2007-09-11
41
1
10
REPS
0
0
2007-09-11
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) and the President of the Senate (Senator Hon. Alan Ferguson) were announced by the Serjeant-at-Arms and entered the chamber.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 10.38 am and read prayers.
WELCOME TO SENATORS
1
Miscellaneous
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I invite members and senators to take their seats. On behalf of the House I welcome, as guests, the President of the Senate and honourable senators to this sitting of the House of Representatives to hear an address by the Rt Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada.
ADDRESS BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
1
Miscellaneous
The Rt Hon. Stephen Harper having been announced and escorted into the chamber—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Mr Prime Minister, I welcome you to the House of Repre-sen-tatives chamber. Your address today is a significant occasion in the history of the House. I would also like to welcome Mrs Laureen Harper, who is in the gallery this morning.
1
10:41:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—Mr Speaker, it is indeed a very special moment in the history of the relations between two old friends and close allies that, for the first time in the history of this parliament, a Canadian Prime Minister is given the honour of addressing it before the members and senators of both houses. It was a privilege extended by Canada to one of my predecessors, John Curtin, in 1944 and again to me in May of last year.
Canada and Australia share a deep and rich history. Canada and Australia are both members of the Commonwealth. We are nations that have fought together in most major conflicts since World War I. The war memorials of Canada list the battles in which thousands of Canadians died in World War I, as the war memorials of Australia do the same. I was reminded in June of 2004, when I represented Australia at the 60th anniversary of the Normandy invasion, of the remarkable contribution made by Canada to the liberation of France and to the liberation of other nations in Europe.
It is poignant, in a sense, that we meet on 11 September and mark the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attack on New York and Washington, which produced an allied response in Afghanistan—which persists to this very day—in which Australians and Canadians are again fighting together against the contemporary enemy, terrorism. I have to say on behalf of all Australians that we mourn the fact that no fewer than 72 Canadians have lost their lives out of a battle force of between 2,000 and 2,500. Our Canadian friends have paid a very heavy price in defence of the way of life that we all hold dear. I record the respect, the gratitude and the sorrow of the people of Australia for such a large loss of life on the part of our Canadian friends.
Australia and Canada of course have a lot of other things in common. We are both federations, we are nations that are rich in resources and we are nations that are essentially built on immigration. Therefore, any contact between the prime ministers and leaders of the two nations produces common and very fertile ground for mutual discussion and exchange of views.
Could I record—not on a partisan note, but nonetheless recognising the philosophical consistency of the party I lead and the party led by Mr Harper—his contribution to the development of the current manifestation of Centre Right politics in his country. The current Conservative Party of Canada is a new party. It was in fact formed as a result of his inspired leadership. It brought together the old Reform Party and the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. He has the interesting experience of leading a minority government, which brings its own challenges, but challenges to which he has risen remarkably over the 18 months that he has been Prime Minister of his country.
One of the things that we have agreed on today is to expand the opportunity for young Canadians to come in greater numbers and to stay longer in our country and for young Australians to go for longer periods and in greater numbers to Canada. There have always been exchanges. There have been many intermarriages between Australians and Canadians. I hope that that particular agreement produces even deeper bonds between the young of our two societies.
Sir, you come as a good friend. You come as the leader of a country for which we have immense affection, a country with which we share common values, common goals and common objectives, and it is a real privilege to have you addressing our parliament today.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
2
10:46:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr RUDD
—Mr Speaker, on 1 June 1944, less than a week before the Normandy landings, the great turning point of the Second World War where so many Canadians lost their lives in defence of freedom, Australian Prime Minister John Curtin addressed the members of the Canadian House of Commons and Senate. This was the first address to the Canadian parliament by an Australian Prime Minister. It has taken 63 years to have a Canadian Prime Minister address the Australian parliament for the first time. Prime Minister, you are a truly welcome guest in our midst, and our only request of you is that it does not take as long next time round.
Prime Minister Curtin, speaking from the great darkness that was the Second World War, said of the Canadian parliament:
You, here, who come to this place, the law-making authority of a free people, witness the results of decisions of your citizens. They have their rights. They register their decision as to who it is, of those who offer, shall become their representatives in this great hall of legislation.
… … …
This principle of the sovereignty of peoples is integral to the cause for which all of us went to war.
So said Curtin. Prime Minister, welcome to this great hall of legislation in Australia, where the Australian people make laws.
It is no small thing that Australia and Canada are among the world’s oldest continuing democracies. It is, in fact, a great thing—a very great thing—something for which our forebears have fought and something for which our forebears, both Curtin and Mackenzie King, would have us ever remain vigilant in the defence thereof.
Prime Minister, we are both Westminster democracies; we are both robust federations, with all the complexities and challenges to which that can sometimes give rise; we are both close allies of the United States; we are both cofounders of the United Nations; we are both nations of the Pacific, the emerging centre of gravity for much which will unfold in this 21st century; we are both open economies; and we are both great, open societies, enriched permanently by the immigration that comes to our shores.
Prime Minister, we have so much in common, and Australia, under whichever government—that of the Prime Minister’s political persuasion or that of our own—looks forward to working with Canada and facing the great challenges of the Asia-Pacific century: the preservation of security, the preservation of the peace, the maintenance of prosperity and its expansion, the elimination of poverty, and the extension of the great tent of democracy wherever that becomes humanly possible. Prime Minister, you honour us by your presence here today.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Prime Minister Harper, it gives me great pleasure to invite you to address the House.
3
10:39:00
Harper, Stephen (Prime Minister of Canada)
G5F
PO
N/A
Prime Minister of Canada
1
0
Rt Hon. STEPHEN HARPER
—The Hon. David Hawker, Speaker of the House; the Hon. Alan Ferguson, President of the Senate; the Hon. John Howard, Prime Minister; the Hon. Kevin Rudd, Leader of the Opposition; distinguished representatives and senators of the Parliament of Australia; ladies and gentlemen: Monsieur le président, c’est un honneur et un privilège pour moi d’être le premier ministre qui s’adresse pour la première fois à votre parlement au nom de la population canadienne.
Mr Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me, as was mentioned, to be the first Prime Minister to address your parliament on behalf of the Canadian people. Laureen and I have been utterly and completely charmed by the warm Australian hospitality we have encountered every step of the way on this, our first visit together to your wonderful country. Thank you all for all of your kindness.
I would like to begin by congratulating the government and people of Australia for hosting such a successful APEC summit. In particular, the progress made toward forging a new international consensus on energy and environmental policy is a credit to the unity and goodwill of all APEC members and, especially, to the chairmanship and leadership of Australia.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to reciprocate Prime Minister Howard’s visit to our parliament last year. His address to a joint session of our parliament was a warm and eloquent tribute to the deep friendship between our nations. I believe that the warmth and closeness of the relationship between Canada and Australia today is a remarkable thing, for it was not born of proximity or necessity. We started at opposite ends of the earth, our dreams guided by the North Star, yours by the Southern Cross.
L’Australie est née en anglais, le Canada en français—à Québec il y a quatre cent ans l’année prochaine—reflété jusqu’à ce jour par la présence des francophones et de la ‘nation québécoise’ au sein de notre pays uni.
Australia was born in English, Canada in French—at Quebec City 400 years ago next year—reflected to this day by the presence of francophones and the ‘Quebecois nation’ within our united country. But even after we both came under the British Crown, for centuries our countries doggedly pursued their own destinies.
En bout de ligne, cependant, c’est par nos valeurs communes que nous avons découvert notre véritable similitude. Les batailles épiques du vingtième siècle—contre l’impérialisme, le fascisme et le communisme—nous ont opposés contre les ennemis communs de notre plus grande civilisation. Bien que nos troupes se soient rarement battues sur le même champ de bataille, elles se sont battues pour les mêmes idéaux.
Ultimately, it was through our shared values that we discovered our true kinship. The epic struggles of the 20th century—against imperialism, fascism and communism—pitted us against the common enemies that threatened our greater civilization. Though our troops rarely fought on the same battlefield, Canadians and Australians fought for the same ideals. And, of course, in the First World War, the spark of our respective national identities was lit: ours at Vimy Ridge, yours at Gallipoli. In these great national tests and those ever since, our familial bonds have been renewed and strengthened. We have become like cousins—‘strategic cousins’ in the words of your military historian John Blaxland.
Et aujourd’hui, malgré notre immense distance géographique, le Canada et l’Australie suivent des chemins remarquablement similaires.
Today, despite the vast distance between us, Canada and Australia follow remarkably similar paths. We have built on the enduring strengths which we inherited from our European ancestors, added the common experience of multicultural, immigrant nations and sought to achieve reconciliation with our first peoples. Of course, Canada and Australia have also borrowed and adapted the traditions and institutions of British government and American federalism, as the Leader of the Opposition noted.
I cannot help but notice, however, that you have done a much better job than us with at least one of our Westminster institutions, the upper house. I see there is division of opinion on that! As one Canadian political scientist I know likes to say, ‘When we look at Australia, we suffer from “Senate envy”,’ because in Canada, senators remain appointed, not elected. They do not have to retire until age 75, and may warm their seats for as long as 45 years. By the nature of the system, they are not accountable to voters. So it is a rare pleasure for me to be among senators who are elected by the people they represent.
The mandate to govern, when it is given directly by the people, is a great honour and a great responsibility. It is the very essence of responsible government and it is the mini-mum condition of 21st century democracy.
Le Sénat australien démontre comment une chambre haute réformée peut fonctionner au sein de notre système parlementaire. Et les Canadiennes et Canadiens comprennent que notre Sénat, tel qu’il est aujourd’hui, doit soit changer ou, comme les anciennes chambres hautes de nos provinces, disparaître.
Australia’s Senate shows how a reformed upper house can function in our parliamentary system. And Canadians understand that our Senate, as it stands today, must either change or, like the old upper houses of our provinces, vanish.
Mais le Canada et l’Australie ne peuvent qu’apprendre l’un de l’autre, nous avons beaucoup à offrir aux autres. Nous sommes des démocraties prospères, pacifiques et stables, des sociétés libres, ouvertes et pluralistes. Nous aspirons vraiment aux plus grands idéaux de la civilisation, mais nous n’avons pas la capacité ni la volonté de conquérir ou de dominer. Pour toutes ces raisons, le Canada et l’Australie sont dans une position unique pour être une force de changement positif dans le monde.
But not only can Canada and Australia learn from one another; we have much to offer others. We are stable, prosperous, peaceful democracies. We are free, open, pluralistic societies. At home, we share an overriding belief in giving all of our citizens ‘a fair go’. That is why we have a large and growing middle class to which hundreds of millions of people in the developing world aspire to belong. Abroad, we are committed to free and fair trade, helping those in need and defending global security.
We have fought and sacrificed for just causes, but we have neither the capacity nor the will to conquer or to dominate. We are fast friends of, but fiercely proud of our differences with, our other strategic cousin—the United States. In sum, our two countries genuinely aspire to the highest ideals of civilization, however imperfectly we sometimes achieve them. For all these reasons, I believe Canada and Australia are uniquely able to serve as a force for positive change in this troubled world. And we should commit ourselves to the service of that cause, together. I do not suggest or embrace this duty lightly. It is guided, in part, as Prime Minister Howard mentioned, by the sombre anniversary we are marking today.
September 11, 2001 was truly a day that shook the world. Six years on, the horrific images from that morning still evoke anger, sorrow and—as intended—terror. The buildings may have been American, but the targets were every one of us: every country and every person who chooses tolerance over hatred, pluralism over extremism, democracy over tyranny.
We have been struck again and again in London, Madrid, India and many other places, including, of course, Bali. Canadians mourned your losses, and we redoubled our efforts to stand with you. Two dozen of our citizens died in New York on 9-11. And 70 Canadian soldiers and one of our diplomats have fallen in Afghanistan—as well as a Canadian carpenter, murdered by the Taliban after he built a school for the children of a remote Afghan village. So both our countries have been bloodied by terror. And both of us are doing our part to confront and defeat it.
En Afghanistan et ailleurs, nos deux pays sont engagés à collaborer, comme l’a dit le Premier Ministre Howard lors de son allocution devant notre parlement l’année dernière ‘pas seulement pour le mieux de l’Australie et du Canada, mais pour le mieux de tous les peuples du monde’. Cette cause est à la fois noble et nécessaire. Car comme l’ont démontré les événements du 11 septembre, si nous abandonnons nos semblables à la pauvreté, à la brutalité et à l’ignorance, dans le village mondial d’aujourd’hui, leur misère deviendra éventuellement et inévitablement la nôtre.
In Afghanistan and elsewhere, both our countries are committed to working together, as Prime Minister Howard said in his address to our parliament last year, ‘not only for the betterment of Australia and Canada, but for the betterment of all the peoples of the world’. This cause is noble and necessary. Because, as 9-11 showed, if we abandon our fellow human beings to lives of poverty, brutality and ignorance, in today’s global village their misery will eventually and inevitably become our own.
And, friends, we should not underestimate our capacity either to influence events or to influence others. At enormous human and financial cost, we have both built solid reputations as defenders of freedom, democracy and human rights. We have worked closely to build multilateral institutions and establish international law. Our peacekeepers and peacemakers have saved countless millions from war and devastation. Our aid programs and relief workers have helped poor countries across the globe improve the lives of their citizens.
Our histories have set an inspiring example. That is symbolised by this great institution. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this parliament, like our own, enjoys a continuous democratic tradition rarely equalled in the history of the world—unbroken by tyranny or conquest, unbroken by civil war or social disorder. What an extraordinary achievement that is.
We were buffeted by the same forces of economic depression, social unrest and political tension that drove other countries over the brink into political authoritarianism, economic collapse and much worse. So, why not us? I leave it to historians to debate the details. For me, two strengths shine clearly above all the rest: our democratic spirit and our devotion to equality of opportunity.
Democracy is more than free elections, as essential as those are; it is a conviction, a habit of mind, an instinctive sense of fairness, self-restraint and compromise. Our democratic spirit gives us the confidence to meet new challenges and to strike out in new directions.
Equality of opportunity springs from the same principles. It is about removing the roadblocks that prevent others from getting ahead in life, creating the economic conditions that reward hard work, providing a safety net and access to social services, and keeping taxes low and fair for everybody.
In recent years, both of our economies have enjoyed very strong growth. I know that Australia has been on a prosperous roll for a decade. I urge you, as I urge my countrymen, to never think that that happened by accident. It had everything to do with prudent policy choices, far-sighted leadership and careful fiscal management.
I believe that one of the great dangers facing both of our countries today is complacency about the economy, complacency because many of our citizens have long forgotten, or have never experienced, economic recession. But we cannot take our continued prosperity for granted. We face unprecedented new competition from emerging economic giants like China and India. It is more important than ever to make the right, and sometimes very difficult, policy choices. The wrong choices could unravel our progress and prosperity far more quickly than many people would care to believe.
The world needs us—to continue to serve as powerful models of prosperous and compassionate societies, independent yet open to the world. That is the Canadian and the Australian way. It is evident in our collaboration within the World Trade Organisation—our work for a successful and ambitious outcome that will lead to freer and fairer trade for developed and developing countries alike. It is evident in our shared efforts, demonstrated at APEC, towards effective international action on climate change—action that seeks to balance economic and environmental imperatives and thus to realistically engage all the world’s major emitters. And it is evident in our leading roles in security and development in Afghanistan, particularly in its southern provinces.
It is a great comfort to our troops in Kandahar to know that there will very soon be 1,000 Aussie soldiers—there are already several hundred—next door in the province of Uruzgan. And I know that they greatly admire the solidarity that all parties in this parliament have shown in support of this United Nations mission.
Alors que la technologie, le commerce et, oui, la menace du terrorisme rendent notre monde de plus en plus petit, le Canada et l’Australie sont de plus en plus proches.
As technology, trade and, yes, the threat of terrorism make our world smaller and smaller, Canada and Australia are growing closer and closer. Two-way investment between our countries hit $12 billion last year.
Every year, 200,000 Australians visit Canada and 100,000 Canadians come here. The vast majority are young people. As often as not, when you are on a ski lift at one of our mountain resorts, a cheerful attendant will welcome you in that distinctive Aussie accent—at least we think it is distinctive! This annual pilgrimage of young people between Down Under and the true north augurs well for even closer relations between our countries in the future.
Voilà pourquoi j’ai le grand plaisir de dire que nos gouvernements viennent de conclure un accord pour renouveler et élargir notre programme de travail d’été pour étudiants.
That is why I am so pleased to report, as Prime Minister Howard mentioned, that our governments have just concluded an agreement to renew and expand our student working vacation program. This will give more young Canadians and Australians the opportunity to visit each other’s country and to widen the personal relations that increasingly bind our nations as a family.
In my experience, our people feel equally at home in both our countries. We both appreciate the God-given beauty of our vast natural landscapes. There are some differences in sports and other things but, unlike most other nations of the Earth, we understand that football is not a game played with only the feet. With familiarity, we learn to appreciate each other’s versions of the game. And, Prime Minister, I promise you that, if I can get you to a top-level ice hockey game, you will see why you should never again propose that I watch cricket!
Ladies and gentlemen, in the course of the past week, I heard a suggestion for a new metaphor to describe the relationship between our two countries: bookends, spaced well apart, but holding together a vast store of knowledge, expertise and experience, not just for ourselves but for all those who aspire to share it. But, in my view, perhaps the comparison to family is still the best one. As proof, let me conclude with a somewhat amusing anecdote from one of my predecessors, Lester Pearson.
In the 1940s, when he was a young diplomat in Ottawa, he one day found himself with your Prime Minister JB Chifley, the young Princess Elizabeth and her infant son, Charles. At the time, Canada-Australia relations were, I gather, in a somewhat strained condition, so when Pearson wrote of the encounter in his diary, he said:
I hope that relations ... were not further disturbed by the fact that I was able to make the baby laugh while Chifley was not.
That sounds very much like family to me. I thank you once again for the wonderful opportunity to address you, to share this close relationship that we have as countries. Merci beaucoup. God bless both of our great nations.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Mr Prime Minister, on behalf of the House I thank you for that address. I wish you and your wife a successful and enjoyable stay in Australia. I thank the President of the Senate and senators for their attendance. The sitting is suspended until the ringing of the bells.
Sitting suspended from 11.09 am to 2.40 pm
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
7
Ministerial Arrangements
7
14:40:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs will be absent from question time today. He is attending the RSL National Congress in Melbourne. The Minister for Defence will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
7
14:40:00
Questions Without Notice
Federal Election
7
14:40:00
7
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Now that APEC has concluded and given that three years ago we were already two weeks into an election campaign, will the Prime Minister set an election date and let the Australian people decide for themselves what sort of future they want for our country?
7
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—The election will be held at a normal time. A normal time is any time between now and early December.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
7
7
14:41:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
1
Mr HARDGRAVE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House how last week’s successful APEC leaders summit in Sydney has advanced Australia’s national interest?
8
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—The APEC meeting in Sydney last week was a great success. It was a good meeting for Australia. It was a meeting that put the best aspects of our nation on display: our openness, our friendliness and our modernity. Any of those associated with it—and many people on both sides of the House were associated with the gathering and the attendant bilateral visits—would know what a great success it was.
By far the most important statement to come out of the APEC meeting was the Sydney declaration, which, for the first time, joined China and the United States—the two major emitters of greenhouse gases—in a commitment to work towards an aspirational goal to contain the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. It also contained a quite specific commitment to a 25 per cent decrease in energy intensity within the APEC area by 2030 and a 20-million-hectare increase in forest cover by 2020. The APEC meeting also called on those nations who can make the biggest difference to work towards a successful outcome to the Doha Round and stressed the importance of reaching agreement on that multilateral trade approach. There were also some key decisions made regarding the institutional arrangements within APEC, including a policy support unit and increased budgetary contributions.
There were a number of very important bilateral visits: from the President of the United States, the President of the Russian Federation—the first ever Russian head of state to visit Australia—the President of China and of course today a bilateral visit to Canberra from the Prime Minister of Canada. Overall, it was by far the most important international gathering held in this country. It was a great success, a reminder that the future of this country lies very much in the Asia-Pacific region and a thumping endorsement of the capacity of this country to deal productively, simultaneously and in a very positive fashion with the great trading and defence powers of the world—the United States and China—and also with our other neighbours in the region. Indeed, it was a meeting that did Australia proud and a meeting that did Sydney proud.
I take this opportunity to thank all members of the APEC Taskforce, led by Mr Alan Henderson of my department, for their work. I thank the New South Wales government for its cooperation, and I congratulate the New South Wales Police on their handling of the security arrangements.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
8
Distinguished Visitors
8
14:44:00
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 Indonesia led by the Deputy Speaker, Dr Fatwa. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
8
14:44:00
Questions Without Notice
Climate Change
8
14:44:00
8
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that Australia will not have full voting rights at all sessions of the UN climate change summit in Bali in December because the government still refuses to ratify the Kyoto protocol?
8
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it is more important to do the right thing by Australia than to have full voting rights at a meeting.
Economy
8
8
14:45:00
Baker, Mark, MP
DYK
Braddon
LP
1
Mr BAKER
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of recent economic data? What does this indicate about the strength of the Australian economy?
9
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Braddon for his question. I can inform him that the national accounts showed that the Australian economy grew 0.9 per cent in the June quarter and 4.3 per cent through the year. This is very strong growth, and we should bear in mind that there is a sector of the Australian economy that is still doing it very tough—that is, the farm sector. In year average terms, GDP fell 19.2 per cent in 2006-07. The Australian economy is being led by investment, with new business investment up 13.3 per cent higher through the year, strong growth in engineering construction and strong growth in machinery and equipment. The outlook for business investment remains positive, with around $23 billion worth of engineering construction projects having been commenced but not yet completed.
Members of the House will also note that productivity has increased by 1.2 per cent to be three per cent higher through the year. So we are now seeing what was expected. With an increased investment it takes time before you actually get production flowing from it. Now that we are starting to get production flowing from that investment, productivity is growing strongly. The labour force is also strong, with jobs being created in the month of August at around 1,000 new jobs a day. That is in net terms. After jobs that were lost, there was a net increase of about 1,000 a day in August and, over the last year, 270,000 new jobs.
Members of the House will have heard the Canadian Prime Minister address us recently. He said in his speech:
I know that Australia has been on a prosperous roll for a decade. I urge you, as I urge my countrymen, to never think that that happened by accident. It had everything to do with prudent policy choices, far-sighted leadership and careful fiscal management.
An economy does not run itself, and any person who thinks that it does falls into the trap of threatening the management and the future of Australians right at the time when it would be most dangerous. As the Canadian Prime Minister said:
I believe that one of the great dangers facing both of our countries today is complacency ... because ... our citizens have long forgotten, or have never experienced, economic recession. But we cannot take our continued prosperity for granted.
The last recession we had in this country was in the early 1990s under the Labor government. We have managed to grow continuously since then but we cannot afford to be complacent, and any so-called leader who tells you that all of this happens without hard work and tough decisions is somebody who does not understand the Australian economy.
Climate Change
9
9
14:48:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
Mr GARRETT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of 19 April that an aspirational target—and I quote:
… is code for a political stunt. An aspirational target is not a real target at all.
I also refer to the statement of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources of 2 April, when he likened aspirational goals to—and I quote:
... New Year’s resolutions ... which we know we can’t meet.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the foreign minister and the environment minis-ter about the value of aspirational targets?
9
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I think the foreign minister and the minister for the environment do great things on behalf of Australia in relation to the environment. I have not seen the exact context of the foreign minister’s statement but my recollection is that it was in the context of not having an action plan. I think he was referring to those who sit opposite. I know that the Labor Party are a bit disappointed that we actually reached agreement on the Sydney declaration. You could pick what they did a mile off. There they were, demanding the impossible so that they would be able to say, ‘You fell short of what was needed.’ It is an old political trick. The reality is that quite a lot of progress was made on getting the three major emitters to agree to the aspirational goal. It is not something that I believed all along was going to be achieved. I am delighted that it has been achieved.
I think we will make further progress at the Washington meeting later this month, convened by President Bush. It will be chaired by the Secretary of State and Australia will be represented at that meeting at a ministerial level. That will take the thing further. There will be some further progress made at the Bali meeting. I note that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about full voting rights. Is he suggesting that the United States, which has not ratified the Kyoto protocol but will be attending the Bali meeting, will have no influence on the outcome? This is the sort of narrow, legalistic, bureaucratic approach that he has taken to these things. The truth is that in Sydney, for the first time ever, we got China, America and Russia to agree on something—and that is a real step forward.
Health
10
10
14:51:00
Thompson, Cameron, MP
84C
Blair
LP
1
Mr CAMERON THOMPSON
—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the government is improving health care for rural Australians, including in my electorate of Blair? Are there any alternative policies?
10
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the member for Blair for his question and recognise the obvious interest that he has in this issue as we try to continue to expand the availability of health services in regional and rural Australia. State Labor governments across Australia are abrogating their responsibilities to the constituency in rural Australia as far as health services are concerned.
One area I would identify to the member for Blair that has been of great assistance, particularly to smaller communities in regional Australia, is the government’s Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund. It is not a large fund—$15 million—but it is helping small towns build walk-in, walk-out medical facilities. The member for Blair would be pleased to know that we have invested $165,000 from that fund for the Kilcoy Medical Centre to expand and to allow a second GP to operate and provide relief for the existing doctor in Kilcoy. It is a very important program, one that is delivering opportunities across Australia and one that some members opposite from time to time refer to as a bit of pork-barrelling or a bit of a boondoggle, as the member for Brand used to call it. I suggest they ask their colleagues the member for Lingiari and the member for Lyons whether they think it is a bit of pork-barrelling in some of the investments that have been made out of this fund in their electorates.
Since 1996, under our policy, the number of rural and remote GPs has increased by more than 20 per cent. In the last three years it has increased by 10 per cent. We are actively addressing, through the proactive policies that the minister for health is putting in place, many of the challenging issues that exist in regional Australia. Policies such as the Bonded Medical Places Scheme to encourage doctors to move to rural areas, the 500 new medical school places in 2007, rising to 600 in 2010, and the HECS Reimbursement Scheme—which provides an incentive for rural practice across Aust-ralia—are all welcomed by constituents in rural and regional Australia.
It comes as no surprise to members on this side of the House that the Labor Party continues to criticise programs like the RMIF. The Leader of the Opposition, when he released his health policy, mentioned rural health just once in 27 pages. Just once in 27 pages did he mention rural health. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition is going to be a patsy, a puppet, of the Labor premiers. They are neglecting rural health across Australia and he is going to do the same. We know that he is not strong enough to stand up to those premiers. Just like he has been very weak on unions, he has been very weak on the economy, weak on policy detail. When it comes to supporting the health needs of rural people, he will be weak again as he remains a patsy of the premiers across Australia.
Climate Change
11
11
14:55:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
Mr SWAN
—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the analysis released last week from environmental consultants Cambria which showed that Australia is forgoing $3.8 billion a year in investment opportunities because of the government’s failure to ratify the Kyoto protocol. How does the Prime Minister justify forgoing $3.8 billion a year in investment opportunities for the Australian economy?
11
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—If the shadow Treasurer believes that analysis he would believe anything.
Iraq
11
11
14:55:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
1
Mr KEENAN
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the situation in Iraq? Is he aware of other approaches?
11
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr DOWNER
—I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. On this side of the House—and I think we reflect the views of many Australians, after all the difficulties there have been in Iraq—we are heartened by the Petraeus and Crocker reports to the US congress. They paint an encouraging picture, but they do make the point that there is very hard work ahead. General Petraeus has reported that progress has been made on security and the military objectives of the surge are gradually being met. He said that attacks in Iraq are now at their lowest level since April 2006; since December 2006 civilian deaths have declined by 45 per cent and sectarian deaths are down by 55 per cent; and the Al-Qaeda operation in Al-Anbar, which was not only particularly dangerous in and of itself but also designed to provoke sectarian violence, has been substantially routed—not just as a result, General Petraeus says, of America’s intervention but as a result of a change of view of local people in the Al-Anbar province.
On the political challenges, Ambassador Crocker welcomed recent improvements, including the commitment of Iraqi leaders to work together on hard issues, but he also highlighted, interestingly enough, gains at grassroots and provincial government level. The point to add to this is that neither General Petraeus nor Ambassador Crocker are walking away from the scale of the ongoing challenges in Iraq. They are, of course, very significant. As General Petraeus said, there are no easy answers or quick solutions. But one thing General Petraeus did say—and, after all, I think we can safely assume he is a great authority on this issue and is not a political player of any kind—was that premature withdrawal will have devastating consequences and that political progress can happen only if sufficient security exists.
Today is 11 September; it is the sixth anniversary of the dreadful events of 9/11. In our country we have made a big contribution to attacking and dealing with the problems of terrorism. We have had good success in South-East Asia. There are great challenges still in the Middle East. If a country like Australia were to adopt the policy of the Labor Party, which is essentially a defeatist policy on Iraq—
Opposition members interjecting—
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr DOWNER
—Those opposite scoff, because a defeatist policy apparently does not include withdrawal and signalling withdrawal to terrorists. I think that is a defeatist policy. To signal a defeatist policy is to encourage our enemies in Iraq and in other places around the world.
As I have said in this House once before, the simple fact is that it is very important that people think about what they wish for in Iraq. They may have a view about opinion polls, but they should think about what they wish for. On this side of the House, we wish for the success of democracy in Iraq. We wish for the success of the people of Iraq in their struggle against terrorism and against those who would incite sectarian conflict. That is what we wish for. The Labor Party oppose the surge—they said they were opposed to the surge—and I draw the Australian public’s attention to the fact that the Labor Party, as these events have demonstrated, are not driven by good judgement and wisdom but driven by public relations companies and nothing more and nothing less.
Iraq
12
12
15:00:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to recommendations made to the United States congress by General Petraeus concerning a draw down of US forces and also to the UK’s plan for the reduction of its forces in southern Iraq. Given that the Prime Minister before the last election promised not to increase Australian troops, before doing the opposite after the election, what is the Australian government’s plan now for the draw down of Australian combat forces in Iraq?
12
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—We do not have any proposal to draw down the forces in Iraq. Unlike the Labor Party, we do not propose to reduce Australia’s forces in Iraq. So far as the Americans are concerned, I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that prior to the surge there were about 130,000 American combat troops in Iraq and the surge has added approximately 30,000 and, as I read Petraeus, he is talking about a possible phase down to the pre-surge levels. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the force levels that Australia had prior to the surge are exactly the same as the force levels we now have. We think the battle group in southern Iraq is doing good work. We think it is a good thing to provide humanitarian assist-ance. We think it is a good thing to provide training. We think it is a good thing to provide backup security for the local forces. We think it is a bad thing to say to our closest ally in her hour of need in Iraq, ‘We are going to partially walk away from you.’ Because that really is what is happening. I know there are those opposite who tend to denigrate the role of our forces in Iraq. They say—
83Z
Irwin, Julia, MP
Mrs Irwin
—No, they don’t.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Oh yes, they have. They have talked about them just being symbolically present. They have talked about them not doing very much at all. The reality is that they are doing good things for the people of Iraq and, while they continue to do good things for the people of Iraq, and until the Iraqi people can look after themselves, I believe they should stay. That is our policy. I know that when you ask Hawker Britton, ‘Is it a popular policy?’ they come back to you and say, ‘No, it is not a popular policy,’ and that of course is the basis on which the Leader of the Opposition has made his policy on Iraq. It is a Hawker Britton policy. It is not a Rudd-Gillard policy. I just say to the Leader of the Opposition that this is too serious a group of matters to be determined by a public relations firm; they ought to be determined by the national interest of our country.
Medicare
13
13
15:03:00
Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP
00ANF
Dobell
LP
1
Mr TICEHURST
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister update the House on how the government’s commitment to strengthening Medicare is delivering more bulk-billing services and providing a safety net against high health costs? Are there any alternative policies?
13
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr ABBOTT
—I thank the member for Dobell for his question. I thank him for all his support for better health services on the Central Coast, including the support that he has given to the North Wyong primary health care practice. I do note that since December 2003 the GP bulk-billing rate in Dobell has increased by 12 percentage points, thanks to the policies of the Howard government. In the June quarter, the GP bulk-billing rate increased to 78.2 per cent. This is the 14th consecutive quarterly increase in the bulk-billing rate. The overall bulk-billing rate—that is, for specialists and GPs—hit 73.4 per cent. That is an all-time record for bulk-billing in this country and it is 2.3 percentage points higher than in March 1996. Bulk-billing is not the be all and end all of Medicare, but it is important. It should be widely available, particularly for children and pensioners. I can advise the House that in the June quarter the bulk-billing rate for children under 16 was at a record, the bulk-billing rate for people over 65 was at a record and the bulk-billing rate for people in country areas was again at an all-time record, which is why the people of Australia know that the Howard government is clearly and indisputably the best friend that Medicare has ever had.
But not everyone is the best friend that Medicare has ever had. Part of Strengthening Medicare was a new safety net. In 2006 the safety net benefited 1.5 million people to the tune of $270 million, but members opposite still want to get rid of it—they want to get rid of this safety net that stood to help 1½ million Australians. Three times the shadow minister was asked about the safety net; three times she said that Labor was ‘considering its position’. I think I might have heard a cock crowing as she was doing that. Stop considering and start deciding—that is what the Australian people want of members opposite. The only political party in this parliament that is considering a cut to Medicare is the Australian Labor Party, which just goes to show that you cannot trust Labor with health.
Iraq
13
13
15:06:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his previous answer and to the report of General David Petraeus to the United States congress overnight in which he said:
Force reductions will continue beyond the pre-surge levels of brigade combat teams that we will reach by mid-July 2008 ...
Contrary to what the Prime Minister said in his previous answer, isn’t General Petraeus clearly talking about US force reductions beyond the recent troop surge? When will the Prime Minister advise the Australian people of his plans for the withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq?
13
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—With respect to the member for Barton, I do not think an argument about precisely what General Petraeus says bears on the question of whether or not we have a proposal to wind down the forces. The reality is that whether it is 130,000 or 140,000, the force level the United States had in Iraq prior to the surge was something close to 100 times the forces that we have had in Iraq—that we had then and that we have now. It does not automatically follow that if there is a reduction in the United States force commitment to around the pre-surge level that mandates or requires some kind of commensurate reduction in Australian forces, particularly when, as the member will know, the battle group is about 550. The idea that you could have a proportionate reduction in that battle group and still retain a critical mass is absolutely absurd. The implication that in some way if they come down by X per cent, we at 1/100th of their commitment have to come down by the same amount is, from a military point of view, potentially dangerous and, from an exercise in logic point of view, completely unacceptable.
Our position is this: we are not going to pull our forces out of Iraq while they continue to make a contribution to enabling the Iraqi people to look after themselves. We think it is good for the Iraqis that they are doing humanitarian work; we think it is good for the Iraqis that they are doing training; we think it is good for the Iraqis that they are providing security overwatch. We also think it is the right and decent thing for an ally to do, when clearly the United States is under pressure in Iraq, not to behave in a way that looks as though one of your closest allies is withdrawing some of its support. That is what the Labor Party is proposing. Cut out all the propaganda and all the PR, and what you are really proposing is something that will be represented to the world as a stepping back from the United States by one of her closest allies—namely, Australia. Any government I lead will not be part of that.
Workplace Relations
14
14
15:09:00
Barresi, Phillip, MP
ZJ6
Deakin
LP
1
Mr BARRESI
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister update the House on how the government’s workplace reforms are helping all working Australians by contributing to a stronger economy? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies that seek to appease sectional interests in the community?
14
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 hardworking member for Deakin for his question and note that he is an illustration of exactly what is at stake at the next election. We have someone who has real-life experience in the workplace, having worked in the private sector, and his Labor opponent running against him is an ETU official—
Honourable members interjecting—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—That is right, like Dean Mighell—with no real-life experience. As the member for Deakin knows, 417,900 jobs have been created since we introduced our reforms to the workplace relations system—417,000 jobs have been created since the introduction of Work Choices, 84 per cent of which are full-time jobs. The Labor Party predicted that real wages would fall with the introduction of Work Choices. In fact, there has been a three per cent increase in real wages—that is, after inflation—since the so-called industrial relations Armageddon, and unemployment is at its lowest rate for 33 years, since 1974, at around 4.3 per cent.
During the break we had the Labor Party release Forward with Fairness mark 2. This is the Labor Party’s second industrial relations policy—they could not get the first one right. They made such a hash of it that they had to have a second policy within six months. When they released the policy, isn’t it interesting that not one credible person claimed that the Labor Party’s industrial relations policy would create more jobs or deliver higher wages. There was not one person. Not even the Leader of the Opposition in announcing his policy claimed that the Labor Party’s policy was going to be good for the economy and good for workers, delivering high real wages and more jobs. They did not claim that at all. Instead, what they are trying to do is swing their so-called pendulum back and putting it in odd places, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition started to allude to.
Ultimately we must ask ourselves: ‘What is the motivation of the Labor Party in delivering a workplace relations policy that ultimately appeases the union bosses?’ We have done a little bit of analysis of the Labor Party candidates in the upcoming federal election. We have found that over 50 per cent of the candidates that the Labor Party is fielding in existing Labor seats are ex-union officials; 95 per cent of their Senate candidates are ex-union officials or Labor Party staffers; and 70 per cent of their front bench are former union officials. Just to add to the rich mix of the Labor Party front bench, they are bringing in Bill Shorten, Greg Combet, Richard Marles, and our old mate Dougie Cameron! There are four union bosses coming into the Labor Party to enrich its ranks with diversity by expanding the union officialdom! The bottom line is this: does anyone really think that a Labor Party dominated by union bosses would ever have the courage to stand up to those union bosses in government? Does anyone really believe that? They can run all the rhetoric they want today, they can run all the rhetoric they want tomorrow, but ultimately you have to look within their own ranks and identify that the Labor Party is full of union bosses. They want a union run agenda and the only people that will benefit are the union bosses; the people that will pay the price are the workers of Australia.
Workplace Relations
15
15
15:14:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and former political staffer. Can the minister confirm that the government’s 2004 IR election policy contained nothing about allowing award conditions to be stripped with no compensation, nothing about allowing ‘take it or leave it’ AWAs to be offered to employees and nothing about removing unfair dismissal protections from over four million Australian workers employed by business with fewer than 100 employees and other employees under so-called genuine operational reasons? Why should the people believe anything the minister says about the government’s intentions for industrial relations after the next election?
15
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
—Because our policies have delivered higher real wages, more jobs and the lowest level of unemployment in 33 years. We wanted to remove the unfair dismissal laws from small business on 44 separate occasions and the Labor Party voted against it on each occasion. They would have you believe that suddenly they are converted and care about small business. We wanted to remove the unfair dismissal law from small business because, although we have always been concerned about people losing their jobs, we are more concerned about people getting jobs in the first place. The unfair dismissal law was one of the single greatest impediments to small business employing people, particularly those people who were long-term unemployed. It was the OECD, and not some paid-up union hack writing an academic report for the Labor Party, that said that the people who are most vulnerable in the community are the greatest beneficiaries of the removal of the unfair dismissal law from small business. That is because small business is now prepared to take a punt and employ someone with a chequered employment history or someone who has been out of work for a long period of time. AWAs have been around since 1996 and there has been no secret about the government’s commitment to creating a flexible workplace environment that increases productivity and creates more jobs that deliver higher real wages.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
16
16
15:17:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
1
Mr HARTSUYKER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister advise the House of the outcomes of last week’s APEC trade ministers’ meeting? What was achieved and how will it help Australia’s exporters of goods and services, including farmers, manufacturers and small business operators?
16
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr TRUSS
—I assure the member for Cowper and all honourable members that APEC last week was an extraordinary success, perhaps the most successful APEC ever. Sydney and the other APEC cities around Australia certainly did our country proud in the way in which they hosted these events. There were a wide range of really important outcomes for the future of our country and, perhaps just as importantly, Australia’s wonderful hospitality was shown off to the rest of the world and so were the tremendous opportunities we can offer.
Australia is a trading nation and so APEC is particularly important to us. Eight out of our top 10 trading partners are APEC members and they account for around 70 per cent of our trade. The growth in trade within the APEC region has created a lot of jobs within Australia and provided tremendous opportunities for Australian industry. Our exporters are doing a sterling job, but they need a government that will continue to fight to liberalise the multilateral trade and investment environment and will make it easier for them to do business. Trade ministers and country leaders demonstrated their firm commitment to the Doha Round with a very strong statement committing the political will to achieving a successful outcome for those discussions.
At the regional level there was further discussion about how we could cooperate amongst the 21 members of APEC to break down trade barriers. We spoke about the prospect of a free trade area within our own region as a long-term objective but set about dealing with practical measures which could achieve outcomes immediately. The report on strengthening regional economic integration identified more than 50 agreed actions and included a whole range of initiatives we can enact immediately to further break down barriers and reduce the cost of doing business for our trading companies.
Through APEC, doing business has become a lot easier. Businesspeople from 20 APEC economies have priority immigration clearance through the APEC business card scheme. Business transaction costs were reduced by five per cent between 2002 and 2006 and we have committed ourselves to a further five per cent reduction by 2010. There will be codes of conduct for business and public officials. We agreed to fight corruption through improved legal cooperation, improved customs processes, common standards, paperless electronic systems and the like. APEC developed a very strong agenda of positive action to help build on our trading performance.
Labor, which opposes bilateral trade deals and has never negotiated a bilateral trade deal, can contribute nothing to this kind of environment. We need a government that cares about building trading opportunities, opens up new markets, creates jobs and gives Australian business a chance to grow and prosper.
Workplace Relations
16
16
15:21:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, former political staffer and student union boss. I refer to the minister’s statement from 2 September:
You only have a policy if you’re going to change the law.
I also refer to his comment from 5 September that the Liberal Party would have an industrial relations policy at the forthcoming election. Minister, where is your policy and what changes aren’t you telling the Australian people about?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Before calling the minister, I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she should not use the words ‘you’ or ‘your’.
17
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
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will see our policy well before election day—I tend to recall those words from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who seems to be a little embarrassed and is going red. What I can say to her is that we believe that the fundamentals of the workplace relations system are right because they are helping to deliver higher real wages, more jobs and the lowest level of strikes since 1913.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
17
17
15:22:00
Haase, Barry, MP
84T
Kalgoorlie
LP
1
Mr HAASE
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Would the minister update the House on the benefits flowing to Australia’s resource sector following last week’s APEC meeting?
17
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question and for his ongoing support and promotion of resources not only in Western Australia but, in fact, right around Australia. Those of us on this side of the House have long recognised Australia’s potential as an energy superpower. Last week at APEC our vision was confirmed by delivering record gains to the Australian resource sector. In the space of a few days, Australia secured, collectively, contracts worth in excess of $60 billion in export income. These unprecedented results included Australia’s single largest export deal—a $45 billion agreement between Woodside and PetroChina to supply two to three million tonnes of LNG to China each year. As well, an agreement was signed between Shell and PetroChina to supply one million tonnes of LNG from the Gorgon field. Also, there was an agreement to allow the supply of Australian uranium for use in Russia’s civil nuclear power industry which will be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and save millions and millions of tonnes of CO emissions.
These contracts are tangible, practical outcomes from APEC. They underscore the high level of international confidence in Australia’s resource sector, a confidence that has been richly earned through our reputation for reliability, security and efficiency. While those opposite continue to forecast the end of the resources boom and have in fact promised to abolish one of the key components of the resources boom’s success—AWAs—the coalition is getting on with the job. We are working with industry, we are working with our trading partners and we are delivering new jobs, new investment and new opportunities for all Australians.
Workplace Relations
17
17
15:25:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement last night concerning Work Choices, where the Prime Minister said that Work Choices:
... was a big change but people believed in it. If you go through the speeches over the years of people like the Treasurer and others, they believe very strongly in IR reform ...
Will the Prime Minister confirm that his gov-ernment’s Work Choices laws still, firstly, allow award conditions like redundancy to be stripped away without a cent of com-pensation and, secondly, allow hard-working Australians to be unfairly dismissed for no reason and with no remedy?
18
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I will start my answer to that question by confirming that the policy enunciated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition provides for flexibility clauses in awards that will allow the trading away of penalty rates and overtime without any guarantee of compensation in return.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Try reading the policy.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I have read it. That is your problem—I have read it. Work Choices was a big change and it was a very desirable change. It was the subject of a ferocious fear campaign by the unions. I notice that that ad that represents a board meeting with businessmen talking about penalty rates and overtime says that it is perfectly legal to take those away without anything in return. That is untrue. It is not legal to do that and it has not been legal to do that, as a result of the fairness test. That does not trouble the trade union movement of Australia. It does not trouble the Labor Party.
What really matter are outcomes. If I look at the Australian labour market now and back when Work Choices was introduced, what do I find? I find that there are 370,000 more people in jobs. I find that 85 per cent of those additional 370,000 jobs are full time. I find that wages have risen and continue to rise, so much so that they are now 21 per cent higher in real terms—that is, 21 per cent above the rate of inflation. In other words, their wages have gone up with inflation and they have got 21 per cent on top of that since March 1996. The other thing I also find is that strikes are at their lowest level since 1913.
If the Leader of the Opposition had watched my interview on The 7.30 Report last night, which apparently he did—or maybe Hawker Britton watched it and gave him a briefing paper on it—then he would have seen, or Hawker Britton would have seen, that I said that one of the goals of the coalition in the next term of government, if we are returned by the Australian people, is that for the first time we might be able to have a full employment economy.
The Canadian Prime Minister mentioned at lunchtime today—or it might have been in his speech; I forget which—an anecdote involving one of my predecessors in this office, Joseph Benedict Chifley. A true Labor man was Joseph Benedict Chifley—he was a very true Labor man.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—He nationalised the banks.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Yes, he tried to nationalise the banks. One of the things that Chifley made after the end of the Second World War was a full employment pledge to the workers of Australia. He believed in the social justice of full employment. It strikes me as passing strange that a party, one of whose former prime ministers, Ben Chifley, believed in full employment, is the party that has an industrial relations policy that is going to destroy the potential of this country to be a nation of full employment over the next three years.
One of the great advantages of our policy has been to drive down unemployment. One of the consequences of the policy of the Leader of the Opposition would be that unemployment, so far from remaining at a 33-year low, will rise, because if you bring back the unfair dismissal laws you will rob small business of the incentive to take on more staff. That will have a deleterious effect on unemployment. Far from full employment being a social justice goal of the Australian Labor Party, it will be something that only a coalition government can deliver.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
18
18
15:30:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
Mr FAWCETT
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister outline to the House outcomes from the recent APEC meeting that will further strengthen the ANZUS alliance and Australia’s defence capability? Is the minister aware of any other approaches?
19
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr NELSON
—I thank the member for Wakefield for his question and his tireless work for the people of his community and, prior to that, his distinguished service in the Australian Army.
No Australian should forget that, in 1942, the United States, in the Pacific, the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal, made significant sacrifices in support of Australian troops to secure the freedom of this country. Last week the Prime Minister and the President of the United States made two significant announcements and signed a document which will further enhance our alliance.
The Australia-US alliance is essentially about capability. It is about making sure that Australia has access to the most technologically advanced and sophisticated military equipment. It is also about intelligence, and the exchanges between the US and Australia now are approaching seamlessness. It is about interoperability—making sure that every piece of equipment that we purchase for Australian troops can be used and works with that of the United States. The US and the alliance of course play a key role in the architecture of security in our region and for Australia.
Over the last six months, the Australian government, and I and my department, have been negotiating with the United States on two issues. The Prime Minister last week, on our behalf, signed the US-Australia Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty. What this means, in plain language, is that, for the 300 small and medium enterprises in the defence industry here in Australia—which employ about 20,000 Australians and include Australian Aerospace, Tenix Aerospace, Raytheon and BAE Systems in the electorate of Wakefield, and which provide real jobs for real Australians—an enormous amount of the red tape and difficulty which they encounter in accessing US military technology will now be overcome. Last year we had about 2,700 licence applications for which the average delay was 90 days; 240,000 days were wasted last year by Australian companies trying to get access to US technology and military data. Now we will be able to cut through all of that.
The other announcement which the Prime Minister made with the President is that we will increase the presence of the United States in terms of its military equipment and capability here in Australia. There will be an increased presence here of US military capability for disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. We will also work more closely on, and have an increased presence in, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, and we will also increase our joint training with the United States here in Australia.
It is worth reminding the Australian community that the Leader of the Opposition is very fond of saying that he and his party believe very much in the Australia-US alliance. We may choose to accept that assertion at face value, but, prior to the 2004 election, the Australian National University conducted a scientific survey of Labor Party candidates. It was very interesting that 22 per cent—in other words, almost one in four—of members standing for election in 2004 for the Aust-ralian Labor Party believed that the United States was a threat to Australian security. Furthermore, only 40 per cent agreed with the proposition that the alliance was very important for Australia’s security. No-one should forget that the people sitting on the other side behind the Leader of the Opposition are the same people who put Mr Latham out in front.
It is absolutely essential that we, under any circumstances, do not move away from our alliance. This government believes in it. This government supports it. And the announcements made last week not only increase the security of our nation but also increase the security of Australian jobs.
Equine Influenza
20
20
15:34:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
Mr KATTER
—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware that in North Queensland all horse related community functions have been stopped—all riding in Mount Garnet; the Atherton races; horse sports at Mount Isa—yet they are all 2,500 kilometres from the nearest confirmed equine influenza case? The state DPIs are now clearly applying protocols to Australian horse activities that AQIS never applied to their operations at Eastern Creek. Could the minister advise whether therefore state DPIs are acting with an excessive abuse of power or whether AQIS’s protocols were gross and irresponsible breaches of their duty of care? Finally, could the minister assure the House that outbreak areas are being rigidly quarantined and universal vaccination is being initiated throughout these areas? And, most importantly, could he assure the House that AQIS’s continuing appalling record of supinely saying ‘yes’ to all import applications will this time be punished?
20
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGAURAN
—I thank the honourable member for his question. I fully appreciate the hardship being caused to the horse industries of North Queensland, and elsewhere in New South Wales and Queensland, as the indefinite ban on the movement of horses continues. The core of the honourable member’s question will be addressed by former High Court Judge Ian Callinan as he conducts his inquiry into the source of the equine influenza outbreak and makes an assessment of the quarantine system. All going well, tomorrow I will be introducing into the House the powers needed for him to subpoena persons and documents. He has signalled he will conduct public hearings on a needs basis. I will also be releasing the terms of reference which he has agreed upon.
The honourable member has asked me a number of questions about state DPIs. I should simply say that I think they are doing brilliant work on the ground tracing the number of horses and identifying the infected premises in an attempt to contain and eradicate the infection. I cannot say the same for the state governments of New South Wales and Queensland which have done nothing in any way to mitigate the economic loss of thousands of businesses and individuals.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: this is about this minister’s responsibility. He can answer it and be accountable to this place.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat. He will not debate the question.
XH4
McGauran, Peter, MP
Mr McGAURAN
—Mr Speaker, it is fascinating. They always jump to their feet to defend a Labor government that has done nothing to assist the industries or people within their borders. The New South Wales and Queensland governments earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year in gaming and waging revenue and not a cent has gone towards the affected people. I will conclude my answer by offering the honourable member a briefing. He has made a number of assumptions regarding vaccination and zoning that, respectfully, are not quite right. I would be very happy to talk to him before much longer.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
20
Questions to the Speaker
Questions in Writing
20
20
15:38:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr MURPHY
—Mr Speaker, I seek your assistance under standing order 105(b) in relation to questions outstanding on the Notice Paper for more than 60 days. I refer to question nos 6042 and 6043 to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry from 18 June this year, question no. 6054 to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, question no. 6055 to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and from 21 June, question no. 6076 to the Minister for Justice and Customs, no. 6077 to the Treasurer, and nos 6081, 6082, 6083 and 6084 to the Minister for Vocational and Further Education, and nos. 6086, 6087 and 6088 to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. I would be grateful if you would write to those ministers in these very late stages of the 41st Parliament and get answers for my constituents, who are unsettled by not having answers.
21
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Lowe. I will follow up his request.
Questions in Writing
21
21
15:39:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
Mr HAYES
—Mr Speaker, it has now been more than two years since I placed questions on the Notice Paper relating to industrial relations matters. Accordingly, under standing order 105(b), I ask you to write to the Prime Minister and other relevant ministers again, to seek answers to my questions nos 2302 to 2320.
21
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Werriwa. I will have a look to see how I can follow up his request.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
21
Auditor-General's Reports
Report No. 6 of 2007-08
21
21
15:40:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 6 of 2007-08 entitled Performance audit: Australia’s preparedness for a human influenza pandemic, Department of Health and Ageing and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
21
Documents
21
15:37:00
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Deputy Leader of the House
1
0
Mr McGAURAN
—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:
Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report and recommendations to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and to the Administrator of the Northern Territory—No. 69—Alcoota Land Claim No. 146.
Gene Technology Regulator—Quarterly report for the period 1 April to 30 June 2007.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Com-mission—Report No. 37—Report of an inquiry into Dr Julie Copeman’s complaint that Derbarl Yerrigan Health Service terminated her employment on the basis of her trade union activity.
Members of Parliament (Staff) Act—Report on consultants engaged under section 4 for 2006-07.
Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
21
Matters of Public Importance
Climate Change
21
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kingsford Smith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government’s failure, over eleven years, to take genuine action to address climate change.
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—
21
15:41:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
0
Mr GARRETT
—This government, across all its tiers and factions, from the Prime Minister down, lacks the expertise and the conviction to take serious action on climate change. When it comes to climate change, we have seen a whole-of-government failure across the whole front bench. I ask the House: what has the Treasurer ever done to address climate change? Eleven federal budgets have not once mentioned climate change. I ask the House: what about the foreign minister mocking, first, Kyoto and then, this year, calling aspirational targets a political stunt? I ask the House: what about the Minister for Environment and Water Resources opposite?—many words but very little action. And, of course, senior figures across the government and a number of backbenchers believe, incredibly, that humans are not causing climate change at all.
This is a tired government—a government with only enough energy and ideas to protect its back; a government which, when it comes to addressing climate change, has shown itself incapable of rising to the challenge.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—This is the same song.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—This is summed up by the Treasurer’s comment on 25 July—I invite the minister, who is making comments across the dispatch box, to listen to this—when he said, ‘I am focused on the election and not much else.’ This government sniffed the electorate mood and decided to dress itself in a climate change makeover. But the cracks constantly appear in the makeover. The most recent breakout is a report from the members for Solomon, Tangney, Hughes and Lindsay who said, amongst other things:
Another problem with the view that it is anthropogenic greenhouse gases that have caused warming is that warming has also been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto, Neptune and others.
This report from these government members, in an age when climate change is a recognised significant issue, will go down as one of the most incredible and remarkable pieces of fanciful reporting in this parliament. Climate change is about other generations; it is not about other planets. Back here on planet Earth we see a government that literally wants to blame everyone for its lack of action on climate change, and whose constant refrain, and the refrain from the minister, is that developing countries need to get on board when we ourselves refuse to take the climate change express. It is the coalition script, and it is becoming very familiar to us. Listen to the routine:
Climate change is a serious issue. It is a global problem and the solution will also have to be global. The cost of adjustment must be distributed fairly evenly among developing economies as well as developed ones. We have a comprehensive national response to limit our greenhouse gas emissions.
That was the Prime Minister speaking on 28 August 1996. Eleven years later the language is still the same but the challenge of climate change, such as the ongoing melting of the west Antarctic iceshelf, is even more pressing. From a public forum on global warming organised by the Australian Financial Review comes this quote:
... the growing international recognition of Australia’s efforts to combat global warming and an acknowledgement that we quickly become a world leader in developing the innovative domestic actions needed to deliver a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Sound familiar? The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources opposite is prone to using the expressions ‘leader’ and ‘world leader’ when he talks about the Howard government and climate change. In fact, in the House during a recent matter of public importance he managed to use the term ‘world leader’ 10 times. I will come back to that in a minute. The speaker in question here is actually the former environment minister once removed, Senator Hill, speaking some seven years ago.
With the Howard government the song remains the same. These are junk words; they are not worth the paper that they are written on. Speaking on 24 May 2007, Minister Turnbull produced 10 ‘leading the world’ quotes in one MPI. For example, he said:
The Australian government is leading the world in climate change policies.
I remind the minister that Australia is actually ranked 14th in the latest Ernst & Young renewable energy country attractiveness index. That is based on a score for our national renewable energy market and it puts us behind countries that include Canada, Greece and Ireland. As Australians would know, we are the sunniest continent on earth. There is nowhere better suited for solar power, yet we are ranked 14th in the world on renewables, behind the United Kingdom—not the sunniest place on earth—which is in fifth place.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—Is their power from solar, by the way?
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The member for Flinders!
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—There are 174 countries heading in one direction who have ratified the Kyoto protocol and there is Australia heading in the opposite direction. The minister said in that same MPI:
We are leading the world on energy efficiency.
The National Framework on Energy Efficiency was established in 2004. There has been very little action since. The lights are off; no-one is home. We do not lead on energy efficiency in cars; we do not lead in planes; we do not lead in kitting out our homes; we do not lead in commercial buildings or in virtually any other area. The minister said:
We have also been a world leader in changing the standards for stand-by power ...
Will the government now support Labor’s policy of a 10-star appliance rating system and greenhouse and energy minimum standards?
When the cliches fail to take root—and after 11 years of recycled lines and cliches it is not surprising that they have not taken root—then the government simply goes for spin. The recent APEC meeting is a very good case in point. Labor welcomed the APEC deliberations. We welcomed the attention given to climate change, but careful scrutiny of the declaration reveals that, again, the action and the words produced by the Prime Minister and the government do not match what was agreed at APEC itself. The Prime Minister claims that the APEC Sydney declaration was an important milestone. That is very wide of the mark. In fact, the Prime Minister set his own benchmark for the APEC meeting when he said:
The Sydney Summit will be one of the most important international gatherings of Leaders to discuss climate change since the 1992 Rio Conference.
But, at the end of the day, there was no substantial international agreement. The result fell well short of the Prime Minister’s hype.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Flinders will have an opportunity if he is lucky.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—He may not get many more opportunities.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—We do not need any contribution from the member for Kingsford Smith either.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—In fact, the declaration reads:
We agree to work to achieve a common understanding on a long-term aspirational global emissions ... goal ...
Under the Howard government and with the Prime Minister’s extremely clever and cunning use of words, the agreement to achieve a common understanding—the agreement to look at something—has actually become the agreement on the need for a ‘long-term aspirational global emissions reduction goal’. The Prime Minister repeated it in question time today. Doubtless he will repeat it again. But no such agreement was made.
At the most recent United Nations climate change meeting in Geneva, one very similar agreement was made—one, incidentally, which set a figure for emissions reductions. That is something which the Sydney declaration did not do. China was present at this Geneva meeting and it was agreed that global emissions of greenhouse gases need to peak in the next 10 to 15 years and be reduced to very low levels, well below half the levels in 2000, by the middle of the 21st century. The Sydney declaration, instead, was high on aspiration but low on delivery.
Additionally, at the G8 meeting earlier this year we had the UK, the US, China, Russia, Canada, Japan and other countries—and the Plus Five group—reiterating the need to engage major emitting economies on how best to address the challenge of climate change, to continue to meet with high-level representatives of these and other major energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting countries and to consider the necessary components for successfully combating climate change. The dialogue will support the UN climate process and report back to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
That was the rub in the Sydney declaration, and the minister and others opposite well know it. What was clear and what came out of the Sydney declaration was that it is the UNFCCC that will be the pathway by which a global emissions treaty is negotiated. The Prime Minister was at pains to lessen the anticipation of that and has spoken disparagingly about it in the past. But, in fact, that was the case, and it was made very clear by the Chinese Premier on a number of occasions.
We had the so-called aspirational goals, the aspirational targets that the foreign affairs minister says is code for a political stunt. What hypocrisy! Labor has said all along that we ought to have targets here and we ought to support targets globally. That is the pathway to reducing emissions internationally. The countries of the world and the people of Australian know it. We are in good company. The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change has shown that a 60 per cent cut in emissions can be achieved without strong impacts on economic growth —in fact, whilst maintaining economic growth. News Ltd has set a target of being carbon neutral by 2010. Recently the Australian Business and Climate Group, BP, Rio Tinto, Anglo Coal, Santos and many others stated a long-term aspirational goal for reducing greenhouse gases is essential. It cannot be any clearer. Neither can the support from major corporate bodies in this country be any clearer. Yet still the minister and the Prime Minister on the other side of the House push the government line that to have an aspirational target or a target of any kind for this country would be damaging to our economy.
We have said all along that UNFCCC and building on the Kyoto protocol was the right path, and in fact the Sydney declaration confirms this. The government has forgotten, I think, that it actually did once have a target, and I am looking forward to the minister confirming this. I wonder if he is aware of the Liberal Party’s 1989 document A fair go for the environment, which was signed off by Andrew Peacock. I refer to the Senate Hansard of 6 December 1989 and a speech by Chris Puplick, who said:
Let me remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it was the commitment given by the coalition parties to work for a 20 per cent targeted reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000 ...
Eighteen long years later we are faced with the charade on the other side of the House. The government is running a line that Australia should not have a target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Where are we heading when the government is so tired and is forced into such contortions that it cannot do anything other than defend the lack of a target here in Australia, which is Labor policy, and promote the idea of a target in other parts of the world?
Here is an inconvenient truth: during this term of parliament alone the Howard government will spend about the same amount on advertising—about $850 million—as it has on climate change since 1996, about $867 million. That is called spending priorities and recognising the importance of an issue like climate change! The greenhouse gas emissions in the minister’s own department have risen by some 14 per cent. They are not my words; they are the figures from the minister’s department’s annual report. Then there is the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, the AP6. On closer examination, the AP6 really appears to be an AP2. There is barely any money committed to it and it is a drop in the ocean compared with the Kyoto $6 billion generated under the clean development mechanism that the minister likes to constantly criticise. Some $2 million has been spent and most of it, it seems, on administration.
The absolute bare truth in the climate change debate is simply this: the Howard government has had 11 years to take resolute action on climate change and it has done no such thing. It denies, it runs sceptical lines and then it tries spin. The fact is that it has spent millions—not billions—on climate change. It has spent less than 0.05 per cent of the annual federal budget. That is about $5 a year for every man, woman and child in Australia.
The government’s problems on climate change are systemic. They cannot bring themselves to accept that we should ratify Kyoto and sit at the table and influence the negotia-tions. They cannot bring themselves to accept that a target is a perfectly reasonable public policy position to have. And some of them cannot bring themselves to accept the fact that, yes, we have created green-house gas emissions that are contributing to global warming and that global warming will produce significant impacts on our economy, our environment and our society. We need to take some responsibility for this right here in Australia right now in 2007. That is the bottom line in this debate.
I advise the House that Labor is ready, willing and able to tackle dangerous climate change. There are things a Rudd Labor government would do. We would restore Australia’s international leadership on climate change, immediately ratify Kyoto and provide $150 million within the aid budget to assist our Pacific neighbours to adapt to climate change. We would develop a carbon market and reform our institutions. We would lead by example. We would drive a clean energy renewable revolution. We would increase the mandatory renewable energy target, now languishing under this government—the renewable industry has to go overseas. We would be fair dinkum about climate change. We would meet the climate change challenge—something that a tired, 11-year-old Howard government has no possibility whatsoever of doing.
26
15:56:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources
1
0
Mr TURNBULL
—That was yet again another rant from the parallel universe occupied by the member for Kingsford Smith, one in which he gives the House one misrepresentation, one falsehood, after another—for example, the proposition that the government has said ‘targets of any kind are damaging’. How absurd. We are working towards a target right now—our Kyoto target, which is 108 per cent of 1990 emissions. That is a target and we are committed to it and we are on track to meet it. The reality is that we are on track to meet it whereas many countries that have ratified Kyoto will miss their Kyoto targets, and by very large margins.
We have been delighted today by an address from the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Harper. The Canadian government, at best estimates today, is likely to miss its Kyoto target from its own domestic actions by around 40 per cent. Our harshest critics in the Climate Institute suggest we may miss our Kyoto target by one or two per cent. We will not miss it; we will meet it. But that gives you the scale of the divergence between us. This is the parallel universe that the member for Kingsford Smith lives in. He berates Australia, runs down his own country—a nation which is going to meet its Kyoto target, which is on track to meet it, through its own domestic efforts—and extols countries that are going to miss their targets by very wide margins. The Canadian government recently estimated that the cost of domestic action to purchase international credits to comply with its Kyoto obligations would produce a crash in GDP of 6½ per cent, with a one-year net loss of national economic activity in the range of $Can51 billion in 2008. New Zealand, a much smaller economy, is also going to miss its target by domestic measures alone, and its Treasury estimates the cost of purchasing credits at $NZ567 million. Let us not kid ourselves—we have committed ourselves to a target, we are on track to meet it. Most countries that have ratified Kyoto will not meet their targets.
The member for Kingsford Smith was scornful of what was achieved at APEC. The member for Kingsford Smith’s approach to the international climate change negotiations is not only dangerous and ill informed; it is manifestly contrary to Australia’s best interest. The reality is that there has been a divergence between the developed countries, known in the Kyoto protocol language as annex 1 countries, and the developing countries, which include a number of industrial giants like China, India, South Korea, Singapore and all of the Middle East—so it includes a wide range of countries—which collectively account for the bulk of global emissions.
But more importantly they account for the vast bulk of the growth in emissions—and the divergence is that, in Kyoto, there is an assumption that the obligation to reduce emissions will only fall on developed countries, annex 1 countries. It is stated in the protocol that in subsequent commitment periods—that is, after the commitment period of 2008-12—only the annex 1 countries will bear obligations. The melancholy truth—be it convenient or inconvenient, I know not; but it is true—is that we cannot achieve the massive reductions that we need in global greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century unless there is action from all of the emitting countries, certainly all of the major emitting countries. If we were to proceed on the basis that China and India do not have to make any reductions in emissions, do not have to make any commitments to reduce emissions and do not have to set any goals of their own in the next commitment period, we simply will not get there.
There is a very good table in the emissions trading task group report which shows very graphically what the result would be of the developed world reducing its emissions by 2050 by 50 per cent—which would be a very significant reduction, I am sure everyone would agree—but with the developing world continuing business as usual. That would result in total global emissions being around twice what they are today. As we know, most scientists are calling for a reduction in emissions to 50 per cent or thereabouts of 1990 levels by 2050—hence the Japanese target of 50 per cent by 2050, which was echoed and supported by the Canadians and, of course, was commented on favourably in the G8 communique and referred to in the Sydney declaration.
The breakthrough that occurred in Sydney—and it was a vital breakthrough—was that, for the first time, developing countries, in particular China, agreed that they would work towards a long-term global emissions reduction goal. There has been enormous resistance to that effort to date. This is the first time that has been achieved. But the vital part is that, once you agree on a global goal—take your pick: 50 per cent by 2050 or the Japanese target if you like—then it follows as night follows day that the developing world, in particular the big industrial developing countries like China and India, will have to make reductions. In other words, you have taken the first step to getting real about an environmentally effective reduction in global emissions. Of course, the problem with Kyoto—and it is typical of the member for Kingsford Smith, who is so obsessed with spin and sloganising, that he regards Kyoto as a sacrament, not an international treaty—
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr Garrett
—Just ratify it!
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr TURNBULL
—He says, ‘Just ratify it.’ He has never read it. The problem with Kyoto is that it does not provide an environmentally effective outcome. Kyoto may be amended, and we hope it will be. We will be part of that. We want to amend Kyoto. We want to have an environmentally effective treaty. But the treaty we have at the moment is not environmentally effective, and that is demonstrated by the fact that its achievement will be a reduction not in the total amount of emissions but in the growth of emissions—from 41 per cent over the period to 40 per cent. That is what Kyoto will achieve. It has not worked. You can say it was a first attempt, you can give it points for trying, but we have to do so much better than that—and what we have achieved with the Sydney declaration is the first big step. We will roll on from this meeting in Sydney to the meeting in Washington, where we will have the biggest emitters in the world together—the top 15 emitters, who represent 85-odd per cent of global emissions. What is the commitment there? What is the aim there—and, of course, that has been made a lot easier thanks to the Sydney declaration: the aim is to work towards a global goal and then, having done that, work towards agreement on who is going to do what and how we are going to make it all stack up. Reaching that realisation is so important; without it, we cannot achieve the massive industrial and technological transformation that we need to achieve a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
The honourable member for Kingsford Smith claims the government has done nothing. He keeps on saying we have done nothing. But let us look at some of the things we have done. We will meet our Kyoto target; most of the countries that have ratified Kyoto will not. What about forestry? The Global Initiative on Forests and Climate has put the forestry agenda at the top of the climate change debate for the first time. Deforestation in general and avoided deforestation in particular had been almost entirely negotiated in the Kyoto protocol process and widely acknowledged as being a failing of Kyoto. It is Australia that has led the way in putting that on top of the agenda. Thanks to our cooperation with Brazil, Indonesia, the US, Japan and many other countries around the world, we know that when we come to Bali we will have a new international arrangement which will ensure that forestry is treated properly.
Why is forestry so important? Global emissions from deforestation account for 20 per cent of total emissions. If we reforest we can do something about it now. We can take action right here, right now. We do not have to wait for the development of new technologies. The technology we need, we have. We are setting up a global system of forest and carbon monitoring which will work with like-minded countries around the world. What will that enable us to do? It will enable us to connect for the first time the vast pools of money, the billions of dollars, available for carbon dioxide abatement with sustainable forestry practices in the developing world.
There is a very good example of that in the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership, which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Indonesian counterpart signed, and the President of Indonesia and I witnessed the signing of, in Sydney on Sunday. That initiative will result in the abatement of 700 million tonnes of CO emissions—more than our total emissions—through preserving 70,000 hectares of Indonesian peat land forests, reflooding 200,000 hectares of dried peat land and planting up to 100 million new trees on rehabilitated peat land. That is practical action on the ground.
This global initiative on forestry is a world-leading effort. It can be described in no other way, other than by the member for Kingsford Smith, who, when it was announced, sneered and said, ‘It’s a modest effort.’ That is one world-leading effort, without any question. In his contribution, the member for Kingsford Smith talked about energy efficiency. No doubt because he had to rush into the chamber and could not get all his notes together, he lost the page that referred to Australia being the first country in the world to move to phase out inefficient incandescent lighting. That has been a high priority for everybody committed to energy efficiency for some time. But it took Australia to take the leadership and move to phase out inefficient lighting. Australia was the first country in the world to do it. That was not mentioned by the member for Kingsford Smith. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story—that is his motto.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—Europe and America are going to follow you.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr TURNBULL
—We are being followed around the world, and the phase-out of incandescent lighting is called the Australian lighting initiative. If that is not leadership, what is?
Let me go to one further area of international leadership. I have talked about forestry, I have talked about energy efficiency and I have talked about the Sydney declaration, making that enormous breakthrough where we get China, the biggest country in the world and certainly the largest emitter in the world, agreeing to work towards setting a global goal. That is an incredible breakthrough, a vital breakthrough. We know that energy efficiency will deliver great results. We know that forestry should—if we are able to make it all happen on a large enough scale—deliver considerable abatement. But longer term we know that we have to have a world where all or almost all of our energy comes from zero-emissions sources. Whichever way you slice or dice the figures, we know that by 2050 our goal should be to have all of our electricity and most of our terrestrial transport energy at least coming from zero-emissions sources, be it clean coal, be it renewables, be it geothermal, be it nuclear—whatever it is—and it will be different all around the world. Every country will have a different mix and a different range of solutions. Those solutions and those technologies are canvassed in our paper in the Sydney declaration. We are leading the way in the most critical of those technologies. There is none more critical than clean coal.
I am very devoted to solar energy, and I notice the member for Kingsford Smith is always very keen on it. I have many solar panels in my own house. The government has doubled the solar rebate. We are funding the largest solar power station in the world at Mildura. So at every level the government is very committed to solar. But we know and the world knows and the International Energy Agency knows that the biggest technological contributor to a reduction in CO emissions is likely to be clean coal. Why is that? Coal is a widespread, cheap fuel. Countries like China and India have massive resources of their own. They will be using it for a very long time. We are the world leader in developing clean coal technology. And, above all, we are working closely and creatively with the Chinese government. The CSIRO is establishing, in partnership with the Chinese government, a post-combustion capture and storage plant outside Beijing. This is the key to the puzzle. If we are able to retrofit every coal-fired power station in China with post-combustion capture and storage, we will have made an enormous contribution to a cleaner world. (Time expired)
29
16:11:00
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
0
0
Mrs ELLIOT
—It seems yet again today we have heard the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources talk a lot about leadership. Again and again he talked about that. When it comes to issues relating to the environment, just do it, Minister: ratify Kyoto. You could have saved us 15 minutes. You could have got up and said: ‘That’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to ratify Kyoto.’ That is what we have been saying for a long time. That is what we want to hear—not constant waffling about leadership, Minister.
I fully support the member for Kingsford Smith’s remarks regarding the Howard government’s 11 years of inaction on climate change. There is no doubt—and it is something that we on this side of the chamber have long acknowledged—that climate change is one of the greatest challenges that we face as a nation. Federal Labor has long believed that climate change is not just an environmental issue; indeed, it is at the core of the challenges we face to secure Australia’s future prosperity and job security. The fact is that, without a comprehensive plan to tackle climate change, this country does not have a comprehensive plan for our future. It is that simple. It is that straightforward. But this is an issue that the Howard government do not understand or want to understand. They are not focused on the major challenges that we confront as a nation. The time for debate is over and the time for spin that we hear from the government is over. What is left now is action. That is what a Rudd Labor government will deliver—action on climate change.
The Howard government has walked away from so many of its responsibilities. One of the greatest examples of this is the government’s lack of responsibility and lack of action over the past 11 years in relation to climate change. The fact is that both the Liberal and National parties have never been serious about climate change. They have always been climate change sceptics and in total denial about the very urgent need for action in relation to climate change. Those that sit opposite have in fact sat on their hands to the extent that they have often ignored the issue or indeed attacked those who are prepared to stand up and say, ‘We demand action; we need to have it.’ While the need for real action, for real leadership, has become obvious to even the biggest sceptics, this current government has still done nothing.
Throughout this country, people are extremely concerned about the effects of climate change, whether it be at a local, national or international level. Their concerns are both environmental and economic. We as a nation need to do more, and Australians deserve leadership from their federal government on this issue. It is often quite hard to believe that many years ago Australia was a leading international voice on the environment and the threat of climate change. It is hard to believe that many years ago we had an international reputation envied around the world. Federal Labor is committed to restoring our international credibility on this issue. A Rudd Labor government will immediately ratify the Kyoto protocol because we understand how important it is. As we saw recently at the APEC summit, Chinese Premier Hu said that the Kyoto protocol is ‘the most authoritative, universal and comprehensive international framework’ for tackling climate change. This begs the question: why has the current Australian government not come to the same conclusion?
Why have they not reached that point? The simple truth of the matter is that, despite their very recent public posturing and the many statements made today by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the Howard government still do not take the threat of climate change seriously—and their scepticism will be to the detriment of our future generations. If the Howard government truly took this issue seriously, we would have seen action. We would have seen them ratifying Kyoto, setting emissions targets and actually having the decency and honesty to admit that they were wrong to be sceptical of the science of climate change to begin with.
It is only now that the Howard government have started talking a little bit about climate change, and they are doing it now because everybody else in the country has been talking about it for years, and they are talking about it louder and louder, right throughout the nation. So it has suddenly dawned on the Howard government that this is a major issue. Indeed, this is a major issue in this year’s federal election, so now the government are starting to talk about it a little bit. But the true mark of this government and their attitude towards climate change is not the very recent public statements we have heard; their true attitude is that of the past 11 years when we saw nothing.
There were no words and no action—just derision and ridicule for all those in the community who have long taken the threat of climate change very seriously. As evidence of this attitude, we need to look no further than the recent dissenting report from Howard government members expressing scepticism about the science of climate change which was presented to parliament merely weeks ago. These government members exposed exactly what their leader believes: that climate change has no basis in fact and that no attention should be paid to dealing with this issue.
The only solution we have seen from this government is a plan for 25 nuclear reactors across the country to be operational in 15 years time. We on this side of the chamber, as well as the Australian public, know that if your only plan for climate change will come online in 15 years time then you do not have a plan at all. That is the reality of it. Of course, federal Labor is totally opposed to the building of nuclear power plants anywhere in this country.
Let us have a look at what we have got from this government. We have seen no real, serious attempts at renewable sources of energy, no serious attempts to provide incentives to businesses, no serious investment in future technologies. We have not seen anything serious from them at all. Federal Labor has long acknowledged that the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action when it comes to climate change. It is vitally important that we see this action not just from an environmental view but also from an economic one, because this inaction really does endanger our future prosperity and our job creation capacity. The longer we delay our action, the more it will cost us.
This is of great concern to many people in my electorate of Richmond for a whole variety of reasons, one of which is the huge tourism industry, which I will come to in a minute. The potential of rising sea levels due to the lack of action on climate change is a major threat to our entire coastal region, associated businesses and our local economy. With the real threat of rising sea levels, many locals are rightly concerned about the future existence of any coastal areas at all. In the electorate of Richmond, from Tweed Heads to Lennox Head, the worry for many people is that our region will not exist and will be lost to the sea in future years.
Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, your electorate of Page and the neighbouring areas are in a beautiful coastal region of our country. I know many people there have expressed similar concerns about whether that will indeed be lost to the sea as well. I echo the words of my colleague the member for Hindmarsh who, when speaking in this House not long ago about his concerns about rising sea levels and the effect on his area, said that it is one thing to lose your seat to your opponent, but it would be horrendous to lose it to the sea. That certainly is a sentiment that is echoed in my electorate.
Within our nation, our tourism industry alone employs more than half a million Australians. That is a huge amount. As I have said, in my electorate of Richmond, many people are concerned about the costs of inaction. Over 1.5 million people visit Byron Bay per year. That is what sustains the local economy around that area. So there are concerns about rising sea levels and a concern that many people raise with me, which is that of the migratory patterns of whales being less predictable due to changing sea temperatures. That is an issue that people raise with me all the time and, again, it is directly related to many years of inaction by the Howard government when it comes to climate change.
As I said, many locals approach me. I have had many environmental forums in my electorate and I speak to locals all the time. The issue that they raise is climate change. They want to see actions taken for the future of our region, our country and internationally—and that is exactly what a Rudd Labor government will provide. As well as immediately ratifying Kyoto, federal Labor will offer Australian families $10,000 interest-free loans for solar panels, water tanks, and investing in clean, renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal technologies. Very importantly, federal Labor will develop an emissions trading scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.
We need to move beyond the aspirational targets in the Sydney declaration that came out of APEC. We need to move to practical national and global targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As we have heard, the Prime Minister’s own foreign minister has made remarks about aspirational targets just being a code for a political stunt. The future of our country and our planet needs and deserves a lot better than just political stunts. When the foreign minister speaks of aspirational targets, I, all of us on this side of the House and most Australians understand what that means. It means that the government are, yet again, doing nothing. That is what we have seen time and time again.
In 2006 we saw the wide-ranging effects of climate change in the Stern report. What did the government do in the face of all of that evidence? Yet again, it did nothing. Climate change threatens our tourism industry and our agricultural industry as well. Those two industries combined bring in about $50 billion in export earnings each year, so the economic effects as well as the environmental effects will be absolutely disastrous if we do not see some real action on climate change.
When it comes down to it, the fact is that we desperately need to act now—immed-iately. And the only way that that is going to happen is with Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister. Then—and only then—will Australia have a Prime Minister who understands climate change, acknowledges climate change and is committed to addressing climate change. And only under a Rudd Labor government will we have a Prime Minister who will act decisively on the massive environmental challenge that climate change poses for us.
32
16:21:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
0
Mr HUNT
—Climate change is real. It is significant and it is profound. But if you were the Leader of the Opposition and you were speaking to the leader of the free world, believing that this was an important issue and, in your own words, ‘one of the great moral issues’, would you imagine that you might raise climate change—just once—with the American President? In a 45-minute meeting—three-quarters of an hour—and with the chance to range across the great issues of the world, the chance to prove his mettle and with such an important issue, the head of the Labor Party in this parliament could not even raise it with President Bush.
If I am wrong, come in and deny it: that is the message to the Leader of the Opposition. If I am wrong, let the member for Kingsford Smith come in and deny that, faced with the chance to raise climate change directly with President Bush during negotiations on one of the most important international agreements on this topic, the Leader of the Opposition said nothing. If you want to know the difference between John Howard as Prime Minister and Kevin Rudd it is this: John Howard would never, ever have squibbed the chance to raise something important in such an important meeting, and the Leader of the Opposition squibbed it. He had a chance to raise climate change. It was so important to him that he spent all his time talking about what a great job the ALP had done in creating the alliance with the US.
It is slightly absurd when the opposition pretend that they believe this is an important issue and the very person who aspires to be the leader of this country does not have the courage to raise it with the leader of the free world. It was a golden opportunity at a golden time. Maybe he forgot, maybe it was a case of being too drunk to remember, but my feeling is that on this occasion he was absolutely sober. What happened? He did not raise climate change with the leader of the free world. The challenge is here: come in and deny it and say expressly and clearly that in the 45-minute meeting the Leader of the Opposition did raise climate change. He has not done that; he has lost that opportunity. He had a unique chance to do so. He had an opportunity to let every member of the ALP know that their leader cared so much about this issue but he could not even be bothered, or did not have the courage, to raise it with President Bush when given a unique opportunity to do so. This is about leadership; it is also about leaders, because you would never, ever see John Howard squib or miss a fundamentally important opportunity such as this, but we saw Kevin Rudd falter at a critical moment.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member will refer to members by their title.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr HUNT
—The Leader of the Opposition failed to deal with the issue and failed to take steps when he had a chance. What I want to do is compare the three great silences on the opposition side on this issue with the three great practical and international steps which this government has taken. Firstly, I mentioned the failure by the Leader of the Opposition to deal with President Bush. Secondly, there has been a total silence from the member for Kingsford Smith on one of the great challenges—that is, the growth of emissions in the developing world. We have a profound responsibility in the developed world, but emissions in the developing world are far and away the source of growth of emissions in our world today. If you want to solve the problem, you have to deal with that. We have at the moment from Europe the leakage of carbon from aluminium, steel or cement going to the Middle East, China, India or other sources of alternative production, because they are currently excluded from any obligations under the existing international regime. The result is that the very idea which they seek to promote is being undercut by a fundamental flaw in a mechanism. That is a silence which has been propounded by our friends in the opposition.
The third silence relates to the slaughter of global rainforests which comes about from a perverse incentive under the Kyoto system. Let us hear now from the member for Adelaide whether she thinks it is acceptable that this slaughter of global rainforests continues, with the emission of eight billion tonnes of CO a year, or six billion tonnes of CO once you factor in reforestation, because that is a direct consequence of the system which the member for Adelaide, the member for Kingsford Smith and the Leader of the Opposition support. We think there is a fundamental flaw and that this slaughter of global rainforests is not something which is worthwhile or acceptable. It is something which we have moved to address but which they will see propounded, extended and carried on.
Against that background, what have we as a government sought to do? There have been three great actions. The first and most recent is the Sydney declaration. The Sydney declaration is no minor activity. It brings together China, Russia, the United States, Indonesia, Japan, Canada, as well as Australia—13 developing countries in all. Most fundamentally, it recognises not just the need for a global aspirational target—in other words, something towards which we will all work—but the role of all parties in working to achieve that. So the developing world are acknowledging—China and others—that they too have responsibilities to achieve this outcome, and to do it together with the United States is fundamentally important. What was created in Sydney was one of the two indispensable foundation stones for a new global agreement. I repeat: it was one of the two indispensable foundation stones for a new global agreement.
There are currently 40 billion tonnes of CO emitted every year. Australia emits about 560 million of those tonnes, or 1.4 to 1.5 per cent. Without a global agreement which brings in the developing world, the United States and the developed world, all actions we take at home are irrelevant. They are necessary but they will be irrelevant without that agreement. The Sydney declaration provides one of the two foundation stones. First, there has been the partnership between the US and Europe which was formed at Heiligendamm during the G8 meeting in Germany. Second, there had to be a precursor agreement between the US and the Asia-Pacific, China in particular, and there could never be a global agreement without that foundation stone. That is what the Prime Minister, the foreign minister, the Australian negotiators and the minister for the environment all worked towards. They worked assiduously and they knew that there would be no global outcome without this second foundation stone. That is what Sydney represents—nothing less than one of the two indispensable foundation stones for a great global agreement. Without this, there will be no further outcome, so it is a fundamental step along the way.
The second of the great achievements we have had along the way concerns forests. Australia has put reforestation and the ending of deforestation on the international scene in a way that no other developed country has. We put together the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. We put together the $200 million deposit, which is Australia’s initial contribution. We announced on the weekend a $100 million overall partnership, of which we are initially putting in $30 million aimed at working towards 700 million tonnes of CO capture and abatement of CO emissions in Kalimantan on the island of Borneo, Indonesia. This one project alone will save more than a year’s worth of Australia’s emissions. It is good for biodiversity in Indonesia, it is good for the communities in Kalimantan and it is fundamental to savings of CO. How many other countries in the world have put together a project that does that. But that pales into insignificance compared with the declaration about reforestation contained within the Sydney declaration—1.4 billion tonnes of carbon, over five billion tonnes of CO.
When you look at the difference between the two sides, what you see is a failure to even raise the issue with President Bush, a failure to speak up on the destruction of the rainforest and all of the CO that comes from that—eight billion tonnes a year or six billion tonnes net—compared with leading the world and laying one of the foundation stones in relation to the Sydney declaration, which is a precursor to a great global agreement; the most profound and significant action in preserving rainforest in Kalimantan; and, leading and putting together a global initiative on forests and climate that will be the precursor to saving up to half of the world’s three billion tonnes a year of CO. For those reasons we are proud of our record. (Time expired)
34
16:31:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
0
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I am very pleased to support the matter of public importance introduced by the member for Kingsford Smith. I recognise the government’s failure over 11 years to take genuine action to address climate change. Federal Labor has repeatedly called for this government to take climate change seriously and to show leadership in the fight against global warming. Yet, after 11 years, it is clear that this government has failed to get the message. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that this government either does not believe in climate change or does not see it as being important at all. There is growing evidence that the Liberal Party as a whole does not see this issue as being important or does not believe in it at all, a fact that was demonstrated several weeks ago when we saw the dissenting report from some of the Liberal backbenchers disputing whether or not climate change was an important issue. And it is a fact that I again had a chance to see in my local area just last week.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—Do you think Mr Rudd should have raised it with Bush?
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The parliamentary secretary had his opportunity to speak.
DZU
Ellis, Kate, MP
Ms KATE ELLIS
—A local debate was organised last week so that residents of my electorate could come out to hear what their candidates thought about climate change and what they propose government should be doing to address it. I, the Greens and the Democrats attended the debate. It was interesting—and further evidence that apparently this is not important to many members of the Liberal Party—that not only did the Liberal candidate not attend the debate but also apparently they could not find anyone in the South Australian Liberal Party to attend in her place. Not only did we not have any South Australian federal Liberal members, we did not have any South Australian federal Liberal candidates. Instead, they decided to fly across the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to represent the Liberal Party at this local debate in the electorate of Adelaide. From this we can deduce that they have decided to pull out the big guns—although I do not think that is likely to be the case; I think they had a hard time finding anyone from the South Australian Liberal Party who cared enough about climate change to come and tell the constituents from Adelaide what they proposed to do about it.
This is yet another example that this government and the Liberal Party do not see climate change as important. In contrast, climate change is the biggest environmental, economic and moral issue of our time. This is something that we have argued again and again within this place. Federal Labor has a concrete plan to tackle climate change at a number of levels—at the international, national and local community levels. It is only under a Rudd Labor government that Australia will be able to make the impact that is required to make a real difference.
On many occasions in this parliament, I have expressed my dismay at this government’s lack of action and I have outlined a number of measures where they have missed opportunities to address this crucial issue. Today I do not propose to do that again. Instead I would like to outline our alternative—our policies to address climate change at the international, national and local levels. At an international level, most importantly, Labor is committing to immediately ratifying the Kyoto protocol. The world already has a functioning carbon trading scheme in place and Australia has been left behind. We would rectify this. Also, Labor has plans when it comes to aid expenditure. Federal Labor is committed to working with Australia’s neighbours to develop and implement climate change adaptation plans to minimise the impacts on our region. This will include an increase in aid expenditure of $150 million over three years to fund initiatives in our region. At a national level we have plans for carbon emission targets, for substantially increasing the mandatory renewable energy target and for introducing an emissions trading scheme. We have announced our $500 million green car partnership and we have made a number of announcements about clean coal initiatives. We have also made announcements on energy efficiencies.
At a local level the Labor Party has committed to helping households by providing 200,000 homeowners with low interest loans of up to $10,000 to install a range of energy and water efficiency measures themselves. The member for Kingsford Smith was with me in Adelaide when we made announcements about solar homes and plans to make Australian homes go solar. We have a plan on this side of the House. (Time expired)
36
16:36:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
1
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of pubic importance on climate change. I note the point made very well by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Leader of the Opposition, when speaking with the President of the United States, somehow forgot—or did not have the courage—to raise the issue of climate change. I think it is the latter: he did not have the courage. He does not have what it takes to lead this country. When you look at the opposition strategy on climate change, you have to ask: is it a strategy based on science? I think not. Is it a strategy based on what is good for this country? I think not. Is it a strategy based on what is good for the environment? I think not. It is a strategy based on what is good for the Leader of the Opposition. It is a strategy based on what Hawker Brittontells him. ‘It is environment day today,’ says Hawker Britton, so out comes the puppet—the Leader of the Opposition—with the union leaders pulling the strings, mouthing the words on climate change. It is climate change on Monday and it is something else on Tuesday. On Wednesday it is probably productivity again, although we know he is pretty weak on productivity. It is pretty clear that he is as weak on climate change as he is on productivity growth, because any leader worth their salt, given the opportunity to raise an issue that is of real importance to them—and not just an issue that is being masqueraded as of importance—has a responsibility to discuss that issue. The Leader of the Opposition did not. He failed the test. He has failed the sincerity test. He has shown what we all know—that he is nothing but a facade. He is a cardboard cut-out. He does not have the gumption to represent this country on the world stage and he has proved it.
We have heard again and again from the Labor Party in the brief time since the APEC summit that the arrangement that was arrived at was somehow a non-event. We have an agreement which was signed by 21 countries—representing some three billion consumers, 40 per cent of the world population and more than 50 per cent of global GDP—and the agreement entered into by that forum is somehow a nonevent!
Clearly it shows how unready they are to govern when they do not understand the simple fact that major world agreements evolve—you move in regular, perhaps sometimes small, steps. This is not a small step but a large step. It is in fact a historic agreement of some 21 countries and locks in aspirational global goals for emissions reductions. The Sydney declaration is the first time that major economies such as China, the United States and the Russian Federation have agreed to specific APEC-wide aspirational goals, which will focus on a number of things. Firstly, they will focus on a reduction in energy intensity of some 25 per cent. That is something we do not hear about from the opposition. We do not hear that, when we talk about climate change and the emission of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, it is not just an emissions argument; it is very much an energy consumption argument. If we cut our energy consumption and if we increase our energy efficiency, as a result of that we reduce our emissions of CO.
We have the Australian Labor Party under the leadership of that well-known and weak puppet, the Leader of the Opposition, going around chortling on about CO emissions. But as important as the issue of CO emissions is the issue of energy efficiency. This government has taken the lead on energy efficiency. This government has taken the lead in relation to incandescent lighting to reduce our demands on energy. We do not hear the Leader of the Opposition calling on Australians to change the way they behave to save the planet; he is merely chortling on about a simplistic and populist line dictated to him by Hawker Britton in the weak way he does. He is saying: ‘We’re going to reduce our CO consumption. We’re not really going to tell you the way that it is going to be done, but we’re going to speak the populist line, because that’s what I’m instructed to do by my media minders. I just speak the words, but I’m not willing to put in place the sorts of policies’—as this government has done—‘that will put Australia on the road to reducing its CO emissions, further improving its position in relation to greenhouse emission.’ The APEC declaration was a very important declaration. It was a landmark event. The Leader of the Opposition has been left trailing in our wake. (Time expired)
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (WELFARE PAYMENT REFORM) BILL 2007
37
Bills
R2852
NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE BILL 2007
37
Bills
R2850
FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2007
37
Bills
R2851
APPROPRIATION (NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE) BILL (NO. 1) 2007-2008
37
Bills
R2849
APPROPRIATION (NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE) BILL (NO. 2) 2007-2008
37
Bills
R2848
WATER BILL 2007
37
Bills
R2856
WATER (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2007
37
Bills
R2854
APEC PUBLIC HOLIDAY BILL 2007
37
Bills
R2847
Returned from the Senate
37
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
COMMITTEES
37
Committees
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee
37
Membership
37
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—I inform the House that Senator Fifield has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
Intelligence and Security Committee
37
Membership
37
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—I inform the House that Senator Sandy Macdonald has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT (CITIZENSHIP TESTING) BILL 2007
37
Bills
R2748
Consideration of Senate Message
37
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting.
APPROPRIATION (NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE) BILL (NO. 1) 2007-2008
37
Bills
R2849
APPROPRIATION (NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE) BILL (NO. 2) 2007-2008
37
Bills
R2848
FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2007
37
Bills
R2851
NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE BILL 2007
38
Bills
R2850
SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (WELFARE PAYMENT REFORM) BILL 2007
38
Bills
R2852
AVIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2007 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2007
38
Bills
R2831
CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT (INSOLVENCY) BILL 2007
38
Bills
R2808
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2007
38
Bills
R2782
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS (NOTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT) AMENDMENT (COSMETICS) BILL 2007
38
Bills
R2814
NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (NATIONAL HPV VACCINATION PROGRAM REGISTER) BILL 2007
38
Bills
R2824
WATER BILL 2007
38
Bills
R2856
WATER (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2007
38
Bills
R2854
APEC PUBLIC HOLIDAY BILL 2007
38
Bills
R2847
INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2007
38
Bills
R2866
Assent
38
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
THERAPEUTIC GOODS AMENDMENT BILL 2007
38
Bills
R2832
Report from Main Committee
38
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
38
Mr PEARCE
(Aston
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)
16:44:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2007
38
Bills
R2819
Report from Main Committee
38
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
38
Mr PEARCE
(Aston
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)
16:45:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT (OHS) BILL 2007
38
Bills
R2738
Report from Main Committee
38
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
38
Mr PEARCE
(Aston
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)
16:46:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CHILD DISABILITY ASSISTANCE) BILL 2007
39
Bills
R2864
SYDNEY HARBOUR FEDERATION TRUST AMENDMENT BILL 2007
39
Bills
R2869
FINANCIAL SECTOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DISCRETIONARY MUTUAL FUNDS AND DIRECT OFFSHORE FOREIGN INSURERS) BILL 2007
39
Bills
R2827
CORPORATIONS (NATIONAL GUARANTEE FUND LEVIES) AMENDMENT BILL 2007
39
Bills
R2826
FINANCIAL SECTOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SIMPLIFYING REGULATION AND REVIEW) BILL 2007
39
Bills
R2839
SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
39
Bills
R2821
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION AMENDMENT (QUARANTINE INSPECTION AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2007
39
Bills
S581
Referred to Main Committee
39
Mr BARTLETT
(Macquarie)
16:47:00
—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
CONDOLENCES
39
Condolences
Mr Harold Weir
39
39
16:48:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
0
0
Mr ADAMS
—As joint chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library, I wish to offer my condolences on the passing of Mr Harold Weir. I rise to give my thanks for the very significant contribution made to the Parliamentary Library by Mr Weir. Mr Weir first joined the library in 1968, taking up the position of Director of Education and Welfare. He was one of the first four appointments to the Legislative Research Service, which is now the Research Branch of the Parliamentary Library. While director he took a leading role in the formation of subject groups within the research service, a model which continues to enable the library to efficiently deliver its services. With the then Parliamentary Librarian, Allan Fleming, he planned the formation of research groups, each with an initial staff of four subject specialists. This development in the late sixties and early seventies significantly expanded the subject breadth and expertise available from the library. As a research service director, Harold Weir was instrumental in establishing the standards for quality, objectivity, impartiality and relevance that were of critical value to the LRS in establishing its standing and reputation amongst senators and members, some of whom were wary of the research service when it was first established.
Mr Weir then left the library to work with Mr Justice Muirhead in planning and setting up the Australian Institute of Criminology and then establishing the social work course at the Churchill campus of the then Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education. In 1970 he returned to the Parliamentary Library as Deputy Parliamentary Librarian. During this time he initiated the Bills Digest Service, which continues to this day to be a highly valued service for senators and members and their staff.
In 1978 Mr Weir succeeded Les Moore as Parliamentary Librarian, immediately taking up the issue of organisational development. He believed that the three departments serving the parliament—the Parliamentary Library, Hansard and Joint House—should be formed into one department. He persuaded the presiding officers and other department heads to jointly commission a firm of consultants, Urwick International, to investigate and report on such a development. The Urwick proposal was not adopted and the parliament waited another 25 years before creating the Department of Parliamentary Services.
Harold Weir’s foresight bore immediate fruit when he established a full-time position devoted to what we now call information technology. For example, he saw the need to preserve the tapes used at the Government Printing Office to produce the printed Hansard, and years later these tapes helped in developing the online Hansard. He also introduced word processors and, during his time, the Law and Government Group gained access to the SCALE legal database of the Attorney-General’s Department and the Statistics Group gained access to CSIRONET.
Harold Weir’s interest in IT is illustrated by his leadership in planning the information systems that were to be used in the new Parliament House. A British firm of consultants, Logica, was engaged to provide a detailed plan, and Harold Weir set up a steering committee of departmental representatives, chaired by his Deputy Parliamentary Librarian. The steering committee was given technical support by a small group of parliamentary staff with IT expertise, led by the Library’s IT specialist.
Harold Weir strengthened the capacity of the research service to provide government information to senators and members in confidence by building close ties between the research specialists and their senior counterparts in government departments. He chaired briefing sessions at which senior government officials described their role to appropriate library staff.
A sudden major health crisis brought Harold Weir’s term as Parliamentary Librarian to a premature end in 1982. His legacy included a stronger and widely respected research service, the continuing commitment to embrace cutting edge information technology, and an awareness of the need to constantly improve the range and quality of the information and research services provided to senators and members. I extend my condolences to the family of Harold Weir.
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—On behalf of members of the House, I associate the House with the remarks of the member for Lyons, recognising the service of Harold Weir, and pass on the House’s condolences to Mr Weir’s family and friends.
COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT (DEMOCRATIC PLEBISCITES) BILL 2007
40
Bills
R2868
Second Reading
40
Debate resumed from 16 August, on motion by Mr Nairn:
That this bill be now read a second time.
40
16:54:00
McMullan, Bob, MP
5I4
Fraser
ALP
0
0
Mr McMULLAN
—Can I commence by associating myself with the remarks of condolence made by the member for Lyons and by you, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, on the passing of Harold Weir. The federal opposition support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. I will be moving a second reading amendment somewhat later in this speech. We broadly support the bill because we have been supporting the principle for months that the people of Queensland should be consulted before decisions are made about the amalgamation of local councils. The Leader of the Opposition and other Labor Party members have made it clear that we believe in the importance of communities and the importance of local government in representing communities, and we believe in local voices being heard and local choice being made.
We have consistently argued that local communities should be consulted. The origin of this bill is a very interesting phenomenon and is part of a series of instances of enthusiasm for confrontation with the states which have coincidentally emerged after Crosby Textor gave a research briefing to the government that their best chance of rescuing their electoral fortunes was to do battle with the states. That was on 21 July. Since that time, we have seen a series of confrontations. But well before that—before any Crosby Textor briefing, before any government-proposed legislation, before the Prime Minister or the minister for local government had said anything about these things—the Leader of the Opposition consistently supported local democracy. At a doorstop interview on 17 May—almost four months ago—the Leader of the Opposition said that ‘local voice and local choice is critical when it comes to the future of local government in Queensland and in the rest of Australia’. On 17 May, the Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, said:
... if there’s any proposal for an amalgamation ... it should be tested by the local people through a referendum.
That was on 17 May. You could not have a clearer commitment than that. It was a demonstration of leadership at that time, something about which the Prime Minister and responsible Howard government ministers were silent. But, three months later, in the hope of finding electoral advantage, they have come forward with this piece of legislation. We indicated from the start that we would be supporting this bill because it reflects the position that we have held for over three months. The government have done a backflip and taken the position which we have held for over three months.
We believe that the local community should be consulted before the whole structure of local government in Queensland is changed. Decisions about the fundamental structure of government are important questions for community participation. We cannot make every public policy decision. We have to have the capacity to make hard decisions in the national interest that in the short term might be unpopular. But the decisions that go to fundamental questions of the structure of government such as local government amalgamation are ones where the facilitation of a local vote is desirable. I do not think we are always in all circumstances going to need it done by the Australian Electoral Commission and, as a result, federal legislation. Nevertheless, it is a thing that ought, as a matter of principle, be adopted if we are to go through with compulsory amalgamations.
When you look at the fundamentals of this question of the role of local government in our Constitution and our federation, the Prime Minister’s approach over the years when he was a senior member of the Liberal Party and a former Leader of the Opposition has reflected the most profound double standards. The interest in local government is belated and opportunistic. When the Leader of the Opposition was out there arguing for a vote for people in Queensland, the Prime Minister was silent. When former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett was proposing amalgamation of councils in Victoria, the Prime Minister—the then Leader of the Opposition and, at some point, senior opposition frontbench member—was silent. The Prime Minister only entered the debate in Queensland after Crosby Textor reported that it was necessary—after Crosby Textor said, ‘Political confrontation with the states is a key to the political survival of the government.’ If the Prime Minister believed in local democracy and the legitimate role of local government in our federation, he would support constitutional recognition for local government. In 1988, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, campaigned against a referendum put forward by the ALP to recognise local government in the Constitution.
The then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, outlining the no case on local government said, ‘We oppose the third question’—that is, the question for constitutional recognition of local government—‘because it is only right and proper that local government, having been created by the states, be entrenched in and protected by the constitutions of the states and not the Constitution of the Commonwealth.’ He said that his opposition to recognition was based on ‘a strongly held view that it will distort the natural order and constitutional balance of our federal structure’. He asked the audience—and this is very interesting in the light of this legislation: ‘Do you really want a constitutional clause that might allow a massive Canberra meddling in local affairs?’ Golly! And then he went on to say that recognition ‘might allow future federal governments to intervene in local affairs’. Well, wouldn’t that be terrible! What a stunning example of double standards.
Government members interjecting—
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMULLAN
—We were supporting that; you were opposing it. You are showing the double standards. We, in 1988, were advocating this federal role.
Government members interjecting—
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMULLAN
—We are supporting the bill but we are pointing out the monumental double standards of the Prime Minister—but apparently not of the member for Moreton, who indicated that he had the good wisdom to oppose at that time the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister. That was a very wise choice. No comment about current circumstances will be entered into. It was a wise choice then, I say to the member for Moreton.
In October last year the Labor Party moved an amendment to a motion in the parliament to call for recognition in the Constitution of local government. The Prime Minister again opposed it and the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads opposed it. Now we are supposed to believe that the government has an open mind on that question; it has had a closed mind on it for 20 years.
What we are concerned about here is not this piece of legislation, which simply reflects a position that the Labor Party have had for three months. We are concerned about how we can use this belated recognition as a vehicle for advancing the broader interests of local government in our federation. The current Prime Minister does not believe in the significant role of local government; he has campaigned against it in the past. His intervention in this dispute is simply a reflection of the pollster’s advice that his best bet for staying in power is to capitalise on voter discontent with state governments. In matters like this you need a principled, clear, consistent position.
I am very proud to say that my party has had a long history of supporting local government. In 1974 and 1988 federal Labor sought constitutional recognition of local government. On both occasions the now Prime Minister was a candidate at those elections. On both occasions there was a referendum. In 1974 it was in conjunction with an election, and in 1988, when Mr Howard was Leader of the Opposition, there was a separate referendum. On both occasions the coalition refused to provide the bipartisan support necessary, and the referendum on each occasion failed.
Two weeks ago my colleague the shadow minister for local government, Senator Lundy, confirmed that an incoming Rudd Labor government would move to recognise local government in the Constitution. Constitutional recognition will redefine the relationship between Commonwealth, state and local governments and guarantee that communities have an effective local voice in decision making. We followed up on that announcement by indicating, at the Local Government Association of Queensland’s annual conference, that an incoming Labor government if elected would, in its first term of office, establish a council of Australian local governments. The reason for this is to make the voice of local government more effective at COAG.
There is an Australian Local Government Association representative on the Council of Australian Governments. The current one is an effective representative and, as far as I know, his predecessors have been as well. I do not directly have evidence in regard to that, but as far as I know they have been. However, they do not come with the same brief and capacity to act on behalf of the people that they represent as do the state premiers and chief ministers. That cannot be totally overcome—the character of local government is so fundamentally different to the character of state and territory governments. But we hope, through this proposed council of Australian local governments, to move a substantial way in that direction by having the person who represents local government at COAG go forward with clear backing from a representative group of local governments—not just the Local Government Association but also the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors and other similar local government bodies—to take their input into COAG and also to use the proposed council, set parallel to COAG, as a vehicle for getting local government views effectively into the federal government.
Our support for constitutional recognition and for the establishment of a council of Australian local governments shows a fundamental commitment to local government and to the idea of cooperative federalism. The government, by contrast, has been tricky and opportunistic, seeking to exploit the short-term difficulties that local government is facing, after totally ignoring this issue for 11 years. I will be moving a second reading amendment at the conclusion of this speech to deal with this question of the constitutional recognition of local government, as well as another matter.
We support this bill for the reasons that I have outlined. I now would like to talk about some of the practical problems with it that I hope the minister might be able to address in summing up the second reading debate. The bill shows signs of having been drafted in haste and certainly without the consultation that we would usually expect on what is a reasonably substantial measure. This was confirmed at the hearings of a Senate committee in Cairns when officials confirmed that drafting instructions were given to the Department of Finance and Administration only on the Thursday before the bill was introduced to the parliament. Officials were unable to point to any consultation with any state or local government bodies or even with the federal department responsible for local government. Witnesses at the committee hearings in Queensland expressed puzzlement at the mechanics of how plebiscites were to be constructed and put to the people of Queensland. For example, we have not yet heard the minister explain whether plebiscites will cover the existing local government boundaries, the proposed new boundaries or communities with an interest in the outcome of the local government changes.
Some interested members would be aware that, for example, in its submission to the Queensland Local Government Commission the Noosa Shire expressed a preference for remaining independent not on its present boundaries but on the expansion of its boundaries to include adjacent communities like Eumundi, Doonan, Verrierdale, Weyba Downs and Perigian Springs. The commission recommended that Noosa Council be amalgamated with Maroochy and Caloundra councils. We are interested in knowing how plebiscites will be conducted in these circumstances. If the Noosa Council seeks a plebiscite on the question of amalgamation, will the people of Maroochydore and Caloundra also have the opportunity to express a view on the plebiscite or not? What is the structure? Who makes the request? Who votes? It is all terribly unclear. You get the vague feeling it might have been rushed a bit. We need to know how these plebiscites are going to work; that is, if they are ever going to be conducted. There are many outstanding questions. Who will decide that the questions have been framed clearly? In terms of a plebiscite or referendum that goes through this parliament, the law is very clear about how the question is determined and how the ‘yes and no’ case is communicated to potential voters. There is a structure. What is the structure for this?
In evidence to the committee in Cairns last week, witnesses from the Electoral Commission were not able to offer much clarity on these questions or point to a process by which they would be resolved. In addressing the question of how the plebiscites would be conducted, AEC witnesses said, ‘There are all sorts of other issues of confusion: boundary differences, voting differences, different ballot papers, higher informality possibilities,’ in holding an attendance ballot in conjunction with the federal election. The witness pointed out that even the simpler option of postal ballots would require perhaps 2½ million envelopes that the AEC does not currently have. The AEC was able to say, however, that with all the uncertainties to be sorted out any early plebiscite was ‘out of the question’. In a summary of their remarks by the minority report to the Senate committee, arrangements for the conduct of plebiscites on local government amalgamations in Queensland have not been determined by the Australian Electoral Commission. In relation to the timing of the plebiscites the minority report noted evidence from the AEC that:
We would be very reluctant to tie up considerable AEC resources in the next few weeks given that it is quite possible that the Prime Minister may call the election after APEC.
And:
We are not even considering the possibility of having an attendance ballot in conjunction with the federal poll.
With that sort of evidence before us we would be very interested to hear from the minister who, I am sure, must have thought all these things through. He would not bring in a piece of legislation without fully understanding all its implications. What are the answers to those questions? The officials before the Senate committee could not provide the answers. It is not a criticism of the officials. They are diligent public officers giving honest answers to questions put to them before a parliamentary committee. The reason they could not give the answers is that at the moment the information, I assume, does not exist. But the minister must know, and we would be interested to hear the answer.
Neither the minister nor the government seems to have any clear idea about how the bill will work, because they are not seriously in support of the matter; it is simply confection for a short-term political purpose. The government has run out of ideas. It is no longer governing but concocting stunts to try and exploit divisions in the community for short-term electoral advantage. But this particular stunt is one that has, as I say, landed the government in a position in which, since May, we have been consistently calling for people to have a voice on Queensland council amalgamations. So we are supporting this bill because we support local democracy, notwithstanding our reservations about the lack of detail in the bill and the government’s motivation in putting it forward.
I want to go on to the other matter that is reflected in the amendment which I will move. If the Howard government wants to call plebiscites, let us have a plebiscite on another issue that will shape local communities—which is the question of the location of nuclear power plants and nuclear waste facilities that the Howard government wants to impose on the Australian community. The second reading amendment will go to exactly those questions. I also seek the minister’s response to some constitutional concerns that were raised before the committee by Professor Carney and Associate Professor Orr. No advice was given to the committee in response to these concerns. I personally do not believe there is a constitutional problem with this legislation. That is my assessment. But, serious people having raised serious concerns, the parliament is entitled to an answer. I hope the minister, in his response to the second reading debate, will provide it, although my personal view is that there is constitutional power and there is not a constitutional problem. But the House is entitled to have the minister’s response to serious matters that were raised before that Senate committee. The matter was also raised by the Senate committee, and I think the House is entitled to have a serious answer to it.
I refer now to another question about this legislation: the long-term implications of an initiative which, if allowed to run free, might cause us to wind up having plebiscites across a plethora of issues around difficult public policy questions. The House, the government, my side of politics, the parliament overall and the community should reflect soberly on the question of the use of plebiscites to resolve all manner of issues. That is not to say I am against any, but the Leader of the Opposition in his remarks on this has been very careful. I quote one occasion when, in my view, he said it most clearly:
The underlying principle is this: this is a structure of government question. There’s Commonwealth Government, there’s State Government, this goes to the whole structure of local government in Queensland. And my view, pretty basic view, is that local communities should be consulted.
I think we have here a broad question that goes to how we are governed, and it is therefore one on which a plebiscite has more standing. But to take this as a vehicle for advocating a plethora of plebiscites about every issue is, I think, endangering some fundamental strengths of our Westminster system of government. The Leader of the Opposition also said on another occasion:
... when it comes to this particular set of measures in Queensland which go to the structure of government, the structure of government, not the individual policy decisions of a government, but the structure of a government itself, I believe you cross a threshold where local people should be consulted.
He went on to say:
When it comes to the structure of government … and you are seeking to re-engineer the entire structure of government, I think there are more fundamental democratic processes which should be engaged.
I am comfortable with that. That is something I am happy to support and have advocated.
The special circumstances—the one-off, extraordinary circumstances—relating to nuc-lear power stations and nuclear waste raise questions that are not ordinary public policy questions. But let us not move down the path of favouring government by plebiscite. One of the great benefits of the West-minster system is that it gives executive gov-ernment the capacity to take hard decis-ions. There is no capacity to plan long-term and to take hard decisions if other tiers of government are going to pick the eyes out of those hard decisions, as has been the case with the Mersey hospital, or if we are going to wind up with government by plebiscite, where hard decisions are shirked in a ‘not in my backyard’ atmosphere because there might be a short-term political advantage for one side or the other over time. I think both sides of politics and the Australian nation will be poorly served if we go too far down the path of government by plebiscite. But the fundamental questions about the structure of government, such as how we change our Constitution, are matters on which it is appropriate for there to be an individual citizen’s right to vote and express a view.
I want to conclude by saying that, while I support this legislation and I support the right of people to have a say on these fundamental structural issues, we should not back away from the view that we do need to gain some efficiencies in the manner of delivery of government services and, in this in-stance, local government services in Queens-land. But there are ways to get them other than by compulsory amalgamation without giving people the right to vote on the outcome.
This is a bill conceived out of political opportunism and executed in a rushed and un-satisfactory manner. But, as I said, the backflip the government has undertaken on this matter has landed the government where the opposition has been standing all along since May: in support of local voices and local choices. I therefore move a second read-ing 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 expresses its support:
-
for a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government in recognition of the essential role it plays in the governance of Australia; and
-
for the Australian Labor Party’s belief that steps should also be taken to allow communities to express a view on the location of 25 nuclear power plants and the nuclear waste facilities that the Government wants to impose on the Australian people”.
Subject to the amendment being agreed to, I indicate the opposition’s support for the bill.
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?
83A
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
Ms Livermore
—I second the amendment.
46
17:18:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I was listening very closely to the member for Fraser. I do not mind publicly outing myself and saying that I did vote in 1988 to recognise local government. I also know that our Prime Minister has said on many occasions that one aspect of the Whitlam government agenda he agrees with today is that we need to have a strong and vigorous local government sector, supported by a strong, capable, economically sound national government. The problem in Australia today is the delinquency of the state governments. The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 has been brought into this chamber because of the delinquency of the Beattie-Bligh administration in Queens-land. There has been a failure by that administration to recognise that, as good as the intention might be to achieve greater efficiency by amalgamating local govern-ments through the legislative instruments of state parliament, they are not subject to creation or dissolution at the whim of 15 men and women sitting around a boardroom table in George Street, Brisbane. They should not be subject to a cabinet stamp for change—not without referring the matter to the people.
The timetable that the member for Fraser is complaining about has been set by the Queensland government, who outlawed the seeking of a vote on this. They threatened to sack and dismiss councillors, mayors or shire chairs if they advocated participating in a plebiscite. This legislation is about protecting democracy and ensuring that democracy prevails in Queensland. As the member for Fraser said—and I agree with him—we should never be afraid of hearing local voices on this matter. This is not government by plebiscite; it is giving people an opportunity to speak.
We have at the federal government level reason to support local government like never before. Local governments are our most effective partners when it comes to the creation of roads and infrastructure. I am publicly associating myself with the efforts of the Australian Local Government Association and the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors to achieve better recognition. Frankly, I would be quite happy to move a motion for constitutional recognition of local government, but it has to be at the expense of the state governments, who are failing to pass on to the local government people the financial assistance that we give to them. The state governments hold on to the purse strings. We find that when we give a dollar to local government they do something with it. When we give a dollar to state governments 25 per cent of it is lost in the ether. In the area of vocational education—and I know a little bit about that from my experience in recent years—something like 30c in the dollar is lost. It is not passed on—the creation of a big bureaucracy in a high building in Brisbane is more important than getting results.
There are a lot of excesses in the Queens-land government, and the way in which the Labor Party has permeated all aspects of Queensland life is of grave concern to people. It is right that people are given a chance to speak through the holding of a plebiscite as to whether Premier Beattie or incoming Premier Bligh have actually got it right on these things. People are worried about what is going on. They are worried about level 6 and level 7 water restrictions. Part of the plans includes the seizure of water in people’s water tanks; under level 6 and level 7 water restrictions the state government are going to seize water that has come off the roofs and gone into the tanks, and put it back into general circulation. People are worried that the new Premier in waiting, Anna Bligh, stopped state government schools from being able to participate in the Australian technical colleges program. She said that they would not allow state government students to participate in this federal plan, yet local councils all around Queensland became active partners in the Australian technical colleges program. Be they Redcliffe, Pine Rivers or Caboolture, they were all there. But only one is going to be left standing as a result of what has occurred in Queensland.
People are worried that the Labor Party has even permeated the ranks of the Australian Federal Police in Brisbane. The Australian Federal Police officer in charge of an investigation into three Liberal Party MPs is the estranged wife of a Queensland government cabinet minister, the incoming Deputy Premier, Paul Lucas. His ex-wife is a Labor Party member and she ordered the raids on the offices of the members for Bowman, Bonner and Moreton.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask you to draw the member back to the bill. This has nothing to do with the legislation.
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. The member for Moreton understands that he must be relevant to the question before the chair.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am absolutely relevant because I am illustrating my point that it is important that people not be manipulated by a Labor Party machine that is trying to drive local government out of business in Queensland and put people like Jim Soorley, Terry Mackenroth and their friends in the development community into a more luxurious and comfortable position. Let us call it for what it is. It is as bad as Sharon Cowden, a superintendent in the AFP, being in charge of that particular inquiry that has been so slow to come to any sort of realisation. I am glad that the member for Bonner and I have been cleared of that matter today. It is as bad as that.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon
—Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order.
10000
DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT
—The member for Lingiari will resume his seat. The member for Moreton will be careful that he keeps to the matter before the chair.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I am illustrating my point that former Brisbane Lord Mayor Jim Soorley has been at the heart of this amalgamation, as indeed has former Deputy Premier Terry Mackenroth, the great wheeler and dealer of Queensland. He has got away with it over the years. He has been at the heart of this. They have established a system whereby local government authorities in Queensland being forced into an amalgamation are going to have a collective group of six people: one from each of the two councils involved, one from the state government and three from trade unions, supposedly to look after the rights of the workers. But we know what it is: ‘Sign up to our union or, brother, you will not have a job.’ Jobs are going to be lost. These are the issues that people in Queensland are concerned about, and the member from the Northern Territory can take all the points of order he likes but the fact of the matter is that there is corruption at work in Queensland and it is permeating all aspects of Queensland society. You have a Queensland education minister that will not allow federal members to enter state schools. I cannot go to my old high school, MacGregor State High School, unless I get permission from the Queensland education minister. They are trying to take over the state and turn it into a one-party state. This amalgamation of councils is as much evidence as is needed to prove my point.
As indeed is the way in which outgoing Premier Beattie has wimped it and walked away—walked away from accountability in Queensland. He says that the job is done—’I’m over it’, he says. Well, the people of Queensland are over Peter Beattie. He has decided to sleaze out of office midway through a term and leave it to poor old Anna Bligh, the person who would not allow state government schools in Queensland to be part of the Australian technical colleges program, to fight off the Soorleys, the Mackenroths and the other people who are waiting to inherit the earth once this local government amalgamation goes through.
And why shouldn’t we in this federal parliament say that every day Queenslanders are being badly let down? Why shouldn’t we raise doubts that all wisdom does not preside in Russell Street, South Brisbane or wherever Trades Hall and Labor Party headquarters happen to be today? Why shouldn’t we point out that people are fundamentally disturbed by the fact that these political strings are permeating even through the highest level of law enforcement such as the Australian Federal Police, through the examples I have given today?
This bill is necessary to restore democracy in Queensland. This bill is necessary to ensure that ordinary Queenslanders have a say about who looks after their roads, their rates and their rubbish. Why can’t we in this national parliament stand up for democracy? Why can’t we allow ordinary everyday Queenslanders to have a vote? That is why the amendment to the Australian Electoral Act in this plebiscite bill is just so important.
What does the Labor Party do? It decides to bring on a stunt about nuclear power stations. They are allowed to vary the agenda to suit some cause like that when they know that state governments have the planning authority in this country. All we want in this country is for state governments to do their job. All we want in this country is that, when money is passed through for local governments, state governments actually pass it on and that state governments are actually prepared to allow local governments to do their job. What we do not want is state governments doing as the arrogant Queensland government is doing. I do not care whether it is Peter Beattie or Anna Bligh who is in charge; it is the same set of thieves in the decision-making process. What we do not need is for people to say that Longreach and Aramac should be amalgamated so that one can inherit the other’s debt or that Stanthorpe and Warwick should be amalgamated so that one can inherit the other’s debt. They have no understanding of the fundamental pain that this is causing in those sorts of far-flung rural areas. The member for Maranoa will no doubt outline that far better than I can because he is the local member.
At the end of it all, this is not about greater efficiency for councils; this is more about greater efficiency for those sorts of sleazy deals that the Jim Soorleys and Terry Mackenroths of this world are capable of. They have done them in the past and are capable of doing them again in the future. These are the sorts of things that the Labor Party in Queensland now stand for. This is what the Labor Party in Queensland have now become—a one-party mentality executive government with a massive majority that rides roughshod over the everyday people. They have set up cabinet ministers’ wives to be senior officers in the AFP to try to do over Andrew Laming, Ross Vasta and Gary Hardgrave—the members for Bowman, Bonner and Moreton.
It is right that we should out these things in this place. This place believes in democracy. I reported as a journalist for many years on the Queensland parliament in the dark days, the dying days, of the National Party. I reported on the Queensland parliament in those days and saw where things went wrong when the government got too long in the tooth, too arrogant in their approach and too forgetful of the fact that all of us get our power purely because people vote for us. The only power we have is that which is ceded to us by average Australians. This Queensland government, perhaps partially because of the incompetence of state oppositions, have forgotten that they work for the people, not the other way around.
This bill is about restoring the role of the people in the process; it is about ensuring that those who want to have a say can have a say; it is about ensuring that people are not going to be subjected to the unfair, pro-Labor, partisan, damaging processes such as those the member for Bonner, the member for Bowman and I have been through purely at the whim of some person who happens to be in a position of authority. These sorts of things are happening in Queensland today. The ticket to get ahead in Queensland is the Labor ticket: join the Labor Party and promotion is guaranteed; join the Labor Party and you will become one of those highly paid, high-level bureaucrats who earn an enormous amount of money. Instead of that money going into classrooms, roads and hospitals, it is going to pay for people who produce nothing but have a flash title, a flash car and a flash business card. These are the sorts of things that ordinary Queenslanders are angry about.
The Queensland government have not produced a dam to ensure that we have adequate water; they have not produced a proper road system in south-east Queensland to ensure that we can get around; they have not produced a proper power system in south-east Queensland so that we can be sure the power is there when we want it. Right now they are considering the idea of being able to switch off people’s air conditioners and other appliances in suburban Brisbane when they dare to use them at the height of summer.
The Queensland government want central control of everything. There are only two groups of people in society who are getting in the way of the Queensland government’s plan for total domination of all things in Queensland. One group happens to be the members of the government on this side of the chamber. We have good members of parliament who are standing firm in the corner of the everyday Queenslanders—standing up against the excesses of the state government. In some ways we are a de facto state opposition as well as the government of Australia, because we actually have to stand up to the Queensland government on these issues. And we do stand up to them on these issues. That is why we are sponsoring and supporting the bill before us right now.
The other group getting in the way of the Queensland government’s plan for total domination is the local governments of Queensland—the level of government which, as we all know, is close to where people are. My good, hardworking local councillor Graham Quirk receives calls—heaven forbid!—morning, noon and night. I think his most famous call was at four in the morning, when a bloke on shift work had his water run out. You and I, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, probably would not receive those calls—oh, you have? The member for Fairfax is a very effective local member! I have fixed lots of cracked footpaths, blocked drains, stop signs and other problems as well, so I have a feel for what local government is all about.
But I do say this: the federal government, the Howard government, has sponsored an enormous amount of confidence in local government over the last decade or so by working in partnership on things like Roads to Recovery and the Australian technical colleges program. Local governments have made a difference in various parts of Australia. They have brought the business community together to give the leadership that is wanted. The Australian Labor Party in Queensland is absolutely frightened by the partnership that is enjoyed between the Howard government and local government. The Australian Labor Party in Queensland—whether it is Beattie, Bligh, Lucas or all those other people who want to be Premier—have cut and run. It is not about the title, the flash car and the nice business card. Sorry to rain on their parade, but it is a statement of fact that the people of Queensland are tonight cheesed-off that Peter Beattie has cut and run. They actually want to run a plebiscite on Peter Beattie; that is what they want to do.
We will give them a plebiscite on local government. We will allow everyday Queenslanders to have a determination to work out their own future prospects. We do not need to be told by those in the executive office boardroom in George Street, Brisbane; we want to listen to the people. That is one of the hallmarks of this government: there has been a restoration of a sense of trust. We, as a government, show that we trust people’s judgement. Moreover, we constantly remind ourselves, in the very humbling process that is politics, that our responsibility is to represent and work for the people, not the other way round. I am not in any doubt that the Beattie, Bligh, Lucas government—you name them, they are all there—have got the whole thing back to front. They believe that the people of Queensland work for them. They should be ashamed that it has taken the national parliament to restore a sense of democracy and choice and to actually give voice and protect those who want to sponsor that voice. They should be ashamed that it has come to this.
I do not want to upset the poor old member for Lingiari but he has to understand that people like Sharon Cowden, Paul Lucas, Peter Beattie and others who have been hammering into the member for Bonner, the member for Bowman and I in recent months should be ashamed of themselves—as should the media, who have gone along for the ride. I commend this bill to the House.
51
17:36:00
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
0
0
Mr SNOWDON
—I must say that I am absolutely disappointed by that tirade from the member for Moreton. I can take full well his ability, his want and his need to name and attack politicians in this place, including premiers, deputy premiers, ministers, would-be ministers, would-be premiers and would-be deputy premiers—I do not mind that—but when he is under investigation by the Federal Police and uses this place to attack the bona fides of a Federal Police officer and allege political corruption of that officer, he goes beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. He would not walk outside the chamber and make those allegations. Gutless, lily-livered coward!
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—The member for Lingiari will withdraw that comment. It is unparliamentary.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr SNOWDON
—Which is?
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—‘Coward’.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr SNOWDON
—I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, but people—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The honourable member will address the bill—
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr SNOWDON
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am addressing—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—as the member for Moreton was required to do.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr SNOWDON
—He made these comments about an individual, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have every right to respond to them in this place and I am. I will be very clear: I invite him to go outside of this chamber and make the allegation of political corruption against this officer. This should not be a coward’s castle. We should not be using this place to impugn the integrity of people when they cannot respond in here. It is not appropriate; it is not fair; it is not reasonable; it is not just. But it is what we have come to expect from some members of this government. I say to the member for Moreton: it is no wonder you are under suspicion. It is no wonder that there are investigations into your behaviour and activities.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Lingiari will withdraw that comment.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr SNOWDON
—Which comment?
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Of accusations against a member. That requires a substantive motion.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr SNOWDON
—I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just ask the question: what are the police inquiring into? I think that answers itself.
The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007—and I will come to some of the other statements made by the honourable member in a little while—was introduced as a response to provisions in the Queensland Local Government Act 1993 that would provide for the dissolution of a council if it undertook action for the purpose of holding a poll about local government area abolition. The bill seeks to override the act by providing that any law prohibiting the holding of a plebiscite would be invalid and by offering Commonwealth assistance for plebiscites on local council amalgamations. The Special Minister of State pretends to be the saviour of democracy—the member for Moreton clearly thinks that of himself, but he is the opposite—but the Australian Electoral Commission already has the power to conduct plebiscites on behalf of other bodies, which I would have thought would be properly understood by the government and certainly by those people who put this bill together.
The minister, of course, admitted as much in his second reading speech when he said that the AEC presently conducts plebiscites:
… for trade unions and employer organisations … and for other organisations and some foreign countries.
It is worth noting that the Queensland government has introduced amendments in the Queensland parliament to repeal the provisions banning the holding of plebiscites. On that note, the Parliamentary Library’s Bills Digest is quite instructive because it tells us that the Premier, Mr Beattie, said:
I obviously got that wrong. When it comes to giving people a vote, John Howard and Kevin Rudd got it right and I didn’t.
He then moved to reverse the decision. I would have thought that was game, set and match. It is very appropriate behaviour by the Premier. He took an action which would have prevented people having a plebiscite. He then turned around and admitted he was wrong and moved to amend the legislation to allow for those plebiscites.
It is very important that we understand the reality of that and recognise the purpose of this legislation, which the opposition supports. After all, as the member for Fraser pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, made it very clear in May this year that we supported the idea that people should have a right to express a view about amalgamations of councils. It is in that context that we discuss this legislation. You do not have to be too bright to work out the political context—that is, that the federal government was looking for a diversion. It was looking for a way to create a bit of a wedge within the Queensland body politic to divert attention away from its own inactivity and to garner support over the issue of local government—which, of course, is not a federal government responsibility—to try to take the gloss off support for Labor in Queensland. But what this bill does, and let there be no doubt about it, is highlight the absolute hypocrisy of both this government and its supporters in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia.
I want to particularly advert to the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory and those people in this parliament who represent its interests here and who represent this government in the Northern Territory—that is, the member for Solomon and the CLP senator from the Northern Territory. There is to be local government reform in the Northern Territory. Amalgamations will bring down the number of local government authorities from somewhere in excess of 60 to nine. There has been a great deal of concern expressed in some quarters about these proposals. It should be no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, that, totally consistent with his views expressed in May, the Leader of the Opposition has said that the Labor Party would support the idea of plebiscites for amalgamations in the Northern Territory. In relation to amalgamations in the Northern Territory, I have expressed my concern, especially as a result of discussions I have had across the community, about the impact of the federal government’s intervention in Indigenous communities, what that means for these amalgamations and what it has the potential to do. My view, as expressed publicly, has been to say that they ought to let the whole thing shake out before moving any further on the question of amalgamations.
Nevertheless, it is important that, when people are opposed to an idea, they be able to give expression to that opposition. They should be able to give expression to that opposition, as we know now, through a plebiscite—those plebiscites which this bill purports to support. But as we know, and as was pointed out by the member for Fraser, this is really part of a political exercise rather than a long-term commitment to or support for local government in Queensland or anywhere else in Australia. As the member for Fraser pointed out, the Prime Minister in particular has historically shown his antipathy towards the issue of local government and recognition of it by the federal parliament and in referenda that have been put to the public for decision. The government opposed those proposals in the past.
We have also heard over recent weeks concern from CLP politicians, such as the member for Solomon, that there has been a lack of consultation in relation to local government reform in the Northern Territory. The member for Solomon made the following comments just over a week ago, on 3 September:
I can’t understand why the Martin government thinks it doesn’t have to ask the people how they want their local governments to be reformed.
… … …
The Martin government is acting like a petty dictator on this matter and needs to recognise that people have a right to have a say in local government reform.
This is ‘a slap in the face to local democracy’, said the member for Solomon. Of course, when it comes to interference in the Northern Territory by the federal government, when it comes to the federal government overriding the laws of the Northern Territory, there is no such defence of the rights of Northern Territory citizens to have a vote, a plebiscite, on the overriding of their rights and the rights of their legislative assembly by this parliament. We do not hear the member for Solomon coming to the defence of the Northern Territory community and calling the federal government’s actions ‘a slap in the face to local democracy’. We do not hear him say anything about that. That is clearly where the hypocrisy lies.
An apt demonstration of that is the failure of the CLP to support the idea that there should be plebiscites to determine whether or not people in the Northern Territory would support the imposition of nuclear waste dumps on the Northern Territory, as is proposed by the government here in Canberra. Three sites have been arbitrarily chosen across the Northern Territory: one at Fisher’s Ridge, south of Katherine; one at Harts Range, north-east of Alice Springs; and one at Mount Everard, to the north-west of Alice Springs. These three sites were chosen arbitrarily by the government. The Northern Territory is told, ‘Forget whatever you think; we’re going to choose a site and one of these three will be it, regardless of what you think, regardless of what you say, regardless of what your parliament thinks, regardless of what your citizens think.’ And the member for Solomon talks about ‘a slap in the face to local democracy’! He was quite happy to sit in this chamber and see the federal government introduce laws which override the rights and interests of the parliament of the Northern Territory, the legislative assembly, and the rights and interests of residents of the Northern Territory and which absolutely deny them any capacity for input into this decision.
I also remind the House of a comment which was made by the Prime Minister when referring to the issue of local government in Queensland:
It should be remembered that the Government is not expressing a view as to whether or not an individual merger should occur.
Rather, the Commonwealth believes that people should have the right to express a view on the actions of a government without threat of penalty.
There are two aspects to that. Firstly, there is the penalty. I agree; there should be no threat of a penalty when people want to express a view, but people should have the right to express a view on the actions of a government. I know we do not support citizen initiated referenda in Australia but you cannot, on the one hand, argue that people in the third tier of government—local government—should have the right to determine, make decisions, reflect the views of citizens or have a plebiscite with regard to matters to do with local government and yet, on the other hand, deny people in the second tier of government—states and territories—the right to have a say when the federal government proposes to impose changes upon the way in which the land for which they are responsible is being administered. It is absolutely inconsistent and the hypocrisy should be evident to all of us.
Of course, we are all aware of the schizophrenia that exists on the government benches. They can say one thing one day and an entirely different thing the next day. It does not matter to them; it does not worry them. They can say one thing to one group of people and the opposite thing to another group of people, as they are doing here. It does not worry them. They can say to the Northern Territory community, ‘You have no right to have a say in whether nuclear waste facilities are in your backyard, but we will make sure you have a right to say whether or not there should be local government reform.’ There is an absolute inconsistency there.
I speak up for the people of the Northern Territory, and I know that they argue vociferously that they ought to have the right and the responsibility to have their voice heard. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to make sure we hear that voice. But there has been no mechanism for them to have their voice heard in relation to these nuclear waste facilities, which have been imposed arbitrarily, simply because the government said it could and it would—and it did, with not so much as a ‘by your leave’. The cant we hear in this place from the member for Moreton about engagement with the local community ought to be seen for what it is.
When we see the member for Solomon get up on his scrapers in this place and try to defend the actions of the federal government in overriding the rights and interests of the people of the Northern Territory in any number of ways over the last few years, we remember one thing: he does not represent their interests and he does not speak on their behalf, because he seeks to deny them the right to have a voice. That is despicable. He has denied them the right to have this voice in relation to nuclear waste facilities, and no doubt, when the time comes, he will take every opportunity to deny them their right to have a say about whether a nuclear power plant is built in the Northern Territory.
I am someone who believes in the fundamentals of democracy. I am someone who believes that, if you are going to change things structurally and people are opposed to it, you should seek their views. I am someone who believes that, if you are going to interfere in the way in which a place is governed, if you are going to override their laws, then as a matter of conscience, a matter of justice, a matter of fairness and a matter of democracy you must talk to them and ask them: what is your view? You must give them the opportunity to express a view either indirectly through their government, as in the case of the Northern Territory government, or directly through a plebiscite. I have to say that, in the Northern Territory, that has just not happened. We will be debating in this place in the next day or so other bills about alcohol. This parliament is seeking to override the capacity of the Northern Territory government to make laws about alcohol. There is no attempt to have a plebiscite of the Northern Territory community to see whether they think this is a good idea—there is no attempt at all.
This is a very serious matter. Whilst I have strong views—in fact, I think the local government reforms in the Northern Territory by and large are good—I know there are people, particularly people who live on the outskirts of Darwin or across the harbour on the Cox Peninsula, who have grave reservations and I say they have a right to have their voice heard if they want to have their voice heard. If they express a desire to have their opinion gauged through a plebiscite then that should happen. It is very important that that does happen.
The member for Moreton in his diatribe about the wickedness of the Beattie government and all that it entails talked about the fact that he was required to get permission from the education department to visit schools in his electorate. Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, you are a person of some sophistication and awareness. You know about the Northern Territory and you are aware that there was a CLP administration in the Northern Territory for 24 years. Even when I asked permission they would not give it to me. I was excluded by the CLP government from visiting schools in my electorate in the Northern Territory. I asked permission and often permission was denied. Just recently, whilst I was on Christmas Island, I asked permission to visit the new detention facility there. The minister for immigration denied me the right to visit. (Time expired)
55
17:56:00
Laming, Andrew, MP
E0H
Bowman
LP
1
0
Mr LAMING
—In defending and supporting the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 today I also support the work of local government authorities around my state of Queensland and in particular in south-east Queensland. I wish to shed some light on the conduct of the Beattie government over the past month and in particular focus on their refusal to consult with ordinary Queenslanders about their intentions to reform local government areas, their intentions to punish those who chose to express a view, particularly councillors themselves—elected members of local councils—and of course their use of a hand-picked team to give them the answers that they had already determined they wanted prior to this reform commission being put together.
I will respond to the two speakers from the other side of the chamber who have preceded me. There were charges laid that this is political opportunism, that there was rushed implementation, that this bill is merely a diversion and that it is in some way hypocritical or inconsistent with the way the federal government deals with states. I want to address those straightaway because they really are not terribly strong reasons for not supporting this bill. They are not consistent whatsoever. We need to remember in the end that there has been support for this bill from the other side. I will go into those reasons later.
The accusation of political opportunism in this bill needs to be looked at in the context that the councils themselves had very little say in this. The opportunism was merely initially the Queensland state government acting very quickly and without consultation and not raising the issue of amalgamation at the last state election. The accusation of rushed implementation by the government is in fact a reaction to the rate of progress by the Beattie government itself. I want to highlight a number of dates. The first is 10 August, when the Local Government Reform Implementation Act 2007 was proposed with section 159ZY, which had 15 penalty points for any council or councillor who chose to speak against the idea of amalgamation. Twelve days later that act was repealed, as has been pointed out by opposition speakers. In that 12-day period there was really only one significant public policy event and that of course was the initiation of this bill on 16 August. So let us not talk about opportunism here or rushed implementation. It was the only way that the Beattie government could be stopped. The time line was set not by this government but by the Beattie government in their allowing, from 1 September, only 30 days of consultation prior to this train being set in motion.
The third criticism, of diversion, is simply spurious. Even before the process began, we knew that there would be no say, apart from submission of forms. There were up to 47,000 submissions made to this group, of which only a handful—a few thousand—were actually considered, because the rest of them were deemed to be form letters. What we do know from phone polls, though, is that 90 per cent of people in Stanthorpe, for instance, wanted the Constitution to protect their right to a referendum and 88 per cent of them said that they opposed amalgamation. They are the figures from one jurisdiction.
I come from the Redland shire. I regard the Redland shire as the luckiest council jurisdiction in Queensland to have escaped merger and amalgamation. They did it for a number of reasons. As I mentioned in my own submission, there were not good geographic connections between neighbouring councils, there was a large green zone and there was a lack of public transport to other local jurisdictions with which we could well have been merged. Redland Shire Council was lucky. With it, there was an enormous amount of community and local relief. It meant that that particular part of Queensland was safe.
There are a large number of other council jurisdic-tions. I do not for a moment say that all of them should have remained as they were. I am not saying that all of them were financially viable or that every single council jurisdiction need necessarily be defended; nor do I say, in response to the member for Lingiari, that amalgamations in other parts of Australia should not be considered. There are times when it is completely appropriate. That is not what this bill and this amendment are about. It is a shame that today we have to amend an electoral act passed back in 1918 as it is the only legislative path we can find to block an appalling piece of public policy conduct by the Beattie government. We have had to go back to a 1918 act and amend it.
Of course, all this is based upon fallacious information. It is based upon the fact that the Beattie government wants us to believe that councils are not viable. How do they do that? The old Labor view, of course, is that big is better in bureaucracy and in management and that the centralisation of power means that fewer, larger councils will be easier to deal with.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—Hear, hear! Dead right!
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr LAMING
—My particular view is that they thought: ‘We know where we want the boundaries to be. We will hand-pick a team and call them the Queensland Local Government Reform Commission.’ I wonder and question whether a note of where those lines would be was scribbled on a piece of paper even before they started the process. I know that the member for Kennedy has concerns about that in his part of Queensland.
That notion that bigger is better started with looking at the books of councils. The first thing they did was say, ‘We are going to take away from the analysis all of your water revenue.’ So shires like Redland effectively lost the ability to count their water revenues on their balance sheets. But those same councils had to count all of their sewerage treatment plants. A place like Redland had five of them. That was highly inefficient. There was no way for that council to pull those down, move them and centralise them. But the councils, which are creatures of the state government or, as some describe them, body corporates of the state government, were not actually given a chance to be viable at all.
It is one thing to say that it is too small and it is not viable, but you need to look at the evidence. The public policy research—Sproats in 2001, Allan in 2003, Dollery and Crase in 2004—is clear. You can quote them all. You will not find any of the people making substantial contributions to the public policy debate saying that bigger is always going to be better. Allan said that bigger is not necessarily better at administrative level because efficiency and effectiveness of local councils actually is not a function of size. It is a function of other things, not size. The effectiveness of councils depends a great deal not just on size but on their location, on where their demographic sectors are, on where the utilities are placed, on where they have to get their services and sometimes even on rainfall issues and the need to maintain local roads. All that has an effect on council viability. The greatest one of all, which I know will be brought up by subsequent speakers, is that councils rely on state funding to survive. If the net government revenues of a state like Queensland are increasing faster than those of any jurisdiction in this country—faster than those of the Commonwealth—then where is the money going that should be running councils? We know that Queensland’s GST revenues may well be increasing at nine per cent per annum, but that is not being reflected in their funding to councils; in fact, far from it.
The other notion is that there are grounds to suggest that there are firm benefits from amalgamation—that in some cases there are savings that accrue by joining up councils. This is where I come to my next point, which is a little bit of the history that has not been adequately detailed. We know that there have been two previous failed referenda on this topic, in 1974 and 1988. They were held under very different circumstances and in a very different environment, and naturally a referendum will only succeed if there is a nationwide concern for the survival of councils. Where it happens step by step, state by state, it is unlikely that a referendum will be successful, and that is why local plebiscites are so important.
The member for Lingiari spoke of hypocrisy and said that if the federal government could make certain decisions in the national interest in the Northern Territory then the states should be able to do the same. This sort of pub style argument that if X slaps Y then Y should be able to slap Z simply does not stack up, because the Queensland constitution used to say—in 1993, before Premier Beattie got his hands on it—that there were specific grounds for compulsory and non-compulsory referenda if you wanted to change local government boundaries. Without taking up the valuable time of the chamber, effectively there were compulsory referenda where the state sought to merge and abolish and there were non-compulsory referenda where the state sought simply to move boundaries. They were in the Queensland Local Government Act 1993. They were clearly put in there because people have a right—and it is why we are here debating this bill—to decide how they are represented.
While states do have some control over councils, they should not have the right to eliminate, to amalgamate and to move without consultation. Under the Queensland act of 1993, until it was changed this year, they used to have a say. That quietly, methodically and systematically changed with the Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. It was part of the Beattie process where first of all he tilled the soil to make it easy to do, he removed the ability of people to stop him and then, of course, he made the claim, by using bracket creep, that councils were inefficient. Where just a handful of councils were probably non-viable, he managed to bracket creep to take it from probably 13 to 43. How did he do that? He said: ‘On a range of characteristics of local government evaluative markers, if just one of them is not viable or not fiscally strong, we will call the whole council non-viable. You need only to fail one criteria and we will call you non-viable.’ That is what they did. They simply moved the criteria until they got 43 of Queensland’s councils and then they had their reason to move them.
Then we had the backflipping, where they had gone one step too far in taking away from councils their right to have a plebiscite; all they could conduct were anonymous phone polls. What an appalling situation to get to in a country like Australia. Mr Beattie’s retirement is also very disappointing—while I respect a Premier who has had a long period in public office and their right to leave, to leave knowing that this was not only half done but poorly done, I think, really does let down the people of Queensland.
This is where I want to move to a more subtle point that has not been brought up in this debate—and that has been the view of the other side of this chamber and, in particular, of the member for Griffith, who quietly, when the reforms to Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory were proposed, marched his troops in like a conga line and told them to be mute on that issue, because that is what the polling had told him. When it suited him to get an invite up to Noosa and say that he was against amalgamation, suddenly the bloke down here said to the Premier up there—and normally there is not a bit of paper you can squeeze between them—’Look, I need to come out against you on this amalgamation stuff. Do you know what? Perhaps we can convince Queenslanders, who have a history of voting one way federally and another way in state elections, that our member for Griffith over here is right behind Queenslanders on opposing amalgamation.’ If you out there fall for that, you are a fool, because they are Labor and they have the same spots—and you cannot for a moment tell me that just because someone is elected to a federal seat and not a state seat in that same city, in that same neighbourhood, they hold an utterly different view on their local government.
Make no mistake: there is only one difference between Premier Beattie and the member for Griffith—one of them is elected and one of them wants to be. Infrastructure for roads has just evaporated away in the last year because of the panic to build desalination plants. It is okay for the Premier to wear that one, but you will not see the member for Griffith standing up at all in that regard. When it comes to water infrastructure coming way too late in Queensland, it has nothing to do with the member for Griffith. No; suddenly these two cannot be seen on a football field together. Then there are issues like the Nuwater Recycled Water Project to pump recycled Brisbane water from Luggage Point back inland to Gatton, to the power stations and Toowoomba. It was okay for Labor to bury that one for five years in the hope that the federal government would step in and fund it, but you will not see the member for Griffith standing by the Premier there. When it comes to locking up the bay—a simple issue of Moreton Bay rezoning—you will find all federal Labor members utterly mute on that issue and they will let the Premier do the hard slog.
The soft peddling occurs with the member for Griffith, who floats along in a Hawker Britton miasma of advisers, staying well clear of anything that looks, feels and smells like the Queensland Premier. That is sad for a movement like Labor, but it is what they have to do and it is what they will do to get elected. We will be reminding Queenslanders of that. That is why this bill is so terribly important.
The member for Capricornia was in the chamber. Will she be participating in the debate? I hope so. She represents an area directly affected by this appalling period of Queensland public policy. Will she speak in defence of her local constituents? No. Why is that? Has she been briefed explicitly to stay well away from the most poisonous of issues for 90 per cent of the land area of Queensland? Where are they standing up and defending the views of probably 90 per cent of their constituents? This issue is not one that falls 55/45, where we agonise over polling. This issue is 90/10. This is absolutely appalling. Any jurisdiction would only handle this issue if they knew they could do so without any political implications. That appears to have been the timing of what we have witnessed.
After the Queensland government rolled back on 22 August, I submit that only one public policy event occurred and that was on 16 August, the week before, when this bill was proposed. That is why this bill is very important. The member for Fraser—a very experienced person in public life—has now stepped up and said, ‘Look, I’m concerned about where the voting boundaries would be, what the logistics would be, the cost and the timing, and how difficult this would be.’ That is not what this bill is about. The poor people of Queensland just happen to have a federal election coming up in the following months, but these people are losing their system of local government completely and it would be wrong not to act. The fact that the member for Fraser is actually focusing on the minutiae of this bill just indicates that Labor really have not picked up the big picture—that is, large areas of Queensland are enormously distressed. The only thing that can turn that around is the bill we are debating today.
What we have from Queensland is a refusal to consult—and we are now used to that in Queensland. The notion that they punish Queenslanders who want to have their say is new—and I think that is probably what provoked the federal reaction. I think it has to be put on the record that I did speak on this matter very early—in fact, on 31 May. I signalled then that this would be a problem. That was well before August, when it attracted the attention of the public domain. What I was signalling there was genuine concern about this process.
Where are we at now? I want to defend our local councils, certainly those in the area I come from and all those up in the south-east Queensland area. They are working on optimal service delivery. They are contributing to regional economies. They are running their planning through the integrated planning authority. They are working on better environmental systems and social planning. They have partnered up into supra-council bodies, like SEQROC. They are working in virtual local government areas. They are cooperating with the federal government on a regulation reduction incentive fund of $50 million to help councils work together—and do you know what? This actually has been working very well. I am yet to be convinced that there actually was a problem with our local governments.
I am happy to say that we can go around and run a fine toothcomb through the administrative and financial processes of some of the small and very remote councils and we need to make a case that they are viable—and I know that someone who will speak after me will do that. I do not criticise the process of examination. That is not what this bill is about. It is about the removal of the right of ordinary local—in this case—Queens-landers to have their say. The fact is that they could have had their say from 1993 onwards. It was written in a Queensland act and it was removed earlier this year—maybe surreptitiously; I do not know—to set the soil and the political scenario to allow the Premier to do exactly what he has done.
We have a Queensland government who stopped listening. We have had their refusal to consult, their punishing of those who sought to speak against them and, today, exemplified by the fairly weak resistance from the other side of the chamber and their decision ultimately to support our bill, clear evidence that we have in the member for Griffith ‘do anything, say anything and try anything in order to get elected’. If it means bailing out on a state Premier now, that will happen. We need to ask ourselves a very hard question: where would we be with wall-to-wall Labor, had this whole diabolical process happened and had there not been a coalition government to pull it up? I support the amendment of this act.
60
18:14:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, like me, you have been around politics for a long time and we have seen many people come and go, but it is interesting to see why they went. I said at the time that Mr Beattie launched these amalgamations that, if he were serious and he continued, Peter Beattie would be the most hated name in non-metropolitan Queensland’s history and it would remain the most hated name for a decade or more to come. That is what has emanated.
It is quite extraordinary for me, as a person involved in politics—in parliament for 30 years, but involved in politics for all of my life; Daddy before me, Grandaddy and Great-Grandaddy before that—that I have seldom seen a man that got himself so incredibly, universally hated in such a short period of time. Ironically enough, there was considerable hatred towards the coalition parties in Queensland for being so incredibly weak that a person as unpopular as him was given the opportunity to do such a dreadful job.
I read the Courier-Mail with great interest today. When we are burying somebody we say nice things—there is no point in kicking him while he is down, but there was nothing that they could say. There was not really a single thing that they could say, unless you consider getting people to drink their own sewage as an achievement. I would not have thought that I would be skiting about that as an achievement; I would have thought that was something I would keep very secret. Peter Beattie built a football stadium—as a great follower of rugby league, I appreciate that. I said to someone, ‘Unless you get your name in the history book for building a football stadium,’ and this person wryly observed, ‘Yes, you do,’ meaning if that is all you have done in 10 years then you almost certainly will find your way into the history books.
This man resigned because, sadly for him, he was universally hated whether you were in Brisbane where people have seen their gardens dying, in country Queensland where they have seen their right to have their own councils and many other services taken away from them over the last 10 years, in a place like Gympie where the Traveston dam decision treated the people with absolute contempt or in Innisfail where that brave little council fought their way through Cyclone Larry standing in the streets amongst all the appalling debris and heartbreak. They went in and sacked that council callously for really no reason at all. I think some internal Labor politics was the only explanation.
But as a reminder to all people in this place, when the Liberal Party, and the other party that runs along with them, decided on the IR legislation, I said: ‘You are removed from the people; you are a great distance from the people. If you were close to the people or you had really thought this out, you would have to realise this is a kamikaze act.’ To Mr Beattie I said, ‘If you are serious about proceeding with this, you will do untold damage to your party in the federal election.’ The federal Labor people in Queensland hated it, because he was going to deprive them of an opportunity to get a federal Labor government. Many of them were very worried about the IR laws and they saw death and destruction for them as a result of this man’s intransigence over this issue. He has resigned. Let me say that he did a very good job in Cyclone Larry. We are deeply appreciative and I will try to be positive and remember him for that.
The Beattie government decided that they were going to preach to the councils of Queensland. On those councils you will find the hardest working, most efficient people on the tablelands. At Mareeba, Atherton, Herberton, Ravenshoe and Malanda you will find the most efficient hardworking people. In the last week, I can remember George Kidner at about three functions—he is not getting paid for going to those functions. Joe Paronella presided over two or three functions. Carmel Silvestro worked all day on the mike for the gumboot-throwing contest in Tully. These people work like dogs for their local communities. They are intelligent, capable people. A lot of them are very successful businesspeople. Where would the tourism industry of Far North Queensland be without Mick Borzi? The highway leading to the airport is named after him and this is the way he gets repaid. He asked the Premier, ‘Do we have worries at Mareeba?’ The Premier said to him, ‘No, Mareeba is right, you won’t be amalgamated.’ So he relaxed. It is now very foolish to believe politicians’ promises. Over a long period of time, regardless of party, I have found they are not a very reliable yardstick at all.
The government cannot deliver the water services to south-east Queensland. One of the major reasons was that they closed down Wolffdene; the new supply of water was to come from Wolffdene. If you closed it down and doubled your population, you should have some other option up your sleeve. They closed it down with no other option up their sleeve. It was incredibly stupid and irresponsible.
I represent the richest mineral province on earth—$12,000 to $15,000 million of export earnings were going to Australia but, because all those companies are now foreign owned, the vast bulk goes overseas. All the same, it is the richest mineral province on earth. We cannot process the minerals because there is no development capacity electricity on the northern grid system. There are one million people, five or six per cent of Australians, living up in the area—it is not as though we are small. North Queensland is going to win the grand final in a couple of weeks time.
Some 18 of the 28 doctors, from the midwest gulf to Mount Isa, were migrants. They were not even migrants; they were just in Australia on various visas; they had not even become Australian citizens. When I had my heart attack, most of the 10 or 11 doctors I saw were from overseas. Here is a government that cannot produce doctors who can speak fluent English. It cannot deliver electricity, it cannot deliver water and it cannot deliver doctors. Land prices are spectacularly going through the roof, and the state government is announcing that they will put in footprints to restrict subdivisions. If you want to shoot up the price of land through the roof, then for heaven’s sake restrict subdivisions because that will do it magnificently! Instead of paying $120,000 for a piece of land, you will pay $200,000. Just how incredibly stupid is this government? Yet, when the people of Queensland were asked, they decided that they were better than the other mob. That does not rank the other mob very highly.
Those people decided that they would wipe out all those councils; they were shut down—giants of men like Mick Borzi. They were closing them down because they were incompetent and running inefficient shire councils. I could work out how much the rate increase was in all these shires in North Queensland that they are closing down and how much the tax income of the state government has increased. There is $43,000 million in GST alone and, of that, Queensland, with one-fifth of Australia’s population, would get somewhere in the vicinity of $9,000 million extra, just from GST, which dropped out of the sky for them. So they have had a massive increase in money and there has been a dramatic diminution in services.
This was a concept, but it really goes to the heart of your belief system. The previous speaker, Mr Laming, from the Liberal Party, was right when he said that there is a definite socialist bent in here. They really believe that government will run it all well for you—that is, public servants, centralised bureaucracies and people who have come out of university with great educations. This is the fundamental belief system that is going forward here: ‘Have a big, centralised bureaucracy instead of these drongo farmers, truck drivers and railway workers being on the local Malanda council, Tully council or wherever. No, we will have these great experts out of the universities—young geniuses—coming and helping us run our operations.’ Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, you smile, and so you should, because we have seen the corporations in Australia that have been run by them and the absolute disasters that have followed in their trail.
I am one of the few people in Australia who have had to draw up a constitution for local government. There were 28 communities being administered by the state government. I had a decision to make on the best way to deliver services to these communities—the Torres Strait Islands, Pormpuraaw up in the peninsula; very isolated communities. What is the best system that we could devise for the most efficient service delivery? Having given it great thought and deliberation, I decided that the best way was for the people themselves, at Pormpuraaw, Doomadgee, wherever, to do it, even though they have had no education and no experience whatsoever in administration—there are only white fellas administering everything for them. I still thought that it was the most efficient way to do service deliveries. I put that proposition to easily the most efficient government in Australian history. They agreed.
This country is surviving at the present moment on our minerals. We survive on three minerals: coal, aluminium and iron ore, in that order. The coal industry of Australia was created by the Queensland government, under Bjelke-Petersen. The aluminium industry of Australia was principally created by Bjelke-Petersen, and none other than Peter Beattie acknowledged this at the funeral service for Bjelke-Petersen, and yet this most efficient government in Australia decided that the most efficient and effective way to deliver services was to allow these people to deliver the services—people with no education and no administrative background. So Pormpuraaw would be given their own shire council.
A gentleman named Joseph Elu rang me and said he wanted a local authority area for Seisia. Seisia, for those of you who do not know, is the most northern community in Australia, on the mainland. It is right at the tip of Cape York. I said, ‘Seriously, Joseph, what are you ringing up about?’ He said, ‘What I am ringing up about is for Seisia to get a shire council.’ I said, ‘All 12 of you?’ There are 12 people living in Seisia. He said: ‘Don’t you tell lies, Minister. There are 23.’ He was adamant that there were 23 people living in Seisia. So he wanted a shire council for Seisia, with 23 people. This is the best part of the story: I decided, after two months of being driven crazy by Joseph Elu, that I would give Seisia, with 23 people, their own local government. Mr Beattie said that shires are not self-sustaining if there are under 5,000 people, and here was the most efficient government in Australian history—not me; these were all cabinet decisions—deciding that Seisia, with 23 people, should have its own local shire. Seisia now has—and they did not have these before—a beautiful big supermarket, a beautiful motel and a caravan park. Seisia is one of the most successful Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia—so much so that Joseph Elu now heads Indigenous Business Australia. It has been such a wonderful success story.
The honourable minister, Mr Hockey, in this place, has bought—and God bless him for doing so—a beautiful dairy farm up at Malanda, because it is really paradise up there, but so has Joseph Elu and the Seisia community. They are neighbours of the honourable minister, and very good neighbours at that. They have made enough money there to be able to buy a beautiful place where they can get away from the heat of Seisia and have a great holiday above Cairns in what is very much paradise. I am sure the minister would agree with me. So that is a remarkable success story.
On the other side of the coin, we have Mission Beach, one of the most beautiful places on earth for anyone who has been there. Two of our past ministers from this place have retired to Mission Beach. It has thick, verdant jungle right down to a massive, beautiful beach which is probably 100 metres wide, and you can see coral reef at low tide. Mission Beach is just magic, but it does not have a shire council. There are 7,000 people, in one of the most rapidly growing areas in Australia. Half of poor little Mission Beach is in one shire and half is in another shire. People have nowhere to tie up their boats—this is supposed to be one of the great tourist destinations of Australia, and there is nowhere to tie up a boat—and they cannot go for a swim because there is no aquatic centre or swimming pool there. Mission Beach has 7,000 people; Seisia now has 300—not 23 but 300—but Seisia this year is building a swimming pool.
If you are in control of your own destiny and you have the spirit of the people behind you in your local community—a lot of people here come from big cities, but I do not; I come from a small community—there is tremendous community spirit that has an energy that can be harnessed, and it can achieve great things for the local community. If people want to run their own affairs, even though there are only 23 of them in Seisia, for heaven’s sake, let them do it.
There are very good things I could say about the Labor opposition in this place, but there is still the strain of socialism there. The previous speaker was dead right that this decision reeks of that socialist mentality: ‘You people are not really capable of running your own affairs. We are the enlightened people that should be running everything for you.’ So we thank the opposition for coming to the party and opposing Mr Beattie on this. I think that Mr Beattie’s demise, because that is what it is, has been a result of the energies of a lot of people in this place, because they could see that their chances of winning government have been very seriously damaged by him. Unfortunately for the Labor Party, that damage will continue.
We want to sincerely thank the government and the Prime Minister on this issue, because right at the jump the mistake that had been made in Victoria was freely acknowledged, as was the damage that had been done to the people of Victoria. He also pointed out the extreme political damage that was then done to the Liberal government in the forthcoming election because these people will not forgive or forget. The Labor Party have made a very astute political decision in getting rid of the touchstone of the hatred.
We still have a situation out there. If this lady who has taken over or is about to take over Queensland wants to continue down this pathway, then make my day, the government can say, because right from the outset she will take the place of Peter Beattie and she will be the person responsible for this decision. So I say to the ALP: the odium has not gone away. The odium will be there, and if these amalgamations go through then the Labor Party will be punished for the next decade or more as a result of this decision. So we would plead with the Labor Party: do not think about anything else except politics and votes here. Realise that this man was on a huge amount of money; he was the king of Queensland; we saw him on the television every night—and he loved going on the television. Why did he suddenly decide to leave? Because everyone in Queensland was after his head, and particularly the Labor Party was after his head, because he had seriously damaged its chances of winning the next federal election.
I point out to the honourable opposition here that the problem has not gone away. We want a result, and if we do not get a result then there is going to be—do not listen to me; just ask the people of Queensland in any of these areas. I remind the opposition that there are six key seats in Queensland. If I were a Labor Party member—and I most certainly am not, but if I were—I would say that they would be my target seats. The chances of the Labor Party winning them now have been very seriously damaged, and that damage is still out there. So we would plead with the Labor Party to realise the political acumen of the government and follow it, and we thank the government for what they are doing tonight. (Time expired)
10000
Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Barresi)—Before I call the honourable member for Cook, I remind the House that this is the valedictory speech of the honourable member for Cook and that it should be accorded due respect by the House.
65
18:35:00
Baird, Bruce, MP
MP6
Cook
LP
1
0
Mr BAIRD
—Thanks very much, Mr Deputy Speaker Barresi. I am very pleased that you are in the chair. Certainly you have been a great friend to me, Member for Deakin, and I appreciate you having joined me for the past term here. Tonight I rise in support of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. The Commonwealth electoral amendment bill implements through this House the Prime Minister’s announcement on 7 August this year to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to undertake plebiscites on the amalgamation of any local governing body in any part of Australia.
Since 1992, the Australian Electoral Commission has had the ability to enter into arrangements for the supply of goods and services to bodies under the act; therefore the AEC has the required expertise and skills to undertake these arrangements. This is not giving the AEC any significantly different functions. It already conducts arrangements for organisations such as trade unions and other employer organisations. The urgent need for this bill and its specific provisions arises from a law passed by the Queensland parliament that, unless overridden by the Commonwealth law, would prevent local governments in their state having any involvement with these plebiscites.
This bill shows our government’s commitment to addressing fundamental issues of freedoms and basic democratic rights of the people of Australia. Essentially, the bill ensures that the AEC maintains its independence and allows provisions to override any state law that seeks to prohibit, penalise and discriminate against anyone entering into an arrangement for the supply of goods and services with the AEC.
In expressing my support for this bill, I would like to take some time to reflect, if I may, on my time in the House, as this will be the last time I rise to speak in this House. It is my intention to retire at the next election. When I leave this place it will be bittersweet. I have many friends from across the parliament, people focused on achieving great things, and I will miss having a front row opportunity to influence policy and to stand up for the forgotten and the weak. Incidentally, this is the 450th speech made by me in this chamber—but who is counting?
In 1983 I stood with 15 other candidates for preselection for the safe seat of Northcott, a state seat, in Sydney’s north-west. The Attorney-General, who is here tonight, would remember that occasion, I am sure. I am aware that the members for Stirling and Moncrieff, who are sitting alongside me tonight, were 13 and nine years old respectively and were still attending primary school. When you see these fine young men here alongside me, it probably suggests to you that it is time for me to go. For the preselection, I was unexpectedly supported by both the left and the right, including the member for Mackellar. So, if you want to blame somebody, you can always blame Bronwyn! I put my hand up at that time because I thought I could make a difference.
By winning government in New South Wales in 1988 with Nick Greiner and being appointed as Minister for Transport, and later as deputy leader, I was able to make that difference. The former member for Burrinjuck at that time, Alby Schultz, was one of my colleagues in that place and I was very glad of his support. During my time in state politics we undertook, as Alby would know, some major reforms of state transport, reforms which included slashing the annual operating costs of the State Rail Authority by $450 million a year, building many new freeways and introducing Jetcats to Parramatta and Manly.
Of course, the highlight of my time in New South Wales politics was the winning of the 2000 Olympic Games for Sydney. When Juan Antonio Samaranch announced, ‘And the winner is Sydney,’ it was a great moment. Some people said that he took so long to make the announcement because he had never seen Beijing written that way before! I was very pleased to be part of it. For three years of my life—as my wife, Judith, would know—I was involved in lobbying for it, and it was a very interesting and challenging time. The joy of winning was absolutely indescribable.
There was great satisfaction in seeing what a sterling job Sydney did in hosting the Olympics. The whole city buzzed and danced through the night and was glued to the track or the pool during the day. I was there for Cathy Freeman’s win in the 400-metre event, which was a spine-tingling event and highlighted what the Olympics were all about for Australia.
I left state politics in 1995 and went to the Tourism Council Australia as CEO. Within three years I was back in politics at the federal level. Again, I was honoured that I could contribute in the Australian parliament, drawing on my experience in New South Wales. I became part of a new Liberal government promising the country greater efficiency and economic reform.
I have been lucky enough to play a part in some very significant moments in this country’s history. There are the 11 budget surpluses, our contribution to East Timor, this parliament’s motion of reconciliation with our Indigenous community, and the passage of major tax reform. We have signed free trade agreements with the United States, Singapore and Thailand worth billions of dollars a year and we have a further six agreements currently under negotiation with China, Japan and the Gulf nations. We have implemented major industrial relations changes, first in 1996 then again in 2005—reform that has helped create more than 2.1 million new jobs and higher real wages since its introduction. We have invested significantly in the future, creating the Future Fund and the Higher Education Endowment Fund, and we have eased the burden on working Australians, particularly parents and pensioners, with tax rebates and tax cuts.
I am proud of having been part of a government that has implemented positive change and achieved so much. I am also proud to have spoken out on issues that are important to me. I have not always agreed with my colleagues and I have advocated many causes both in this place and in the party room. I give tribute to my colleagues because it is in this party that such tolerance is given for a divergence of views.
In 1998, when I rose for the first time to address the House, I outlined some of the significant challenges I saw facing this country at that time. Aboriginal reconciliation was clearly one of those challenges. It is encouraging that there have been some improvements in the key indicators of indigenous disadvantage. Death rates from respiratory illness and infectious diseases have more than halved. There has been some progress in reading and writing benchmarks, high school retention rates and employment growth. However, the challenge of entrenched poverty and unemployment remains. Our Indigenous population remains significantly below the wider community in relation to health and education levels, and above in relation to imprisonment levels.
For some time now the focus in Indigenous public policy has been solely on practical, measurable outcomes that bridge the gap between black and white in Australia. I commend Minister Brough for a lot of the changes that he has made and a lot of the policies that he has implemented. It is also important that we do not shy away from any significant symbolic gestures. We need to address some of those important symbolic gestures in the future.
In my maiden speech I mentioned my wish for Australia to become a republic. Despite the outcome of the 1999 referendum, I still believe the Australian public want an Australian head of state sometime in the near future. I think that, as we move further into the 21st century, we should revisit the question of constitutional change and approach any referendum in a way that makes constitutional change possible.
In 1998 I also spoke about the economy. Almost a decade later, I can say that I am extremely proud of this government’s economic achievements. I can see the Treasurer sitting in the chamber and I congratulate him on what he has achieved. He is an outstanding Treasurer, the most outstanding in Australia’s history. In particular, unemployment today is at its lowest level for more than a generation, and more than 2.1 million jobs have been created since 1996. This should be viewed not just as economic progress but as a magnificent social achievement. Having a job is an important step in developing dignity in an individual.
Thanks to ongoing reform and 12 disciplined and responsible budgets, our fiscal position is remarkably strong. Now that we have tackled many of our own economic problems, we are well placed to help those who need it most. That is why I believe Australia must step up its foreign aid program. Thirty-six years ago, Australia agreed to band together with other developed countries and to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income on official development assistance to developing countries. Yet today we are spending only 0.3 per cent of GNI on foreign aid, less than half the spending of Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Denmark. I am encouraged that the government has committed to increasing spending to approximately 0.37 per cent of GNI by 2010, which will amount to $4 billion—not a small amount. I hope this level of funding continues to rise.
At a time of almost unprecedented prosperity in this country, we are surely obligated to cast our eyes and minds across the world to Africa, where 4.8 million children die every year of mainly preventable causes. In our own backyard an almost equal number of children—4.7 million—die of preventable causes in the Asia Pacific region. Foreign aid is effective in tackling poverty and disease. Increased foreign aid has helped halve disease and death rates in the Third World over the past 45 years. Third World incomes have increased by more than 20 per cent in the past 12 years and there are 130 million fewer people living in abject poverty than there were in 1990. Life expectancy has increased and child mortality rates have fallen. So without a doubt our foreign aid contribution is saving lives and helping to build some kind of future for children in developing countries. When we think of some of the significant aid grants, the $1 billion to Indonesia was a very significant amount given by this government. My great hope is that in future years the federal government will meet the Millennium Development Goal target of 0.7 per cent of GNI. This is the greatest moral imperative we as legislators face. While foreign aid is an important element in helping underdeveloped countries, it must be remembered that global free trade is the key to ending extreme poverty. The World Bank recently said:
... trade liberalization is generally a positive contributor to poverty alleviation—it allows people to exploit their productive potential, assists economic growth, curtails arbitrary policy interventions and helps to insulate against shocks.
I encourage all those who are supportive of ending severe poverty to support the Doha Round of trade liberalisation talks.
I would also like to speak briefly about multiculturalism—a core Australian value. This wonderful country was built on multiculturalism and our social cohesion is a testament to the multicultural policies of the last 35 years. We welcomed migrants from war torn Europe and those fleeing communism in the 1960s. Later we opened our arms to Vietnamese refugees, many of whom arrived in boats. We have accepted six million migrants since World War II and today 28 per cent of our population was born overseas. The diversity of Australia’s people has enriched, not hindered, our progress. Our country is held up around the world as a successful model of multiculturalism in practice. The hard work of migrants and their offspring cannot be dismissed. They are an intrinsic part of our economic and cultural prosperity today. There have of course been some problems. Some in our community have found it difficult to accept major changes in the cultural fabric of their local communities while others have not put in the required effort to engage with the neighbourhoods they have joined. This is not sufficient reason, however, to disown a winning formula—a formula that has served us well for more than 60 years and has helped make Australia a vibrant and accepting society.
My proudest achievement in public life in this House was securing concessions in the way that the government processes refugees who come to Australia. I would like to thank my colleagues for their support for that bill. The concessions that were legislated were reasonable and fair. They did not open the floodgates. Sensible time limits were implemented so that people would have their case turned around in 90 days. While awaiting the resolution of their cases, women and children were able to remain in community housing. I note that not one family absconded or created difficulties when residing outside the detention centres. I have said before in this place that the measure of a society is the way it treats the weak and vulnerable. Our great challenge today as a nation—with our ‘McMansions’ and plasma TVs in abundance—is not to harden our hearts to those who look to us for help. We must use our power for those who have no power and our influence for those who have no influence. A young man I met in detention had fled Iran after militia had entered his local church and shot up half the congregation. Despite being knocked back by the Refugee Review Tribunal, today he is an Australian citizen thanks to Minister Philip Ruddock. He is at university studying engineering by day while at night he works in a factory to pay for himself. He also spends his weekends as a translator at his church in Blacktown so that his Iranian friends can learn about Christianity in their native tongue. This for me illustrates why a compassionate approach is so important. I would again like to thank my colleagues for their support. It is no secret that some of us have disagreed on this issue. The Liberal Party’s greatest strength will always be its preparedness to accept differences of opinion and allow for expressions of conscience.
Finally, I hope that Australia can play a greater role on the world’s stage in fighting human rights abuses. As Thomas Jefferson said:
... the care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.
We can apply more pressure to bring out positive changes in the Darfur region of Africa. We can keep leading the fight against the oppression of democracy in Burma. We can do more to advocate the abolition of the death penalty worldwide. The United Nations is still the forum to effect this kind of change and apply this kind of pressure. Australia should play a major part in the much needed renaissance of the UN organisation to prepare it for a remarkably different global power balance in the future.
It has been an honour to represent the electorate of Cook in this place. Cook is a wonderful electorate. It is where Captain Cook first landed in 1770. The southern shire is often called ‘God’s own country’. Cook is literally girt by sea. It is characterised by a distinct surfing culture and love of the ocean. We are home to some of the great Australian swimmers like Ian Thorpe and Susie Maroney. On many mornings I swim at 6.30 at Cronulla beach with the hardy swimmers from the Polar Bears. We have seen countless sunsets and stroked past blue gropers, stingrays and zinc-nosed surfers. As Ernest Hemingway wrote in The Old Man and the Sea, describing a flight of wild ducks across the water, ‘no man is ever alone on the sea’.
One of the most difficult times for us in the shire was in December 2005 with the very public disturbances at Cronulla and the subsequent so-called ‘revenge attacks’ of the day following. I extend my thanks to the Prime Minister for his speedy assistance in setting up a fantastic education program called On the Same Wave. This program has helped to break down the barriers between the local community around Cronulla and the Lebanese community. It has helped to introduce the beach to cultural groups that otherwise shy away from it. It has helped to train lifesavers from diverse backgrounds, and for the first time we now have Lebanese lifesavers, Muslim and Christian, patrolling the beaches at Cronulla. The four surf clubs—Cronulla, North Cronulla, Elouera and Wanda—have all been outstanding, as have leaders in the Lebanese community. They have all embraced this program with open arms. It is a testament to the shire’s determination for a fresh start and their willingness to move forward from December 2005.
Finally, I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their support over the years. I have many colleagues I want to thank, but of course I cannot thank them all. I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership of the party. I particularly thank the Treasurer for his personal friendship and support and congratulate him on his achievements. My thanks also go to the Minister for Education, Science and Training; my good friend the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations; the Attorney-General; the Minister for Ageing and the Minister for Defence. I also thank the other colleagues who I have been close to, particularly in relation to the refugee issue: Petro Georgiou, Russell Broadbent, Judi Moylan, John Forrest and others who were involved. Thank you all for your support.
I also thank my family, particularly my wife, Judy, and my children, Michael, Julia and Stephen. I would like to thank my staff: Nathan Seidl, Emma Johnson, Joshua Hatten, Andy Nilson, Jo Apthorpe, David Morris and Joe Aston—who did work for me before—and Brendan Lyon. My thanks also go to the Liberal Party branches in the Cook conference. Thank you to the Liberal Party. Without them, of course, I would still be in the PR world in Sydney—I would probably be earning more money but I would be without the great opportunities of this House. I would like to thank the Cook conference president, Michael Douglas. Thank you all for your support and your friendship, from both sides of the House. I thank my colleagues who tolerated me in this House. Finally, in the words of a film: good night and good luck.
69
18:53:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—Before I go to the substance of this particular bill I would like to congratulate the member for Cook, fellow parliamentarian and fellow republican. It is true to say that he has had a formidable parliamentary career both here and in the New South Wales parliament. He is well regarded across the chamber and I wish him well in his future endeavours.
I now turn to the specific bill at hand, which is the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. This bill being debated in this place this evening, I would suggest, is not particularly necessary. It is one born of politics and the desperation of the Prime Minister, who wants to play games in Queensland.
The reason that I suggest there is no particular requirement for this bill to be legislated—although, can I say from the outset that I support the bill and indeed the amendment moved by the member for Fraser—is that it is clear now that the Premier of Queensland has agreed that there should indeed be plebiscites, if the locals wish to have them, on the matters going to the municipal restructuring in Queensland. So I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister acted in haste and acted improperly in requiring this legislation to be enacted given the very frank admission made by the Premier of Queensland when he said only very recently that he got it wrong. It is not easy for a leader of any government to admit that they have made an error in public policy. I think that shows how big a man the Premier of Queensland is. He said, ‘The Prime Minister and Kevin Rudd got it right, and I didn’t.’
As a result, there is now a capacity for locals to express their opposition to or their support for proposed municipal restructuring in Queensland. I think that should be sufficient. Of course instead the government has sought to intrude by passing legislation that I do not think is necessary. Nonetheless, because the Leader of the Opposition as early as May supported an alternative approach to deal with the matter of municipal restructuring, I think it is important that the opposition support the bill. It is consistent with our clear view, a view we held prior to the announcement made by the Prime Minister on this matter, that locals should have a say in the matter. Given that the bill is before the parliament, it is important that Labor make our position very clear. Therefore we support the bill, albeit that in my view the bill is unnecessary. It is not necessary for it to be put and debated in this place because the matter it was attempting to respond to no longer exists.
I also want to stress that we support the amendment moved by the member for Fraser. We seek support for that amendment from both the Special Minister of State and indeed the government. We say in that amendment that if the Prime Minister and the government are genuine about recognising the primacy of local government to at least involve itself in its future then it should support a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government in recognition of the essential role it plays in the governance of Australia. That is the first part of the amendment moved by the member for Fraser.
The second part of Labor’s amendment says that, given the government’s intention to consider the construction of 25 nuclear power plants and nuclear waste facilities, there should be a capacity to allow communities to express a view on the location of those proposed nuclear power plants and nuclear waste facilities. We suggest that those two amendments would actually give this bill some relevance because, as I say, the Premier has withdrawn his opposition to the capacity for local communities in Queensland to have a say over the municipal restructuring.
What is now at play, now relevant and should now be debated, given the fact that this bill is proceeding, is whether the government supports in any true sense the constitutional recognition of local government. We know that the coalition and Mr Howard, the member for Bennelong, who was the Leader of the Opposition in 1988, have historically opposed the recognition of local government being placed in the Constitution. We know that in 1988 the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bennelong, and the rest of the coalition opposed the referendum that would have provided some level of recognition of local government in the Constitution. We know that that attempt by Labor to allow for that tier of government to be referred to in the Constitution was resisted by the coalition.
We know how difficult it is to change the Constitution of the land when you do not have bipartisan support. I think that is a reasonable thing. I think it is a large step and a big move to make amendments to the Constitution and that, therefore, it should not be easy, but it is also true to say that it is very difficult to change the Constitution without the support of the two major parties. That is the political reality. The government now—the opposition as it was then—resisted and managed to defeat the opportunity for local government to be recognised in the Constitution.
Here is an opportunity this evening for the government, by acceding to the amendment being proposed by the member for Fraser and the Labor Party, to support the view that local government should be recognised in the Constitution by way of referenda. That is to say that, in any future referendum, there would be support from both major parties to recognise local government in the Constitution. We would welcome that. We would also therefore think that the government were not just playing around tactically and playing politics with this particular matter in the shadow of an election. We would believe that the government were serious about the rights and the standing of local government in our nation. They have an opportunity tonight to change the position they have held on preventing any form of recognition of or reference to local government in the Constitution by accepting that amendment.
The other part of the amendment being proposed by the member for Fraser and the Labor Party is our belief that steps should also be taken to allow communities to express a view on the location of 25 nuclear power plants and nuclear waste facilities that the government wants to impose on the Australian people. We do not know whether those plants will be constructed tomorrow and we do not know when they will be built if the government has its way. We do know that the nuclear plants option is under consideration by the Prime Minister and the government. Indeed, if this government were to be re-elected, that option would be clearly on its agenda.
We argue that the people of Australia would be more concerned about the possibility of living in the proximity of a nuclear plant than about whether they were in one municipality or another. I think it is likely that people in this country would be more concerned about living in the vicinity of a nuclear plant than about whether they were on one side of a municipal boundary or not. Given the fact that there is a bipartisan position supporting locals having a say on the actual municipal restructuring in Queensland, allowing for a local plebiscite to express their view, it would seem fitting that on a fundamentally more challenging issue, one that would potentially create more anxiety in the community, the government would consider acceding to Labor’s proposal to allow for a plebiscite on that issue.
I have been informed that the Surf Coast shire in the electorate of Corangamite have it on their books to consider a referendum on this particular matter on Tuesday next week. As I understand it, the council will meet to discuss whether they will propose a referendum. As I understand it, the mayor of that municipality has written to the Prime Minister seeking funding to support a referendum in Surf Coast. I would have thought that, given the comments made by the Prime Minister, he would indeed assist that municipality in having such a plebiscite to consider or at least gauge the views of residents. We will wait and see on that. We will wait and see whether in fact the Prime Minister was fair dinkum when he said he might have such referenda for people concerned about proposed nuclear plants and their locations. I think accepting this amendment tonight in this place is an opportunity for the government to assure municipalities such as the Surf Coast shire, their councillors and, more importantly, the residents of municipalities that they will be able to express their views with the assistance of the Commonwealth. I therefore think it would be apt for the Prime Minister to provide the resources for them to undertake such a plebiscite.
There has been a level of hypocrisy in the way in which the government has dealt with this matter. There has been quite a high level of hypocrisy in the way in which the Prime Minister has chosen to deal with this matter. In fact, on 7 August, at a press conference he held with the Treasurer, the Prime Minister said on this matter:
I think it is a total travesty of democracy to ... refuse to consult people about what you are going to do that is going to affect them ...
That is a big statement coming from a Prime Minister who, on 28 September 2004, announced the government’s industrial relations policy and did not mention Work Choices once. He did not mention one significant element of Work Choices when he announced their industrial relations policy prior to the election. Not only did the Prime Minister not consult with anybody; he did not even notify the voters of this country during the election campaign that he was going to impose Work Choices after the election. It is the height of hypocrisy for the government to think they can make statements like this about the Premier of Queensland when they quite flagrantly abused their position by not announcing in any sense whatsoever the elements of Work Choices prior to the 2004 election.
I think that this government have to consider that they are on very thin ice indeed to lecture others about consulting with people or even notifying them of policy that might affect them. Indeed, it is true to say that, with the abolition of penalty rates, with the removal of unfair dismissal rights for more than five million workers and with the other pernicious provisions of Work Choices, people have been adversely affected. There was no notification, no consultation and no plebiscite at all. That really highlights the fact that this has been a political game exercised by the Prime Minister to intervene in Queensland politics and to intervene on matters to be dealt with between municipal and state governments. The Prime Minister knows that the Premier has now provided the opportunity for locals in Queensland to have a say. They will have a say, and the Leader of the Opposition supports that—
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr Murphy
—He does.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—Yes, and he supported it back in May when he suggested an alternative process, well before the announcement by the Prime Minister on this particular matter. I think it is also important to note that gauging the community’s concerns is important, and that is why we put forward the amendment. If the government is fair dinkum on these things, it will accede to our amendment.
We also say that the government should be very clear about the consequences of the legislation. As I understand it, the government is seeking to suggest that, by enacting this bill, it will somehow have a binding influence upon the government of Queensland to not change the boundaries. I do not think that is exactly the case. Indeed, the minister made the point in his second reading speech that the bill is not designed to provide an avenue for citizen initiated referenda. It was important that the minister made that point in his second reading speech because, without that reference in his speech, it would have been very difficult to glean from the text of the bill. As we know, the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 allows a minister’s second reading speech to be an aid to the interpretation of a bill. But, as the minister unequivocally made clear, this is not actually a referendum that would bind the Queensland government. So you have to wonder, really, what assistance the federal government is providing for the local community other than to provide a capacity to express their view.
The Prime Minister was very emphatic in stating that the issues of consultation and participation of local people in political processes were at the centre of his intervention. At his press conference of 19 August, he said:
It should be remembered that the Government is not expressing a view as to whether or not an individual merger should occur. Rather, the Commonwealth believes that people should have the right to express a view on the actions of a government without threat of penalty.
He went on to say:
However, if there is a strong expression of opinion in local government areas that choose to go ahead with the ballots, the Queensland Government may be forced to reconsider those amalgamations.
There is no binding dimension to the bill, as I understand it, and the minister’s second reading speech has made it very clear that, indeed, a plebiscite would not bind the state government; it would allow for the views of the community to be expressed. I think that is important. Any government that fails to listen to the people about any particular public policy matter will rue the day. Equally, and the member for Fraser touched upon this, we have to be very careful about whether we want to have responsible government—the Westminster system—affected unduly by having plebiscites on every particular matter. I think it is a difficult balance.
In the end, Labor support this bill. We suggest that the government accede to the amendment proposed by the member for Fraser and allow for constitutional recognition of local government and allow for expressions of interest about where nuclear plants may be located if the government wins the election. If they are fair dinkum about providing some say, the government will accede to the amendment. We support the bill. (Time expired)
73
19:14:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
0
Mr NEVILLE
—I have a great respect for the member for Gorton; I think he always argues his case quite passionately. I have never seen him more uncomfortable with a subject than this one. I do not think he was, for one minute, convinced of the merit of the argument that he had to present, and I think that is regrettable. It is interesting, too, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if you look at the speakers list—and if you discount the member for Kennedy, who is an Independent—there is not one opposition speaker from Queensland on this list. If, as the Leader of the Opposition says, he is supporting this referendum idea or supporting councils having a say then he has done precious little in this bill to do something about it, and his colleagues in Queensland have done even less. That, too, is regrettable.
The member for Gorton should not make a virtue of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition suddenly had a road-to-Damascus conversion when it came to this matter of forced amalgamations. You will recall that the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, announced this gutting of local government on 17 April. What followed was very interesting. There were then four weeks of total inaction by the opposition. But, during that time, the Leader of the Opposition managed to dance on television with Kerri-Anne Kennerley, fly to New York and dine with Rupert Murdoch, speak about his toilet habits on radio and quit his weekly television spot because of some fake memorial service. So he could fit all that sort of trivia into the four weeks between the time when Premier Beattie made the announcement and the time when the opposition did something about it. But I live in the area that is most affected by this, and the panic in the ALP machine in Central Queensland was palpable—absolutely palpable.
What happened was this. The federal Labor candidate for Flynn, Chris Trevor, was doing a tour of western Queensland and no-one was turning up to his meetings—or only a handful of people were. I am told that in one shire they could not get the caretaker to open the hall for him. In another, in the coalfields, where you would expect a good roll-up for a Labor candidate of some consequence, 11 turned up. He obviously went back to the Labor hierarchy and said, ‘Gee, we’re in trouble over this amalgamations thing.’
It is significant that the Leader of the Opposition made his statement in the electorate of Flynn, in an area that was in my electorate of Hinkler before electoral redistribution. He made the statement at Auckland Hill, where all the major announcements of any worth are made in Gladstone. Auckland Hill overlooks Gladstone Harbour, where you can see all the industry and everything. When you want to really get punchy, that is where you make your announcement. In fact, I thought he was coming up to usurp an announcement I was making at the same site at the same time the following day. I thought, ‘Oh, damn it; he’s stolen my thunder’ on what was known as Kirkwood Road, where this government has given $13 million to make sure it proceeds. But no—he spent this whole meeting with the media, all bar the last five per cent of it, saying how much he disagreed with this. And it was patently obvious that he disagreed with it because, in that hinterland behind the coastal strip, this is the most unpopular measure since the rise of One Nation and the gun laws. It is more unpopular than the two GST campaigns; it is more unpopular than the sale of Telstra. And he knew it, and he knew that his candidates would be in some trouble. It is surprising, too, that my colleague the member for Capricornia, whom I also respect and a lot of whose shires are affected by this, is not here tonight to debate this issue.
I am not against amalgamations per se, provided that there is a process of consultation; that there is printed material for people to consider on the efficiencies of councils, their costs and their incomes; and that, at the end of the process, there is a vote on whether you want to be wholly or partially within a particular shire or city. That would be fair enough. In fact, there is probably a good argument for some of what are known as ‘doughnut shires’ around cities. Certainly the inner ring of those, the more semi-urbanised part of those, would be better off joining with cities. I have some reservations about the outer rural areas. So I would have gone along with that if the process had been right—but what was the process?
The government set up a thing called the ‘triple S’ process—size, shape and sustainability. I suspect the government did not think that the shires would embrace it, and a few did not; a few were a bit reluctant at first. But 118 out of 125 embraced it and it was becoming obvious that the councils in clusters were making interesting moves, like machinery pools, shared building inspectors and all that sort of thing. They were really going down the track that the government was asking them to. I think it was going to become embarrassing for the state government that there would not be grounds to do a lot of changing of boundaries.
So, all of a sudden—bang!—overnight, on 17 April, the old process was killed and the Queensland government announced an Electoral Reform Commission. Reform? You were given 30 days to get your submissions in—30 days, for something as momentous as that—and then the commissioners were given 60 days to consider 37,000 submissions. If you divide that number of submissions by the number of working days in 60 days, you will see that it was simply an impossible task.
They also had a covenant on them that they were not to split shires unless it was absolutely necessary. That meant that, in not splitting shires, you could not get real reform anyhow. There are some shires in my area, like the Miriam Vale Shire, where there is a fair body of evidence to say that the southern part might have a Bundaberg ambience and the northern part a Gladstone ambience. That needed to be tested, but those sorts of things were never tested.
So we went through this sham process. The commission handed the report to the Queensland government one morning at about 10 o’clock and by about 12.30 the government had ticked off on it. It took 60 days to draw up this report and after two to 2½ hours consideration it was foisted on the people of Queensland. But it did not stop there. Oh no, it did not stop there; it was worse than that. The state government said, ‘If any council defies the government and holds a plebiscite or referendum, we’ll fine them.’ Then they said, ‘We will sack any council that does it.’ That jackboot treatment resonated very poorly across the state, even with Labor voters. They were not going to have a bar of that. So, reluctantly, the humiliated Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport, Andrew Fraser, was forced to back down. He was like the member for Gorton, who did not seem convinced of his brief. I have never seen someone so disillusioned in appearance as Andrew Fraser was when that decision was made.
The process was a shambles from start to finish. Not only is it a shambles; it is part of a wider malaise in Queensland. This malaise has two strands to it. The first strand is: ‘Let’s kill off the conservative voice in the country.’ You will find in lots of country councils that there are conservatives—Liberals, Nationals, former One Nation people and current Family First people. Those sorts of people, by and large, except in the larger provincial cities, play a significant part in local government. So the idea was that if you could force amalgamations you could get rid of some of them. It was quite blatant. I will give a few examples.
In the Central Highlands district, which is currently in the federal seat of Maranoa but will be in Flynn, the number of councillors will be reduced from 38 to eight. In my own area of Bundaberg it will go from 32 down to 11. North Burnett, where I currently represent five of the six shires, will go from having 41 councillors to seven. That will mean that some shire areas, even if there are wards, even if you go on a population basis, will not get one representative at all. I cite examples like Eidsvold and Mount Perry. They probably will be flat out getting one representative on the new council. At best, most areas might get one councillor. If they are lucky, they might crack the mayor as well.
The current shires, which the new supershires will replace, are quite big areas. They are quite substantial areas with quite substantial problems in development, infrastructure, the delivery of social services and the delivery of civic amenities. All those things are just as important in a country town or a small provincial city as they are in a big provincial city or a capital city. They will be left with perhaps one representative covering a vast area—some of them bigger than the electorate that I seek to represent after the federal election. That is incredible. Who is going to go out and look at the potholes in the roads? Who is going to see whether the dam needs to have a new top put on it or whatever it is? Do we think that the supercouncils, remote from those areas, are going to be all that interested? No, I do not think they will be. I do not think that there is anyone out there who believes it either.
This malaise of making things greater is about a contraction of the voice of country people as much as it is about a call for council efficiency. You can look around Australia at where there have been forced amalgamations. Look around the Canberra area, for one. Look at Victoria some years ago—but I would make the observation about Victoria that at least Jeff Kennett allowed 78 of his councils to continue. For Victoria, which is a very small state in area, he allowed 78 councils. Queensland, a vastly bigger area, will be left with 73. The second biggest state in the Commonwealth will have 73 councils. Imagine the representational problems with that. The same thing happened in Tasmania.
It does not make for more efficiency. I will tell you one of the first things that happens. I am not predicting that this will necessarily happen in Queensland, but this is what has happened over time in other areas. When the new supercouncil gets together, perhaps not in the first year but when it starts to feel the growing pains of difficult administration and centralising a lot of the services to the new capital, for want of a better word, what happens then? Someone moves that they build a $20 million or $30 million civic centre or administration centre. Then you might find councils that have previously been pretty close to borderline with debt control and so on taking on another $15 million or $20 million, for small shires, or perhaps up to $30 million for a reasonably large one, now that they have been amalgamated with other councils.
There is to be a council on the Darling Downs based on Toowoomba, which is simply mind-boggling. I am staggered that you can take Toowoomba and the area north and west of Toowoomba from 69 councillors down to 11. For God’s sake! What sort of a show is that going to be? It is probably fair to say that they will have to build a new administration centre for a show like that.
So that will be one thing: slowly, the machinery that was individual to particular shires will be pooled in one area. Then you will find that it is considered too difficult to give subsidies to the local show or the local art competition or whatever it might be. You will find that the workers will tend to be centralised after a while, and that will mean that the purchasing from what used to be the local council will go to the central pivotal town. That will mean that the shops in the smaller towns will drop one or two employees. You might find after that that, if the pupil numbers drop enough in the school, the school will drop from three teachers to two. The police station will drop from two constables to one. Slowly this spiral will commence. It will not happen overnight—and I am not suggesting it will—but this is part of the centralisation malaise that the Labor Party have caused in Queensland.
It is not the first time that they have tried this. They tried this under the Goss government, and I find it equally bewildering that the Leader of the Opposition, who was a chief of staff and secretary to cabinet in that previous Goss government and who presided over the last round of forced amalgamations in Queensland, is suddenly the champion of letting shires have their say. Come on! Do not look at what they do; look at how they act. Faith without good works is dead. I am sure that, as a Christian democrat, he knows that statement. So that has happened before. This is the second tranche, if you like.
There is another aspect to it. If you want to stand for state parliament in Queensland, at the time you nominate to stand you must resign from the local council. You cannot be stood aside for the length of the campaign or anything like that; you must physically resign. Of course, that runs a lot of councils into by-elections costing anything from $50,000 to $100,000 to pick up that one new councillor. It is totally unnecessary, because about half those councillors get defeated at the state election and could well resume their roles in the local council and save countless thousands of dollars. They tried to impose the same thing on the federal members—if you wanted to stand for federal parliament you could not be on a local authority. But the High Court had something to say about that, and it was dropped.
Regional health councils—the poor things are emasculated anyhow but what is even more sinister is that they have been combined: North Burnett with Bundaberg and South Burnett with Toowoomba, and so on. Then you find too that the port authorities are being combined: Rock-hampton with Gladstone, and Bundaberg, Brisbane. The whole thing is a never-ending focus on centralisation.
In the few minutes remaining to me I would like to say that this amendment about constitutional recognition is about as well thought out as the whole policy of the Beattie government in this matter. If you really wanted to do it properly you would have a constitutional convention along the lines of the republican one. You would perhaps first have a meeting of all the local governments of Australia. They would pick, say, 100 to 150 delegates to it. You would have state and federal government representatives, eminent people from former local government positions and eminent local government administrators. You would define the parameters of local government and not only its autonomy but its authority and whether the boundaries right across Australia needed to be looked at. Then that constitutional convention would make recommendations. After the public had been consulted on the constitutional convention, and after the booklet had gone out with the options, then—and only then—would you have a referendum. I would support that. But just rushing in and saying ‘constitutional recognition’ for a quick fix or to try to embarrass the government, or dragging in the nuclear debate, is just pitiful. There are no Queenslanders in here from the Labor Party to debate this issue. The Leader of the Opposition has been caught out on the whole matter. It is a disgrace. I support the bill; I reject the amendment.
77
19:33:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I rise to support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 and the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Fraser. I am surprised by the member for Hinkler who, in the chamber just now, said that his opposition to our amendment on constitutional recognition of local government is based on the fact that it is not thought out. This is a proposition that has been put to the Australian public with the support of the Australian Local Government Association and local councils right around the nation. It was opposed by the current Prime Minister and Peter Reith in a cynical exercise which stopped that referendum being carried. Of course, this debate is also a cynical exercise by a government that is out of ideas, out of an agenda for the future and, what is increasingly obvious to all Australians, out of time.
But the member for Hinkler surprised me when he said that there should be a local government meeting—a constitutional gathering similar to what occurred before the republic referendum—and at that meeting we should consider the boundaries of local government. On the one hand we hear this plea about current local government boundaries in Queensland; on the other hand we hear the member for Hinkler proposing in this chamber that the boundaries be taken away not just from the local people in particular local government areas in his electorate in Queensland but from the people of Australia, as decided by a constitutional convention here in Canberra. That is an extraordinary position from the member for Hinkler.
But it is not surprising because time after time the Howard government has refused to acknowledge local government. Indeed, in this chamber on 6 September last year I moved an amendment to a motion about recognising local government. The amendment read:
That paragraph (1) be omitted and the following paragraph substituted:
“(1) supports a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government in recognition of the essential role it plays in the governance of Australia.”
Of course, the government voted against that amendment, because the government has not been fair dinkum when it comes to properly recognising local government, including recognising it in the Constitution. It is extraordinary that the government is prepared to play politics but is not prepared to take any action, within its responsibility, of substance. But that is typical for a government that now is just dominated by politics in its own interests and not about policy in the long-term national interest.
The second part of the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Fraser supports:
. . . the Australian Labor Party’s belief that steps should also be taken to allow communities to express a view on the location of 25 nuclear power plants and the nuclear waste facilities that the Government wants to impose on the Australian people.
We know that this has been an agenda that people on the conservative side of politics have had in Australia for more than three decades. Nuclear power is old technology. But they are not prepared to look at the future of renewables and clean coal technology. They are obsessed with latching onto the past, just as they are obsessed with turning back industrial relations into a master-servant relationship. And, when it comes to nuclear power, they are obsessed and prepared to impose it on the Australian public. The Prime Minister has said that nuclear power is inevitable. He has said that he would amend legislation to facilitate nuclear power at the Commonwealth level. In announcing his policy, ‘Uranium mining and nuclear energy: a way forward for Australia’, on 28 April 2007, he said:
The Government’s next step will be to repeal Commonwealth legislation prohibiting nuclear activities, including the relevant provisions of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This will be addressed soon.
We have not seen that legislation before this parliament. We have not seen that legislation because this is a government that always tries to hide its real agenda before an election and then impose it after an election. If it were fair dinkum about empowering local communities, it would, as part of this proposition, empower local communities to have referendums on whether or not they want nuclear reactors or nuclear waste dumps sited in their electorates. But the government goes further than that. The government has also said that it would override state laws which currently ban the construction of nuclear reactors. And it goes even further than that. It says that where nuclear reactors are located is a commercial decision and that it will just impose these 25 nuclear reactors wherever commercially they are seen as being the best sites for these reactors. We know that nuclear reactors would have to be near the electricity grid. We know that they would have to be near populations. We know that, because nuclear reactors use 80 per cent more water than any other energy sources they would have to be near water supplies, so they tend to be on the coast or on rivers. And we know that there is a great history of coalition governments considering sites for nuclear reactors.
In August 1969 the then Liberal government, in its cabinet submission, considered a number of sites: Jervis Bay, part of the ACT, on the coast close to Nowra; the Murrumbidgee River between Williamsdale and Tharwa; Paddys River in the ACT; Bass Point in the electorate of Eden-Monaro; and the Hawkesbury River site at Spencer, which is in the electorate of Robertson. In 1981 the government’s National Energy Advisory Com-mittee considered sites in Perth, Adelaide, Tasmania and Darwin to be suitable for nuclear reactors. In July 1997, in a cabinet submission signed off by the then Minister for Science and Technology, Peter McGauran, now the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the government considered sites in Goulburn, Holsworthy, the Mount Lofty Ranges in the electorate of Mayo in Adelaide, the river and lakes region of South Australia, Olympic Dam in the electorate of Grey in South Australia, Woomera, the electorate of O’Connor in Western Australia, the electorate of Pearce in Western Australia, the electorate of Brand in Western Australia, the electorate of Canning in Western Australia, Broken Hill, Mount Isa and Darwin.
On ABC radio on 5 June 2006, Ian Smith, the head of ANSTO, considered four to five nuclear power plants on the east coast of Australia. The feasibility study by the Uranium Enrichment Group for the Fraser government considered Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia to all have suitable sites. In June 1979 the Court government gazetted Breton Bay, 90 kilometres north of Perth. Townsville in Queensland was identified by the Bjelke-Peterson government. French Island in the electorate of Flinders was nominated in 1968 by Henry Bolte, a former Liberal Premier of Victoria. More recently, on 22 November 2006, the Australian identified Yallourn in the electorate of McMillan in Victoria; Port Stephens in the electorate of Paterson in New South Wales; Callide in the electorate of Hinkler in Queensland; Gladstone, which is now in the electorate of Flynn, in Queensland; and Port Augusta in Grey in South Australia. In May 2006 the Australia Institute identified Western Port Bay in Victoria, Port Stephens in Paterson in New South Wales, the Central Coast of New South Wales, areas south of Wollongong around the electorate of Gilmore, the Sunshine Coast in the electorate of Fairfax in Queensland, Port Phillip Bay in Corangamite in Victoria, and Portland in the electorate of Wannon in Victoria. On 16 October 2006, Clarence Hardy, the Vice President of the Pacific Nuclear Council, identified the Gold Coast, Brisbane, Gladstone, Townsville, Newcastle, Cessnock and Perth.
So they certainly have form when it comes to four decades of advocating nuclear reactors; four decades of being determined to have them imposed on local communities. It is clear that, if the coalition are re-elected later this year, those reactors will be progressed by this government. That is what they say. They say it is inevitable that we will have nuclear power in Australia. But I was surprised—I guess I should not have been surprised—that the member for Hinkler in his remarks about the amendment really did not address that at all even though nuclear reactors have been proposed on a number of occasions as being suitable for his electorate in areas such as Bundaberg and Hervey Bay.
On 20 August I joined with the Labor candidate for Hinkler, Garry Parr, who committed himself to oppose a nuclear reactor in that electorate and who asked for the current member for Hinkler to sign a pledge opposing it, but of course the member was nowhere to be seen. Earlier that same day I joined with Labor’s candidate for Flynn, Chris Trevor, at Spinnaker Park in Gladstone to sign Labor’s antinuclear pledge. Gladstone has been identified as a site for a nuclear reactor but the Nationals’ candidate of course was nowhere to be seen when it came to actually signing that pledge.
The government has attempted to say different things to different communities. The National Party candidate in Richmond is purported to have said ‘it will not happen here’ but of course she was nailed by the member for Page, her National Party colleague who said that he was ‘furious’ at any Nationals candidate who opposes nuclear power and that ‘a new candidate’ would not ‘understand the process’. What a put-down by the member for Page about his colleague the candidate for Richmond. That is why on 30 August 2007, with the Labor candidate for Page, Janelle Saffin, I held a press conference in Ballina to outline and reinforce Labor’s absolute opposition to these nuclear reactors which will be imposed around the coast of Australia.
They say one thing in their electorates and another thing here. They are very brave when it comes to statements in a local paper in their electorate but they come here and they are sheepish. To give one example of that, the member for Corangamite has said in his local paper this week that the Prime Minister has made it clear the government will not be building nuclear power stations. How extraordinary. I joined last week with Darren Cheeseman, the federal Labor candidate for Corangamite, to point out that the Surf Coast Shire in that electorate was the first council to seek a ballot on the location of a nuclear reactor after the Prime Minister’s pledge to allow local ballots. The local Liberals are opposing that of course.
They say they support democracy, they say they support input but they do not actually carry it through when it comes to the crunch. Perhaps there is no more extraordinary statement and no better example of the government’s duplicity in this than that of the member for Gilmore. If you log onto the official website of the member for Gilmore, you can get two contradictory positions: one in which the member for Gilmore is quoted as saying ‘no nuclear power plants for Gilmore’ and another supporting nuclear power plants for Gilmore—an extraordinary proposition. The member for Gilmore knows her party’s position, as all opposite know. Twenty-eight of them have actually ruled out nuclear reactors in their electorates: the members for Braddon, Curtin, Fadden, Fisher, Hume, Kingston, Leichhardt, McMillan, Menzies, Moreton, Bowman, Fairfax, Flinders, Gilmore, Gippsland, Grey, Herbert, Longman, Maranoa, Moncrieff, North Sydney, Petrie and Wentworth. They all say, ‘Not in my electorate.’
It is extraordinary because the member for Bennelong, the current Prime Minister, actually said in parliament, in response to a question about the member for Gilmore’s website, that it would be up to Ryde council to determine whether a nuclear reactor was approved. Around the Lane Cove River is the potential site for a nuclear reactor but we have this duplicity in the government of not being prepared to stand up for its principles when it comes to this. What it comes to is that the government want to have you believe that you can have 25 nuclear reactors but they will not be actually located anywhere. They will not be in anybody’s electorate, they will not impact on anyone and they will not have any nuclear waste associated with them. But we know, because the government have form and have introduced special legislation to this House to impose a nuclear reactor on the Northern Territory, that they are prepared to do that.
That is a low-level waste dump. What we are talking about here is high-level waste. Over the weekend we saw, once again, the government, while they were walking away from it, signing up to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership being promoted by the Bush administration. That is a partnership that would see Australia become the world’s nuclear waste dump. If the government are fair dinkum about their stance re local democracy, then they will not only vote for this legislation, which Labor is supporting; they will vote for Labor’s amendment and they will come clean before the election about where the 25 nuclear reactors will go and where the associated high-level, toxic nuclear waste dumps will go. The Australian public deserve to know prior to the election, not to have the government tiptoe through and hope that no-one notices how hypocritical they are being on this issue.
81
19:53:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
1
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—I rise this evening in this debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. It is with great pleasure that I rise to make a contribution to this bill before the House. Firstly, this bill would not have been required had the Queensland state Labor government not acted in the way it did to bring forward legislation to deny the people of Queensland the right to have their say. They were prepared in Queensland, under the premiership—which will soon be the former premiership—of Premier Beattie, to bring forward legislation, and they brought forward legislation, that would see such draconian measures put into place, whereby local councillors and their mayors, if they dared to encourage, bring forward or provide an avenue for the voice of their ratepayers to be heard in relation to the forced amalgamation of local shires in Queensland, would be sacked or fined, and an interim council would be put in place of those elected representatives of those local communities. It is a sad day when the Commonwealth has to bring forward such legislation because of the actions of a Labor government that are totally out of touch with the people that elected them a little over 12 months ago.
When I saw the process that was being supported by local councils across my electorate, in relation to the size, shape and sustainability of those local government areas, I supported it—just as the local government representatives and the Local Government Association of Queensland did. For two years, local governments have been working cooperatively with their local communities and neighbouring shires to look at the size of their local shires, to look at whether they are going to be sustainable in the long term and to ensure that the shape of the shires reflects the road linkages and communities of interest today. Perhaps in some cases those boundaries did not reflect the communities of interest, nor the connections by road that have emerged since those boundaries were drawn 70 or 80 years ago.
What was happening while that process was proceeding in the local government areas was that the Labor government—under the premiership of Peter Beattie and his Labor minister, Minister Fraser—the department of local government in Queensland or somewhere in the bureaucracy that is controlled by the Premier was actually drawing up maps of local government areas before that process of size, shape and sustainability was complete. What we saw then was that the Labor government in Queensland were not prepared to wait for that process to be completed. They brought forward legislation into the state parliament whereby they appointed a so-called independent commission and commissioners to go through submissions from local councils in about a 40-day period. They were then required to report to the government on the size, shape and sustainability of the Queensland local government areas.
Do I have an interest in this bill? I certainly do, because I represent something like 25 per cent of the local government areas in Queensland—rural shires that are proud of their achievements; rural shires that are connected well to their communities; rural shires that represent the aspirations of local people. In some of these local shires they provide services such as Meals on Wheels. In fact, in some of the remote councils in my area they are actually the undertakers as well. Some of these shires are going to be amalgamated, against their will and without the opportunity for the locally elected councillors and the community to have their say, because of the draconian legislation that was put forward by the state Labor government in Queensland.
Australia is one of the oldest democracies in the world and we are the lucky country. Our democracy was formed through the free vote and free will of the people of Australia—one of the few democracies in the world where it did not arise out of a civil war or a war with neighbouring colonies or countries. So we are a very lucky country. The right of people to elect their governments—their local governments and their state government—is a fundamental principle of any successful democracy in the world today, but that was going to be stripped away by the Labor government of Queensland.
That is why this bill to allow local councils in Queensland to conduct a plebiscite of their ratepayers and gauge the opinion of the people of those local shires had to be brought forward in this parliament: because the Premier of Queensland—soon to be the former Premier of Queensland—was not going to allow those councils to conduct the plebiscite. What he put into law in Queensland was the most draconian piece of legislation that I think the nation has ever seen. He was going to sack those councillors who even encouraged, talked about or acted in a way that would provide an avenue for the voice of their local council ratepayers to be heard.
We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition that he is opposed to what the Premier was doing up in Queensland. He thinks that there is a better way. Words are cheap in this place; action is what counts. We know that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Griffith, was in a former life the chief political adviser to the Premier at the time, Wayne Goss. What did they do with his advice? After all, it is that sort of experience that he claims gives him the ability to be the Prime Minister of this country. What did he do? He gave advice to Premier Goss when Labor was in government in the early nineties that saw the amalgamation of shires in Queensland.
It is one thing to go out in front of a camera, to go on radio or to put an advertisement in a newspaper in Queensland saying: ‘I think there’s a better way. I’ve had a chat with Premier Peter Beattie. We’ve had a cup of tea and I have told him that he should do it a different way.’ But I say to the people of Queensland and to the people of Australia: if the Leader of the Opposition is so weak that he cannot convince the Premier of Queensland not to proceed with draconian legislation which would deny the people of Queensland their democratic right to have a say, the Leader of the Opposition is not fit to be the Prime Minister of this country. He is a weak leader. If he were strong, if he had the ability or even a chance at ever leading this country, he would have been able to convince the Premier of Queensland that what he was proposing was undemocratic and that the draconian legislation that he was bringing forward must not proceed. But the Leader of the Opposition failed there, just as he would fail if he were ever to be elected the Prime Minister of this country.
The Premier of Queensland is going to leave the people of Queensland a little over 12 months after being elected in good faith to lead the state for the next three years. But he has decided that he is over it. He is stepping down; he is out. By Thursday, he will leave the parliament. But what he leaves behind him, apart from this legislation and this process that is going to fail the communities of Queensland, is a litany of failure: failure in the health system, failure to provide water for the people of Queensland and failure to provide sufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of the growing population of the south-east corner of Queensland. He can blame the drought, but every other day we heard the Premier saying, ‘The population of Queensland has risen by another 150 today, and we are going to be the second most populous state in Australia within 20 years,’ or figures like that. He has failed in his premiership to provide the infrastructure necessary for a population that was anticipated by governments as long ago as when the National and the Liberal parties were in coalition in the seventies and eighties. That coalition built the South East Freeway, the Pacific Highway to the Gold Coast, Wivenhoe Dam and Hinze Dam and had plans for further infrastructure development to meet the growing needs of Queensland based on research that showed that it was going to be the fastest-growing state in Australia. He leaves all of that behind him as a failure of his administration.
Of course, these forced amalgamations of local councils will leave behind another legacy. If these are not stopped and these boundaries are not amended, many small rural communities will be left in a situation where people will become landlocked, their assets will be devalued and their small businesses will be devalued because, inevitably, when you centralise control and administration in any sphere of government, the workforce that has been employed in smaller councils will move to the larger centre as part of that amalgamation of shires. There have been no impact statements done in relation to what will happen to some of these smaller rural shires when, under this proposal, they are amalgamated into a supershire. What will happen to the value of that council worker’s house—their little piece of Australia; their pride and joy; their family home—when the population of that small rural shire declines because jobs have inevitably shifted to the larger centre? Those houses will be unsaleable. I already have in my electorate houses that were for sale and for which contracts were signed subject to the outcome of these forced amalgamations that have now been put on hold. Houses in a town like Tambo that might have been worth $120,000 or $130,000 may now be unsaleable and have no value at all.
Under this proposal, we will see the Shire of Tambo amalgamated with the Shire of Blackall. The administrative centre will be in Blackall. The Shire of Tambo and their 60 workers—the administration and the workers—will inevitably move to Blackall. I can repeat that story over and over again with this proposal that has been put forward by the arrogant, out-of-touch state Labor government in Queensland.
What happens to the small business that has just established itself in, say, Aramac—a little corner store, a family running a nice little business because there are workers in town, there is a future in town and the council is supporting the community and encouraging new business into the town? What will happen to the value of that small business when those 60 workers inevitably move to the larger centre where the council will be located? Has there been any study done at all by the Labor government of Queensland as to the impact that these forced amalgamations will have on the value of private assets, be they the family home or the small business? There has not been any study done on that.
It appears that the new Premier of Queensland is going to be Anna Bligh. I respect Anna Bligh. I have got to know her. I do not have to agree with all she does. I call on the Premier, whoever it is, and if it is Anna Bligh, to go back to the drawing board in relation to these forced amalgamations and say: ‘Under my premiership, I want to make sure that, if these proceed as it is proposed that they proceed, there will not be net losers and winners. There will be no net loss, no net disadvantage, to communities or to families.’ In fact, my colleagues in Queensland put forward in the state parliament a private bill—which the Labor Party in Queensland opposed and did not vote for—to ensure that, if these amalgamations proceed on the basis which has been recommended, there is no disadvantage to a community, an individual or a small business. That was opposed by the state Labor government of Queensland.
So I say to the new Premier, if it is Anna Bligh, that she will have a great opportunity now—and she could borrow a phrase from the retiring Premier—to say: ‘Well, I think we got it wrong; I’m sorry. I think we should go back to the original process that local governments were going through voluntarily, looking at the size, shape and sustainability of their local councils.’ I hope that the new Premier of Queensland will take up that offer, because, if it is Anna Bligh, it is her premiership, and it will be her legacy if she fails to change direction in relation to these forced amalgamations.
In relation to the interim committees that are now being formed as a result of this draconian legislation in Queensland: there are two representatives from each of the councils on those interim committees. So, if there are three councils being amalgamated into one council, there will be six councillors from the three representative councils. But imposed on that committee as part of that transition committee will be three unelected union officials—three unelected union representatives. They were not elected by the shire council ratepayers, and I have had it reported to me in one of the western Queensland shires that it is actually now the union officials—unelected people—who are controlling the agenda. Of these union officials out in western Queensland in my electorate, the odd one comes from the community, but in the seat of Flynn, in Barcaldine, which is going to be the centre of two other amalgamated shires, one of them comes from Gladstone—not even a ratepayer in the shire that is proposed to be formed into a supershire. But these are the actions of the Labor Party. If Kevin Rudd, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Griffith, were a strong leader, he could have ensured that this sort of process would never happen in Australia.
So I say to the new Premier, when she is elected tomorrow: go back to the drawing board. Let democracy prevail in this country. Let us ensure, whatever happens in Queensland in relation to these local government areas, that the local people, the local ratepayers, have a say in the size, the shape and the sustainability of their shires. There is too much at stake to see these council amalgamations that are proposed by the state Labor government forced on com-munities against the will of the people and the agenda taken over by the unions of Queensland.
The other thing I might just conclude on is that there is going to be one net winner if this goes forward. His name is Bill Ludwig. He is the AWU leader in Queensland. He has not said a thing about the job losses that might occur and would occur under the models that have been forced on local governments in Queensland. He is not interested in workers; he is just interested in power. He is interested in union power and imposing that on the good people of Queensland. Let them have their say. This bill would not have been necessary had it not been for the actions of an out-of-touch, arrogant Queensland Labor government. (Time expired)
85
20:14:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—It is my pleasure to sum up the debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. I thank the various members who have spoken on this bill, and particularly those members from Queensland directly affected.
YT4
Scott, Bruce, MP
Mr Bruce Scott interjecting—
OK6
Nairn, Gary, MP
Mr NAIRN
—On this side of the parliament particularly. I do not think there has been too much defence from Queensland members on the other side of the parliament, or even support—because apparently the Labor Party supports this bill. If anybody thinks for a second that Mr Rudd, if he had been Prime Minister, would have brought forward a bill to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act when Mr Beattie proposed the amalgamations, they have to be joking. There is no way in the world that a federal Labor government would have intervened in the way in which we have intervened. And we have intervened for a very good reason: we want to see democracy stand in this country. But there is no way in the world that a federal Labor government would have bothered at all. After we did intervene, the Labor Party obviously read the polls, or Hawker Britton did some focus groups up there in Queensland and probably said to the Labor Party: ‘You have got a real problem here. This is the biggest issue around in Queensland. If you don’t support this legislation that the Howard government has put forward, you are going to look pretty silly.’ So, after we made the announcement that we would intervene to allow democracy to take place in Queensland, he scurried along and said, ‘Me too, me too.’ He has all these ‘Me too, me too’ policies happening where he thinks it is good politics. So the focus groups said, ‘You have got to support this,’ and so Labor are supposedly supporting it. But they cannot simply support something that the Howard government brings forward; they have to move some sort of amendment. Looking at this amendment, it has two parts. All of a sudden, out of the blue, Labor want a referendum on constitutional recognition for local government. They have been in opposition now for 11½ years. I would have thought that if this were such a driving issue for the Labor Party we would have seen a private member’s bill from them at some stage during those 11½ years.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—We have moved it.
OK6
Nairn, Gary, MP
Mr NAIRN
—No, we have not. We have not heard anything said about it. But somewhere else in all of these focus groups something must have been said about, ‘We might win a few brownie points with local government. Here’s a bill; let’s whack in an amend-ment that refers to a referendum on constitutional recognition for local government.’ It is an absolute joke. If Labor were serious about this they would have brought forward a decent policy and they would have brought forward a private member’s bill. There are all sorts of ways in which they could have brought this forward over the past 11½ years. But no, they sneak it in as an amendment to the second reading of a bill that they claim to support. You have got to look a little bit different, so you whack this in as an amendment.
The second part of the opposition’s amendment is ‘to allow communities to express a view on the location of 25 nuclear power plants’—I do not know who and what has decided that there is or will ever be 25 nuclear power plants but all of a sudden they invent 25 nuclear power plants—‘and the nuclear waste facilities that the government wants to impose on the Australian people’. What an insult to the parliament this is because, if that is what you had wanted to do, there is absolutely no need to make any amendment. If at some time in the future somebody decides that there has to be that number of nuclear power plants in Australia and you want to have plebiscites, you can do it under the existing legislation. So it is one of two things: either the member for Fraser, who brought this amendment forward, is totally ignorant of the Electoral Act or it is just a stunt. People can decide which it is.
I would have thought that the member for Fraser would know something about the Electoral Act. In a former life he was a party official, like so many others on the other side. From the role of party official he came into the Senate and then into the House—the usual Labor Party operation. Because of his role in those days as a party official you would think that he would not be ignorant of the Electoral Act because it has not changed a huge amount in that respect since those days. Under section 7A of the Electoral Act, you can do exactly that. You do not need to amend the act to have that sort of vote because section 7A authorises the Australian Electoral Commission to supply goods and services. They can sit down and negotiate with anybody to carry out a vote—any community or any committee. I do not know what these committees are but the Labor Party are pretty good at committees. Most of their announcements leading up to the federal election have all been about creating more committees, so I guess that is where it all came from. So, when they talk of allowing some sort of committee to express a view, any sort of committee can go along to the Australian Electoral Commission right now and organise to have a vote. You do not need an amendment. These amendments are an absolute joke. It is a stunt. I warn people out there, when this bill is passed and the Labor Party put out press releases claiming that the coalition was opposed to plebiscites for communities to decide where at some time in the future there might be a nuclear power plant, to ignore them because it is just a stunt. Under the current Electoral Act all of that can happen. So forget the stunt that will come as a result of tonight’s vote.
That deals with the amendment. I will now sum up the bill. The government firmly believes that it is important for people to have a democratic say in matters that will affect them. This bill will achieve this for all Australians, not just for the people of Queensland. I welcome the support of my fellow members for this important legislation and I welcome the unanimous recommendation by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration in its report arising from its recent inquiry into this bill—namely, that it should be passed. Getting a unanimous recommendation from a Senate standing committee is no mean feat in itself.
As members are aware, this bill gives effect to the Prime Minister’s announcement on 7 August 2007 to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to undertake any plebiscite on the amalgamation of any local governing body in any part of Australia. This was in response to the Queensland parliament passing a law on 10 August 2007 that would have prevented councillors in that state having any involvement with a plebiscite on local government matters. We welcome the Queensland government’s backdown on its threat to penalise councillors for conducting or taking part in any plebiscites on local government matters. This was in direct response to this government’s sustained pressure to allow Queenslanders to express their views on the amalgamations without penalty. I reiterate this once more: if there were a federal Labor government in place at the moment then there is no way in the world that this legislation would have come forward and therefore you would not have had the Queensland government backing down.
This government did not intend to stand idly by while the Queensland government prevented councillors in that state from having any involvement with a plebiscite on local government matters. This government was and is prepared to have Commonwealth legislation override any draconian laws such as those passed in Queensland. As the Prime Minister has reiterated on a number of occasions, this government is not expressing a view on whether or not an individual amalgamation should occur; rather the Commonwealth believes that the people should have the right to express a view on the actions of the government without the threat of penalty. This bill achieves this outcome. Since 1992 the Australian Electoral Commission has had the ability to enter into arrangements to supply goods and services to a person or body. The Australian Electoral Commission presently conducts elections for trade unions, employer and other organisations, and other foreign countries. This bill does not propose that the Australian Electoral Commission perform different functions; rather what it does is clarify that the use and disclosure of information by the Australian Electoral Commission is authorised for the purpose of conducting an activity such as a plebiscite.
Contrary to some media reports and commentary on this bill, the government is not directing the AEC to undertake any particular plebiscite activity. The AEC retains its independence under this bill. The bill does not contain a power for anyone to direct the AEC to undertake a plebiscite or similar activity. Clarifying that the Australian Electoral Commission has the authority to use and disclose information it holds will ensure that people are able to express their views on proposals that may affect their democratic rights. Because this government is committed to ensuring that people are able to express their views on proposals that may affect their democratic rights, the bill also contains provisions that override state or territory laws if those laws seek to prohibit, penalise or discriminate against anyone entering into or proposing to enter into an arrangement with the Australian Electoral Commission. The timing for any activity such as a plebiscite as part of an arrangement entered into following the passage of this bill will be determined by the Australian Electoral Commission. I commend this bill to the House.
10000
Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms Corcoran)—The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
88
Mr NAIRN
(Eden-Monaro
—Special Minister of State)
20:26:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
MAIN COMMITTEE
88
Miscellaneous
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 12 September at 11.30 am as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.
88
20:26:00
Bartlett, Kerry, MP
0K6
Macquarie
LP
1
0
Mr BARTLETT
—I ask leave of the House to move a motion to provide for a period of members’ statements in the Main Committee tomorrow.
Leave granted.
0K6
Bartlett, Kerry, MP
Mr BARTLETT
—I move:
That, unless otherwise ordered, at the commencement of the Main Committee meeting at 11.30 a.m. tomorrow, the first item of business shall be Members’ statements, each for no longer than 3 minutes, with the item of business continuing for 30 minutes irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House.
Question agreed to.
HIGHER EDUCATION ENDOWMENT FUND BILL 2007
88
Bills
R2870
Cognate bill:
HIGHER EDUCATION ENDOWMENT FUND (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2007
88
Bills
R2871
Second Reading
88
Debate resumed from 16 August, on motion by Ms Julie Bishop:
That this bill be now read a second time.
88
20:27:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—The Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill 2007 and the Higher Education Endowment Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007 give effect to the government’s announcement in the 2007 budget of the establishment of a perpetual endowment fund for higher education purposes. The intent of the fund is to generate earnings for capital expenditure and research facilities in higher education institutions. The Higher Education Endowment Fund constitutes a $6 billion investment, with $5 billion announced at the time of the federal budget and a further $1 billion announced on 20 August. The Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill establishes the fund and the Higher Education Endowment Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007 amends the Future Fund Act 2006 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to effect the implementation of the Higher Education Endowment Fund. The consequential amendments bill also provides that investments made by the Future Fund Board of Guardians will be determined by the Future Fund Board of Guardians and not by ministerial direction. This bill also specifies that the responsible ministers—the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Treasurer—cannot direct the Future Fund Board of Guardians to use the assets of the Future Fund to invest in a particular asset.
Labor supports these bills, but let the House and the Australian people understand very clearly the only reason these bills are here today is that Kevin Rudd and Labor have made education a front-and-centre issue for all of this year. The government have only acted because we are in an election year. The fund is welcome but it comes after years of sustained neglect and underinvestment by the Howard government in our education sector in general and our higher education sector in particular.
The recent Australia Fair 2007 report by the Australian Council of Social Services found that the Howard government’s record on education represented a significant lost opportunity to improve prosperity given that, as a proportion of GDP, Australia spends the least on education of the six English-speaking OECD countries, apart from Ireland, putting us behind Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the United States. Of the six English-speaking OECD countries, only the United Kingdom has lower rates than Australia of people aged between 25 and 34 and between 45 and 54 with an upper secondary education, and only 1.5 per cent of public investment in education in Australia goes to pre-primary education, compared to an OECD average of 7.2 per cent, with only Ireland investing less.
This report follows on from the most recent figures contained in the OECD Education at a Glance 2006 report, which shows that Australia sits fourth lowest behind Mexico, South Korea and Germany in the proportion of public expenditure on primary, secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary education at 83.7 per cent, down from 85.5 per cent in 1995 and well below the OECD average of 92.7 per cent. Australia spends just 0.1 per cent of GDP on pre-primary education, compared to the OECD average of 0.5 per cent, with more than one-third of Australian four-year-olds not receiving any pre-primary education at all. This is frankly not a performance we can be proud of or rely upon for the future. Despite this, the Howard government tries to gloss over both its record and our current standing internationally.
Most recently the Treasurer has been making excuses for the government’s record. On 30 August the Treasurer issued a press release in response to the ACOSS Australia Fair 2007 report. Instead of confronting this record and admitting that the government has failed the Australian people in its investment in education, the Treasurer chose to make excuses and selectively quoted statistics combining both public and private expenditure on education to attempt to mask a lack of public investment by the Howard government. Private investment is a good and necessary thing in education but it cannot and should not be an excuse for the Howard government’s failure to discharge the Commonwealth’s central responsibility to provide adequately for the education and training of our nation’s people. Unfortunately, after more than 11 long years in office, the Howard government still does not get this.
Over the past 11 long years, the Howard government has presided over the deterioration of our higher education and university sector. The simple fact remains that this government has underfunded our university sector. It has not invested enough in higher education. In its first federal budget in 1996, the Howard government cut university operating grants by a cumulative six per cent over the forward estimates from 1997 to 2000. According to the Group of Eight universities, this resulted in a significant $850 million in cuts to the sector. This had significant flow-on effects for subsequent years as universities dealt with the adverse impact of these cuts.
Government funding cuts to university operating grants since 1996 have put greater financial pressure on university finances, with flow-on effects to the way universities operate. The cold reality is that the Commonwealth has reduced its contribution as a proportion of total revenue. The Commonwealth recurrent funding to universities has fallen by a third from 0.9 per cent of GDP in 1996 to just 0.6 per cent today. According to the most recent OECD figures, Australia has the fourth lowest proportion of public expenditure on tertiary education at 48 per cent, down from 64.8 per cent in 1995 and well below the OECD average of 76.4 per cent. Of all the OECD economies, only the United States, Japan and South Korea make less public investment in tertiary education as a proportion of total investment than Australia. This is evidenced by the fact that Commonwealth grants to universities have decreased from 57 per cent of university revenue in 1996 to 41 per cent in 2004.
Irrespective of this, the Howard government and the Minister for Education, Science and Training state as their defence that Commonwealth expenditure has increased in real terms in the university sector since 1996. The government maintains its silence about the fact that university finance has been substantially outpaced by the total number of students at university. While the government claims that tertiary spending has increased in real terms by 26 per cent since 1996, enrolments have increased by more than double that since 1996. As a consequence, the average amount of Commonwealth funding per student in real terms has declined by nearly $1,500, while student HECS contributions have increased by nearly $2,000 and fees and charges have increased by over $3,000.
If we look at the statistics released in March this year by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, we will see that, while the Commonwealth has increased funding for universities by approximately six per cent since 2001, this has fallen far short of the 12 per cent increase in the number of full-time students since 2001. Even by the government’s own figures, there has been a reduction in the total Commonwealth allocation per student in the period the government has been in office. This has seen a deterioration in the staff-to-student ratio over this time. Universities Australia has shown through its analysis that since 1995 staff-to-student ratios have increased from 14.6 per cent to 20.4 per cent today. Put simply, this means that, as a direct result of a lack of investment in universities by the Howard government, students today receive less time one-on-one with their lecturers and tutors than their counterparts over a decade ago.
We have also seen over this period a substantial shift from public investment in our universities to private investment. According to the most recent OECD figures, Australia has the fourth highest proportion of private expenditure on tertiary education. In 1995, private sources of income made up 35 per cent of university financing. In 2004, that had jumped to 52 per cent—more than double the OECD average of 23.6 per cent. Individual student contributions from fees and charges in the same time have nearly doubled, increasing from 13 per cent in 1996 to 24 per cent in 2004. Australia’s tertiary education system now relies more on private financing than all other OECD countries except for the United States, Japan and South Korea. HECS has gone up on average 100 per cent over the last 10 years. Domestic students now face the prospect of large, long-lasting debt burden after they complete their studies. Since 1996-97, the debt burden for university students has nearly tripled from $4.5 billion to nearly $13 billion in 2005-06.
Universities have also been forced to turn to domestic full fee paying students to help bridge the funding shortfall from the Commonwealth over the past 11 years. According to new Department of Education, Science and Training figures, the number of domestic undergraduate full fee paying students has increased by around 70 per cent in the year to 2006 and by nearly 300 per cent since 2003. That has seen the number of domestic full fee paying undergraduate students increase from fewer than 8,000 in 2003 to more than 30,000 today. At the same time, higher education institutions have taken on a great deal more international full fee paying students. This has seen a rise from fewer than 52,000 in 1995 to nearly 240,000 in 2005—a 360 per cent increase. In percentage terms, international fee income today makes up 15 per cent of total university revenue—an all-time high.
As public investment in tertiary education has fallen, universities have had little option but to increase their reliance on HECS fee increases, fees from international students and fees from full fee paying domestic undergraduate students. The situation our universities face is quite simple: Commonwealth contributions down, fees up, overseas student fees up and HECS up. The underfunding of our universities by the Howard government is clear.
Our universities need to have modern and adequate infrastructure. According to the government’s own department, our universities have deferred approximately $1.5 billion worth of infrastructure investment. The Group of Eight universities estimate that the total deferred maintenance liabilities across Go8 universities in 2006 alone was over $1.5 billion. There is a simple reason universities have deferred maintenance costs. Squeezed by the Howard government’s reduction in university funding, universities have had to delay or defer spending on maintenance or the upgrading of new infrastructure.
In contrast, key competitor nations like China are now investing heavily in new universities and research infrastructure. In 2004, China was ranked fourth in expenditure on research and development, behind only the United States, the European Union and Japan. On the basis of growth rates from 2000-04, China was expected to rank second by the end of last year. In addition to this, China today is investing significantly in its research university capacity, having already commenced work on constructing from scratch around 100 research universities modelled on the University of California, Berkeley. Reflecting this commitment, in China today there are about 15 million tertiary students. By 2010, it is estimated there will be about 25 million tertiary students.
This underscores the gravity of the international competition we face as a nation when it comes to our universities. No longer are they competing against each other for domestic students and domestic research. Today, like so many aspects of our economy, they are in an international competition for talent, skills and research. The Group of Eight universities summed it up neatly in their submission to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee inquiry by stating:
In 2006 China became the world’s second highest investor in R&D, spending some $170 billion, compared with Japan’s $160 billion. The US leads with $410 billion while R&D spending by the European Unions totals $290 billion. So, while the big commitment of six billion dollars is significant and welcome, the $300 to $400 million it is expected to produce annually in the initial years, must be viewed in the context of the recurrent and backlog expenses Australia’s universities face due to past funding cuts …
This is the confronting reality we must deal with.
As a nation we can no longer continue to rely on the good fortune of our minerals and petroleum resources boom to China to maintain our ongoing prosperity. To ensure our future prosperity, we must lift our workplace and national productivity. All the evidence shows that the most effective way to do this is to increase our investment in the education, skills and training of our people and our workforce. If Australia is to turn its productivity performance around and enhance the number of people participating in its workforce, we must increase investment in education at all levels—early childhood education, primary schools, secondary schools, vocational education and training, universities, research, on-the-job training and ongoing professional development. Put simply, Australia needs a revolution in the quantity of our investment in human capital and a revolution in the quality of the outcomes that the education system delivers.
The provisions of the Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill have been modelled on the provisions of the Future Fund Act 2006. The bill provides the Future Fund Board of Guardians with statutory powers to manage the investments of the Higher Education Endowment Fund. The Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill also provides that, as with the Future Fund, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Administration are the responsible ministers. In that capacity, they will issue directions to the board about the performance of investing functions. The board is therefore accountable to the Treasurer and the finance minister for meeting its obligations to manage the Higher Education Endowment Fund in accordance with the requirements of the act and directions. The responsible ministers will make the determination to credit government contributions, initially of $6 billion, to the Higher Education Endowment Fund and any subsequent government contributions to the fund.
The responsible ministers are also responsible for setting rules to determine the maximum amount available for payments from the fund. The fund advisory board will be established to provide advice to the education minister on actual grants. Because of the different nature and intent of the Higher Education Endowment Fund compared to the Future Fund, the education minister, not the responsible ministers, is responsible for authorising grants of financial assistance to eligible higher education institutions and for appointments to the Higher Education Endowment Fund Advisory Board.
Clauses 40(2) and 40(3) provide that the minister for education determines who sits on the fund’s advisory board, while clause 40(4) sets out how the board will operate. Clause 41 determines how the board will undertake its functions. Clause 45 provides that the minister for education authorises grants of financial assistance to eligible higher education institutions in relation to capital expenditure and research facilities. Clause 50 outlines the terms and conditions of funding, including that the terms and conditions on which financial assistance is provided to a higher education provider must be set out in written agreement between the minister for education on behalf of the Commonwealth and the eligible higher education institution.
The Higher Education Endowment Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill contains a variety of amendments to the Future Fund Act 2006. Almost all of these are technical amendments designed to ensure that the Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill and the Future Fund Act are compatible. They are intended to ensure there is no inconsistency between the umbrella Future Fund Act, which covers the mechanics of fund operation for both the Future Fund and the Higher Education Endowment Fund, and the Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill, which deals with matters specific to the Higher Education Endowment Fund. Two specific amendments are intended to prevent the government of the day from using the Future Fund to help finance specific projects or initiatives. Proposed new section 18A precludes the responsible ministers from directing the fund to invest in any particular assets or business. Proposed new subsection 8(1)(1A) of schedule 1, which relates specifically to financial assets that have been transferred into the fund, such as Telstra shares, precludes the responsible ministers from directing the board regarding the investment of any income from the assets, any return on capital accruing from the assets or the assets themselves.
Labor believes there is a role for the Commonwealth in helping to fund infrastructure in our universities, just as there is a Commonwealth role in infrastructure more generally. This not just applies to general infrastructure or infrastructure like broadband but importantly extends to specialist research infrastructure for which the Higher Education Endowment Fund is able to be applied.
The legislation, though, is not without concern. The Senate inquiry into the legislation demonstrated this. Submissions received by the inquiry broadly welcomed the measure; however, some concern was expressed over aspects of the legislation. It is worth briefly touching on three areas of concern raised by various submissions.
A central concern expressed by a number of submissions relates to the transparency associated with the power vested in the minister to make determinations as to where Higher Education Endowment Fund funding is to be directed. In particular, concern was expressed that the minister has too much authority to make such determinations. Proposed section 45 provides that the minister for education authorises grants of financial assistance to eligible higher education institutions in relation to capital expenditure. Proposed section 50 outlines the terms and conditions for funding, including that the terms and conditions on which financial assistance is provided through a higher education provider be set out in written agreement between the minister for education, on behalf of the Commonwealth, and the eligible higher education institution. As a submission from the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, FASTS, expressed:
The intent of s40 of the Bill is to give the Minister control of all stages of the grant process including selecting the Advisory Board (s40(2)), terminating members of the Board (s40(3)), giving directions (s40(4)) and authorising grants to eligible higher education institutions (s45).
A number of submissions identified the potential for funding allocations to be based on political factors rather than on the merits of individual proposals or through, as the Group of Eight identified in its submission:
… any strategic consideration of the sector’s infrastructure needs.
FASTS was more blunt, expressing that in its current form the fund is in effect:
… a significant slush fund for Ministerial pork-barrelling.
Equally, there is no requirement that the advisory board’s recommendations or any variations to those recommendations be made public. As FASTS argued:
FASTS believes this is not a good governance model and recommends the legislation be amended to ensure the Minister makes public both Advisory Board recommendations and significant Ministerial variances from this advice.
A second concern relates to the disbursement of funds each year. Universities Australia expressed concern that the legislation does not set out in any detail the rules by which funding is to be distributed under the Higher Education Endowment Fund and that these details are being developed by the Department of Education, Science and Training in the form of guidelines and administrative information. For instance, it remains unclear how the income stream, which on the government’s estimates may well approach $400 million per year, will be distributed. Based on return projections provided at the time of the budget, the Higher Education Endowment Fund would only deliver each university on average an extra $9.5 million each year. This will not make up for more than 11 years of complacency towards and neglect of our universities’ infrastructure by the Howard government.
Third, submissions expressed concern that the fund will continue to be additional funding and not a substitute for existing programs that provide funds for capital works and research infrastructure in universities. The Group of Eight submission noted that it is essential that the fund never be seen as a substitute for important schemes which serve specific purposes, such as the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, the Capital Development Pool, funding provided through the Australian Research Council or enabling and equipment grants under the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Labor believes that income from the Higher Education Endowment Fund should be available to those higher education infrastructure projects that genuinely advance our national interest and work off national and international competitive strengths of the respective universities and should not be used to provide a short-term political dividend to the government of the day. These sentiments are expressed in the following second reading amendment, which I look forward to my colleague, the member for Rankin, seconding. I move:
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:
-
welcomes the fact that the Higher Education Endowment Fund, like the Future Fund, is for investment in Australia’s long-term national interests;
-
notes that:
-
by the Government’s own analysis there exists a significant backlog of deferred infrastructure maintenance, estimated at $1.5 billion for the university sector;
-
the Group of Eight Universities estimated that total deferred maintenance liabilities were $1.53 billion in 2006 across Go8 universities alone;
-
the principal reason behind this backlog is the fact that since it came to power more than 11 years ago the Government has undermined the higher education sector by cutting university operating grants, starting with its 1996 Federal Budget;
-
as a proportion of total revenue, Commonwealth grants to universities have decreased from 57% of their revenue in 1996 to 41% in 2004, while university revenue derived from fees and charges has increased from 13% in 1996 to 24% in 2004; and
-
condemns the Government for the adverse impact these factors have had on Australia’s universities, including that:
-
since 1995 student-staff ratios have increased from 14.6 to 20.4 today, with adverse implications for the quality of teaching and learning;
-
Australia’s education system now relies more on private financing than all other OECD countries except for the United States, Japan and South Korea;
-
university revenue derived from fees and charges has increased from 13% in 1996 to 25% in 2004, with the result that more than half of the cost of tertiary education today is met from private sources – with dependence on private sources increasing to 52% in 2004 from 35% in 1995;
-
the average amount of Commonwealth funding per student in real terms has declined by nearly $1,500, while student HECS contributions have increased by nearly $2,000, and fees and charges have increased by over $3,000; and
-
the deferment of essential expenditure on the maintenance of University buildings and facilities will have long term consequences for the quality of essential infrastructure; and
-
notes widespread concerns that:
-
over time, the HEEF could be used to replace existing capital and infrastructure programs in higher education, notably the Capital Development Pool, the Institutional Grants Scheme, the Research Infrastructure (Block Grants) Scheme and the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme; and
-
the Governments actions in this package highlight the inadequacy of its approach to national infrastructure needs, whether in the education sector or in services which impact on the sector, such as a national broadband network”.
I commend the bill and the second reading amendment to the House.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Is the amendment seconded?
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
95
20:53:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
1
0
Mr TUCKEY
—The Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill 2007 is a bill of great importance, as it sets a precedent for the university sector. It is good policy. The cognate bill, the Higher Education Endowment Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007, will protect the $5 billion that the government has provided in the budget for an endowment fund that will guarantee resources to the university sector for capital works and research in the future. The Higher Education Endowment Fund is consistent with the government’s Future Fund, which has a target of some $140 billion to meet the superannuation responsibilities of the taxpayer—those who continue to be in, or were in, unfunded superannuation arrangements that typically, over decades, were funded from the general budget.
The changed demographics that are predicted for this nation would make it totally unsustainable to pay those amounts of money to the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police and others who will be eligible for superannuation in future years. It is all right for people to say that a future government has a responsibility and should meet it and that future governments will take account of the capacity of the taxpayer base and other matters when determining their expenditure. Without the superannuation based Future Fund, in particular, persons in employment today might worry about their otherwise determined superannuation entitlements being delivered. It would not be the first time that a government has bailed out on the commitments of past governments.
There have been statements made in this place that are an absolute threat to these endowment funds. The opposition has made it clear that, in the case of the Future Fund, to quote the member for Hotham: ‘This is only for the purpose of funding the superannuation of public servants. Therefore, if we think we have better ways of spending it, we will.’ The consequential amendments bill is designed, as was the additional Future Fund legislation, to ensure that governments cannot undertake that course nor direct the guardians of the money to make investments or divert moneys for other than proper purposes. The Higher Education Endowment Fund is therefore a particularly valuable contribution to the university sector. To the best of my knowledge, it is universally accepted and applauded.
I will refer in brief to the member for Perth’s remarks. He started to quote statistics about undergraduate places and many other factors of that nature. I will put on record that, shortly after the introduction of Medicare and bulk-billing, when it became so profitable for certain medical practitioners that one managed to buy a football team and when there were people playing grand pianos in the reception areas of general practices, the Hawke government panicked that they had a tiger by the tail. Their response was to say, ‘We’ve got to reduce the number of doctors. We obviously have too many, as they are getting out there and adding significantly to the costs to government.’ It was quite interesting, because the result of that concern was to reduce by 4,000 the number of undergraduate places that were available to students throughout Australia. As we all know, it takes at least 10 years to get such a student from the starting post to being a self-reliant general practitioner. When one works out the timing, one might wonder why Australia is now desperately short of Australian-born, ‑bred and -educated general practitioners. Of course, this government has not only increased those places dramatically; it has opened new medical schools in, I think, Cairns and other places.
We well remember the decision of the Whitlam government to create free university education and the decision of the Hawke government that that was unsustainable, notwithstanding its retention by the Fraser government. We had a situation where governments could not afford that process. Then there was the issue of natural justice, in that people asked the question: ‘If my kid goes to TAFE and pays up-front for an education, why should someone who could anticipate earning in today’s monetary terms a $40,000 or $50,000 starting salary not make some financial contribution to their education?’ The Higher Education Contribution Scheme threshold at which people start to repay that money has been extended to about $39,000, if I recollect the sum. The reality is that those people do not pay up before that time, before they have earned that money.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
96
Adjournment
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9.00 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Gorton Electorate
96
96
21:00:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—Tonight I want to raise concerns I have about the way in which the government has failed to address concerns of residents in the electorate of Gorton. I too am concerned about the paucity of funding provided to families in the electorate of Gorton in recent times. It is unfortunate that the Howard government concerns itself with its own hide and not with those in need of support, encouragement and resources. It is most upsetting for me and for others that this 11-year-old, weary government focuses upon the marginal seats rather than the marginalised in our community. I rise tonight to express my disappointment on behalf of the residents in my electorate at being ignored by the Howard government over this long, 11-year period.
This government has provided little or no support for the infrastructure needs of my electorate. Gorton is a fast-growing electorate in Victoria—indeed, it is the fastest-growing electorate in Victoria. When it was constructed nominally by the Australian Electoral Commission in 2002 it was designated on electorate numbers of 80,000 voters. Since then the number of voters in the electorate has grown to more than 107,000. By any stretch of the imagination that is a very fast growing area of Melbourne. Unfortunately, whilst there has been a massive exponential growth in the population of the area, there has not been growth in infrastructure commensurate with that growth.
I have seen that in the failure of the government to respond to concerns with respect to the Medicare office. In fact, I would like to dwell on the Medicare office proposal. There were more than 4,000 signatories to the petition tabled in this place wishing to have a Medicare office. We are one of very few electorates in Victoria that have not been provided with a Medicare office.
OK6
Nairn, Gary, MP
Mr Nairn interjecting—
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—I hear the Special Minister of State, Mr Nairn, opposite, but it is not true. I have asked the 39 medical offices in my electorate whether they have taken up Easyclaim, and none of them at this point have taken up Easyclaim—not one. I have been told by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, that we will not need a Medicare office because we have this new system called Easyclaim. If that is the case, will the minister opposite tell me whether, given that there is a new system, he is about to close down every Medicare office in this country? If I do not need a Medicare office because of Easyclaim, clearly no electorate needs a Medicare office. Would you like to answer the question, Minister: would you close down every Medicare office in this country? Of course, he does not want to answer that. The fact is there has been total contempt and disregard for the constituents in my electorate. It is an electorate that deserves a Medicare office.
OK6
Nairn, Gary, MP
Mr Nairn interjecting—
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—Of course, Minister, you will not respond to the question: would you close down every Medicare office? Of course you would not. I am sure there is an office in Eden-Monaro, and there should be one in Gorton. The fact is, there is not one in Gorton and there should be. The Easyclaim facility proposed by the Minister for Health and Ageing has failed in any sense to properly attend to the needs of the constituents of my electorate. So I am happy to see it as a complementary service that has failed.
The other failure by this government, of course, has been its silence on the Calder Freeway. In my electorate there are three major ground-level intersections into the Calder Freeway that are causing congestion, fatality and injury. They are three intersections that must be fixed. The Brumby Labor government is willing to commit itself to 50 per cent of the contribution required to have those intersections improved, but, unfortunately, this government has failed to propose, in any way, any support for those intersections. We need support in some way so that there will be fewer casualties and no congestion—not only for my electorate but for the electorates of Calwell and McEwen. I had hoped that the Minister for Small Business and Tourism would have already lent her weight to this debate, but, unfortunately, she has no concern for her people in Gisborne, New Gisborne and Woodend. There has been a failure by this government to respond to the concerns of my electorate and indeed the electorates north of mine and I hope they attend to these concerns as soon as possible. (Time expired)
Medicare Benefits Schedule
98
98
21:05:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
1
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—The federal budget handed down on 8 May this year provided $291.3 million over the next four years for the inclusion of two new attendance items in the Medicare Benefits Schedule from 1 November 2007. This will provide for lengthier consultations between patients with chronic and complex health conditions and the consultant physicians or paediatricians to whom they are referred. Patients with chronic and complex conditions have two or more serious medical conditions simultaneously, resulting in a combined effect—for example, cardiovascular disease and diabetes or osteoarthritis and chronic respiratory disease.
Consultant physicians and paediatricians are the highly trained specialist medical consultants who advise the referring doctor on the patient’s diagnosis and management. They are particularly qualified to treat the diseases identified by the Council of Australian Governments as national health priorities, and which often feature in chronic and complex conditions. The needs of patients with chronic and complex health conditions typically take longer for consultant physicians and paediatricians to investigate, consider and address than do the needs of other patients. Until now this difference has not been reflected in the Medicare Benefits Schedule. The new items 132 and 133 will go a long way in remedying this longstanding and anomalous situation.
These two new attendance items will provide the growing numbers of Australians with chronic and complex conditions unprecedented access to the highly specialised medical care they need for optimum health outcomes. The implications are positive and wide ranging for the patients, their families and their carers and, not least, for consultant physicians and paediatricians.
In recent years, the growth of Australia’s consultant physician and paediatrician workforce has not kept up with the demand for its services. Many positions are unfilled, particularly in regional and rural areas and in the aged care sector. Many training placements are not being taken up. Practising as a consultant physician or paediatrician has become financially unattractive, particularly to potential trainees. The implications for the delivery and efficiency of our health care system over the next decade, and the treatment of our National Health Priorities, are significant.
I would like to acknowledge the work of the Australian Association of Consultant Physicians, the AACP, which represents Australian consultant physicians and paediatricians in economic and workforce matters. In its submission to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Abbott, of 28 September 2006 and subsequent representations to senators and members of this parliament, the AACP made a compelling case for the inclusion of these new attendance items in the Medicare Benefits Schedule as part of a holistic strategy for improving health outcomes for Australians with chronic and complex conditions. It also made a case with regard to the relativity of remuneration for consultant physicians and paediatricians and the attractiveness of training in consultant physician and paediatrician specialties and sub-specialties. I would like to pay particular tribute to the efforts of the AACP President, Dr Leslie Bolitho, the AACP Vice-President, Dr Louis McGuigan, and the AACP Secretary-Treasurer, Dr John Best AO. I must also take this opportunity to publicly note the strong support given over many months on this issue by the health minister, Mr Abbott.
This issue has personal relevance to me as the secretary of the backbench committee on health and ageing, and also as the member for Cowper, an area which has a large proportion of retirees who move to the area because of its many natural beauties. At the same time, this issue has personal relevance to us all. The inclusion of these two new attendance items in the Medicare Benefits Schedule will help to create improved access to specialist health care for all Australians. It will provide incentives for our best and brightest medical graduates to train as consultant physicians and paediatricians, it will promote a regime with a revitalised consultant physician and paediatrician workforce, it will enable many vacancies to be filled, and it will provide great encouragement for our best and brightest to enter this field.
I applaud the inclusion from 1 November 2007 of these two new attendance items in the Medicare Benefits Schedule.
Ballarat Electorate: Community Projects
99
99
21:09:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
0
0
Ms KING
—I would like to acknowledge three fantastic projects within my electorate: firstly, the team at the Trentham Neighbourhood House, who have been working for several years now to expand their facilities to provide more classes and meeting rooms for adult learning; secondly, the Bacchus Marsh community and Moorabool Shire, who have been working on the construction of a community learning centre; and finally, but by no means least, the community of Creswick and Hepburn Shire, who have been working on the design and construction of an interpretive centre. I have been lucky to be able to work with all three of these local communities, and I know how hard they have worked on their respective projects.
Many regional communities do not have the same level of services as those living in our larger cities. For local councils, gaining access to critical infrastructure funds to boost community facilities can be even more difficult in our regional and rural areas, given the spread of the territory they cover and their limited capacity for revenue growth. That is why it is crucial that communities like Trentham, Bacchus Marsh and Creswick, and many others across my district, get funding support.
Yesterday it was my pleasure to announce that funding will be given to all three of these projects if a Rudd Labor government is elected at the end of this year. The first announcement of $220,000 was made over a cup of tea in Trentham with Pam Hicks, Roy Capener, Lee-Anne Tisdale, Robyn Cary and Councillor Heather Mutimer. Trentham Neighbourhood House is the only adult learning centre within the town and supports a wide range of community groups. Trentham Neighbourhood House provides terrific resources for adult education but most would agree that the buildings they are provided in are long past their use-by date. This funding will allow the Trentham Neighbourhood House to expand office space and the number of computer classes and, importantly, it will allow access by people with a disability.
A Rudd Labor government will also provide $400,000 for the community in Bacchus Marsh. The learning centre will bring several key community facilities all under one roof. Bringing such a range of community facilities together will mean that they are all more accessible to a broader part of the community. The centre will include a library facility and provide council, tourism and community services, including maternal and child health and youth services. It will also include adult learning facilities to support both Bacchus Marsh’s existing adult education centres, the Laurels and Darley Neighbourhood House. Bacchus Marsh is a terrific community that has expanded rapidly over the past few years. Its services have just not kept pace with the growth of the town, and a community hub is desperately needed. I hope that the community learning centre provides just such a hub.
A Rudd Labor government will also fund the $450,000 needed for the construction of the Creswick interpretive centre. The interpretive centre will incorporate the current information centre, staffed by a committed group of volunteers; public conveniences; a meeting space and an interpretive centre that focuses on the town’s timber history and the wood innovation centre at Creswick’s Melbourne University School of Forestry. Creswick is blessed with stunning natural surroundings which have made it an increasingly popular tourist destination. Tourism is only likely to increase even more with a new five-star resort nearing completion. However, without an interpretive centre the community will not be able to fully benefit from such increases. The interpretive centre will showcase local products, such as bed and breakfasts, cafes, the museum and local scenic and historic attractions. These funds will come from the Regional Partnerships Program.
Labor is committed to our regions and committed to supporting local solutions which stack up and have the support of the area consultative committees, as these projects do. I would like to thank all three of the communities for their hard work on their respective projects. After working closely with all three communities and with Moorabool and Hepburn shires, I know how much effort they have all put in. I look forward to working as a part of a Rudd Labor government with all of these and many others communities across my district in the delivery of key projects that will benefit our community.
Hasluck Electorate: Crime
100
100
21:13:00
Henry, Stuart, MP
E0L
Hasluck
LP
1
0
Mr HENRY
—I wish to speak tonight about hoons, crime, vandalism and graffiti: law and order, and crime, in my electorate and across Western Australia—and probably across Australia. Vandals, youth at risk and others are running rampant in our communities. It is a blight on today’s society. In my electorate of Hasluck, since I won the seat at the last election, law and order has been the No. 1 issue that people have raised with me, when I have been doorknocking or through correspondence, including emails, or at community crime prevention forums that I have conducted.
In recent times the situation seems to have worsened in Hasluck, as well as throughout the Perth metropolitan area. One of the worst incidents involved the savage assault of a 79-year-old constituent in her home at Gosnells. The horrific injuries that this woman suffered were highlighted in the local and national media for days after she was viciously assaulted. So far, police have not been able to catch the perpetrators of this callous home invasion. My sympathies and good wishes go out to this poor woman and her family as she recovers from this horrible and devastating ordeal.
In Western Australia we are now in our sixth year of a state Labor government whose record on law and order, particularly in the areas of street crime, home invasions, sexual assaults, graffiti and hoons, is absolutely appalling. Recently the Liberal opposition in WA revealed that in 2006-07 there were 2,071 more bashings than there were in 2001. Their investigation also revealed that, during the same period, there had been a 111 per cent increase in the number of violent rapes and sexual assaults.
In Perth recently, we have seen a man bashed with a star picket while gardening in his front yard, a man enjoying a quiet night out with a mate dying after being king hit in Mandurah—an all too frequent occurrence these days—and a baby badly hurt in a road rage incident. Labor is soft on crime in WA. I know that other Liberal federal members, like me, spend a great deal of time handling local crime issues, hoons, graffiti and other such antisocial behaviour, because our constituents are fed up with a lack of action by the state government in the area of policing and community service and turn to us for help. They do not differentiate on this issue. They know they have been let down by Labor and they expect the federal government to play a stronger role.
Every Saturday, Sunday and Monday morning, Perth radio news bulletins are full of stories from the weekend feast of crime that envelops the metropolitan area. Emergency departments at Perth’s major hospitals resemble war zones as victims of crime need treatment, with overworked staff also trying to deal with violent drug-affected users and alcoholic binge drinkers. There is a real fear factor in Perth about travelling on public transport on Friday and Saturday nights, walking through shopping malls or through Northbridge or Fremantle.
The Sunday Times newspaper of last weekend published the results of its annual reader survey on crime in Western Australia. Almost 6,000 readers responded to the survey which found that 50 per cent of respondents had been victims of crime in the past 12 months. Nearly 60 per cent of respondents said Western Australia was a more dangerous place to live since Labor came to power six years ago. Yet, over the past few months, the Labor government of Western Australia has closed a number of police stations in country areas.
While the state Labor government has failed in this vital area, the Howard government has played its part in the Hasluck electorate in doing what it can to address crime and antisocial behaviour. So far, nearly $1 million in federal funding has gone to specific community based activities aimed at reducing the level of crime and loutish behaviour under the government’s National Community Crime Prevention Program grants scheme. There was a stark warning in the editorial in the most recent edition of the Sunday Times. It said:
The most disturbing aspect about crime in Western Australia is not the regularity or extent of it.
The most worrying thing is that many of us have become inured to it. Even the more violent incidents are met with an air of acceptance, as if nothing can be done to stop them.
The pressure is now on Labor in Western Australia to stop talking about crime and to start providing real solutions to the people in my electorate, as well as those in every other community in Western Australia. We need more police—not more public servants, as some 18,000 have already been employed by the Labor government since they were first elected. We need people who are out on the beat, doing the job and looking after the community.
Shortland Electorate: Telecommunications
101
101
21:18:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
0
0
Ms HALL
—Earlier this year, I was approached by two constituents who live in the Caves Beach area of the Shortland electorate who were having problems with their television, radio and mobile phone reception. I had previously contacted the minister about these issues and was dissatisfied with her response which showed a lack of understanding of the problems and no concern for the residents of Shortland. As I have previously received complaints about telecommunications in this area, I decided to send a survey to the residents. Following the discussions with the two residents, I sent 672 surveys out to addresses in the area and I received 136 responses, which is a response rate of 20 per cent.
Sixty-one per cent of respondents seeking television signals from Sydney believed that their reception was less than average in quality most of the time. Nearly 30 per cent of those seeking a signal from Sydney said that their reception was ‘always poor’ and only 8.9 per cent thought that their reception from Sydney was ‘always good’. With respect to television signals from Newcastle, 50 per cent of respondents seeking television signals believed that their reception was less than average in quality most of the time. Nearly 18.2 per cent of those seeking a signal from Newcastle said that their reception was ‘always poor’. Only 14.2 per cent thought that their reception from Newcastle was ‘always good’. Considering that Swansea is some 22 kilometres from Newcastle, this is hardly satisfactory. Some comments were:
The quality of signal is very poor, it has gotten worse in the last 12 months.
TV reception is usually very much dependent on the weather.
Signals are greatly affected by passing aircraft, low flying helicopters are most noticed.
Channel 10 and 7 digital reception ONLY, ZERO reception all other digital services.
Stuffed up since the ... minister decided to bring in the digital signals.
Only NBN is decent, others impossible to see.
I might add that I have censored some of the comments that I have read to the House tonight. Other comments were:
Thank you for your interest ...
Have had an aerial installed by an TV aerial company using digital box, They said it is impossible to get a better signal because of where we live. The aerial is on a tall mast.
It is basically impossible to watch TV in our house. We would never get a period of more than five minutes without signal interruption, and at any one time only for half of the stations otherwise we would not have any signal.
We had better reception in Gunnedah in 1964. Reception worse since they put in digital, to get better reception we were told we would need a 40 foot mast on the roof, surely something can be done in 2007.
Terrible, terrible terrible ...
And on it goes. With respect to radio, 41.4 per cent of the respondents felt that the radio signals were below average. In relation to mobile phones, a whopping 76.5 per cent of the users felt that their mobile phone service was below average; 66.6 per cent thought that their signal was ‘always poor’; and only 10.6 per cent thought that the signal was ‘good’. I must say that some of the comments really reflect that. They include:
Reception is so bad it is unusable.
We need to find a spot in the house where calls can be made and received, sometime the best place is the middle of the road in our street.
Telstra mobile very bad reception in Caves Beach. Always have to go outside to get signal.
Vodaphone are shockingly terrible.
Drop out points up and down the highway south of Swansea—
I can verify that—
Have tried 3 providers—
and it is still the same—
The use of mobile phones inside our home is totally impossible ...
This is 2007, and what we need is a minister who actually listens to people in the community. What we need is a service for the people of Caves Beach that meets their needs. When the government is talking about fast-speed broadband, I hardly think that a wireless system is going to meet their needs. I am disgusted by the response of the minister and so are the people of Caves Beach. I will be taking it up with the minister again. (Time expired)
Crime
103
103
21:23:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I rise tonight to talk about the number of people who come up and speak to me at the train stations and shopping centres, and the feedback through survey forms, about issues such as footpaths, crime, hoon driving, young lads on monkey bikes, graffiti, the condition of roads et cetera. I would have to say that a good 70 per cent of the issues that people raise with me are not actually issues to do with the federal government, but I see that we have two approaches: you can stand back and throw stones at the other organisation or you can roll up your sleeves and look at how you can work with people—individuals, community groups, businesses and other levels of government—to get outcomes.
I would like to commend some of the groups in Wakefield that have chosen to work with us and that I have been able to work with to get outcomes for the community in Wakefield. Some of the community groups that have recently joined with us to work on crime have taken the time and effort to get involved with the National Community Crime Prevention Program and apply for funding to actually help their groups to provide security for their individual organisations. There are groups such as the Balaklava Museum; the Eastern Park Soccer, Sports and Community Club; For You Inc.; the Freeling Tennis Club; the Gawler BMX Club; the Gawler Bowling Club; the Gawler Central Sporting Club; the Gawler Little Athletics Club; the Gawler Soccer and Sports Club; the German Club of Elizabeth; the Girl Guides of South Australia in Para Plains; the Greek Orthodox Parish of Salisbury; the Hamley Bridge Golf Club; the Lyndoch Tennis Club; the Mintaro-Manoora football and netball clubs; the Munno Para Bowling and Recreation Club; the Naval Association of Australia in Elizabeth and Salisbury; the Northside Christian Fellowship—which is now known as Salt Church; the Saddleworth District Community Association; the Scout Association in Gawler; the Scout Association in Riverton; the Tarlee Bowling Club; the Two Wells Golf Club; and the Watervale Community Association. All these groups, like many in our community, raise concerns around crime, but these groups choose to actually work with us and submit applications to do the work. They have now received funding under this program to address security issues—putting in things like better security systems, new security doors, fire and security lights, and CCTV systems to protect their properties and make their communities safer.
Businesses also are happy to get on board where we see a problem. In things like road infrastructure, companies like Balco in Balaklava have worked in partnership with us and the Wakefield Regional Council to put some $2 million into the Bowmans Interchange—a multimodal infrastructure project that is facilitating trade and regional development in that area. In particular, tonight I would like to commend the councils in the electorate of Wakefield. I work with the councils in a group called the Wakefield Group. We meet on a regular basis to discuss strategic needs for the area and see how we can best work together as an Australian government and local governments to get good outcomes for the community. We have had outcomes like that of last weekend, when I was very pleased to be able to join with the state government and the local government to open the newly sealed Hoskins Road. This need was raised when I had community meetings at Thomson Beach and at the Dublin institute with people who raised significant safety concerns about the condition of this road. It was a gravel road, but it was also very muddy and slippery when wet, and it is the sole point of access for that community. I am glad to say that through the Roads to Recovery program, the black spots program and money from the council, this road has now been sealed.
We have worked with the Light Regional Council on things like the upgrade to the Main North Road—we have put some $6 million into that—and the Kapunda-Marrabel Road, with an additional $3 million. They are providing good project management, along with the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council, to make sure that we optimise the outcome of that money and get a good outcome for both those roads and other roads where they will be doing works. The Light Regional Council have also worked with us on things like Green Corps projects. We have had young people get good employment outcomes and training outcomes. Salisbury Council has worked with us, as well as other councils, on the Waterproofing Northern Adelaide project, where we invested a significant amount of money into recycling stormwater to reduce the demand on the Murray and save water. We put in $5 billion to upgrade West Avenue. Playford Council has worked with us on the National Community Crime Prevention Program and has received $497,000 to help young people avoid going into crime in the first place, through their Shop, Skate and Sing—Youth Outreach program. They have also worked with us where residents have identified things like hard rubbish collection. The elected members have done the hard yards to make that system come about. By identifying it, communicating and working together, we have had a good outcome.
There is more to do, though. Gawler is working with us, and other councils are still working with us, to address community facilities such as the Lynay Centre, a disability respite centre, roads, youth employment and business development opportunities to benefit the community of Wakefield. (Time expired)
Belmont Medicare Office
104
104
21:28:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
0
0
Ms HALL
—In the short time that is remaining, I would like to put on the record my absolute disgust at the facts that (a) one of the first acts of the Howard government was to close the Belmont Medicare office, when it was an office that performed at a level much higher than offices held within Liberal electorates and was in an area that catered for older Australians, and (b) the government has since failed to reopen it. Shortland electorate has the 10th highest number of grey voters in the whole of Australia. The government has totally ignored those people. People have to travel one hour to be able to attend the Medicare office to be able to get their refund or, alternatively, they have to rely on neighbours or friends to collect the money for them. Shortland electorate is not a wealthy electorate; it has a large number of pensioners and a large number of people on low and fixed incomes, and they rely on being able to get their refund from the Medicare office to be able to purchase their medicines. I am disgusted that this cold-hearted Howard government has ignored the people of Shortland and has failed to reopen the Belmont Medicare office, which is the demand of all the people in the Shortland electorate.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
104
21:30:00
House adjourned at 9.30 pm
NOTICES
104
Notices
The following notices were given:
XH4
McGauran, Peter, MP
Mr McGauran
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Quarantine Act 1908, and for other purposes. (Quarantine Amendment (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 2007)
IK6
Lloyd, Jim, MP
Mr Lloyd
to move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 11 September 2007, namely: Humanities and Science Campus Square, Stage 1.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr Bowen
to move:
That the House:
-
notes:
-
the ongoing persecution and suffering of Assyrians, Chaldeans, Mandaeans and other religious minorities in Iraq;
-
the mass exodus of Christians and Mandaeans from Iraq to flee persecution; and
-
the resolution of the United States House of Representatives to allocate at lease $10 million in emergency funds for the religious minorities of the Nineveh Plains; and
-
calls on the Government in the strongest possible terms to lobby for better protection for Christians and Mandaeans in Iraq and also calls on the Government to closely examine the decision of the United States House of Representatives, with a view to increasing humanitarian assistance to the persecuted Christian and Mandaean minorities.
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms Owens
to move:
That the House:
-
notes:
-
that Australia has the reported highest rate of mesothelioma in the world;
-
that there has been a four to five-fold increase in the rate of mesothelioma since the early 1980s and that it is estimated that this rate will continue to increase for the next five to ten years;
-
the chemotherapy agent Alimta is the only treatment registered for use in mesothelioma, and in combination with Cisplatin, represents the ‘gold standard’ for mesothelioma treatment in Australia;
-
treatment by Alimta can significantly increase a patient’s survival time as well as improve a patient’s quality of life in its final stages;
-
Alimta is listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for persons who have contracted lung cancer for smoking, but is not approved for patients with mesothelioma;
-
access to Alimta for mesothelioma patients is currently inequitable across Australia, with some States and companies providing various schemes to compensate victims of asbestos exposure and some patients having to pay for Alimta privately at great expense; and
-
the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recently approved the use of Alimta in the treatment of mesothelioma sufferers and the governments of France, Sweden and Japan subsidise the drug for sufferers in those countries; and
-
calls on the Government to take all necessary action to support the inclusion of Alimta on the PBS for the treatment of all mesothelioma sufferers.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
106
Questions in Writing
Passport Fees
106
106
3658
106
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr Rudd
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2006:
In respect of the item in Budget Paper No.2, 2006-07 Budget, page 13, titled “Fees charged for passports and other travel documents—increase”, (a) what are the assumptions underlying the increase in fees, (b) what are the estimates of demand over the forward estimates for each type of passport, and what is the projected revenue for each, (c) what are the estimates of demand over the forward estimates following implementation of the increase in fee for each type of passport and what is the projected revenue for each, and (d) following the implementation of the increase in fee, for each year from 2006-07 to 2009-10, how much of the increased passport revenue will be used to offset the cost of “Overseas consular and crisis response—strengthening assistance to Australians”.
106
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 Australian passport application fee has been increased by Consumer Price Index (CPI) levels annually since 1992. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has agreed that passport fees be increased each July in line with the movement in the March CPI for the preceding 12 months.
The annual Consumer Price Index adjustment allows passport fees to retain relativity with the increase in material and services required to produce the documents.
Fees for other travel documents are calculated as a fixed percentage of the increased fee for an ordinary adult passport.
-
Estimates of demand (2006-07 actual):
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Adult passports
945,424
972,477
1,042,544
979,991
979,991
Child/Senior
366,805
265,486
284,614
267,537
267,537
Freq Adult
24,507
8,352
8,954
8,416
8,416
Freq Child/Senior
1,018
5,694
6,105
5,738
5,738
Certificate of Identity
582
633
678
638
638
Document of Identity
2,351
1,898
2,035
1,913
1,913
UN Travel Document
1,760
4,176
4,477
4,208
4,208
Emergency
6,834
6,201
6,647
6,248
6,248
Total
1,349,281
1,265,422
1,356,596
1,275,200
1,275,200
Estimates of revenue (inclusive of GST, 2006-07 actual):
Revenue
(A$ Million)
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Adult passports
179.62
194.50
212.68
204.82
209.72
Child/Senior
34.84
26.55
29.03
28.09
28.63
Freq Adult
6.98
2.51
2.74
2.64
2.70
Freq Child/Senior
0.15
0.85
0.93
0.90
0.92
Certificate of Identity
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Document of Identity
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
UN Travel Document
0.20
0.50
0.55
0.53
0.54
Emergency
0.49
0.47
0.51
0.49
0.50
Priority services
11.99
11.29
12.43
11.99
12.29
Lost and Stolen
1.12
1.70
1.85
1.79
1.84
Total
235.55
238.52
260.89
251.41
257.31
-
The tables provided at (b) above incorporate estimated demand and fee increases for each of the passport categories. This information was provided in response to Question on Notice 3123 on 13 June 2007. Updated 2006/07 figures have now been provided.
-
The amount of increased passport revenue used to offset the cost of “Overseas consular and crisis response—strengthening assistance to Australians” is a notional rather than a quantifiable amount.
Industry, Tourism and Resources: KPMG Contracts
107
107
4059
107
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 4 September 2006:
-
What contracts have been awarded to KPMG by the Department and 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).
107
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources
This table provides details of contracts awarded over $10,000 in the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Financial Year
Contracts Awarded
Cost of each contract
GST exclusive
(a) 2004-05
Review of Offshore Petroleum Industry Upstream Facility Access Principals
$27,728
Energy Market Reform Implementation Group (ERIG): Professional services and expenses in relation to the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) transition
$52,229
Energy Market Reform Implementation Group (ERIG): Professional services and expenses in relation to Consumer Advocacy Consultancy delivery of report
$58,836
Attendance, observation and compilation of reports on stock takes at various National Measurement Institute sites
$14,575
Demographics of Visitors
$65,725
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (Continued)
Financial Year
Contracts Awarded
Cost of each contract
GST exclusive
(b) 2005-06
Review of Offshore Petroleum Industry Upstream Facility Access Principals
$12,727
Analysis of Loans to Australian Leather Holdings
$27,776
Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund Due Diligence Assessor
$153,566
Conduct a feasibility study for a National Innovation Research & Policy Centre for Australia & New Zealand
$61,307
Demographics of Visitors
$65,725
(c) 2006-07
Energy Market Reform Implementation Group (ERIG): Professional advice in relation to the efficient operation of Electricity trading, Capital markets and investments and Gas markets
$233,120
The provision of accounting services
$21,195
Tourism Australia
This table provides details of contracts awarded over $10,000 in the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Financial Year
Contracts Awarded
Cost of each contract
GST exclusive
(a) 2004-05
Nil
(b) 2005-06
Internal Audit
$175,000
Audit Global advertising tender
$55,000
(c) 2006-07
Domestic Tourism Demographic Study
$36,000
Internal Audit
$240,000
IP Australia
This table provides details of contracts awarded over $10,000 in the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Financial Year
Contracts Awarded
Cost of each contract
GST exclusive
(a) 2004-05
Nil
(b) 2005-06
Nil
(c) 2006-07
Internal Audit Services
$207,990
Geoscience Australia
This table provides details of contracts awarded over $10,000 in the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Financial Year
Contracts Awarded
Cost of each contract
GST exclusive
(a) 2004-05
Internal Audit Services
$95,353
(b) 2005-06
Nil
(c) 2006-07
Nil
National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority
This table provides details of contracts awarded over $10,000 in the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Financial Year
Contracts Awarded
Cost of each contract
GST exclusive
(a) 2004-05
Nil
(b) 2005-06
Nil
(c) 2006-07
Internal Audit Services
$14,990
Health and Ageing: Freedom of Information
109
109
4355
109
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, 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.
109
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Under the FOI Act, the Department is required to make this information available in annual reports.
-
Under the FOI Act, information about the outcome of FOI applications, finalised each financial year by each department and agency, is made publicly available in annual reports.
-
Nil.
-
N/A.
Commonwealth Cars: Fuel Costs
109
109
4436
109
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 14 September 2007:
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.
109
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Department does not have records prior to January 2001.
The cost of fuel purchased for all Commonwealth cars operated by the Department of Health & Ageing is as follows:
2001: $235,381 including GST
2002: $261,251 including GST
2003: $273,472 including GST
2004: $272,769 including GST
2005: $291,735 including GST
2006: $187,268 including GST
The Department’s response incorporates fuel costs for the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the National Blood Authority and the Professional Services Review. The Portfolio Agency figures do not include figures for those agencies which have been, but are no longer Portfolio Agencies, such as Medicare Australia (previously HIC) which transferred to another Portfolio in October 2004.
Commonwealth Cars: Fuel Costs
110
110
4443
110
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, 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.
110
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 Department and portfolio agencies response is represented in the table below:
$ Cost of fuel purchased
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Department of the Environment and Water Resources*
99,714
96,020
98,907
112,481
138,783
160,137
Bureau of Meteorology
29,527
85,416
123,356
147,792
196,701
274,739
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority **
Not
Available
Not
Available
Not
Available
Not
Available
Not
Available
Not
Available
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
***
$1863
$2518
$2231
$4171
$8351
* Includes the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator and the Director of National Parks.
** The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority uses fuel for marine vessels as well as Commonwealth cars. Fuel used for both purposes is recorded as one record. It is therefore not possible to determine how much fuel used by Commonwealth cars only.
*** The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust commenced operation in 2002.
——————
Notes:
Due to the reporting configuration of the Australian Government Fleet Manager’s IT system, fuel purchase data is only able to be reported by calendar years.
The figures reflect the cost of fuel for leased cars. The Department also uses fuel for generation of power in Antarctica, marine vessels, special purpose vehicles and specialised equipment such as trucks, four wheel drive vehicles, graders and bikes. Data for fuel used for these purposes and vehicles is not recorded in a manner which makes it readily available.
Customs: Import Clearances
110
110
4870
110
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms Gillard
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 27 November 2006:
For the financial year (a) 2005-06 and (b) 2004-05 could the Minister provide a breakdown, by State and Territory, of (i) the number of air and sea import clearances that were approved and (ii) the number of effective fulltime staff that were employed to grant these approvals.
110
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:
-
Goods are imported when they arrive at an Australian airport or seaport from overseas on board an aircraft or ship, with the intention of being unloaded in Australia. Any goods that arrive by the post; courier; freight forwarder; shipping company; airline, or other means are considered as imported and must be reported to Customs as cargo. These goods are subject to Customs control until they are released into “home consumption” or otherwise treated. Home consumption is where the goods are intended to be used or available for sale once they have been imported.
Import Declarations are used to clear goods above a certain threshold directly into home consumption or into home consumption from a warehouse. As of 8 October 2005 the threshold was increased for air and sea cargo from $250 to $1,000. Where imported goods have a value below the threshold the importer must complete a Self Assessed Clearance (SAC) Declaration or other prescribed forms to have the goods released from Customs control. The exception is where the goods arrive in Australia by post; no SAC or other prescribed forms are required where the value of the goods is under $1,000.
2004/05 Financial Year
NSW
VIC
QLD
WA
SA
TAS
NT
Total
Number of air cargo clearances by import declaration
1,155,648
585,150
148,980
102,722
38,313
847
4,282
2,035,852
Number of sea cargo import declarations
476,541
479,586
188,923
103,250
65,159
5,469
2,579
1,320,507
Number of postal cargo clearances by import declaration
11,345
11,996
6,024
2,917
2,071
15
98
34,466
Number of clearances from a warehouse by import declaration
26,242
20,420
10,116
5,317
2,526
4
314
64,939
Number of air and sea cargo clearances other than by import declaration
1,621,039
602,294
92,892
92,955
11,896
122
2,122
2,423,320
Total number of clearances
3,290,815
1,699,446
446,845
307,161
118,965
6,457
9,395
5,879,084
2005/06 Financial Year
NSW
VIC
QLD
WA
SA
TAS
NT
Total
Number of air cargo import declarations
904,281
467,370
134,611
93,248
35,985
830
4,086
1,670,411
Number of sea cargo import declarations
475,037
477,779
190,280
104,803
63,632
5,088
2,736
1,319,355
Number of postal cargo import declarations
8,812
9,249
4,337
2,087
1,657
23
90
26,255
Number of clearances from a warehouse by import declaration
23,668
18,591
9,728
5,518
2,454
5
338
60,302
Number of air and sea cargo clearances other than by import declaration
2,040,825
901,108
134,062
142,249
20,956
89
6,285
3,245,574
Total number of clearances
3,452,623
1,904,097
473,018
347,905
124,684
6,035
13,535
6,321,897
-
Customs does not compile the information as requested and it would unnecessarily require the diversion of considerable agency resources to research existing data to respond to this question.
Superannuation
111
111
4903
111
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 27 November 2006:
To date, how many superannuation fund members have been charged the 45 per cent tax rate for failing to provide their tax file number.
111
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 publicly available.
Climate Change
112
112
4999
112
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 7 December 2006:
-
Has the Minister been advised as to the cost of reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050; if so, what advice has the Minister received; if not, why not.
-
Has the Minister sought external advice on the impact of climate change on the Australian economy; if not, why not.
-
Is it the Minister’s objective to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Will Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions begin to decline under current government policy.
-
Has the Department of the Environment and Heritage made projections to establish the year by which Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will begin to decline under current government policy; if so, when will emissions decline; if not, why not.
-
What is the estimated proportion of Australia’s vulnerable, threatened and endangered species and ecological communities that will be adversely influenced by climate change.
-
Has the Minister been advised as to the adverse impacts of climate change on Australian biodiversity; if so, what is that advice; if not, why has the Minister not sought such advice.
-
Has the Minister received advice about the extinction of Australian species due to climate change; if so what is that advice; if not, why has the Minister not sought such advice.
112
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 Minister is aware of the findings of the ABARE report, Economic Impact of Climate Change Policy, which models a decrease in emissions of 50% of 1990 levels by 2050; and of a number of other reports which model the cost of reducing emissions within other timeframes.
-
The Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability report released, by Senator Campbell in 2005, identifies key risks for Australian society and industry and underpins the Australian Government’s recently announced $170 million initiative on adaptation to climate change impacts.
-
Yes.
-
and (5) Projections provided in the Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2006 report indicate that Government measures are expected to reduce Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by 87 million tonnes by 2010.
Australia has relatively high rates of economic growth and there is strong international demand for Australia’s resources. The Government’s objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining our economic prosperity.
-
to (8) The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by its Working Group 2 (Chapter 11) reviews the projected impacts of climate change on a range of Australian species and ecosystems. The new $126 million Australian Government Centre for Climate Change Adaptation will focus on biodiversity as a priority area.
Defence: Missing Property
112
112
5141
112
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 December 2006:
-
For each financial year from 1 July 2004, what was the total cost the Minister’s department of departmental property reported missing.
-
For the financial year 2005-06, what items of property were reported missing and what was the cost of each.
113
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 not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the considerable resources that would be required to manually compile a response.
Defence: Fuel Costs
113
113
5160
113
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 December 2006:
-
For each financial year from 1 July 2004, what sum has the Minister’s department spent on fuel.
-
How many cars does the department currently own or lease and how many of those cars run on LPG.
-
Does the department plan to purchase any cars that run on LPG or to convert cars running on petrol to LPG.
113
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 response relates to fuel usage for all commercial vehicles used by the department. Fuel usage for operating military assets has been excluded.
-
Cars run by Defence predominantly use Unleaded Petrol (ULP). Figures for ULP expenditure have been extracted from Defence’s ROMAN financial system. 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 the Defence Department was:
-
-
2004-05, $5.797 million.
-
-
2005-06, $7.136 million.
-
-
2006-07, $6.256 million.
-
The department currently owns some 6,000 vehicles under its Commercial Vehicles Program. This includes cars (sedans and station wagons), light commercial utility vehicles, four wheel drive vehicles and small to medium passenger vehicles, buses, touring coaches and trailers. None of these vehicles run on LPG.
As at the 30 April 2007 the department was leasing 163 vehicles under the Executive Vehicle Scheme. None of these vehicles run on LPG.
-
There is currently no specific requirement for Defence to operate vehicles running on LPG.
Environment and Water Resources: Fuel Costs
1
1
5163
1
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 7 December 2006:
-
For each financial year from 1 July 2004, what sum of money has the Minister’s department spent on fuel.
-
How many cars does the department currently own or lease and how many of those cars run on LPG.
-
Does the department plan to purchase any cars that run on LPG or to convert cars running on petrol to LPG.
1
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:
-
Due to the reporting configuration of the Australian Government Fleet Managers IT system, fuel purchase data is only able to be reported by calendar years.
$ Cost of fuel in calendar years
2004
2005
2006
112,481
138,783
160,137
Note:
(i) The figures reflect the cost of fuel for leased cars. The Department also uses fuel for generation of power in Antarctica, marine vessels, special purpose vehicles and specialised equipment such as trucks, four wheel drive vehicles, graders and bikes. Data for fuel used for these purposes and vehicles is not recorded in a manner which makes it readily available.
(ii) Includes the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator and the Director of National Parks.
-
The Department of the Environment and Water Resources leases 67 vehicles. Seven of these are hybrid, electric/petrol vehicles. No vehicles leased by the department use LPG.
-
The Department of the Environment and Water Resources would consider leasing LPG fuelled vehicles where there is a business case to do so.
Defence: Information Sharing
114
114
5199
114
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 6 January 2007:
Is the Minister’s department considering the use of auto-population computer technology that would enable the exchange of personal details and particulars of individuals between departments; if so, (a) with which departments and (b) what personal details are proposed to be shared.
114
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
No.
Environment and Water Resources: Energy
1
1
5391
1
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
0
Ms Kate Ellis
asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 12 February 2007:
In respect of the offices of the Department of the Environment in the John Gorton Building, Canberra: (a) what measures, if any, have been taken to reduce the adverse environmental impact of the offices and when was each identified initiative implemented; (b) how many light bulbs are fitted in the offices; (c) how many of the fitted light bulbs are compact fluorescent light bulbs and when were they installed; (d) do the offices source energy from solar power; if so, what percentage of total energy use does this supply and where are the solar units installed; (e) do the offices have a solar hot water system; if so, what percentage of total hot water use does this supply; (f) does the air conditioning system used at the offices have an energy rating; if so, what is that rating; and (g) what was the total electricity usage of the offices in (i) 2004, (ii) 2005 and (iii) 2006.
1
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:
-
John Gorton Building has utilised 100% Greenpower since 2003. This ensures that the equivalent power used by the building is sourced from renewable energy sources. Renewable energy is energy derived from sources that cannot be depleted or can be replaced such as solar, wind, biomass (waste), wave or hydro. Clean, renewable sources don’t produce greenhouse pollution.
In addition to purchasing Green Power the department (in 2005-06) used approximately 30% less energy than the current Energy Efficiency in Government Operations target of 7,500 MJ/person/annum.
Initiatives implemented to minimise the Department’s adverse environmental impacts include:
-
As part of the refurbishment of the John Gorton Building in 1998, the distribution, configuration and illumination provided by lighting systems was revised to minimise the number of fluorescent and other lights.
-
The environmental awareness training which forms part of the Department’s Environment Management System (EMS) encourages staff to use power saving options on computers and printers, switch off lights in conference rooms when not in use, and observe proper waste disposal and recycling practices. These awareness training presentations have been ongoing since 2003.
-
Where possible, printers are set to duplex printing as default. This was implemented as part of a wholesale refresh of IT systems in 2005.
-
The Department has been a participant in the Greenhouse Challenge Program (GHC) since 1997. GHC requires the Department to report annually against agreed carbon emission targets. A new GHC is being negotiated in 2007.
-
The Department has reduced the amount of waste going to landfill by developing its recycling infrastructure. A 3-bin waste management system has been in use in the John Gorton Building since 1998, following a major building refurbishment, to encourage the recycling of plastics, paper and organics. Currently, around 75% of waste from the 3-bin system is recycled, a saving of around 128 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent emissions.
-
The Department also recycles chemical waste, including fluorescent lights, mobile phones and printer cartridges. Currently, 100% of fluorescent lights are recycled.
-
The Department first introduced fuel efficient hybrid (Toyota Prius) vehicles into its pool vehicle fleet in 2003, and now has 5 hybrid vehicles. With the exception of special purpose vehicles, 100% of the fleet has a Green Vehicle Guide (GVG) rating of >10.5, which confirms that CO2 emissions and other pollution as a result of pool vehicle use is minimised.
-
Since 2003, the Department has subscribed to GreenFleet, whose tree planting program offsets 4.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide for each of the 36 vehicle pool and SES vehicle fleet, totalling 150 tonnes of CO2 per annum.
-
Since 2004, the Department has also subscribed to BP Global Choice for its Senior Executive Service vehicle fleet, which operates a number of certified Green House Friendly emission reduction initiatives.
-
A grey water system was installed as part of the building refurbishment in 1998. The amount of water generated by the system varies depending on the use of water in basins and showers but averages in the order of 2,800 litres of water each day, used for irrigation of garden beds and lawn areas around John Gorton Building.
-
and (c) The number of lights in the Department’s tenancy of the John Gorton Building is approx 2,500.
The John Gorton Building is primarily fitted out with standard or compact fluorescent lights and a total of 12 halogen down lights (located in conference rooms). With the exception of emergency lighting, there are no incandescent light bulbs in use.
As part of a building refurbishment in 1998, lower lighting levels were set in walkways and corridors, motion detectors introduced in conference rooms and in the centre wings of the building, and light diffusers applied to the panels of lights to enable an appropriate reduction of lighting levels on sunny days.
-
The John Gorton Building does not have photovoltaic (solar) cells installed onsite nor does it actively source power from a solar-generated source. However, as indicated in part (a) of the answer, the John Gorton Building does source 100% of its electricity from accredited Green Power renewable energy sources which may include solar energy.
-
The John Gorton Building has a solar hot water system that provides all the hot water for the Australian Greenhouse Office area, equivalent to around 25% of all the hot water generated in the entire building (including the Department of Finance and Administration tenancy).
-
As a tenant in the John Gorton Building, with a net lease whereby the owner carries the cost of heating and cooling systems, the Department does not have direct access to information on the energy efficiency rating of the air conditioning system.
-
Total tenant light and power for the John Gorton Building tenancies used by the Department:
-
2003-04: 1448,335 kWh = 5500 MJ/person/year**
-
2004-05: 1630,343kWh* = 5233MJ/person/year**
-
2005-06: 1557,604 kWh* = 5376 MJ/person/year**
-
*Includes subsumed Australia Greenhouse Office office (basement) area.
-
** MJ/person/year amounts based on all of the departments Canberra office space at the time (Edmond Barton Building and the John Gorton Building).
Motor Vehicles: Carbon Dioxide Emissions
116
116
5407
116
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 12 February 2007:
-
Can he confirm that (a) the United States, (b) China and (c) the European Union have proposed, or have implemented, carbon dioxide emission standards for passenger motor vehicles and trucks; if not, why not.
-
Will the Government set carbon dioxide emission standards for motor vehicles imported to Australia; if so, how; if not, why not.
-
Will the Government set carbon dioxide emission standards for motor vehicles exported from Australia; if so, how; if not, why not.
116
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 United States and China have fuel efficiency standards for new passenger and light commercial vehicles, not carbon dioxide emission standards. The European Union is currently considering the introduction of standards for average carbon dioxide emissions from new passenger and light commercial vehicles. None of these countries have carbon dioxide emission standards for medium and heavy trucks.
-
The Government has not set carbon dioxide emission standards for motor vehicles, whether imported to Australia or made locally. A voluntary national average fuel consumption target was negotiated in 2003 between the Government and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI). The target for new petrol passenger cars is 6.8 L/100km by 2010. This was estimated to represent an 18% improvement in the fuel consumption of new vehicles between 2002 and 2010.
In early 2006 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) requested the Australian Transport Council (ATC) and the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) to jointly report by the end of 2006 on opportunities to increase the uptake of more fuel efficient passenger and freight vehicles in Australia through reform of regulations and new incentives and programmes. A report has been completed and was considered by COAG on 13 April 2007.
COAG has requested that EPHC and ATC develop jointly a package of measures designed to move the fuel efficiency and emissions performance of the Australian fleet towards international best practice. The setting of carbon dioxide emission standards for motor vehicles has been raised as a potential measure but the technical feasibility and impacts on the automotive industry would first need to be investigated before any decision could be made.
-
The standards applying to motor vehicles exported from Australia would be a matter for the importing country.
Community Water Grants
1
1
5524
1
Andren, Peter, MP
KL6
Calare
IND
0
Mr Andren
asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 20 March 2007:
-
Is it government policy to allow or encourage private organisations, such as Water & Energy Savers (Vic) Pty Ltd, to contact schools on the eastern seaboard in New South Wales and to offer to prepare Community Water Grants applications in exchange for payment.
-
Is it permissible under the Community Water Grants guidelines for schools that receive a Community Water Grant on the basis of an application prepared by Water & Energy Savers (Vic) Pty Ltd to pay that company a management fee of 15 per cent of the total grant received.
-
Is the provision of generic letters of support drafted by organisations such as Water & Energy Savers (Vic) Pty Ltd, but signed by Members of Parliament (a) permitted under the Community Water Grants guidelines and (b) regarded by him and his department as satisfactory evidence of the worthiness of projects for public funding.
-
In respect of the practice outlined in Part (3), (a) is it encouraged by the Government and (b) how many organisations are engaged in such activity.
-
Can the department provide the total sum of grants money received as commission by private organisations of the type identified in Part (3) for the (a) 2005-06 financial year, and (b) the 2006-07 financial year to date; if not, why not.
1
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:
It is not government policy to encourage private firms to contact schools and offer to prepare grant applications. The Community Water Grants guidelines allow grant recipients to allocate up to 15 per cent of funding to project administration, however, they may not use the grant to pay for the preparation of an application. The Department is unable to provide the total sum of grant money received as commission by private firms. Project administration costs were not separately identified from other project costs. However, financial acquittals do require project administration costs to ensure the 15 per cent project management cap is not exceeded. Applicants are encouraged to seek letters of support from local community leaders as evidence of community support for the project, which is one objective of the programme. We do not regard generic letters of support themselves as satisfactory evidence of a project’s worthiness. The Government does not encourage any firms to draft letters on behalf of applicants, nor is it known how many organisations are involved in such activity.
Taxation
118
118
5591
118
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 26 March 2007:
-
Can he provide the sum of withholding tax revenue that was collected from Australian source income paid from funds managed in Australia to non-resident investors for the financial year (i) 2001-02, (ii) 2002-03, (iii) 2003-04, (iv) 2004-05, and (v) 2005-06; and
-
If this information is not collected by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), (a) does this expose a deficiency in the ATO’s tax collection and revenue monitoring ability, (b) how does Treasury provide sound advice to Government on the measurement and management of Australia’s withholding tax regime and (c) does his inability to provide this information have future policy and budget implications, should it become necessary to compare the taxation treatment of non-resident investors and review Australia’s withholding tax regime in order to bring it into line with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
118
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 as it is aggregated with other withholding tax amounts on the business activity statement.
-
No. (b) For policy advice relating to Australia’s withholding tax regime, data from the Australian Taxation Office is supplemented by data from other sources, such as from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the flow of payments of interest, dividends and other income to non-residents by country. This information is used to model the flows concerned and the related tax liabilities. (c) No.
Renewable Energy
118
118
5660
118
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 29 March 2007:
-
Has he read the article titled “Call to put more money into renewables”, which appeared in the Australian Financial Review, on 15 August 2006; if not, why not.
-
What funds have been allocated in the 2006-07 Budget for (a) research into and (b) development of renewable energy.
-
Has his department completed (a) an independent report on the cost-benefit of uranium and (b) a cost-benefit report of wind energy; if so what are the full details of those reports; if not why not.
-
Is he, or his department, aware of comparative reports on investment into research and development of renewable energy in other Organisation for the Economic Co-operation and Development nations, if so what are the full details of those reports; if not will he commission such a report and if not why not.
118
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 Minister is aware of the article.
-
The Environment Budget Overview 2006-07 details the programmes (listed below) that have funds allocated to the research, development and deployment of low emission technologies, including renewable energy technologies.
- Renewable Energy Equity Fund
- Photovoltaic Rebate Programme
- Renewable Energy Commercialisation Programme
- Renewable Remote Power Generation Programme
- Low Emissions Technology and Abatement
- Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund
- Solar Cities
- Advanced Electricity Storage Technologies Programme
- Renewable Energy Development Initiative
The above information does not include funding allocated to the Department of Education, Science and Training and research agencies, as this information is not readily available for renewable energy research and development.
-
My Department has not undertaken a cost-benefit study into the use of uranium as an energy source. The Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP, established a Prime Ministerial Taskforce to undertake a comprehensive review of uranium mining, processing and the contribution of nuclear energy in Australia in the longer term. The Review has contributed to a wide ranging public debate on Australia’s future energy needs and the broad range of emerging energy technologies. The final report is now complete and is available at the following website:
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/umpner/index.cfm.
-
My Department has not undertaken a cost-benefit study into wind energy as this is a mature technology and it is matter for individual companies to analyse on a commercial basis.
-
My Department is aware of reports published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which is an autonomous body linked with the Organisation for the Economic Co-operation and Development. The IEA publishes Renewable Information annually, and in 2006 released the Renewable Energy: RD&D Priorities- Insights from IEA Technology Programmes. These and other reports provide detailed analyses of the status of energy technologies in member countries. I commend them to the honourable member. The IEA reports can be accessed directly from the IEA through their website at http://www.iea.org/
Breast Cancer
119
119
5671
119
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
0
Mr Georganas
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 9 May 2007:
Can the Government guarantee that growth hormones used in Australian cattle do not contribute to the development of breast cancer in women; if not (a) how and to what extent are growth hormones injected in Australian cattle likely to contribute to the incidence of breast cancer and (b) what action is the Government taking to reduce any risk that the use of growth hormones in Australian cattle may pose to public health.
119
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
My department last reviewed the human safety of residues of hormone growth promotants in 2003. The review found that there was unlikely to be any appreciable health risk to consumers from eating meat from cattle that have been treated with Hormone growth promotants according to Good Veterinary Practice. There was no new scientific evidence to indicate a need to reconsider the use of Hormone growth promotants but, in view of the complexity of assessments of total dietary hormone intakes and the contentious views expressed in various international forums, the use of Hormone growth promotants in meat producing animals has been kept under ongoing consideration.
More recently, epidemiological studies have reported an apparent association between the consumption of red meat and the development of breast cancer. For example, in November 2006 an American study presented evidence that women who ate large amounts of red meat were more than twice as likely to suffer hormone-related breast cancer. The study authors speculated that chemicals added during meat processing or growth hormones given to cattle might be to blame. However, they also commented that cooked or processed red meat is a source of carcinogens, such as heterocyclic amines, N-nitroso-compounds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, that increase mammary tumors in animals and have been hypothesized to increase breast cancer risk.
Earlier this year, a British study also found that women whose consumption of meat (red and processed meat) was at the highest population intake level, were found to be at the highest increased risk of breast cancer compared with non-meat consumers. The study authors noted that there are several mechanisms whereby meat intake may contribute to breast cancer risk. For example meat, and in particular processed meat, can be a rich source of saturated fat, for which an effect on mammary carcinogenesis has been shown in animals although the relevance of this to humans is controversial. Other mechanisms are related to the formation of heterocyclic amines during cooking or nitroso compounds found in processed meat.
Since the Government reviewed the human safety of Hormone growth promotants in 2003, there is no new scientific data to contradict the view that there is unlikely to be any appreciable human health risk to consumers from eating meat from cattle that have been treated with these chemicals. There have been new epidemiological studies that provide evidence of an association between red meat consumption and the incidence of breast cancer, but there is no new evidence to link this to the use of Hormone growth promotants. The Government will continue to keep this issue under ongoing consideration.
Defence: Fire Inspection Services
120
120
5681
120
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 May 2007:
During the past two years, have any contracts for fire inspection services at military sites been outsourced to consultants or commercial entities that have a financial or other association with CMS contractors for those sites; if so, (a) to whom were the services outsourced and (b) at what cost.
120
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) Fire inspection services are embedded within Defence Support regional Comprehensive Maintenance Support (CMS) contracts. Any sub-contracting by CMS prime contractors is solely a matter between the Defence prime managing contractor and sub-contractor as Defence enters into contract arrangements with a prime managing CMS contractor. If the fire services are sub-contracted, all CMS contracts incorporate the following terms and conditions.
The Contractor must:
-
let all subcontracts in a manner (including on terms) which, to the maximum extent practicable, maximises competition and value for money for the Commonwealth;
-
ensure that all subcontracts are in writing and duly signed;
-
not obtain tenders (if applicable) from, or let subcontracts to, any tenderer who is a related body corporate (as that term is defined in the Corporations Act) without the prior written approval of the Contract Authority;
-
administer the tender processes (if applicable) it conducts, and the subcontracts it lets, strictly in accordance with the terms of tender or subcontract (as the case may be); and
-
ensure that all tender processes and all dealings with subcontractors are conducted with the highest standards of probity, equal opportunity, fair dealing and ethics.
Defence: C17 Aircraft
120
120
5682
120
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 May 2007:
What is the total funding allocation for through-life support of the C17 aircraft as a proportion of the capital cost and within the forward estimates period.
121
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The capital budget for C-17 aircraft is $2.3 billion (2007-08 PBS Outturned Price Basis). Through-life support of the C-17 aircraft over the forward estimates period (budget year 2007-08 plus three years) is approximately $420 million. This equates to approximately 18 per cent of the capital budget.
Defence: VIP Aircraft
121
121
5689
121
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 May 2007:
-
For the 2006-07 financial year to date, how many flying hours have been accrued by the RAAF’s fleet of VIP aircraft (a) in total and (b) for each aircraft.
-
What is the operational cost per flying hour of the RAAF’s VIP fleet.
-
Is his department planning to acquire any larger VIP aircraft.
-
What is the expected useful life of each aircraft type in the VIP aircraft fleet.
121
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
-
To the end of April 2007, the Defence Special Purpose Aircraft fleet has accrued a total of 2,607.9 flying hours, including VIP tasking, national support tasks and Air Force support tasks. (b) The flying hours for each aircraft are:
-
-
Boeing B737 BBJ A36-001, 530.9 hours.
-
Boeing B737 BBJ A36-002, 570.6 hours.
-
Challenger 604 A37-001, 548.8 hours.
-
Challenger 604 A37-002, 430.8 hours.
-
Challenger 604 A37-003, 526.9 hours.
-
The additional cost per flying hour for the Defence Special Purpose Aircraft fleet is $2,820 per hour.
-
The department has no plans to acquire larger VIP aircraft.
-
The working life of each aircraft type may be as long as 20 to 30 years. However, Defence leases the aircraft, each on a 12-year lease, with the leases expiring during the period from June to September 2014.
Westpoint
121
121
5765
121
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 23 May 2007:
-
Further to his reply to question No. 3590 (Hansard, 21 May 2007, page 91) that “12 reports were received from the public concerning various entities in the Westpoint group, including a telephone call from Ms Brailey”, can he advise whether an investigation was undertaken in respect of each of these reports; if so, (a) what was the nature of each investigation, (b) on what date did each investigation commence, (c) on what date did each investigation conclude, (d) what were the findings and (e) what were the recommendations; if not, why not.
-
What information, advice or undertakings did the Australian Securities and Investments Commission provide Ms Brailey upon receiving her complaint about Westpoint’s use of promissory notes in 2001; if no information, advice or undertakings were provided, why not.
121
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
ASIC has advised that the 12 reports that it received from the public concerning various entities in the Westpoint group raised issues about mezzanine financing as a type of financing and whether it should be regulated. No complaints raised concern about the financial viability of the Westpoint group or non-payment of redemptions.
Investigations were commenced in late 2003 in relation to the issues of whether the particular promissory notes were regulated products and whether Westpoint entities were required to hold a licence for their promotion and sale (as addressed by a number of the complaints received). These investigations culminated in ASIC’s Westpoint mezzanine financing action announced in May 2004.
For further information, please refer to the answer to parts (3) and (4) of the Honourable Member’s question no. 3590 (House of Representatives).
-
Ms Brailey advised ASIC of her concerns in a telephone call. ASIC recorded the fact of the call and invited Ms Brailey to provide documentary evidence in support of the concerns. I am advised that no formal complaint was ever received by Ms Brailey supporting those concerns. Accordingly, ASIC did not provide information, advice or undertakings to Ms Brailey.
Finance and Administration: Water
122
122
5806
122
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 29 May 2007:
-
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total water usage, in litres, by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio; and
-
Since 1 July 2000, what measures has the Minister’s department instigated to reduce water usage.
122
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Department of Finance and Administration (Finance)
-
Finance occupies a number of tenancies, some of which are shared with other organisations and there is no facility to attribute water to individual tenants. Separate metering is not available and figures therefore do not represent total departmental water usage. However, data is available on water usage for Finance’s occupancy within the John Gorton and Treasury buildings from financial years 2003-04 to 2006-07, with figures shown below. The increase in the number of staff and the size of the tenancies has contributed directly to the increase in the water consumed.
Financial Years
Consumption (Litres)
2003-04
41,801,000
2004-05
50,833,000
2005-06
51,822,000
2006-07
53,966,000
-
The measures instigated, since 1 July 2000, to reduce water usage in the main office buildings managed by Finance in the ACT include:
i Waterless urinal systems are currently on trial;
ii Progressive installation of water flow control fittings in taps and showers;
iii Installation of dripper systems with timers for the four small irrigated courtyards;
iv Use of dual flush toilets;
v Installation of water meters on cooling towers and data logger water meters on mains supply lines; and
vi Regular checks of storm water drains, toilets, taps and pressure relief valves on hot water systems for leaks and the routine periodic changing of seals.
- installation of water meters on cooling towers and data logger water meters on mains supply lines; and
- regular checks of storm water drains, toilets, taps and pressure relief valves on hot water systems for leaks and the routine periodic changing of seals.
Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)
-
The AEC leases all of its properties. For the majority of leases, the requested information is not directly available to the AEC’s outsourced property provider.
-
The AEC has not instigated any water usage reduction measures.
Australian Reward Investment Alliance (ARIA)
-
ARIA leases space in commercial premises and the requested information is not available to ARIA.
-
Although ARIA does not control water usage in the building in which it leases, all ARIA employees are encouraged to minimise water use whenever possible.
ComSuper
-
ComSuper leases its premises from a private owner, and is unable to report water consumption by financial year, due to the metering periods determined by the supplier. However, the available data is as follows.
Period
Consumption (Litres)
5 December 2001 to 11 June 2002
43,448,000
11 June 2002 to 13 June 2003
75,693,000
13 June 2003 to 8 June 2004
72,325,000
8 June 2004 to 7 June 2005
60,410,000
7 June 2005 to 13 June 2006
49,252,000
13 June 2006 to 12 March 2007
4,085,000
The data provided from 5 December 2001 to 13 June 2006 represents the nine wings of Cameron Offices, and the data from 13 June 2006 to 12 March 2007 represents only the wings of Cameron Offices occupied by ComSuper. ComSuper is unable to source the information for the period 12 March to 30 June 2007, as the water supplier has not issued these figures as yet.
-
A number of discussions have been conducted between ComSuper and the owner of the leased premises to consider water saving initiatives, including installing dual flush cisterns. To date, new initiatives have not been implemented; however ComSuper is working with the owner to progress these activities.
Future Fund Management Agency (FFMA)
-
FFMA does not have access to this information as the building managers monitor water usage across the building, not specifically the FFMA tenancy.
-
FFMA has installed dual flush capability in the disabled facilities constructed during fit out of the tenancy.
Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC)
-
Usage records for the CGC are available only from the 2002-03 year. Prior to that year, the water accounts were paid by the owners/agents of the building and since then, there has been a change in the agent serving the owner and the Commission. The available figures on water consumption are as follows. The increase in water usage in 2006-07 reflects retrieval of staff from another premise, for which water usage was part of rental costs and therefore not obtainable.
Financial Years
Consumption (Litres)
2002-03
1,069,000
2003-04
483,000
2004-05
450,000
2005-06
412,000
2006-07
951,000
-
Although not required for reporting purposes, the Commission is mindful of its need to minimise all energy and water usage. CGC staff are vigilant in reporting faulty taps and toilets immediately, and minimising waste by ensuring taps are turned off correctly. Due to the age of the building, dual flush toilets have been installed on an opportunity basis, when cisterns require replacement. The dishwasher is used only when full. In May 2006, old shower heads were replaced with water miser heads, to reduce the flow. The small garden areas at the front and rear of the building contain established trees and a few native plantings. They are not watered and rely on rainfall only.
Health and Ageing: Water
124
124
5808
124
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 29 May 2007:
-
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total water usage, in litres, by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio.
-
Since 1 July 2000, what measures has the Minister’s department instigated to reduce water usage.
124
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Under the terms of all current and past leases exercised by the Department and Agencies within the Health and Ageing portfolio, water usage costs are included within statutory outgoing costs billed as a composite item by each building owner. Accordingly, the Department does not maintain records relating to water usage.
-
The Department has undertaken staff awareness campaigns, including the posting of water conservation messages.
Following consultation with the Department, some building managers have also introduced flow regulators for sinks and showers as well as waterless urinals in some buildings leased by the Department.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Water
124
124
5814
124
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 29 May 2007:
-
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total water usage, in litres, by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio.
-
Since 1 July 2000, what measures has the department instigated to reduce water usage.
124
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:
-
This information is not readily available from lessor records and would be of significant cost to the department if our external property provider undertook the collection of this data.
-
The department’s central office is moving to new premises in October 2007. Water saving initiatives in the new 4.5 star Australian Building Greenhouse Rating buildings include:
-
Rainwater collection for reuse (an expected 30% saving in water consumption);
-
Stormwater retention and reuse for irrigation, wash down and cooling towers;
-
No flush/waterless urinals and toilets flushed with rainwater;
-
Infrared sensors for hand taps (operates only when hands are under spout); and
-
4A rated toilets (4.5L/3L full/half flush).
-
Portfolio Agencies have also introduced the following water saving measures:
-
Flow-limiting tapware;
-
Drought resistant native plants in gardens;
-
Automatic garden watering systems; and
-
Upgrading dishwashers to ones that use less water.
-
Portfolio Agency responses
1 (litres)
2 (measures to save water)
AFMA
APVMA
NATR
The APVMA occupied new premises located at Symonston in the ACT in late November 2006. The new building has a number of water saving measures. These include water efficient toilets (dual flush), flow limiting tapware, AAA rated fittings and large rain water tanks.
The rain water tanks provide the sole method of watering the garden areas. Additionally, drought tolerant plants have been selected as part of the landscaping plan.
AWBC
NATR
No action as in multi-tenanted buildings.
CRDC
NATR
Automatic garden watering system.
FRDC
NATR
The FRDC has upgraded the current dishwasher with one that uses less water.
FWPRDC
NATR
NR
GRDC
NATR
Aerators on taps
GWRDC
NATR
Low-flow taps
LWA
NATR
In regard to office accommodation, LWA has introduced water saving initiative by introducing desert cubes into the men’s bathrooms. As well as compliance with each stage of Canberra’s water restrictions.
In addition, LWA is and has been funding substantial R&D on water use efficiency, especially in irrigated agriculture, that shows a positive return on investment (refer to LWA website for water use efficiency evaluation case study). http://www.lwa.gov.au/downloads/publications_pdf/ER071255.pdf
RIRDC
NATR
Nil
SRDC
NATR
No action as in multi-tenanted buildings.
WEA
NATR
NR
DAFF
NATR
DAFF central office is moving to new premises in October 2007. Part of the water saving initiatives in the new 4.5 star Australian Building Greenhouse Rating buildings include:
• Rainwater collection for reuse (an expected 30% saving in water consumption);
• Stormwater retention and reuse for irrigation, wash down and cooling towers;
• No flush/waterless urinals and toilets flushed with rainwater;
• Infrared sensors for hand taps (operates only when hands are under spout); and
• 4A rated toilets (4.5L/3L full/half flush).
NATR - Not Able To Respond
Defence: Information Technology
126
126
5830
126
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 29 May 2007:
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of outsourcing information technology services for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio.
126
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Financial Year
Cost of Outsourced IT Services
2000-01
Nil – No outsourced services
2001-02
Nil – No outsourced services
2002-03
Nil – No outsourced services
2003-04
Nil – No outsourced services
2004-05
Nil – No outsourced services
2005-06
$30,241,628
2006-07
$39,747,791
Industry, Tourism and Resources: Information Technology
126
126
5831
126
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 29 May 2007:
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of outsourcing information technology services for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio.
126
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources:
The total cost of outsourcing information technology services for the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources for each financial year since 2000 is as follows:
Financial Year
Total Cost (GST exclusive)
2000-01
$3,206,391
2001-02
$5,774,100
2002-03
$8,379,666
2003-04
$12,484,247
2004-05
$8,947,737
2005-06
$5,941,129
2006-07
$7,072,905
IP Australia:
The total cost of outsourcing information technology services for IP Australia for each financial year since 2000 is as follows:
Financial Year
Total Cost (GST exclusive)
2000-01
$840,748
2001-02
$788,266
2002-03
$1,023,558
2003-04
$1,800,315
2004-05
$1,527,245
2005-06
$1,779,926
2006-07*
$1,300,696
* Preliminary costs as at 7 July 2007.
National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA):
NOPSA commenced operations in January 2005. The total cost of outsourcing information technology services for NOPSA from financial year 2004-05 is as follows:
Financial Year
Total Cost (GST inclusive)
2004-05
$48,882
2005-06
$228,831
2006-07
$242,574
Tourism Australia:
The total cost of outsourcing information technology services for Tourism Australia (and the Australian Tourist Commission prior to 1 July 2004) for each financial year since 2000 is as follows:
Financial Year
Total Cost (GST exclusive)
2000-01
$3,030,814
2001-02
$4,138,312
2002-03
$3,662,539
2003-04
$3,138,962
2004-05
$3,889,326
2005-06
$4,760,666
2006-07*
$3,092,361
* Note this figure is to May 2007.
Finance and Administration: Employment Agencies
127
127
5868
127
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 30 May 2007:
For each financial year since 1 July 2005, (a) what was the total cost to each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio of engaging employment agencies and (b) which employment agencies were engaged.
127
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Department of Finance and Administration (Finance)
-
The total cost of employment agencies in the 2005-06 financial year was $558,700.14. The total cost for the 2006-07 financial year to 31 May 2007 was $583,146.95.
-
The employment agencies used by Finance during the 2005-06 financial year were:
Affinity IT Recruitment Pty Ltd
Allstaff Australia Pty Ltd
Careers Unlimited Pty Ltd
Chandler MacLeod Consultants Ltd
Client Focused Consulting
Effective People Pty Ltd
The Frontier Group (Aust) Pty Ltd
The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd
Hays Personnel Services (Aust) Pty Ltd
Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd
Kelly Services (Australia) Pty Ltd
Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd
Paper Shuffle Pty Ltd
Peoplebank Australia Pty Ltd
Professional Careers Australia Pty Ltd
Recruitment Management Company Pty Ltd
Ross Human Directions Limited
Verossity Pty Ltd
Wizard Personnel & Office Services Pty Ltd
The employment agencies used by Finance during the 2006-07 financial year, until 31 May 2007 were:
Affinity IT Recruitment Pty Ltd
Ambit IT&T Recruitment Specialists
Careers Unlimited Pty Ltd
Chandler Macleod Consultants Ltd
Command Recruitment Group Pty Ltd
Effective People Pty Ltd
Frontier Group Australia Pty Ltd
Game 1 Consulting
Gillian Beaumont Recruitment Pty Ltd
Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd
Icon Recruitment Pty Ltd
Jenngen Consulting Pty Ltd
Kelly Services (Australia) Pty Ltd
Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd
Maxnetwork Pty Ltd
Paper Shuffle Pty Ltd
Peoplebank Australia Pty Ltd
Professional Careers Australia Pty Ltd
Recruitment Management Company Pty Ltd
Recruitment Solutions Ltd
Ross Human Directions Ltd
Smalls Recruiting
Verossity Pty Ltd
Wizard Personnel & Office Services Pty Ltd
Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)
Please note that the following answer excludes fees for contractors. The fees for contractors include commissions payable to employment agencies.
-
The total cost of employment agencies in the 2005-06 financial year was $66,680.18. The total cost for the 2006-07 financial year to 31 May 2007 was $74,661.37.
-
The employment agencies used by the AEC during the 2005-06 financial year were:
Adecco Australia Ltd
Allstaff Australia Pty Ltd
Capital Communications Pty Ltd
Capital Recruitment Services Pty Ltd
Effective People Pty Ltd
Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd
R & M Consultants (NT) Pty Ltd
Recruitment Management Company Pty Ltd
Select/Write (trading name)
Staffing and Office Solutions Pty Ltd
The Frontier Group (Aust) Pty Ltd
The Green and Green Group Pty Ltd
The Public Affairs Recruitment Company Pty Ltd
Wizard Personnel & Office Services Pty Ltd
The employment agencies used during the 2006-07 financial year, until 31 May 2007 were:
Capital Recruitment Services
Careers Unlimited Pty Ltd
Chandler Mcleod Limited
Drake Australia Pty Ltd
Encore IT Services Pty Ltd
Hays Personnel Services (NSW)
John Addie & Assoc. P/L T/as Select/Write
Kowalski Recruitment Pty Ltd
Professional Careers Australia Pty Ltd
Recruitment Support Specialists
Review Consulting
Ross Calibre Pty Ltd
Select/Write
The Green and Green Group Pty Ltd
The One Umbrella
Vedior Asia Pacific Pty Ltd
Wizard Personnel & Office Services Pty Ltd
Australian Reward Investment Alliance (ARIA)
-
The total cost of employment agencies in the 2005-06 financial year was $26,400. The total cost for the 2006-07 financial year to 31 May 2007 was $30,073.
-
The employment agencies used by ARIA during the 2005-06 financial year were:
Cantlie Recruitment Services
The Frontier Group (Aust) Pty Ltd
PCA Personnel Consultants
Tanner Menzies Pty Ltd
The Public Affairs Recruitment Company Pty Ltd
The employment agency used by ARIA during the 2006-07 financial year until 31 May 2007 was The Frontier Group (Aust) Pty Ltd.
Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC)
-
The total cost of employment agencies in the 2005-06 financial year was $3535. The total cost for the 2006-07 financial year to 31 May 2007 was $5,165.
The employment agency used during both the 2005-06 and 2006-07 financial years was Ross Human Directions Ltd.
ComSuper
-
The total cost of employment agencies in the 2005-06 financial year was $135,242.19. The total cost for the 2006-07 financial year to 31 May 2007 was $227,752.71.
-
The employment agencies used by ComSuper during the 2005-06 financial year were:
Candle Australia Ltd
Cooney Consultants & Associates
Greythorn Pty Ltd
Kowalski Recruitment Pty Ltd
Quadrate Solutions
The Frontier Group (Aust) Pty Ltd
The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd
Workplace Research Associates
The employment agencies used during the 2006-07 financial year, until 31 May 2007 were:
Cordelta Pty Ltd
Greythorn Pty Ltd
Manpower Services (Aust) Ltd
PCA Personnel Consultants
RMC Professional Recruitment Services
Ross Calibre
Talent Partners
The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd
Wizard Personnel
Wordsworth
Future Fund Management Agency (FFMA)
-
The total cost of employment agencies in the 2005-06 financial year was $120,754. The total cost for the 2006-07 financial year to 31 May 2007 was $533,302.19.
The employment agency used by the FFMA during the 2005-06 financial year was Spencer Stuart.
-
The employment agencies used by the FFMA during the 2006-07 financial year to 31 May 2007 were:
Hays Personnel Services (Aust) Pty Ltd
Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd
LINK Recruitment
Mahlab Recruitment
Manpower Services (Aust) Ltd
MarketU
Spencer Stuart
Environment and Water Resources: Employment Agencies
1
1
5880
1
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 30 May 2007:
For each financial year since 1 July 2005, (a) what was the total cost to each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio of engaging employment agencies and (b) which employment agencies were engaged.
1
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 table below represents the cost of engaging employment agencies by the department and portfolio agencies:
$ Cost per financial year1
2005-2006
2006-2007
Department of the Environment and Water Resources
3,031,642
4,004,046
Bureau of Meteorology
951,564
1,574,837
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
345,433
295,539
National Water Commission
226,790
219,629
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
120,973
30,654
Note:
1 Figures include the agency charges and salary component for the hiree.
2 Figures for the Department include the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator, and the Director of National Parks.
-
Acumen
Action James
Adecco Australia
AllStaff Australia
Ambit
Careers Unlimited
Chandler McLoud
Commerce Management Scribing Services
Design Emergency
DCL Recruitment
DFP Recruitment Services
Dorothy Farmer
Drake Australia
Effective People Pty Ltd
Employ
Enterprise Builder
Frontier Group
Gillian Beaumont
Gough Partnership
Green & Green Group, The
Greythorn
Group Training
Hays Metier Personnel
Hayes Personnel Services (Aust. Pty Ltd)
Hudson Global Resources Australia Pty Ltd
Iruka
Josal Enterprises
Kowalski Recruitment
McKenzie Group (Aust)Pty Ltd
ManPower Services Aust Pty Ltd
Omega
One Umbrella, The
Paxus Australia
PeopleBank
Precruitment Pty Ltd
Professional Careers
Public Affairs Recruitment, The
Quadrate Solutions
R. Walters
Recruitment Management Co.
Ross Human Direction
SOS Recruitment
Townsville Personnel Pty Ltd
TP Human Capital
Trevor Whitton
Vedior Asia Pacific
WeStaff Australia
Wizard Personnel & Office Solutions
Wordsworth Writing
Worklife Solutions
Workplace Research
Media Training
133
133
5951
133
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 12 June 2007:
Did the (a) Minister and (b) his/her personal staff receive any media training in 2006; if so, (i) what was the cost of the media training and (ii) what was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training.
133
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr Costello
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
I did not receive media training in 2006.
-
My personal staff members did not receive media training in 2006.
-
Nil.
-
Nil.
Media Training
133
133
5952 and 5954
133
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 12 June 2007:
Did the (a) Minister and (b) his/her personal staff receive any media training in 2006; if so, (i) what was the cost of the media training and (ii) what was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training.
133
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:
-
and (b) I did not receive any media training in 2006 nor did any member of my personal staff. The Minister for Trade did not receive any media training in 2006 nor did any member of his personal staff.
-
Not applicable.
-
Not applicable.
Media Training
133
133
5953
133
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 12 June 2007:
Did the (a) Minister and (b) his/her personal staff receive any media training in 2006; if so, (i) what was the cost of the media training and (ii) what was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training.
133
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:
(a) and (b) No.
Media Training
134
134
5957
134
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 12 June 2007:
Did the (a) Minister and (b) his/her personal staff receive any media training in 2006; if so, (i) what was the cost of the media training and (ii) what was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training.
134
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGauran
—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
(a) and (b) No.
(i) and (ii) Not applicable.
Media Training
134
134
5959
134
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 12 June 2007:
Did the (a) Minister and (b) his/her personal staff receive any media training in 2006; if so, (i) what was the cost of the media training and (ii) what was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training.
134
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources
1
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(a) No. (b) No.
Defence: Hornet Upgrade
134
134
6017
134
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 13 June 2007:
In respect of Project Air 5376 Phase 3 Hornet Upgrade: (1) where will the centre barrel replacement work on the Hornets be carried out; (2) when was the decision made to carry out the work at that location; (3) on what basis was that decision made; and (4) was it always intended that the centre barrel replacement work would be carried out at that location.
134
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The Hornet Centre Barrel Replacement program is divided into 3 stages. These are prototype modification, Low Rate Initial Production and Full Rate Production. The prototype stage consists of one aircraft being partially dismantled at Williamtown, the centre barrel being replaced at Mirabel, Canada, and the aircraft being returned to Williamtown (NSW) for re-assembly and test flight. This strategy was implemented to obtain the expertise gained by Canadians in their Centre Barrel Program. The first stage is nearing completion, with the prototype aircraft about to undergo re-assembly at Williamtown. Low Rate Initial Production will commence in August 2007 and includes a minimum of nine aircraft from an overall program of up to 49. This will replicate the prototype strategy of having the aircraft partially disassembled in Williamtown, having the Centre Barrel replaced in Canada and then re-assembled and test flown at Williamtown. The nine Low Rate Initial Production aircraft represents approximately 12 per cent of the total Centre Barrel Replacement Program. This additional Canadian involvement within the low rate production stage represents 5 per cent of the total Centre Barrel Replacement Program. Full Rate Production is planned to be completely conducted in Australia at RAAF Base Williamtown.
-
Initial planning for the Centre Barrel replacement program intended to have all the Low Rate Initial Production activities conducted at Williamtown. However, the decision was made in early June 2007 to continue Low Rate Initial Production using the prototype strategy of having work performed at both Williamtown and Mirabel. The decision was made after analysis of lessons learnt during the prototype activity. Although the modification is now technically proven, the high proportion of spare parts that needed to be procured at short notice during the prototype activity demonstrated that the overall program was still too immature to completely transition to Australia.
-
The most challenging element of the Hornet Centre Barrel Prototype activity has been successfully carried out in Canada. However during this activity the following risks were identified:
-
A large proportion of spare parts such as rivets and specialist fasteners cannot be identified until after each individual aircraft is dismantled. Procurement and long delivery times for these spares introduces significant schedule risk. The prototype activity demonstrated that a large proportion of spares had to be obtained at very short notice from Canadian sources to maintain schedule. Australian stock of these spares is still too limited to support the schedule requirements of the program. Continuation of some Low Rate Initial Production activities in Canada will allow the procurement of the full range of parts required to support the program in Australia without adding risk to schedule.
-
A secondary consideration is the availability of a specialist workforce within Australia. Notwithstanding long term efforts by the Hornet Industry Coalition to employ and train this workforce, there are still workforce shortages in some key trades, such as aircraft structural fitters, at the Williamtown site. Industry sources indicate that this shortage is Australia-wide and may continue until the end of this decade. Continuation of some Low Rate Initial Production activities in Canada will allow alternative strategies to be explored, such as conducting some production activities in areas of Australia that have better access to a suitable workforce.
-
Another secondary consideration is the need to identify suitable facilities to conduct Full Rate Production in Australia. To some extent this will be driven by the strategies implemented to resolve the workforce issues identified above but may consist of adapting existing facilities, constructing new facilities or the leasing of existing commercial facilities.
-
The original intention was to conduct both low and full rate production in Australia. However, the significant risks that emerged as a result of the prototype activity drove the decision to extend the element of work to be done in Canada. This will now include some of the Low Rate Initial Production activities to mitigate schedule risk. The revised strategy will not result in any job losses in the Williamtown area and can be achieved within existing budget.
Taxation: Fuel
135
135
6026
135
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 13 June 2007:
For the financial year (a) 2002-03, (b) 2003-04, (c) 2004-05 and (d) 2005-06, what proportion of consolidated revenue was collected from (i) the Commonwealth fuel excise on petrol and (ii) GST applied to petrol.
135
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
Mr Dutton
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
to (c) (i) Data on the Commonwealth fuel excise on petrol is not readily available. (ii) Data on GST applied to petrol is not readily available.
-
Collections from the Commonwealth fuel excise on petrol in 2005-06 was $7,224 million. The total tax receipts or consolidated revenue in 2005-06 was $221,834 million. The data was sourced from page 7 of Final Budget Outcome 2005-06.
In 2005-06, 3.26 per cent of consolidated revenue was collected from the Commonwealth fuel excise on petrol.
-
Data on GST applied to petrol is not readily available.
Taxation: Fuel
136
136
6027
136
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 13 June 2007:
For the financial year (a) 2002-03, (b) 2003-04, (c) 2004-05 and (d) 2005-06, what was the total revenue collected from (i) the Commonwealth fuel excise on petrol and (ii) GST applied to petrol.
136
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
Mr Dutton
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
to (c) (i) Data on the Commonwealth fuel excise on petrol is not readily available. (ii) Data on GST applied to petrol is not readily available.
-
Collections from the Commonwealth fuel excise on petrol in 2005-06 was $7,224 million. The data was sourced from page 7 of the Final Budget Outcome 2005-06. (ii) Data on GST applied to petrol is not readily available.
Taxation: Liquefied Petroleum Gas
136
136
6028
136
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 13 June 2007:
For the financial year (a) 2002-03, (b) 2003-04, (c) 2004-05 and (d) 2005-06, what proportion of consolidated revenue was collected from (i) the Commonwealth fuel excise on LPG and (ii) GST applied to LPG.
136
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
Mr Dutton
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
to (d) LPG and compressed natural gas are currently excise-exempt.
-
Data on GST applied to LPG is not readily available.
Taxation: Liquefied Petroleum Gas
136
136
6029
136
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 13 June 2007:
For the financial year (a) 2002-03, (b) 2003-04, (c) 2004-05 and (d) 2005-06, what was the total revenue collected from (i) the Commonwealth fuel excise on LPG and (ii) GST applied to LPG.
136
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
Mr Dutton
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
to (d) LPG and compressed natural gas are currently excise-exempt.
-
Data on GST applied to LPG is not readily available.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
136
136
6040
136
Corcoran, Ann, MP
009CW
Isaacs
ALP
0
Ms Corcoran
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 18 June 2007:
-
Who determined, or determines, the individual membership of the Royal Australian College of Physician’s Working Party to devise the national guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
-
Will the working party meet the original timetable for (a) the availability of a draft report for public comment in October 2007 and (b) the release in January 2008 of the guidelines.
-
Is he committed to an evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD.
137
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) determines the individual membership of the Working Party.
-
The working party has revised its original timetable to ensure a collaborative process. It has indicated that the ADHD guideline review process differs from other clinical guidelines in that it will be essential to ensure consultation with a much broader spectrum of both clinical experts and stakeholders (including parents, carers and families). This requires more intensive facilitation and documentation during the review process.
-
The document for the October 2007 public consultation will be a summation of the important questions and the evidence to be used in addressing them, rather than a draft guidelines statement.
-
The draft guidelines will be available for public consultation in the second quarter of 2008, and the draft guidelines should be put forward for review to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) at their mid year meeting in 2008.
-
The RACP is committed to an evidence based approach to the review of NHMRC Guidelines on ADHD. By making the evidence review available for public consultation in October 2007, the RACP is working to ensure a transparent process to the identification and analysis of the literature relevant to ADHD.
Western Sydney Australian Technical College
137
137
6056
137
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
Mr Hayes
asked the Minister for Vocational and Further Education, in writing, on 20 June 2007:
-
How many students who reside in the electoral division of (a) Werriwa and (b) Macarthur (i) have applied to study at, or (ii) are currently enrolled at, the Western Sydney Australian Technical College.
-
How many students residing in the postcode area (a) 2167, (b) 2168, (c) 2170, (d) 2171, (e) 2174, (f) 2178, (g) 2179, (h) 2555, (i) 2557, (j) 2558, (k) 2559, (l) 2560, (m) 2563, (n) 2564, (o) 2565, (p) 2566, (q) 2567, (r) 2568, (s) 2570, (t) 2745, (u) 2752 and (v) 2232 (i) have applied to study at, or (ii) are currently enrolled at, the Western Sydney Australian Technical College.
137
Robb, Andrew, MP
FU4
Goldstein
LP
Minister for Vocational and Further Education
1
Mr Robb
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (ii) Student data is not collected on an electorate basis.
-
Unknown. Detailed data are only available in relation to enrolled students. (ii) As at the 30 March 2007 Census Date, no students residing in the postcodes referred to in the honourable member’s question were enrolled at the Australian Technical College – Western Sydney. The Australian Government is committed to the Australian Technical Colleges Programme and is pleased that state governments, including the government of NSW, have replicated this program.
The NSW Government has committed to a trade School in Campbelltown in the electorate of Werriwa, however, the Australian Government would be happy to receive letters of support for another Australian Technical College; including letters of support from any member of Parliament.
Disability Support Pension
138
138
6069
138
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Workforce Participation, in writing, on 20 June 2007:
-
Can he advise whether Disability Support pensioners below the age of eligibility for the Age Pension will receive the one-off payments announced in the 2007 Budget; if not, why not.
-
What additional funding, allowances or concessions were announced in the 2007 Budget to assist long-term Disability Support pensioners with the increasing costs of living, transport and health care; if no additional funding, allowances or concessions were provided, why not.
138
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
Minister for Workforce Participation
1
Dr Stone
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
No. A one-off non-taxable bonus of $500 was provided to each person qualified for Utilities Allowance or Seniors Concession Allowance on Budget night. Utilities Allowance is paid to income support customers who are of Age or Veteran Pension age. The bonus has been provided for Age and Veteran Pensioners as they have generally left the permanent workforce and therefore may not benefit from employment income. Many people on the Disability Support Pension can, and want to, work.
-
The 2007–08 Budget includes a range of measures which will assist people across the Australian community, irrespective of whether or not they have a disability. However, the Budget also includes measures which will benefit people with disability including Disability Support Pension recipients.
Measures in the 2007 Budget which are specific to people with disability within the Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio include:
Expanding eligibility criteria for Mobility Allowance
Mobility Allowance provides assistance with travel costs for people whose disability means they cannot use public transport. From December 2007, this measure extends eligibility for the higher rate of Mobility Allowance (currently $104.00 per fortnight) to Parenting Payment recipients and Supported Wage System workers (those who have reduced productivity related to their disability). Participation in Vocational Rehabilitation Services to find employment will also be added as an eligible activity for receipt of the standard rate of Mobility Allowance (currently $74.30 per fortnight).
Expanded access to supplementary concessions for Parenting Payment
Currently, Parenting Payment (Single) recipients assessed with partial capacity to work due to disability have access to the Pensioner Concession Card and associated allowances. This access will be extended to Parenting Payment (Partnered) recipients, with partial capacity to work due to disability, from 1 January 2008. In addition, all Parenting Payment recipients assessed with partial capacity to work due to disability will have access to the Pensioner Concession Card for 52 weeks after they earn sufficient income to move off income support.
Additional places in the Personal Support Programme
Personal Support Programme will be funded for an additional 2000 places. Personal Support Programme provides individualised assistance for unemployed people who face multiple non-vocational barriers to participation such as homelessness, drug and alcohol problems, psychological disorders, or domestic violence. Personal Support Programme acts as a bridge between short-term crisis assistance and employment-related assistance.
Additional places in Vocational Rehabilitation Services and the Disability Employment Network
The Government will increase the number of places available in the capped programmes of Vocational Rehabilitation Services and the Disability Employment Network. An additional 1480 places will be provided in Vocational Rehabilitation Services and an additional 987 places in the Disability Employment Network each year, taking the total places available in these programmes to 24 680 and 38 987 respectively. Both programmes assist job seekers who have a moderate to high level of disability and require specialist assistance to find and retain employment.
Vocational Rehabilitation Services and the Disability Employment Network—eligibility for adult prisoners with disability
The Government will extend access to Vocational Rehabilitation Services and Disability Employment Network places to adult prisoners with disability in pre-release centres who are available for work on partial or full day release.
Iraq
139
139
6093
139
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 21 June 2007:
-
How many military personnel from (a) the UK, (b) South Korea, (c) Italy, (d) Poland, (e) Georgia, (f) Romania and (g) Denmark are serving in Iraq.
-
Since July 2006, which of the countries identified in Part (1) have reduced the number of military personnel they have sent to Iraq and, for each country identified, by what magnitude have troop numbers been reduced.
-
Which of the countries identified in Part (1) have announced an intention to reduce military personnel in Iraq by 30 June 2008.
139
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
This material is all publicly available as a result of public announcements made by the relevant governments. This information has also been widely reported in the Australian Media.
Foreign Affairs: Water and Sanitation
139
139
6124
139
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 August 2007:
Will the Government commit to an investment in the global effort to increase access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by (a) increasing funding to $350 million annually by no later than 2010; (b) developing and implementing specific policies on water and sanitation in the aid program, including employing specialist senior advisors to drive the process and (c) working cooperatively with partner countries and multilateral organisations such as the Asian Development Bank to develop and support national water and sanitation plans.
139
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 is committed to increasing access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation in developing countries. The Government will commit up to $800 million over five years to address infrastructure constraints to growth in Asia and the Pacific, including water and sanitation infrastructure, through the Infrastructure for Growth Initiative. The Government will continue to explore opportunities to increase its investment in water and sanitation but will not commit to a specific time-bound target for investment through the aid program. The Government will maintain aid at the highest level that is consistent with the needs of partner countries, our own capacity to assist and overall priorities for Australian Government expenditure.
-
The Australian aid program’s response to addressing water and sanitation challenges in the Asia-Pacific region was first articulated in the 2003 water sector policy, Making Every Drop Count: Water and Australian Aid, which promoted a stronger focus on water governance and improved service delivery. In 2006, the White Paper on Australia’s aid program identified water aid as being central to the achievement of environment and health objectives, and formed the basis for the development of the aid program’s new environment strategy.
The aid program’s new environment strategy, Aid and the Environment – Building Resilience, Sustaining Growth, was launched during August. The strategy highlights investment in water supply and sanitation infrastructure – and in the capacities of institutions and communities to better manage these systems – as a key challenge in our region, and identifies improved access to safe water and sanitation as a key objective for the aid program.
Implementation of water and sanitation initiatives through the aid program will be driven by the Growth and Resource Management Branch within the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), which employs specialist senior advisors with expertise in the water and sanitation sector.
-
The Government will continue to work cooperatively with partner countries and multilateral organisations to improve water and sanitation services. The White Paper on Australia’s aid program recognises that working with partner governments and multilateral organisations is essential for an effective aid program.
The aid program presently involves partnerships in the water and sanitation sector with the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, and the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission. AusAID is presently finalising arrangements to contribute to the Asian Development Bank’s Water Financing Partnership Facility from 2007-08, which will further enable Australia to work in partnership with other donors to address water and sanitation issues in the Asia-Pacific region.
International Criminal Court
140
140
6127
140
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 August 2007:
In respect of his response to Parts (1) and (2) of question No. 5561 (Hansard, 10 May 2007, page 130), (a) did the “informal discussions” with the International Criminal Court (ICC) about further investigations into war crimes in Darfur include provision of evidence or recommendations relating to additional individuals that the court may prosecute; (b) has the Government considered utilising Article 14 of the Rome Statute to formally refer alleged offenders to the ICC; if so, has such action been taken; if not, why not; (c) is the Government aware of any evidence that individuals in Iran, Zimbabwe or Burma may be liable to prosecution by the ICC for war crimes or crimes against humanity; and (d) has the Government considered (i) utilising Article 14 of the Rome Statute to formally refer alleged offenders to the ICC or (ii) conducting “informal discussions” with the ICC in relation to the prosecution of individuals in Zimbabwe, Iran or Burma; if so, has such action been taken; if not, why not.
140
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
It would not be appropriate to disclose the details of ongoing discussions with the International Criminal Court.
-
The Australian Government is aware of the referral mechanism under Article 14 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal. The Australian Government has not made any referral to the International Criminal Court under Article 14 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Australian Government notes that a referral by a State pursuant to Article 14 cannot confer jurisdiction on the International Criminal Court where jurisdiction would not otherwise exist.
-
As Iran, Zimbabwe and Burma are not party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, there is little scope for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over situations in those countries.
-
See (b) above. (ii) See (c) above.
Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue
141
141
6128
141
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 August 2007:
Further to his response to question No. 5890 (Hansard, 21 June 2007, page 121), will he provide an update on the Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue, which took place in China in July 2007.
141
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 11th Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue was held in Beijing on 30 July 2007. The Australian delegation was led by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Deputy Secretary Peter Grey and included Senator Marise Payne, officials from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, DFAT, AusAID, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Assistant Foreign Minister He Yafei led the Chinese delegation which included representatives from nine Chinese Government agencies including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice and Supreme People’s Court.
While noting areas where China had made progress, we raised our full range of human rights concerns, including civil and political rights, economic and social rights, minority rights and religious freedoms, and the rights of women, children and persons with disabilities. The theme of this year’s Dialogue was the role of legal professionals in protecting human rights. This theme facilitated a useful exchange of views on legal reform, judicial independence and the rights of legal professionals to practise freely. The Australian delegation also raised 43 cases of concern representing the range of our human rights concerns including: religious practitioners; members of minorities; environmental, labour and human rights activists; and Falun Gong practitioners. The Chinese delegation raised issues of indigenous health in Australia, housing affordability, and comments regarding Australia’s housing policies by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing.
The Dialogue also endorsed Australia-China Human Rights Technical Cooperation Program (HRTC) activities for 2007-2008, worth AUD 2 million. The HRTC underpins our formal Dialogue by promoting the advancement of human rights in China at a practical level. New HRTC activities will address victims of crime, women’s labour rights, and alternative dispute resolution, amongst other issues. This year is the 10th anniversary of technical cooperation between Australia and China on human rights (now conducted under the HRTC). Previous cooperation has resulted in concrete human rights outcomes, including the passage of provincial-level domestic violence regulations and the introduction of “know your rights” pamphlets for distribution to prisoners.
India and Iran
141
141
6129
141
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 August 2007:
-
Is he aware of reports that the Chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr Tom Lantos, has written to the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, demanding that India cease cooperating with Iran in the military and energy spheres.
-
Can he confirm that any future discussions regarding Australian uranium sales to India will include the condition that India cease military and energy cooperation with Iran.
141
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes
-
No.
As a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors, India voted in favour of the Board’s September 2005 resolution that found Iran to be in non-compliance with its nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA, and also supported the Board’s February 2006 resolution reporting Iran to the United Nations Security Council. Australia acknowledges India’s constructive approach on this issue.
Bangladesh: Human Rights
142
142
6131
142
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 August 2007:
-
Is he aware of the Amnesty International Report 2007 and the UNHCR Human Rights Watch World Report 2007, both of which identify the ongoing and widespread abuse of human rights in Bangladesh.
-
Is he aware that on 10 June 2007, the European Union expressed “deep concern” at the status of human rights in Bangladesh.
-
Has there been a subsequent European Resolution on the issue of human rights in Bangladesh.
-
What action has the Government taken in relation to the maintenance of human rights in Bangladesh.
-
What action does the Government propose to take to ensure that internationally acceptable human rights standards are maintained in Bangladesh.
142
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
-
I (Mr Downer) am not aware of a subsequent Resolution.
-
The Australian High Commission in Dhaka has made a series of representations urging the Government of Bangladesh to respect human rights and registering Australia’s concerns about reported abuses. I (Mr Downer) raised these concerns directly with the Bangladeshi Foreign Affairs Adviser when I met him on 13 June 2007. The High Commission has also raised its concerns about the plight of Rohingya refugees with the Government of Bangladesh on a number of occasions.
Non-government organisations in Bangladesh have received Australian funding under the Human Rights Small Grants Scheme. Recent projects have focused on strengthening protection of vulnerable children, promoting women’s access to dispute mechanisms and justice, and raising human rights awareness in the legal system.
-
Australian officials will continue to raise human rights issues as appropriate with the Government of Bangladesh and to monitor the human rights situation closely.
Bangladesh
142
142
6132
142
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McClelland
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 August 2007:
-
Is he aware of the ABC’s 7:30 Report story on the role of the Australian Embassy in the recent political unrest in Bangladesh.
-
Can he confirm the veracity, or otherwise, of these claims.
142
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
The Australian High Commissioner in Bangladesh has for some time taken part in occasional informal meetings with other Heads of Mission in Dhaka to discuss developments in Bangladesh. This is normal and appropriate practice for a Head of Mission and does not constitute interference in Bangladesh’s internal affairs as claimed on the ABC’s 7:30 Report.
Defence Materiel Organisation
143
143
6193
143
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 August 2007:
What are the details of the “improvements in project management performance in the Defence Materiel Organisation” referred to at page 22 of the Defence Portfolio Budget Statement 2006-07.
143
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) has embarked on a program of reform under which professionalisation of its workforce has been a major driver to improving project management performance. Project Managers are certified to levels commensurate with the complexity of the projects they manage. Project managers undergo the following professional development programs:
-
External certification of competency by the Australian Institute of Project Management;
-
Minimum levels of experience; and
-
Formal qualifications in project management.
The implementation of the Kinnaird recommendations has seen far more rigour and de-risking of projects in pre-approval stages through the two pass approval process.
As a consequence of the improvements made in project management performance, the Government increased the supply of goods and services through the DMO from $6.1 billion in 2003-04 to a forecast $11.3 billion in 2009-10.
In 2006-07, the DMO achieved 92 per cent of its Additional Estimates budget for its Approved Major Capital Investment Program, during a time of increased operational tempo of the ADF around the world. Performance in terms of sustainment and through-life support projects was even better, achieving 99 per cent of budget.
Defence Materiel Organisation
143
143
6195
143
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 August 2007:
In respect of the Procurement Improvement Program: (a) will he make available the model contract that was proposed by the Defence Materiel Organisation and rejected by industry; (b) has industry agreed to a contract template; (c) when will the redrafted model contract be available; and (d) what sum has been spent on the program to date.
143
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The suite of contracting templates will not be made available as it has been withdrawn.
-
Industry is engaged in the consultation process for the ongoing development of the new suite of contracting templates.
-
The intention is to progressively release the suite of contracting templates from late 2007 onwards.
-
The Defence Materiel Organisation has spent a total of $4.85m on the program. For details, see response to question 8 arising from a public hearing by the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit on 29 March 2007.
HMAS Sydney
143
143
6216
143
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
0
Mr Georganas
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 13 August 2007:
-
What were the events that lead to the disappearance of the HMAS Sydney.
-
Why was the official investigation into the disappearance of the HMAS Sydney surrounded in secrecy.
-
What information has been discovered about the disappearance of the HMAS Sydney.
-
What are the known facts in respect of how, when and why the HMAS Sydney disappeared.
144
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 (4) Please refer to following documents:
The report by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in March 1999 on its inquiry into ‘The Loss of HMAS Sydney’; and
‘HMAS Sydney II: the cruiser and the controversy in the archives of the United Kingdom’, produced in 2001 by the Sea Power Centre – Australia.
-
Official investigations into the disappearance of HMAS Sydney were subject to normal wartime security measures. All known Australian archival information related to its disappearance has since been made publicly available.