeal mechanisms to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal provided for in the Airports Act and that a request for a statement of reasons can be made under the AAT Act should application be made to the tribunal to review an approval or nonapproval.
With respect to removal of the current deemed approval provision, having the deemed approval provision ensures that a decision will be made which benefits the community, and the proposed stop-the-clock provisions will help ensure that the minister has all the relevant material to make an assessment before the time limit expires.
The opposition have also suggested that the minister address in approval conditions any impact on off-airport infrastructure. In response, I draw their attention to the strict environmental conditions which have been placed on a number of approved developments: for example, the brickworks at Perth Airport and the international terminal gateway upgrade at Brisbane airport, as well as the traffic mitigation measures developed with regard to the Essendon airport outlet centre, Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport international terminal precinct works, the Melbourne Airport Business Park and the brickworks at Perth Airport.
With regard to the brickworks, BGC Australia Pty Ltd and the airport lessee, Westralia Airports Corporation, were also required to negotiate contributions to the cost of road maintenance arising from access to the site by heavy vehicles. It is the minister’s understanding that this agreement has been reached. Further, in response to calls to make sure that airport lessees are meeting their obligations to make rate-equivalent payments, it should be noted that each airport lease, rather than the Airports Act, requires the airport lessee to pay a rate-equivalent amount on certain parts of the airport site to local councils. I have encouraged all parties to seek to put in place long-term agreements. The Department of Transport and Regional Services has been working constructively in recent times with councils and airports to ensure lease obligations are being complied with.
Overall, this balanced package of amendments to the original bill not only promotes the ongoing development of our major airports but ensures that a system is in place that provides for effective stakeholder consultation and communication. I commend the bill to the House.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Martin Ferguson’s amendment) stand part of the question.
20:14:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Barresi)
78
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A.
Gambaro, T.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Robb, A.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
53
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
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.
Sawford, R.W.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
74
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
74
20:20:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—by leave—I move amendments (1) to (32):
(1) Schedule 1, item 42, page 9 (lines 17-18), omit the item.
(2) Schedule 1, item 43, page 9 (line 24), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.
(3) Schedule 1, item 45, page 9 (lines 30-31), omit the item.
(4) Schedule 1, item 48, page 10 (line 23), omit “as a business day”.
(5) Schedule 1, item 51, page 11 (lines 4-5), omit the item.
(6) Schedule 1, item 56, page 11 (lines 16-17), omit the item.
(7) Schedule 1, item 58, page 11 (lines 20-21), omit the item.
(8) Schedule 1, item 59, page 11 (line 27), omit “15 business”, substitute “30”.
(9) Schedule 1, item 61, page 12 (lines 5-6), omit the item.
(10) Schedule 1, item 69, page 13 (lines 7-8), omit the item.
(11) Schedule 1, item 80, page 14 (lines 27-28), omit the item.
(12) Schedule 1, item 81, page 15 (line 4), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.
(13) Schedule 1, item 83, page 15 (lines 10-11), omit the item.
(14) Schedule 1, page 15, after item 85 (after line 20) insert
85A Subsection 93(2)
Omit the subsection, substitute
“(2) A draft major development plan submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by
(a) a written statement signed on behalf of the company:
(i) listing the names of the persons consulted; and
(ii) summarising the views of persons consulted, and
(b) a copy of any document provided by a person consulted.
(15) Schedule 1, item 86, page 16 (line 4), omit “as a business day”.
(16) Schedule 1, page 16, after item 87 (after line 11),
87A After subsection 94(1)
Insert
“(1A) The Department must ensure that before the Minister approves or refuses to approve the plan an assessment of the plan is made by qualified town planners and comments on the plan by town planners are provided to the Minister.
(17) Schedule 1, page 16, after item 88 (after line 15) insert
88A After subsection 94(5)
Insert
(5A) If the Minister’s decision is not in accordance with submissions of relevant state or territory planning agencies or local government authorities the Minister must provide a statement in writing setting out the reasons for the decision.
(18) Schedule 1, item 89, page 16 (lines 16-17), omit the item, substitute
89 Subsection 94(6)
Omit the subsection.
(19) Schedule 1, page 16 (after item 89) (after line 17), insert
89A Subsection 94(6A)
Omit the subsection.
(20) Schedule 1, item 90, page 16 (after line 27) add
(7C) The Minister must specify in approval conditions whether it is considered that the proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure; and, if so, having regard to relevant rate-equivalent contributions, whether there is a reasonable requirement for the airport - lessee company to negotiate in good faith with relevant State, territory and/or local government authorities with a view to reaching agreement on appropriate contributions to be made by the airport-lessee company to specific off-airport infrastructure.
(21) Schedule 1, item 95, page 17 (lines 15-16), omit the item.
(22) Schedule 1, item 100, page 18 (lines 1-2), omit the item.
(23) Schedule 1, item 101, page 18 (line 8), omit “15 business”, substitute “30”.
(24) Schedule 1, item 103, page 18 (lines 14-15), omit the item.
(25) Schedule 1, item 112, page 19 (lines 19-20), omit the item.
(26) Schedule 1, item 127, page 21 (lines 17-18), omit the item.
(27) Schedule 1, item 128, page 21 (lines 24), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.
(28) Schedule 1, item 130, page 21 (lines 30-31), omit the item.
(29) Schedule 1, item 133, page 22 (line 24), omit “as a business day”.
(30) Schedule 1, item 136, page 23 (lines 4-5), omit the item.
(31) Schedule 1, item 141, page 23 (lines 16-17), omit the item.
(32) Schedule 1, item 147, page 24 (lines 12-13), omit the item.
This is an exceptionally important debate on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. It goes to the operation of key infrastructure vital to the future of Australia, and I am talking about our airports not only in our capital cities but also in key regional centres. For that reason, following detailed consideration of the bill and the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, the opposition are moving amendments which we think are exceptionally important to the future operation of the bill. In moving these amendments I am pleased to acknowledge that the government has agreed this evening to two recommendations of the Senate with respect to changes to the operation of the bill.
Having said that, we have also sought, from an opposition’s perspective, to reach an understanding with the government with respect to the operation of this bill. Unfortunately, we have been unable to negotiate such an outcome to date, but we would be happy to continue to negotiate, our intent obviously being to refine the operation of the bill, because we actually think it is a very important bill in terms of its application on a day-to-day basis.
That aside, the opposition is opposed to any shortening of public consultation and approval time lines, and I will return to this key issue shortly. I also note the changes proposed by the government with respect to time lines; they unfortunately fall short of what is required by the opposition. I therefore also refer to the fact that, earlier this year, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Vaile, said:
I have received a number of representations from Government MPs and Senators asking me to extend the 45 working day period for consultation to 60 working days.
If there were historical evidence of the minister having due regard for community and local government concerns when it comes to sensitive airport development, I believe the revised time lines proposed, which would have brought the planning regime largely into line with state and territory planning processes—in fact, in some instances they are far more restrictive than existing state and territory processes—might well have been accepted by the opposition.
The problem is that in recent times some of the decisions made have caused major concerns, not only amongst opposition members but also, as is obviously reflected by the fact that the government has been forced to amend its time lines, amongst government members. But the unwillingness to reduce consultation time lines, as I have said, is a manifestation of the distrust in the government’s implementation of the process, not only by members of the House but also by substantial numbers of people out there in the Australian community, especially amongst local and state government representatives. My colleagues are equally concerned, and so are their constituents, because we appreciate that the operation of airports is a very sensitive local issue. Just ask any member who has responsibility for an airport in or close to their electorate.
Unfortunately, in recent times the government’s record on airport development has raised serious questions about its lack of proper concern for the needs and welfare of many local people who live around Australia’s key airports. I refer specifically, for example, to the brickworks at Perth and retail developments at Adelaide and Essendon. On the basis of those outcomes, we in the opposition are not prepared to accept any reductions in consultation or approval times.
The second issue I go to relates to public consultation submissions received. It is the view of the opposition that, as the Senate committee quite rightly recommended, all public consultation submissions received by the proponents of airport developments should go to the minister as the decision maker—a proposition which is now accepted by the government. Amendment (14) in my schedule of amendments addresses this important issue. I think it is appropriate that the minister receive a copy of all public submissions going to planning proposals for the operation of airports. It would enable the minister and the department to properly consider these issues. That is the practice of a number of airport owners at this point in time, as instanced by the current planning process underway for a second runway at Brisbane Airport, which is a controversial issue in the minds of some people. (Extension of time granted) I am pleased to note the government’s support for this recommendation, because I think it is very reasonable. It is obviously part of the Senate’s consideration of the bill and it is part of the Senate committee’s recommendations, which are important in terms of trying to refine the operation of this bill.
I go to a number of key amendments. Amendment (16) goes to ensuring that the minister receives advice from qualified town planners when making approval decisions about master plans and major development plans. Amendment (17) introduces a requirement for the minister to provide a written statement of the reasons for his decision if the minister’s decision is not in accordance with submissions by relevant state and local government planning authorities. Amendments (18) and (19) remove the deemed approval provision whereby a development is automatically approved if the minister fails to make an explicit decision within the appropriate time frames provided under the act.
All these propositions, we believe, are practical. They are also about ensuring, in terms of day-to-day decision making, that the operation of the bill is in line with the intent of the bill, which is that we properly handle sensitive issues going to the operation of airports with respect to both aviation and non-aviation activities at this point in time.
Whilst there is no history of the minister abrogating his responsibilities when it comes to making decisions within the appropriate time lines, there is a history of this in other parts of the government. For example, I specifically refer to the recent failure by the Treasurer when it came to a decision on BHP Billiton’s Pilbara railway which went to the critical operation of export infrastructure in the iron ore sector in north-west Western Australia—an issue which is now subject to ongoing litigation because of the Treasurer’s failure to actually make a definitive decision.
Amendment (20) requires the minister to specify in the approval conditions whether it is considered that the proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure and whether there is a reasonable requirement for the airport lessee company to negotiate appropriate contributions to that infrastructure. This is an issue of huge concern at a local and state government level, as instanced by the difficulties surrounding the operation and development of the DFO at Essendon Airport in Melbourne. There were major infrastructure difficulties that arose from that decision to approve the DFO.
I can only hope that the minister has learnt from his experience with Harbour Town in Adelaide and the DFO at Essendon Airport that he has to also take into account the impact of commercial development on surrounding infrastructure such as roads. I say this because I believe the minister reached the right decision earlier this year on the proposed Sydney airport retail development. Perhaps he has learnt from some of the backlash that has occurred as a result of previous decisions, such as the approval of those discount operations at Essendon Airport. The Sydney airport development, interestingly, would have required somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion worth of road infrastructure investment by state and adjacent local authorities. Clearly, it is totally inappropriate to expect that kind of contribution from government and equally inappropriate to clog up the existing road infrastructure without it.
If we as a community want to rebuild community trust in the planning regime for airports, it is time for all parties to lift their game. There are some instances where the last thing I want to do is hand over planning powers to state and local government representatives, because there are also some concerns in the Australian community about some of the decisions that they make, but I think we are about a balance with respect to a very sensitive and difficult area of planning in Australia—that is, the operation of the airports. I do not think that there is any minister of any political persuasion who will always please the community when making these very tough decisions. The truth of the matter is that everyone wants airports but, as usual, no-one wants them in their backyard.
That is evidenced by the campaign by the Greens to close Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. It is interesting to see that every time you pass through an airport there are representatives of the Greens, yet you come to the parliament and you would think that airports are a plague on the nation. I tell you what: they do not mind racking up their frequent flyer points and using our key infrastructure with respect to the operation of airports. These are very serious issues and I raise them in a very serious manner.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
10000
Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Barresi)—Order! The member for Batman has the call.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—It is interesting to see the sensitivities on the other side of the House with respect to the Greens, given the recent preferences deal with the Greens Victoria to give their Liberal Party preferences to the Greens to try to defeat Labor Party candidates. (Extension of time granted)
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I remind the member for Batman of the bill before us.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Paterson is not assisting.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I understand the sensitivities, because these very issues can influence planning processes at local and state government level, let alone at a federal government level in the future, because of these dirty little preference deals by Liberal Party representatives around Australia. Having raised these issues, can I say this is actually about building community trust. This is about honesty and integrity with respect to the operation of government and the operation of political parties. They want to be in bed with preference deals—
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Batman would help if he came back to the bill.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I understand the relevance of these issues to the Airports Amendment Bill. Minority governments make hard political decision making very difficult, so it is a key issue to the outcome of these elections for the capacity for a government to have a clear majority to be able to make these definite decisions.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I cannot understand where that tie-in comes, Member for Batman.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—It is time for the minister to be more mindful of state and local government planning schemes, to properly consider the impact of developments on off-airport infrastructure and to make sure that airport lessees are meeting their obligations to make rate-equivalent payments and to contribute to off-airport infrastructure where it is reasonable. It should also be acknowledged in that context that, unfortunately, there are also some councils who think that airport owners are an easy target in maximising rate outcomes. The bill is very clear. It is about rate outcomes for non-aviation activities and people should understand that it is about a balance in the application of that principle. Airports should pay their way, but the bill is also about making sure that some surrounding local councils understand that airports are not there, to put it bluntly, to be screwed for local rate outcomes.
This bill is about a balance. It is about making sure that we can make the hard decisions, guaranteeing the operation of these airports. They are the key to our economic future. They are so important for a variety of activities, not just for the tourist industry but also for the movement of business and for attracting investment from overseas. Our requirement is to make sure that we operate them in an efficient way whilst also going out of our way to protect the local interests of people living in and around airports.
Therefore, it is an appropriate time for airport lessees to engage properly—and some are better than others—and to deal fairly with all levels of government and community stakeholders, to propose developments that have due regard and respect for surrounding land users and to pay their way when it comes to associated infrastructure. They actually get the benefit of these huge investments which also have a huge impact on surrounding communities. They reap the financial benefits for being allowed to have not only the aviation but also more than ever the non-aviation activities. It is also therefore expected that they make a contribution—as is going to happen, for example, with the Brisbane Airport development—to the infrastructure that is required to enable the operation of the airport in a highly efficient way. In some cases it might also be reasonable for state and local government authorities to also contribute to surrounding infrastructure, particularly when they are in receipt of substantial rate-equivalent payments and potential economic and tax benefits through the operation of those state and local government authorities.
As I said in my contribution in the second reading debate, airports are very important for the future of Australia and we have to make sure that we take the community with us. Airports generate funds and economic activities for the nation, but we have to make sure that the poor implementation of the planning and approval processes by the government in some instances to date, which has created huge suspicion amongst some sections of the Australian community with what is a difficult bill to implement, is addressed. The Airports Amendment Bill is a difficult bill, as I have said in this debate. We all want airports and we all want the benefits from aviation, but no-one wants an airport in their backyard. The truth is that airports are here to stay. We as a nation need them. Let us make sure that we operate the planning processes in a proper and consultative way. There will be tough decisions, but let us make sure that we go out of our way to consider all the associated issues in making these tough decisions. I commend my amendments, moved on behalf of the opposition, to the House.
79
20:35:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
0
Mr MURPHY
—I rise to enthusiastically support the detailed amendments just moved by the member for Batman, the shadow minister for transport and roads, without which the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 would be left resembling a Macquarie Bank manifesto for achieving greater operating profits for the directors and shareholders at the expense of the public interest and the local community, particularly the people I represent in the electorate of Lowe in Sydney’s inner west. Constituents in my electorate of Lowe have suffered for too long and will continue to suffer for many years to come from the reckless, irresponsible and negligent aviation policies of the Howard government. Members of the government now have an opportunity to do the right thing by my constituents by supporting the shadow minister’s amendments rather than pandering to the interests of the big end of town and its affiliates. I applaud the shadow minister, who, unlike the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, has shown serious concern that airport stakeholders may not have sufficient time to respond to amendments to airport master plans, major and minor development plans and environment strategies. That is why the ALP is proposing the amendments to retain existing approval and consultation time frames.
Members of the public currently have 90 calendar days to assess and make comments on master plans, major development plans and environment strategies. Members should realise that these are instruments which contain reams of technical data, statistics and complex calculations—yet the government proposes to slash to just 45 days the time available for ordinary Australians to assess them. This slash to consultation period times is unforgivable and ought to be rejected out of hand. Members of the government can do so by putting pride aside, joining with us and supporting the member for Batman’s amendments.
It should also be noted that members of the public currently have 30 days to assess and make comments on minor variations to master plans and environment strategies. The government proposes to slash this to 15 days, despite the data being no less technical. The slash to this consultation period is equally unforgivable and it, too, ought to be rejected out of hand.
I am surprised that there has been so little condemnation by government members of the savage and totally unjustified slashing of community consultation periods. Why should the only substantive submission to an airport master plan or major development plan be from the applicant itself? How is the public interest served by the savage cuts in consultation periods? How is a member of the public, a local council, a state government or one of my constituents in Lowe supposed to respond within days to a complex plan which could destroy the amenity of a neighbourhood, not to mention the potential devastating impact on property values of the government’s promotion of the massive expansion of airports for the benefit of the likes of Macquarie Bank? How can we legitimately expect these stakeholders to respond within days to a plan that may have taken upwards of three years to prepare? We cannot, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest.
I now turn to the government’s proposed amendments to section 81(5), section 84(3), section 94(6) and section 95(3), all of which have the effect of slashing the amount of time available to a minister to approve or refuse master plans and major development plans, or amendments to them, from 90 days to 50 days. A minister’s inability to assess the reams of technical data and complex calculations within the slashed assessment period will result in a ‘deemed approval’. Why is the government giving carte blanche to these ‘mini republics’ to do what they want, when they want, and with greater ease? It is hard to imagine local councils adopting a policy of ‘deemed approval’, rather than ‘deemed refusal’, for a two-storey home if it cannot be comprehensively assessed within time. How, then, can members of the government seriously allow this to happen for new flight paths over people’s homes or for a 48,000-square metre shopping centre at Sydney Airport? These proposals are bordering on the preposterous and the absurd. Members opposite would do well to support our amendments and do away with the unjustified slashing of ministerial assessment times and the legal fiction that ministerial silence amounts to consent.
I turn finally to the member for Batman’s amendments to ensure that major airport development plans are subjected to assessment by town planning professionals rather than simply bureaucrats within the Department of Transport and Regional Services. Why should Macquarie Bank at Sydney Airport or Colonial First State at Bankstown Airport be permitted to develop airport lands as retail outlets without any exposure to planning and environmental professionals? There are many town planners with a comprehensive and well-founded knowledge of worldwide planning regimes which have been developed and refined over decades. They know what works and what does not—not bureaucrats in the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services. (Time expired)
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Are the amendments seconded?
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr MURPHY
—I second the amendments. Without the amendments proposed by the ALP, the government’s changes to the Airports Act will impede and do violence to an already flawed maladministration of Commonwealth law. It is time to put a plug in the government’s tendency to propose amendment after amendment to laws so as to give corporations more licence to ill-gotten gains. I call them ill-gotten gains because they are obtained at the expense of the environment, the public interest and aviation safety.
In conclusion, I note that there is no connection between the section 92 public comment requirement and section 94 approval of the major development plan. Subsection 94(3) specifies what matters the minister must have regard to. I note that the findings of the public comment, from subsection 92(2), are not enumerated in the list of what matters the minister must have regard to. The proposed amendment in clause 87A, the new subsection 94(1A), introduces a new, third and separate element into the process—that is, an ‘assessment’ by a ‘qualified town planner’. No reference is made to the arms-length impartiality of this town planner or its assessment. Equally, the provision is silent as to what weight ought be given to this encroachment of expert opinion specifying town planning expertise. Why not prescribe an assessment from a planning engineer or an environmental scientist? Why does town planning get special mention?
Equally, the amendment in clause 87A sits uncomfortably within the whole purpose of sections 92 through 94 inclusive—that is, the provisions are ostensibly about public interest comment. Expert advice does not sit well here. If it is the intent of this part of the provision to scientifically assess on technical grounds, these requirements are better placed within the legislation where such technical assessment is placed—that is, within the statutory requirements of the draft major development plan prescribed in section 91. To have a separate assessment outside the provisions of section 91 is both clumsy and confusing. The equivalent provision under New South Wales state planning law is that of environmental impact assessment and environmental impact statements, which usually default to the responsibility of the developer applicant, under part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, or the proponent, under part 5 of the act.
I conclude by inviting members opposite to do the right thing by those people who are affected by the expansion of airports and support the amendments moved by the shadow minister for transport this evening.
82
20:43:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
0
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I too would like to support the opposition’s detailed amendments as moved by the member for Batman. I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 and some of the amendments because, as I have said many times in this place, my electorate has the Adelaide Airport smack bang in the middle of it. It affects 15,000 to 25,000 people living around the airport. This bill is very important to my electorate.
I would like to start off by speaking of the proposed amendment to section 85A subsection 93(2), which reads:
-
A draft major development plan submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by
-
a written statement signed on behalf of the company:
-
listing the names of the persons consulted; and
-
summarising the views of persons consulted, and
-
a copy of any document provided by a person consulted.
A written statement signed on behalf of the company would be from the Adelaide Airport in my case in Adelaide, South Australia. That would have to list the names of persons consulted. Currently no listing has to be done. It also requires that we summarise the views of those people who have been consulted and make copies of any documents provided by those persons. Persons in my electorate would mainly be residents who live around the airport. I think the minister needs to know what these people are going through or what the effects on their lives will be before developments take place. I think that, if the minister is not getting that information, he is getting only half the information and is not getting what is going on in the area and the consequences for the immediate suburbs around the airports which will affect those residents.
I think it is unfortunate that we are here tonight speaking of a decade of Australian aviation which has resulted, by one means or another, in an almost sardonic attitude shown by those affected by the act with which this amendment bill is concerned. We have had a history of minimal conditions placed upon the proposals of developments and activities at the airports which has allowed the practice to develop where the master plan is originally developed, the master plan implementation is the second stage and then there are amendments. Some people in my electorate will swear that the master plan should be dumped in the wastepaper basket as soon as it comes back from the minister’s desk, for all it is worth.
A situation has developed whereby the government outsources virtually all functions pertaining to airport development to the very businesses the act is supposed to regulate. Multimillion-dollar companies have been given responsibility for: ensuring the community is consulted over their plans; incorporating substantial objections and amendments; policing the observance of their own master plan; and assessing amendments to the master plan irrespective of what those amendments are or what anyone thinks of them. So ensuring that the minister sees what has happened in the consultation discussions can only be a good thing.
The very recent case of the proposal for some development in the middle of Sydney airport being turned down by the government has been one of the only things that I have ever seen be turned down. I am not aware of any airport lessee company around the nation having any of their claims rejected by this government apart from this recent one. An airport lessee company’s consultative committee may meet with the representatives of community groups. They may meet with people without any inside information or expert knowledge. Some of these companies may even meet with their shareholders, but to what end? The current system that we have in place puts the community at the disposal of the airport lessee companies. It puts the general public in a position of reliance on the very organisation they are notionally going to disagree with, the company that is their notional adversary. Will an airport lessee company say, ‘Sure, we agree to kill off this multimillion-dollar project because you don’t like it,’ even if it does not contravene the master plan? The notion that the government can rely on airport lessee companies to do the right thing, consult, take everyone’s opinions into consideration throughout the airport’s development over a couple decades because they were asked to by this act we are going to amend is naive in the extreme. The people in the community have no faith in these companies; they have no faith that their comments will not be misrepresented or discounted.
Government amendments will not help if the airport can misrepresent or underplay the substance of comments and discard the relevance or importance of those people submitting. It is ridiculous for a party with such financial bias to be given full rein in collating, interpreting and assessing substance of comments and then be expected to say to the government that they have viewed community comments with total objectivity and a not-for-profit sense of community responsibility. Persons who make comments should receive copies of airport lessee companies’ responses to comments as submitted by the company to the minister. Subsequent to any determination, they should also be informed of any determination of the minister pertaining to their comments. All such documents should be on the public record—comments, airport lessee company submissions and ministerial responses. My question for the minister is: what evidence can be hoped for by any person in the community who has made a comment that (1) the airport lessee company has considered it and (2) the airport lessee company accurately represented it in their submissions to the minister?
That is what this amendment is all about. It is about showing the minister who has been consulted, what those people have said and what the outcomes have been. These are only good things. The more consultation we have, the better for those residents who live in and around the airport in my electorate. Therefore, I commend and support the opposition’s amendments to this bill.
83
20:51:00
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
0
Mr DUTTON
—The government does not agree to the amendments.
Question put:
That the amendments (Mr Martin Ferguson’s) be agreed to.
20:55:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. IR Causley)
56
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
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.
Sawford, R.W.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Windsor, A.H.C.
78
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Cadman, A.G.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A.
Gambaro, T.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Robb, A.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
84
Mr DUTTON
(Dickson
—Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer)
21:01:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
84
Adjournment
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! It being past 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Adelaide Airport Noise Insulation Program
84
84
21:02:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
0
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I rise to speak on an issue that has been an ongoing sore point in the lives of many residents living in close proximity to the Adelaide Airport and under the flight paths of its air traffic. I am, of course, speaking of the Adelaide Airport Noise Insulation Program. The program assists residents and also applies to certain public buildings. It protects inhabitants from excessive aircraft noise by use of insulation in the form of double-glazed windows and the like. Since day one back in the year 2001, when the map demarcating those residents who would receive the program and those who would not was released, this program has done something for some and nothing or very little for others.
It has always perplexed members of the public how a building on one side of the street can be entitled to receive assistance under the package, worth anything up to $60,000-odd dollars, while buildings and owners on the other side of the street are excluded from receiving anything. The assessment of which properties are worthy of coverage under this program is based on properties’ relative aircraft noise exposure as assessed under the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast system, the ANEF. This system takes into account the numbers and types of aircraft, their flight paths and noise characteristics and the time of day of their operation. The noise exposure levels are represented by a series of contours on a map joining all the points which have some specified ANEF level, for example 25, 30 and 40 ANEF. Only residences within the 30 noise exposure contour are eligible for insulation.
This system is similar to that in operation in the United States of America, and is viewed as superior to that of simply measuring decibel levels, which can result in measurements that vary wildly depending on unpredictable variables such as weather. We are informed by the government that the annual Australian Noise Exposure Index, the measurement that maps areas of the city exposed to the qualifying 30 ANEF noise exposure level, has been proceeding in relation to Adelaide Airport and others around the nation. Sydney airport noise and flight path reports indicate the extension of noise exposure contours with changes in numbers and types of aircraft using particular runways at various times of the day. The Australian Noise Exposure Index has identified movement in the coverage of the 30 ANEF noise level at Sydney Airport in recent times. I presume this will lead to a reassessment of those homes within Sydney that qualify for the noise insulation program.
In relation to Adelaide Airport, we know from the good advice of Airservices Australia that the number of aircraft movements, flights landing or taking off, has increased by almost 10 per cent from the December quarter of 2003 to the December quarter of 2006. Yet we are told by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the minister’s representatives or others that there has been no movement in the boundaries containing properties adjacent to Adelaide Airport’s flight paths experiencing 30 ANEF noise levels.
Knowing the depth of feeling in the community, expressed over many years now, in relation to this issue, I would like to call on the government to substantiate its position of a total lack of movement in Adelaide’s geographic area subjected to 30 ANEF noise levels. I call on the government to provide to the public an independent assessment of all available Australian Noise Exposure Index information pertaining to Adelaide Airport in a form so that residents can see, demonstrably, that the areas affected by 30 ANEF noise levels have not changed since the turn of the century, as the government asserts. The public deserves to have access to this information. Likewise, I call on the government to include the annual assessments of the Australian Noise Exposure Indices and detailed assessments of their geographic scope within the material made public via the Department of Transport and Regional Services or the Airservices Australia websites, maximising access to this information, which is only otherwise available through Adelaide Airport Ltd itself.
It has been an issue in the electorate of Hindmarsh for quite a long time that some houses on one side of the street get the insulation program because of the ANEF measurements but on the other side of the street, where the noise is exactly the same, they do not receive it. This raises questions. Why is it that one side of the street receives it and the other does not? What has not been taken into account is the noise level. We have been calling on this government for a long time now to take into consideration the noise levels, to tell the residents of Hindmarsh in and around the airport in the flight path where those measurements have been taken, whether they have been taken and if they have not been taken, why not and to explain to those residents who are not getting the program why other areas further away are getting the program when they are not. (Time expired)
Northern Territory: Islamic Community
86
86
21:07:00
Tollner, David, MP
00AN4
Solomon
CLP
1
0
Mr TOLLNER
—Tonight I wish to speak about the achievements of the Islamic community in the Northern Territory, who are working together with their local community and this government to build a new community facility which will promote peace, tolerance and racial harmony. I was very pleased that the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory was recently successful in gaining funding, under the Regional Partnerships program, for an Islamic community centre. Currently, there are 800 to 1,000 Muslim adults living in the Top End, with numbers bolstered in recent years by an influx of Sudanese and Somalian refugees. This trend is likely to further increase the Muslim population in Darwin and has highlighted the need for a multipurpose Islamic community facility.
While Muslim clerics like Sheikh Hilali have been a divisive force in the Australian community, Muslims in the Territory have sought interaction, not isolation, with the wider community and are promoting cultural diversity rather than division. They have demonstrated their loyalty and friendship to Australia while building good relations with people of other ethnic groups and faiths. The construction of the centre in Darwin can only further promote understanding between all races.
A three-member subcommittee headed by Dr Waqar Ahmad has been instrumental in securing funding for the Islamic community facility. The other two tireless workers are Dr Hasan Bajha and Mr Jillu Rahman, who is President of the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory. Mr Adama Konda is the full-time imam for Darwin and regularly visits Muslims right across the Top End. His talents are not singular; I am told he has a black belt and also teaches karate and martial arts.
The Islamic Society of the Northern Territory has an open-door policy. They regularly invite members of non-Muslim faiths to attend the Darwin Islamic Centre and engage the imam or other senior members of the Muslim community to discuss any issues or misconceptions that may arise. The centre also offers free Arabic language classes to all residents of the Territory, regardless of faith.
In June this year, the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory is organising a Muslim awareness week in Darwin, which will include an open day at the Darwin Islamic Centre, an interfaith symposium at the Charles Darwin University, a youth and women’s forum, a BBQ and a community soccer match.
A special mention should be accorded to Dr Waqar Ahmad, who has been the key driving force in looking after the interfaith harmony programs and community related projects of the Islamic society. Others deserving of a mention for their good work include Mr Ishfaq Haider, Mr Feeroz Ibrahim, Mr Jeff Skegg, Mr Adjrun Kamaruddin, Mrs Madiha Haider, Mrs Poppy Mustafa and Mrs Asma Akram.
Muslims have a long history in the Northern Territory. The Darwin Islamic Centre recently celebrated its 35th anniversary. Its success can be attributed largely to one of its key founding members, Mr Muhammad Nurul Huq OAM. Islam is woven into the fabric of the Territory’s history. The Muslim Macassans had trade and cultural contacts with the people of Northern Australia for centuries, later working in the pearling industry when many became indentured to local employers.
The growing demand from the east coast of the continent for new land and new mining areas in the middle of the 19th century led to the introduction of the camel and its appendage, the Muslim Afghan cameleer. Muslims were vitally important in every exploratory expedition into Central Australia from the time of Burke and Wills until the 1939 crossing of the Simpson Desert. Their role in the construction of the 1872 overland telegraph line, in carrying supplies into the interior and in keeping remote stations, settlements and desert mining towns alive in the most severe droughts, made their mosques and their faith a rich and colourful vein in our history.
The current project of the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory continues that pioneering spirit and, in turn, the new Islamic community facility will further strengthen ties between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Northern Territory while providing a shining example of racial harmony to the rest of the nation.
Australian Automotive Industry
87
87
21:11:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
0
Mr MURPHY
—The latest automotive industry statistics published by the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources may help to explain the recent sacking of 600 workers from the General Motors plant in Adelaide. The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources has been asleep as the proportion of locally manufactured vehicles has crashed from over 47 per cent of the total number of private motor vehicles sold in 1999 to no more than 30 per cent of the total number sold in 2006. While demand for smaller vehicles has increased, progress in the local industry has broken down under the Howard government and, since 2000, the manufacture of the most commonly sold small and light vehicles in Australia has completely ceased.
The figures show that, while the total number of locally produced and imported private motor vehicles sold increased by about 11 per cent over the period 1999 to 2006, the number of imported small to medium vehicles sold increased by 20 per cent and now makes up more than half of all cars sold. At the same time, the proportion of large cars sold declined from 38 per cent to 25 per cent of the total, an actual decrease of 35 per cent.
These figures show that there has been a significant shift in the buying preferences of the Australian public towards less expensive smaller vehicles with lower fuel consumption, a change which neither the minister nor the local manufacturers have responded to. The government seems quite unconcerned by the failure of the Australian motor vehicle industry to adapt to changing circumstances, and the minister will no doubt only realise that he has lost control of his portfolio when the last Australian-built vehicle rolls off the production line.
The minister may say that this is an exaggeration, but an analysis of the trend in his department’s figures shows that the continuing decline in the number of locally manufactured private motor vehicles will see a drop in the numbers produced from about 183,000 in 2005 to 160,000 in 2010 and the eventual end of local vehicle manufacture by 2030. Currently, the local vehicle builders’ productivity is about 18.5 vehicles built per worker per annum. This means, using the government’s figures, that possibly another 8,000 jobs will be lost from the industry by 2010 and that as many as 71,000 jobs could be lost by 2030 if the decline in local vehicle manufacturing continues.
The problem with the local vehicle manufacturers is evident: car buyers do not want to buy large, heavy gas guzzlers and yet the local industry, together with a negligent government, refuses to respond to the changing needs of Australian motorists. When asked a question about fuel supplies, the minister responded:
Do we need to find more oil? Yes, we do. But short of finding more oil I don’t know what the solution is.
Evidently the minister has not thought of taking steps to require manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles through changes in the Australian design rules. The Leader of the Opposition recently announced a program to establish the manufacture of energy-efficient hybrid vehicles in Australia, a move that will enable Australian motorists to buy the kinds of vehicles that they actually want.
And what they want is a technologically advanced, fuel-efficient, locally manufactured vehicle with a considerable potential for export, such as the kinds of cars that are now the fastest growing section of the market. Of course, the minister will point out that there is still a market in some parts of the world for the obsolescent vehicles that the local manufacturers continue to produce, but how long will it be before the increasing price of fuel and the availability of more fuel-efficient vehicles such as hybrids brings an end to this operation?
Twelve million dollars from government and CSIRO funds combined with equivalent industry money has been spent on developing the aXcessaustralia prototype hybrid car and at least $900,000 has been spent in developing the EcoCommodore, which was unveiled in May 2000. Despite these substantial outlays the government and industry have failed to realise the potential of these cars. Not one hybrid vehicle has yet rolled off Australian production lines and none appears likely to do so under the Howard government’s incompetent administration in this area.
The appearance of new vehicle technologies, such as petrol-electric hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells and full electric cars, not only shows that the time of the inefficient and polluting internal combustion engine is nearing an end but also warns that countries that fail to rebuild their vehicle industries will face ever higher fuel import charges and the collapse of their outdated vehicle manufacturing industry. Only an Australian Labor government led by Kevin Rudd will have the ability and drive to bring about these urgently needed changes.
Dobell Electorate: Warnervale Family and Community Centre
88
88
21:16:00
Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP
00ANF
Dobell
LP
1
0
Mr TICEHURST
—The New South Wales Labor government is once again ignoring its responsibilities in the Warnervale region, a rapidly growing area in my electorate of Dobell. It is in desperate need of infrastructure and support services. The Warnervale Family and Community Centre is doing a fantastic job giving families in the area an opportunity to come together as a community to participate in local events while providing a number of support services to families.
Twice the federal government has thrown the community centre a lifeline after the state government abandoned the centre. The Prime Minister visited my electorate to announce $269,000 in funding in 2004 and I secured a further $94,000 in 2006 when the centre again faced closure. This centre is again in need of funding and, while I will continue to work closely with them to try and resolve this matter, the New South Wales Labor government have been shifting the blame and responsibility for local issues onto either the federal government or Wyong council for far too long.
The provision of recurrent funding to community centres is the jurisdictional responsibility of the New South Wales government through the Department of Community Services. Indeed, the New South Wales Minister for Community Services, Reba Meagher, was asked on local radio station 2GO recently if the funding for this centre was a state responsibility and she could not give a straight answer to the question. Wyong shire mayor, Councillor Bob Graham, has called on the state government to step up to the plate and allocate further funding for this service. I call on New South Wales Labor candidate David Harris to do the same.
I recently took the state Liberal candidate for Wyong, Ben Morton, and the New South Wales Liberal leader, Peter Debnam, to the Warnervale community centre so that they could see firsthand the valuable work that this centre does. The New South Wales Liberals have committed to providing $500,000 in funding over four years for the centre. Mr Harris, I call on you to do the same. Put your money where your mouth is and give the residents of Warnervale a commitment that you will fund this vital service if elected this Saturday.
All three levels of government have a responsibility to work together to achieve the best possible outcomes for the Central Coast. That is why it is disappointing that the New South Wales Labor government has ignored its responsibility to fund this service, just like it turned a blind eye to Tumbi Creek, calls for funding to restore Tuggerah Lakes and the need for community rooms at Woongarrah Public School. Woongarrah Public School needs more classrooms but the Iemma government could not be bothered installing demountables. Instead, it took the cheapjack option, taking two much-needed community rooms away from the school and turning them into classrooms.
I hand-delivered a letter to New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma protesting his decision at the official opening of the Hunter pipeline in December last year. I also handed him a letter from the school captains of Woongarrah Public School pleading that he reconsider the decision of the New South Wales Department of Education and Training to take away their valued community facility. We did not even get the courtesy of a response. So, on top of twice failing to put up the funds to allow the Warnervale Family and Community Centre to continue operating, the New South Wales government has now denied the area further community facilities.
State Labor also continues to play games when it comes to the Tumbi Creek dredging project, which I secured $1½ million funding for some time ago. The trial dredging took place in July last year, yet we are still waiting for the state government to give approval to Wyong council for the dredging to go ahead. What are we waiting for? All the while they stall this important project, residents are losing out. Heavy rain may cause flooding and possible damage to many homes along this part of the Tuggerah Lakes. It is disgusting that the New South Wales Labor government is ignoring the wellbeing of the Central Coast community in this way.
As the local federal member, I take my responsibilities seriously and will continue to push for the best possible outcomes for the Central Coast community. It is time that the state government did the same by offering a firm commitment to provide recurrent funding for the Warnervale community centre and giving immediate approval so that Tumbi Creek can finally be dredged. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to end the blame game and to make sure his Labor colleagues in New South Wales meet their obligations to the residents of the Central Coast.
National Get to Know Your Neighbour Day
Fuel Prices
90
90
21:21:00
Byrne, Anthony, MP
008K0
Holt
ALP
0
0
Mr BYRNE
—I rise tonight to speak about a great initiative which was launched by Andrew Heslop some time ago. It is National Get to Know Your Neighbour Day, which is Sunday, 25 March. I am asking local families in my electorate to support neighbour day. I certainly understand that families are very proud of where they live and want to have a very strong sense of community. I know that the members for a lot of electorates would feel that. To promote that day I went down to Oak Avenue, Doveton, to speak to some people. The Doveton area has a very close-knit community. It is a very vibrant and safe community. In the past Doveton has had, unjustly and unfairly, a lot of very bad PR. It is an area filled with very good working families. I could not think of a better place in which to be launching and promoting this initiative on 25 March.
We are asking people on that Sunday to say, ‘Hi’ or ‘G’day’ to their neighbours, to make a special effort to introduce themselves to older residents in their street and anyone who lives alone, to leave their mobile and home telephone numbers with those people for their use in an emergency and to agree to keep in contact. A lot of people, mainly young families, have shifted into my electorate. People tell me that, whilst other people’s intentions are very good, there is a sense of disconnection from the community. Although there are a lot of housing estates and developments in the area, they feel that they do not have a strong sense of being centred or anchored within the community. So I think this is a great initiative. It is interesting, when I have been talking to some people in my neighbourhood—I live in Endeavour Hills—in Doveton and in other areas, that I have heard of a person living just four or five doors down from a neighbour to whom they have not spoken for four years, yet the same person will drive 15 or 20 kilometres to visit a friend. That is something we need to look at, because in making our community more connected we are making it safer, stronger and more secure. I think this is a great initiative, and I certainly urge the people in Holt to get behind this national initiative on 25 March.
In the remaining time available to me, I would like to raise a couple of other issues. A number of people in Oak Avenue, Doveton, who were participating in the promotion of National Get to Know Your Neighbour Day raised with me a number of concerns. One particular concern was the price of petrol. As I said, Doveton is full of good working-class people who work hard. Our economic prosperity has been generated off the back of the work that they have put in. One thing that they would like to know is why the price of petrol keeps rising, inordinately so, on Thursday and Friday each week, sometimes to $1.30 a litre, and then drops down again to about $1.11 early in the next week. They want to know why that sort of profiteering is occurring, particularly when the price of oil is not $76 a barrel, which is what it was when petrol was over $1.40. They see a discrepancy and they want to know why some action is not being taken.
I think some action should be taken. These working people deserve to have an instrumentality that ensures oil companies do not profiteer, because—and I do not care what anyone says in this House—they are profiteering. The justifications that they put forward to me and my electorate are simply not satisfactory. I do not accept them. This community is already feeling the increased cost of living. If you looked at, for example, some of the inflation figures, you would see that food has increased by 8.6 per cent—that is a lot—and private health insurance has gone up by something like 40 per cent, I think it is 46 per cent, since 1999.
What is happening as a consequence? The people in these very good areas where people are working so hard are seeking emergency relief. For example, in November the Casey North Community Information and Support Service distributed $7,587 in relief through food vouchers, travel vouchers and assistance with the cost of medicines. In December the figure was $6,920 and in January it was $11,495. We are having the good working-class people of that area, with its veneer of economic prosperity, coming into my office looking for money for schoolbooks. Something is not right here. In an era of economic prosperity, we are having people seeking financial counselling. In fact, the Casey North Community Information and Support Service has a very long waiting list of people as a consequence of the demand. We have got to do something to deal with the situation of these people who are falling through the cracks. The government needs to spend more money to provide more facilities for people who need financial counselling—(Time expired)
Forestry Industry
91
91
21:26:00
Baker, Mark, MP
DYK
Braddon
LP
1
0
Mr BAKER
—I rise this evening to discuss the forestry industry, one of the most important and critical issues in Tasmania at the time of the last federal election. As recent events in Tasmania have testified, this matter remains a critical concern. Forestry and associated processing is Tasmania’s second-largest economic sector in both turnover and industry value adding. The industry contributes about $1 billion each year to the Tasmanian economy. Wood and paper product manufacturing alone accounts for over 20 per cent of total manufacturing employment, 25 per cent of total manufacturing wages and salaries and 24 per cent of total industry turnover. In 2003-04, total Tasmanian forest fibre production was over 23 per cent of national production, valued at $381 million. This figure represents an increase of 65 per cent in value since 1997-98. Since 1997 around $1.4 billion has been invested in the industry.
Supported by other key national policy initiatives, such as the National Forest Policy Statement, the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement has supported and boosted industry and employment in the forestry sector by providing both resource security and a policy climate which has fostered increased investment and employment opportunities. Importantly, all of Tasmania’s public forests and the majority of its private forests are now certified under the Australian Forestry Standard, a certification system based upon ISO 14001:1996 and the Montreal process and compatible with other certification schemes. And yet the member for Kingsford Smith, with his well-known contradictory views on the whole spectrum of environmental issues, someone aspiring to be a government minister, has described the negotiated regional forest agreements as:
... a completely flawed and discredited process initiated by Government.
The member is also on record as saying:
The forest industry is not willing to act in a responsible manner. It is attempting to provoke and confront conservationists over the issue.
The member has also previously stated that:
All old growth and high conservation value forests across Australia should be immediately protected.
How out of touch is the member for Kingsford Smith? At the risk of my repeating material that has been reported in this chamber before, let us consider the following facts. Under the Howard government, 22.5 million hectares of forest is now conserved Australia wide. Over half of that amount, or more than 11 million hectares, has been conserved in the last 11 years. In Tasmania, one million hectares of old-growth forest is protected from harvesting. Let me repeat that: one million hectares of old-growth forest is protected from harvesting. That accounts for over 100 million trees. That is 78 per cent of the state’s total old-growth forests. Of the 22 per cent that is annually available for logging, only one per cent is harvested. Forty-five per cent of Tasmania’s forests of all types, and some 42 per cent of Tasmania’s landmass, are reserved. Tasmania’s record stands as one of the best in the world.
I return to the member for Kingsford Smith for a moment. In 2004 he said:
Tasmania has a lot to lose thanks to logging gone mad. The state’s flourishing tourism industry is threatened by consumer reaction to carnage in the forests.
He is out of touch. This package was supported by the CFMEU at the last election.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
92
21:30:00
House adjourned at 9.30 pm
NOTICES
92
Notices
The following notices were given:
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Aged Care Act 1997, and for related purposes. (Aged Care Amendment (Residential Care) Bill 2007)
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
to move:
That the House:
-
notes statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran:
-
calling for the destruction of the State of Israel;
-
warning any Muslim who supports Israel that they will burn in the Umma of Islam; and
-
denying Nazi genocide against the Jews of Europe and demonising Jews;
-
calls on the Australian Government, Australia being a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to:
-
refer the incitements to genocide by President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders to the appropriate agencies of the United Nations for account;
-
initiate in the International Court of Justice an inter-state complaint against Iran for its criminal violation of the Genocide Convention; and
-
urge the United Nations to act against Iran’s threats to eliminate the State of Israel;
-
affirms the principle that no country should be allowed to call for the elimination of another; and
-
condemns the incitements to genocide by President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders.
JH5
George, Jennie, MP
Ms George
to move:
That the House:
-
condemns the Mugabe Government in Zimbabwe for the brutal bashings in police custody of Morgan Tsvangirai and other leaders and supporters of the Opposition Party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC);
-
expresses concern at the ongoing threat of violence as evidenced by the additional vicious beating of MP Nelson Chamisa in recent days;
-
notes that the Mugabe Government has clearly abandoned the rule of law and tolerates no dissent;
-
expresses its concern for the safety of former Australian passport holder Mrs Sekai Holland and her Australian husband Jim Holland, and urges the Australian Government to use its best endeavours to intervene to have Mrs Holland released from custody and safely transported out of Zimbabwe for urgent medical attention; and
-
calls on the Australian Government to have the Mugabe regime’s actions brought before the UN Security Council and, if appropriate, the International Criminal Court, and calls on Zimbabwe’s neighbours, particularly South Africa, to take action in support of human rights in Zimbabwe.
83A
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
Ms Livermore
to move:
That the House:
-
acknowledges that:
-
it is now 43 years since the HMAS Voyager and HMAS Melbourne disaster;
-
Australian defence force personnel who served on the HMAS Voyager and HMAS Melbourne have suffered ongoing psychological stress and trauma as a result of their experiences;
-
many survivors from HMAS Voyager and HMAS Melbourne have sought compensation for psychological stress and trauma that has manifested itself in later life;
-
the delays in settling these cases is causing further stress to survivors of the HMAS Voyager and HMAS Melbourne disaster; and
-
in some cases, the delays in settling the case have led to the cases being heard after the survivor of the HMAS Voyager and HMAS Melbourne collision has died; and
-
calls on the Government to do everything within its power to expedite the legal proceedings of the survivors of the HMAS Voyager and HMAS Melbourne.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
94
Questions in Writing
Media Training
94
94
3349
94
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 29 March 2006:
-
Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio engage the services of a media training company in 2005; if so, how many individuals in the department and each agency received media training.
-
For 2005, what sum was spent on media training by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio.
94
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources
1
Mr Turnbull
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes. The Australian Greenhouse Office provided media training for Cities for Climate Protection Australia local government participants in Victoria, Perth, Sydney and Brisbane. No departmental/agency officer received media training as part of this exercise. The Bureau of Meteorology provided media training for 83 of its officers.
-
The cost of the Australian Greenhouse Office media training was $36,240.50. The Bureau of Meteorology spent $44,970 on its media training.
Media Training
94
94
3386
94
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 29 March 2006:
-
Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005.
-
What was the cost of the media training.
-
What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training.
94
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:
I was not the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in 2005 so am unable to answer the question.
Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport
94
94
3831
94
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 8 August 2006:
-
Further to the Minister’s reply to part (1) of question No. 3391, how many CCTV cameras does Customs operate in the baggage make-up area of (a) Sydney International Airport and (b) Sydney Domestic Airport.
-
Do the CCTV camera control room operators control electronically (a) the field of view and (b) the focus of the cameras from their control room; if not, how are these controlled.
-
Is the field of view or focus of a CCTV camera ever adjusted manually; if so, (a) by whom, (b) how, (c) when, and (d) why; if not, why not.
-
Can the Minister say that Camera 1 was not out of focus before 23 October 2004; if so, why; if not, why not.
-
What date was (a) the review into the position and operation of Camera 1 undertaken by Customs CCTV control room operators and (b) the “no focus” fault in Camera 1 reported by the Customs officer.
-
Did (a) Customs CCTV control room operators or (b) some other person conduct a physical inspection of Camera 1 before, during or immediately after the review which discovered Camera 1 had “no focus”; if not, why not; if so, what are the details of that inspection.
-
Did (a) a Customs officer, (b) a baggage handler or (c) some other person first alert the Customs CCTV control room operators that Camera 1 was out of focus before a Customs officer noted that this camera was not functioning properly; if the alert was given by a person other than a Customs officer or a baggage handler, what was the occupation of that person.
-
Did the Customs officer who identified that Camera 1 had “no focus” follow Customs procedures relevant to a potential crime scene, being the apparent tampering with a Customs CCTV camera; if so, (a) what was the band level of the Customs officer and (b) what action did he or she take; if not, why not.
-
Will the Minister provide details of the reporting obligations of the Customs officer who observed that Camera 1 had “no focus”, including the details of (a) any written report, (b) any verbal report (c) to whom the reports were made, (d) the dates of the reports and (e) all actions taken by those who received the reports, including the dates those actions were taken; if not, why not.
-
Did the Customs officer make an entry in his or her note book with the details of the Camera 1 “no focus” incident; if so, what does that entry say; if not, why not.
-
Following the reporting of Camera 1 having “no focus”, did a Customs officer follow standard procedures and prepare a further incident report for his or her superiors; if so, what did that report say; if not, why not.
-
What are the band levels of the Customs officers who received the further incident report referred to in part (11).
-
In respect of the Customs officers identified in part (12), (a) what action did they take in relation to the incident report and (b) what band level(s) were the Customs officers associated with the action in relation to the incident report.
-
What action was taken to rectify the “no focus” fault of Camera 1 and what band level(s) were the Customs officers who took corrective action.
-
In respect of the investigation undertaken in relation to the “no focus” fault in Camera 1, (a) what was the nature of the investigation, (b) on what date did it commence, (c) on what date did it conclude, (d) what were the findings and (e) what were the recommendations.
-
On what date was the “no focus” fault of Camera 1 reported to Bemac Security Pty Ltd and how was the fault brought to the attention of Bemac Security Pty Ltd.
-
What was the band level of the Customs officer who reported the “no focus” fault of Camera 1 to Bemac Security Pty Ltd.
-
Why did it take six days to fix the “no focus” fault of Camera 1.
-
Did Bemac Security Pty Ltd provide a report to Customs following examination and maintenance of the “no focus” fault of Camera 1; if so, (a) what did the report say about the nature of the fault and (b) did it indicate how the “no focus” fault could have occurred; if so, what reason was given; if not, why not.
-
Will the Minister advise whether there is a definition of “operational effectiveness” used by the Australian Customs Service; if so, what is that definition.
96
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
With the additional funding made available to Customs in the 2005‑06 Budget to enhance the CCTV capability in Australian Airports the number of cameras in the Sydney baggage make‑up area increased to 92.
-
Customs does not operate cameras at Sydney Domestic Airport.
-
CCTV camera control room operators can, if required for operational reasons, control electronically (a) the field of view and (b) the focus of pan tilt zoom (PTZ) cameras from their control room.
-
Yes. However, the field of view or focus is rarely adjusted manually for PTZ or fixed cameras. If, for service reasons, such an adjustment is required, it is necessary to dismantle the camera housing to undertake that adjustment. (a) Manual adjustment of the view or focus of the Customs CCTV cameras would normally be undertaken by the service maintenance contractor. (b) The service contractor would be required to dismantle the camera housing to undertake any necessary adjustment. (c) and (d) Adjustments would be made as a result of a service request, in association with normal ongoing maintenance procedures, or to accommodate operational changes.
-
No. Camera 1 was reported as having ‘no focus’ on 23 October 2004. Maintenance checks carried out on 17 October 2004 indicate that Camera 1 was functional at that time.
-
Camera 1 was found to have ‘no focus’ on 23 October 2004.
-
The fault was reported to the maintenance service provider on the same day, 23 October 2004.
-
-
Customs CCTV control room operators followed normal operating procedures to report the fault identified in Camera 1, but this did not include a physical inspection.
-
Customs Sydney International Airport maintenance contractor, Bemac Security Pty Ltd, undertook a physical inspection of Camera 1 in order to rectify the fault identified.
-
A Customs officer detected that Camera 1 was out of focus.
-
The Customs officer’s response was in accordance with standard operating procedures which are not crime scene procedures. In the normal course of events, the fault with Camera 1 would not constitute a crime scene. (a) Customs Level 1. (b) The Customs officer followed normal operating procedures and reported the fault.
-
The Customs officer who observed that Camera 1 had ‘no focus’ on 23 October 2004 instigated a written service report on the same day (23 October), in accordance with normal operating procedures. (b) A written service report is provided to the maintenance contractor. (c) The report was forwarded to the Customs Sydney International Airport maintenance contractor, Bemac Security Pty Ltd, in accordance with standard operating procedures. (d) 23 October 2004. (e) Bemac Security Pty Ltd undertook a physical inspection of Camera 1 to rectify the fault on 29 October 2004.
-
The Customs officer followed normal operating procedures to report the fault.
-
The Customs officer followed normal operating procedures and instigated a service report. There was no requirement for a further incident report.
-
Refer to Question 11 above.
-
Refer to Question 11 above.
-
Refer to Question 9 above.
-
Refer to Question 9 above.
-
Refer to Question 9 above.
-
Customs Level 1.
-
The fault identified in Camera 1 on 23 October 2004 was rectified in accordance with the timeframes specified in the maintenance contract with Bemac Security Pty Ltd.
-
Yes, Bemac Security Pty Ltd did provide a report to Customs.
-
Customs does have a definition of ‘operational effectiveness’. It states, ‘Operational effectiveness is a measure of the capability of a force to carry out its assigned mission.’
Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport
97
97
3839
97
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 8 August 2006:
-
Further to the Minister’s reply to part (17) of question No. 3391, can the Minister confirm that there were other cameras in the baggage make-up area that provided adequate coverage of the cameras that were discovered to be out of focus or facing a wall; if not, why not; if so, did they have a field of view which captured footage of any potential interference with those cameras; if not, why not.
-
Did the other cameras in the baggage make-up area capture surveillance footage of Camera 1 and Camera 2 at the exact time these cameras moved from their intended position to face a wall; if not, why not; if so, was there human contact with these cameras.
97
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
A combination of fixed and pan tilt zoom (PTZ) cameras are placed to maximise the fields of view of Customs cameras in the baggage make-up area. This arrangement of cameras means there is built‑in redundancy of view so that if any camera is temporarily out of service then there is still capacity to cover the entire area.
-
Although these cameras have the capacity to replicate the field of view lines of Camera 1 and Camera 2, should that be required to cover Customs operational requirements, not all cameras continuously record. There is no Customs recorded footage available from the cameras in the baggage make-up area.
Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport
97
97
3840
97
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 8 August 2006:
Further to the Minister’s reply to part (18) of question No. 3391, were there incidents prior to 23 October 2004 involving Customs cameras at Sydney Domestic Airport or Sydney International Airport; if so, what are the details.
97
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
As with any large system, such as the Customs CCTV system, minor faults occur from time to time and are dealt with in accordance with standard operating procedures. In the period January 2003 through to 23 October 2004 only three incidents related to camera faults in the baggage make‑up area. Refer to my reply to Question 3391.
Customs does not own nor control any cameras at Sydney Domestic Airport.
Private Health Insurance
97
97
3844
97
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms Gillard
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 8 August 2006:
-
How many (a) holders of private health insurance; and (b) members of Medibank Private were there in the electorate of Lalor at: (i) 1 August 2006, (ii) 1 August 2004 and (iii) 1 August 2001.
-
How many Medibank Private offices were there in the electorate of Lalor on: (a) 1 August 2006, (b) 1 August 2004 and (c) 1 August 2001.
-
Are there any plans to close, relocate, or open Medibank Private offices in the electorate of Lalor in the next 12 months.
98
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
-
The Minister for Health and Ageing advises that the Department of Health and Ageing has information on holders of private health insurance by electorate, at the end of each financial year. Information on a fund by fund basis is not available. Information is not available for 2001 or 2006. An extract of information for the electorate of Lalor on private health insurance for 2004 is provided below.
Hospitals Information
2004
Percentage of the electorate covered by private hospital insurance
28.7
-
Note: As at 30 June 2004.
-
Medibank Private Limited has provided information that, based on the data available, the estimated number of Medibank Private members in the electorate of Lalor was as follows:
-
1 August 2006 – 18,632 (based on 2004 Electorate Boundaries);
-
1 August 2004 – 17,951 (based on 2004 Electorate Boundaries); and
-
1 August 2001 - 21,346 (based on 2001 Electorate Boundaries).
-
(2) Medibank Private Limited has advised the number of Medibank Private Limited retail centres in the electorate of Lalor as at:
-
1 August 2006 – one retail centre;
-
1 August 2004 – one retail centre; and
-
1 August 2001 – one retail centre.
-
(3) Medibank Private Limited advises that it has no plans to amend the number of retail centres in the electorate of Lalor in the next twelve months.
Foreign Fishing Vessels
98
98
3985
98
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
0
Mr Price
asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 4 September 2006:
Further to the Minister’s reply to question No. 3447 (Hansard, 15 August 2006, page 77), what detection assets are deployed to detect wooden illegal fishing vessels at night.
98
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Border Protection Command uses the technology inherent in its surveillance assets to detect those vessels, including wooden vessels, which pose a threat in Australia’s maritime domains.
This technology includes radar that has been optimised to detect small wooden targets and, for night flying, infra-red devices that are used to identify targets and for the purposes of obtaining imagery which can be transferred to the National Surveillance Centre.
Crosby/Textor Contracts
99
99
4018
99
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 4 September 2006:
-
What contracts, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06.
-
What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08.
-
In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract.
99
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
No contracts have been granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, department or portfolio agencies in the years specified.
Crosby/Textor Contracts
99
99
4034
99
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Sport, in writing, on 4 September 2006:
-
What contracts, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06.
-
What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08.
-
In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract.
99
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGauran
—The Minister for the Arts and Sport has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Neither the Minister for the Arts and Sport, or the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, including any associated portfolio agency, has any record of awarding a contract to Crosby/Textor for the years in question.
Crosby/Textor Contracts
99
99
4044
99
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 4 September 2006:
-
What contracts, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06.
-
What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08.
-
In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract.
99
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
Mr Nairn
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Nil.
-
Nil.
-
Not applicable.
KPMG Contracts
100
100
4053
100
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 4 September 2006:
-
What contracts have been awarded to KPMG by departments or agencies within the Minister’s portfolio for the financial years (a) 2004-05, (b) 2005-06 and (c) 2006-07.
-
What is the cost of each contract identified in Part (1).
100
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr Vaile
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Department of Transport and Regional Services
Financial Year
Description
(2) Cost (GST exclusive)
$
2004-05
Maritime Security Audit / Compliance Model
9,999.00
Provision of Internal Audit and Other Services
10,773.65
Professional services rendered in relation to preparing a financial statements note disclosure
3,850.00
Contract Services
23,108.35
Review of Financial Management Information System
13,049.85
Preparation & Participation in DOTARS Meetings
7,599.90
Review of Corporate Travel & Purchase Card Usage
8,819.80
Preparation & Participation in DOTARS Meetings
11,399.85
Review of AusLink Arrangements
19,236.80
Review of Coastal Shipping Permits
14,790.00
Review of Roads to Recovery
15,659.60
2005-06
IOT SDA Review
30,794.91
Develop Risk Management Plan
17,985.00
Review Offshore Security Plan 1/6-31/8/05
18,150.00
Aviation Security Review
33,176.00
My Workplace Redevelopment - SAP EP6
11,599.50
Provision of Internal Audit Services
33,000.00
Review of OTS financial management practices
12,375.00
Provision of Normative Control model (phase 1) to MSIC BCU
19,140.00
Professional Services Maritime Security Performance Audit
44,717.05
Internal Audit assignment review of IOT Contract Management performance
43,050.17
MSIC Issuing body plans Assessment & Approval
12,760.00
ICAO Montreal Audit
24,619.45
Follow-up reviews conducted Roads to Recovery program - Papanya
13,200.00
2006-07
Develop fraud control plan 2006-07 element
9,311.50
Review of grant arrangements
10,450.00
Airservices Australia
Financial Year
Description
(2) Cost (GST exclusive)
$
2004-05
Tax advice from KPMG Canada relating to a commercial bid.
3,797.00
Review of FBT, Payroll Tax, PAYG and BAS’s of the 2002/2003 year.
21,800.00
2005-06
FBT advice on travel incidentals (meal cards).
950.00
Secondment of staff to assist with monthly finance compliance.
2,005.00
Provide advice on alternative business structures.
50,000.00
Professional services associated with the development of a decision information network.
606,654.00
2006-07
Payroll tax review
28,500.00
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Financial Year
Description
(2) Cost (GST exclusive)
$
2004-05
Provision of Internal Audit Services 04/05
362,659.00
KPMG Alliance FLKPI for SOW-17
9,900.00
Provision of Professional Services
13,370.50
Provision of Professional Services
1,280.00
Gippsland Type Certificate
11,550.00
Review of CASA IP for CEO
16,500.00
Review of Hendra Services
82,500.00
2005-06
Provision of Internal Audit Services 05/06
267,101.25
Fringe Benefits Tax Preparation
17,600.00
Fringe Benefits Tax Preparation ending 30Mar06
4,950.00
Provision of Professional Services
18,437.50
CASA’s Change Initiatives Audit
18,150.00
Development of Strategic Risk Plan
6,126.00
Risk Management Services
32,500.00
CASA IP Alliance contract labour
11,947.26
AIRS Accenture Contract Review
12,100.00
2006-07
Provision of Internal Audit Services 06/07
187,914.00
Fringe Benefits Tax Preparation ending 30Mar07
20,000.00
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Financial Year
Description
(2) Cost (GST exclusive)
$
2004-05
Contract to conduct AMSA’s fraud risk assessment and update AMSA’s fraud control plan
12,000
2005-06
Three-year Internal Audit Services Contract operative from 3 October 2005
655,000
2006-07
No contracts have been awarded to KPMG in this financial year
Not applicable
National Capital Authority
Financial Year
Description
(2) Cost (GST exclusive)
$
2004-05
No contracts awarded to KPMG in this financial year
Not applicable
2005-06
No contracts awarded to KPMG in this financial year
Not applicable
2006-07
No contracts awarded to KPMG in this financial year
Not applicable
Media Monitoring and Clipping Services
102
102
4160
102
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, 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.
102
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources
1
Mr Turnbull
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The total sum for media monitors spending for the Department and its agencies in 2005-06 is $389,023.55.
-
Yes, some transcripts were ordered by the Department on behalf of the Minister’s Office, and spending on these is included in the total sum of $389,023.55. It is not possible to extract a figure for spending on these transcripts. No clippings were ordered by the Minister’s Office outside the normal clippings service covered by the contract. No audio and video recordings were ordered by the Department on behalf of the Minister’s Office.
Shark Fishing
102
102
4327
102
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
0
Mr Laurie Ferguson
asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 12 September 2006:
-
Is the Minister aware of rising prices for the tail fin of basking sharks.
-
Is there a perception of an increasing tendency for the “finning” of sharks.
-
Has there been a perceived depletion of shark populations with the advent of industrial fishing.
-
Are there currently moves to undermine the reported 2003 decision by European nations to make finning illegal, most clearly in the concept of raising permissible sales of five per cent of total catch in fins to 6.5 per cent.
-
Have questions been raised about reported European rules which allow the sale of fins weighing up to five per cent of the catch, due to more recent evidence that the tails normally only constitute two percent of weight.
-
Do the US regulations allow only two per cent of the total catch to be fins for possible sales.
-
What are the rules relating to Australian Waters.
-
Is Australia monitoring European proposals, and are there any lobbying efforts being undertaken by Australia on these matters.
103
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources
1
Mr Turnbull
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
There has been an acknowledged increasing demand for shark fin, but it is difficult to determine the extent to which shark finning occurs. International pressure to manage shark finning has certainly increased.
-
Scientific evidence has been collected over many years and in many countries which demonstrates depletion of shark populations. In response the international community, through the auspices of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, has introduced an International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks.
-
Some countries/organisations have determined that the amount of fin on board should be no greater than a certain percentage of the carcass weight to ensure the ban on finning is effectively implemented and that carcasses are not discarded at sea. A typical ratio is that the wet weight of fin on board should be no more than 5 per cent of the carcass weight. The appropriate ratio will vary from species to species.
-
I am advised that the European Parliament recently rejected a recommendation to increase the allowable fin to carcass ratio from 5% to 6.5% whole weight and instead voted overwhelmingly in favour of a decrease in the ratio to 2% of whole weight.
-
The US have set the ratio to be 5 per cent of dressed weight (the weight after the shark has been beheaded and gutted) or about 2.5 percent of the whole weight.
-
In Commonwealth managed fisheries, shark finning, as it refers to the on-board removal of a shark’s fins and the discarding of the remainder of the shark at sea, is banned. In state managed fisheries, various fin to carcass weight ratios are used as a means of managing legal take.
-
Australia continues to promote management of shark-finning and advocate Australia’s management measures in international organisations, including the Food and Agriculture Organisation and through Regional Fisheries Management Organisations.
Freedom of Information
103
103
4350 and 4352
103
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
-
How many freedom of information applications have the Minister’s department and agencies received in each financial year since 1 July 2000.
-
In respect of the applications identified in Part (1), how many resulted in documents being released (a) in full, (b) in part and (c) not at all.
-
Has the Minister’s department issued any conclusive certificates since 1 July 1996; if so, what are those details.
-
In respect of each of the conclusive certificates identified in Part (3), will the Minister provide (a) the sections of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to which the certificate relates and (b) the details of any appeal against the certificate lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, including the outcome of the appeal.
103
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
-
Information is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act.
-
Information about the outcome of FOI applications finalised each financial year by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act.
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Austrade
-
Information is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act.
-
Information about the outcome of FOI applications finalised each financial year by Austrade is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act.
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
AusAID
-
Information is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act.
-
Information about the outcome of FOI applications finalised each financial year by Ausaid is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act.
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation
-
Information is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act.
-
Information about the outcome of FOI applications finalised each financial year by EFIC is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act.
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
ACIAR
-
Information is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act.
-
Information about the outcome of FOI applications finalised each financial year by ACIAR is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act.
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Freedom of Information
104
104
4351
104
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
-
How many freedom of information applications have the Minister’s department and agencies received in each financial year since 1 July 2000.
-
In respect of the applications identified in Part (1), how many resulted in documents being released (a) in full, (b) in part and (c) not at all.
-
Has the Minister’s department issued any conclusive certificates since 1 July 1996; if so, what are those details.
-
In respect of each of the conclusive certificates identified in Part (3), will the Minister provide (a) the sections of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to which the certificate relates and (b) the details of any appeal against the certificate lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, including the outcome of the appeal.
105
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (2) Details of Treasury and portfolio agencies’ FOI information can be found in the Attorney-General’s Department Annual Report - Freedom of Information Act 1982 Annual Reports.
-
Between 1 July 1996 and 30 September 1996 there were no conclusive certificates issued by the Treasury. For the period 1 October 1996 to date please refer to (1) and (2) above.
-
Between 1 October 1996 to the present please refer to House of Representatives Question on Notice No. 1946, which appeared in Hansard on Tuesday 5 September 2006 (Pg. 111).
Freedom of Information
105
105
4353
105
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
-
How many freedom of information applications have the Minister’s department and agencies received in each financial year since 1 July 2000.
-
In respect of the applications identified in Part (1), how many resulted in documents being released (a) in full, (b) in part and (c) not at all.
-
Has the Minister’s department issued any conclusive certificates since 1 July 1996; if so, what are those details.
-
In respect of each of the conclusive certificates identified in Part (3), will the Minister provide (a) the sections of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to which the certificate relates and (b) the details of any appeal against the certificate lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, including the outcome of the appeal.
105
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Department of Finance and Administration
-
Information on how many applications the Minister’s department and agencies received is publicly available in the Attorney-General’s Department Freedom of Information (FOI) Annual Reports for the relevant financial years.
-
to (c) Information on the outcome of each FOI application is publicly available in the Attorney-General’s Department FOI Annual Reports for the relevant financial years.
-
No conclusive certificates have been issued by the Department of Finance and Administration (Finance). Since 1 July 1996, one conclusive certificate has been issued by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) in response to two identical requests received by Finance and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. The conclusive certificate was issued by the then Secretary of PM&C on 20 February 2001 and related to alternative locations to Lucas Heights for the siting of the replacement nuclear reactor.
-
-
The decision to issue a conclusive certificate by the then Secretary of PM&C was pursuant to his statutory powers under section 34 of the FOI Act, which exempts Cabinet documents from release.
-
An appeal was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the decision to issue a conclusive certificate in that matter. The decision was upheld by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the conclusive certificate was determined valid.
Australian Electoral Commission, Commonwealth Grants Commission and ComSuper
-
Information on how many applications the Minister’s department and agencies received is publicly available in the Attorney-General’s Department FOI Annual Reports for the relevant financial years.
-
to (c) Information on the outcome of each FOI application is publicly available in the Attorney-General’s Department FOI Annual Reports for the relevant financial years.
-
No.
-
and (b) Not applicable.
Australian Reward Investment Alliance, Future Fund Management Agency
-
Nil.
-
to (4) Not applicable.
Freedom of Information
106
106
4359
106
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
-
How many freedom of information applications have the Minister’s department and agencies received in each financial year since 1 July 2000.
-
In respect of the applications identified in Part (1), how many resulted in documents being released (a) in full, (b) in part and (c) not at all.
-
Has the Minister’s department issued any conclusive certificates since 1 July 1996; if so, what are those details.
-
In respect of each of the conclusive certificates identified in Part (3), will the Minister provide (a) the sections of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to which the certificate relates and (b) the details of any appeal against the certificate lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, including the outcome of the appeal.
106
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (2) This information is available for Defence and Defence Housing Australia in their annual reports as required by the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
-
No.
-
Not applicable.
Defence: Communications
106
106
4378
106
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
For each financial year since 1 July 2003, what Government communication activities (a) costing more than $10,000 and (b) costing less than $10,000, and not included in the annual report, have been conducted by the Minister’s department and agencies.
106
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(a) and (b)
Defence:
Activity
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006 to 31 January 2007
>
$10,000
<
$10,000
>
$10,000
<
$10,000
>
$10,000
<
$10,000
>
$10,000
<
$10,000
Recruiting
Nil
$1,250
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Defence Housing Australia:
Activity
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
>
$10,000
<
$10,000
>
$10,000
<
$10,000
>
$10,000
<
$10,000
Contractors – Direct Invoicing
$52,481
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Salaries – Contractors Agency
$12,707
Nil
Nil
$1,566
Nil
Nil
Advertising
$15,685
Nil
$18,950
Nil
$27,056
Nil
Events Publicity
$111,244
Nil
$39,287
Nil
$42,133
Nil
Mail Outs
$16,309
Nil
Nil
$130
Nil
Nil
Media Monitoring
$81,652
Nil
$52,848
Nil
$55,101
Nil
Publications and scanning
$369,663
Nil
$363,246
Nil
$304,912
Nil
Sponsorship
$33,223
Nil
$41,055
Nil
$31,991
Nil
Research
Nil
$7,708
Nil
$3,857
Nil
Nil
Foreign Affairs and Trade: Fuel Costs
107
107
4431 and 4433
107
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of fuel purchases for all Commonwealth cars operated by the Minister’s department and agencies.
107
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—On behalf odf the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
DFAT
Due to the way that fuel consumption data has been collected, details are provided in calendar years.
2001
$156,780.80
2002
$168,775.90
2003
$187,436.41
2004
$199,144.08
2005
$215,462.10
2006
$226,479.60
Data for the period 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2000 is not available. Details are provided for Canberra and interstate vehicles only. Collection of data on fuel costs for vehicles overseas would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources.
ACIAR
2000-01
$5,504
2001-02
$8,770
2002-03
$8,255
2003-04
$8,194
2004-05
$7,754
2005-06
$6,336
Australia-Japan Foundation (AJF)
Nil
AusAID
2000/01*
$16,466
2001/02
$30,827
2002/03
$28,677
2003/04
$29,521
2004/05
$32,698
2005/06
$39,660
* Data for the period 1 January 2001 to 30 June 2001 only. Earlier data is not available.
Austrade
Austrade provides vehicles for operational purposes in its Australian and overseas offices.
As the cost of fuel cannot be separately identified in Austrade’s financial system (all vehicle running costs are recorded against one account), source documentation such as original invoices would need to be recovered from Austrade’s archives and fuel costs collated manually.
Manual collection and collation of the requested information on fuel costs would be resource intensive and costly, thus requiring an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC)
Fuel costs incurred by EFIC are recovered in full from employees.
2001/02
$50,886
2002/03
$42,423
2003/04
$20,590
2004/05
$12,567
2005/06
$16,558
The provision of accurate fuel costs incurred in 2000/01 for salary packaged vehicles will involve an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Defence: Fuel Costs
108
108
4440
108
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of fuel purchases for all Commonwealth cars operated by the Minister’s department and agencies.
108
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
— The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Defence’s accounting system, ROMAN, does not allow expenditure to be broken down by equipment type (that is, Commonwealth cars). As cars run by Defence predominantly use Unleaded Petrol (ULP), figures for ULP expenditure have been extracted. Unavoidably, these figures will include expenditure for fuel used in other equipment such as brush cutters and lawn mowers; however, expenditure for these purposes is not considered material.
The total ULP expenditure for Defence was:
-
2000-01 - $3.688 million
-
2001-02 - $6.972 million
-
2002-03 - $5.849 million
-
2003-04 - $6.108 million
-
2004-05 - $5.797 million
-
2005-06 - $7.136 million
Defence Housing Australia (DHA):
DHA does not operate ‘Commonwealth cars’ as all vehicles are leased from commercial leasing organisations (Custom Fleet or LeasePlan). Since November 2005, all new lease vehicles are sourced from LeasePlan under the Commonwealth Fleet Management Agreement.
The fuel costs for DHA leased vehicles are:
-
2000-01 - $ 421,196
-
2001-02 - $ 463,778
-
2002-03 - $ 548,369
-
2003-04 - $ 712,913
-
2004-05 - $ 1,321,792
-
2005-06 - $ 1,472,324
Some of the costs advised above include minor maintenance items not included within the vehicle lease terms, such as unscheduled tyre replacement or servicing of vehicles. These items are associated with the same cost codes used by DHA for fuel purchases. It would involve a considerable diversion of resources to identify the relatively minor portion of expenses within these cost codes which are not related to purchase of fuel.
Treasury: Gardening and Indoor Plants
109
109
4452
109
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of (a) gardening and (b) indoor plants for the Minister’s department and agencies.
109
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Australian Bureau of Statistics
-
Nil.
-
The table below sets out the total cost of indoor plants broken down by financial years
Financial Year
Cost (excl. GST)
2000-2001
$86,141
2001-2002
$85,609
2002-2003
$77,606
2003-2004
$87,930
2004-2005
$75,685
2005-2006
$89,457
TOTAL
$502,428
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
-
Nil.
-
The table below sets out the total cost of indoor plants broken down by financial years
Financial Year
Cost (excl GST)
$ ‘000
2000-2001
$17.62
2001-2002
$19.30
2002-2003
$21.15
2003-2004
$20.95
2004-2005
$22.04
2005-2006
$24.57
Australian Office of Financial Management
Nil
The table below sets out the total cost of indoor plants broken down by financial years
Year
Cost (incl. GST)
2000-01
$1368.95
2001-02
$2986.80
2002-03
$2986.80
2003-04
$2211.01
2004-05
$2636.76
2005-06
$3316.46
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
-
Nil.
-
The table below sets out the total cost of indoor plants broken down by financial years
Year
Cost (incl. GST)
2000-01
$8,699
2001-02
$8,521
2002-03
$8,013
2003-04
$9,991
2004-05
$10,025
2005-06
$10,019
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
-
Nil.
-
The table below sets out the total cost of indoor plants broken down by financial years
Year
Cost (excl. GST)
2000-01
$44,936.00
2001-02
$52,525.00
2002-03
$54,148.00
2003-04
$57,712.00
2004-05
$64,065.00
2005-06
$67,697.00
Australian Taxation Office
-
As part of the outgoings associated with the ATO’s building leases, there is a component included for gardening and ground maintenance of $65,352 (GST exclusive) per annum. Any ground maintenance costs for other sites would be part of building lease costs and are not able to be separately identified.
-
The table below sets out the total cost of indoor plants broken down by financial years.
Year
Cost (excl. GST)
2000-01
$0.364m
2001-02
$0.328m
2002-03
$0.258m
2003-04
$0.225m
2004-05
$0.254m
2005-06
$0.312m
Corporations & Markets Advisory Committee
Nil
The table below sets out the total cost of indoor plants broken down by financial years
Year
Cost (excl GST)
2000-01
#
2001-02
$858
2002-03
$858
2003-04
$936
2004-05
$936
2005-06
$976
# Please note that the records for 2000-01 are not readily available as the current finance system was implemented in 2001.
Inspector-General of Taxation
-
Nil.
-
The table below sets out the total cost of indoor plants broken down by financial years
Year
Cost (excl. GST)
2000-01
N/A
2001-02
N/A
2002-03
N/A
2003-04
$492
2004-05
$1634
2005-06
$1846.
National Competition Council
Nil
The table below sets out the total cost of indoor plants broken down by financial years
Financial year
Cost (incl. GST )
2000-2001
$3,636
2001-2002
$3,886
2002-2003
$4,072
2003-2004
$5,384
2004-2005
$5,436
2005-2006
$5,581
Productivity Commission
Nil.
The table below sets out the total cost of indoor plants broken down by financial years
Year
Cost (incl. GST)
2000-01
$8,454.89
2001-02
$9,371.90
2002-03
$10,379.61
2003-04
$10,394.92
2004-05
$12,171.80
2005-06
$10,936.05
Royal Australian Mint
The Royal Australian Mint became a prescribed agency from 1 July 2005. For financial year 2005-06, the Royal Australian Mint spent: -
$23,191 (GST inclusive) on gardening
Nil for indoor plants
Treasury
-
Nil
-
The table below sets out the total cost of indoor plants broken down by financial years
Year
Cost (incl. GST)
2000-01
$42,362.10;
2001-02
$48,116.60;
2002-03
$55,793.00
2003-04
$64,683.70;
2004-05
$61,494.30
2005-06
$53,930.00
Transport and Regional Services: Gardening and Indoor Plants
112
112
4455
112
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of (a) gardening and (b) indoor plants for the Minister’s department and agencies.
112
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr Vaile
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Department of Transport and Regional Services
-
2000/2001 - $288,593
2001/2002 - $343,487
2002/2003 - $370,252
2003/2004 - $448,373
2004/2005 - $403,860
2005/2006 - $425,894
2006/2007 - $303,967
NB: Includes cost associated with grounds maintenance of Government House on Norfolk Island; Christmas Island, including the hospital; and on Cocos (Keeling) Island.
-
2000/2001 - Details no longer available.
2001/2002 - Details no longer available.
2002/2003 - $109,768
2003/2004 - $108,700
2004/2005 – Minimal cost were incurred but these were not recorded centrally and so no figure is available for this year.
2005/2006 - $3,963
2006/2007 - $4,689 (as at 31 October)
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
-
Nil.
-
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority expended about $20,000 in 2005-2006 on indoor plants for its office and this is similar to the amount in previous financial years.
National Capital Authority
-
Nil.
-
2000/2001 - $0
2001/2002 - $3,607
2002/2003 - $4,314
2003/2004 - $4,248
2004/2005 - $4,248
2005/2006 - $4,248
2006/2007 - $1,416 (as at 31 October)
Airservices Australia
All costs associated with gardening and indoor plants are booked to a generic account for Property Repair and Maintenance. There are over 1700 sites throughout Australia and due to the magnitude of the task there is no practical way of separating out the relevant costs.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
-
2000/2001 - $13,350
2001/2002 - $13,512
2002/2003 - $10,994
2003/2004 - $10,090
2004/2005 - $9,819
2005/2006 - $14,678
-
2000/2001 - $43,488
2001/2002 - $71,917
2002/2003 - $75,153
2003/2004 - $66,576
2004/2005 - $64,433
2005/2006 - $66,233
Sexual Harassment Claims
114
114
4490
114
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, how many sexual harassment claims have been reported in the Minister’s department and agencies.
114
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Australian Bureau of Statistics
The ABS has had 1 cases of sexual harassment reported since 1 July 2000:
-
2003 - 2004 1 case
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
No sexual harassment claims have been reported in the period since 1 July 2000.
Australian Office of Financial Management
The AOFM has had 1 cases of sexual harassment reported since 1 July 2000:
-
2001-2002 1 case
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
APRA has had 1 cases of sexual harassment reported since 1 July 2000:
-
2001-2002 1 case
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
ASIC has had 3 cases of sexual harassment reported since 1 July 2000:
-
2003 - 2004 1
-
2004 - 2005 2
Australian Taxation Office
The ATO has had 5 cases of sexual harassment reported since 1 July 2000:
-
2004 – 05 1 case
-
2005 – 06 4 cases
Corporations & Markets Advisory Committee
The Corporations & Markets Advisory Committee has not had any sexual harassment claims since 1 July 2000.
Inspector-General of Taxation
The Inspector-General of Taxation has not had any sexual harassment claims since 1 July 2000.
National Competition Council
The National Competition Council has not had any sexual harassment claims since 1 July 2000.
Productivity Commission
The Productivity Commission has not had any sexual harassment claims since 1 July 2000.
Royal Australian Mint
There have been no sexual harassment claims reported to the Royal Australian Mint since 1 July 2000.
Treasury
There have been no sexual harassment claims reported in the Treasury since 1 July 2000.
Defence: Departmental Liaison Officers
115
115
4517
115
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
In respect of the secondment to the Minister’s office of a Departmental Liaison Officer (DLO), what is the (a) average, (b) shortest and (c) longest period of secondment and (d) what is the total number of DLOs that have been employed in the Minister’s office since 1 July 2000.
115
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
426 days.
-
201 days.
-
795 days.
-
12 (noting two DLOs are employed at any one time).
Employment Agencies
115
115
4566 and 4568
115
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
For each financial year since 1 July 2000: (a) which employment agencies has the Minister’s department engaged; (b) what was the total cost of engaging employment agencies; and (c) how many employees were placed by these agencies and, of those, which were employed on (i) an ongoing and (ii) a non-ongoing basis.
115
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
DFAT
-
The department has used Ross Human Directions (formerly Verossity Pty Ltd and Spherion Recruitment Pty Ltd) and Hays Pty Ltd to provide non-ongoing employees.
-
The administrative cost of engaging non-ongoing employees since 1 July 2000:
2005/2006 - $104,910.68
2004/2005 - $ 44,052.30
2003/2004 - $ 34,329.81
2002/2003 - $ 51,800.01
2001/2002 - $ 80,236.67
2000/2001 - $192,344.21
Annual costs reflect the number of employees and the length of each non-ongoing engagement. In some years where the number of non-ongoing employees is less, the individual engagement periods are of a longer duration.
-
Number of non-ongoing (temporary) employees engaged since 1 July 2000:
2005/2006 - 104
2004/2005 - 211
2003/2004 - 190
2002/2003 - 161
2001/2002 - 203
2000/2001 - 169
The department does not use recruitment agencies to engage ongoing (permanent) employees.
Australia-Japan Foundation (AJF)
-
Verossity Pty Ltd – engaged on 28 March 2006
-
$1023.00
-
One
-
a non-ongoing basis.
Unauthorised File Access
116
116
4607
116
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked all ministers, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
-
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, on how many occasions have departmental employees accessed files or records without proper authorisation.
-
In each instance identified in Part (1), (a) what action was taken against the employee and (b) if the unauthorised access involved customer records, in how many instances was the customer notified.
-
Are employees able to access personal or customer files without (a) being detected, or (b) leaving a record of their access.
-
What auditing procedures exist to monitor employee access to files and records.
116
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
2000-2001 – Nil
2001-2002 – Nil
2002-2003 – Nil
2003-2004 – Nil
2004-2005 – Nil
2005-2006 – Nil
2006-2007 – Nil
-
2000-2001 – Not Applicable
2001-2002 – Not Applicable
2002-2003 – Not Applicable
2003-2004 – Not Applicable
2004-2005 – Not Applicable
2005-2006 – Not Applicable
2006-2007 – Not Applicable
-
-
No, with the exception of authorised custodians of physical files.
-
No, with the exception of authorised custodians of physical files.
-
The department controls access to files and records through its records management system (RMS) for paper and electronic records, based on the security classification of the record, the personal security clearance of the officer and the business need-to-know. Access to paper files is monitored through an annual physical file census program and periodic internal audit reviews. Physical file movements are logged in the RMS; an audit trail of all access to electronic records in the RMS is automatically logged.
Finance and Administration: Office Accommodation
117
117
4626
117
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
Is the Minister’s department, or any portfolio agency, in the process of having office accommodation constructed at a new location; if so, (a) what is the total construction cost and (b) when will construction be completed.
117
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
No office accommodation is in the process of being constructed at a new location for the Finance and Administration Portfolio.
Defence: Office Accommodation
117
117
4632
117
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 14 September 2006:
Is the Minister’s department, or any portfolio agency, in the process of having office accommodation constructed at a new location; if so, (a) what is the total construction cost and (b) when will construction be completed.
117
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Defence Housing Australia: No.
Defence has a number of Major Capital Facilities projects in progress, which include an office accommodation component. These construction projects are on existing Defence bases and not at new locations.
Defence may also undertake office fit outs in leased accommodation, which are not considered to be construction.
The following projects, which include office accommodation, are at new locations:
Project
Location
Cost
Construction Completion Date
Headquarters Joint Operations Command
Bungendore, NSW
$339.2 m
July 2008
Defence Science and Technology Organisation Office
Garden St, Everleigh, NSW
$26.6 m(1)
September 2007
Williamtown Business Centre
Williamtown, NSW
$25.3 m(1)
December 2007
Note: (1) - Cost of payments over life of lease.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
117
117
4700
117
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 9 October 2006:
-
What sum of the $3.3 million allocated in the 2006-07 Budget has the Government spent to date on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) Canberra accommodation re-fit.
-
What sum of the funds allocated to the ACCC in the 2006-07 Budget has the Government spent to date on its investigation into serious cartel conduct in Australia.
117
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
As at the 30 September 2006 $94k has been expended.
-
As at the 30 September 2006 the ACCC has spent $287k in preparation for and implementation of the proposed criminal sanctions for serious cartel conduct.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
118
118
4722
118
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
0
Mr Laurie Ferguson
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 10 October 2006:
Has the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission undertaken an evaluation of its Lights and Milds cigarette television, and other media, campaign; if so, what was the outcome of the evaluation.
118
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Formal evaluation was undertaken via telephone surveys designed specifically for the campaign. The surveys indicated that:
-
the ACCC’s campaign met its primary objectives in generating and increasing awareness and knowledge amongst all smokers, including those of ‘light’ and ‘mild’ cigarettes, that such cigarettes do not provide health benefits and are not less harmful than regular (full strength) cigarettes.
-
there was a significant increase in the proportion of smokers who learnt that lighter cigarettes are just as bad for me; and
-
there was also a significant decrease in the mean number of cigarettes smoked per week by casual smokers of ‘light’ and ‘mild’ cigarettes.
The Cancer Council of Victoria, on behalf of the Quit network organisations, also reported there was an immediate increase in calls to the national Quitline as soon as the campaign commenced, indicating that the secondary objective of the campaign, to encourage smokers to call the Quitline for assistance in quitting cigarettes, was also successful.
Sea Cargo
118
118
4747
118
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
Mr Bevis
asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 11 October 2006:
-
In respect of cargo containers entering Australian seaports, for each year since 2001, how many containers:
-
entered Australian ports;
-
were X-rayed or gamma-ray scanned at Australian seaports, and at which ports;
-
have had their security seals examined for evidence of tampering;
-
were inspected to detect radiation; and
-
were physically hand-searched.
-
Which Australian ports receive international sea-containerised cargo.
118
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
-
The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) has responsibility for recording statistics on sea containers entering Australian ports. These statistics can be accessed in the BTRE “Waterline” publication.
-
The number of units scanned since 2002 at the Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Fremantle container examination facilities (CEFs) can be found in the Customs annual reports.
-
All containers selected for physical examination at the CEFs are inspected for evidence of seal tampering.
-
Refer to Question on Notice 3792 of 2006.
-
Prior to the establishment of the CEFs, Customs did not record the number of container examinations. All cargo entering Australia is screened and risk assessed. Depending on the assessment, cargo may be referred for x-ray and, if further examination is required, unpacked for physical examination. The number of containers physically examined at the CEFs is provided below.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Jan-Sept
N/A
98
4,603
9,605
12,961
11,266
-
Refer to Question on Notice 1211 of 2005.
Media Ownership
119
119
4762
119
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 12 October 2006:
-
In respect of the Minister’s plan to auction the broadcasting spectrum known as Channel B, what is the Minister’s response to comments by Mr James Hooke, Managing Director, New South Wales, Fairfax that “in the absence of an additional voice and if all you were to have was existing voices having more outlets for their existing content then that would not enhance democracy”.
-
Did the Minister say on 13 July 2006 that “by allowing new entrants into the Australian media industry, the government will encourage increased diversity and new sources of information and entertainment”.
-
Will the Minister exclude existing media owners from bidding on new broadcasting spectrum, including Channel A and Channel B, to ensure new entrants are introduced to the broadcasting sector; if so, how; if not, why not.
119
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGauran
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The allocation of Channel B (along with the allocation of Channel A) will offer opportunities for new entrants to participate in the digital broadcasting sector, thereby potentially increasing the range of content available to Australians.
-
Yes.
-
The Radiocommunications Act 1992 prohibits incumbent free to air TV broadcasters from controlling Channel A. Incumbent free-to-air broadcasters may control Channel B, but are not permitted to use Channel B to provide in-home services.
Australian Customs Service
119
119
4807
119
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
Mr Bevis
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 16 October 2006:
-
In respect of the Australian Customs Service’s container x-ray equipment:
-
Where are the units located
-
When did each unit begin full-time operation
-
What is the purchase cost of each unit and;
-
What is the annual running cost of each x-ray unit.
-
In respect of each x-ray unit identified in Part (1), for each year since the unit became operational,
-
What is the value of undeclared revenue items detected and;
-
What amount of revenue has been received as a result of detection.
-
Have radioactive materials, such as plutonium or uranium, been seized.
120
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
, (b), (c), (d) The container x-ray units are located at Melbourne (with operations commencing in November 2002), Sydney (March 2003), Brisbane (June 2003) and Fremantle (November 2003). The average purchase cost of each unit was approximately USD 2,500,000. Customs does not maintain figures on the individual running costs of each machine.
-
, (b) Statistics on the value of undeclared revenue items detected are not maintained in a manner that breaks down value by container x-ray unit.
-
No.
Medibank Private
120
120
4855
120
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 1 November 2006:
-
How many residents of the federal electorate of:
-
Prospect
-
Greenway
-
Lindsay
-
Macarthur, and
-
Macquarie
were members of Medibank Private for the financial year:
-
2004-2005 and
-
2005-2006
-
In respect of each federal electorate referred to in Part (1):
-
what is the current location and address of each Medibank Private retail centre;
-
which of these, if any, are scheduled for closure in 2006-07; and
-
are there any proposals for additional retail centres; if so, at what location and address.
120
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The following answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The table below sets out the number of residents of the specified electorates who were members of Medibank Private in 2004-05 and 2005-06:
Number of members of Medibank Private
Electorate
2004-05
2005-06
Prospect
12,902
13,138
Greenway
18,213
18,127
Lindsay
15,033
14,780
Macarthur
21,429
21,042
Macquarie
14,153
14,004
-
The table below sets out the location, address and status of Medibank Private retail centres within the specified electorates.
Electorate
Existing Retail Centre
Scheduled Closures
Proposed centres
Prospect
None
None
None
Greenway
Shop 27B2 Patrick Court
Westpoint Market Town
Patrick St
Blacktown
None
None
Lindsay
Shop 17
Penrith Westfield
Penrith
None
None
Macarthur
Shop U60
Campbelltown Mall
Campbelltown
None
None
Macquarie
No retail centres, 1 agency located at:
Richmond Mall Pharmacy
Shop 12 Richmond Arcade
Richmond
None
None
Taxation
121
121
4901
121
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 27 November 2006:
-
What amount of revenue is derived from income paid overseas from funds managed in Australia and what sum of withholding tax is collected from each specific investment type.
-
What are the comparable rates of withholding tax in other funds for (a) Ireland, (b) Singapore, (c) Hong Kong, (d) the United States and (e) Japan.
-
Does Australia’s income tax system allow for the withholding tax rate to be reduced to 15 per cent; if so, how many people have taken up this option.
121
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
This information is not available.
-
Table 10.5 of the International Comparison of Australia’s Taxes (ICAT) published on 3 April 2006 provides details of the taxation treatment of non-resident taxpayers that applies in OECD-10 countries, including Ireland, Japan, the United States and Australia. A copy of the report is available at http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au.
-
Details of Australia’s treatment of the Australian source income of non-resident taxpayers is provided in the ICAT report. In addition, changes in the taxation treatment of certain Australian source income distributed to non-residents were announced in the 2006-07 Budget. Details of these changes can be found in Budget Paper No. 2 to the 2006-07 Budget under the measures “Taxation of trusts—distributions to non-resident trustees” and “Income tax collection—distributions of net income by Australian managed funds and custodians to non-residents”.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 2007 Meetings
121
121
4931
121
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
Mr Melham
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 29 November 2006:
-
What is the total cost so far to The Treasury, including (a) administrative expenses, (b) accommodation and property management, (c) travel, (d) security and (e) all other expenses, of the preparations for the APEC 2007 meetings which will be held in Australia.
-
What is the projected total cost to The Treasury, including (a) administrative expenses, (b) accommodation and property management, (c) travel, (d) security and (e) all other expenses, of holding the APEC 2007 meetings.
-
How many Treasury officers are primarily engaged on preparations for the APEC 2007 meetings.
122
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
As at 30 November 2006, Treasury has spent $1.518 million on preparations for Australia’s APEC host year.
-
The projected total cost of Treasury’s involvement in Australia’s APEC host year is $4.9 million.
-
As at 30 November, 6.3 staff are currently engaged on the preparations for Australia’s APEC host year.
Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport
122
122
4956
122
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 6 December 2006:
-
Does his office and/or the Department of Transport and Regional Services hold files, file notes and/or records in respect of questions, allegations and concerns about security at Sydney International Airport for the period May 2005 to February 2006; if not, why not.
-
According to any files, records or file notes from his office and/or the Department of Transport and Regional Services, did any ministerial or departmental staff member receive advice between 11 May 2005 and 7 February 2006 that CCTV cameras have been found to be out of focus or pointing to the wall in the baggage make-up area of Sydney International Airport; if so, (a) on what date was this advice received, (b) to whom did the staff member report these incidents and (c) what action was taken in response to these incidents and by whom.
122
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr Vaile
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
No.
Oil for Food Program
122
122
4977
122
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 December 2006:
Has he sought advice from his department as to how the regime of Saddam Hussein spent funds paid to it by the Australian Wheat Board; if so what is that advice.
122
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Government established the Inquiry into Certain Australian Companies in Relation to the UN Oil-for-Food Programme to investigate allegations AWB paid funds to the Saddam Hussein regime. I draw the member’s attention to Chapter 26, paragraph 26.104, and Chapter 31, paragraphs 31.7 – 31.18 of the Cole Inquiry Report.
Fort Scratchley
122
122
4995
122
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
Ms Grierson
asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 7 December 2006:
In respect of the historic Fort Scratchley site in Newcastle East:
-
what is the current ownership status of the site;
-
what is the total amount of funding allocated by the Commonwealth for the refurbishment of the site;
-
have any or all of the allocated funds been acquitted, and if so, what are the details of that acquittal;
-
have any tenders been let for the refurbishment of the site, and if so
-
to whom,
-
for what purpose, and
-
at what value;
-
what tenders are expected to be let for the refurbishment of the site in the future and what process will be followed in the letting of the tenders;
-
what is the total amount of funding, if any, contributed to this project by
-
State government agencies,
-
local government agencies, and
-
community and other organisations;
-
what are the reasons for the delay in completing the refurbishment project;
-
has the total estimated cost of this project been revised;
-
what is the total estimated cost to complete the project; and
-
when is the refurbishment of the site expected to be completed.
123
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
The site is Commonwealth owned.
-
The total amount allocated to the restoration works by the Commonwealth is $6.2m.
-
Yes, approximately $1.4m of Commonwealth funding has already been acquitted including $400,000 to Newcastle Maritime Museum Society Inc to assist in relocation from site, $282,000 to Kellogg Brown and Root Pty Ltd for Project Management; and $314,000 to Suters Architects for site investigations, design and documentation.
-
Yes, contracts have been let for the following;
-
Kellogg Brown and Root Pty Ltd, for Project Management $417,078;
-
Suters Architects, for site investigations, design and documentation $440,000;
-
Wise and Horton, for cost estimating and budgeting $52,000;
-
Minter Ellison, for legal advice $5,581;
-
Parsons Brinkerhoff, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 referral, multipurpose centre development application and NSW Heritage approval documentation $45,000;
-
Enerserve, for substation design $4,500;
-
AMPS, for drainage investigations $31,000;
-
JAG Power, for electrical investigations $1,000;
-
Monteath, for site engineering survey $14,000;
-
RCA, for geotechnical investigations $45,000;
-
Mahaffey, for concrete assessment $3,250;
-
Dangerous Solutions, for explosives storage advice $3,000;
-
Nexus, for historical archival $3,362; and
-
Specialist Site Solutions, for stormwater tank stabilisation $15,600.
-
A building contract for the completion of the restoration is expected to be let through an open tender process during first quarter 2007.
-
-
State government has not contributed to the project.
-
Newcastle City Council has contributed $400,000.
-
Community and other organisations have not contributed to the project.
-
The project has been delayed by approximately twelve months, due to:
-
a more extensive than initially anticipated site remediation involving the removal of more than expected hazardous material (asbestos and explosive residue);
-
prolonged discussions between Newcastle City Council and the Department of Finance and Administration in reaching agreement to the scope of works within the agreed project budget; and
-
Newcastle City Council introduced an unforeseen request for the construction of new capital works that required a development application approval to be processed.
-
Yes, the total cost approved in June 2003 has been revised from $5.5m to $6.2m to provide for cost escalation and a contribution to rectification of site vandalism.
-
$6.6m including the $400,000 from the Newcastle City Council.
-
Project completion is expected in late 2007.
Live Animal Exports
124
124
5282
124
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 7 December 2006:
-
In respect of Australia’s live export trade with countries in the Middle East, can he provide full details of (a) the reason/s Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Egypt, Israel and Lebanon are not yet signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding on the Trade in Live Animals and (b) the status of negotiations with those countries.
-
Further to his response to Part (3)(b) of question No. 3652 (Hansard, 31 October 2006, page 127) that negotiations for the Memorandum of Understanding on the Trade in Live Animals “will be completed as soon as is feasible”, upon what circumstances does the feasibility of a timely negotiated outcome rely.
124
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr Truss
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has portfolio responsibility for the export of live animals from Australia, including associated agreements. This answer has, therefore, been developed in consultation with his Department.
-
Bahrain: Supports the MOU concept in principle but has expressed concerns that the limited capacity of its quarantine facility means that Bahrain could accept an MOU only if it were the final port of call for a shipment. Negotiations are continuing with industry on potential operational changes to address these concerns.
-
Oman: Ad referendum agreement has been reached with Omani officials on text of an MOU with Oman. The MOU is currently subject to internal Omani Government consideration and legal clearance of the text (the MOU is currently with the Omani Ministry of Law for clearance).
-
Qatar: Ad referendum agreement has been reached with Qatari officials on the text of an MOU and discussions are underway on arrangements for signing.
-
Egypt: The MOU with Egypt was signed on 3 October 2006.
-
Israel: Has indicated it is not willing to consider the concept of an MOU on the live animal trade. The Government plans to make further representations on the MOU to Israel.
-
Lebanon: The Government has made representations and is awaiting a formal response.
-
See answers above (ii)-(vii).
-
See answers under 1 (a).